Car black boxes - required soon

[darin]

Things like this cause me sufficient anger, disgust, and sorrow. Things like this single the END Of freedom in our country; the world? Soon, we'll have NO escape from our "Just trying to PROTECT US" Nanny-Government.




http://www.infowars.com/mandatory-big-brother-black-boxes-in-all-new-cars-from-2015/


A bill already passed by the Senate and set to be rubber stamped by the House would make it mandatory for all new cars in the United States to be fitted with black box data recorders from 2015 onwards.
Section 31406 of Senate Bill 1813 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1813/text) (known as MAP-21), calls for “Mandatory Event Data Recorders” to be installed in all new automobiles and legislates for civil penalties to be imposed against individuals for failing to do so.
“Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part,” states the bill.
Although the text of legislation states that such data would remain the property of the owner of the vehicle, the government would have the power to access it in a number of circumstances, including by court order, if the owner consents to make it available, and pursuant to an investigation or inspection conducted by the Secretary of Transportation.

[Thunderknuckles]

How is this getting passed the house which is supposedly ruled by small government Republicans?

[sundaydriver]

dmp? Any car guy is already aware that 85% of cars manufactured in the last three years already have the Event Recorder Device installed. This was first snuck into American built cars in 1997 or so starting with the GM Corvette. My 2002 Camaro has it, all my vehicles have it and all or most of yours do too.

This bill will catch up that other 15% not doing so already. It will also standardize the units in data capture software. This was all begun many years ago by the insurance industry for the benign study of vehicle safety. Many, many millions of dollars later we have this full enforcements law for the insurance company lawyers to use in defending against lawsuits for those that have slipped between the cracks.

[ConHog]

dmp? Any car guy is already aware that 85% of cars manufactured in the last three years already have the Event Recorder Device installed. This was first snuck into American built cars in 1997 or so starting with the GM Corvette. My 2002 Camaro has it, all my vehicles have it and all or most of yours do too.

This bill will catch up that other 15% not doing so already. It will also standardize the units in data capture software. This was all begun many years ago by the insurance industry for the benign study of vehicle safety. Many, many millions of dollars later we have this full enforcements law for the insurance company lawyers to use in defending against lawsuits for those that have slipped between the cracks.

Exactly, Any vehicle which is OBDII compliant (meaning any vehicle built since 1996 and some vehicles built prior) have SOME form of event recorder built into them and as technology improves so has the amount of data recorded.

This isn't THAT big of deal, and in fact the information could actually save people money on insurance and such.

[sundaydriver]

Exactly, Any vehicle which is OBDII compliant (meaning any vehicle built since 1996 and some vehicles built prior) have SOME form of event recorder built into them and as technology improves so has the amount of data recorded.

This isn't THAT big of deal, and in fact the information could actually save people money on insurance and such. :laugh2:

The big item in this is that the manufacturer will now have to disclose the installation of the device in your new vehicle. Just forget the past decade or more that this was being done undislosed to buyers. :laugh:

[ConHog]

:laugh2:

The big item in this is that the manufacturer will now have to disclose the installation of the device in your new vehicle. Just forget the past decade or more that this was being done undislosed to buyers. :laugh:

Have you seen that Progressive Insurance has a device that plugs into your vehicles OBDII connector and they record the data for a month and analyze it to determine your insurance rates?

[SassyLady]

Things like this cause me sufficient anger, disgust, and sorrow. Things like this single the END Of freedom in our country; the world? Soon, we'll have NO escape from our "Just trying to PROTECT US" Nanny-Government.

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]



Although the text of legislation states that such data would remain the property of the owner of the vehicle, the government would have the power to access it in a number of circumstances, including by court order, if the owner consents to make it available, and pursuant to an investigation or inspection conducted by the Secretary of Transportation.

Even though the current law states the information is still the property of the owner .... it opens the door for changes to the legislation down the road so that it will no longer be the property of the car owner ... but property of the government.

The information will undoubtedly be required in the event of car crashes and will help the police put together their reports.

On a side note ... my car has a safety package. Sure has come in handy a couple of times when I've gotten to close to something. Drives me crazy when I go through a drive-through. Have to put in park to stop the beeping. Wonder if it records an event every time I get too close to something so that a "history" can be developed about my style of driving?

[darin]

dmp? Any car guy is already aware that 85% of cars manufactured in the last three years already have the Event Recorder Device installed. This was first snuck into American built cars in 1997 or so starting with the GM Corvette. My 2002 Camaro has it, all my vehicles have it and all or most of yours do too.
What your Canadian car has is not like what's proposed. It's not nearly as invasive in its recording. My 2004 has some capacity for storing diagnostic records for a few seconds past, things like last top speed, ABS/DSC info (all sortsa stuff about what the car was last doing dynamically), airbag deployment info, etc etc, from a variety of sensors on most systems in the car. This data is used for engine management and CEL history. There is no EDR per se. The type of data in this law goes WAY beyond what CH is confusing with what he may know about OBD2. My 2002 F150? Conflicting info on if it does. My 2006 Subaru does not. I'm aware of the Vette - which is one reason I'm not interested in owning one. Nor will I buy any car that has one like those mentioned in the OP. Nor will I buy any vehicle equipped with an on-Star type "service". I do my own EDR w/ my subaru via a laptop. I can log dozens of parameters. But - that's an active logging, not a historical log to be used as justification to any of the following:

a) Raise my insurance rates
b) prosecute based on out of context data
c) Testify against me
d) Have ONE more ounce of my personal freedom in the hands of ever-increasingly nosy Govt.



