So, with all the recent news programs saying that all cars will probably have these in the next few years....when did the Explorer get them?
Apparently, GM has had them for the last 5+ year standard in almost everything now, but only the "high end" Fords have had them as of recently.
Bottom line - can these be yanked without affecting the vehicle, or are they tied to overall operation ? Big brother can bite me....
Ah, yes... the mis-information bug strikes again. I will boldly assume that you are meaning the Crash Data Recovery systems built into some Restraint Control Modules.
You guys leave a trail a mile wide with your credit card and bank card without a second thought (and you thought nobody was profiling you???), cookies out the yin-yang on your computer and God knows what else, but bitch about something that could very well help you in a court of law........ I'm flumoxed.... flabbergasted.... speechless.
Rich... cool yer jets... have a Molsons and unlax...... Look for aliens where they may live, there are so many more things that speak volumes about our lives other than what happened in the few seconds before we wiped out an entire family (or avoided wiping out an entire family) that we overlook. Each and every day we leave a paper trail that the bean counters and psychoANALysts love.
-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net
What misinformation did he post? I didn't see much of any MISS information. As far as any "benefit", I'll pass. We all know what the inevitable end point of these things will be if we act like the sheep that occupy some countries - they will wind up recording your speed not for just the last 3 seconds, but for the last 30 minutes and that data will become retrievable on the spot by the gestapo when they pull you over for speeding. Then it will spread to "safety checks" where they will do a read out without probable cause on ALL vehicles going past the MANDATORY check point. Tent, camel.
I will boldly assume that
A big part of the misinformation comes from what I have seen is what information is gathered and how it may be used. About 15 seconds of information can be stored and whether it is retained in memory depends on whether the incident that triggers the event is a deployment or non-deployment event. You guys are too busy looking under the rug for bad guys that you miss the bad guys that are in your face. Looking at the original post in it's context (a day late and a dollar short), we can obviously see a knee jerk reaction to an old subject.
So.... this thing is collecting data about your crash.... the only way I can see this being bad is if you did something wrong and lied..... I have seen theories including near GPS accuracy in tracking movements over the life of the vehicle. Again.... if you're not doing anything wrong or odiferous... would this be bad? At least you could prove to your loving bride that you haven't been boinking her sister.... (or have you... a joke, fer Krissake).
I don't pretend to know what is the accepted practice south of the
49th...... here in the Canadian oilpatch we accept the burden of our errors. The only people that have anything to hide are the people that should hide what they have done.....I have no doubts that there will come a day when both of our governments will be able to track everything we say, do and think - but I can't see that coming from this "mysterious black box" (which, BTW is called a restraint control module). I also have very little doubt that our respective governments have substantial documentation on our lives. Here in Canada, large dispersions of funds through bank drafts, cheques and such raise Revenue Canadas eyebrows come audit time.... cheques, etc. in excess of $10,000 are reported directly to Revenue Canada. I have no doubts that there is a pipeline between revenue Canada, my credit cards, my Interac card and the folks that track credit ratings (let alone the obvious employer/employee stuff).
I'll say it again, I welcome data recording in the RCM..... it might well save me and my insurance carrier a bundle one day because I refuse to place myself into the accident looking for victims category.
-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net
No misinformation at all in my question. Why did you feel there was?
I'll decide that - thank you very much.
Guess you haven't a clue about who I am and what information I allow others to have.
No I won't. I don't want the damn box in there. _I_ will decide what information the authorities receive from my and my property. Not a box.
Psychopath........
I would hope that if these boxes become more prevalent, the customer could have a choice as to whether he wanted to activate and use the product. You can bet that lawyers will find ways to question the accuracy/reliability of these systems.
Apparently, GM has had them for the last 5+ year standard in almost everything now, but only the "high end" Fords have had them as of recently.
Bottom line - can these be yanked without affecting the vehicle, or are they tied to overall operation ? Big brother can bite me....
