SnyderShrugged Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 http://detnews.com/article/20110526/AUTO01/105260436/1148/U.S.-to-propose-mandatory-vehicle-%C3%82%E2%80%98black-boxes%C3%82%E2%80%99 The U.S. Transportation Department said today it will propose making vehicle "black boxes" mandatory in all vehicles by the end of the year. The department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has long considered whether to make black boxes, officially called event data recorders, or EDRs, mandatory. They collect data about the seconds leading up to a crash and can help investigators determine the cause. Last year, Congress considered requiring EDRs in all vehicles. NHTSA Administrator David Strickland told Congress the agency was studying the issue. The plan was included in a 197-page Transportation Department regulatory reform proposal released by the White House this morning. "NHTSA plans to propose mandatory EDRs in all passenger vehicles in 2011," the Transportation Department said in the report. In a separate agency document posted on its website, NHTSA said it is also working on a proposal "for future enhancements to (EDRs) capabilities and applicability." From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110526/AUTO01/105260436/U.S.-to-propose-mandatory-vehicle-‘black-boxes’#ixzz1NYAWvvSP more at link (was anyone else surprised to learn that so many vehicles already have them? ) :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Yea i was going to say i thought all new cars already had them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Another reason I love driving all my old 80s cars. No electronic nannies all through the car everywhere, cheap to run and own, no stupid computers everywhere to go bad, just simple, straightforward cars. How long before you check your mail and have a speeding ticket waiting for you because your black box sent a speeding notification to the local federalis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Don't like this either. I'm getting old... or paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Why is this necessary? Humans can figure out crash causes on our own. Most of the time it's pretty obvious. Do we need a black box to tell us that this guy was texting just before he smashed into the back of the stopped truck? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 ...A pretty basic question, unanswered in the article, is how much do these cost us? As if new cars aren't expensive enough already... And no, I had no idea they've already been in most cars for several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 Why is this necessary?Humans can figure out crash causes on our own. Most of the time it's pretty obvious. Do we need a black box to tell us that this guy was texting just before he smashed into the back of the stopped truck? ~Bang Its not necessary at all. Just another breach of personal liberty and privacy. But because it will be painted as "for our own good", just like almost every other overreach of the Feds, we sheep must comply or else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 This makes sense espicially when you have a dispute like the last couple of years with the whole Toyota accelarator stickage and them saying no it is not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 GM has been using these to deny warranty claims for years, cause they're classy like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 GM has been using these to deny warranty claims for years, cause they're classy like that. Government Motors? Say it ain't so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 This makes sense espicially when you have a dispute like the last couple of years with the whole Toyota accelarator stickage and them saying no it is not No, In America, it really makes no sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 No, In America, it really makes no sense at all. Why critical thought is not used? I get into an accident and I go on the net and say what happened and the car I was driving and other people who have accidents say oh the same happened to me, it was the car not me,I fight in court that I am fault and the insurance compnaies then sue the automakers or they get fined so they decide they want to protect themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 So they've been used in cars for 20 years? I consider myself fairly well read, but I can't recall reading anything about a car crash investigation in which information from one of these was used. Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Possible idea: Require the things in trucks, first? There's a lot fewer of them. I assume that the incremental cost will hit them considerably less. On those occasions when they have accidents, they do vastly more damage. And they're already much more regulated. Less expectation of privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 Why critical thought is not used?I get into an accident and I go on the net and say what happened and the car I was driving and other people who have accidents say oh the same happened to me, it was the car not me,I fight in court that I am fault and the insurance compnaies then sue the automakers or they get fined so they decide they want to protect themselves. sure, thats one way to try and justify an absolute invasion of privacy. Heck, we use these warm fuzzy scenarios to justify abuses all the time. It's "for our own good", right? Again, that isnt what my country is supposed to be. ---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 09:06 AM ---------- So they've been used in cars for 20 years? I consider myself fairly well read, but I can't recall reading anything about a car crash investigation in which information from one of these was used. Nothing. Thats something that really knocked me back too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Just out of curiosity, in y'all's opinions, what percentage of car accidents was one of the drivers on his cell phone at the time of the accident? Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it's half. Seems like, when I'm driving down the road, that around one car in four is driving while phoning. And I assume that most accidents involve more than one car. And that cell phone drivers aree disproportionately represented. What percentage of accidents, in y'all's opinion, does the driver say he was on the cell phone at the time of the accident? One percent? Same question, but with speeding? What percentage of accidents, and what percentage of accidents do they say it happened? How about turn signal usage? Following too close? Now, would black boxes cut down on these things? I really doubt it. I have to confess that I'm not really sure how much a law like this would really help society. I don't really see it as a big invasion. (Since it's something that would only be used in cases where there has been an accident. I think of it like video cameras at businesses. They record everything. But nobody even looks at the tape unless there's a robbery. The rest of the time, the invasion of privacy just gets recorded over.) But I don't see a big benefit, either. (Although I do think that I'm seeing a lot more of behavior in which people simply openly violate the laws, because they're convinced that they'll almost always get away with it, and even if something bad does happen, then they'll just lie about it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 Just out of curiosity, in y'all's opinions, what percentage of car accidents was one of the drivers on his cell phone at the time of the accident? Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it's half. Seems like, when I'm driving down the road, that around one car in four is driving while phoning. And I assume that most accidents involve more than one car. And that cell phone drivers aree disproportionately represented. What percentage of accidents, in y'all's opinion, does the driver say he was on the cell phone at the time of the accident? One percent? Same question, but with speeding? What percentage of accidents, and what percentage of accidents do they say it happened? How about turn signal usage? Following too close? Now, would black boxes cut down on these things? I really doubt it. I have to confess that I'm not really sure how much a law like this would really help society. I don't really see it as a big invasion. (Since it's something that would only be used in cases where there has been an accident. I think of it like video cameras at businesses. They record everything. But nobody even looks at the tape unless there's a robbery. The rest of the time, the invasion of privacy just gets recorded over.) But I don't see a big benefit, either. (Although I do think that I'm seeing a lot more of behavior in which people simply openly violate the laws, because they're convinced that they'll almost always get away with it, and even if something bad does happen, then they'll just lie about it.) curious, why do you think it would "only" be used in investigating accidents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 curious, why do you think it would "only" be used in investigating accidents? Because that's what this law says, and I'm discussing the current law? (Or at least, that's the impression I'm getting here.) Now are you willing to answer my questions, instead of playing "let's ignore current reality, and discuss my opinion of a hypothetical future"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 Because that's what this law says, and I'm discussing the current law? (Or at least, that's the impression I'm getting here.) Now are you willing to answer my questions, instead of playing "let's ignore current reality, and discuss my opinion of a hypothetical future"? Not sure why you felt compelled to be rude, but I'll take the high road in order to show you that a conversation can be had without that childishness. I asked a simple question for clarification and thats how you decide to respond. whatever. On topic, I dont believe that the article stated anywhere that they will "only" be used for accidents. It just said that it was "a" use for them, nowhere did exclusivity appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I'm okay with this, but I think there should be very clear limits set forth on access to the info. It is a slippery slope for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 they can already spy on you using your own cell phone (even when it's off). This is just one more step in the same direction. It will only be a matter of time before everyone is tagged and monitored... purely for security reasons of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Change we can believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 they can already spy on you using your own cell phone (even when it's off). This is just one more step in the same direction. It will only be a matter of time before everyone is tagged and monitored... purely for security reasons of course. But its only for accident investigations? whats the harm? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 But its only for accident investigations? whats the harm? LOL And we're only listening to the phone calls of "known terrorists." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 curious, why do you think it would "only" be used in investigating accidents? Do you mean you think that with a simple software upgrade, your black box can be used to tax you based on the amount of miles you drive to recoup revenue lost by the Gas tax because people are driving less miles, drive fuel efficient cars or use Metro more often?? You conspiracy guys have to stop thinking the government is out to come up with new methods to steal err find better uses with our money while forcing us to eventually ride bikes everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.