Exactly, Any vehicle which is OBDII compliant (meaning any vehicle built since 1996 and some vehicles built prior) have SOME form of event recorder built into them and as technology improves so has the amount of data recorded.

This isn't THAT big of deal, and in fact the information could actually save people money on insurance and such.


Two things:

First, you're wrong with your first assumption. OBD2 is NOT a event recorder like those mentioned.

Second, how can data after the fact save people money on insurance? Even if that's the case, why is that MANDATED BY CONGRESS? Let manufacturers decide.

[revelarts]

Things like this cause me sufficient anger, disgust, and sorrow. Things like this single the END Of freedom in our country; the world? Soon, we'll have NO escape from our "Just trying to PROTECT US" Nanny-Government.

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Another piece of the Orwellian surveillance state.

like a boa constrictor every time you exhale it seems tighter.

so what do we do?
does it disable the car to disable the devise?
do we get states to over ride the feds here?

it's pass time to gum up the gears on this nanny state BS.

[ConHog]

What your Canadian car has is not like what's proposed. It's not nearly as invasive in its recording. My 2004 has some capacity for storing diagnostic records for a few seconds past, things like last top speed, ABS/DSC info (all sortsa stuff about what the car was last doing dynamically), airbag deployment info, etc etc, from a variety of sensors on most systems in the car. This data is used for engine management and CEL history. There is no EDR per se. The type of data in this law goes WAY beyond what CH is confusing with what he may know about OBD2. My 2002 F150? Conflicting info on if it does. My 2006 Subaru does not. I'm aware of the Vette - which is one reason I'm not interested in owning one. Nor will I buy any car that has one like those mentioned in the OP. Nor will I buy any vehicle equipped with an on-Star type "service". I do my own EDR w/ my subaru via a laptop. I can log dozens of parameters. But - that's an active logging, not a historical log to be used as justification to any of the following:

a) Raise my insurance rates
b) prosecute based on out of context data
c) Testify against me
d) Have ONE more ounce of my personal freedom in the hands of ever-increasingly nosy Govt.





Two things:

First, you're wrong with your first assumption. OBD2 is NOT a event recorder like those mentioned.

Second, how can data after the fact save people money on insurance? Even if that's the case, why is that MANDATED BY CONGRESS? Let manufacturers decide.

OBD2 is nothing more than the protocol used to communicate with the vehicle computers. No doubt the new system will utilize the OBDII connection since it is the government who made it the standard in the first place. A lot of the information can already be seen if you have the right equipment.

That's all I was saying. I wasn't implying that the current systems are already recording all the information the new bill will require.

As for how past information can save people money on insurance. That's simple. It's just an extension of how insurance companies have always operated. Those who are deemed riskier drivers pay higher premiums. All this does is utilize new technology to further refine the system.

By the way, I should add that my dad AND his customers are both grateful that the EPA stepped in and forced companies to go with one standard OBDII because prior to that each manufacture used whatever type connection they wanted. Hell they didn't even always use the same connection themselves. And as a result small shops like my dads had a choice of either buying tons of manufacture specific diagnostic equipment or having to send their customers to the dealer when they needed diagnostic work.


Another piece of the Orwellian surveillance state.

like a boa constrictor every time you exhale it seems tighter.

so what do we do?
does it disable the car to disable the devise?
do we get states to over ride the feds here?

it's pass time to gum up the gears on this nanny state BS.

You can't disable the computers in a modern car.

AND the states can't over ride the feds. Have you even read the Constitution?

Again, this is a bunch of crying about nothing.

[darin]

OBD2 is nothing more than the protocol used to communicate with the vehicle computers. No doubt the new system will use the OBDII connection since it is the government who made it the standard in the first place. A lot of the information can already be seen if you have the right equipment.

That's all I was saying. I wasn't implying that the current systems are already recording all the information the new bill will require.

As for how past information can save people money on insurance. That's simple. It's just an extension of how insurance companies have always operated. Those who are deemed riskier drivers pay higher premiums. All this does is use new technology to further refine the system.

Viewing error codes is not the same thing as what the OP is about. As I mentioned, with my Laptop I can plug-in (yes, via the OBD2 port) to the ECU and see probably EVERY aspect of managing the combustion possible. I can see O2 sensor voltage, I can see absolute manifold pressure, speed, time, fuel injector pulse width - you name it.

All this does is use an existing technology to further pry into the private, legal actions of citizens. As an off-topic but related point, It's an example of big-business pressuring the gov't to enact laws to make those businesses even richer.

This won't save people money on insurance, it will simply COST others MORE money based on stupid criteria. The criteria they have now is stupid enough. Adding this layer is purely profit driven - and to the absolute point, it's a case of the Feds sticking their nose just a little bit further into our lives.

The day will come when everyone has to wear a Go-Pro camera to record everything they do...just in case they are involved in a crime. The gov't will be able to keep tabs absolutely. They will frame it under the guise of "This way, we can prevent false accusations/arrests! It's for our BENEFIT!!"

This story is just ONE more nail in the coffin of freedom.

