NHTSA considering all cars required to have a "blackbox" that record all events
148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115822]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]
[url]http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23472548-how-cars-black-box-trapped-speeding-rich-list-heir-who-left-baby-paralysed-in-range-rover-crash.do[/url]
[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]
Actually skid mark analysis would pretty much do exactly that. You underestimate the system we have in place as it is.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115836]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]
You are an expert. Thanks!
"SKID MARK" "SKID MARK" "SKID MARK" "SKID MARK" "SKID MARK"
[editline]29th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115842]Actually skid mark analysis would pretty much do exactly that. You underestimate the system we have in place as it is.[/QUOTE]
No I don't - however skid mark analysis is an approximation, but EDR is not. Stop it.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115847]You are an expert. Thanks!
"SKID MARK" "SKID MARK" "SKID MARK" "SKID MARK" "SKID MARK"
[editline]29th May 2011[/editline]
No I don't - however skid mark analysis is an approximation, but EDR is not. Stop it.[/QUOTE]
And you're more qualified than me how?
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115859]And you're more qualified than me how?[/QUOTE]
What's that got to do with anything?
Aren't you the one making statements stating skid mark analysis is viable evidence?
What accreditation do you have?
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115859]And you're more qualified than me how?[/QUOTE]
And you're a qualified Forensic skid mark anylist now?
Cool, so tell me what, specific indicators would you look for that would tie a car to the crime? and how are you supposed to determine from that skid mark whether or not the crime was indeed an accident or commited on purpose.
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30115878]And you're a qualified Forensic skid mark anylist now?
Cool, so tell me what, specific indicators would you look for that would tie a car to the crime? and how are you supposed to determine from that skid mark whether or not the crime was indeed an accident or commited on purpose.[/QUOTE]
I've listed several scenarios, you just seem to only want to quote the things that I say that are my personal opinion, presumably because you can't think up a response to the real points.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115898]I've listed several scenarios, you just seem to only want to quote the things that I say that are my personal opinion, presumably because you can't think up a response to the real points.[/QUOTE]
You've listed nothing with substance to support your argument that EDRs are not useful because we already have enough information.
NOTHING.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115847]You are an expert. Thanks!
"SKID MARK" "SKID MARK" "SKID MARK" "SKID MARK" "SKID MARK"
[editline]29th May 2011[/editline]
No I don't - however skid mark analysis is an approximation, but EDR is not. Stop it.[/QUOTE]
True, approximation is never a good thing. However, with the example you provided, simply judging the damage of the car would be enough to determine that he was most definitely speeding. It may be an approximation, but it is still obviously true.
Again, you don't cause massive injuries going 30mph into the back of someone's car unless it is a headon collision. Furthermore the child was out of his safety seat (I think? This article is horribly written). That is child endangerment. With functioning airbags, a properly used child safety seat, seatbelts and minding the speed limit everyone would have been fine. This obviously was not the case.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115898]I've listed several scenarios, you just seem to only want to quote the things that I say that are my personal opinion, presumably because you can't think up a response to the real points.[/QUOTE]
The scenarios you've listed have been shot down one by one as far as I remember, and yeah I will attack this as your personal opinion because opinions have no place in determining whether or not someone is guilty of a specific crime, I'll attack your opinion because you think you know what you're talking about when it comes to skid mark analysis, I'll attack your opinion because although you are entirely free to have an opinion and I respect that you defend your opinion so strongly but it also my opinion that you are so utterly and completely wrong that if this didn't happen people would die, and cars would retain inherent flaws in their manufacturing that could only be discovered after thousands of crashes as opposed to a handful.
So yup, I'll attack your opinion, because if people didn't attack opinions nothing would ever improve.
Besides, I'm right and you're wrong.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115908]You've listed nothing with substance to support your argument that EDRs are not useful because we already have enough information.
NOTHING.[/QUOTE]
You're yet to say anything valid to the shit mugofdoom has said. Your point?
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115919]True, approximation is never a good thing. However, with the example you provided, simply judging the damage of the car would be enough to determine that he was most definitely speeding. It may be an approximation, but it is still obviously true.
Again, you don't cause massive injuries going 30mph into the back of someone's car unless it is a headon collision. Furthermore the child was out of his safety seat (I think? This article is horribly written). That is child endangerment. With functioning airbags, a properly used child safety seat, seatbelts and minding the speed limit everyone would have been fine. This obviously was not the case.[/QUOTE]
Kinda besides the point since that's the result of the crash and not the cause.
And knowing someone is speeding is lovely, but that doesn't tell you how fast they were going.
In any case I don't really have a problem with this [I]as long as it is optional[/I]. I just seriously doubt exactly how useful this information is.
I do not believe, that unless it saves the life of someone in the event of a crash, that this should be mandatory. All this allows for is quicker retribution, and that may not be an entirely bad thing, but it should not be mandatory. I can indeed see how this could be useful, but I have yet to see a case where it is absolutely necessary to solve a case.
Anyway it's 4 in the morning, I'm out.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115919]True, approximation is never a good thing. However, with the example you provided, simply judging the damage of the car would be enough to determine that he was most definitely speeding. It may be an approximation, but it is still obviously true.[/quote]
Too bad "simply" isn't enough to satisfy the court. The EDR will provide definitive evidence of the offense.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115919] That is child endangerment. With functioning airbags, a properly used child safety seat, seatbelts and minding the speed limit everyone would have been fine. This obviously was not the case.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree - but the EDR definitive determined that speed caused the situation.
