"In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
expected to propose long-delayed regulations requiring auto manufacturers to
include event data recorders — better known as "black boxes" — in all new
cars and light trucks. . . When a car is involved in a crash or when its
airbags deploy, inputs from the vehicle's sensors during the 5 to 10 seconds
before impact are automatically preserved. That's usually enough to record
things like how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver applied
the brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz2ENkLjj2o

On 12/7/2012 9:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
expected to propose long-delayed regulations requiring auto manufacturers to
include event data recorders — better known as "black boxes" — in all new
cars and light trucks. . . When a car is involved in a crash or when its
airbags deploy, inputs from the vehicle's sensors during the 5 to 10 seconds
before impact are automatically preserved. That's usually enough to record
things like how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver applied
the brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz2ENkLjj2o



I can see a cottage industry for modding automobile black boxes. Of
course there are already ways to hack automobile computers and I don't
think it's any great leap to the formation of black box hacking clubs
and widespread information and how-to's showing up on The Web. ^_^

TDD

On 12/7/2012 10:29 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/7/2012 9:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is
expected to propose long-delayed regulations requiring auto
manufacturers to
include event data recorders — better known as "black boxes" — in
all new
cars and light trucks. . . When a car is involved in a crash or when
its
airbags deploy, inputs from the vehicle's sensors during the 5 to 10
seconds
before impact are automatically preserved. That's usually enough to
record
things like how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver
applied
the brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz2ENkLjj2o




I can see a cottage industry for modding automobile black boxes. Of
course there are already ways to hack automobile computers and I don't
think it's any great leap to the formation of black box hacking clubs
and widespread information and how-to's showing up on The Web. ^_^

This is being driven by the insurance companies, as part of their
effort to determine and assign fault for so-called accidents (better
defined as crashes, since the majority are preventable). They'll make
a condition of being insured that the data is available. You tamper
the box, they won't pay your claim.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 09:55:56 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
expected to propose long-delayed regulations requiring auto manufacturers to
include event data recorders — better known as "black boxes" — in all new
cars and light trucks. . . When a car is involved in a crash or when its
airbags deploy, inputs from the vehicle's sensors during the 5 to 10 seconds
before impact are automatically preserved. That's usually enough to record
things like how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver applied
the brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz2ENkLjj2o


note;
"But the agency is behind the curve. Automakers have been quietly
tucking the devices, which automatically record the actions of drivers
and the responses of their vehicles in a continuous information loop,
into most new cars for years."

"all" instead of 'most' works for me. And I'm fine with an
insurance company not paying the guy who altered his, too.

I love the Fox headline that refers to the last paragraph quoting a R
congresscritter.

The article itself seems to support the idea.

Jim

On 12/7/2012 11:16 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 12/7/2012 10:29 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/7/2012 9:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is
expected to propose long-delayed regulations requiring auto
manufacturers to
include event data recorders — better known as "black boxes" — in
all new
cars and light trucks. . . When a car is involved in a crash or when
its
airbags deploy, inputs from the vehicle's sensors during the 5 to 10
seconds
before impact are automatically preserved. That's usually enough to
record
things like how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver
applied
the brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz2ENkLjj2o





I can see a cottage industry for modding automobile black boxes. Of
course there are already ways to hack automobile computers and I don't
think it's any great leap to the formation of black box hacking clubs
and widespread information and how-to's showing up on The Web. ^_^

This is being driven by the insurance companies, as part of their effort
to determine and assign fault for so-called accidents (better defined as
crashes, since the majority are preventable). They'll make a condition
of being insured that the data is available. You tamper the box, they
won't pay your claim.


You don't know a lot about hacking do you? The point of hacking is to
conceal the tampering. GPS recording can be handled with GPS jammers
which are available and not that expensive. ^_^

TDD

the day is coming where intelligent vehicles check themselves for
speeding and call in the report to the police that send you a ticket.

you were on X road the speed limit is 55, you were doing 75. pay this
150 buck ticket congrats no points if paid promptly.

tampering with the device will render the vehicle undrivable.

its for our safety

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
the day is coming where intelligent vehicles check themselves for
speeding and call in the report to the police that send you a ticket.

you were on X road the speed limit is 55, you were doing 75. pay this
150 buck ticket congrats no points if paid promptly.

tampering with the device will render the vehicle undrivable.

its for our safety


While I do not like the idea , it would be good if they could be set so that
if you are going over say 80 to 90 mph they would shut down the car and
would need a reset to get them going again. Should cut down some of the
high speed chases.