[ConHog]

Viewing error codes is not the same thing as what the OP is about. As I mentioned, with my Laptop I can plug-in (yes, via the OBD2 port) to the ECU and see probably EVERY aspect of managing the combustion possible. I can see O2 sensor voltage, I can see absolute manifold pressure, speed, time, fuel injector pulse width - you name it.

All this does is use an existing technology to further pry into the private, legal actions of citizens. As an off-topic but related point, It's an example of big-business pressuring the gov't to enact laws to make those businesses even richer.

This won't save people money on insurance, it will simply COST others MORE money based on stupid criteria. The criteria they have now is stupid enough. Adding this layer is purely profit driven - and to the absolute point, it's a case of the Feds sticking their nose just a little bit further into our lives.

The day will come when everyone has to wear a Go-Pro camera to record everything they do...just in case they are involved in a crime. The gov't will be able to keep tabs absolutely. They will frame it under the guise of "This way, we can prevent false accusations/arrests! It's for our BENEFIT!!"

This story is just ONE more nail in the coffin of freedom.

I know what you can see with your laptop, and I raise you a Genisys Evo 5.0 :D. oh and our newest a CarDaq Plus which is really cool, it allows us to interface with manufactures websites and reprogram any computer in the vehicle if the manufacture has issued a software update. Expensive as hell, but very cool.

And I just don't see this as the nail that you do. You may as well suggest that cell phone companies keeping records of your cell phone use that the government can access by law if needed are a nail in the coffin.

[Nukeman]

I know what you can see with your laptop, and I raise you a Genisys Evo 5.0 :D. oh and our newest a CarDaq Plus which is really cool, it allows us to interface with manufactures websites and reprogram any computer in the vehicle if the manufacture has issued a software update. Expensive as hell, but very cool.

And I just don't see this as the nail that you do. You may as well suggest that cell phone companies keeping records of your cell phone use that the government can access by law if needed are a nail in the coffin.It is.. every one of those "little" things add to more and more observation and reporting on INNOCENT people EVERY day.. You really don't see it that way???

[ConHog]

It is.. every one of those "little" things add to more and more observation and reporting on INNOCENT people EVERY day.. You really don't see it that way???

There are safeguards in place so that the government isn't supposed to be looking into innocent folks. If the government is violating those safeguards I'm all for penalizing them.

[revelarts]

..

AND the states can't over ride the feds. Have you even read the Constitution?

...

have you?

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



the supreme courts twisted version of the commerce clause is maybe what your referring too.
But even with that COn there are many areas were state law prevails over federal faux law. Minimum wage laws for example, and some states drug laws, to name 2. More and more states are flexing thier true constitutional muscle in various areas as the Feds keep passing crazier and crazier faux law.

[darin]

...and I raise you a Genisys Evo 5.0 :D.

Why?



oh and our newest a CarDaq Plus which is really cool, it allows us to interface with manufactures websites and reprogram any computer in the vehicle if the manufacture has issued a software update. Expensive as hell, but very cool.


"allows US to"? You a mechanic?



And I just don't see this as the nail that you do. You may as well suggest that cell phone companies keeping records of your cell phone use that the government can access by law if needed are a nail in the coffin.

Sure. Absolutely right - IF the Gov't MANDATED Cell phone makers/companies to track our behavior.

[ConHog]

Why?



"allows US to"? You a mechanic?



Sure. Absolutely right - IF the Gov't MANDATED Cell phone makers/companies to track our behavior.

I wouldn't say I'm a mechanic, I mean I know quite a bit about cars just from dad having done it for 40 years and what not though, but I am the one in who is researching and using all the new equipment. Not sure what that has to do with this thread though, other than you suddenly seem to have a bug in your ass about me.


have you?

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



the supreme courts twisted version of the commerce clause is maybe what your referring too.
But even with that COn there are many areas were state law prevails over federal faux law. Minimum wage laws for example, and some states drug laws, to name 2. More and more states are flexing thier true constitutional muscle in various areas as the Feds keep passing crazier and crazier faux law.

Pretty sure that the federal government has already established that they authority over vehicle safety standards.

[Abbey Marie]

Another piece of the Orwellian surveillance state.

like a boa constrictor every time you exhale it seems tighter.

so what do we do?
does it disable the car to disable the devise?
do we get states to over ride the feds here?

it's pass time to gum up the gears on this nanny state BS.


We tattoo the mark of the beast on our forehead, and look up and smile at the hundreds of surveillance cameras already recording our every move. :(

[Thunderknuckles]

There are safeguards in place so that the government isn't supposed to be looking into innocent folks. If the government is violating those safeguards I'm all for penalizing them.
ConHog, I can't believe you buy into that. I'm still astonished at how you continually gloss over putting more power and information about private citizens into the hands of the government believing that it will not eventually be abused.

"People who think of government as the institution to entrust with enough power to right all the world's wrongs seem to never consider that they must thereby give it enough power to do wrong to all the world's rights. In fact, they seem NEVER to consider what the founders always thought was obvious: that the 'good guys' will NOT always be in charge!" -- Bert Rand

[Anton Chigurh]

How is this getting passed the house which is supposedly ruled by small government Republicans?It's not. The House version of this transportation bill does not include this provision. Understand, the source linked in the OP is Alex Jones' alarmist, conspiracy site. Hardly going to be objective.

[Thunderknuckles]

It's not. The House version of this transportation bill does not include this provision. Understand, the source linked in the OP is Alex Jones' alarmist, conspiracy site. Hardly going to be objective.
Thank you for the clarification :)

[tailfins]

Have you seen that Progressive Insurance has a device that plugs into your vehicles OBDII connector and they record the data for a month and analyze it to determine your insurance rates?


