Newest Source of Teen Ire: Webcams in Their Cars

By Matt Zapotosky

Ken Richardson does not have to ride in his 17-year-old daughter's Ford Escort to know when she takes a turn too fast.

The camera system installed in her car will e-mail him about it.

"She's at that age where she's a little rebellious," said Richardson, 54. "And I'm at the age where I'm not gonna take any crap."

The Richardsons are among more than 100 families in Southern Maryland enrolled in a state-sponsored study to install camera systems that record the moments before and after an unusual driving maneuver, such as sudden braking or a too-sharp turn. State officials say the cameras could decrease the number of teen drivers killed in crashes.

Some of the teenagers have other thoughts on the matter.

"I feel like I'm being babysat, like I'm being watched constantly," said Stacie Richardson, Ken Richardson's daughter. "It drives me nuts."

The cameras are among the latest tools in the struggle to reduce teen car crashes, a problem that has been particularly vexing in Maryland. Last year, crashes involving drivers ages 16 to 20 killed 112 people in the state. Such accidents, including one this week in Montgomery County, are often caused not by alcohol or overt recklessness but by simple driver inexperience. The problem has persisted despite efforts by lawmakers to restrict teen driving privileges.

"Really, the single most dangerous thing we let our children do is drive a car," said Daniel McGehee, director of the human factors and vehicle safety research program at the University of Iowa. "It's frustrating for those of us who study crashes in general."

Until recently, the in-car monitoring systems being installed in Southern Maryland were used primarily by commercial companies interesting in monitoring their drivers. In the battle against driver inexperience, they are joined by other devices that keep a detailed log of a driver's speed or use GPS technology to constantly track the driver's position, said Bill Carpenter, an executive with DriveCam, the San Diego company that makes the cameras.

The camera, mounted on the front windshield, captures footage of what is happening outside as well as in the vehicle. It saves about 20 seconds of that footage only when its sensors are triggered by excessive G-forces. Those forces tend to accompany unusual driving maneuvers such as sudden braking or swerving.

Saved footage is transmitted back to DriveCam via a cellular network. DriveCam experts review the videos, add tips for the young drivers and post them to a Web site where parents can see them a day or so later. Parents receive an e-mail alert when the videos are posted.

The camera can capture anything going on in the car, but the company uploads only footage that involves unsafe driving. "If an event is captured that is embarrassing to the teen . . . then we're not going to return it to the family," Carpenter said.

On a recent night in their home in Lusby, the Richardsons sat down to review some newly uploaded footage.

"Now, Jennifer does not have her seatbelt on," Ken Richardson told his daughter sternly, pointing at the screen to a girl obviously unbuckled in the passenger seat.

"I usually don't make her wear one, but, yeah," Stacie Richardson mumbled, averting her gaze from the computer.

In the month or so since the camera was installed, Stacie has not been caught on camera doing anythingtoobad. Sure, dad has gotten to see her doing that teenage "gangster lean" -- driving with her seat pushed back, music blaring and one hand on the wheel, he said. And Jennifer isn't the only passenger he's spotted not wearing a seat belt.

But the camera has been a source of household division since Ken Richardson told his daughter it would be installed, whether she liked it or not.

Richardson has tried every possible angle to convince his daughter that the camera is a good idea. He has tried telling her she could earn new driving privileges by avoiding major incidents. He has appealed to her sense of benevolence, telling her that being a part of the study could save others' lives. And he has tried telling her that when she gets older, she'll want the same kind of device for her kids.

"Whatever. I don't want to hear it," Stacie said, rolling her eyes and crossing her arms.

The limited research conducted on DriveCam elsewhere in the country seems to support dad.

McGehee, the University of Iowa researcher, tracked 25 new drivers using the camera and a feedback system for more than a year starting in 2006. The six people that McGehee classified as "high-frequency drivers," meaning they triggered the camera frequently early on, did so 86 percent less after using the DriveCam and McGehee's version of the feedback system. The study was funded by American Family Insurance, which uses the cameras as a marketing tool, offering them free to the young drivers it insures.

"This one . . . has shown an effect that is much more dramatic than some of the other technologies that we've developed," McGehee said, adding that another study in Minneapolis this year yielded similar overall results.

The cameras in Southern Maryland typically cost $900 for the hardware, installation and a year of service, Carpenter said. After the first year, the service costs $30 a month, he said.

As part of the Maryland study, supported by a $170,000 grant through the State Highway Administration, the cameras and a year of service are available free to more than 200 Southern Maryland families. Researchers from the University of Maryland are attempting to determine how effective they are in curbing risky driving. Only a few weeks into the year-long study, they have yet to record any results.

"I think it's a great program," said Cindy Burch, an epidemiologist at the University of Maryland's National Study Center. She said researchers want to "really sort of tease out what's helping these kids." Many teens admit that as much as they might loathe the camera, it does force them to pay closer attention to their driving.

Jamie Leigh Szewczyk, 16, could not understand why her mom, Nancy, wanted her to install a camera. She was a 4.0 student involved in several extracurricular activities, including dance and volleyball. She was a good driver, and a good kid, too.

"I felt like they couldn't trust me," Szewczyk said. "I'm like, I've done everything, I've been good all these 16 years, and you're going be there watching me when I have this little bit of freedom?"

