# New car purchases starting in June will have mandatory black box



## leonardo7 (Jun 2, 2011)

Now this is over the top:

New car purchases starting in June will have a mandatory black box installed - National Finance Examiner | Examiner.com


----------



## PyramidSmasher (Jun 2, 2011)

fuck that I speed alot


----------



## Korngod (Jun 2, 2011)

wow. good thing i drive a *91* mustang that sucks down gas like an alcoholic drinks alcohol.... but then again, I have a smart phone


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jun 2, 2011)

While the concept of installing a black box in new automobiles has several good points in assisting law enforcement and emergency services as to the location and circumstances of an accident or road emergency, *policies currently underway by many municipalities and states show that public safety personnel are now being used more as revenue collectors than as first responders to incidents as they occur.*
Continue reading on Examiner.com New car purchases starting in June will have a mandatory black box installed - National Finance Examiner | Examiner.com New car purchases starting in June will have a mandatory black box installed - National Finance Examiner | Examiner.com

Do not want, fuck that shit.



​


----------



## ZEBOV (Jun 2, 2011)

Here's an idea: Don't buy anything new.


----------



## poopyalligator (Jun 2, 2011)

I would uninstall that thing lol.


----------



## HighGain510 (Jun 2, 2011)

poopyalligator said:


> I would uninstall that thing lol.



Says in the article since they are mandatory, it is illegal to remove them. Guess who is going to be coming after you as soon as they discover a monitoring device goes offline?  Sounds like bad news to me, nothing beneficial to the public can come of this, sounds like more revenue generation than anything.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 2, 2011)

Where does it say it would broadcast? It says information could be 'downloaded' leading me to believe it needs to be taken directly off the vehicle.

I don't really have an issue with this, if it keeps people from speeding/wearing a seatbelt and in turn being a bit more safe, all the better. They are choosing to break the law, so maybe they will think twice if they are going to have to deal with the consequences regardless. Driving is not a right, it is a priviledge so how it is monitorred should reflect that. If you are wearing seat belts and driving at the limit or close you likely won't have any issues. It will also free up law enforcement to deal more with REAL problems. 

Sort of similar to how things have gone with cell phones, they check up on activity around accident times and insurance may or may not veto your claims due to it. Another thing I have very little issue with. 

At the end of the day, if you choose to break the law, that is your choice. But you should not be the one whining thereafter. If repeat offenders would like to continue, there is really no issue taking their money, they are just buying illegal activities. The research possibilities presented by the data are also quite large.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 2, 2011)

I've been waiting for this.


----------



## xmetalhead69 (Jun 2, 2011)

This is infuriating. Another step closer to Big Brother.


Also, buying new cars is a horrible financial move anyway.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 2, 2011)

As a professional driver (Bus) I approve anything that makes your average driver pay even the slightest bit more attention to the most dangerous thing the average person will ever do in their life. Driving.


----------



## The Munk (Jun 2, 2011)

I'm gonna drive my bucket until it can't be fixed anymore. After that, I'm getting a horse and wagon.


----------



## aslsmm (Jun 2, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> It will also free up law enforcement to deal more with REAL problems.
> 
> .


 

yeah fuckin right man. i have yet to have cop do anything for me when i need the law to defend me. I have been caught in crosswalk stings and speed traps. this is so cops can have more time to take dicks in their mouths. they will sit on this thing and give ticket after ticket. this isnt for public saftey and i sure as shit didnt vote for this. arent we as americans suppose to vote on this shit? driving is a privilage but having a damn eye on you at all times is horse shit. 

i'll say tis much, if your speeding you deserve a fine but not fuckin 200 dollars for 9 miles over. yeah thats accurate i have a recipt for that bullshit. 

i go 9 over i get a 200 dollar fine. 

me and my brother get jumped by 5 mexicans and my brother stabs one of them and we call the cops, guess what, my brother avoids assault with a deadly weapon charges by a hair. fucking ass backwards.


----------



## nostealbucket (Jun 2, 2011)

I like to talk to myself about my own terrorist plots in my car. Privacy ends here!


----------



## ZXIIIT (Jun 2, 2011)

Drive fast and blast "Breaking The Law" by Judas Priest


----------



## sk3ks1s (Jun 2, 2011)

xmetalhead69 said:


> Also, buying new cars is a horrible financial move anyway.



Not if you buy a Honda.


----------



## MFB (Jun 2, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> If it keeps people from speeding/wearing a seatbelt and in turn being a bit more safe, all the better.



I'm pretty certain me not wearing a seatbelt while driving won't be causing innocent mothers walking with their babies on the sidewalk to start dying any time soon


----------



## ZEBOV (Jun 2, 2011)

I don't wear a seatbelt because I don't really care if I fly through my windshield. Enforcing laws for self protection by wearing seatbelts but making it illegal to carry a gun in Chicago (just an example city) to protect yourself from attackers is rather hypocritical.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jun 2, 2011)

ZEBOV said:


> I don't wear a seatbelt because I don't really care if I fly through my windshield. Enforcing laws for self protection by wearing seatbelts but making it illegal to carry a gun in Chicago (just an example city) to protect yourself from attackers is rather hypocritical.



Ive seen bodies thrown from cars that take out other motorists. Wear your goddamn seatbelt mang.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 3, 2011)

Step 1) Buy new car from Canada.
Step 2) Profit, eh?


----------



## Explorer (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 3, 2011)

Fuck that, how will people test their new cars out


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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


----------



## avenger (Jun 3, 2011)

Explorer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

Tinfoil hat mode engaged.


----------



## Overtone (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 3, 2011)

avenger said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 3, 2011)

Explorer said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

...isn't The Examiner a tabloid?


----------



## avenger (Jun 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jun 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

Explorer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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


----------



## Explorer (Jun 3, 2011)

SS.org is a microcosm of the real world... although, of course, a bit more guitar oriented. Still, for those who foresee huge amounts of US citizens arguing about this... think about how many here on the forum have no problem with it. 