I'm amazed their marketing people present this as a benefit. I'm even more amazed that there are people who respond positively to it. I have actually researched this. Most people will not get a noticeable discount.

This reared its head ten years ago with rental car companies:
http://news.cnet.com/State-puts-brakes-on-GPS-speeding-fines/2100-1040_3-269388.html

I can see how "Snapshit from Progressive" could turn into a repeat performance of getting surprise fines with your bill if it were ever mandated.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm amazed their marketing people present this as a benefit. I'm even more amazed that there are people who respond positively to it. I have actually researched this. Most people will not get a noticeable discount.

This reared its head ten years ago with rental car companies:
http://news.cnet.com/State-puts-brakes-on-GPS-speeding-fines/2100-1040_3-269388.html

I can see how "Snapshit from Progressive" could turn into a repeat performance of getting surprise fines with your bill if it were ever mandated.

Freudian slip? :laugh2:

[ConHog]

ConHog, I can't believe you buy into that. I'm still astonished at how you continually gloss over putting more power and information about private citizens into the hands of the government believing that it will not eventually be abused.

"People who think of government as the institution to entrust with enough power to right all the world's wrongs seem to never consider that they must thereby give it enough power to do wrong to all the world's rights. In fact, they seem NEVER to consider what the founders always thought was obvious: that the 'good guys' will NOT always be in charge!" -- Bert Rand

Of course the good guys will not always be in charge, that's why we have safeguards. If those safeguards are being ignored by government officials, then those officials need to go to prison. But that doesn't mean EVERYTHING the government does is evil.

[darin]

Of course the good guys will not always be in charge, that's why we have safeguards. If those safeguards are being ignored by government officials, then those officials need to go to prison. But that doesn't mean EVERYTHING the government does is evil.


Eroding freedoms under the guise of 'safety' IS evil.

[tailfins]

Eroding freedoms under the guise of 'safety' IS evil.

I have walked and taken camellos (designed for those who can't afford other transport options) even at night in Havana with no worries. Havana is a very safe city for tourists. The residents live in constant fear of arrest for any or no reason.

This is a camello:
http://www.elpuercoespin.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/camello-philippe-kauffmann.jpeg

http://www.cabophoto.com/images/cub0028.jpg

http://images.travelpod.com/users/will/latinamerica_04.1079629200.camello.jpg

[ConHog]

Eroding freedoms under the guise of 'safety' IS evil.

Please list the freedoms eroded by this potential bill?

[tailfins]

Please list the freedoms eroded by this potential bill?

Let's start with privacy, especially the more that government gets into the insurance business. The next step is to penalize anything deemed "risky". It is also a taxation vehicle (irrespective the pun). I'm sure others can add to the list. Also, if one is ever sued, it gives more material to defend against which is great for attorneys. It is also an erosion of the fourth amendment. I could see it being used by law enforcement to decide who to follow if they pass through certain neighborhoods. Once they find a burnt out license plate light, they do a search.

[ConHog]

Let's start with privacy, especially the more that government gets into the insurance business. The next step is to penalize anything deemed "risky". It is also a taxation vehicle (irrespective the pun). I'm sure others can add to the list.

Okay, let's start with privacy.

Your vehicle is covered under the 4th Amendment , same as the police can't just search the interior without probable cause, they won't be able to access your "black box" without probable cause.

Some of you, sheesh..............

[Nukeman]

Okay, let's start with privacy.

Your vehicle is covered under the 4th Amendment , same as the police can't just search the interior without probable cause, they won't be able to access your "black box" without probable cause.

Some of you, sheesh..............You honestly believe a accident on a public road will not be considered "probable cause". It will be the investigation portion of a accident and used against you...

[ConHog]

You honestly believe a accident on a public road will not be considered "probable cause". It will be the investigation portion of a accident and used against you...

And once you've been in an accident on a public road your expectation of privacy is already gone. This bill , nor "black boxes" doesn't change that at all.

[Nukeman]

And once you've been in an accident on a public road your expectation of privacy is already gone. This bill , nor "black boxes" doesn't change that at all.Yes it does if its the other persons fault bUT you were exceeding the speed limit by a small margin you can be found at fault even though the evidence points to the other driver... This is going to spell nothing but trouble for law abiding citizens, not to mention a revenue cash cow for local govt, I mean after all the black box said you were speeding or driving erratically you must be charged and ticketed. This is about power over you and I and if you cant see that than you are more blind than I ever gave you credit for.

Once again I will ask you this question.. WHY DO THEY (the govt) NEED THIS INFORMATION?????

[ConHog]

Yes it does if its the other persons fault bUT you were exceeding the speed limit by a small margin you can be found at fault even though the evidence points to the other driver... This is going to spell nothing but trouble for law abiding citizens, not to mention a revenue cash cow for local govt, I mean after all the black box said you were speeding or driving erratically you must be charged and ticketed. This is about power over you and I and if you cant see that than you are more blind than I ever gave you credit for.

Once again I will ask you this question.. WHY DO THEY (the govt) NEED THIS INFORMATION?????

Dude, if you're exceeding the speed limit, even by just a little bit, or are driving erratically you aren't a law abiding citizen. DUH!!

