Every new car sold in the European Union must include a driver monitoring camera

Implementation quality of monitoring & driver-assist systems

• Experiences vary wildly by brand and model:
  • Some report good lane-keeping, adaptive cruise, and attention monitoring (e.g., Lexus, some Fords, Teslas) that gently correct and rarely false-trigger.
  • Others describe lane assist “fighting” them, ping‑ponging in the lane, steering toward parked cars or barriers, or trying to keep them in painted lanes even in construction zones and on narrow rural roads.
• Speed limit detection is widely criticized:
  • Misreads parallel-road signs, truck decals, bus signs, “ahead” signs, construction signs, and foreign-format signs.
  • Some cars auto-adjust cruise speed abruptly on misreads, which users call unsafe.
• Sunglasses sometimes confuse attention cameras; others say their systems still work.

Alarm fatigue, UX, and safety trade-offs

• Many drivers find constant beeps, chimes, nag screens, and speed warnings distracting, especially in rentals where defaults are “max nanny.”
• Features often reset to “on” every start, forcing multi-step disabling through menus; a few brands provide a single “kill” button or remembered preferences.
• Commenters link this to well-known “alarm fatigue”: too many low-quality alerts train drivers to ignore all alerts, including important ones.
• Some describe near-accidents caused by emergency braking or lane assist acting unexpectedly, especially in tight traffic or on curves.

Privacy, surveillance, and data use concerns

• Strong fear that in-cabin cameras and telematics will be used to:
  • Sell detailed driving/attention data to insurers and data brokers.
  • Support law-enforcement profiling or future political/behavioral control.
• Others counter that EU rules (GDPR, ADDW spec) require closed-loop processing, ban biometric identification by the ADDW itself, and restrict data retention—but skeptics doubt enforcement and fear “mission creep.”

Regulation details and misunderstandings

• Regulation requires an Advanced Driver Distraction Warning (ADDW) system; cameras are not explicitly mandated but are the de facto solution.
• Text forbids using camera data for unique identification and says only data necessary for function should be retained, but it is unclear how strictly this will be interpreted or enforced in practice.

Workarounds and consumer responses

• Many plan to keep or buy older, less-instrumented cars; some mention emissions and inspection rules pushing older cars off the road.
• Proposed hacks include tape over cameras, firmware/OBD tweaks, CAN-bus gadgets, or aftermarket “looped video” spoofs; others warn about legality, warranty loss, or inspection failure.

Broader societal and cultural themes

• Split between those welcoming any tool that combats distraction/phone use and those who see “nanny state” overreach and erosion of driver responsibility.
• Some argue making driving more annoying is an implicit push toward public transit or self-driving; others blame industry data-monetization incentives more than regulators.