I have seen some advertisements on TV about a removiable device that checks
your driving and the insurance company sets your rate by your driving
habits.

On Dec 7, 5:12*pm, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...

the day is coming where intelligent vehicles check themselves for
speeding and call in the report to the police that send you a ticket.

you were on X road the speed limit is 55, you were doing 75. pay this
150 buck ticket congrats no points if paid promptly.

tampering with the device will render the vehicle undrivable.

its for our safety

While I do not like the idea , it would be good if they could be set so that
if you are going over say 80 to 90 mph they would shut down the car and
would need a reset to get them going again. *Should cut down some of the
high speed chases.

If you want to wish for that, why would it have to shut the
car down? You could just wish for a car that won't go
over 80 mph to begin with. And don't know what's so
special about high speed chases over 80mph. If they are
going 80 or 100, not much difference in my book and
I'm not sure there are that many that go much faster
than that. The real problem is that any of these
chases can be deadily for innocent bystanders.
The simpler solution is to not have police
continue to chase someone who is fleeing a routine
traffic stop. That's where most of these chases originate
from.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:56:31 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

the day is coming where intelligent vehicles check themselves for
speeding and call in the report to the police that send you a ticket.

you were on X road the speed limit is 55, you were doing 75. pay this
150 buck ticket congrats no points if paid promptly.

tampering with the device will render the vehicle undrivable.

its for our safety


.... just blame it on the car. Sir, I was asleep!

"...According to the Las Vegas Sun, Google has received permission
from the Nevada state Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately
begin testing a fleet of driverless cars on public streets. The Sun
says six autonomous cars have been outfitted by the team at Google:
six Toyota Priuses, an Audi TT and a Lexus RX450h. All the driverless
cars will receive red license plates, with an infinity symbol on the
left of the plate. "

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2012/0508/Nevada-allows-Google-to-test-driverless-cars-on-public-streets

wrote in message
...
If you want to wish for that, why would it have to shut the
car down? You could just wish for a car that won't go
over 80 mph to begin with. And don't know what's so
special about high speed chases over 80mph. If they are
going 80 or 100, not much difference in my book and
I'm not sure there are that many that go much faster
than that. The real problem is that any of these
chases can be deadily for innocent bystanders.
The simpler solution is to not have police
continue to chase someone who is fleeing a routine
traffic stop. That's where most of these chases originate
from.

My thinking is that when the car hits say 80 + mph it shuts down. That
limits the high speed part of the chase to a short distance. I think there
are some policies not to get into a high speed chase unless there is more
involved than a simple traffic stop.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:21:30 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 7, 5:12*pm, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...

the day is coming where intelligent vehicles check themselves for
speeding and call in the report to the police that send you a ticket.

you were on X road the speed limit is 55, you were doing 75. pay this
150 buck ticket congrats no points if paid promptly.

tampering with the device will render the vehicle undrivable.

its for our safety

While I do not like the idea , it would be good if they could be set so that
if you are going over say 80 to 90 mph they would shut down the car and
would need a reset to get them going again. *Should cut down some of the
high speed chases.

If you want to wish for that, why would it have to shut the
car down? You could just wish for a car that won't go
over 80 mph to begin with. And don't know what's so
special about high speed chases over 80mph. If they are
going 80 or 100, not much difference in my book and
I'm not sure there are that many that go much faster
than that. The real problem is that any of these
chases can be deadily for innocent bystanders.
The simpler solution is to not have police
continue to chase someone who is fleeing a routine
traffic stop. That's where most of these chases originate
from.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/energy/cs.cfm

On 12/7/2012 11:26 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/7/2012 11:16 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 12/7/2012 10:29 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/7/2012 9:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is
expected to propose long-delayed regulations requiring auto
manufacturers to
include event data recorders — better known as "black boxes" — in
all new
cars and light trucks. . . When a car is involved in a crash or when
its
airbags deploy, inputs from the vehicle's sensors during the 5 to 10
seconds
before impact are automatically preserved. That's usually enough to
record
things like how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver
applied
the brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz2ENkLjj2o