I don't think rejection of this is cut and dried. 

For the person who wondered about being able to break the law in private... there are reasons why the law applies even in one's private life. Dahmer is an easy example, as well as child molestation. However, isn't that "private" question a completely different topic? Or, are you thinking that you'll be affected even if you only drive on your 200 acre private estate? 

The shortening of the yellow lights seems like it would trigger a huge lawsuit, and that those responsible would be guilty of some kind of fraud. I didn't read the links, as I'm short on time, but that kind of manipulation is normally found unlawful, with firings and prosecutions. Further, all it would take would be one enterprising lawyer to film the lights, show how short they were and outside of the lawful requirements, and surprise! class action lawsuit. *laugh*


----------



## Gameboypdc (Jun 3, 2011)

I guess this is the price you pay for the so called right to drive, aka right of passage the freedom that everyone socially seems to place so high in priority. I'm glad I don't drive, and the more I hear about this kind of thing I doubt I ever will. 

Cheers!
Gus


----------



## Skanky (Jun 3, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> 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.




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.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jun 3, 2011)

Gameboypdc said:


> I guess this is the price you pay for the so called right to drive, aka right of passage the freedom that everyone socially seems to place so high in priority. I'm glad I don't drive, and the more I hear about this kind of thing I doubt I ever will.
> 
> Cheers!
> Gus


Don't act so high and mighty man, not all of us are content to stay only wherever we can walk or bike to, there's a whole world out there. 


Skanky said:


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


My car was made in 1993, I'm not sure if it was around then, but yeah.


----------



## Overtone (Jun 3, 2011)

We got the red light cameras here... and within a couple of years they turned them off. Most likely the company installing and running them made bank (the city is still suing them so they can terminate the contract) and the city lost money on the program. Now that they've been off a few months there are conflicting reports... fewer accidents, but more people intentionally running red lights.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 3, 2011)

Personally, I'm all for mandatory governors in all vehicles, with speed limits adjusted via transmitters as soon as you enter a different speed zone. I seriously doubt you would ever see it though since it would gut local revenue streams.

To explain my position on this:

I don't feel speeding is a right that can be infringed on. Driving is sadly a necessity in many places in the US, but it is also a privilege. Perhaps I've just seen one too many friends and acquaintances crippled by reckless drivers and would welcome much higher restrictions and penalties for bad drivers. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've nearly been hit by a speeding motorist (particularly when going through Atlanta).


----------



## Xaios (Jun 3, 2011)

Explorer said:


> SS.org is a microcosm of the real world... although, of course, a bit more guitar oriented.



Three conservatives for every hundred liberals? Not quite, but I get what you're saying. 

As a matter of fact, my uncle was involved in a lawsuit regarding a shortened yellow light a number of years ago. He received a ticket for going through a red light. However, he and his passenger both noticed that the yellow light only appeared for maybe half a second. So they did exactly what Explorer described: took video, went to the court and got the ticket overturned.

The fact of the matter with regards to bad habits, though, is that drivers will always adapt to best take advantage of the system without getting caught. Set the speed limit to 55? They'll do 65. Set it to 75? They'll do 85? Set it to a million? They'll do 150, because that's the fastest their cars will go, but if they could, they would do a million plus 10. Drivers also do everything they can to beat lights. The quintessential example is the driver who starts accelerating through an intersection after the light going the other way has turned red, not after the light for his own lane turns green.

To be honest, there's a fairly obvious visual cue at most intersections with traffic lights that I'm surprised more people don't notice: the pedestrian signal. I use it pretty religiously, and I'd say it's actually made me a better driver. Because the pedestrian signal stops flashing about 2 seconds before a light turns yellow, that gives you five seconds to react instead of three. It's really freaking easy to do.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 3, 2011)

Xaios said:


> The fact of the matter with regards to bad habits, though, is that drivers will always adapt to best take advantage of the system without getting caught. Set the speed limit to 55? They'll do 65. Set it to 75? They'll do 85? Set it to a million? They'll do 150, because that's the fastest their cars will go, but if they could, they would do a million plus 10. Drivers also do everything they can to beat lights. The quintessential example is the driver who starts accelerating through an intersection after the light going the other way has turned red, not after the light for his own lane turns green.


 A slight issue here is in the design of roads. People will drive as quickly as they feel they can drive safely on a given road. Roads are designed for overall safety so that most freeways are designed at 130 km/h (the highest design critereon for Canadian 'codes', but the code is very much loose guidelines). The government then comes around and regulates this roadway at 100 km/h, people want to be the limit and drive faster, as the road is there to accomodate it, so will still be quite safe. Then consider road is designed for the average vehicle handling characteristics, etc, and some people might be dead overkilled by it. So they exceed the regulated limit, but not the design limit and never feel threatened while driving due to this. 

Engineers are doing their due diligence by making the road as safe as possible, and it gets even safer if the limit is lower (but that is outside the field), but people feel coddled by a 'low' limit and the fact the road will handle faster movement, (corners/vertical curves, lane with, etc are all factors) justifies it in their mind. There is too much a dichotomy here, but it has set in.

A good way to make people feel less safe (and therefore drive slower) is making the lanes less wide. That is a big one. If you have bare minimum lane widths, I guaranty you will see less people driving recklessly or as fast. The tolerances get much smaller.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 3, 2011)

I finally took a moment to look up the original story, as well as looking for related stories from respected news organizations. I've found conflicting data on what they currently collect.

Yes, that's right. Not that they will collect, but that the ones currently in use *do* collect. For example, GM has installed black boxes in US automobiles with airbags since the '90s. 

No, the boxes do *not* transmit. 

Interesting what a little reading will uncover, no?


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 4, 2011)

Xaios said:


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



Read my post, and respond to the idea, not my wording. 
I'm not breaking the law when I drive, and I don't appreciate having more potential surveillance tools monitoring me to make sure I don't start. In principle, it's like saying that I don't fuck children, but I still need to be watched constantly in case I do. 

