New car purchases starting in June will have mandatory black box

[Explorer]

Well pointed out that these will not be broadcasting, but instead will be readable, in the same way one can read engine codes and sensor data from an automobile's computer.

I'm hearing a strange assertion behind some posts regarding the police using the data: The data will be manipulated to show that you are guilty of something, in order to fine you.

Like reading engine codes from a vehicle's computer, though, there isn't a way to overwrite the computer in order to falsify data in the way being implied. You'll be able to read the black box as easily as the police. You can have an independent group read the box and submit the readings to both the police and your defense attorney. No one can falsify that evidence.

Hmm. Maybe I'm misreading the situation, and the assumption is that some of you *know* you'll be breaking the law, and don't like the idea of that being logged. This will serve as an excellent reminder, then, that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that you shouldn't break the law.

It's like listening to objections about red light cameras, and how they are sources of revenue... but those arguing against them rarely raise the point that there is only enforcement when the cameras show someone running a red light, which is illegal. It becomes about their civil liberties, and they conveniently sidestep the civil liberty of everyone else to be free of being struck by a vehicle running a red light. *laugh*

 

[Stealthdjentstic]

Fuck that, how will people test their new cars out

 

[The Reverend]

At what point are we allowed to not break the law in private? I have nothing to hide from Big Brother, but I'm not willing to have my entire life's statistics and data recorded and compiled. At some point, there needs to be a limit to how far the authorities can go to make sure I'm not abusing my privileges.

 

[Thrashmanzac]

good thing my 77 gemini shows no signs of dying on me

 

[avenger]

Well pointed out that these will not be broadcasting, but instead will be readable, in the same way one can read engine codes and sensor data from an automobile's computer.

I'm hearing a strange assertion behind some posts regarding the police using the data: The data will be manipulated to show that you are guilty of something, in order to fine you.

Like reading engine codes from a vehicle's computer, though, there isn't a way to overwrite the computer in order to falsify data in the way being implied. You'll be able to read the black box as easily as the police. You can have an independent group read the box and submit the readings to both the police and your defense attorney. No one can falsify that evidence.

Hmm. Maybe I'm misreading the situation, and the assumption is that some of you *know* you'll be breaking the law, and don't like the idea of that being logged. This will serve as an excellent reminder, then, that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that you shouldn't break the law.

It's like listening to objections about red light cameras, and how they are sources of revenue... but those arguing against them rarely raise the point that there is only enforcement when the cameras show someone running a red light, which is illegal. It becomes about their civil liberties, and they conveniently sidestep the civil liberty of everyone else to be free of being struck by a vehicle running a red light. *laugh*

Red light cameras are bullshit. They have nothing to do with safety its just a money grab by your city who in turn has to pay the redlight camera company most of the revenue anyhow so the money doesnt even get put back into your local government.

I beleive it was an LA Times article that showed how redlight cameras didnt reduce T bone accidents in intersections but INCREASED rear end collisions because people slam the break to not hit the intersection.

Also the yellow light times get slowly decreased making it harder to not get caught with your ass in the intersection when the light turns red. Also they end up giving out lots of illegal tickets for making a legal right on red.

Sometimes people complaining have a valid reason and arent just crazy.

 

[Xaios]

At what point are we allowed to not break the law in private? I have nothing to hide from Big Brother, but I'm not willing to have my entire life's statistics and data recorded and compiled. At some point, there needs to be a limit to how far the authorities can go to make sure I'm not abusing my privileges.

Hate to break it to you, but speeding and dangerous driving does not constitute breaking the law "in private."

 

[groph]

Tinfoil hat mode engaged.

 

[Overtone]

I'm ok with it if they lay out EXACTLY how it will be used. If they expect us to buy the cars, we should expect to tell us what they will/won't do with that info. From what I understand the purpose is also similar to the airplane black box... it's not to monitor you, but in the event of a serious accident, they will use the data as part of the investigation. This could help them to figure out who is liable, what happened, etc., and they claim it would only be part of the overall investigation which would include lots of other types of data. So if they make it clear in law that that is the only valid use, then I don't think people will be so opposed to it... if they shove it down everybody's throats without properly explaining it, dick move.

 

[Origin]

Well thank god the most expensive car I would consider is a Jetta under 15 years old. Could you not conceivably disable or remove the box once you got a car and just put it back in when it got regular service so a mechanic would just see it and not report it or something? Unless...yeah that probably wouldn't work haha.