I can see a cottage industry for modding automobile black boxes. Of
course there are already ways to hack automobile computers and I don't
think it's any great leap to the formation of black box hacking clubs
and widespread information and how-to's showing up on The Web. ^_^

This is being driven by the insurance companies, as part of their
effort
to determine and assign fault for so-called accidents (better
defined as
crashes, since the majority are preventable). They'll make a condition
of being insured that the data is available. You tamper the box, they
won't pay your claim.


You don't know a lot about hacking do you? The point of hacking is to
conceal the tampering. GPS recording can be handled with GPS jammers
which are available and not that expensive. ^_^

TDD

Hey Mr. Paranoid, these aren't GPS trackers. And the data is the
property of the vehicle's owner. AND over 90% of the vehicles on the
road _already_ have these installed.

On 12/7/2012 5:44 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 12/7/2012 11:26 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/7/2012 11:16 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 12/7/2012 10:29 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/7/2012 9:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is
expected to propose long-delayed regulations requiring auto
manufacturers to
include event data recorders — better known as "black boxes" — in
all new
cars and light trucks. . . When a car is involved in a crash or when
its
airbags deploy, inputs from the vehicle's sensors during the 5 to 10
seconds
before impact are automatically preserved. That's usually enough to
record
things like how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver
applied
the brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz2ENkLjj2o







I can see a cottage industry for modding automobile black boxes. Of
course there are already ways to hack automobile computers and I don't
think it's any great leap to the formation of black box hacking clubs
and widespread information and how-to's showing up on The Web. ^_^

This is being driven by the insurance companies, as part of their
effort
to determine and assign fault for so-called accidents (better
defined as
crashes, since the majority are preventable). They'll make a condition
of being insured that the data is available. You tamper the box, they
won't pay your claim.


You don't know a lot about hacking do you? The point of hacking is to
conceal the tampering. GPS recording can be handled with GPS jammers
which are available and not that expensive. ^_^

TDD

Hey Mr. Paranoid, these aren't GPS trackers. And the data is the
property of the vehicle's owner. AND over 90% of the vehicles on the
road _already_ have these installed.

JHC! WTF do you think is the basis for OnStar? I don't think you were
paying attention in class. ^_^

http://gizmodo.com/5540029/no-kiddin...ely-controlled

http://tinyurl.com/388s889

TDD

On 08 Dec 2012 00:11:39 GMT, PeterD wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

"In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is expected to propose long-delayed regulations
requiring auto manufacturers to include event data recorders — better
known as "black boxes" — in all new cars and light trucks. . . When a
car is involved in a crash or when its airbags deploy, inputs from the
vehicle's sensors during the 5 to 10 seconds before impact are
automatically preserved. That's usually enough to record things like
how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver applied the
brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...cars-raise-pri
vacy-concerns/#ixzz2ENkLjj2o



Seems as tho breathalyzers would be good since too many idiots drink, drive
and kill other people. They get off in court and go do it again.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...0,700165.story

Moe DeLoughan used improper usenet message composition style by
unnecessarily full-quoting:

Hey Mr. Paranoid, these aren't GPS trackers. And the data is the
property of the vehicle's owner. AND over 90% of the vehicles on
the road _already_ have these installed.

The data is the property of the vehicle's owner?

After a night of moderate drinking, you get in your car and drive home.
A few miles from the strip bar you were patronizing, while in a drunken
stupor, you collide with a tractor-trailor and you're rendered bloody,
bruised, unconscious - but still alive. The police, a firetruck and a
couple of ambulances are dispatched to the scene.

At the scene, officer Ken Qualls (me) pulls out my ODB event-recorder
scan-tool (sold only to law enforcement) and I plug it into the data
port located under the dash of your wrecked car. You are unconcious, on
a gurney strapped to a body-board, with an IV in your arm, being loaded
into an ambulance.