I agree with everyone who said that if used for the reason they're supposed to, it will definitely be a useful and pretty much necessary tool. I'd like to see that being written into the law, though. I'm wary of the potential ways this whole thing could go wrong.


----------



## aslsmm (Jun 4, 2011)

^^ wait, you want your post on here not to get taken out of context or twisted to fit a pompus rebuttle???

people say im a dreamer but im not the only one.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 4, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Read my post, and respond to the idea, not my wording.



I did you one better, I responded to your idea as it pertained to the discussion at hand.



The Reverend said:


> I'm not breaking the law when I drive, and I don't appreciate having more potential surveillance tools monitoring me to make sure I don't start. In principle, it's like saying that I don't fuck children, but I still need to be watched constantly in case I do.



I had to re-read the last part because I thought you said chicken, not children. 

But on a more serious note, I appreciate where your coming from, but there's two sides to every issue. I imagine if you asked people who had been sexually victimized while their attacker went undetected, they'd likely feel that increased scrutiny of the perpetrator's actions and general conduct behind closed doors would have increased chances of detection thus improving the odds of preventing something from happening in the first place.

I'm an insurance broker. While auto insurance is technically considered a necessity of life and I'm not technically allowed to turn people away, I am able to offer people who I feel are a "moral hazard" the least favorable terms possible. Basically, if I'm approached to write a policy for someone who has no history of past claims but does have a driver's abstract with several convictions and/or a general air of contempt and disdain for the legalities of being on the road, I can say "not only will I only write you with the most expensive company I deal with, but I'm going to charge you a gigantic service fee before I take you on as a client, because frankly you're not fit to be on the road and I don't want to share the streets with you." Granted, it's rare to see this, and most times I'd rather those people have coverage because they are GOING to hit someone or something and there has to be money available to pay for the damage. Only once has the situation I described played out. I told that person "you would be doing society a favor by surrendering your license and never driving again." We're talking multiple impaired convictions, license suspensions and a driver's abstract that was several pages long.

The point is that just because someone can afford a particular privilege and has a legal right to it, that doesn't mean they deserve it unhindered from a moral perspective. The ultimate challenge is figuring out how to balance the potential for outliers to cause harm to society by not identifying them before they can cause harm versus curtailing everyone's freedom in order to save lives. Benjamin Franklin once said "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security," but to be honest, that's not a notion I've ever agreed with, because I believe it's utterly incompatible with the realities of modern society.



The Reverend said:


> I agree with everyone who said that if used for the reason they're supposed to, it will definitely be a useful and pretty much necessary tool. I'd like to see that being written into the law, though. I'm wary of the potential ways this whole thing could go wrong.



I can agree with this. Despite how I may come across, while I take no particular issue with being monitored as I've got nothing to hide, given the choice, I'd still rather not be. I also recognize the potential for such measures to be abused by those whose purposes are not as altruistic as mine.

I think what I've said is reasonably fair, but feel free to disagree.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 4, 2011)

Xaios said:


> I think what I've said is reasonably fair, but feel free to disagree.



I agree with your whole post, actually. I haven't had to deal with such obviously dangerous drivers as you have, but I know they're out there, and I'd rather not have me, my family, and my friends be subjected to them. 

This whole black box idea seems well-intentioned, and it doesn't require a genius-level intellect to see that it could actually provide us with a lot of great, meaningful data. In fact, it could help give us the raw data needed to design safer roadways and safer vehicles. There's a catch with good intentions, though.

Our species doesn't have the best history with using technology in helpful ways. I think there's a very real possibility that instead of flagging unsafe drivers, or compiling some sort of aggregate data to better understand drivers and how they react to things, we're going to see tickets issued after the fact and more insurance companies making things difficult (no offence!) for drivers to get money. 

TL;DR- I like the idea, I just don't trust the people in charge of implementing it.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 4, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> TL;DR- I like the idea, I just don't trust the people in charge of implementing it.



Fair enough.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jun 4, 2011)

You break the law, you pay the cost. If you're speeding, you deserve everything you've got coming to you, I don't care how "arbitrary" the speed limit might seem. You do it multiple times and are so arrogant that you feel you alone are right above all the people _not_ breaking the limit? You deserve as big a fine as they can muster and to have your fucking car crushed.

OT: I feel like this is possibly a good move hidden under the worry of a serious abuse of privacy. If used *properly* and not abused, then it should be good but I can certainly understand why people would be uncomfortable with it.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jun 4, 2011)

The only problem I could see with this is for people that legally race at a track(IE Homestead Speedway). If police do, in fact, begin to ticket people after the fact then if people who frequent these will be faced with heavy charges in the event they ever get in an accident.

Otherwise I think that this will be good if it can help to convict people in an accident. Maybe it could stop a situation like one where my friend's mom was in, where they stopped at a light, behind someone, got hit by someone that was going to fast, and hit in to the car in front of her. She ended up having to pay for the repairs to the person she hit, even though it wasn't her fault.

It definitely could go wrong very quickly, though.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2011)

There are free racing tracks available on which one can use one's street vehicle? Sweet!

If not... why not hold onto your receipts, so you can show when you were at the track? 

----

For some reason, I suspect current time data is saved along with everything else. Otherwise, there'd be no way to reconstruct what happened when during a fatal crash. 

If that is true, then if you were in an accident, how could the racetrack data get confused with the accident data?

----

A few years ago, a car slammed into me from the left. It was a girl who wasn't allowed to drive at night (provisional driver), and who was talking on her cell at the point she hit me (I saw her on it when I looked at the car during the collision). 

Cops arrived. She claimed I switched lanes to the left (I had a particular destination just a few blocks down on the right, and had the materials in my car related to that destination). 

I told the officer about the cell phone, and asked for the number so I could provide it to my insurance company in case she and her parents fought a payout. She *lied* to the officer, claiming she didn't have a phone. I told the officer where it was in the car, as I had seen her put it there. 