[darin]

Dude, if you're exceeding the speed limit, even by just a little bit, or are driving erratically you aren't a law abiding citizen. DUH!!


The 'Posted' speed limit? Not true in an ethical or legal sense. Not in an ethical sense because the spirit of the law rules. Flow of Traffic dictates often. Not in a legal sense because a driver never has solid proof of speed; only evidence based on a biased and not-exact device to measure speed.

Two years ago a lady in a suburban pulled from a side road directly across the front of me and into my lane. I had not even seconds to react. I slid the car hard left into on-coming traffic lane, turned hard right as the lady would have t-boned me, missing her truck by inches. To the less-skilled/informed and probably technically I was driving erratically. To the real world, I saved HER and me. My maneuver was controlled chaos. But it was the right thing to do.


One can be driving both apparently calm AND the exact speed limit AND be breaking the law.

[tailfins]

Dude, if you're exceeding the speed limit, even by just a little bit, or are driving erratically you aren't a law abiding citizen. DUH!!

There is an organization devoted to exactly that topic: The National Motorists Association http://www.motorists.org . These black boxes have lots in common with red light cameras. Governments have a way of giving themselves the benefit of the doubt with erroneous data. How many tickets do you suppose get written with an improperly used radar gun?

Furthermore there is speculation that insurance companies are interested in black box data to deny claims and manufacturers to deny warranty claims.

[ConHog]

The 'Posted' speed limit? Not true in an ethical or legal sense. Not in an ethical sense because the spirit of the law rules. Flow of Traffic dictates often. Not in a legal sense because a driver never has solid proof of speed; only evidence based on a biased and not-exact device to measure speed.

Two years ago a lady in a suburban pulled from a side road directly across the front of me and into my lane. I had not even seconds to react. I slid the car hard left into on-coming traffic lane, turned hard right as the lady would have t-boned me, missing her truck by inches. To the less-skilled/informed and probably technically I was driving erratically. To the real world, I saved HER and me. My maneuver was controlled chaos. But it was the right thing to do.


One can be driving both apparently calm AND the exact speed limit AND be breaking the law.

You broke the law Darin. Now I of course concede that there ARE circumstances where doing the "wrong" thing is actually doing the right thing; but that doesn't change the fact that you broke the law.

[Nukeman]

You broke the law Darin. Now I of course concede that there ARE circumstances where doing the "wrong" thing is actually doing the right thing; but that doesn't change the fact that you broke the law.
ohh Bull Shit..... and you know it.. the point is that if you are traveling with the flow of traffic which is the accepted safe thing to do than you could be exceeding the posted speed limit and this just give an avenue for insurance to deny claims and for govt to issue tickets for nothing other than the sole purpose of making money or saving it. If you can't see that you're either blind or a fool so which is it.

I ask again WHY DOES THE GOVT NEED THIS INFORMATION???

[Nukeman]

Dude, if you're exceeding the speed limit, even by just a little bit, or are driving erratically you aren't a law abiding citizen. DUH!!Wel hell than CH why dont we just bypass the recording all together, we have the technology right now today to limit the speed in cars, with GPS and car electronics why don't we just let the govt control our cars and the speed they can travel, because Lord knows that you NEVER need to exceed the speed limit to avoid an accident or get out of the way or anything right??? I cant believe you think the govt is doing this for YOUR benefit??? Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!

[revelarts]

Con who often do you speed?
How often have you turned yourself in for doing so, Law Breaker?

[SassyLady]

You broke the law Darin. Now I of course concede that there ARE circumstances where doing the "wrong" thing is actually doing the right thing; but that doesn't change the fact that you broke the law.

And, this is exactly the point we are trying to make. Anyone looking at just the black box data will see "erratic driving" and not be able to see the whole picture. Someone like yourself will look at it and say "he broke the law" even though he avoided a catastrophic accident. Why? Because they will depend on the box to provide all data and not do interviews. I mean, hell, how can technology screw up?

[gabosaurus]

I see nothing wrong with it. Anything that improves driving safety is welcome. Don't drive like an idiot and you don't have to worry about it.

I wish we could adopt the George Carlin system of road safety. Every car is equipped with a dart gun. If you see someone driving crazy, you shoot their car with a dart. If a car accumulates three or more darts, police pull it over and give the driver a ticket for being an asshole.

[SassyLady]

I see nothing wrong with it. Anything that improves driving safety is welcome. Don't drive like an idiot and you don't have to worry about it.

I wish we could adopt the George Carlin system of road safety. Every car is equipped with a dart gun. If you see someone driving crazy, you shoot their car with a dart. If a car accumulates three or more darts, police pull it over and give the driver a ticket for being an asshole.

Gee, I didn't notice myself driving safer just because my Yukon had a black box. Wow....how did they do that?

[darin]

You broke the law Darin. Now I of course concede that there ARE circumstances where doing the "wrong" thing is actually doing the right thing; but that doesn't change the fact that you broke the law.

No, I didn't. My crossing the late prevented law-breaking by the lady (improper lane travel, failure to yield right of way). I was in a place where I could pass; thus crossed the line legally to 'pass' another car who was 'breaking the law'. You didn't have that information; just like a box data-reader.

What if I were on a closed-course? Now, TheMan reads my data and says "You're going 130mph!! Off to jail! The Data don't LIE!!"

Things like Progressive's plug-in-thing open the gate further for fraud. If I want a good 'report' I put the car up on jack-stands and run it for a couple hours every day, eh?

