BustedJack

The answer is it's a free country. How has a reckless driver's driving habit protecting me? They're random and everywhere. The only way to catch one is when he ALREADY INVOLVED in an accident. Or a cop happen to see someone driving recklessly (how often is that ? How many times you see some shit that requires a cop being there and they're never there, but instead out harrassing good citizens). The only way to do it is using the device and actually send out tickets.... but then again... it only harms good citizens. Like the airport event going on now. No liquid or paste to carry on to the plane. It only fucks with good people.

Adamo0926

Well now Kennedy has provided an argument that is just as compelling as chill dog's....lol. This, my friends, looks like a tie ballgame to me. Usually I have strong opinions one way or the other but these guys are providing great opinions on both sides of this fence. I'm not crazy about some random box basically spying on me but I can also see the benefits that it might provide.

My only question would be this....if I were involved in an accident and they got some kind of data from that box that would throw the shroud of blame directly on me.....can they be positive that the device did not malfuntion in any way ? Are they looking at that data like it's gospel ? I mean hell, even radar guns are inaccurate a lot....so what about this contraption ?

mr.motoring

It's like buying a bed mattress. At the store, it's against the law to remove the mattress tag. Once it's home, though, you can do whatever you want with it.

Shark

This is good!

mr.motoring

You're missing the point. Manufacturers don't do repair work. And when repair work is needed, retail prices come into play.

True, that's all the NHTSA stated. But what good is the box if it doesn't work close to 100% of the time. What if a two-car accident caused one of the cars to veer into a lake? What if two-cars collided at an intersection, then seconds later a third car rear-ended one of those, rupturing its fuel tank, catching fire, and causing all three to burn?

If the NHTSA doesn't think these scenarios are possible, then they are carrying out a bad research study. Not to mention that the accident reconstruction investigators would have nothing (EDR data wise) to work with.

mr.motoring

C'mon Adamo, choose a side...j/k

Here is where the EDR fails as a research study. Scientific research doctrine applied to living things in their natural environment states the following: "observation without interference". When observing animals in the wild, you cannot let your presence be known. When polling for people's opinions, you do so neutrally, otherwise you might bias their response.

Because dealers are obligated to notify buyers that their vehicle is equipped with an EDR, how genuine are the results that accompany an accident of a driver with an EDR-car to the reactions of a driver who doesn't have to be constantly aware of an auditing party analyzing their every move? More importantly, would the same driver react differently driving the same car with and without EDR?

Since all buyers are informed about the EDR once they drive off the lot, who's to say not everyone will alter their driving style just to appease whoever might decide to judge them based on the EDR data? What if they're scared that sudden movements of their driving would register as bad in the same vein like a truly honest individual, examined underneath the microscope of a polygraph test, might become nervous and score a drastic magnitude 9 earthquake needle reading?

Maybe this good driver, who previously had to display applaudingly heroic feats of defensive driving in order to avoid numerous accidents, might now lose his/her will to counter these situations all because, in their view, the sharp swerves of the wheel and quick stomps of the brake could be viewed as erratic driving behavior?

So Adamo, maybe these devices don't have to malfunction all on their own. Maybe it's just enough to inform the research subjects that they are forever participating in a study in which they might not be comfortable.

Adamo0926

Motoring.....a very interesting point. Kind of like when you were in the classroom in grade school and you were informed that the principal may be touring to observe the classrooms....lol. You become more worried about your behavior than learning the material being taught.

calsdad

I find it interesting that these types of debates even show up on car forums now. It goes to show you how pervasive and invasive the goverment and all of the technology that is out there for monitoring our behavior has become.

For the record I agree with just about all of what Pure Adrenaline has said. If you really want to learn more about how deeply our civil liberties have been affected and how much our Constitution has been shredded in pursuit of the so called War on Terrorism I suggest you go to www.lewrockwell.com and start reading. Don't read just one day - keep reading. You will find much that you might not agree with but over time you will get a real education on just how far our freedoms have been eroded in this country and how close we are to losing what little is left. I really don't need the goverment watching over me - and for those of you who are willing to give up your freedom for alleged protection against terrorism I will be looking for your asses when you drive this country into the ground. When the German civilians were marched thru the death camps at the end of WWII they whined that "They didn't know" what was going on. Ignorance is no excuse.

