• NHTSA considering all cars required to have a "blackbox" that record all events
    148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115604]Please, with all your knowledge on the NHTSA, give me an example where this is completely necessary, because the examples already given would have been solved just as easily without this system.[/QUOTE] Just as easily? Are you serious? Read the article, see where the NHTSA has determined the use for the system. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CjienX;30115618]Based on what? The guy driving 80 in a 25? Because you totally need this bullshit to determine that he was guilty.[/QUOTE] So what's your argument? That the EDR is useless because we've already got the ability to approximate, or because the Government is snooping on it's people? [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] Because they're both bullshit. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=slinkman;30115586]I want this to be an optional feature in a car, I don't want the government to FORCE car makers to have these in their cars. Have a black box in your car? Save $30 for 12 months on your loan as well as your insurance. That I would be ok with, but if it's something that doesn't save a life, it shouldn't be [i]required[/i][/QUOTE] That's a decent idea because insurance companies would be able to obtain a definitive list of accidents caused by the user from the EDR and offer a more realistic and tuned premium.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115539]Residential areas aren't exactly ideal for speeding, you can't just keep a steady high speed. There's a lot of turns that require braking. If you're driving that fast in a residential area, you deserve to be locked up for endangering so many people. What's fucking pathetic is how you just sit there and let the government shove their giant dildo up your ass and justify it by saying that it's not worth fighting against because you can't change it.[/QUOTE] Actually I'm from the UK and don't drive yet so way off the mark. And I'm the one wearing my tinfoil hat operating a pirate radio station talking bout how the man is making pacts with the reptilians to gain superior knowledge on how to control the sheep like masses. I'm done here, if you're gonna be as retarded as a redneck then there's no hope for convincing you that all this is going to do is help people. And actually I support this idea, so there's no contemplation of fighting this. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CjienX;30115618]Based on what? The guy driving 80 in a 25? Because you totally need this bullshit to determine that he was guilty.[/QUOTE] Are you actually incapable of reading? Right I'll make this highly visible for you then. [h2]Actually there is incredibly vital data buried in that example specifically, did they brake, and when. That data could define whether it was an act of murder or just vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving, which defines whether someone gets life in prison or a few years. This shit is vital data and you being a petulant child over it is just plain stupid, and you can't just go "yeah this was an accident case solved lets go home" You have to go by evidence and a lot of manslaughter charges and crashes have shaky evidence, this clears that up. [/h2]
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30115641]Actually I'm from the UK and don't drive yet so way off the mark. And I'm the one wearing my tinfoil hat operating a pirate radio station talking bout how the man is making pacts with the reptilians to gain superior knowledge on how to control the sheep like masses. I'm done here, if you're gonna be as retarded as a redneck then there's no hope for convincing you that all this is going to do is help people. And actually I support this idea, so there's no contemplation of fighting this.[/QUOTE] So because you support it, you have no reason to debate for why it's right. GJ
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115658]So because you support it, you have no reason to debate for why it's right. GJ[/QUOTE] That's a terrible interpretation of their argument, but very similar to yours [apparently]. "Because not everyone needs it, we shouldn't be required to have it" [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mastotron;30115641] [h2]Actually there is incredibly vital data buried in that example specifically, did they brake, and when. That data could define whether it was an act of murder or just vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving, which defines whether someone gets life in prison or a few years. This shit is vital data and you being a petulant child over it is just plain stupid, and you can't just go "yeah this was an accident case solved lets go home" You have to go by evidence and a lot of manslaughter charges and crashes have shaky evidence, this clears that up. [/h2][/QUOTE] Absolutely spot on. There is a good implementation of the system.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115670]That's a terrible interpretation of their argument, but very similar to yours [apparently]. "Because not everyone needs it, we shouldn't be required to have it"[/QUOTE] [quote]And actually I support this idea, so there's no contemplation of fighting this.[/quote] No, that's exactly what he said. And you call me stupid.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115624]Just as easily? Are you serious? Read the article, see where the NHTSA has determined the use for the system.[/QUOTE] Under US law, the man would have still been convicted for manslaughter regardless of whether he was speeding or not. And even so, common sense dictates that he was definitely speeding. You are not going to kill two girls by hitting them going 25 mph. It is basic, common sense. Really, all this would help with, that I can think of, would be rear end crashes and whose fault exactly they are. Which, to me, makes this seem not exactly necessary in all cars.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115658]So because you support it, you have no reason to debate for why it's right. GJ[/QUOTE] Did you just give yourself a DIY lobotomy? I've been arguing for this, with valid arguments of why this is a good idea for 2 fucking pages. Seriously did your mum like fucking snow ball coke hourly when she was pregnant with you or just she push that soft spot on your skull a lot? But please feel free to continue to be retarded, it just means you'll be minus a black box, and if it becomes mandatory, then a car.