:(


I cannot see why ANYONE short of Gabby would welcome MORE govt intrusion.

[jimnyc]

Having a mechanic that can access certain information from built in computers, to help diagnose and fix a car, I have no issue with. But to have a "black box" of sorts, like an airplane, where the government and/or insurance companies can go through my driving history, is absolute crap. IMO, it's kind of like an illegal search. Someone is going to go over my private property and then possibly penalize me based on the results? Hell no! How long before they place "cockpit recorders" in the cars too, to see what I was talking about just prior to an accident, or speeding, or running a red light.... Sounds to me like a little more help for law enforcement or big government, and they have enough already.

[darin]

As govt requires more funding to stay in power, our GPS units will signal LE devices to mail us tickets, real-time. Watch. It'll happen. Vehicle computers will control the speed of the car based on the posted speed limit. Seen "I, Robot"? It'll be a mix of that, Demolition Man, and Fifth Element. :(

[Nukeman]

As govt requires more funding to stay in power, our GPS units will signal LE devices to mail us tickets, real-time. Watch. It'll happen. Vehicle computers will control the speed of the car based on the posted speed limit. Seen "I, Robot"? It'll be a mix of that, Demolition Man, and Fifth Element. :(Already your GPS will tell you the posted speed for the road you are on, so it really isnt a strech for the govt to mandate that all new cars NOT be able to exceed the posted limit, Ford already does this with the Fusion (you can program a drivers key with set speed limit and radio/phone functions).

Once again CH WHY DOES THE GOVT NEED THIS INFO????? You spout about it not being a big deal than please answer the quesion.. Why do they need it??????

[ConHog]

ohh Bull Shit..... and you know it.. the point is that if you are traveling with the flow of traffic which is the accepted safe thing to do than you could be exceeding the posted speed limit and this just give an avenue for insurance to deny claims and for govt to issue tickets for nothing other than the sole purpose of making money or saving it. If you can't see that you're either blind or a fool so which is it.

I ask again WHY DOES THE GOVT NEED THIS INFORMATION???

Speeding is ILLEGAL even if the flow of traffic is speeding. DO you really not get that? Now, the police may choose not to act against the entire flow, BUT they could.

As far as the government needing the information. Here's one example. Remember the whole Ford/Firestone fiasco? It never was proven conclusively why so many vehicles crashed; the evidence provided by the "black boxes" could certainly give a clearer picture.

[jimnyc]

Speeding is ILLEGAL even if the flow of traffic is speeding. DO you really not get that? Now, the police may choose not to act against the entire flow, BUT they could.

As far as the government needing the information. Here's one example. Remember the whole Ford/Firestone fiasco? It never was proven conclusively why so many vehicles crashed; the evidence provided by the "black boxes" could certainly give a clearer picture.

Let's say you're cruising down I-95, and your live GPS is telling you that you're doing 81mph, even though you know you are in a 70mph zone. The government can track this, and a message pops up on your screen telling you that you were speeding, and to expect a ticket in the mail for $150 and 4 points on your license.

Do you think the government/state/police are overreaching in an instance like this?

[Nukeman]

Speeding is ILLEGAL even if the flow of traffic is speeding. DO you really not get that? Now, the police may choose not to act against the entire flow, BUT they could.

As far as the government needing the information. Here's one example. Remember the whole Ford/Firestone fiasco? It never was proven conclusively why so many vehicles crashed; the evidence provided by the "black boxes" could certainly give a clearer picture.Yes it is and so should driving UNDER the speed limit, that causes more backup and higher probability of collision than the other... Here's the problem with "speeding" if the flow of traffic is x miles an hour and the posted speed is y miles per hour than anyone not doing x is hindering the flow of traffic and causing congestion and that my friend is where accidents happen..

Cops have the discretion to issue a speeding citation or not, so the whole "its illegal" is a farce and you know it. IF so than EVERY time a cop pulls someone over for speeding a ticket would be issued otherwise its just taxation through citation. With the "black box" you are wishing for they will be able to issue tickets left and right without having law enforcement involved. Hell they can even tell if you did a rolling stop at the stop sign at 3:00 in the morning on a deserted road and issue a ticket for that as well.

For someone who claims to be conservative and thus wants LESS govt intrusion you sure don't show it!!!!!!

[tailfins]

Let's say you're cruising down I-95, and your live GPS is telling you that you're doing 81mph, even though you know you are in a 70mph zone. The government can track this, and a message pops up on your screen telling you that you were speeding, and to expect a ticket in the mail for $150 and 4 points on your license.

Do you think the government/state/police are overreaching in an instance like this?

So much due process has been done away with, especially at the hands of MAD (Mothers Against Driving). Where do you think administrative license suspensions came from? As it stands a meter maid could accidentally put GA instead of CA on a ticket leaving the possibility of some unfortunate person from Georgia being forced to either travel to California or hire an attorney to reverse a license suspension. The practice of charging a substantial fee to contest a traffic ticket exists in some states. The fee applies even if the ticket is dismissed.

[darin]

Speeding is ILLEGAL even if the flow of traffic is speeding. DO you really not get that? Now, the police may choose not to act against the entire flow, BUT they could.

Incorrect. Flow of traffic is the legal speed limit in most places.