Remember - Ben Franklin said that if you give up your freedom for security you deserve neither.

It scares me a little that an ex-Marine who swore an oath to defend the Constitution would be so cavalier about giving up our civil liberties - but now maybe now you can see why there are people out there who are so rabid about defending the 2nd Amendment (the right to own firearms) - when the poop hits the fan at least you will be able to defend yourself.


Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. - Frederick Douglass

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

Absolutely, but you sacrifice warranty support and who knows what car functions to remove it... but by all means. The manufacturer has no obligation to make monitoring functions "plug and play" so you can pick and choose which ones you want to disable.


I see where Chill_Dog gets his opinion. He's a civil freedoms idealist. People should be granted the utmost freedom possible, but be held ultimately accountable for thier actions. Problem is, our litigous society doesn't work that way. We are breeding a culture of irresponsibility into our youth and our justice system is too soft/complicated for everything to be that cut and dried.
I SHOULD be allowed to drive fast and take chances, but if I get caught, I pay dire consequences. Problem is the consequences never seem to equal the crime., thus I do it again. Until the consequences of committing illegal activity are hefty enough to stem the desire to do it...

2 ridiculous examples.
- Arabs chop off the hands of thieves. Needless to say, there's not much of atheft problems there... but lets not get into thier f'd up social issues.
- The Phillipines is considered one of the most polite and crime free societies in the world... because thier law enforcement will kick your ass and cane you if you screw around...

Needless to say, there's a philosophical balance. Achieving this balance in the extreme examples is violance against those who break the law. I'd like to think we're a bit more civilized/evolved, and would rather give up a little privacy "metric data", and a little "big brother" overwatch, and pay heftily out of the checkbook opposed to getting my assed kicked for speeding.

What a wild turn this post has evolved to.

shayan

iTrader: (1)

wait... does that mean they will beable to track your every move in loaner vehicals? If so, what may be some of the conseqences for beating on loaner vehicals?

Adamo0926

catsdad....I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition when it comes to giving up some personal freedoms for the benefit of all. For instance, in the case of internet crime and internet predators. I am willing to give up some of my privacy in an effort to keep some young girl or boy from becoming a victim of one of these sickos. Just once case of child molestation or rape is one too many in my mind and giving up a small bit of privacy seems like a small price to pay to keep a young girl or boy safe.

Granted, that is a much more serious situation than worrying about somebody's driving habits. But I am trying to answer some of your arguments. I think for the good of society there needs to be a little give and take. Your argument, while sound, seems a bit extreme to me. As citizens we should be willing to give a little to advance the cause of the greater good but there should be enough controls in place so that the governmental power is not abused.

I think there is a compromise somewhere that everyone should be able to live with.

chfields

We'll see how cavalier your attitude is when the bombs start going off here. The only ones who need to worry about the government "listening and monitoring" them, are the ones who have something to hide. If they want to listen to my calls and read my e-mails, so what, i have nothing to hide and if it keeps 1 bomb for going off here, it was well worth it. Just my 2 cents.

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

If giving up a little telecommunications privacy... and that's all I'm talking about... cellphones, internet, and, well this silly topic... EDRS... Are we talking about the same thing?

catsdad is not a fan of the patriot act or W's wiretapping. Not sure how the constitution is "shredded" by those pieces of legislation.

I'm willing to give up some privacy in order to use MODERN CONVENIENCES, available to Americans today. Anything that will break up the bad guys ability to organize and commuicate. The rest is up to local LE.

Cavalier? That's a funny statement, spoken by someone who sounds like they've never served... consideing ALL THE FREEDOMS SACRIFICED as an active duty member. You give up many of the very freedoms you swear to defend in order to defend them.

I still have a safe full of guns, I still can organize groups to protest etc, I can still praise whatever diety I choose to, I can still vote, I can still conduct commerce freely, and as of this post, can still say what the hell I want to say...
What civil liberties am I missing today?