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30115685]Did you just give yourself a DIY lobotomy? I've been arguing for this, with valid arguments of why this is a good idea for 2 fucking pages. Seriously did your mum like fucking snow ball coke hourly when she was pregnant with you or just she push that soft spot on your skull a lot? But please feel free to continue to be retarded, it just means you'll be minus a black box, and if it becomes mandatory, then a car.[/QUOTE] Really? Cause I'm yet to see any valid arguments, just your pathetic ass trying to throw lowball insults at me.
And it doesn't matter who braked or not, it's still manslaughter. Congrats, your "scientific advancement" has now been rendered completely useless by US law.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115679]No, that's exactly what he said. And you call me stupid.[/QUOTE] Yeah imagine me thinking all cars should have amndatory safety equipment, oh goodness gracious what a heinous thought. Excuse me I feel terrible about this, I'm going to go and hang myself that's just how bad I feel, I've realised that you are totally correct and I rescind my arguments, you are clearly the superior one here who knows what's going down, I bow to you sir.
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30115704]Yeah imagine me thinking all cars should have amndatory safety equipment, oh goodness gracious what a heinous thought. Excuse me I feel terrible about this, I'm going to go and hang myself that's just how bad I feel, I've realised that you are totally correct and I rescind my arguments, you are clearly the superior one here who knows what's going down, I bow to you sir.[/QUOTE] How is this safety equipment? It doesn't prevent anything. It records things that aren't necessary to be recorded.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115679]No, that's exactly what he said. And you call me stupid.[/QUOTE] There is no contemplation for them to fight it - not everyone... Unlike you obviously. [QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115684]Under US law, the man would have still been convicted for manslaughter regardless of whether he was speeding or not. And even so, common sense dictates that he was definitely speeding. You are not going to kill two girls by hitting them going 25 mph. It is basic, common sense. Really, all this would help with, that I can think of, would be rear end crashes and whose fault exactly they are. Which, to me, makes this seem not exactly necessary in all cars.[/QUOTE] Ugh. We keep going over the same thing over and over again. The EDR provides exact information unlike previous methods of determination. And who says you can't kill a person at 25mph? You could kill a person travelling at 15 - but all events like this are helped to be determined through the use of an EDR.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115696]Really? Cause I'm yet to see any valid arguments, just your pathetic ass trying to throw lowball insults at me.[/QUOTE] Feel free to actually read my posts in depth the next time then, cause past the paper thin sarcastic veneer there's a lot of arguments in there, including this huge one that I'll post again until you actually correctly address it [h2]Actually there is incredibly vital data buried in that example specifically, did they brake, and when. That data could define whether it was an act of murder or just vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving, which defines whether someone gets life in prison or a few years. This shit is vital data and you being a petulant child over it is just plain stupid, and you can't just go "yeah this was an accident case solved lets go home" You have to go by evidence and a lot of manslaughter charges and crashes have shaky evidence, this clears that up. [/h2]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115711]There is no contemplation for them to fight it - not everyone... Unlike you obviously. Ugh. We keep going over the same thing over and over again. The EDR provides exact information unlike previous methods of determination. And who says you can't kill a person at 25mph? You could kill a person travelling at 15 - but all events like this are helped to be determined through the use of an EDR.[/QUOTE] He didn't say it isn't possible, he said if it was an act of murder he wouldn't have been going at them at 25mph. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mastotron;30115717]Feel free to actually read my posts in depth the next time then, cause past the paper thin sarcastic veneer there's a lot of arguments in there, including this huge one that I'll post again until you actually correctly address it [h2]Actually there is incredibly vital data buried in that example specifically, did they brake, and when. That data could define whether it was an act of murder or just vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving, which defines whether someone gets life in prison or a few years. This shit is vital data and you being a petulant child over it is just plain stupid, and you can't just go "yeah this was an accident case solved lets go home" You have to go by evidence and a lot of manslaughter charges and crashes have shaky evidence, this clears that up. [/h2][/QUOTE] You realize that [h2]mugofdoom already argued that US law makes this irrelevant because it would be manslaughter regardless[/h2]
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115726]He didn't say it isn't possible, he said if it was an act of murder he wouldn't have been going at them at 25mph.[/QUOTE] Nope. That wasn't the statement, as they pointed out he was obviously speeding because you wouldn't kill someone at 25mph... have a reread.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115711]There is no contemplation for them to fight it - not everyone... Unlike you obviously. Ugh. We keep going over the same thing over and over again. The EDR provides exact information unlike previous methods of determination. And who says you can't kill a person at 25mph? You could kill a person travelling at 15 - but all events like this are helped to be determined through the use of an EDR.[/QUOTE] None of this matters. The man would have been convicted regardless. Same in pretty much all cases this would "help" with. I don't know anything about your laws down there in Banland, but up here, as long as he is behind the wheel, and someone dies because of his car, it is manslaughter. You don't need anything beyond common sense to determine this.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115709]How is this safety equipment? It doesn't prevent anything. It records things that aren't necessary to be recorded.[/QUOTE] Folk who might use a car to kill could be dettered, it also helps to spot faults in a cars manufacture like faulty ball joints and brakes, so could improve car design which would thus improve survivability in a crash and help stop crashes in the first place.
