 |
| Funny, it doesn't look black! |
White House okays Black Boxes for Vehicles
The White House Office of Management Budget said it has completed a review of the proposal to make so-called vehicle "black boxes" mandatory in all cars and trucks, clearing the way for NHTSA to publish its final regulation.
The agency has made it a priority to work toward a proposed standard that would mandate these devices on all passenger vehicles on the nation's roadways," NHTSA spokeswoman Lynda Tran said.
Already in 92% of Vehicles
NHTSA previously issued a new regulation standardizing data collection for event data recorders in August 2006, took effect for the 2013 model year that started Sept. 1, standardizes the information EDRs collect and makes retrieving the data easier. Devices must record 15 data elements, including vehicle deceleration, in specific formats.The recorders collect data for the seconds of a crash, including whether the driver is wearing a seatbelt, speed and whether the brakes were applied.
Mandating 100% compliance will cost automakers roughly 24 million to implement.
Its Only a Matter of Time
Given the rapid computerization of everything, exponential increases in memory capacity, and the integration of GPS into automotive computer brains, you know it's only a matter of time before location will be tracked as well. The question then becomes, who owns the data and what does the government have to do to access it?When will the first case arise where a motorist is cited for failing to wear a seatbelt after the fact from blackbox data?
Big Brother is Watching
What do you think about that?I think it's time I bought that '33 Ford three-window coupe I've always wanted.
Cheers!
~Finntann
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121206/AUTO01/212060440/NHTSA-gets-White-House-OK-mandate-vehicle-black-boxes-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Maybe I'm wrong, but I would expect car-insurance companies to love these devices.
ReplyDeleteNice.
ReplyDeleteThey can jam this needless crap down our throats, yet we still don't have standard power outlets in our cars, which would cost a coupla dozen bucks at worst...
Now, when are they gonna do something about all of the uninsured jackwagons tooling around out there?
Oh hells yeah. This will give the insurance companies ample opportunity to point the blame elsewhere and not hafta pony up a buck or two.
ReplyDeleteUntil people see such incursions as a bipartisan issue, liberty versus an overreaching state, our slow enslavement to the state will continue
ReplyDeleteOur government at work. Of course the surface has just been scratched. It will only continue as Big Brother's growing tentacles become evermore entangled in our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteWe are living in the information age. Our laws (protecting our rights) are still in the stone age.
ReplyDeleteAnd we still foolishly believe we are a free people. Eventually the government will restrict movement and we'll have to get "travel papers." It's all to prevent global warming you see.
ReplyDeleteRob,
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Insurance adjusters in the field would be rarely needed -- if at all.
I'm sick of all the stupid pointless gadgets they put in cars these days. Just more things that can malfunction, and less room to perform basic maintenance on your car. I had to change a starter on one of my cars recently and it was a just plain ridiculous task. Replacing an f'n starter! That used to be something you could do in minutes. It took me literally hours. Next car I get will be low end classic with a manual transmission... and manual everything else. And room under the hood to actually work on it without requiring a forth or fifth friggin' dimension of my body.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
How many times and how many ways could one say:
ReplyDeleteFORSTER, HUXLEY and ORWELL were GREAT PROPHETs?
Very sadly, they were, they were , they were, they were, THEY WERE.
And modern liberals have no qualms whatsoever about being reduced to obedient soulless automata -- SLAVES of a RUTHLESS, HEARTLESS, ALMIGHTY STATE!
GAWDHEPPISS!
No doubt we will be restricted to so many miles or face jail time.
ReplyDeleteFor once w agree, Jersey!
ReplyDeleteWay to go!
~ FT
Damn nice Rod.
ReplyDeleteThanks. It's good to know I'm not alone when it comes to that insanity. I happen to be one of a few progressives who think too much "progress" can often be a bad thing. I wish more "liberals" understood that.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
If the insurance could use these devices to prove wrongful claims, then it would be a good thing for all.
ReplyDeleteBut... If a con man knows that other people have these devices, he could arrange "accidents" so as to use the device against the mark.
I don't know if insurance companies think this is a good idea. But I'd personally be leery of it.
JMJ
Since hybrids don't use much gas there's been a push to find some other way to extract taxes from drivers - hence the GPS pay-per-mile tax floated around. Rush predicted this years ago and sure enough, it is coming to pass.
ReplyDeleteI think I need to dust off my O-Scope, Spec-A and breadboards, along with those forbidden GPS jammer designs I've come across...
Technologically this is a necessary step on the way to driver-less cars. Sure, it could be used for nefarious purposes, but so can any technology. If you have a problem with seat belt laws, wouldn't it be better to attack the law itself, not the technology that might, among many other more positive applications, be used to uphold it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem always boils down to people. That is why morality is important, and I don't necessarily mean the Christian variety. Our constitution is the secular bible for government to follow, but they've abandoned it.
ReplyDeleteWe have become an immoral people and, we get the leaders we deserve, and I do mean leaders, since the DC denizens look upon us as benighted flocks of sheep to be alternately fleeced and cared for.
Are you "our" Jez? The Englishman I've been sparring with at odd intervals at my blog and elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteYou sound like him. ;-)
Just curious.
~ FT
Jersey, I'm not exactly a Luddite, but I am very much against the IMPOSITION of new technologies on those who do not WANT or NEED them.
ReplyDeleteI am a fierce advocate for Freedom of Choice within the traditionally agreed upon moral parameters.
If you don't know what I mean by "moral parameters," please ask me,and I'll tell you. [HINT: We can't be free to choose to murder at will, etc.]
I'm glad you realize that endless change often creates undesirable instability, and can not properly be called "Progress."
~ FreeThinke