Insurance managed to get a report showing that she was on the phone at the time of the accident. They also found out that the girl had 5 prior accidents with the same circumstances, but that the state had let her keep her license due to no other witnesses in court arguing against the leniency.

I think she had to wait a few years after that hearing to get another license. 

----

Is it bad to have data in case of a collision? I didn't think so, but I wasn't the guilty one. It seems that arguing about it being a bad thing sounds a little... self serving, don't you think?


----------



## Out of this Swirled (Jun 4, 2011)

Mandatory Spying LOL


----------



## aslsmm (Jun 4, 2011)

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.


----------



## aslsmm (Jun 4, 2011)

@ troll
im calm, notice how i DIDNT TYPE THE POST IN CAPS TO EXPRESS ANGER OR YELLIN!!!!!!!


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 4, 2011)

aslsmm said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2011)

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 (Jun 4, 2011)

aslsmm said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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).


----------



## Thaeon (Jun 4, 2011)

Skanky said:


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




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 (Jun 4, 2011)

aslsmm said:


> 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 &#8211; 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 (Jun 4, 2011)

^ So much this.

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


----------



## Scruffy1012 (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## Thaeon (Jun 4, 2011)

Daemoniac said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2011)

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 (Jun 4, 2011)

Explorer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 4, 2011)

Explorer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 4, 2011)

Daemoniac said:


> ^ So much this..


^^


----------



## Explorer (Jun 5, 2011)

Revan132 said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2011)

Explorer said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 5, 2011)

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


----------



## Xaios (Jun 5, 2011)

Revan132 said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2011)

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


----------



## Explorer (Jun 5, 2011)

@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 (Jun 5, 2011)

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 (Jun 6, 2011)

Yes, it's illegal to speed whilst passing. 

Arguing for Jury Nullification is also technically illegal.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jun 6, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> Yes, it's illegal to speed whilst passing.
> 
> Arguing for Jury Nullification is also technically illegal.


The first one depends on the state, a few states have laws that allow it. EDIT: In the US at least.

The second one I've no idea about.


----------



## Skanky (Jun 6, 2011)

So, if the government is only concerned about imposing speed limits for our own safety, how come there is no discussion about making laws that prohibit the *manufacture *of vehicles that can go above a certain speed (say, 75MPH).

Yes, this is somewhat of a rhetorical question.


----------



## Overtone (Jun 6, 2011)

The fabled "Motor Law" of Red Barchetta?


----------



## synrgy (Jun 6, 2011)

Skanky said:


> So, if the government is only concerned about imposing speed limits for our own safety, how come there is no discussion about making laws that prohibit the *manufacture *of vehicles that can go above a certain speed (say, 75MPH).
> 
> Yes, this is somewhat of a rhetorical question.



I was just thinking about this yesterday, actually. If anyone in-the-know cares to shed light, I'd be most interested.

The speedometer in my car goes up to 140mph. I'd love to know what the point is, since I'm not legally allowed to go above 55-65 on any road I've ever driven.

For European made cars, I guess I get it (autobahn!), but I drive a Chrysler...


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 6, 2011)

It has to do with the efficiency of the engine. A car that can go 180KM/H is most efficient at around 90KM/H. 

A car whose max speed is 100 KM/H is much less efficient at that speed. Wasting gas is a bad thing.


On the passing speeding thing:
I have no idea of the laws in the US. It's totally illegal in Canada (in Ontario at least) as I know people who've been ticketed for it.


----------



## Skanky (Jun 6, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> It has to do with the efficiency of the engine. A car that can go 180KM/H is most efficient at around 90KM/H.
> 
> A car whose max speed is 100 KM/H is much less efficient at that speed. Wasting gas is a bad thing.
> .





You made that up, didn't you.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 7, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> On the passing speeding thing:
> I have no idea of the laws in the US. It's totally illegal in Canada (in Ontario at least) as I know people who've been ticketed for it.


 
It depends on the state, apparently. This thread prompted me to look up the law in my state, and apparently it's illegal here in good ol' Illinois.

Fack.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 12, 2011)

One thing to keep in mind is that the speed limit is a conceptual notion, passed into law etc.

It's just a bureaucratic concept.

For example: a road may have 1,000,000 mph speed limit, yet 10 mph is suitable at the time of passing through this area.

So some Jaguar xj-150's & E-types start going over 150mph on the new dual carriageways in the 60's, government needs a "LIMIT" to stop them using roads for testing (?) because they can out run any police vehicle etc (most cars were *&%% then, excepions are obvious). 75mph national limit... 

*ahem... no one listens to this draconian imperical restriction to ascending to the next life... the richer you are, the faster you go... only poor ppl in £$"£$ cars go at the legal speeds... can be proved*

In the states, it was for fuel economy to prevent possible wars for oil that 55mph was introduced. You have a different distance for a mile, IIRC, so may be faster or slower to me.


It's all nonsense. There should be just DANGEROUS or NOT DANGEROUS. Speed is no indicator of danger. If NOTHING HAPPENS... NOTHING HAPPENED...

So, then we have to legislate against idiots... But they take the test to get a licence, why is that going wrong???

Same with speed bumps and all that crap. Everyone suffers because of paranoid planning for idiots.

It's all nonsense to depress people, IMO.

Black box = bah! Too expensive to implement tracking super computer, imo.

any opportunity to post this video!

Rant was for contrast!




Silly responsibility argument people... Lives are ruined by speeding fines and speeding legislation. Let's say you have strict enforcement, a number of key personnel lose cars, can't work... or specialist vehicle licenses are lost... etc. BTW all the assholes have radar detectors, gps camera warnings, reflective number plates etc. they don't get bothered, only average people = cash cows. My opinion is well researched but presented in comedy style. I could show some presentations if you guys want. 

speeding = It's a waste of tax payers of money (detect, enforce, prosecute, individual consequence, maintenance and future legislative upgrades, feasibility studies, implementationt and all that BS money being wasted for NO perceivable safety improvemen - assholes drive slow in front of the cops and cameras FACT!).

