New car purchases starting in June will have mandatory black box

[SirMyghin]

you honestly think that you deserve to have your car crushed if you continually break the speed limit? i hope your just trying to make a statment and not serious. thats like deserving to get your hand cut off for stealing. that used to be a just law. so back then they deserved it right? Or like a bank charging your account up to ten 35 dollar over draft fees per overdraft. i understand that there are penaties for breaking laws but 300 dollars for not yeilding to a pedestrain not in a cross walk is fucked up. thats the law in oregon. if a ped is on the corner waiting to cross the street and you dont yeild you can get a 300 dollar fine. for what? making him wait a few seconds before he can safley cross the road?

300$ is a small fine (and overall not much money at all. There has to be some incentive to obey the laws, not having to donate to the law enforcement is one of them. The fine for cell phones here is only 155$, and no demerit points. You want people to stop talking on phones while driving you jack up the price, or add demerits. The demerits would be a much bigger motivator.

Pedestrian right of way is a different issue, but one I agree with as they lose the crash everytime.

 

[Xaios]

Heh, I was actually hit by a car when I was in high school. It threw me a few meters, but I actually walked away unscathed. I was pretty damn lucky.

 

[Daemoniac]

you honestly think that you deserve to have your car crushed if you continually break the speed limit? i hope your just trying to make a statment and not serious. thats like deserving to get your hand cut off for stealing. that used to be a just law. so back then they deserved it right? Or like a bank charging your account up to ten 35 dollar over draft fees per overdraft. i understand that there are penaties for breaking laws but 300 dollars for not yeilding to a pedestrain not in a cross walk is fucked up. thats the law in oregon. if a ped is on the corner waiting to cross the street and you dont yeild you can get a 300 dollar fine. for what? making him wait a few seconds before he can safley cross the road?

im sorry but having laws set up to drain the fuck out of peoples bank account when they "arrogantly break the law" is messed up. i dont get to fine police 2-3 hundred dollars for flashing their lights so blow through a red light (explorer im not going to google law suites where this has happened just know that i have seen it as have other forum members im sure) or when they bright you for a fuckin mile to promp you to speed so they can tag you. that shit happens, not as often as people speed, but still.

my point is this, getting your license susspended for multiple traffic violations is understandable but the prices are totally fucked up. i have expeirienced multiple times where I or the driver has been pulled over and i can say with 100% honesty the at least 60% of the fines given out were totally fucked up.

feel free to crush your own car if you catch your self speeding repeatedly, dont forget to pay the maximum fines each time as well.

It's the law dude... Comparing that to the middle east where you'd lose your hand if you stole once is ridiculous to begin with because a) you aren't the middle east, b) I'm not suggesting you lose a limb for it, and c) unlike your limbs, owning a car is not a right, it is a god damn privilege and if you are going to so blatantly abuse it that badly you deserve to lose it, your car, and a great chunk of your money.

I understand that some speed limits "seem" stupid, in which case send letters to the appropriate authority and get other people to do the same to try and change it instead of just breaking the law and putting everyone else's lives at risk every time you drive down there and ignore the speed limit (which you are doing, like it or not).

 

[G_3_3_k_]

By the way...

Event Data Recorders have been in use for years. You've probably already got one in your car now.

Insurance companies love them - it gives them real data to use for basing their insurance policy rates. I remember reading somwhere that many insurance companies subsidized the cost of implementing them in new vehicles. I don't have a source for this.

WHat's new here is now the government realizes that they too can use this data for their gain.

There are valid reasons for having this data, and there are ethically questionable ones.

Anyone who thinks that this is about safety is deluded. The US government is a corporation. What do corporations do? They make profit. Namely for those holding the real power, lawmakers and the other corporations involved. If you think that anything our government has done in the last 30-50 years isn't directly related to financial gain, you're an idiot. In a capitalist society, it always comes down to the same bottom line. $

 

[Explorer]

i understand that there are penaties for breaking laws but 300 dollars for not yeilding to a pedestrain not in a cross walk is fucked up. thats the law in oregon. if a ped is on the corner waiting to cross the street and you dont yeild you can get a 300 dollar fine. for what? making him wait a few seconds before he can safley cross the road?