 

[SirMyghin]

Red light cameras are bullshit. They have nothing to do with safety its just a money grab by your city who in turn has to pay the redlight camera company most of the revenue anyhow so the money doesnt even get put back into your local government.

I beleive it was an LA Times article that showed how redlight cameras didnt reduce T bone accidents in intersections but INCREASED rear end collisions because people slam the break to not hit the intersection.

Also the yellow light times get slowly decreased making it harder to not get caught with your ass in the intersection when the light turns red. Also they end up giving out lots of illegal tickets for making a legal right on red.

Sometimes people complaining have a valid reason and arent just crazy.

Yellow lights were shortened eh? Got a source for that, as having the run down on intersection design (and being part of the profession which does it) I have never heard that one before. The reason it increased rear end collisions has nothing to do with the camera, but drivers A) following too closely and B) not paying enough attention to their surround.

It is similar to the all red period in an intersection, it does absolutely nothing. It was introduced as they thought it would reduce T bone colisions (which have a much higher insident of fatality), as it used to be after yellow the other side got green immediately on red. It worked... Briefly, and then drivers started taking advantage of it as you see now.

Most cams cost more to operate than they generate, but there are a few places where they continually generate revenue due to idiots. It has to do with peoples expectations and willingness to change, not the camera. A rear end collision is very rarely unavoidable, and often the fault of the driver behind when occuring at an intersection.

 

[Cheesebuiscut]

the assumption is that some of you *know* you'll be breaking the law, and don't like the idea of that being logged.

Yeah because them using shit like this to tax mileage and give out more speeding tickets based on arbitrary speed limits that aren't even remotely close to driving habits and don't accurately represent a realistic speed limit is totally a reminder that driving is a privilege...

Right.


I'd be all for this if it kept to the simpler things of just being able to record what happened right before an accident or things of that nature, but all the revenue boosting bullshit that will come with that is going to cause more problems then the help that will cause.

I mean idiots and shitty drivers won't magically stop being idiots and shitty drivers just because theres a fanciful box that records how shitty they are at it. I can't imagine the people really pushing for this have anything other than money in mind, and are just using the safety applications for marketing.

 

[Chickenhawk]

...isn't The Examiner a tabloid?

 

[avenger]

Yellow lights were shortened eh? Got a source for that, as having the run down on intersection design (and being part of the profession which does it) I have never heard that one before. The reason it increased rear end collisions has nothing to do with the camera, but drivers A) following too closely and B) not paying enough attention to their surround.

It is similar to the all red period in an intersection, it does absolutely nothing. It was introduced as they thought it would reduce T bone colisions (which have a much higher insident of fatality), as it used to be after yellow the other side got green immediately on red. It worked... Briefly, and then drivers started taking advantage of it as you see now.

Most cams cost more to operate than they generate, but there are a few places where they continually generate revenue due to idiots. It has to do with peoples expectations and willingness to change, not the camera. A rear end collision is very rarely unavoidable, and often the fault of the driver behind when occuring at an intersection.

6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit

 

[highlordmugfug]

Yellow lights were shortened eh? Got a source for that, as having the run down on intersection design (and being part of the profession which does it) I have never heard that one before. The reason it increased rear end collisions has nothing to do with the camera, but drivers A) following too closely and B) not paying enough attention to their surround.

shotening yellow lights - Google Search

Shorter yellow lights boost red-light camera revenue | Technically Incorrect - CNET News

Stop Short Yellow Lights Project | National Motorists Association Foundation

Cities Shortening Yellow Lights In Dangerous Fundraising Initiative

Cities Shortening Yellow Traffic Lights for Deadly Profit | Civil Liberties | AlterNet

You're fired bro.

 

[SirMyghin]

Fair enough, but if the light was shortened, and people obviously know about it, still their own fault if they get caught.

 

[highlordmugfug]

Fair enough, but if the light was shortened, and people obviously know about it, still their own fault if they get caught.

It's not about 'getting caught': in the town that I work in, the yellow lights are much shorter than anywhere else (I live in one town, work in another, and go to college in yet another, plus I drive through various towns to get to all of them, and I go to visit friends in two other towns very often, all in all I drive about 550 miles a week most of the time, so I've got lots of experience ), and the other directions light turns green immediately after the other lights are red. Just going 35 (the speed limit), I've had to slam on the breaks to keep from running a red light. Plus I have to be ultra careful about people behind me so I don't get rear ended.