*note on gender specific compilation of retards driving: I gather that this sample of driving evidence is not indicative of the general standard of driving amongst the fairer sex and is merely the product of putting mirrors inside the vehicle... Design flaw NOT pilot error.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnSWW7c24fA




On a serious note:
http://www.pepipoo.com/


----------



## Daemoniac (Jun 12, 2011)

^ I beg to differ on just about every point there (assuming I understood it correctly).

Speed limits regulate speed and maintain consistency, thereby making driving a less stressful experience as you should know or have some idea how fast everyone surrounding you is traveling meaning you can more accurately make decisions on the road.

You take those one or two assholes who decide "fuck that, it's stupid" and all of a sudden you have an anomaly in what should be a very consistent area and more than anything _that_ is what puts people in danger. It's not necessarily the "speed" itself (though that does have an effect in a lot of cases too)but that you put everyone else off their game and are an unstable, hard to judge driver when you do it 

Yes, there will always be the assholes who do break the law and have trouble being caught for the reasons you mentioned. Does that mean that everyone else shouldn't still try their best to make it as safe as possible? The attitude that "the speed limits are stupid, I'll just go faster" is beyond selfish IMO and puts everyone around them at risk because it is just not as simple as "oh I'm a great driver, nothing will go wrong".


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 12, 2011)

You better hope Explorer doesn't see this, Ryan. He'll make you feel bad about yourself, using logic and parables. I personally have to both agree and disagree with you. I feel like a lot of the "consequences" we get from traffic violations are more for the state's benefit, and less about showing someone the errors in their way, but I'm not sure that this means everything about the system was designed for profit.

I don't know much about the history of speed limits, but I'm going to look it up now just to see.


----------



## aslsmm (Jun 12, 2011)

his sidekick deamoniac is probably fetching him as we speak.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jun 12, 2011)

The law is the law. If you don't like it or want to change it, then appeal to the people who _can_ change it, don't just ignore it. All that will do is put everyone else in danger, yourself, and if (when) you get caught, any message you may or may not have will be hastily ignored.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 12, 2011)

LOL bring it on!

Big Brother + Legislation + stealth taxes + citizens as speed criminals VS. SELF PRESERVATION

My expectancy of human performance is:  = 

Therefore, why would some drive = 


Taking into account the possibility of insanity/accident/mechanical failure/misunderstanding of signs or terminology/criminality/suicidal tendencies is the purpose of legislation.

Therefore: driving test to weed out many of the above, insurance to weed out the poor and those that do not care about their vehicle and detection/enforcement to weed out the dangerous.

Perfect systems to ensure that the survival mechanism preprogrammed into each and every one of us is not threatened by those that would endanger others.


Turning town centers into complex systems of round a bouts (UK thing, we have bends in our roads EVERYWHERE and at crossing we drive around in a circle), bypasses and other convuluted and expensive civic engineering projects, which are constantly amended and added to IS making driving HARDER, not safer.

Putting police and cameras adds another serious distraction and deterrent to driving, forcing people to overcrowded and underfunded public transport systems.

Parking is another one... So is signposts which no one can understand...

Don't ask about fuel prices or why.... in 2011... we still use primitive combustion engines which operate on feeble petrol and diesel when hydrogen is the most combustible gas... 

Wankel engine.. ... 

FACT:
Earliest cars were electric / early petrol cars had chemical hydrogen from water lamp flames 

Don't make me get the scientific studies (REALLLLLLY BOOOOORIINNNNG). In short, it has been proven that the method which the British government calculates risk over time is invalid, this is the method they use to locate suitable sites for speed cameras and to justify their continued use. The research indicates it offers no true measurement of improvement to safety. There are other ones, but that pretty much nails it for me; when people use mathematics to confuse the lazy, there is a clear motive to hide an agenda.

I'm sure it's a pretty common theme amongst many countries.


Isn't it obvious, the answer is better education... Not sending useful law enforcement agents looking for losers driving badly, when they could be looking for real problems.

By education, I mean on driving (tests and general), alcohol and transport, buying a crash resistant car (volvo 240 series = Panzerkampwagon ultimate you will never die on the road car)...

One thing that does annoy me; after taking a spin in a friends lamborghini Diablo (pre Audi '94 aqua blue 6,000 miles from new = the most dangerous Diablo ever made, really) is how.... How can they make that car SO safe, when family cars are death traps in comparison. 20" (big anyway) brakes that will stop the car from 60mph to halt in a very short distance etc etc etc. Family cars are crates compared to that and avoidance of danger through driver skill, preparation and caution are what I'm promoting here.

In essence, no one wants to die on the road, so we all use good sense, caution and DEFENSIVE DRIVING to make our journeys safely.

With high speeds, I'm mainly talking about multi lane carriageways. In urban areas, why would people drive fast anyway when there is constant possibility of danger, even if traffic allowed high speeds (40mph in urban would be a dangerous speed).

One thing I would change straight away if I was the ubermensch; NO WEARING OF BLACK AT NIGHT!
*very difficult to see pedestrians*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KspFrH3xNPg&feature=related

And no speeding police maniacs, either!



I am not promoting dangerous or excessive speed driving. I'm saying:
1> People can deal with driving, trust them - maybe some need more training and help, which should be offered (as it is with advanced driver training and track days).
2> All the crap to protect Joe from the n00bs is a waste of time and vast expense and be sure, someone is getting very rich. 
3>There's no such thing as safety, there is only preparation. Argue that! 

Have fun and take care. Happy travels!


----------



## Explorer (Jun 12, 2011)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Putting police and cameras adds another serious distraction and deterrent to driving...



Wut?

I don't distracted by the police. It's just another vehicle on the road, unless they're directing traffic around a hazard (including a parked/stopped car). Similarly, I can't recall a sintle time I've been distracted by a camera, and I live in an area which has many red-light and speeding cameras. 