Regarding that law:

Pedestrian safety has long been a concern for the City. In downtown Portland, 72% of pedestrian collisions are a result of driver error. Citywide, 49% of pedestrian injuries happen in a crosswalk. One out of three traffic fatalities is a pedestrian or a bicyclist (Portland 1985 – 2000), and pedestrian injuries are the third leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children.

So, since you're asking why Oregon law states that every corner is a crosswalk, the reason is that some drivers have injured and killed a lot of people.

The reason the fines are so high is because of what is at stake: someone's life.

The great irony is that you're arguing against the pedestrians possibly being saved a few seconds, but in a way that seems like you're resentful of how obeying that law, yielding to pedestrians, is costing you a few seconds.

I don't know how arrogant it is to be angry at pedestrians for slowing one down, but if you disagree, there is definitely something you can do. Go argue for protections against pedestrian injury and death to be removed. If the idea is such an obvious one, then your fellow citizens will jump behind it, and elect officials who are in favor of autos over pedestrians. Those kids who were injured are just collateral damage.

Good luck!

 

[Daemoniac]

^ So much this.

EDIT: But I would also argue that the fines are not high enough...

 

[Scruffy1012]

Id buy the car, find the black box and accidentally ... "lose it.".

 

[G_3_3_k_]

It's the law dude... Comparing that to the middle east where you'd lose your hand if you stole once is ridiculous to begin with because a) you aren't the middle east, b) I'm not suggesting you lose a limb for it, and c) unlike your limbs, owning a car is not a right, it is a god damn privilege and if you are going to so blatantly abuse it that badly you deserve to lose it, your car, and a great chunk of your money.

I understand that some speed limits "seem" stupid, in which case send letters to the appropriate authority and get other people to do the same to try and change it instead of just breaking the law and putting everyone else's lives at risk every time you drive down there and ignore the speed limit (which you are doing, like it or not).

To me taking a car for repeated traffic violations is damn close to unlawful seizure. Its close to stupid too, considering its eliminating a guaranteed revenue stream. Impound is different and make much more sense. 7 speeding tickets is different than reckless endangerment. Punishments should fit the crimes. Believe me, taking my license away for six months does far more damage to me finacially than the tickets would. I understand the need for fines and support the institution. But they should always fit the crime. I'm for a black box for research. I don't think it should have anything to do with law enforcement at all. They can already determine fault at the scene of an accident based on forensic analysis. And if people don't call the cops to the scene of an accident due to no insurance, etc., they should be smart enough to deal with the situation without a jury. Otherwise, both parties should be fined.

 

[Explorer]

There is no law in which someone's vehicle is seized for traffic offenses. Forfeiture of one's license is a real possibility, though.

I knew someone who had 5 drunk driving offenses. He was always complaining about how oppressed he was, and that if he wanted to drive, the state was going to make him pay for a monitoring system to be installed in his car. He started talking about all the ways he was going to circumvent the system.

"S-, dude... why can't you just not drink and drive? If you're not capable of doing that, at least admit that the problem is yours?"

It was weird... a bit after that, he started investigating what benefits his job offered to quit drinking, and he started to turn his life around.

It's amazing to think that he finally understood that he was the one who was in the wrong, and that he did something with that knowledge.

----

Anyway, in the context of this topic, I just flashed back to when S. was always bitching about how others were conspiring to catch him when he was breaking the law. There is an obvious lack of insight when it's about how they're out to catch you, while completely refusing all responsibility for actually breaking the law....

 

[The Reverend]

There is no law in which someone's vehicle is seized for traffic offenses. Forfeiture of one's license is a real possibility, though.

I knew someone who had 5 drunk driving offenses. He was always complaining about how oppressed he was, and that if he wanted to drive, the state was going to make him pay for a monitoring system to be installed in his car. He started talking about all the ways he was going to circumvent the system.