SpecialFX

I've know about the box under my seat since I drove the car off the dealer's lot. It has not in any way affected my driving for a second. I never think about it. Only when I read these post or an article like the one that started this whole thread do I give it a thought. I can't see a time when one would think about the EDR and chose not to take evasive action as a tractor-trailer comes speeding toward your door. You'd floor it and get out of the way, damn the black box.

The EDRs have been introduced as evedence in a few cases. I don't know the outcome. Locally there was a big case involving the deaths of two people struck by two cars who were racing. I'm all for using the data in that case.

As far as the EDR malfunctioning, if the data contradicts other evidence a good lawyer would easily get it thrown out.

There are a lot of good arguments for and against. I knew this article would create a lot of interest. I'm glad I brought it up and that this is still a civil debate.

acutee

It's not that ..."you must be guilty", but you don't want the guilty party to find reasons to get away from it. Lets say speed limit is 65mph and you were traveling 70. A drunk driver hit you. Now, the judge said the case is dismissed, 50/50. Why? you didn't obey the speed limit, and neither the drunk driver. Is this a fair case?

mr.motoring

<-- Me in 5th grade, 2nd period math just as the principal entered the room and spitballs are hanging precariously from the ceiling over his head.

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

Not a fair assessment.

You're speeding. Drunk Driver is speeding (to hit you), and drunk, and caused the accisdent. What judge is gonna call that 50/50.

Fully illustrating my point about litigation failure and lack of consequeunces. If the law was, "if you're speeding, and involved in an accident, you're at fault." It doesn't matter as you we're operating a vehicle outside the confines of the law.

acutee

We need a black box for human?!! Human is the cause, not the car. Should we implant a mirco chip in every human to track what human thinks? this way we can prevent things before it happens. We are all innocent and should not afraid of the micro chip. How about a black box in every house too, at least to track down domestic violence cases. We got nothing to afraid off if we are all innocent, and if we think privacy is a joke.

mr.motoring

You cannot assume that everyone will not be influenced, like you, with the knowledge that they are riding with an electronic driving instructor. Remember that not everyone thinks alike and how people think will determine their actions.

In street racing accidents where the guilty party is obvious, EDRs are as important as paramedics at a funeral.

The best an EDR could do in court is just to back up the verdict. It should never be used alone to prove or disprove a case. Like you said, if a good lawyer can get EDR evidence overruled, he can win or get it tossed just fine without it.

You've just opened up pandora's box.

calsdad

The point that almost everybody here seems to be missing is that in the end you are responsible for your own actions. If some parent gives his kid a computer - puts him or her on the internet and that kid is not told by the parent that they should not go running of with strangers then whose responsibility should it really be in the end? The problem with a lot of people these days is that they are busy bodies - they see something they don't like and they need to stick their finger in where it doesn't belong - and usually what that means is that they push to get a law passed against whatever behavior it is that they find disagreeable. Instead of the parents of said child owning up to their responsibities they whine about getting laws passed and they want the goverment to "do something". I would rather be in charge of my own destiny and have the goverment do nothing.

Adamo0926

I think you are going overboard with your "responsibilites" argument. While I agree that responsibility lies with the parents, they can't be hovering over their children 24/7. While many kids grow up in good solid homes and learn to be responsible at an early age, that is not the case for all children. For some reason or another they are vulnerable and these predators are very very smart and they use that. They come off as the trusting older person who really cares about them. Maybe in some cases they are taking the place of a father who was never there, or left the home, etc. In any case, people have human weaknesses especially younger people. The predators are out there and they always will be unless steps are taken to stop them. You sound like you are blaming the victims in much the same way a woman who gets sexually assaulted is often blamed. (She shouldn't have been walking there, she shouldn't have flirted, etc) People should have responsiblity but they should also be able to live their lives without having to fear that some sicko is waiting around every corner or in every computer to do them harm.

