- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 48
- 91
'Black boxes' in GM cars increasingly help police after accidents
- Thread starter NFS4
- Start date
Although I'm not usually an advocate of "big brother" so to speak, I am glad that there is technology available to bring losers like that to justice.
-PAB
-PAB
As much as I think the Corvette driver should be taken out back and shot did he give them permission to remove that data from his car?
I don't care HOW to do it, I would just want it disabled. I don't do stupid sh!t, but I really don't like the idea of being watched all the time.
Viper GTS
They had dateline on it, and corvette owners said if they knew it had one ahead of time they wouldn't buy the car.
I certainly wouldn't want a car that spys on me in favor of the police.
I certainly wouldn't want a car that spys on me in favor of the police.
Car black boxes are a great idea, IMO. I know that some people are against the idea of having what they're doing recorded by a black box, but seriously, it'll probably help you more than it'll hurt you. Someone hits you and doesn't want to admit that it's their fault? Bring out the black box data--a little evidence goes a very long way. You don't have anything to be afraid of if you're not breaking the law or driving unsafely.
The same could be said for all kinds of privacy, do you really think the cops should need a search warrant to search your house?
What do you have to hide?
Viper GTS
That's what people always say. You shouldn't care about privacy if you have nothing to hide. People don't buy corvettes to drive them like camrys.
As do I, but I have to admit that the system has its merits. If some drunk guy in a F-350 winds up T-boning and injuring me, I'd at least like to have some peace of mind while i'm in traction that there is a chain of evidence proving what he did if there are no witnesses.
-PAB
as much as i hate gov looking over us all the time too, this is a great idea, it limits some retards from killing others and not getting in trouble for it
That's a very slippery slope, though...
As was stated in the article, the CART had already estimated his speed at 100+, the results obtained that way would have been sufficient, 100+ in a 45 is homicidal whether it's 101 or 151.
Viper GTS
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
In the case of an accident, especially one where someone was killed, the police really should be able to look at the black box. Remember, search warrants are only served if there's probable cause.
As for police being able to look at black boxes randomly, no. I'm completely against that, just as I'm against random searches.
True. Lets say it goes to trial and the accident reconstructionist is called as an expert witness. That obiously helps the prosecution's case, but a data recorder that provides exact information collected at the time of the event has the ability to nail a coffin (no pun intended) shut for the defense.
As far as accident reconstruction has come over the years, it has become fairly credible. Although short of an eyewitness with a radar gun, nothing but a data recoder is going to give you precise numbers.
This case is obviously at an extreme. 100 MPH+ is enough energy to kill someone, and the data recorder didnt do much in this case but substantiate a claim by prosecutors and accident reconstructionists.
What if a drunkard hits me at 35-40 MPH? Serious injury would still be a given, but as far as drunk driving goes I was given some advice by the family bail bondsman (not that we actively need one, we just happen to have one as a neighbor).
Basically if you are asked to breathalyze, you deny it and lose your license for 6 months and get your lawyer to plead out on reckless driving. You are going to lose your license for 6 months with a RD charge anyways so avoiding a felony conviction, fines, and a criminal record becomes a priority rather than beating the whole case. And you dont give the cops incrimiating evidence with a breathalyzer. Although I dont drink, and dont really plan on starting it raises my awareness that if people are doing this on a basis regular enough for it to be given as "advice" that if there is going to be justice in the world prosecutors should have all the information possible for justice to be carried through.
-PAB
umm, all planes have it, i guess you won't be flying anywhere? and I would only allow it if it doesn't allow the police to retrieve data remotely, ie. sending info out in radiowaves as I'm driving. The only time the data can be retrieved is AFTER an accident has happened. What is so "invading" about that? and also that it only collects a few mins of information at the most, maybe just 30 seconds or a minute is enough, so that any past data is wiped out, and they can't track your habits.
3.5 - 7 is complete and utter BS. 100 in a 45, 0.26 blood level, innocent person dead. That's not an accident in my book. Not homicide but not an accident either. I hope the family of the victim takes that guy to civil court and sues the crap out of him for wrongfull death or something similar.
Forget black boxes. They should have it like the cops and have mounted cameras with data going all the time. That would be a lifesaver if there were cameras mounted on the front/black of the car.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
I'd agree to have one, so long as I get a reduced insurance premium because of it. If I agree to have this, then I pretty much agree to drive responibly. If I agree to drive responsibly, then I'm a lower risk to the insurance company. If I'm a lower risk to the insurance company, then I deserve a lower premium because of it.
I don't think there will be a problem with random computer checks by the police. I honestly don't see how it's any different then a normal car search. Say you're speeding and get pulled over. The cop already has you for speeding, his radar ticket is all he needs to cite you for it. At that point, he can ask to search your car, and you have the right to say no.
In a case like this, where the driver killed someone, a warrant would be easily obtained and the driver's permission wouldn't be needed to pull the data from the cars.
In a case like this, where the driver killed someone, a warrant would be easily obtained and the driver's permission wouldn't be needed to pull the data from the cars.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter