Black boxes ?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:03:50 GMT, "Jim Warman"


No you can't. There are laws against walking in the road, laws about which side to walk on, laws about where you may and may not cross the road, etc. ALL rights are subject to various laws and regulations.
.. ride a

You keep confusing the issue of how the gvt chooses to implement it's "reasonable regulations" with whether there is a right or not. It's a right no matter how they set up the "regulation". Just because they instituted a licensing system for drivers along with various laws and only implemented some laws for walkers doesn't mean both are not rights.

You can assert it all you want. That plus $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Now how about finding some legal basis for your claim as I did for mine.
one of those requirements,

As is your habit you confuse and mix together two separate issues. No one said the black box can't provide some benefit. The issue is not that. It is whether the owner of the vehicle being used in PRIVATE transport ought to have the right to decide whether the vehicle has a black box or not. I don't expect to change your mind but some people actually value their rights and are unwilling to just toss them aside like you and others are willing to do.

Next you'll be talking about how it's "for the children".

I'm sure the right-wing part is incorrect.

Great. But why are you not willing to let others have the choice and if they weight their concerns perhaps they will choose to go with the eyewitness who might say "Yeah, but the reason he hit the other guy wasn't because he was speeding, even though the BB says he was going 60 in a 50 zone, it was because of the third car that almost ran him off the road and disappeared over the hill. Yeah, I'm sure I'd rather have 5 seconds of data and just forget anything the witnesses say.

Please provide something other then your assertions to back that up. It's patently false based on ACTUAL court rulings.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:14:37 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"

You'll have to take up your complaints with the Judges who were the ones who have said we have that right. No one has said the state may not exercise reasonable regulation of that right just as there are regulations on many other rights, some that are MUCH more clearly spelled out as a right, such as gun ownership, or the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

You must be joking if you think the gvt is restricting much of anyone from driving based on passing a test. It clear from what you see on any day on any highway that anyone with a pulse can get a drivers license......

And to continue....it is extremely difficult to take away that very easily obtained license for any reason. Look at the numerous old people who can barely see, have the reaction times of snails, and who have been signally a left turn for 20 miles.
The facts are against you. The courts have ruled we do have the right to private travel subject to REASONABLE regulation, just as with other rights. I would gather from your post that you either didn't read, or don't understand the 2 constitutional amendments that govern.

We have the right to travel and to do so in this day and age means the right to drive a car. I challenge you to fine ANY state where the "regulation", in the form of license testing, amounts to anything more then what anyone with a pulse could pass.

Perhaps you don't recall, but not all that many years ago the gvt DID put onerous requirements on the right to vote. One of which was the poll tax. Poor people couldn't afford to pay the poll tax and so were not allowed to vote. For MANY years that was considered perfectly legal regulation of what you call the "right to vote". As with ALL rights, they exist solely insofar as the courts allow them to exist, regardless of what the constitution may say OR NOT SAY about them.
The bottom line is that on the question of the right to drive, there ARE court rulings that support it as a right. If you don't agree, I would challenge you to find some court opinions that say it is not a right and post them here.
Or one might argue that, since we must be licensed to exercise the

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

sounds like you're doing the job of a supreme court judge; i don't think that you--or anyone not on a federal level--can authoritatively interpret that 'in this day and age' the right to travel on the roads means drive.

you're talking about the jim crow laws in the deep south, AZ. there were also literacy tests at the polls, as well as other numerous atrocious methods to keep people (blacks in particular) from voting...and it was never considered legal, it was merely a corrupted system. those tests are certainly not legal now.

no, your court rulings grant the right to travel, not drive. they are not equivalent.
john
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:06:01 -0500, "John T. Waisanen"

Then cite a court case that disproves the earlier cases. In all the years I"ve been hearing this nonsense that "it's a privilege" I have never once found anyone who makes that claim post a single citation in support of the claim. Will you be the first?

When you say "it was never considered legal", what do you mean? It certainly was considered legal, that's why it took many years and many challenges to finally get courts to rule against it. All laws are "legal" till a court of final authority says they are not.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well AZ, if you want to argue that driving is a right but that the government is free to regulate it, fine. Let's go with that: The government therefore has the power to require black boxes and take away the driver's license of anyone who violations that provision. And no one can object based on the principle that driving is a right, since rights can be regulated.
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:44:28 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"

You are exactly correct. As I said earlier, the only rights you have are what the COURTS are willing to let you have since it is they that speak for the constitution. However, if someone goes to court in an attempt to overturn a law mandating black boxes they will have a much better chance of success if all parties, including the court, acknowledge it as a right, not a privilege, because then they have to argue about whether the regulation is reasonable. If courts only consider it a privilege, then you have very little you can go to court over since privileges, by definition, can be granted or withheld at the whim of whoever has the greater power, which is always the gvt.
I asked the question earlier - do you exist as a slave to the gvt, subject to the gvts whims, being granted or not granted whatever privileges your gvtment deigns to hand you? Or do you have rights?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZGuy wrote:

