Re: Tell-Tale Chips in Chryslers?

But what makes you think they didn't already? The science of accident forensics is pretty advanced from what I've read and seen about it.

Not that I want a black box riding along with me, mind you, but face it: commit a crime that results in a death and don't manage to cover it up = going to jail. Simple as that.

--Geoff

The purpose of these chips is to save your life, and to save on replacing airbags. Why set off and airbag at 5 MPH...no reason...unless you where just traveling 55MPH, and you locked the brakes up...ABS is pumping, the computer can't tell how fast you are going, even though the speedo says five, but it knows that 4 seconds ago you were doing 55...guess it had better deploy the airbags when you hit huh...next: You are doing 5 MPH in a parking lot, and have been just idling around looking for a spot when someone backs out in front of you...computer knows you have been doing 5MPH for the last 5 seconds, no reason to deploy airbag in that situation...just saved you $700...

Spy chip...not even close...just smart cops somewhere figured out they could use that info to prosecute your manslaughter case.

Anymore dumb questions?

Ok genius, since you seem a little slow I will help you out...

For started, the computers are there to save your life, and to save $$$, and a few other things I don't understand...

Life saver: You are doing 60MPH and slam on the brakes, ABS is pumping and the speedo says 10MPH, but you are still doing 50...computer knows you are doing 10 now, but 60 1.7 seconds ago...better deploy the airbags as you hit the semi (1.75 seconds) that just jack knifed in front of you....

Life saver/money saver: You are roaming the grocery store parking lot for a spot, and lean over the wheel and peer back and left b/c you think something, hopefully a car, just moved. Someone backs out right into you...10 MPH. Airbags dont go off! Why...because for the past 7 seconds you have been doing 10 MPH, idling around trying to get that sweet parking spot. No need for the airbags. Good thing, too, that they didn't go off, as your head would've been shot out the rear window because you were too damn close to the airbag. And they cost $700 to replace.

Make anymore sense?

Oh, and ya, most newer Chrylers have them...my '98 Jeep Wrangler does...if it didn't, I would have gone thru a few dozen airbags by now...slick trails make for some nice head on collisions with trees...at 4 MPH

Don't flatter yourself Nabisco Boy.

Moron, there was no tell-tale chip used to determine that the driver in question was speeding.

In the State of Oregon you can refuse to take the breathalyzer test, and many people do. While legally the police officers can force you to take a test or get a blood sample, the fact is that they never do so unless it is a high profile accident, such as one where someone dies. The reason for this is that if you do refuse, your license is automatically suspended for a year, and in court the judge will instruct the jury that you refused, and that the jury is permitted to view the refusal as an admission of guilt.

So the result of all this is that the State has setup a procedure in which people actually are not forced to take a breathalyzer or blood test, yet it is a procedure in which the State gets what it wants anyway. (your conviction if your drunk) I am sure that other states have similar setups.

So the upshot is I see little difference if the US Supreme Court were to strike down forced blood tests or breathalyzer tests, than if they don't. Noting really would change, because the situation is setup in such a way as the State doesn't really need to force you to take the test.

I am sure that the States will setup a similar thing with "spy chips" once they become pretty standard in all cars. In short, you will have the ability to deny them reading out your spy chip contents - but if you do, your going to f*ck yourself.

Ted

However, since you are a rider you have bias. Everyone has bias it comes from the environment they were raised in, what they were taught, etc. etc. and there is nothing wrong with this, however it is wrong to not mention it when it is important.

For example if I were running around advocating a racist stance such as Blacks are inferior to Whites, don't you think it would be relevant that I happen to be White myself? If you advocate not wearing helmets don't you think it would be relevant that you are a rider and don't wear one yourself? That's what I was talking about.

Exactly, you were stereotyped because of what you chose to ride, and that is not fair, right?

So 2/3 of Oregon is composed of liberal do-gooders? Now you are stereotyping 2/3 of Oregonians as do-gooder liberals just because they voted in a helmet law. You didn't like it when people were stereotyping you as a druggie, now your stereotyping 2/3 of the state's population as do-gooder liberals? Don't you see a problem here?