But after a month of driving, Szewczyk reluctantly admitted she has warmed to the camera. After all, it has made her a better driver, she said.

"I went like a week or something . . . without getting any videos," she said. "I didn't say anything to anyone, but it was kind of like a little moment of excitement."

Carpenter, naturally, has grandiose visions for the future of DriveCam. What if it came down in price, and all insurance companies provided discounts for parents who installed it? What if parents could install it in their cars and prove to their insurance companies that they, too, were good drivers, deserving of a discount?

"I think we're a ways away from that, but that would be a good thing," he said.

Over his daughter's objections, Ken Richardson would also like to see DriveCam expand its reach. A former firefighter and paramedic, he has seen firsthand the consequences of driver inexperience.

"The last thing I want is to get a call in the middle of the night or a knock on the door," he said. "This is one of those issues where I have total control. If you want to drive, you're going to have a camera in your car."

Zapotosky, Matt. "Newest Source of Teen Ire: Webcams in Their Cars."Washington Post. The Washington Post, 24 Oct. 2008. Web. 04 Jan. 2015.

Cameras in Cars Keep Watch on Teen Driving

Oren Dorell

Some parents in three Midwestern states will soon be able to tell how good -- or bad -- their kids' driving is.

Starting today, American Family Insurance of Madison, Wis., is offering customers with teen drivers free cameras that record what happens when a sudden change in the vehicle's movement occurs.

The cameras take images inside and in front of the car. When a sudden change is detected, 20-second audio-video clips of the event are transmitted via cellular technology to DriveCam, a San Diego company that analyzes the clips for risky behavior.

Among things the analysts look for is the response time of the drivers and if they are paying attention to the road.

Parents can receive a report on their kids' driving and view the clips on a home computer.

Automobile accidents are the leading cause of death among U.S. teens, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"At the end of the day, there will be fewer accidents," Rick Fetherston, vice president for public relations at American Family, said of the new system.

American Family said it will test the system by offering it for free for one year to 30,000 families in Wisconsin, Indiana and Minnesota. The aim of the pilot program is to see whether the system results in fewer accidents, said Jack Salzwedel, president and chief executive of American Family.

If the system is proven to prevent accidents, then customers who volunteer to use it might see their insurance premiums drop, Salzwedel says.

He says his company would not look at the videos or individual scorecards, unless there is an accident.

Bruce Moeller, president and CEO of DriveCam, says his company's system is already being used by companies with fleets of vehicles.

"Some of our clients are all touting a 30% to 90% reduction in their risky driver events," Moeller says.

But Philip Sieff, a personal injury lawyer in Minneapolis, has concerns. "If I got to the point where I felt I needed a camera in the car to watch over my kids, I shouldn't be letting them drive," he says.

American Family tested the system in two high schools in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Megan Ireland, 17, says the camera caught her stopping too late and taking turns too fast. The student at Prior Lake High School in Savage, Minn., said she didn't like it because she felt it invaded her privacy, but she has since warmed up to the system.

"Now I don't really have a problem with it because it's made me a better driver."

Dorell, Oren. “Cameras in Cars Keep Watch on Teen Driving. USA Today 1 March 2007, final ed.: A3. ProQuest. MCPS, MD. 1 Nov. 2008. <

Comparing News Articles

Common Task: In a well-developed paragraph, compare two news articles that cover the same topic. Your article should address the effectiveness of each article’s sources, examples, and objectivity. Be sure to document each source using MLA format.

Score of 5

This response demonstrates consistent mastery, although it may have minor errors. This response

  • effectively states and develops a claim, provides strong insights, and uses well-chosen detail to achieve its purpose.
  • is well organized, focused, and coherent.
  • uses language and vocabulary purposefully to convey voice and purpose.
  • varies sentence structure skillfully.
  • is generally free of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Score of 4

This response demonstrates adequate mastery with occasional lapses in quality. This response

  • states and develops a claim, exhibits sound thinking, and uses appropriate supporting detail.
  • is generally organized, focused, and coherent.
  • generally uses language and vocabulary effectively for voice and purpose.
  • demonstrates some variety in sentence structure.
  • may have some errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics.

Score of 3

This response demonstrates partial mastery, but it has one or more flaws. This response

  • states and develops a claim but needs more consistent thinking and supporting detail.
  • sometimes lacks organization, focus, and coherence.
  • generally uses language coherently, but some word choices are vague or inappropriate.
  • has little variety in sentence structure or has some sentence errors.
  • may contain a number of errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics.

Score of 2

This response demonstrates little mastery and is marred by one or more weaknesses. This response

  • has a vague or limited claim, weak thinking, and inappropriate or insufficient supporting detail.
  • is poorly organized, lacking focus and coherence.
  • uses limited language and vocabulary or incorrect word choice.
  • demonstrates simplistic or incorrect sentence structure.
  • contains errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that sometimes hamper meaning.

Score of 1

This response demonstrates a lack of mastery and serious flaws. This response

  • does not state or develop a claim and provides little, if any, supporting detail.
  • is disorganized, rambling, or incoherent.
  • has numerous errors in vocabulary and use of language.
  • has serious flaws in sentence structure.
  • contains numerous errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that consistently hamper meaning.

Score of 0

No response or a response that is completely irrelevant will receive a score of zero.