AZ: none of those specifically mention who's driving....who the hell is gonna deny my right to ride in someone else's car? no one can deny you your right to travel, or use the public highways (as you have so preparedly pointed out), but they don't give YOU the right to be the driver...
additionally, how does this quote (from above) support your point? frankly, it looks like you're destroying your argument. > "...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.
john
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:35:32 -0500, "John T. Waisanen"

Not at all. That paragraph is saying that COMMERCIAL use, i.e. the use for "private gain" is a privilege but that if the use is not for "private gain" then it is a right. In one of the rulings above they state "the legislative power is confined to regulation,". That's the same as is true of EVERY right we have. Name ANY right that does not have SOME limitation and/or regulation on it? Free speech? Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't incite to riot, etc. Just because regulation is allowed does not mean there is no "right". I don't see how it could be more clearly stated then the court rulings state it where they very clearly make the distinction between private use versus commercial use when they draw the line between what's a right that can only be regulated versus a privilege that can be completely denied.
The courts don't talk about it but to help the discussion you might consider the difference between things which MUST be done, such as "if you get 70% on this incredibly easy driving test the state MUST issue you a license"
versus
"if we like the color of your shirt we may issue you a license... or maybe we won't, we don't really know, but pay us $100 and get in that line over there and we'll let you know... if we feel like it."
The first is the reasonable regulation of a right. The second is the administration of a privilege.
Which one do you see the states doing when it comes to drivers licenses?
Do you have kids? Do you think they have any rights or do you think they have no rights but only those privileges you choose to extend to them? Apply the same two rules I outlined above to...
Do they have a right to be free of you beating them black and blue and breaking their bones? Lots of parents you to think their kids had no right to be free of such treatment. Have you checked with your states Child Protective SErvices agency lately?
DO they have a right to all the candy they want? Very few parents or anyone else would think they have that right but that IF their parents wish to extend to them the PRIVILEGE of having some candy, the parents may do so.
How do you view your relationship to your "state"? Is the state your parent and you some child that gets whatever privileges the state deems is appropriate to dole out to you?
Or are you the "child" that HAS rights regardless of what the "parent (the state)" might happen to think?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well JP
I can't disagree with you that limiting speed in this way can be dangerous under certain circumstances. That's why I said you'd have to work out certain aspects.
But to the extent we have speed limits on our roads, I don't see why it's abhorrent to enforce them. Are you saying that it's okay to have laws but that we must also have the ability to break them? Or are you against laws?
--
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 15:23:50 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"

trying to imagine what the world will be like when the day comes when we have lost ALL ability to break ANY laws. I'm sure it will be a wonderfully safe place to be and everyone will just be thrilled to be living there. ... At least the ones who have not already slit their wrists. Some people seem determined to push us in that direction just as fast as they can with black boxes, speed limiters, GPS tracking devices, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

I am not against laws. Laws do protect as well as constrain us.
Enforcement of laws is one thing, preventing you from making a choice in the speed you can drive goes too far. I would prefer not to be a puppet on a string. God could have made the world without sin and we could be his little puppeteers, but He didn't. In the same vein, our laws should mirror Gods approach and guide us not control us.
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, to avoid being puppets on strings and to suit god's purpose, we must of the means to break the law. That really is what you want to argue, huh?
Should everyone be allowed to carry pipe bombs? Or CAN we eliminate those means to break the law? What if I think god requires me to have a bomb because he gave me hands capable of carrying it. Is that okay? How about anthrax? Can we have that to fulfill god's purpose or just to prove we aren't puppets? Machine guns? Nuclear weapons. Geeze, take away those nukes and what puppets we will be? We will have no dignity as human beings and will be relegated to nothing more than hamsters in little wheels... Is that it?
So we have to have the means to break the law because god didn't prevent us from having them?
Well, I'll tell you what, are need to find yourself a better god. I can see nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else to suggest that we, as a society, must allow our neighbors to have the tools to violate the rules that we are required to follow.
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:01:51 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"

If you want to posit a scenario where we have no dignity as human beings, consider what it would be like if we had ZERO way to break any laws as that seems to be the world you would like to live in. We would have no knives, no guns, no ceramic's because we could break them and make sharp edges, no razor blades, nothing at all sharp, nothing heavy could be allowed to be available to us least we hit someone with it, all baseball bats would be burned, our tongues would have to be removed least we say something illegal, no cars of course since it's impossible to use one without breaking several laws inadvertently, and on and on. We pretty much would all have to be put in cages and god knows how we would be feed unless it was by machine since there would be no way other then with robots to allow any "thing" to be running loose since anything sentient running loose would have the capability of breaking a law.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eliminating the ability for people to break speed limits mean just that, eliminating people's ability to break speed limits. Nothing more.
--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:20:52 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dunno, I'll have to think about it.
Regards, Anthony Giorgianni
wrote:

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