I guess you are so blind to this helmet-law thing that you cannot even conceive that anyone in the 2/3 that voted in the helmet law did so for logical reasons, and that anyone in that 2/3 might happen to be a conservative, not a do-gooder liberal. In short, when faced with the possibility that there might actually be people out there who are just like you and think just like you, on everything other than this helmet law thing, your brain cannot conceive of this because you might then have to admit to yourself that your wrong, and you just cannot have that.

Now, certainly there were do-gooder liberals in the group that voted in the helmet law. But to claim that every single last person that voted in the helmet law was such, is rediculous. Your only doing this because you can't even consider that you might be wrong.

2/3 of the population of Oregon concluded that they do based on the number of riders that were not wearing helmets and ending up as vegetables or dead in the emergency rooms of the state.

If you don't want freedoms taken away then you must act responsibly. It is just like the highway speed limits being set at 60-70Mph when in fact there are a great many cars and drivers that could safely drive these same highways at 100Mph particularly in rural areas. Originally when automobiles were first manufactured, no roads had speed limits. Limits were instituted because too many drivers were causing problems by speeding in inappropriate places.

This in fact is one of my biggest beefs about the speed limits, enforcement. When I am pulled over doing 70 in a 55 zone, in broad sunny daylight with very few cars on the road, it makes me furious that the officer does not take road conditions into account. However I would never argue for getting rid of the speed limit because there's too many foolish idiots that will drive the same stretch 70mph at night in the rain with many cars.

This is fine for individuals. Unfortunately on the public highways we must deal with people as a mob/crowd/whatever. In short, the laws on the roads must be written in response to what the crowd does, not what a few responsible individuals do. Unfortunately the crowd right now has too many people that act irresponsibly when driving.

I got a personal reminder of this last Friday night, by the way - my wife was rear-ended on the highway by a hit and run driver. Did over $3K damage to the back of the van. Fortunately nobody was hurt and insurance will cover. But this has been the 3rd auto accident that I or my wife has been the victim of over the last 2 years. It it is pretty clear to me that espically in the last 10 years there has been a huge increase in irresponsible drivers out there. Thus I will support more curtailment of my "personal freedom" on the road that would result in the police being able to remove these drivers from the road. This includes things like tremendously raising penalties for driving while license is suspended, etc. It is after all ultimately a survival thing, you see. If this trend keeps up then it's statistically inevitable that I or someone in my family will be seriously injured or killed by an irresponsible driver before the end of their natural lives. Until the day comes that drivers quit drinking and smashing up other people's property as a result, we have no real choice other than to bring down the hammer.

But they do have that right. You seem to think that wearing a helmet should be optional because if the rider doesen't wear one that it won't endanger anyone else on the road but himself. While it may be true that nobody else will die if the rider gets killed, the unfortunate fact is, and this is bourne out by studies, that a much larger number of helmetless rider do in fact not die, but instead have much worse injuries, often permanent brain damage. This many times causes the rider to be so disabled they can no longer work and end up being permanent wards of the state, living off the tax dollars of all those other people on the road that "didn't get injured because the rider chose to not wear a helmet".

In fact, it doesen't even take a lot of riders. Do you know how much it costs to care for even ONE person who has critical head injuries and spends several months in the hospital and several years with therapists and such?

In fact one of the big arguments that won people over to the helmet law in Oregon was the cost savings because so many of these helmetless riders were ending up in public hospitals and costing the state literally millions of dollars.

Yes, and if I'm a resident there and end up disabled for the rest of my life by a severe head injury caused by not wearing a helmet and riding into a pole, are you all going to pay for me to live in medical-assisted housing for the rest of my natural life too?

No you just like to pay a lot of tax money on stupid morons that think it's OK to not wear a helmet and then go injure themselves in a motorcycle crash.

Live Responsibly or lose Freedom!

Ted