There is a fine line.....but I think all this stuff is a clear case where compromise is needed. Being extremist regarding this issue is the wrong way to go.

fsttyms1

1.)Comes donw to this. Its not a option, its manditory. WE the buyer should have the right to say no i dont want some type of monitoring device in our cars we are buying! Plain and simple. You want it great. I dont. Its a invasion of my privacy.

2.) the manufacturer doesnt get much if any good info from it to help its car saftey. They want to learn how to make it safer, they visit the body shop to see what kind of damage the car has and how to improve uppon its design (all of which they already know from their testing they do)

First this, then what? Like PA said, are they going to start tracking our speeds and sending us tickets? How about monitoring how much we drive per year and taxing us more for the miles we drive??? where does it start. I for one will be finding ways to remove this kind of garbage in the future.

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

That's your opinion, and unfortunately it's argued from the "perpetrator" perspective.

1) You do have the right to decide. Then don't buy the car. Again your compromising minor privacy for major conveneince.

2) You don't know that... You have no idea what the manufacturer gets from these units. Testing is continuous with cars because there are so many variables involved in the dynamics. Cars today are so complicated with ESP, SRS, ABS, and otehr integrated systems which are based of dynamic vehicle metric data, these systems are REQUIRED for operation.

Body shop? You're kidding right? You only lear about sheet metal damage from a body shop. You learn nothing of the state of the vehicle dynamics during the crash from a body shop.

What if they did start tracking speeed and sending tickets? Is tracking your speeding a violation of your privacy when you're on public roads? We're already taxed "by the mile" in fuel taxes, sales tax on everything auto related, tire/oil disposal taxes, and tolls.

Good luck in removing it, I think you're wasting your time. Go buy a 1968 Chevelle. There's no EDR in that.

Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

When has the safety of a child become the responsibilty of the world? I recall a TV commercial where a young girl was on her computer and somebody suddenly sent her a message. The girl asked his mother if it was safe to talk to this person, because the mother had previously taught her not to talk to strangers online, not to mention in real life. These days, nobody takes responsbilities for their actions and that's why the world keeps getting worse.

Take the tire pressure monitoring system I mentioned. It has become mandatory because people are too fucking stupid to check their tire pressure and maintain their tires. They don't know how to be responsible, so that government has to step in and account for their irresponsibility by mandating and forcing something upon others. I don't want the stupid monitoring system. It only adds weight to the rolling stock, when I'm trying to shave every possible ounce off of it for better performance, and it adds cost to the price of the vehicle. Great, because Joe Schmuck is too stupid to check his tire pressure, now I have to shell out 400 bucks extra on my new car so he can stay safe.

I accept compromises. But if the reasoning behind the compromise makes no sense to me, then I should have the right to refuse it. Unfortunately, I do not. That's what's wrong. Not to mention something/somebody is recording how I drive. Blah

Adamo0926

No matter what, responsibility is not going to stop all the idiots out there. If I can give up a few personal freedoms that really don't affect my life anyway and it can aid in saving even one life or one child from a predator, then I think that's worth it.

And actually....if your speed was being recorded from this EDR thing how is that any different from the planes and helicopters that fly overhead and calculate how fast people are driving ? Maybe we should make all speed monitoring illegal on the public roads because, after all, we should have the personal choice to drive like idiots when inside the cabin of our cars.

If you are doing something in the complete privacy of your own home that affects no one else, then the government has no business knowing what that is. Once you are in the public domain then all bets are off.

mr.motoring

Because the law enforcement needs to earn their 'busts'. Whether it's state troopers on the side of the highway with a radar gun, fixed speed cameras, or CHP helicopters, they all have to get their information to cite traffic violations on their own. I don't have any problem with those methods of speed enforcement. They should not be getting info from your personal property, especially if it's something you had to pay for.

Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

Mm-hmm. Then next comes computer chips implanted in our bodies. EDR, seeing as how it's constant surveillance, is just one of the steps toward total monitoring and controlling from the government.

xcelir8TL

The government is one thing to have access, but it is another when it comes down to our local Acura dealer...

