Quote :

"Bullet All American 9372 Posts user info edit post cool (i really don't understand how you expect anyone to take you seriously, especially after your antics of the last few weeks)"

Bullet: Stop trolling and derailing. Please contribute to the topic or GTFO.

11/13/2012 12:33:31 PM

No one took him seriously before that either so no harm done.

11/13/2012 12:39:41 PM

Nobody cares that you don't take me seriously.


We do care about you posting on topic information.

11/13/2012 12:42:34 PM

Who's this "nobody" and "we" you speak of? You're losing it man (moreso than you already had)

11/13/2012 12:44:32 PM

what "we" does geniusxboy belong to?

11/13/2012 12:57:08 PM

FTR, I am not part of that "we".

11/13/2012 12:57:51 PM

The royal we. You know, the editorial we.

11/13/2012 12:59:22 PM

Quote :

"Stay On-Topic - Try to stick with the topic. If you have something important to say that doesn't relate to the topic, then start a new topic. If you have something useless to say, keep it to yourself. "

"we"

11/13/2012 1:02:43 PM

Ok. So tell us about the emblem. Is that Freemason, Illuminati, or NWO symbology?

11/13/2012 1:04:27 PM

It looks like a grimreaper to me.

If it was a program cooked up by the Illuminati, I doubt they'd blatantly use an Illuminati symbol, they're secretive and it'd blow their cover.

11/13/2012 1:06:29 PM

Those guys must be so pissed that a semi-literate pizza boy is blabbing about their plans all over the internet.

11/13/2012 1:08:49 PM

Interesting.

11/13/2012 2:04:32 PM

^ okay. that made me lol.

11/13/2012 2:34:08 PM

Quote :

"Cromer filed a civil rights lawsuit in 2010, accusing Detroit police of creating a phony confession and covering up evidence that would have helped Sosa. The lawsuit was amended in 2011 and hand-delivered to the city's law department. But city attorney Jane Mills never filed a formal response in federal court. No matter how he won the lawsuit, Sosa hopes the public doesn't lose sight of his innocence and his time in a juvenile lockup. He said he was repeatedly beaten by inmates much older than him and suffered a dislocated jaw, broken ribs and other injuries."

http://news.yahoo.com/detroit-man-accused-murder-14-1-1m-174628859.html

Basically, if it wasn't for their failure to report for this case, they would have locked up an innocent boy on purpose for life. They all collude together so that it's almost impossible to fight them in court. They hide evidence that helps your case and force you to sign confessions.

11/23/2012 11:16:54 AM

Quote :

" White House clears way for NHTSA to mandate vehicle black boxes automotive black boxAt present, over 90 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United States today are equipped with event data recorders, more commonly known as black boxes. If the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gets its way, that already high figure will swell to a full 100 percent in short order. Such automotive black boxes have been in existence since the 1990s, and all current Ford, General Motors, Mazda and Toyota vehicles are so equipped. NHTSA has been attempting to make these data recorders mandatory for automakers, and according to The Detroit News, the White House Office of Management Budget has just finished reviewing the proposal, clearing the way. Now NHTSA is expected to draft new legislation to make the boxes a requirement. One problem with current black boxes is that there's no set of standards for automakers to follow when creating what bits of data are recorded, and for how long or in what format it is stored. In other words, one automaker's box is probably not compatible with its competitors. Expect all these issues to be worked out "in the coming months," according to NHTSA spokeswoman Lynda Tran. "

Big surprise, given who is in the White House. Thanks Obama!

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/07/white-house-clears-way-for-nhtsa-to-mandate-vehicle-black-boxes/

12/7/2012 12:24:04 PM

12/7/2012 12:28:59 PM

lol

12/7/2012 12:58:37 PM

Because of who is in the White House? Both the House and Senate passed this bill, the White House OMB dragged their feet on it. Republicans love invading privacy and civil rights as much as the next guy, not sure why you're trying to pin this on Obama.