Could you explain how the police and cameras are a distraction... I mean, other than the comedy movie situations where a stoner notices a cop behind him and does something foolish to prevent getting caught with drugs? *laugh*


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 12, 2011)

Example of driving in London:


Example of driving in central London (the madness that it is)



Example of American driving in London:



And Paris *argh* They're mental ...



I've driven all over Europe, it's interesting to see the skills and trademarks if each nation. I would be content to say that London has the best defensive drivers I've seen. It is a safe and comfortable place to drive.

The maniacs are generally rich and can pay/avoid the fines... And have cars to speed / drive dangerously safely and with ease.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 12, 2011)

I would have thought your imagination more vigorous, Explorer. 


Best example would be at Christmas last year, there was a police road block breathalysing everyone that drove past. Passing motorist were selected at random, pulled into a coned area and tested. Good thing, right?

1. This was done early in the evening before drinking time to act as a deterrent so the cells wouldn't be full.
2. I'm saying the problem isn't with the police or the legislation. It's with the way people who are vulnerable to the temptations of possible dangerous driving are dealt with.

I'm trying to open the discussion up to a more adult scope, and throw in some lulz. There are many reasons and problems.

So, take this police stop and test example. Let's say it became trendy and fashionable to meet up online or in person to organise the designated driver for the evening, everyone chips in for petrol. Drink driving = finished. Media campaign, advertising, tv, radio put it in the soap operas, teach the kids from infants etc. Done. A way of life, a habit. More time for doughnuts!

Education is the solution: When driving a motor vehicle you could potentially take a life. Do you understand (to the student)? Every moment you must be aware, precise and in control of any potential. This is the espree d'cour of defensive driving. 

In grained from a young age, why bother with all this nonsense and simply trust in people's survival mechanism, skll and training.

That is my direction, at this time. Maybe I'll get more anti humanity in my old age.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 12, 2011)

I'll give one more example:
I entered a 3 lane motorway at the limit (40mph). Most people go faster so you enter at the speed of traffic. The road shortly moves to 50 then 70 after 10 minutes driving time. Before the change of speed, I needed to cross two lanes to be in the furthest lane from entry to take a lighted turn off at a major junction.

A £50,000 car is accelerating towards me from behind at a high speed. At this point I'm moving across the lanes to the required lane for turning, indicating with my lights.

As the fast car approaches, he flashes his lights *why? n00b 2 hands on the wheel at speed* failing to take action to the clear direction of my vehicle. He tries to pass outside me, realises his error and swerves inside to avoid my vehicle.

I calmly proceed to the traffic lighted turn off, and he narrowly avoids skipping the red light.

To be honest, I was surprised he didn't fishtail (sports 4x4 huge audi turbo) or skid. He did well. There was no other traffic, it was around 10pm.

Conclusion: Guys a fool, making his life more difficult and endangering others. My family were in the car. If I'd changed direction I would have only made it more dangerous by throwing off his prediction of my actions.

His fault or mine? Neither.

If the road was properly designed he would NOT have been speeding towards a lighted junction which caused motorists to cross three lanes of potential traffic. Crossing 3 lanes is madness, especially when road markings and signs could have been used to prevent unwary passers by being confused by the road layout.

I trusted his Audi's sports suspension and quality brakes more than his skill, to be honest, but it all worked out fine with no outcome. Essentially, it seemed dangerous, but NOTHING happened. He was speeding, YES, he was breaking the law, YES, by enough to instantly lose his licence.. Nothing Happened.

Interestingly enough, as I sat at the lights, there is a speed camera within view. Yes, he braked for the camera. It did NOT help to save me or my family from insta-deth or injury.


--------


The reason I put police videos up is they are the worst drivers of all, speeding ALL the time relentlessly WITH and WITHOUT sirens and lights. Their claims department is full of injured people. Ever heard of Paul McCartney? His ex-wife Heather lost her leg to a motorcycle policeman whilst see was on a designated pedestrian priority crossing. Just a high profile example.

------

Black box is intended to be a pay-per mile tax/ vehicle immobilizer if not paid / tracking system / speed monitoring-fining system within the next decade. It's an eco policy. 

------

Distraction: everyone brakes for the cameras whether speeding or not, so have to predict the braking of cars ahead. police driving like lunatics cause avoidance, working make people look rubbernecking. 

------

I don't care for movie style hypotheticals. They always depict people as incapable children, which I maintain is a deliberate fallacy.

------

Hiding drugs? You mean, that which came from an Afghanistani smuggles A-hole? Or pure natural home grown?
/jk

Use the window, mate. 



There's so many hiding places in a car, without a sniffer dog, you could never detect a professional without impounding and dismantling the vehicle. That's not specialist knowledge, it's obvious. Silly Hollywood.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 12, 2011)

Right, I hope you enjoy all that stuff. It was quite fun to type about something interesting other than guitars and share a little bit of my home with you guys. I hope you enjoy the videos. I'm sure Americans find London really strange. 



I wanted to discuss this because I see personal transport as a huge component of freedom. Economic, leisure and familial. All spheres of life. And I see that it is being taken away from all but the very wealthy within my lifetime, despite efforts seeming to the contrary. Green movement, eh? 

They lost me at the movement bit. 



Someone has to do the Orwellian agenda version: I have some time on my hands so I'll get started...

In 2022 AD

Each man is only allowed to travel 5 miles from his birthplace. His vehicle will automatically be immobilised and enforcement notified. He may try to run.. But... They WILL catch him...

After the flood of foreign labour and failed economic reform, it was deemed prudent that the exchange of trade and expertise would be kept within only a few miles of each persons registered domicile...