As far as the government needing the information. Here's one example. Remember the whole Ford/Firestone fiasco? It never was proven conclusively why so many vehicles crashed; the evidence provided by the "black boxes" could certainly give a clearer picture.

Never. Those cars crashed because the drivers were terrible. A blackbox would NOT show what caused a blow-out. The box would only show loss of tire pressure, then various steering/braking, etc, information. All that's AFTER the fact.

[ConHog]

Having a mechanic that can access certain information from built in computers, to help diagnose and fix a car, I have no issue with. But to have a "black box" of sorts, like an airplane, where the government and/or insurance companies can go through my driving history, is absolute crap. IMO, it's kind of like an illegal search. Someone is going to go over my private property and then possibly penalize me based on the results? Hell no! How long before they place "cockpit recorders" in the cars too, to see what I was talking about just prior to an accident, or speeding, or running a red light.... Sounds to me like a little more help for law enforcement or big government, and they have enough already.

How is it an illegal search? The insurance companies would have NO ability to seize the information. You would have to CHOOSE to give it to them. and the government would HAVE to obtain a warrant to seize it, just like they currently have to have a warrant (or at least probable cause) to search your vehicle.


Incorrect. Flow of traffic is the legal speed limit in most places.



Never. Those cars crashed because the drivers were terrible. A blackbox would NOT show what caused a blow-out. The box would only show loss of tire pressure, then various steering/braking, etc, information. All that's AFTER the fact.

First , wrong. The speed limit is the posted speed limit ALWAYS. Do you really think you and a group of friends could get on the interstate and do 100 MPH as a group and when pulled over claim that the 75 MPH speed limit was nullified because the flow of traffic was doing 100 mph? noway

Second, I didn't say it would show the cause of a blow out, I said it would give more information, and it would. The new Tire Pressure Monitors for instance, keep track of both the air pressure and the temperature inside each tire, they update several times a second. That information could be used to determine if the tire suddenly lost integrity independent of anything the rest of the vehicle was doing by comparing it to the data recorded by the ABS and traction control computers, as well from the steering angle sensors and in the case of 4 wheel drive vehicles the 4 wheel drive computer.

The technology OBVIOUSLY works Darin or they wouldn't be using it in airplanes for years. So while I understand that you are against it, you just sound stupid when you claim it isn't effective at what it does.

It is possible to redognize that something does what it is supposed to do, but still be against it.

[darin]

First , wrong. The speed limit is the posted speed limit ALWAYS. Do you really think you and a group of friends could get on the interstate and do 100 MPH as a group and when pulled over claim that the 75 MPH speed limit was nullified because the flow of traffic was doing 100 mph? noway

First, wrong. The posted speed limit is the 'maximum fastest speed the road can safely handle'. Sometimes, due to weather the limit of speed on a particular road is NOT the posted limit; it's somewhat lower. AND in conditions of heavy traffic, driving at or below the POSTED limit is a ticketable offense.


Second, I didn't say it would show the cause of a blow out, I said it would give more information, and it would. The new Tire Pressure Monitors for instance, keep track of both the air pressure and the temperature inside each tire, they update several times a second. That information could be used to determine if the tire suddenly lost integrity independent of anything the rest of the vehicle was doing by comparing it to the data recorded by the ABS and traction control computers, as well from the steering angle sensors and in the case of 4 wheel drive vehicles the 4 wheel drive computer.

You said


the evidence provided by the "black boxes" could certainly give a clearer picture (of why vehicles crashed upon a tire failure.)

Requiring EDRs in vehicles will do NOTHING to explain the Firestone Tire Media/Gov't/Driver failure TWELVE years ago. The two aren't even remotely related.

Tire Pressure and Temp cannot explain how those tires failed. Doesn't matter if the TPMS is today's version, or one of even 2004, say, when some only monitored changes in baseline pressure. But what to today's TPMS systems have to do with what happened years ago with Firestone?

What's a 4WD computer?


The technology OBVIOUSLY works Darin or they wouldn't be using it in airplanes for years. So while I understand that you are against it, you just sound stupid when you claim it isn't effective at what it does.

And you sound stupid suggesting I EVER claimed the technology isn't effective at collecting Data.



It is possible to recognize that something does what it is supposed to do, but still be against it.

What are you even talking about now?

This thread is about my feelings regarding REQUIRING event data recorders on every new car. This thread is about the erosion of FREEDOM our society allows. This thread is NOT about how well EDRs do their job.

For the record, "they" know EXACTLY what caused all those "Firestone Tire" problems; big surprise....Operator Error.


http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/why-are-ford-explorers-crashing


...we know that the Explorer doesn't veer off the road when one of its tires loses pressure. We know that even under heavy braking it doesn't do anything unstable or tricky. And we can't imagine why any driver, on hearing the racket caused by a separating tread beating against the bodywork, would react by jerking the steering wheel so violently that it would cause the Explorer to leave the pavement and possibly roll over.

...But we're convinced that if you experience a tire failure -- on an Explorer or any other vehicle -- and concentrate on keeping the vehicle rolling straight and on the pavement, you have an excellent chance of bringing it to a safe halt and ensuring that your tire failure remains an inconvenience rather than turning into a tragedy.

[Nukeman]

How is it an illegal search? The insurance companies would have NO ability to seize the information. You would have to CHOOSE to give it to them. and the government would HAVE to obtain a warrant to seize it, just like they currently have to have a warrant (or at least probable cause) to search your vehicle.
LOL are you serious???? All the insurance company has to do is tell you that without you freeing the information to them they will cancel your policy!!! See how easy it is to work around legalities?!!?!?!?! Try and obtain insurance AFTER you have been canceled from another... NOT THAT EASY.

