Black boxes ?

Man... there are times where you just choose to be difficult......

I fully understand the rights of individuals - it is when the rights of an individual trample the rights of innocents that I get angry. That one persons mistake will claim the lives or futures of innocents is of paramount importance. What difference does it make if the individual is getting paid for his inattention or just doing it in the name of fun? The black box may well be one's savior.... unless, of course there is a need to hide something - read my lips.... there's no rocket science in that statement.

I am not advocating government snooping.... I am, however, hoping that some lazy asses would actually check and see what information is being gathered, when it is being gathered and how it is being gathered instead of this dickwad knee-jerk reactionism. As I see it, this information will improve the safety of the vehicles we see deemed unsafe and, when we so self-righteously proclaim our innocence, can only serve to make or break our case. I will restate that eyewitness accounts have often muddied the waters rather than cleared them.

Where, oh where, did I say that data recording would make safer drivers? I recall saying that the ideal situation would be no accidents..... I also recall saying that it ain't gonna happen...... I DON'T recall saying that data recording would change that.

Again..... if culpability in an accident investigation came down to the foggy recollections of someone watching, aghast or the binary data regarding my road speed and brake application time before impact...... I'll go with the data recorder.

As far as your reply to Anthony..... when someone is dead as the result of a person under whatever influence, does it really matter whether that person was doing it recreationally or as a job? As far as rifling through your private papers..... what about the IRS. I imagine that the requirements for Deputy Dawg to play with your personal stuff aren't far from the requirements for the real estate office........either way would likely need some sort of warrant and with the right judge and the right circumstance, I can't see that being too tough.

I don't know what you do for a living but the guy beside me can kill me if his faculties are impaired by substance abuse. Please tell me if you feel that I am expendable simply because my workmate feels a need to party. This may be a tough concept for desk jockeys but it is a fact of life. Would it make a difference, if you were badly injured riding on a bus, whether the driver that caused the accident was the bus driver or Joe Average renting a

2 ton from Budget?

-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Y'know.... if you haven't done anything wrong..... does it really matter, anyway?

Oops... nearly forgot that pesky 'freeze frame data'..... this has been around longer than CDR and records vehicle parameters at the time of a fault (including driver input). Sorry, I can't recall how much it records before and after the 'trigger' event but, none-the-less, it is recording your actions. Without freeze frame data, there would be even more irreconcilable vehicle faults.

I guess we better get rid of that crap too.

Every day of our lives in everything that we do, someone is building a profile of us as individuals..... these people can use psychological profiling to turn us into people we aren't....... meanwhile, we are busy trying to cover up the people we are.....

I'm washing my hands of this discussion while I go shake my head in wonder about some of the convoluted reasoning behind peoples choices.

-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

If holding to MY countries founding principles makes me difficult, so be it. Freedom can be a bitch sometimes; many people prefer to let their gvt keep them all warm and tucked in and willingly trade away their freedoms for that false sense of security. You appear to be one of those people.

Funny how I was thinking the same thing.

AFAIK (it's been quite a few years since I was an active pilot) their is no black box requirement for private aircraft. There are requirements for transponders and radios when you are in certain air traffic control areas. And most planes of any size have an emergency locator transmitter - I don't recall if that's mandatory or not.

Many commercial highway vehicles have complete recording and reporting devices that report in real time back to the company headquarters. They can tell the speed, location, what gear the truck is in, pretty much anything you want. But they are not there because the GVT demands it, they are their because the OWNERS want it.

Thank you, AZ

Jim

If I were hit by someone speeding or who failed to brake, etc., I definitely would want my attorney and the government to have access to that information from the other car. If I made the mistake (I wouldn't be speeding to begin with), I would take responsibility. Though I guess there are some who object to this on privacy issues alone, I suspect that it is more of an excuse to evade responsibility.

But I can imagine few supporters among the rec.autos.driving crowd, who seem to find every bit of data they can to support the idea that restricting vehicle speed is an unholy, emasculating and totalitarian act in itself and that any attempt to enforce speed laws has the solitary motive of raising money for the government and has not the slightest thing to do with safety. I myself see no sense to the idea that sitting on a foam rubber seat and pushing my toes down on a pedal is somehow a measure of my manhood. I'd be happy to record any data anyone wants

I find your position reasonable, Jim.