I mean, it doesn't take a genius to work it out, does it.  That is a glimpse into the negative aspect for the lulz factor. I don't think they'll be able to make it work for a decade or two even if that were the intent. It's a total waste of time and should be rejected before it takes root in the next generation, for what we accept now, they will take for granted later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX8szNPgrEs


----------



## DevinShidaker (Jun 12, 2011)

I could give a fuck less about the possible speeding and seat belt fines, because you're breaking a law. I speed sometimes, but only when I'm able to, I don't drive like a jackass weaving in and out of traffic trying to beat everybody else to my exit. I am not cool with any sort of tax on mileage though. We already pay taxes and tolls to maintain our roads, as well as tax on gasoline, the last thing I want to do is pay more money on top of that based on how far I drive. My band tours 9-10 months out of the year, and most of our money is already being pumped into our gas tank, I'm not handing more money out for taxes on mileage...


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 13, 2011)

One more thing... Sorry! 

European cars are different to US. ALL European cars are light, with all wheel suspension, cheap cars are front wheel drive (rear is specialist/racing or expensive luxury car), small but powerful and efficient engines. They are also MUCH smaller, yet still comfortable and have large storage space.

It is a status symbol to have a German car, marking the successful and the elite.

Urban speed is 20-30mph, larger roads are 40mph, 2 lane carriageways/motorway is 50mph and the largest motorways are National Speed Limit 70mph (but people do what they want except for cameras and police, only old cars, goods vehicles and professional drivers (lol not all!) maintain the limit on these roads... Older people are always strict and disciplined (50 years + because they are chilled out and sensible  )).

The criminal speed is determined by this forula: Speed + 3% + 10mph to give scope for overtaking and to make sure the cameras aren't giving too high a conviction rate for processing. ~This has changed recently and is now slightly higher (7% + 10mph IIRC).







This is the next car I plan on buying:

Jaguar XK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I may well end up with one of these in the future:







Ford Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I have one of these being restored:





Citroën Traction Avant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classic Cars OWN.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 13, 2011)

No need to get too excited just yet, this will get rolled out in the US and UK at similar times. I think there is a long way to go (10 years, say?) before they use the tracking device for taxes. Consider it informed speculation...

Needless to say, it's a pretty dumb idea. No one in their right mind will go for it.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Jun 13, 2011)

Coolies. Next we need systems installed to ensure drivers are actually paying attention to the road. Things that monitor eye movements and hand position and such. Many people take driving for granted and do not pay much attention to what they are operating. Thus, relying on other drivers to basically drive for them. All drivers: cars are heavy machinery. Driving a motor vehicle isn't to be taken lightly. I've stopped driving all-together because people in Washington are incompetent drivers. This state hands out licences like they are raffle tickets.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 13, 2011)

why not make cars that drive themselves and be done with it? Clearly people are the factor here so just take them out of the equation. Ive seen robots that have servos in them that tell them that allow them to "know" where they are. Why couldnt this along with gps technology be used to make cars where you can program them to take you somewhere and off you go? (with the ability to reprogram in transit)
Then people could use their cell phones, eat, put on make up, get road head, etc in their cars all they want. Obviously for this to work you would need real time data on every car on the road (a logistical nightmare im sure, but not insurmountable) so that you aren't running into stationary cars along with an emergency manual mode in the event of a system failure. Just throwing out some (half baked) ideas here. Because what we have now isn't entirely working.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jun 13, 2011)

Because if something bad were to happen it would only get worse since the computers would not expect such a variable event. Yes, robots can have proximity sensors, but they're not nearly as good as a human eye and hand.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 13, 2011)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Coolies. Next we need systems installed to ensure drivers are actually paying attention to the road. Things that monitor eye movements and hand position and such. Many people take driving for granted and do not pay much attention to what they are operating. Thus, relying on other drivers to basically drive for them. All drivers: cars are heavy machinery. Driving a motor vehicle isn't to be taken lightly. I've stopped driving all-together because people in Washington are incompetent drivers. This state hands out licences like they are raffle tickets.



People don't realise how dangerous vehicles are. Having been hit by one, I can confidently say that they are very dangerous and should be operated with a lot of care.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 13, 2011)

dragonblade629 said:


> Because if something bad were to happen it would only get worse since the computers would not expect such a variable event. Yes, robots can have proximity sensors, but they're not nearly as good as a human eye and hand.



hence the manual mode idea.


----------



## HighGain510 (Jun 13, 2011)

ghstofperdition said:


> why not make cars that drive themselves and be done with it? Clearly people are the factor here so just take them out of the equation. Ive seen robots that have servos in them that tell them that allow them to "know" where they are. Why couldnt this along with gps technology be used to make cars where you can program them to take you somewhere and off you go? (with the ability to reprogram in transit)
> Then people could use their cell phones, eat, put on make up, get road head, etc in their cars all they want. Obviously for this to work you would need real time data on every car on the road (a logistical nightmare im sure, but not insurmountable) so that you are running into stationary cars along with an emergency manual mode in the event of a system failure. Just throwing out some (half baked) ideas here. Because what we have now isn't entirely working.



You're behind the times, sir. Google is already on top of it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 13, 2011)

HighGain510 said:


> You're behind the times, sir. Google is already on top of it:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html



Praise be to the almighty google!!!!

Combine that with a renewable/sustainable fuel source and a horn that djonks and we will have revolutionized travel once again!


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 13, 2011)

HighGain510 said:


> You're behind the times, sir. Google is already on top of it:
> 
> Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic - NYTimes.com



Now all we need is cryogenics and we can reenact demolition man.


----------



## heilarkyguitar (Jun 13, 2011)

It's almost a full blown cop nation. It's just sad.


----------



## GazPots (Jun 13, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Now all we need is cryogenics and we can reenact demolition man.



John Spartan, you are fined one credit..............


----------



## Explorer (Jun 13, 2011)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> 1. This was done early in the evening before drinking time to act as a deterrent so the cells wouldn't be full.
> 2. I'm saying the problem isn't with the police or the legislation. It's with the way people who are vulnerable to the temptations of possible dangerous driving are dealt with.