They do it to try and generate revenue through red light cameras/tickets, and they make driving much more dangerous in the process. They're not catching anyone who was already breaking the law, they're making it more difficult to be a safe driver and follow the law so they can get more money. It's bullshit.

 

[SirMyghin]

It's not about 'getting caught': in the town that I work in, the yellow lights are much shorter than anywhere else (I live in one town, work in another, and go to college in yet another, plus I drive through various towns to get to all of them, and I go to visit friends in two other towns very often, all in all I drive about 550 miles a week most of the time, so I've got lots of experience ), and the other directions light turns green immediately after the other lights are red. Just going 35 (the speed limit), I've had to slam on the breaks to keep from running a red light. Plus I have to be ultra careful about people behind me so I don't get rear ended.

They do it to try and generate revenue through red light cameras/tickets, and they make driving much more dangerous in the process. They're not catching anyone who was already breaking the law, they're making it more difficult to be a safe driver and follow the law so they can get more money. It's bullshit.

True I was thinking breaking distances a bit and that is a bit steep, PRT of 1.5s + breaking distance of a car af 50km/h (speed limit in our citites) you need about 30m total. This doesn't change the fact most people choose to accelerate well outside of that to blast through lights. The drivers where I am are especially ridiculous on the intergreen. The light needs to be that breaking distance + the width of the intersection at the speed limit long, seeing as most people respond well before the design time however (especially in heavily controlled areas due to alertness) even that is a bit generous.

 

[Skanky]

Well pointed out that these will not be broadcasting, but instead will be readable, in the same way one can read engine codes and sensor data from an automobile's computer.

I'm hearing a strange assertion behind some posts regarding the police using the data: The data will be manipulated to show that you are guilty of something, in order to fine you.

Like reading engine codes from a vehicle's computer, though, there isn't a way to overwrite the computer in order to falsify data in the way being implied. You'll be able to read the black box as easily as the police. You can have an independent group read the box and submit the readings to both the police and your defense attorney. No one can falsify that evidence.

Hmm. Maybe I'm misreading the situation, and the assumption is that some of you *know* you'll be breaking the law, and don't like the idea of that being logged. This will serve as an excellent reminder, then, that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that you shouldn't break the law.

It's like listening to objections about red light cameras, and how they are sources of revenue... but those arguing against them rarely raise the point that there is only enforcement when the cameras show someone running a red light, which is illegal. It becomes about their civil liberties, and they conveniently sidestep the civil liberty of everyone else to be free of being struck by a vehicle running a red light. *laugh*

Let's also go ahead and let the government log every phone call and every email that we send so that they can find those nasty terrorists among our midst! Oh wait, they're already doing that.

Maybe we should also all submit to having full-time surveillance of our homes so that if anything illegal happens inside them, the perps could be arrested for it.

Or for that matter, let's go ahead and microchip everyone so that we are prevented from going anywhere illegal (trespassing). It would make alibis a thing of the past too!

In the future, we could have scanners implanted in our brains so that even the very thought of committing crime could be dealt with swiftly!

 

[highlordmugfug]

True I was thinking breaking distances a bit and that is a bit steep, PRT of 1.5s + breaking distance of a car af 50km/h (speed limit in our citites) you need about 30m total. This doesn't change the fact most people choose to accelerate well outside of that to blast through lights. The drivers where I am are especially ridiculous on the intergreen. The light needs to be that breaking distance + the width of the intersection at the speed limit long, seeing as most people respond well before the design time however (especially in heavily controlled areas due to alertness) even that is a bit generous.

And yeah, there are a lot of cunts out there, but they'll act/drive terrible regardless of what's going on around them, so there's only so much that can be done (not making it less safe for everyone else like the cities that shorten the lights beyond reason being one of those things ).


Something else: the town I work in has a population of right around 10,000 (it's like 10,186 or something), yet everytime I'm in town, I see a minimum of 6-8 police cruisers driving around, and I only go down 2 streets.
Mayfield Profile | Mayfield KY | Population, Crime, Map

They want dat cash and they want it bad.

Back to the thread's topic: if they use it just for accidents to figure out what happened and who was at fault and such, I have absolutely no issue with it. But if they're really considering using it for all of these other invasive and bullshit revenue generating purposes (taxing people based on mileage they travel for example), then fuck it as hard as possible.

 

[synrgy]

I don't see this going very well for the US auto industry if this story gets much more attention from our media.