AZ do you have a class A??? Do not start this conversation... Congress put the hooks to people with CDL's.... I know I hold one.

x-- 100 Proof News -

3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groupsx-- Access to over 800 Gigs/Day - $8.95/Monthx-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD

Difference between plane and cars 101.

Overlooking the obvious differences in the design and mode of transportation the following is a list of differences for your perusal.

1. Public Transportation vs Private Transportation.
2. Same as the difference between trucks and cars. (Trucks have recorders, cars don't). i.e. Business Use vs Private Use.
3. Transportation on plane is paid for by passengers. I don't charge to ride in my car, if I did it would be a taxi and I don't see a problem with fitting black boxes in taxis as with other types of public transportation.

Transportation that is public or owned by a business is held to a certain level of accountability. As private individuals we are not held to the same standards and control, we have this weird thing called freedom.

My car has seat belts fitted to it (as is yours I'm sure), it is my choice whether I use them or not, even the 'automatic belts' require the manual lap belt to be attached. (I do use seat belts BTW). I just want the choice to use or not use a black box. Remember the original poster just wanted to know if he could unhook the thing without disabling his vehicle.

JP

Nope. Because of the invasion of privacy issues I would never get one and my job does not require it. The CDL situation is just one more example of sheep giving up their rights for the illusion of safety. The world is full of sheep.

Thanks JP

Actually, state laws in fact require you to use seatbelts. I don't agree with those laws because I think the government should regulate the affairs BETWEEN people and not regulate the amount of risk to which we subject ourselves as individuals (Some people argue that a seatbelt may allow you to better control the car in an accident and reduce the chance you will hurt someone else. I don't know how significant that is. And I DO use a seatbelts too.).

But I think black boxes in cars is an entirely different matter. First, the concept of freedom simply does not mean that you have the choice to do whatever you want. You can't remove emission controls from your vehicle, for example. Driving itself is NOT a freedom but an activity that some people are permitted to engage in through license. In fact, people, by default, are NOT permitted to drive. To the extent that a "black box" can help determine fault in an accident or incompetence, whether a commercial pilot or individual driver, I don't see "freedom" as an argument to prohibit it. Could not one argue that I should have the "freedom" to know whether you were speeding or applied the brakes when you hit my vehicle? Whether the information is useful is another subject. I suspect it is in some cases.

On the other hand, you can argue that, though it has the right to require black boxes in cars, the government should not adopt such a mandate because of privacy issues and manufacturers should be required to notify car buyers if their vehicle is equipped with that equipment. That would be a reasonable argument, I think. Personally, I would not object to having such equipment in my vehicle.

anthony....you are very right about that; people don't seem to remember that driving (and having a driver's license) is a privilege, NOT a right. the constitution says absolutely nothing about whether or not you have right to own and operate a motor vehicle on public roads.

if you have tampered with a recorder that is placed in a vehicle for factual information, how is that any different from 'obstruction of justice' in a legal case?

john

Thanks John

I suppose one might also argue that any mandate for a black or prohibition against refusing to provide the information would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. All of this clearly is beyond me. :o)

Well thank you Anthony,

Laws say you must drive at 30 mph or less in certain zones. But you still have a choice to comply or not. (How about fitting a speed limiter to all vehicles that responded to the nearest speed limit sign?) I bet there is not one person reading this thread that has complied fully at all times with the speed limit laws. The question is do we have a choice with the black box or not?

I actually agree with seat belt laws. Anything to encourage people to protect themselves and passengers in the event of an accident. Even though it is a law, the choice remains.

I don't agree

I know some who did remove most of his emission controls. Reduced the number of hoses under the hood by over 80%!! (He showed me the pile of hoses in heap in his garage). He claimed his car ran better. That was before our county required mandatory emissions tests. Not sure what the dude does now.

Driving itself is NOT a freedom but an activity that some people

Another problem I see is if there were a malfunction in the vehicle or black box so that it said you were doing 45 at the time of an accident when in fact you were going 30. Pretty incriminating, you'd be left to prove the device was wrong, an uphill task at best.