"S-, dude... why can't you just not drink and drive? If you're not capable of doing that, at least admit that the problem is yours?"

It was weird... a bit after that, he started investigating what benefits his job offered to quit drinking, and he started to turn his life around.

It's amazing to think that he finally understood that he was the one who was in the wrong, and that he did something with that knowledge.

----

Anyway, in the context of this topic, I just flashed back to when S. was always bitching about how others were conspiring to catch him when he was breaking the law. There is an obvious lack of insight when it's about how they're out to catch you, while completely refusing all responsibility for actually breaking the law....

For me, the problem is the same as your friend's. They're trying to catch me breaking the law.

The difference is, I'm not breaking it. Like I said earlier in this thread, just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I feel like having the Eye of Sauron staring at me 24/7.

I guess an analogy I could make would be just because I'm happy with my body doesn't mean I'm okay with people seeing me naked.

 

[Revan132]

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*

So I take it you do the exact speed limit and obey every single posted law while driving? If you were to go 5, or even 10 miles per hour over the speed limit by not gluing your eyes to the speedometer you would be "breaking the law." So you would be totally okay with getting fined for slipping up once and awhile?
I don't need somebody knowing every little mistake that happens. Sometimes this stuff goes beyond right and wrong; you aren't making any helpful insights, just pointing out that everyone is generally against it for one unified reason.
As the poster above pointed out already, red light cameras are revenue collectors in a big way. I have slammed on my breaks too many times to count for fear of getting a ticket. I have been lucky enough to escape getting rear-ended. They make the lights more dangerous, if anything.

 

[aslsmm]

^ So much this..

^^

 

[Explorer]

So I take it you do the exact speed limit and obey every single posted law while driving? If you were to go 5, or even 10 miles per hour over the speed limit by not gluing your eyes to the speedometer you would be "breaking the law." So you would be totally okay with getting fined for slipping up once and awhile?

Actually, I do drive within the speed limit, and slow down if conditions are bad. Having cruise control makes it easy to not jam down the pedal on longer drives, but I'm capable of keeping it down without using it.

However, if I were to slip up, and got a ticket... why wouldn't I acknowledge that I broke the law and pay my fine?

----

At some point years ago, I was coming back from quite a distance away, and had been driving all day. I had my kid in the car, and I was anxious to get home. I got waved over on the highway, huge amount of officers for a massive enforcement sweep, and I waited for the officer to approach my window, let him know I was getting out my insurance information, and pulled it out of the glove box. After I gave him my license, registration and other papers, my kid asked why I had been pulled over.

"Well, I was going too fast. I was in too much of a hurry, and so I drove faster than what the signs say. That means I was driving unsafely, and could hurt myself and others, including you. Do you remember what punishments are for?"

"They're not to make us feel bad, but so we remember not to do the bad thing again."

"That's right. So, the officer will write me a ticket which I'll have to pay, That way I'll remember not to do it again."

The officer had me sign something, and then I was confused when he handed me a warning.

Apparently I was the only one he had stopped who hadn't argued with the rightness of his enforcing the law. I was also the only one who recognized that I had been in the wrong.

I hadn't been trying to argue my way out of a ticket. i was trying to teach my child the correct way to take responsibility for his actions, and the only way to teach something like that is to do it yourself. Otherwise, one just becomes one of those hypocritical parents who are not respected by their children.

----

Just like the weird idea that people would be able to read these boxes at a distance, there appears to be another odd idea surfacing: Police will download my box data and write me tickets when there are incidences of breaking the law.

Could someone provide any examples of this in action, or is this another hyperbolic overreaction?

 

[Revan132]

Actually, I do drive within the speed limit, and slow down if conditions are bad. Having cruise control makes it easy to not jam down the pedal on longer drives, but I'm capable of keeping it down without using it.

However, if I were to slip up, and got a ticket... why wouldn't I acknowledge that I broke the law and pay my fine?