Probable cause would be the commission of a crime and according to you 1 mile over the speed limit is a CRIME so right there your rights to privacy and being secure in your person and papers goes out the window.... Not to mention you are not guaranteed the freedom to travel on federal and state highways, refuse to submit to the info gathering and all they have to do is revoke your drivers license/license plate registration on your car. For every argument you make about legal this or that there are very SIMPLE ways to work around it.. You just aren't willing to admit that this can be used for so much more than intended....

This is a recipe for nothing but abuse and if you are too blind to see the probable abuse than God help you....

[tailfins]

Incorrect. Flow of traffic is the legal speed limit in most places.



Sadly, that hasn't been the case since 1974 when the Feds took control of speed limits. The proper speed limit is at the 85th percentile speed. Many groups with agendas, whether environmentalists, public transportation advocates, Nader Raders, etc., have worked to set speed limits well below that. In the frequent occasion where the speed limit is below the 85th percentile, you have what amounts to a speed trap.

I would say this to the people that believe those that go above an illegally set or posted speed limit are not law abiding citizens: If laws are set up so that everyone is in violation of something, does that mean the entire population should be treated like criminals, with no expectation of rights? In your world, are people who violate a sharp speed limit drop where the sign is hidden in the shadow of a billboard not law abiding citizens?

[darin]

Sadly, that hasn't been the case since 1974 when the Feds took control of speed limits. The proper speed limit is at the 85th percentile speed. Many groups with agendas, whether environmentalists, public transportation advocates, Nader Raders, etc., have worked to set speed limits well below that. In the frequent occasion where the speed limit is below the 85th percentile, you have what amounts to a speed trap.

I would say this to the people that believe those that go above an illegally set or posted speed limit are not law abiding citizens: If laws are set up so that everyone is in violation of something, does that mean the entire population should be treated like criminals, with no expectation of rights? In your world, are people who violate a sharp speed limit drop where the sign is hidden in the shadow of a billboard not law abiding citizens?

State-by-state differences happen, too. Awhile back, many cities in Michigan were artificially deflating limits, or otherwise setting illegal speed limits PURELY driven by funding. Can link if you're interested.

[Gaffer]

Most traffic cops run their radar guns at about 11 mph over the speed limit. This is to allow for errors and drivers going just a tad too fast because their speedometer is a little off. This varies from state to state and even around cities. Revenue is the only factor that causes this to be changed. As in speed traps.

By cons standard every police car, ambulance and fire truck is breaking the law when they go over the speed limit or cross at a red light without stopping. So exceptions are written into the law. The officers also have discretion as to whether to cite someone or not.

Going over the speed limit is a infraction of the law, not a crime. The penalty for this a fine. Speeding doesn't make anyone a criminal.

[ConHog]

Most traffic cops run their radar guns at about 11 mph over the speed limit. This is to allow for errors and drivers going just a tad too fast because their speedometer is a little off. This varies from state to state and even around cities. Revenue is the only factor that causes this to be changed. As in speed traps.

By cons standard every police car, ambulance and fire truck is breaking the law when they go over the speed limit or cross at a red light without stopping. So exceptions are written into the law. The officers also have discretion as to whether to cite someone or not.

Going over the speed limit is a infraction of the law, not a crime. The penalty for this a fine. Speeding doesn't make anyone a criminal.

I think I noted that police have discretion about who they ticket. And of course you are correct. It is not a crime, but those who speed are not abiding the law either. Really no different than being in this country illegally. I didn't mean to imply that I believed a speeder was a criminal.

[Nukeman]

I think I noted that police have discretion about who they ticket. And of course you are correct. It is not a crime, but those who speed are not abiding the law either. Really no different than being in this country illegally. I didn't mean to imply that I believed a speeder was a criminal.
YOU can not be serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU are actually comparing Illegaly entering the country with speeding. My God you have shown depths of stupidity that I have NEVER imagined!!! YOU are CRAZY and nothing else you say in this thread has any meaning to me, or others I am sure.. STUPID..STUPID..STUPID and I am shaking my head as I type that.....

Oh and I don't recall you posting anything about officers having discretion to issue tickets or not...

[ConHog]

YOU can not be serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU are actually comparing Illegaly entering the country with speeding. My God you have shown depths of stupidity that I have NEVER imagined!!! YOU are CRAZY and nothing else you say in this thread has any meaning to me, or others I am sure.. STUPID..STUPID..STUPID and I am shaking my head as I type that.....

Oh and I don't recall you posting anything about officers having discretion to issue tickets or not...

As far as the law is concerned speeding and being in this country illegally are about the same level of "crime"

but under my policy, I'm no longer going to take part in threads when I feel that posts have crossed the line............. so enjoy this thread without me from this point .

[Nukeman]

As far as the law is concerned speeding and being in this country illegally are about the same level of "crime"

but under my policy, I'm no longer going to take part in threads when I feel that posts have crossed the line............. so enjoy this thread without me from this point .Whatever dude.... You havent actually posed anything usefull in the thread anyway, Good luck with your "new" policy. Is that the same as I've been proven wrong by so many that instead of admitting defeat I will just leave the thread on some lame pretense???