A comfortable Yes win came with an admission built into its most-respected argument. One Yes voter began by saying they would vote no over privacy, then argued that dangerous driving had risen to “a terrifying point”, and that footage would make proving fault easier in insurance claims.
The other Yes case with top respect was blunter about the roads: “too many scammers and unlicensed drivers”, with cars stopping in the hope the car behind will hit them. Other Yes voters pointed to cheaper insurance and fewer fraudulent claims, and one compared it to mandating seat belts. Several added caveats about who owns and can view the footage.
The No side's most-respected case was notably gentle: dash cams are good and drivers should be encouraged to get one, but nobody should be punished for lacking one. Around it ran a harder strand of alarm about surveillance, from “Not a big fan of hanging cameras everywhere” to a voter fed up with a nanny state. Another No voter wanted “Just let people make their own choices”.
The two sides did meet on data. Yes voters who hesitated and No voters who feared misuse both asked who controls the footage and who can see it, though neither camp supplied a settled answer. That is the live UK argument over state-mandated technology and personal choice, played out over a single camera.
No voters mostly did not dispute that the cameras work; they disputed the compulsion.
49 Opinions
Dash cams are a good thing, and I'd encourage anyone doing a decent amount of driving to get one, but I don't think anyone should be punished or get in any kind of trouble for not having one. On that basis I think making it compulsory would be a poor decision
I would vote no, over privacy concerns, but the level of dangerous driving has risen to a terrifying point. I don't think dash cams will prevent drivers from ignoring safety of other road users, but it will mean those who are hurt or need to claim insurance will have an easier time proving fault.
Fed up with a nanny state nor do we trust tech. We don't want or need a society covered in cameras. This is the next step to camera control of our movement & ID cameras everywhere. No to digital control
Not a big fan of hanging cameras everywhere - the surveillance state and all...
More and more state surveillance, No thank you. It should be a personal choice, insurance breaks might incentivise it, but it should be able to be switched off if you want it switched off. Would you be fined, get points on your license if pulled over and your mandatory dash cam found not to be working. Who controls the data and who has access to it if it becomes mandated by the state. As with anything, consider who may one day have the power and control over it.
No. I'm tired of constant surveillance. Some horror company like Palantir would end up having access to the sound and footage.
Will mean we don't have to buy one additionally. I'd be happy with that. It also brings car insurance down as you can use the footage to prove innocence or guilt.
Unfortunately there are too many scammers and unlicensed drivers on the road. In this day and age we need every tool possible to protect ourselves from the criminals. Too often we hear about cars stopping for no reason in the hope the car behind will hit them. Then the ones who fake an accident. Then the unlicensed and illegally licensed drivers are another risk we have to cope with.
Can we get no privacy in this world?
Hesitated saying yes, because this doesn't need a law, if it simply becomes a requirement for insurance. It's worth the intrusion to keep dangerous drivers off our roads.