You make it sound like such a hardship to keep you and your car legal. Is it really?
We had a saying, back in my flying days: “No flight has ever been completed without SOME regulation, SOMEWHERE, being broken.” It was an admission that the FARs were so convoluted and arbitrary that is was a practical impossibility to remain entirely legal at all times.
I think that, as applied to driving, it’d be very hard to complete a motor vehicle trip without breaking SOME law, however trivial (maybe a late signal, maybe 5mph over, maybe forgetting to turn on headlights in a work zone at noon (new law). This is why cops tail suspected cars, waiting for the suspect to make the inevitable false step.
But then, perhaps you’re “superdriver,” have never broken any law (however trivial), and look with disdain on all us mortals.
“Having a burned out reverse light will not possibly effect the outcome of an accident.”
Um, excuse me, shadowfax, if you are backing up, and your reverse lights are not on, the absence of working reverse lights CAN cause an accident. Besides, how hard is it to check and replace burned out light bulbs?
Keeping you and your car legal isn’t that hard, and choosing not to stay legal isn’t a right to be protected.
I never claimed I was a “superdriver” or was more than mortal. All the things you list, like stopping at red lights instead of running them, monitoring and controlling your speed, turning on your headlights, etc. don’t sound like anything that requires superhuman abilities.
I’ve been tailed by some of those police you mention, but that doesn’t mean they all do that. Most of the police I know are decent people who just want you to make the effort for the sake of everyone’s safety. I guess you are so egocentric you behave as though a moderate effort is a major hardship. Heaven forbid you have to replace a burned out light bulb to stay legal. You poor soul, my heart bleeds for you.
When I first started reading this thread, I was against these event recorders being mandated. However, after reading the responses, it seems many of the responders have some sense of entitlement that makes them think they can break the law whenever obeying the law inconveniences them.
I can remember when being a good citizen meant driving a car safely and legally to protect others. Perhaps that is an antiquated notion. If you think this in an antiquated notion, you can thank yourself for making these event recorders necessary. If everyone drove as they are supposed to, this whole discussion would be academic.
There’s a case very recently submitted to the US Supreme Court involving a Child Molester and his laptop. The police think that he has child porn on his laptop…but it’s encrypted…The Police and FBI have been working on it for a couple of years trying to decrypt it…They are taking him to court to FORCE him to decrypt his laptop…His defense is he’s protected under the US Constitution for “Self Incrimination”. If he decrypts his laptop and they find something it’s self incrimination.
Our company designs software and hardware solutions for the Telecommunication industry. Our clients are mainly different phone companies (world wide). One company in South American…there are well over 5000 attempted cyber attacks into the phone system a month…Not ONE was able to break through our system.
If you want to truly encrypt something…it’ll be encrypted…Top-Level encryption cipher-keys are at least 128bit. It’ll take the fastest computer ever made several years to go through all the possible combination’s.
I’m not saying it can’t be hacked…ONLY because they designed it that way. What I’m saying is if they WANT to design it right…it can NOT be hacked…But you have to know what you’re doing and be truly diligent in implementing a non-hackable system.
Here’s a way I’d design it…
The ignition switch would contain a simple computer with a one-way encryption key that matches the one-way encryption key in the recorder. The recorder reads the signal from the ignition switch that’s encrypted using the encryption key and sends back it’s own encrypted message saying it’s ready…The ignition switch reads this message and starts the engine. Part of the message the recorder sent back was a new encryption key to be used the next time someone tries to start the car.
If that signal path ever becomes interrupted or the recorder or ignition-switch becomes damaged…then the recorder and ignition-switch will have to be replaced as a PAIR.
The ONLY way to defeat this type of system is with inside information. Which is how ALL of real secure systems are ever compromised. It’s NOT because someone was genius enough to hack into the system.
That type of encryption is a very common approach in Machine-To-Machine communication where you want secure communication.
That isn’t what you meant by “a late signal”? I offer my most humble apologies for misunderstanding you.
Forgive me. I was in my civilian attire. I only don the Superman costume when I am replacing burned out light bulbs and conducting routine pre-trip inspections of my car.
