Black boxes ?

Since you had brought up pipe bombs, and anthrax, etc, you seemed to have gone well beyond the issue of breaking speed limits. So are speed limits the only laws you think we should somehow be prevented from breaking and it's ok for us to have the *ability* to buy gun power and plumbing supplies and make pipe bombs?

Dunno, I'll have to think about it.

Regards, Anthony Giorgianni

Thought about it and have decide the following: There is a distinction between buying gun powder and plumbing supplies and buying a car with the ability to exceed the speed limit.

The first two have legal purposes.

Speeding is always illegal, though I acknowledge that the need to have the ability to speed could be important when passing, etc. But if there were a way to resolve that kind of issue, I would have absolutely no problem with physically disabling cars from exceeding speed limits. As you know from rec.autos.driving, the feeling among many drivers is that speed limits are set artificially low so that the state can collect money from tickets. I don't think that is true in most cases. But to the extent it is, if you eliminate that incentive by preventing cars from exceeding the speed limit in the first place, it naturally would follow that speed limits would be raised to a practical level.

I see no argument whatsoever to support the idea that we as a society must provide citizens the means to break the laws simply on human dignity, religious or free speech grounds. But I do suspect that these are arguments made by people who really just want to speed and are looking for an excuse to prevent anyone from stopping them. I think it would be better if we as individuals voluntarily obeyed our laws, since the rule of law is the most important thing we have and guarantees our freedom. But I see no problem with removing the means to violate the law, as long as those means do not have permissible purposes as well, as you point as with gun powder and plumbing supplies.

No it's not. Many people take there cars to the drag strip. And if they are driving on their own property they can go as fast as they want.

though I acknowledge that the need to have the

So if you were out driving with your son (if you have one), and you were on a road with virtually no traffic that was signed for 45 mph because the local grandmothers can't handle modest turns in their Buick Park Avenues, and you son had a seizure, you'd feel just fine that you were only able to get him to the hospital 10 miles away at a leisurely 45 mph when a non-speed limited car could easily make the trip safely at 60+ mph. And if your son died because of the time you wasted you would not be bothered one bit that the gvt CHOOSE to take away your ability to make your own decisions and accept the responsibility for them.

As you know from

By definition, if you are on a drag strip or private property, you are not speeding - unless there are posted speed limits.

Speeding to take someone you know to the hospital is perhaps the worst reason to speed. Heightened emotions combined with going 60+ in a road posted for 45 is asking for an accident - you don't have emergency lights and a siren. And getting into an accident with someone in the car who already is in a life-threatening condition only makes matters worse. And you are putting other drivers at risk as well. Call the police, call an ambulance.

Regards, Anthony Giorgianni

Email: snipped-for-privacy@att.net Web page:

Wow..... all of this because a "black box" records what is happening during an accident - heavy on the "during an accident". Here is a device that records probably the worst 15 or 20 seconds of your life and, providing your not the cause (not you in particular Anthony, since you seem to be a proponent, anyway), could save you a life of agony and high premiums and we've gotten into limiting speeds.

AZguy seems to have lost sight of the fact that, while breaking the law might be a God given right (WTF is that?) a speeding driver, in the event of an accident, will be more culpable than one observing the laws that should be allowed to break (the headache is starting..... laws to protect us and our right to break the laws that protect us and if we break the law we are still innocent..... we can always find someone to sue if we break the law since we were allowed to break the law and therefore the law didn't protect us...... I could use this same argument with alcohol - why can we be charged with DUI when the goverment allows liquor sales?).

The Restraint Control Module records data pertinent to the accident - nothing more, nothing less.... a few seconds before and a few seconds after - WTF is so bad about this..... unless of course, we have something to hide. I really have to question a mindset that encompasses the idea that doing the wrong thing is a right...

Last week, I had to remove the cubbyhole on a '02 SuperDuty to access a module. Out fell a bong........ the guys boss picked the truck up and asked if there was anything he needed to be aware of (I imagine, in regards to future repairs.........)..... I still don't know how to reply.

Lastly, in light of some of the things I've seen in this thread, I can only ask where the f*ck this world is going. I have the urge to apologize to my son for bringing him into such a screwed up world,

Hey Jim

I guess I'm a proponent of black boxes .... but I do have concerns about how unprivate our world is becoming as technology improves. I guess it is for us as a society to decide where to draw the line. And it is up to the courts to determine at what point things violate constitutional rights. If I were AZ, I wouldn't argue the right to drive or the god-given "right" to break the law; I'd argue the right to privacy, as determined in the US Roe Vs. Wade abortion case. I do not know where the constitutionality lies. But I kind of doubt black boxes would be judged a privacy violation.

For some drivers, the very point is what you said: The boxes are helpful in determining speed during an accident. There are many people who simply believe that speed limits = government revenue raising and nothing more. For them, speeding sort of proves their machoness. It's the way they distinguish themselves from the crowd, the way they get their thrills. I don't mean to sound like I am making a judgment here, just an observation. They will not accept a relationship between speeding and accidents, and they will point to many pieces of information to demonstrate this: government and private studies, accident rates on the Autobahn. They favor raising speed limits to the 85th percentile, citing the US feds recommendation that the standard should be a major factor in determining rates (some studies actually do show that increasing speed limits under certain circumstances does not lead to more accidents or deaths). However, if you press them, many would not favor any restriction beyond that either - such as car confiscation, the physical limiting of vehicle speed. The fervor behind of the "right to speed" is akin to the fervor behind the right to bear arms.

If you want to see all this, head on over to rec.auto.driving. Don't try to argue for speed control there. It will be too frustrating an experience. Needless to say, most of the posters there are men.

You would not expect these people to support having a device that would prove they were speeding if they got into an accident.

Personally, I don't see anything very macho about sitting on your butt on a foam rubber seat, pushing your toes down on a rubber pedal and turning a power-assisted steering wheel. I think it takes little effort to speed. The real challenge is being a safe driver - keeping your car in great shape, looking for accidents before they happen and avoiding them. I tell people to just try driving one full day without violating any traffic rule. Now that is a challenge!

But don't let arguments here get you so down. The world is not nearly that bad. Lots of good around and good people.