First off, is there a problem with using a police presence as a deterrent to crime? When there are more foot patrols in areas, for example, there is often a decrease in crime. Are you against decreasing a particular crime, in this case drunk driving? I have no problem with the dumbasses saying, oh, they're out tonight, I'm gonna stay off the roads!

If the problem is the poeple who can't stop driving dangerously, and one of the solutions is to deter or catch them so the rest of us aren't endangered... well, you could argue that it's better for police not to stop drunk driving, or rape, or murder, because they will never stop completely. Personally, I would like them all deterred/stopped.



Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> So, take this police stop and test example. Let's say it became trendy and fashionable to meet up online or in person to organise the designated driver for the evening, everyone chips in for petrol. Drink driving = finished. Media campaign, advertising, tv, radio put it in the soap operas, teach the kids from infants etc. Done. A way of life, a habit. More time for doughnuts!



If one doesn't have that proposed social circle, then what? 

In some ways, education seems like a great idea. It worked for stopping people from smoking cigarettes, or exposing their babies to smoke, or from smoking while pregnant, right? *laugh* 

Granted, there are cities which have free taxi rides home to prevent drunk driving, *and* enforcement for when people still drink and drive. 

Anyway, it would be interesting if someone started a private project similar to your proposal, and tracked how successful it is in stopping drunk driving. Because ultimately there are only two "R"s, reasons and results, and only one counts. *Show results similar to how education about cigarettes has stopped certain problems (in other words, that it hasn't), and you'll have to concede that enforcement for drinking and driving is still necessary... well, necessary if you want to protect most from the actions of the dangerous few. *

----



Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> His fault or mine? Neither.
> 
> ...YES, he was breaking the law, YES, by enough to instantly lose his licence.



Your words giveth, and your words taketh away. You can't say it wasn't his fault, and then list the ways it was his fault. Your example was strange.



Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> I wanted to discuss this because *I see personal transport as a huge component of freedom.* Economic, leisure and familial. All spheres of life. *And I see that it is being taken away from all but the very wealthy within my lifetime, despite efforts seeming to the contrary.*



Wut?

When did we go from the idea of black boxes recording data for post-accident analysis to drivers' licenses being taken away from all but the very wealthy?

----

Very strange assertions all over the place, and *none of it really about the black boxes*. I'll be interested in reading any manifesto you post about how personal transportation being taken away from all but the rich, including how you support that contention, in another thread.

Cheers!


----------



## JamesM (Jun 13, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> People don't realise how dangerous vehicles are. Having been hit by one, I can confidently say that they are very dangerous and should be operated with a lot of care.



That's a bingo!


----------



## Bobo (Jun 15, 2011)

Korngod said:


> wow. good thing i drive a *91* mustang that sucks down gas like an alcoholic drinks alcohol.... but then again, I have a smart phone



Ha first thing I thought was I'm glad I have my old 89 Mustang that I love (5.0, yeah it sucks some gas, but still gets around 20 mpg). And besides it not having a black box, I can actually work on the old turd myself! Horray old things!


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 17, 2011)

@Explorer

Thanks for your comments.

It's a shame we can't right the worlds wrongs from a computer keyboard! 

But it's nice to have a pleasant discussion about them from time to time.

_Designated driver_

I would like to see this promoted in a subtle but commonplace manner by the media. Perhaps it would do some good. You're correct in the failure to convert smokers through overt messages, I would hope that my suggestion would fare better. I live my life by it, which is the best I can do with the resources available.

I believe there are car pool incentives in certain states to promote the idea.

_Driving example_

The point I was trying to make was despite nearby speed enforcement (speed camera) it failed to deter the motorist from speeding. The danger to him (presumed gender), myself and my family was caused by poor road layout and a lack of signs or a better solution.

Regarding his choice of vehicle (looked like a turbo charged Audi 4x4 in white), 4x4' and other off road origin vehicles are now very common in London, due to the massive number of speed bumps. They're the only way to get around without having your spinal chord and vehicle suspension damaged.

I did mention that signs were a distraction; nearby on the same stretch of dual carriageway there are over 30 signs for 1 junction, the most in 1 location in Europe. No one knows what it means but there are no accidents there. My generalisation is selectively applied to obvious instances of unclear signage. This very same location has one of the highest earning speed cameras in Europe, being a gentle incline descent. There is little danger but if some one were to attempt a very high speed this would be the location to make the attempt. Sadly, the camera is very sensitive and affects many ordinary motorists, hence it's profitability, which I assert is damaging the local community through fines and loss of licences. In the UK 3 camera tickets in 3 years will cost a driver their licence. Very easily done due to the varying nature of roads in England.

My point of view will be very different to Americans, who I believe predominantly build in grids. The UK and much of Europe is VERY different with more complex road networks.


_Black boxes: accident data, location tracking and possible taxes_

Obviously, everything I've written regarding the boxes is speculation. But I think it clear that the possibilities of the technology are worthy of debate.

It's obvious that the technology would help with accident and insurance investigations, especially in cases where there are no witnesses. It would also save in infrastructure and employment on toll roads, where the technology could automatically invoice the driver. This could be a dramatic saving in transport authorities expenses, pushing redundant staff into other areas.

I just see the evolution of the technology as a punitive tool all too apparent.


Regarding my observation that lower income persons are being removed from the road, with the price of petrol, vehicle maintenance (now cars are no longer user serviceable thanks to ECU's, except by the motivated) and many other factors, I don't see much to gain from going into greater depth. I consider it obvious. It is a broad discussion though.

It falls into line with government promises to lower C02 output from vehicles. For instance, central London has a tax/charge to drive into which is enforced by a series of cameras (the largest camera surveillance network in any European capital, I believe). Automatic fines are issued.

A black box would have negated the need for cameras, providing the operating technology was reliable for use on a large scale. This is how I see the technology being employed.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Jul 21, 2011)

So what's the point of even having a car that can go past 80?? It's such a tease...


----------