While I'm downloading the black-box data from your car, I'm looking
around inside your car, looking for open liquor or beer bottles, plastic
baggies filled with green leafy items or white powder, fire arms, your
cell phone, etc. If I find your cell phone, I'm going to browse through
it, look at any pictures it might contain, flip through the contacts and
see if I recognize anyone, etc.

Oh - I see the download is finished. I'm going to take the data back
and log it as evidence.

Because I'm essentially an armed stenographer, most of what I do as an
officer of the law is fill out paperwork that's destined for the desk of
some insurance company. Your insurance company - and that of the
trucker that you hit, is going to see your black-box data and will use
it to determine if you are 100% at fault in this accident, or something
less.

But there you have it. The data that you think is yours is now mine (oh
yea- it's still there inside your black-box). Your car is going to be a
hostile witness, and will testify against you. Enjoy your day...

http://www.motorists.org/black-boxes/data-ownership

https://secure.policeone.com/preview...-Data-Recovery

On 12-07-2012 17:26, Oren wrote:
"...According to the Las Vegas Sun, Google has received permission
from the Nevada state Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately
begin testing a fleet of driverless cars on public streets. The Sun
says six autonomous cars have been outfitted by the team at Google:
six Toyota Priuses, an Audi TT and a Lexus RX450h. All the driverless
cars will receive red license plates, with an infinity symbol on the
left of the plate. "

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2012/0508/Nevada-allows-Google-to-test-driverless-cars-on-public-streets

http://www.mavericklsa.com/

Half the price, one-third the speed, and it can go in water as well.

--
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.org/barrett

On 12-07-2012 20:28, Officer Ken Qualls wrote:
At the scene, officer Ken Qualls (me) pulls out my ODB event-recorder
scan-tool (sold only to law enforcement) and I plug it into the data

Yeah, right. NSA, CIA, Mafia, Mossad, and more will have them, too.

--
Wes Groleau

The man who says, €œI can do it!" may sometimes fail.
The man who says, €œImpossible!" will never succeed.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:12:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:





While I do not like the idea , it would be good if they could be set so that
if you are going over say 80 to 90 mph they would shut down the car and
would need a reset to get them going again. Should cut down some of the
high speed chases.

That would take the fun out of my daily commute. I'm in favor of a
disabling device operated by the chasing police cruiser, but not for
anyone to restrict my speed.


I have seen some advertisements on TV about a removiable device that checks
your driving and the insurance company sets your rate by your driving
habits.

A half dozen years ago, my insurance company offered some driver $400
to allow one to be installed for a few months. I let them do it.
There were no restriction on driving and no penalties for anything. I
allegedly would be done anonymously. I did keep my speed down to 75
during the test.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

"In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
expected to propose long-delayed regulations requiring auto manufacturers to
include event data recorders €” better known as "black boxes" €” in all new
cars and light trucks. . . When a car is involved in a crash or when its
airbags deploy, inputs from the vehicle's sensors during the 5 to 10 seconds
before impact are automatically preserved. That's usually enough to record
things like how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver applied
the brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on."

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz2ENkLjj2o


I won't be concerned about them. My first new vehicle was in 1992 and I
still have. Can never afford another new one. WW

Lemme make a few points:

1. Yes there are drunk drivers that kill people. However, my experience has been that the vast majority of people that have been drinking but make the decision to drive home are not so plastered that they go nutz at the wheel. The vast majority of them are still thinking well enough not to want to lose their driver's licence. So, they take the back streets all the way home, because there are no other cars on those streets at 2:00 AM. With those people that get plastered and drive crazy, those are the people that would kill themselves one way or the other before they turn 30.

2. I think the pendelum has swung too far the wrong way when it comes to "cracking down" on drunk driving. When I was a kid, a friend of my father's was a confirmed alcoholic, even though he wouldn't admit it. He was caught drunk driving at least a dozen times before they took away his driver's license, including being caught drunk at the wheel of his farm tractor while driving it on the highway. But, he never killed anyone, and at that time the laws were fairly lenient. Now, we have very strict laws concerning drunk driving; so strict they could ruin the career of a professional driver or someone who must drive to earn a living. But, I don't think that really makes a difference. The people that drive drunk are playing the odds. They know they're unlikely to be caught as long as they drive prudently and don't attract attention to themselves.

3. I really don't see a major problem with having a data recorder on a car. I put it in the same bag as speeding and red light cameras. If you drive prudently, whether impaired or not, that box isn't going to know what your blood alcohol level is. It'll just prove that you were driving prudently.

4. Here in Manitoba, a guy who's blood alcohol level was over the legal limit was driving down the #59 highway into Winnipeg about 10 years ago. A perfectly sober woman, with her daughter in the passenger's seat, apparantly didn't realize that she was pulling onto a divided highway, and pulled directly into the drunk man's path. The result was a 60 mph head on collision in which the two sober people both died, but the drunk was almost unhurt. The police tried to take the man's driver's licence away claiming he was at fault for having caused the collision, and they came to that conclusion simply because the man was over the legal limit. He had to hire a lawyer to fight the charge in court, but the judge agreed with him. Drunk or not, it was entirely the woman's fault. It just kinda sucks that the police would ignore the facts just to nail a drunk, but prudent driver.

5. I, for one, have had it up to my ears with our city police forces "cracking down" on what for the most part is law abiding citizens committing driving offenses to raise money for the City coiffers. Our city turns a blind eye to spray painting grafitti, committing vandalism and shoplifting because the police are too busy hiding behind bushes with their radar guns or watching to see if someone came to a full stop at a stop sign, was wearing a seat belt or signalled before they changed lanes. That's because the 19 year old that "tags" the side of a bank, or the 14 year old that steals a pack of smokes doesn't have the money to pay a fine. But, anyone that can afford to drive a car can afford to pay a fine.
I was recently given a ticket for driving without a seat belt. I dropped in at a Safeway store only about 6 blocks from my home, and after getting back in my car I figured I'd be home by the time I got it latched up anyway. But, as I turned a corner, there was a cop standing on the other side of the corner checking for seat belts and waiving over anyone he saw without one. I don't object to being fined for not wearing the seat belt. I object to the amount of the fine; $391. To fine a person that much for simply not wearing a seat belt is no longer encouraging driver safety; it's a money grab.

6. When a cop does something wrong, the police try to cover for him. In Winnipeg, a cop named Derek Harvey Zenk was drinking heavily with other cops at a restaurant, and then went to a cop's house to continue drinking at a spontaneous house party. He was driving home at 6:00 AM when he fell asleep at the wheel and ended up rear-ending a car stopped at a red light at 60 mph. That car was driven by a married woman with three children, Crystal Taman, who was killed in the crash.
Initially, when the Chief of Police, Jack Ewatski, heard what happened, he instructed all of the officers who attended the accident scene to remove any references to drinking, alcohol or drunkedness from their reports and notes. He ended up losing his job over that. The police that were with Zenk in the restaurant and at house party later swore under oath at his trial that they "didn't notice" if Zenk had been drinking or not, making it impossible for the prosecutor to prove that he was driving drunk, even though the police that attended the accident initially reported that Zenk smelled of alcohol and appeared to be drunk. Because all references to alcohol and Zenk being drunk were taken out of the files on the matter, the prosecutor couldn't prove that it was a drunk driving related death, and so Zenk got off with a conditional two year prison term to be served at home.
Most people here in Winnipeg thought that it stunk that our Winnipeg Police Department would try to accuse a drunk man of having caused a traffic fatality only because he was the only drunk driver on the scene, but yet lie under oath to protect one of their own who's drinking and driving killed a married mother of three.
Taman Inquiry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I, for one, lost all respect for the Winnipeg Police Department after they tried to blame a driving fatality on a drunk man just cuz he was drunk despite the woman being completely at fault. The Taman inquiry only proved they didn't deserve any respect.

Now you know what I think of drunk driving and drunk police.

Per Ed Pawlowski:
I'm in favor of a
disabling device operated by the chasing police cruiser, but not for
anyone to restrict my speed.

Ownership of such a device sounds like a 13-year-old's dream come
true.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 12/8/2012 9:18 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ed Pawlowski:
I'm in favor of a
disabling device operated by the chasing police cruiser, but not for
anyone to restrict my speed.

Ownership of such a device sounds like a 13-year-old's dream come
true.


I am surprised the 13 year olds haven't discovered MIRT and how
simplistic it is (especially the instant mode).