I don't object (too much) to having it in the vehicle, just give me the switch.

JP

Thanks JP

It is an interesting discussion, especially how we differ on the seatbelt laws. I think these laws are bad because they are circular in how they operate in a free society. IE: I am not competent enough to decide how much risk I should have in my own life, but I am competent enough to vote for a government to force me to eliminate certain risks that I feel are reasonable. That slope is way too slippery. I would assume that skydiving is way more risky than not wearing a seatbelt. So is scuba diving. Probably even riding a bicycle and maybe even eating hydrogenated fats. Where do we draw the line? We should be completely free except to the extent that we interfere with others. Wearing or not wearing seatbelts really doesn't interfere with others except under the most strained interpretations.

But one could argue that, in mandating a black box, the government is fulfilling its purpose of regulating the affairs between people. If the government grants you the privilege of driving, its seems to make sense that the government might then have an interest in monitoring your compliance with the terms under which that privilege was granted. A black box would be ideal for that purpose. Of course, just as you could choose to break the law and not use a seatbelt, you could disobey any law that requires a black box and defeat the system. You then would face the penalty.

It is interesting you brought up the speed thing because I do in fact like the idea of putting electronic equipment in vehicles that limit the speed of the car to what a sensor on the road transmits. The transmitters would work with electronic speed signs that could be adjusted based on the time of day and weather conditions. Certain details would have to be worked out, but it sounds like a great system. I DO obey speed limits, not because I think speed limits necessarily makes me safer (in fact they may make me less safe) but because the rule of law really is the only thing keeps the government from taking me away in the middle of the night. It is our most cherished possession in this country, and people take it way too lightly.

Thanks.

I can just as easily argue that your neighbors should have the "freedom" to know whether you are brewing or using meth in your home. So they should be able to have video cameras installed in your home so they can see what you are doing at all times. After all, if you were to make meth, you would be endangering the health of your neighbors and as you yourself argue above, they "...should have the "freedom" to know...."

Your last line is the crux of it. If you don't object to a black box, what about the full time video camera? Or how about a GPS unit that continuously monitors you movements and reports them to the police. After all, you might not come to a complete stop at a stop sign and the GPS unit would be able to relay that into to the police and they could mail you a ticket. The only issue I see is, just how much of your privacy rights are you willing to give up in the never ending quest for security.

The reas Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE..

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.

Now, here is some FACTUAL info on your RIGHT, not privilege, to drive. You will note that for PRIVATE, as opposed to commercial use, it is a RIGHT.

A Word To The Wise

Further enlightenment about the right to travel (drive)

By Jude Vollendorf, for the Sagebrush News Last issue I talked about the right to drive, or travel, at some length. But in conversations with friends (and foes) it has become clear that people in general believe the fiction the state has promulgated since the turn of the century?that travel on the roads in a motor vehicle is a privilege. A privilege, of course, can be denied at will. And the state has increasingly denied individuals the right to travel for reasons further and further afield from regulating traffic and public safety. So I thought this time I would let the courts speak on the issue and see if some understanding can be achieved by all sovereign Citizens of the state of Oregon. There are many more quotes and cases than what are listed here, but for space considerations these will have to do.

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

"The right to travel is an unconditional right which cannot be conditioned by the legislature."

Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 341 (1972)

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;

Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777

"A right which is free and open to all is not the subject of license."-- Freebourgh v. Dawson 274 F 420.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.

("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.

"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter; it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege."

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

?The right to travel is implicated when a statute actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right.

Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Minn. 1993) (citing Attorney Gen. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S. Ct. 2317, 2320 (1986)), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1081 (1994)..

?The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.? Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America.

Excellent research and analysis.

Thanks

JP

Really? Wow it would appear that you and I see things at the opposite end of the spectrum. I can think of nothing more intrusive than a speed control like this. I understand that some cars such as the Mustang have speed limiters that kick in at around 115 (I've never tried it), which I suppose Ford put there to limit their liability. But I find the concept of limiting my speed at all times to be particularly abhorrent never mind potentially dangerous.

JP