So please, if you guys would like to further your attempts at making a Utopian society, be my guest, but that shit don't fly in Murka. :usa:
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115741]Nope. That wasn't the statement, as they pointed out he was obviously speeding because he wasn't travelling at 25mph... have a reread.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about? I said that IF it was murder, no matter who the fuck you're trying to kill, you aren't going to tap their car at 25mph and expect to finish the job. You're going to go fast to make sure you kill them.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115749]None of this matters. The man would have been convicted regardless. Same in pretty much all cases this would "help" with. I don't know anything about your laws down there in Banland, but up here, as long as he is behind the wheel, and someone dies because of his car, it is manslaughter. You don't need anything beyond common sense to determine this.[/QUOTE] Wrong, manslaughter is accidental killing, murder is pre meditated killing, that could be using a car. Try again.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115749]I don't know anything about your laws down there in Banland, but up here, as long as he is behind the wheel, and someone dies because of his car, it is manslaughter. You don't need anything beyond common sense to determine this.[/QUOTE] Yes, however there are other events when the EDR could be used. What about reckless driving, or even a determination that they lost control of their car because of speed? Don't forget that in criminal cases, evidence has to be used which provides guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This provides it. For a civil case, this provide definitive information on the balance of probabilities. It's an aid in determination of liability.
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30115771]Wrong, manslaughter is accidental killing, murder is pre meditated killing, that could be using a car. Try again.[/QUOTE] How exactly would the black box determine if it was premeditated? Does the thing have mind reading capabilities? Shit, I underestimated it. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] And even so, if it were premeditated, one could tell from the skid marks. That implies braking. Woo common sense.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115759]What the fuck are you talking about? I said that IF it was murder, no matter who the fuck you're trying to kill, you aren't going to tap their car at 25mph and expect to finish the job. You're going to go fast to make sure you kill them.[/QUOTE] what has this argument degenerated into. At least now I have proof you're stupid. "We don't need EDRs because murder or manslaughter is already easy to determine" - CjienX.
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30115771]Wrong, manslaughter is accidental killing, murder is pre meditated killing, that could be using a car. Try again.[/QUOTE] When you try to kill somebody with a car, it shows in the scene even going as far as the impact. If you're trying to hit something, you react differently than if you're trying to avoid it.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115783]How exactly would the black box determine if it was premeditated?[/QUOTE] You obviously don't understand the quality of evidence required for a criminal conviction, particularly one as serious as murder. An EDR + other forensic analysis, such as skid mark, will suffice, however skid mark on it's own might not. This argument is getting fucking stupid now.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115782]Yes, however there are other events when the EDR could be used. What about reckless driving, or even a determination that they lost control of their car because of speed? Don't forget that in criminal cases, evidence has to be used which provides guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This provides it. For a civil case, this provide definitive information on the balance of probabilities. It's an aid in determination of liability.[/QUOTE] If they lost control of the car, they aren't fit to be driving, or they were going faster than they were supposed to. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;30115795]what has this argument degenerated into. At least now I have proof you're stupid. "I suck on my own poopies" - DogGunn.[/QUOTE] Hey, I can make fake quotes too!
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115807]You obviously don't understand the quality of evidence required for a criminal conviction, particularly one as serious as murder. An EDR + other forensic analysis, such as skid mark, will suffice, however skid mark on it's own might not. This argument is getting fucking stupid now.[/QUOTE] If the argument is getting stupid, show me an example where it is necessary to have this thing. It's just adding more evidence onto the already massive pile of evidence that we have. If I can tell you who is at fault just from a short text describing the event, then I seriously doubt how useful this information is.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115809]If they lost control of the car, they aren't fit to be driving, or they were going faster than they were supposed to.[/quote] Yep, and EDR allows them to determine if they left their lane thanks to new lane detecting technologies, wheel spin and accelerator and brake pressure, along with exact speed and other stuff. "skid mark analysis" does not.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115827]Yep, and EDR allows them to determine if they left their lane thanks to new lane detecting technologies, wheel spin and accelerator and brake pressure, along with exact speed and other stuff. "skid mark analysis" does not.[/QUOTE] No, but you can see if the big black skid mark goes over the big yellow line and then further determine how the driver reacted based on the way the skid marks form leading up to the impact point.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115783]How exactly would the black box determine if it was premeditated? Does the thing have mind reading capabilities? Shit, I underestimated it. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] And even so, if it were premeditated, one could tell from the skid marks. That implies braking. Woo common sense.[/QUOTE] Braking, if you intend to run someone over you're not gonna brake are you? it could detect where a force was applied, if you're trying to run someone over you're going to aim and re adjust so they strike the centre of the bumper, it's a natural instinct to hit dead on, then there's braking after the crash, if they stop at all or apply the brakes. And the other guy used skid marks, I'm studying forensics, and allow to emphasise this again. [h2] I study Forensics and skid marks are an indicator that the car either lost control or began breaking, they are a hit and miss presumptive test! [/h2] They are completely useles when it comes down to detail and they crumble under intense study, they are useless and you can only use them as an indicator in court. And common sense, seems ironic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.