You responded to a specific posters specific post and your response started off saying you want to correct the miss-information. I see no other way to interpret that then that you were saying that specific poster had posted miss-information. So what did HE post that was miss-information?
About 15 seconds of
That may be your *opinion*. NOt everyone shares it.
Looking at the
How so? He just asked a simple question. Let me quote...
==Bottom line - can these be yanked without affecting the vehicle, or ==are they ==tied to overall operation ?
What's knee-jerk about his question. I don't see anything knee-jerk about it. He, I, and many others have the same question and don't believe it to be knee-jerk. Quite the opposite - this gvt has a long history of implementing various forms of "help and benefit" that serve only to facilitate gvt action against us, not to help us.
Why is it necessary for you to insert your various political beliefs into threads that merely ask technical questions?
How about if the data is either erroneous, due to a sensor that was knocked out of alignment in an earlier fender bender that was never repaired, or simply misleading because it presents one part of the puzzle but fails to present other, more significant perhaps, parts?
I have seen
Ah, the typical, "if you aren't doing anything wrong why would you object to having your house searched" argument. It is bad, in my view, because it does not adhere to the principles MY country was founded on. I can't speak for whatever principles your country may or may not have. Perhaps your country condones warrantless searches under your theory of "if you aren't doing anything bad....."
At least you could prove to your loving bride that you
So that must mean there are no lawyers in Canada.
The it follows that you'd have no objection to your gvt aiming a camera on you 24 hours a day and perpetually recording your last 48 hours of activity just on the off chance you do something erroneous.
It's hard for me to imagine an attitude less in keeping with the ideas of freedom MY country was founded on. However, I can't speak for your country so that may be a perfectly acceptable and common attitude up there.
It was called a restrain control module when all it did was control the restraints. Now it's also a spy device that the owner of the vehicle may or may not wish to have. It's no different then if the car makers decided to install video/audio recording devices so they could "study audible and visual driver attitudes and actions" immediately proceeding a crash. The premise is exactly the same so I assume you'd have no problem with your new vehicle having such recording devices and the gvt having unfettered access to them whether you want them to or not.
You don't seem to believe in the notion that the camel gets his nose under the tent and before you know it he's sleeping in bed with you. If you want to see how we lose our rights and freedoms you should go back to the early socialists party platform, which was reviled in it's day by "good americans", and which would be similarly reviled today if presented as the socialist platform. Then compare what they wanted to accomplish with where we actually are. You'll find most of that reviled platform has become law. I understand incrementalism, you obviously don't.
I also have very little doubt that our respective
WOnderful. So now your argument is that since they already have you bent over and greased up you may as well invite them to shove it in.
That's fine. WHy do you object to the owner of a vehicle having the CHOICE of having that data collected or not? Nothing has EVER stopped you from installing recording devices in YOUR vehicle. So to bring this full circle, that's ALL the original posted asked about, whether he would have a CHOICE of having a spy device or not.
==Bottom line - can these be yanked without affecting the vehicle, or ==are they ==tied to overall operation ?
and yes, I know I'm wasting my time replying to you....
I can guarantee that. I've been in court as one sides "expert". Lawyers can easily make things seem 180 degrees opposite from what they are. If and when these black boxes start to show up in court it will generate a whole new category of "expert" on each side. One side saying it proves A and the other side saying it proves Z.
i think that he was saying that you had been misinformed about the recorder, not that you were propogating misinformation.
john
The sensationalized version has these mysterious black boxes recording every move the car makes over it's entire life. Though the original poster didn't state that, there was the definite feeling that this was a concern (the original poster being a victim of misleading information).
Additionally, the idea that there is ideed a "mysterious black box" when in fact the function is part and parcel of the module that controls the passive restraint system...... and that smell like mis-information to me....
....
I am sorry if you thought I was calling your question mis-information..... when it is you that has been the victim of what is very likely a sensationalized, misleading account of the capabilities and function of the crash data recorder.