MichaelBenz

iTrader: (2)

Here is a HUGE concept for the thread.....It all comes down to taking responsibility for your actions...and we as Americans typically are widely lacking in that department. (and usually cant see or recognize that fact either, hiding under the cloak of terms like Privacy and Rights) Americans dont want to take responsibility for anything usually. (and I am American as anybody....German/Irish Indy guy here)

I agree with the invasion concept....but then again...I am American too....

subinf

Well said. Those of you who are worried about not getting info from an accident, go ahead and request this. I have enough problem with the current administrations actions regarding other aspets of my life, I dont need another thing to add on to that.

MichaelBenz

iTrader: (2)

I would say yes....this will eventually hit the forefront once govt finds most cars can be trackable and the revenue it could generate. Not much different from the concept of traffic cameras that are mailing out tickets today.

I am sure the aftermarket industry will find a work-around though.

SpecialFX

What if you and "Joe Schmuck" are driving down the highway at, say 125mph(because it's no ones business what you do, you have the right to do what you want, you're a safe driver - and on and on). Joe, being a moron, did not check his tire pressure this morning and as you enter a fast sweeper side by side his tire lets loose. He loses control and slides sideways into you, pushing you off the road into a tree. If he had TPMS he would have known about the tire and could have slowed down or had it repaired. But you didn't want TPMS to be mandatory because it adds a few ounces to your car. Still think it's stupid?

subinf

Yes. Are we supposed to be treated like babies who cannot do anything?

SpecialFX

I can't understand anyone being against something like TPMS that could potentially save them from disaster. EDR is a different story as it's hard to envision a situation where it could save you, but very easy to see how it could screw you.

The point is, even if you are meticulous about maintaining your car - not just cleaning and waxing it but really maintaining it mechanically - and check your fluids, lights, tires etc every time you get in it, there's no guarantee that Joe Schmuck will do the same. But you have to share the road with him. Living in a society sometimes requires us to give some things up for the betterment of others. Fair or not, that's the way it is.

Everyone feels they are above average in their driving skills and should not be subject to the same laws and restraints as everyone else. Unfortunately that's not how it works. But it keeps a lot of us engineers employed trying to come up with ways to prevent people from killing themselves or others.

Adamo0926

SpecialFX....I like how you present your case....clear and concise. You state a very good case.

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

I love the old schoolers and how they complain of safety driven engineering changes which have and continually prove to be saving lives.

If it WASN'T for the government mandating these safety requirements we wouldn't have:
Seatbelts, non-shatter glass, anti-lock brakes, impact resisant fuel cells, rollover resistants. yada yada. All that extra weight has to be worth .1s in the 1/4...

Car manufacturers DON"T WANT to install this stuff either. It means more engineering, more testing, and more $$$ investied in design. The cars will sell for what the market will bear, so this has to amortized over volume... Every safety feature they are forced to comply with chews into that profit margin they COULD be sticking in thier pocket instead.

I check my oil, I check my tires (even with TPMS, casue it's not very accurate), I walk around and look under my car almost every time I get in it (mainly to admire it)... but I absolutely won't balk at additional safety features. I can control my right foot, it's the 7000 other folks who can't that get on the same highway I do every day that I'm worried about.

Weight savings? Every once of performance? It's like some folks think they're strapping into an Indy Car on the Monday morning commute.

I reccomend those who have such a LUST for speed and performance seriously consider building a race car for track use, where it's OK to eliminate these performacne inhibiting safety features. Unfortunately, your track car will have to comply with certain safety features too... Rollcages, helmets. etc.

Bitching about safety features engineered into vehicles which mitigates human nature is fruitless. Sometimes I think these folks just plain want to crash.

subinf

I might not have been as clear as I should have been, espeically jumping into this debate so late. TPMS alone, no problem with it. Checking tires is a pain in the ass and I understand its intentions, etc. I would have liked to have one to know that my rear tire blew out instead of seeing the smoke in my reiw view mirror. I do have a problem if its being used as apart of a greater technology to monitor our behavior and pry into things we feel are private. I think I might have picked the wrong statement to quote and should have read everything a little more clearly, but I still have some reservations against what goes into our cars (at least thats made mandatory).

Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

Man, where do we draw the line?

Following your logic, nothing is safe and we need others to look after us to make sure we stay safe in all aspects of life. At one point, we would hand over the power to govern ourselves to another entity (such as the government, hence the name) who will then have complete control over what we do and what we think.

Coincidentally, I happened to watch V for Vendetta earlier today. Have you seen it yet?


To refute your specific example, why stop at tire pressure monitoring? Why don't we limit the speed in our cars to the exact speed limit on that road? What about other things that can go wrong? Tire pressure isn't the only thing that could go wrong and cause a car to wreck. How about wheel studs? Brakes? Suspension? Axles? Potholes? Animals? Should we put sensors on all of these things? And should the government be able to monitor you via these sensors? If you answered yes, then why? Humans for the last 100 years have done fine with automobiles without the technology we have today. We're doing fine now without the technology we'll have in another 100 years. Ultimately, the safety of the car depends on the skills of the driver, which is what we should be focusing on.

We're trying to patch up the consequences of the problems, when we should be working on the cause of the problems -- the driver. A properly-taught driver would know to perform regular maintenance on the vehicle, and how to control a car. Virtually all of the technology today is just a mere replacement for the lack of skills and knowledge of a driver. Vehicle Stability Assist, Traction Control, Tire Pressure Monitoring System, etc, etc. -- a good driver would not need these things.

Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

TPMS is a pain in the ass. The system on my father's '04 Yukon XL Denali has already malfunctioned several times, and the dealership keeps telling us there's nothing wrong with the system, even though the system keeps giving us an error message. So obviously there is SOMETHING wrong; they are just too dumb to find out what it is.

And I know for a fact that the TPMS on many makes and models also malfunction, as well. TPMS is not that reliable or accurate. For a person like me, who checks the tire pressure on a regular basis, along with tire wear pattern, the TPMS is a total waste of money that I would be forced to spend, and cope with the malfuctions, when a 5-dollar pressure gauge and 5 minutes of my time every week or two is plenty enough. It just makes no sense to make it mandatory for everybody.

I take it that you NEVER EVER complain about the welfare, huh? You have to pay more money, because somebody else is not capable of working and/or earning as well as you do. Sure, it's for the good of the society, but seriously, if you can swear to God that you have never once complained about the welfare/taxes, then I will say that you're an altruistic sumbitch and give you props. But I doubt that's the case. Instead, I bet the case is that every time you look at your paycheck, you think "fuck, I paid how much in taxes!?"

It's not that I don't want a life-saving technology. I don't care that the SRS and the seat belts are mandatory. Those actually save lives for everybody. I've never not worn my seat belt. But TPMS? The cons outweigh the pros. Not everybody needs the TPMS, unlike the SRS and seat belts.

mr.motoring

Tire pressure monitoring all came about because of the fiasco surrounding the tread separation on Firestone tires equipped on the mid nineties Ford Explorers. Because those particular tires were not tolerant of even slightly below spec air pressure levels when compared to other tires, the tires overheated and the tread separated.

Even though these isolated incidents were blamed on just Firestone as a manufacturer defect, enough ignorant critics and scared car owners caused so much of an uproar over safety concerns that now, not only do you find TPMS standard on just about every truck and SUV, but even cars.

I would assume that had Firestone never released that particular faulty model tire (Wilderness AT ?), the general public would not even know what tire tread separation is, and TPMS would not be so prevalent as it is today. On the cars that would have it, instead of it being currently marketed as a 'safety' feature, it would have probably been on the window sticker under the category 'convenience ammenities'.

But we all know how popular those Explorers were, and a lot of those vehicles meant a lot of problems and a lot of publicity. Now those drivers aren't to blame, Firestone (and even Ford) took the heat. But these days, your tire would have to be obscenely low on air to cause it to fail. And I mean easily spottable visually with a casual glance. Read the owner's manual. It states before each and every drive, the driver should check the fluids, adjust the mirrors, and check the tires. Granted, no one ever does this every day. However, one should not rely solely on electronics for a diagnosis.