Black boxes ?

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.
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree, too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
wrote:

(to
people
to
that
totally
little
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:27:45 GMT, "Jim Warman"

Funny how I was thinking the same thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 05:02:46 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks AZ
I thought there are black boxes in private aircraft as well as commercial ones.
Sorry if I get that wrong.
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 01:14:59 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thank you, AZ
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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 - http://www.100ProofNews.com x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups x-- Access to over 800 Gigs/Day - $8.95/Month x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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)
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:57:24 -0500, "John T. Waisanen"

The reason people "don't seem to remember...driving is a privilege"... is because it's not, at least in this country. And if I may further editorialize, it never fails to amaze me how people seem to be so gleeful and giddy when they bring forth the "privilege" argument, even though it false. How does one get a thrill out of pointing out how they believe they DON"T have a right??? I'd be ashamed to have to admit it, were it true, if my country thought my freedom to travel was merely a privilege to be extended or withheld at the whim of government.
Some info in that regard is below. Before that, let me point out that the constitution does not attempt to enumerate ALL rights, if you have read it you will recall it says...
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.
http://www.sagebrushnews.com/wise.htm
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 centurythat 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Excellent research and analysis.
Thanks
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Come on, it is not excellent research or analysis. It is probably the most absurd analysis I have ever seen on anything. I can't believe that AZ or anyone else is proffering this seriously.
Even if we were to concede a right to travel, it does not mean a right to drive. One is not automatically permitted to drive on public roads. One has to pass a test. As a result of that test, the government grants license. . Something for which you must seek permission after acquiring and demonstrating expertise is by definition not a right. Also, we as a society restrict people's ability to drive and prohibit them from driving all the time, and with only minimal due process. And the due process does not take away a right. It revokes PERMISSION that one does not inherently have. Try that with free speech.
We have the right to free speech, the right against self-incrimination, etc .... a right is something that no one gives you. You receive it automatically as a function of being a citizen of the United States. Driving does not even come close, not remotely!!!!!!!!!!!!. Furthermore, we do not even possess a right to have public roads.
If you drive without first getting a license and get a ticket or arrested, the government has not abridged a right. And to classify driving - with all its limitations - as a right risks diminishing our true rights. For example, one might argue that 1) Driving is a right. 2) We require drivers to have insurance. 3) Therefore it shall be permissible for the government toll require everyone to have insurance who wishes to vote or exercise free speech. Or one might argue that, since we must be licensed to exercise the "right" to drive, it is permissible to require a license as a condition to exercising our right to free speech.
- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni
The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup.
.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I should have added that a perfect example of the absurdity of that article is its reference to:
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.
Right there - the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that a tyrannical federal government would not encroach wildly on the ability of the people through their state legislatures to enact (or not enact) their own rules. The idea is that, if the Constitution doesn't give the feds the authority to regulate something, the decision whether to regulate it belongs to the states. This is the interesting part: It in fact IS the states and not the federal government that decide who receives permission to drive and who does not. And that "right" as you call it varies from state to state and is modified all the time.
So on one hand the writer points to an amendment that he argues prevents the feds from regulating in this area and at the same time argues that there is a universal right to drive. Well if this is an area reserved to the states, where does the universal right come from - the Ukraine? The reasoning is contradictory.
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:26:56 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"

You seem confused with the notion that rights are not absolute. Just because reasonable regulation is allowed does not mean something is not a right. Again, go back to the court rulings. If you wish to do more then opine, dig up some court rulings that support YOUR claims as I have done for mine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I must agree that the right to travel is incontravertible.... however, if driving a car to get there is the favoured mode of transport we can see that licencing requirements for both vehicle and driver have changed the right to travel into a privelege. We can walk without government approval.... ride a bus without government approval - but we can't drive without a licence and the car we drive needs a licence.
You lead me to understand that, in the US, everyone has the right to fly an airplane (one of your favourite reflections).... but we can plainly see licencing requirements there.... Both of our respective governments have certainly clouded the issue, but I must assert that rights are what we do without government intervention and privileges are those things we get to do after we pass a licencing requirement...... one of those requirements, sadly, is that we must obey some rules (GAD... even as a rightful pedestrian, I see there are some rules....).
I have offered a valid argument FOR data recording and all I see in return is rhetoric about rights and freedoms...... no mention of the rights and freedoms of victims of those sounding off about their own rights and freedoms. No... I'm not a right wing whacko, but I would much sooner trust my future to an impartial machine than an eyewitness that didn't like the colour of my shirt.
I hate trying to decipher "lawyer-speak"...... I get a chuckle out of "the right of locomotion"...... but it remains...... when you pay for a "right", it is automatically a "privilege". Your privilege to "locomotion" can be revoked for many, many reasons.
wrote:

article
tyrannical
to
the
does
the
is
states,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.