The data recording function is built into the restraints control module.... can you defeat it? Yep, but that means defeating the whole system.
I still don't understand anyone having serious issues with with the sort of information these records save. I, for one, would much rather have the data recorder show that I was driving the speed limit rather than have some greenhorn accident reconstructionist misreadigng my skidmarks and coming up with "well over the posted limit".
As for the rest... last time I checked I was free to have an opinion and to voice it..... even if it's not necessarily a popular opinion...
Regards.
-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net
I have no objection to other opinions. You seem to believe that you can read other peoples minds and determine that they, unlike you, have been subjected so-called "miss-information". The original poster said absolutely nothing that indicated he did not understand how these black boxes work. Yet in spite of your complete lack of any knowledge of what he knows, you proceed to call him miss-informed and imply that if only he was as "informed" as you he would see the error of his thinking. My assessment is that he clearly knows what these boxes can do and that he is not miss-informed.
Do you have any evidence that he's this "victim" other then the fact that he happens to have a different opinion of the overall value of these black boxes then you do? It seems not. So it would follow that in your world view, EVERYONE who has opinions different then yours is the victim of "...sensationalized, misleading account..."s of whatever the subject is.
I find that to be a particularly sensible suggestion.
Just as with late model airbags that can be turned off, we should have the option to turn these things off too. I have no problem with a default setup with it being switched on, just give us the option to turn it off, or at least have it do something directly useful instead like make toast.
JP
I'm wondering if folks also would support allowing airlines or individual pilot's to shut off black boxes in aircraft? Do you consider these an invasion of the pilot's privacy? How about cockpit voice recorders? And is there a difference between planes and cars. Just wondering.
Regards, Anthony Giorgianni
Email: snipped-for-privacy@att.net Web page:
accuracy/reliability
Regards, Anthony Giorgianni
Email: snipped-for-privacy@att.net Web page:
accuracy/reliability
Since, in the event of an accident, dead people are dead and survivors (to one extent or another) survive, I can't be sure what the big difference would be.
The pilot bears a responsibility to his passengers as well as those people in his flight path...... a motorist, xurprisingly bears a responsibility to his passengers as well as those people along his travelled route.
While the ideal situation would be no accidents - period, we all know that it just isn't going to happen. Personally (after being on scene after way too many accidents - one of those 'benefits' of being a firefighter) and hearing eyewitness accounts that seem to be describing two or more totally different events, I'm a little more inclined to put my faith into the little '1s' and '0s' stored on a memory chip.
One can only assume that this subject will remain in the realm of "tastes great - less filling" and "half full - half empty".
YMMV
-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net
The EDR (Event Data Recorder) is part of the airbag electronics. Assuming you could identify it, removing the EDR would disable the airbag system.
Don't bother looking for it in an Explorer, it's not there.
For a no-bs discussion of EDRs, go to
Yes, there is a huge difference. Common, civil, and tort law have long recognized that commercial business and their activities do not enjoy the same rights as private individuals and their activities do.
That is why, for example, the gvt can come into a real estate office and demand to review their files without need of a search warrant but cannot do the same for your private papers in your desk at home.
It is why the gvt can require commercial vehicle drivers to submit to random drug tests but cannot do the same to you.
See my reply to Anthony. There is a huge difference. Those of us who understand the rule of law and rights of individuals understand the difference. Those who lack that understanding don't..
None of which has anything to do with whether the owner of a vehicle should or should not have a choice of whether they are spied on by a black box. You confuse responsibility with whether the gvt has an unfettered right to collect data. There is no connection. With or without the black box the responsibility is IDENTICAL.
And the black box is going to do what to make the driver more skilled??? Again, you mix two issues that are completely separate.
There is no doubt that this subject will remain a discussion point between those who understand the rule of law and what is required under their countries constitution and those who don't.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.