The EDR device is beneficial for all road users, as liability can be definitively determined, as it is possible to recreate the scenario. Other forensic methods do not allow such an exact recreation and rely on a fair amount of approximations.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115957]In any case I don't really have a problem with this [I]as long as it is optional[/I]. I just seriously doubt exactly how useful this information is.
I do not believe, that unless it saves the life of someone in the event of a crash, that this should be mandatory. All this allows for is quicker retribution, and that may not be an entirely bad thing, but it should not be mandatory. I can indeed see how this could be useful, but I have yet to see a case where it is absolutely necessary to solve a case.
Anyway it's 4 in the morning, I'm out.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough at least you're not being derp about it man, I disagree with the mandatory part though, it's not harming anyone and in the long run it's gonna help improve future car safety so I can only see it as a good thing.
Night man :tiphat:
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30115971]Too bad "simply" isn't enough to satisfy the court. The EDR will provide definitive evidence of the offense.
I don't disagree - but the EDR definitive determined that speed caused the situation.
The EDR device is beneficial for all road users, as liability can be definitively determined, as it is possible to recreate the scenario. Other forensic methods do not allow such an exact recreation and rely on a fair amount of approximations.[/QUOTE]
Sure, fine. If someone wants that put in their car, let them. No government has any right to mandate it though.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30115945]You're yet to say anything valid to the shit mugofdoom has said. Your point?[/QUOTE]
If you say so. Put me on ignore, and I still wouldn't have said anything according to you.
Actually, fuck it, might as well put you on ignore, because nothing you have said is constructive, applicable or useful for the progression of the discussion.
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30115978]Fair enough at least you're not being derp about it man, I disagree with the mandatory part though, it's not harming anyone and in the long run it's gonna help improve future car safety so I can only see it as a good thing.
Night man :tiphat:[/QUOTE]
Cheers, mang.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;30115987]Sure, fine. If someone wants that put in their car, let them. No government has any right to mandate it though.[/QUOTE]
What right does the Government have to mandate seatbelts or the required use of indicators.
Even if the NHTSA does not introduce such a requirement, I can see the car manufactures all implementing the device.
I guess when some stupid road user crashes into CjienX, and there is not enough evidence to convict that person for manslaughter, too bad they had the EDR turned off, cest la vie.
Regardless, say all manufactures did put the EDR in every car, but it wasn't required to be enabled, what reason would you have for turning it off?
I'm glad the discussion with mugofdoom is remaining civil, unlike a certain other user.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;30116019]average facepunch argument[/QUOTE]
You know instead of nit picking you could have actually contributed to the debate instead.
Just sayin.
[editline]29th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=lockdown6;30116029]"i should just ignore you"[/QUOTE]
Well considering he hasn't put forth any argument that wasn't comprised of 1 third herp and 2 thirds derp then yeah it's a viable course of action.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;30116029]"i should just ignore you"[/QUOTE]
Then I guess every other post other than that is not an average facepunch argument.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;30116055]I think the EDR is a good idea that does not infringe any rights (since it only records like 30 minutes of data in case of crash and doesn't have a GPS tracker or whatever) and should exist in all cars
is that better[/QUOTE]
Fantastic, you've delivered your opinion in a nice concise way.
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30116065]Fantastic, you've delivered your opinion in a nice concise way.[/QUOTE]
Oh please, stop acting like you're a fucking model person, you're the one that needed to throw direct insults into your argument.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30116080]Oh please, stop acting like you're a fucking model person, you're the one that needed to throw direct insults into your argument.[/QUOTE]
[quote]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]
Hi! I'm the first direct personal insult of the argument, now some of you may not remember me so here's where I live :buddy:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1092717-NHTSA-considering-all-cars-required-to-have-a-quot-blackbox-quot-that-record-all-events?p=30115539&viewfull=1#post30115539[/url]
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30116111]Hi! I'm the first direct personal insult of the argument, now some of you may not remember me so here's where I live :buddy:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1092717-NHTSA-considering-all-cars-required-to-have-a-quot-blackbox-quot-that-record-all-events?p=30115539&viewfull=1#post30115539[/url][/QUOTE]
Because using the government shoving a theoretic dildo up a theoretical ass as a theoretic argument is directly insulting you.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;30116167]well you were pretty much saying "you let yourself get raped up the ass"[/QUOTE]
And that's directly insulting him how? It's theoretical
[quote]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.[/quote]
That isn't.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30116177]And that's directly insulting him how? It's theoretical[/QUOTE]
Well you could go and fuck yourself with a cactus whilst wearing an anarchist t shirt, but hey man it's no biggie I'm just talking bout hypotheticals mang.
[QUOTE=Mastotron;30116193]Well you could go and fuck yourself with a cactus whilst wearing an anarchist t shirt, but hey man it's no biggie I'm just talking bout hypotheticals mang.[/QUOTE]
I never said that you could let the government shove a dildo up your ass. I said you allow them to and argue that there's no point in fighting for change because it's hopeless.
Way to selectively read
And there were no hints of hypotheticals or theoreticals in that statement, just so you know, the terms used illustrate that you're pretty pissed and think I just bend over for the government.
[editline]29th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=CjienX;30116202]I never said that you could let the government shove a dildo up your ass. I said you allow them to and argue that there's no point in fighting for change because it's hopeless.
Way to selectively read[/QUOTE]
10/10 would derp again.
You just confirmed my point knuckle dragger.
Well now that I have firmly won this argument in every sense I will take my leave :tiphat:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.