----

At some point years ago, I was coming back from quite a distance away, and had been driving all day. I had my kid in the car, and I was anxious to get home. I got waved over on the highway, huge amount of officers for a massive enforcement sweep, and I waited for the officer to approach my window, let him know I was getting out my insurance information, and pulled it out of the glove box. After I gave him my license, registration and other papers, my kid asked why I had been pulled over.

"Well, I was going too fast. I was in too much of a hurry, and so I drove faster than what the signs say. That means I was driving unsafely, and could hurt myself and others, including you. Do you remember what punishments are for?"

"They're not to make us feel bad, but so we remember not to do the bad thing again."

"That's right. So, the officer will write me a ticket which I'll have to pay, That way I'll remember not to do it again."

The officer had me sign something, and then I was confused when he handed me a warning.

Apparently I was the only one he had stopped who hadn't argued with the rightness of his enforcing the law. I was also the only one who recognized that I had been in the wrong.

I hadn't been trying to argue my way out of a ticket. i was trying to teach my child the correct way to take responsibility for his actions, and the only way to teach something like that is to do it yourself. Otherwise, one just becomes one of those hypocritical parents who are not respected by their children.

----

Just like the weird idea that people would be able to read these boxes at a distance, there appears to be another odd idea surfacing: Police will download my box data and write me tickets when there are incidences of breaking the law.

Could someone provide any examples of this in action, or is this another hyperbolic overreaction?

Gee, I guess you are just the epitome of model citizenry in this country than, since you feel the need to dismiss everyone's worries and insinuate that they are grossly exaggerating a potential violation of their civil liberties to some measure of privacy. You seem to address each point everybody is making with some kind of hyperbolic personal moral-fiber story, as if you never exhibit anger, misjudgment, or even question the law's ethics at all in any case. If you want to continue to try and teach everybody that the law is never jaded at all, resume the lesson, but I personally believe that it is you who needs a wake up call. The law can be, and is jaded, for many reasons. It isn't so black and white.

 

[avenger]

It will be awesome when we get to live in a big white bubble of a world

 

[Xaios]

Gee, I guess you are just the epitome of model citizenry in this country than, since you feel the need to dismiss everyone's worries and insinuate that they are grossly exaggerating a potential violation of their civil liberties to some measure of privacy.

Explorer and I disagree on a number of things, but frankly, you ARE grossly exaggerating.

 

[Dirtdog]

They will outlaw used vehicles soon I guess, and make you buy a new one.

 

[Explorer]

@Revan:

So... you don't like that I believe in personal responsibility?

And, if that's the case... am I supposed to respect that?

I've posted stories where I disagree with certain laws, and about my willingness to fight them through different means, including having the courage of my convictions and going to court and trying for jury nullification.

However, that's not even the point here.

The fact that you don't that I was willing to step up when I was guilty of something, and had to attack it... is that really the kind of person you want to be? That you want your children to be?

----

Anyway, this thread isn't about you not liking someone being responsible, or you rejecting such responsibility for yourself. It's about the black boxes which currently collect accident data.

And, I suppose, it's also about the weird speculation about what will happen if someone reads the boxes and writes tickets retroactively, even though there is no statutory way to do so.

Cheers!

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

I'm generally fine with sticking to the speed limit. The only instance I can think of where it's annoying to not speed is when someone in front of me on a two-lane highway is going just a few mph under the speed limit (say, 52 or 53), so if I don't bump my speed from 55 up to 57-60 while passing them I'd be spending an unfcomfortable amount of time in the oncoming traffic lane while passing them. Out of curiousity for those that are more knowledeable than I am, is it illegal to speed under those circumstances? If not, then retroactive ticketing for speeding using prerecorded data would be right out the window. If so, then... well, damn. I guess driving into town on the two-way will be even more annoying .

 

[AxeHappy]

Yes, it's illegal to speed whilst passing.

Arguing for Jury Nullification is also technically illegal.