Revenue generating black box mandatory in new cars

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-06-2011, 05:02
BREATHER

Shit, I live in Parker and have to pay a "Denver right to work tax" NOW. Look at your stubs.
06-06-2011, 07:33
Byte Stryke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irving

The state won't take your car if you don't register it. Only if you don't register it to drive it on their roads, and get caught driving on their roads. You are paying to use their roads, not your vehicle. No one comes and takes your television away if you steal cable. **Although some states have made stealing cable a felony, which is ridiculous.**

yeah... be one day late renewing the registration on your car...

I double-dog dare ya.
06-06-2011, 07:36
gcrookston

These are not new.

65% of the automobiles sold in the US since 2005 already have some form of this device. For nearly 10 years, over 80% of the commercial vehicles on the road have event data recorders which are much broader in scope and information gathering (monitoring and recording not only the few seconds before and after an airbag is deployed, but also things like shift points, engine load, fuel consumption, brake use, etc).

If you drive a 2005 or new Toyota, Chrysler, Ford or General Motors vehicle chances are you already have a device that monitors not only engine functions but also vehicle dynamics a few seconds before and after a crash.

The source (the Examiner), is a bit inflammatory and not entirely accurate and it's reputation for the truth is questionable. A hint to their fictionalization of this issue is citing law enforcement using data stored on driver's Tom Toms (if you have and use one, you know this is B.S.). Also note the accompanying legitimizing photograph is of a 2005 Envoy airbag control unit... Am I the only one that noticed?

Before you screw on your Tin Hats any more tightly... Read:

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...110529905/1249

A 2008 NHSTA regulation requires all vehicles with event data recorders to be able to capture 15 types of data, such as the vehicle's speed at impact and whether the driver applied the brakes before a crash, by the 2013 model year .
In light of Toyota's safety recalls last year, a bill was proposed in Congress that would have, among other things, required all vehicles sold in the United States to have event data recorders by the 2015 model year ....

Congress never voted on the bill.

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...#ixzz1OVDKAvmq

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/j...n/9af58182.jpg
06-06-2011, 07:47
68Charger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byte Stryke

yeah... be one day late renewing the registration on your car...

I double-dog dare ya.

Fremont county has a 30-day grace period on tags- we've been close to 30 days late with no penalty... and I've got a car on my property that I'm scrapping for parts- tags expired, but since it won't be used on a public road again, doesn't matter... the late fees are only incurred when you try to re-register after being late.

of course, YMMV in your county...
06-06-2011, 09:32
Ronin13

Quote:

Originally Posted by colocowboy01

The State, the Government, the police can do anything they what to do with any vehicle we all drive. Vehicles are State owned property, therefore if they want to track you in their property that you have agreed to use they can. We all have to license and register every year that we have in our possession and are using the State's property.

The state does not own your car. In fact, most people who purchase a car these days, if they have a lien on their car, don't own their car, the lien holder does. But the government absolutely does not own your car. Like stated before, you have to pay fees and taxes to register your plates which allow you to drive on the roads owned and maintained by the state.
As for this black box, how much are they going to tack onto the price of cars for a "black box fee." Someone is getting a paycheck for building this thing and I assure you the auto industry isn't going to eat the money to install one of these, they'll pass it on to the consumer. Also, it's illegal to download data from someone's GPS or GPS enabled phone and ticket them for a speeding violation that the LEO didn't witness. Many people have gotten out of speed camera tickets and stoplight camera tickets because they were not stopped and cited there and then and because "mechanical devices fail." This all seems like BS and I wouldn't doubt if they tried to use these boxes to try to nab people for driving beyond the limits of the law and they make it illegal to use the boxes for anything other than accident data.
06-06-2011, 09:41
Hoosier

There's another type of device which the government is interested in. Oregon was trialing it. It's a GPS that logs where you go, obstensibly so that they can collect milage information to tax users who drive hybrid/electric cars that don't drink as much gas.

Fight the power.

H.
06-06-2011, 15:43
jerrymrc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irving

Black boxes would be great for insurance companies to get the "real" story and deny claims. Progressive is already introducing that idea with their "Snapshot" discount thingy.

Yep. And after 30 days my ins bill went down 30%. They come out in a couple of months and then it will save $320 per year. [Coffee]
06-06-2011, 17:32
Ronin13

The Snapshot is an okay deal, technologically it's not where it could be- as I work in Insurance. I have yet to have a single customer sign on for it, but in theory it could work pretty well... we really have to see how it works after a year or so in actual use before I start saying to my customers "Hey you should get in on this, it'll do wonders for saving you money... that is if you drive well." Personally, I'm not going to get it (although I haven't been a Progressive Customer for a few years now), I drive with a heavy foot and sometimes go for drives where I hit corners pretty fast.
06-06-2011, 18:56
Irving

As a claims adjuster, I would have loved a black box. If there aren't accidents or tickets, the rates shouldn't be raised (imo). Accidents and tickets should be enough of a reason to raise rates. Otherwise it will be like denying health coverage for a disease that you could develop.
06-06-2011, 20:02
theGinsue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irving

Not true. Everything is a right, unless it is specifically made illegal by the placement of a law. This whole backwards thinking is why the country is where it is today. Transportation not a right? Bullshit.

I think that's why there are people trying to get transportation labeled as a right in the first place. People don't understand the Constitution, so everything has to have the label of "Right" on it, or else they think it is a privileged.

Control transportation - control the people.

[German Accent applied] Paper's Pleaze [/German Accent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by colocowboy01

The State, the Government, the police can do anything they what to do with any vehicle we all drive. Vehicles are State owned property, therefore if they want to track you in their property that you have agreed to use they can. We all have to license and register every year that we have in our possession and are using the State's property. Try driving around without renewing the plates or tags, who comes and gets their property back from you? The State. It is the same concept as a User Agreement/Software License Agreement for software that you use on your computer. You do not own the software, the company that developed the software still owns the software, you just have paid the company to use their software and use it according to the rules that their have outlined in the User Agreement. The license plate and tags that are put on your vehicle are not there to give you permission to drive the vehicle, that is what your "drivers license" is for. The plates are so the State can track their property easily. The State requires us to have insurance to cover damage to their property, if we personally owned the vehicle we could not be forced to purchase a service against our will. (We could be forced to have personal insurance coverage in conjunction with our "drivers license" since that is transferable to any vehicle, and the State has granted us permission to drive. But, if we owned the vehicle we could not be forced to buy insurance for the vehicle if we did not want to so.) I know this sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory, but think about it, "do you own something that you are required to pay the government every year to use, and if you don't pay for it they take it away from you?" It is the same with our houses. If you own your home out right why do you have to pay your yearly rent to the government in the form of property taxes?

Just my 2 cents. I know I don't share the same "reality" as most people, and I am OK with that. I think my ways would grant more liberty.

[Coffee]

I agree

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page