[KevinBtu7s]

rkinne01, on 20 April 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

When I get one of these cars first thing I'd do is disable, hack or remove the blackbox. Problem solved.

Chances are the gov't, attorney demands if not just the car companies themselves will intergrate them into the vehicle so that the vehicle won't operate without them in place and functional. Rip it out and the vehicle becomes a four-thousand pound paper weight! Watch and see.

[tacrews]

How about "Black Boxes" on any car used by Politicans?

[oglethorpe52]

If it's about safety, forego black boxes and install breathalyzer interlocks. If you don't drink and drive, it's a minor inconvenience. If you do, it's a public safety measure. Also, it could involve real penalties. If you bypass the device, it's a felony. If a sober person starts a vehicle for someone else, it's a felony for both persons. If you drive drunk and injure someone, it's felony assault. If you kill someone, felony murder. Distracted driving is already illegal in many states. Similar laws such as providing I.D. to purchase decongestants are already in place. A breathalyzer interlock has elements of both thse prohibitions and would do much more to save lives. No privacy issues, just deterrence and safety.

[mjd420nova]

One thought that crossed my mind was that the police cars will now have that data too. I could have used that info a few years ago. While traveling on a freeway at the posted speed limit of 55 MPH, in the left lane. The lane became clogged by a dark blue Crown Victoria. As cars ahead of me approached, they flashed their high beams and usded their horn to alert the driver who was camped in the left lane doing 50 MPH, slowing to almost 40 and then back up to 55. After a half dozen other cars had moved around the car, I got my chance. As I moved past to his right, I glanced over and saw the driver on the phone. After a polite salute (one finger), I moved ahead of him and proceeded with the rest of the traffic. Suddenly the car was behind me with some blue lights on the dash. I proceeded to the right lane and took the first exit where I knew there was lots of traffic. It turned out to be a plainclothes county sheriff and after he accused me of speeding and I pointed out the sign on the median that says slower traffic keep right. He went back to his car and followed me for five miles before I took my exit and left the freeway. I could have used his data to show his inattention behind the wheel.

[MikePattersom]

WAKE UP FOLKS
VOTE these nit wits out of office!
ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL FOLKS!
And these nit wits sold us out years ago!

[databaseben]

i wish the feds would stay out of such things. there is so-oo much work to be done else where, that focusing their energy on black boxes is nothing more than an intrusion of privacy.

subsequently, the next phase to this act, is to allow insurance companies to tap into the black boxes to further their riches.

[rkinne01]

KevinBtu7s, on 20 April 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

rkinne01, on 20 April 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

When I get one of these cars first thing I'd do is disable, hack or remove the blackbox. Problem solved.

Chances are the gov't, attorney demands if not just the car companies themselves will intergrate them into the vehicle so that the vehicle won't operate without them in place and functional. Rip it out and the vehicle becomes a four-thousand pound paper weight! Watch and see.

You're likely right, here's hoping hackers come up with a way to get around it all.

[databaseben]

rkinne01, on 21 April 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

KevinBtu7s, on 20 April 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

rkinne01, on 20 April 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

When I get one of these cars first thing I'd do is disable, hack or remove the blackbox. Problem solved.

Chances are the gov't, attorney demands if not just the car companies themselves will intergrate them into the vehicle so that the vehicle won't operate without them in place and functional. Rip it out and the vehicle becomes a four-thousand pound paper weight! Watch and see.

You're likely right, here's hoping hackers come up with a way to get around it all.

Ultimately, the state's will get on the band wagon and ensure auto's have a working black box installed before issuing the yearly inspection sticker.

[JohnBonner]

Tighter and tighter controls without regard for our inalienable rights. Our government is not protecting those inalienable rights any more they are ceasing this protection in order to make way for a tyrant. Beware.

[JohnBonner]

oglethorpe52, on 21 April 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

If it's about safety, forego black boxes and install breathalyzer interlocks. If you don't drink and drive, it's a minor inconvenience. If you do, it's a public safety measure. Also, it could involve real penalties. If you bypass the device, it's a felony. If a sober person starts a vehicle for someone else, it's a felony for both persons. If you drive drunk and injure someone, it's felony assault. If you kill someone, felony murder. Distracted driving is already illegal in many states. Similar laws such as providing I.D. to purchase decongestants are already in place. A breathalyzer interlock has elements of both thse prohibitions and would do much more to save lives. No privacy issues, just deterrence and safety.

Are you kidding? Breathalyzer interlock is an exorbitantly expensive joke. As exemplified by the following statement, "Hey Sonny blow into this thing for me so I can start the car." Come on! You think the people who choose to drink and drive they are going to not break the law a different way? I may have been born at night but it was not last night.

[DarthSlater77]

a black box shouldn't have a GPS its only function should be record data relevant to the past ten minutes or fifteen until it is shut off. when there is a crash it can be recovered given to the police and have the data examined to determine witch party is at fault or if it was a vehicle hardware malfunction. this is how airline black boxes work so that's how the vehicle ones should work also. the only major difference is that airline BB record more individual parameters and for a longer time.

[deepsand]

JohnBonner, on 21 April 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Tighter and tighter controls without regard for our inalienable rights.

Just what "inalienable rights" do you refer to that are of material relevance to the matter at hand?

[LiveBrianD]

Just think of how insurance companies and the like will try to abuse this data...

[deepsand]

Setting aside the fact that said Bill does not grant insurers access to the data in question, just how might such "abuse" be effected?

[Tinman1957]

Stevec, on 20 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I believe this would be an invaluable tool for the Insurance companies, that make it mandatory that this 'data' be surrendered to them. The obvious use would be to either limit or deny any claim.

So you think it would be an invaluable tool for the insurance companies to deny claims! They can deny a claim if you had an accident and you were only going 1 mph over the speed limit! And who do you think is paying for this device? Let me give you a hint.....YOU ARE! It will probably add another $300 to the sticker price.
I wonder if you'll be singing that same tune if law enforcement or insurance companies got hold of something you had to pay for and use it against you.....

[deepsand]

Tinman1957, on 21 April 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Stevec, on 20 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I believe this would be an invaluable tool for the Insurance companies, that make it mandatory that this 'data' be surrendered to them. The obvious use would be to either limit or deny any claim.

So you think it would be an invaluable tool for the insurance companies to deny claims! They can deny a claim if you had an accident and you were only going 1 mph over the speed limit!

Falsehoods such as this do not help your cause.

[Tinman1957]

deepsand, on 21 April 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Setting aside the fact that said Bill does not grant insurers access to the data in question, just how might such "abuse" be effected?

Like they said, by court order. But even without the court order, if a car is totalled, the insurance company then owns the car. Since it's theirs, they can pull the black box.

Not only that, but like all government laws, once they get their foot in the door, then they can change the rules. Like with a specialty tax, the government claims "Oh, it will only be 1/2% of 1 cent" to make it look trivial. Then they slowly but surely keep increasing it until it cost you dearly. Social Security is a prime example of this if you read the history....

[Tinman1957]

deepsand, on 21 April 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Tinman1957, on 21 April 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Stevec, on 20 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I believe this would be an invaluable tool for the Insurance companies, that make it mandatory that this 'data' be surrendered to them. The obvious use would be to either limit or deny any claim.

So you think it would be an invaluable tool for the insurance companies to deny claims! They can deny a claim if you had an accident and you were only going 1 mph over the speed limit!

Falsehoods such as this do not help your cause.

And your such an expert on the subject that you would know, right? Go ahead, dazzle us with your BS...

[deepsand]

Tinman1957, on 21 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

deepsand, on 21 April 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Setting aside the fact that said Bill does not grant insurers access to the data in question, just how might such "abuse" be effected?

Like they said, by court order.

Assumes that they've have legal standing to ask for and be granted such.

Tinman1957, on 21 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

But even without the court order, if a car is totalled, the insurance company then owns the car.

Only if the policyholder so agrees.

Tinman1957, on 21 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Not only that, but like all government laws, once they get their foot in the door, then they can change the rules. Like with a specialty tax, the government claims "Oh, it will only be 1/2% of 1 cent" to make it look trivial. Then they slowly but surely keep increasing it until it cost you dearly. Social Security is a prime example of this if you read the history....

Off-topic & speculative.

[deepsand]

Tinman1957, on 21 April 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

deepsand, on 21 April 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Tinman1957, on 21 April 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Stevec, on 20 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I believe this would be an invaluable tool for the Insurance companies, that make it mandatory that this 'data' be surrendered to them. The obvious use would be to either limit or deny any claim.

So you think it would be an invaluable tool for the insurance companies to deny claims! They can deny a claim if you had an accident and you were only going 1 mph over the speed limit!

Falsehoods such as this do not help your cause.

And your such an expert on the subject that you would know, right? Go ahead, dazzle us with your BS...

We should blindly accept such naked assertions why?

How much experience have you dealing with Contract Law in general, and Insurance Law in particular?

How many insurance policies have you even ever read in their entirety?