At what point do we “draw the line”? At what point do we refuse to have our private lives invaded by data collectors? If not at event recorders, how about recorders in our homes? How about “chips” under our skin? Could not the same arguments used to justify event recorders in our cars be used to justify recorders in our homes and chips under our skin?
If you argue that it won’t come to this, think again. It could easily come to this. The technology is already here.
I remember all the talk about “the government” implanting a “chip” under your skin to do a multitude of nasty things too us, now most of us voluntairly carry one of these “chips” around with us, our cell phones.
I just read this and thought it was relevant to this discussion, and the belief that you are safer driving as fast as everyone else.
Are there certain predictable mistakes that less experienced climbers tend to make?
There’s what I call groupthink, what some people call summit fever. You know, there’s five or six people and they’re climbing along and the weather starts to get funky and the majority of the group wants to go on, and the person with the least experience is like, “Weeellll, they’re going on, it’s probably OK.” It’s almost a lemming-type effect. People get swept up in it, it’s that psychological feeling of safety.
Funny that it makes people feel safe, when really it’s putting them in danger.
Yeah, I know. But I think we see that a lot in everyday life, too, where there’s a group of people doing something and you go, “Well, they’re doing it, it’s probably OK.”
Considering most of the posters here I cannot beleive this has not come up already: how do we monitor drivers who are distracted? Texting, phone calls, eating, people riding with dogs on their laps. There is no sensor or computer to tell us if someone is doing these acts, and these are acts that I believe cause more accidents than speeding or burned out lightbulbs.
While it is a free country, if your poor judgement affects my right to happiness then steps need to be taken
Texting and phone calls can be proven by subpoenaing phone records from the cell phone company. Otherwise, the telemetry will give important clues. For example, if the driver never hit the brakes or never tried other avoidance maneuvers, the driver was probably distracted in some way or unconscious. If the person had a dog in her/his lap, there will be dog remains on the interior of the car or sandwiched between the driver and the air bag.
Basic investigation techniques can reveal a lot of these things, but telemetry from a recorder can be used to fill in some of the gaps.
You then imply that phone records are not open information in an investigation, but are indeed protected. Why would the recorded information in these “black boxes” not then also be protected unless specifiaclly needed or requested in an investigation?
Then insuramce companies would not be able to deny a claim unless the accident specifically called for the need to have this information. And if it is then found that illegal actions are to blame for the accident, not burned out bulbs or such, then the claim could be denied.
So by allowing these devices to be used, but to have their information protected, we would then be able have the information available if needed, and protected and not used if not.
This would allow a initial accident reconstruction and preliminary findings. If more information was needed, then it could be retreived, but only if the courts substantiate the need.
You then imply that phone records are not open information in an investigation, but are indeed protected. Why would the recorded information in these “black boxes” not then also be protected unless specifiaclly needed or requested in an investigation?
Why do you assume I would be against protecting the black box data? I have nothing against requiring a subpoena to access the information.
Requiring due process to access the information in the black boxes makes perfect sense. I am (and have always been) for it.
The real question is why do you think the black box information wouldn’t be protected the same way? Is there something in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 that would make the information unprotected? If so, what?
Requiring a subpoena to access the black box data would not only be a good check on investigative techniques, it would also be a good check on insurance company malfeasance. I am for judicial oversight 100% on all of these matters.
For the record, I don’t like it when people assume I can’t be reasonable. I often look for common ground in these discussions.
“Why would it be assumed I would be against protecting black box data” Well Whitey it it because of what you write and don’t write that this assumption is made. I asked you too cleary state your position a long time ago and all that was revealed was… bupkas.
Altough the use of real time data in setting insurance rates is not part of the 2010 Act it is a activity that the insurance companies want to do.
Too bad (for you it seems) that private corespondence is not one of the options offered by the CarTalk Forum, you put it on the Forum it is open to all to comment on (I can and have live by this parameter), want privacy? , use private means for coorespondence. Don’t tell me I have worn down the Whitey who always has something to say?