Here are the Republicans okay with this:
David Vitter
John Thune
Olympia Snowe
Richard Shelby
Jefferson “Jeff” Sessions
Pat Roberts
Lisa Murkowski
Jerry Moran
John “Johnny” Isakson
James “Jim” Inhofe
Kay Hutchison
John Hoeven
Dean Heller
Charles “Chuck” Grassley
Susan Collins
Thad Cochran
Saxby Chambliss
Scott Brown
John Boozman
Roy Blunt
Lamar Alexander
Roger Wicker
Robert Aderholt
Rodney Alexander
Mark Amodei
Steve Austria
Spencer Bachus III
Lou Barletta
Roscoe Bartlett
Joe Barton
Charles “Charlie” Bass
Dan Benishek
Rick Berg
Judy Biggert
Brian Bilbray
Gus Bilirakis
Rob Bishop
Marsha Blackburn
Jo Bonner
Mary Bono Mack
Charles Boustany Jr.
Kevin Brady
Vern Buchanan
Larry Bucshon
Ann Marie Buerkle
Dan Burton
Ken Calvert
David “Dave” Camp
Francisco “Quico” Canseco
Eric Cantor
Shelley Capito
John Carter
Bill Cassidy
Jason Chaffetz
Howard Coble
Mike Coffman
Tom Cole
Chip Cravaack
Rick Crawford
Ander Crenshaw
John Culberson
Geoff Davis
Jeff Denham
Charles Dent
Scott DesJarlais
Mario Diaz-Balart
Bob Dold
David Dreier
Sean Duffy
John “Jimmy” Duncan Jr.
Renee Ellmers
Jo Ann Emerson
Blake Farenthold
Stephen Fincher
Michael Fitzpatrick
Chuck Fleischmann
John Fleming
Bill Flores
Randy Forbes
Jeffrey Fortenberry
Rodney Frelinghuysen
Elton Gallegly
Cory Gardner
Jim Gerlach
Bob Gibbs
Chris Gibson
Kay Granger
Samuel “Sam” Graves
Tim Griffin
Morgan Griffith
Michael Grimm
Frank Guinta
Brett Guthrie
Ralph Hall
Richard Hanna
Gregg Harper
Vicky Hartzler
Doc Hastings
Nan Hayworth
Joe Heck
Jeb Hensarling
Walter “Wally” Herger
Jaime Herrera Beutler
Randy Hultgren
Duncan Hunter
Darrell Issa
Timothy Johnson
Bill Johnson
Samuel “Sam” Johnson
Walter Jones Jr.
Mike Kelly
Steve King
Peter “Pete” King
Jack Kingston
Adam Kinzinger
John Kline
Leonard Lance
Jeff Landry
James Lankford
Thomas “Tom” Latham
Steven LaTourette
Robert Latta
Frank LoBiondo
Billy Long
Frank Lucas
Blaine Luetkemeyer
Daniel Lungren
Donald Manzullo
Kenny Marchant
Thomas Marino
Kevin McCarthy
Michael McCaul
Thaddeus “Thad” McCotter
Howard “Buck” McKeon
David McKinley
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Patrick Meehan
John Mica
Jeff Miller
Candice Miller
Gary Miller
Tim Murphy
Sue Myrick
Kristi Noem
Devin Nunes
Alan Nunnelee
Steven Palazzo
Erik Paulsen
Steven “Steve” Pearce
Mike Pence
Thomas “Tom” Petri
Joseph Pitts
Todd Platts
Ted Poe
Tom Price
Tom Reed II
Dennis “Denny” Rehberg
Dave Reichert
Jim Renacci
Reid Ribble
Scott Rigell
David Rivera
Martha Roby
Phil Roe
Michael “Mike” Rogers
Harold “Hal” Rogers
Michael “Mike” Rogers
Dana Rohrabacher
Todd Rokita
Thomas Rooney
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Peter Roskam
Edward “Ed” Royce
Jon Runyan
Paul Ryan
Steve Scalise
Robert “Bobby” Schilling
Jean Schmidt
Aaron Schock
Peter “Pete” Sessions
John Shimkus
William “Bill” Shuster Jr.
Michael “Mike” Simpson
Adrian Smith
Christopher “Chris” Smith
Lamar Smith
Steve Southerland
Clifford “Cliff” Stearns
Steve Stivers
Marlin Stutzman
John Sullivan
Lee Terry
Glenn Thompson
Patrick “Pat” Tiberi
Scott Tipton
Robert Turner
Michael Turner
Frederick “Fred” Upton
Greg Walden
Daniel Webster
Allen West
Edward “Ed” Whitfield
Rob Wittman
Frank Wolf
Steve Womack
Donald “Don” Young
Bill Young
Todd Young

12/7/2012 1:39:02 PM

Quote :

"Such automotive black boxes have been in existence since the 1990s, and all current Ford, General Motors, Mazda and Toyota vehicles are so equipped."

Hm

12/7/2012 2:15:31 PM

^I'm already well aware of that. Cars are my life

Quote :

"Because of who is in the White House? Both the House and Senate passed this bill, the White House OMB dragged their feet on it. Republicans love invading privacy and civil rights as much as the next guy, not sure why you're trying to pin this on Obama. "

Look man, I was just going off the headline of the article. "White House". So my bad...

12/7/2012 3:32:53 PM

What do the black boxes record and why is it bothersome to you that they be mandated?

[Edited on December 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2012 3:50:47 PM

Quote :

"why is it bothersome to you that they be mandated?"

Well the obvious question is what business is it of the government whether the car records or does not record information? What twisting of the general welfare or interstate commerce clauses justifies this?

12/8/2012 1:45:26 AM

^^ at a minimum, things like steering inputs, throttle and brake positions, yaw, speed, velocity delta over time in a collision in x and y axis, engine rpm, seatbelt usage. I think there are some more things, but that's the gist of it. They will record something like 5-10 seconds before a crash, with data pts every .1 or .25 seconds or so.

Most cars in the last 5 years or so already have these. Domestics have had them a lot longer than that--particularly GM. The Japanese cars over a few years old are a mixed bag. Most of them in the last ~8-10 years have it, but some older than 3-4 years don't record pre-crash data--only a single snapshot of conditions in a crash, which is at least not as bad.

Notably, no German cars have an EDR, based on a good bit of research I've done. BMW has explicitly stated that they won't put them in their cars (presumably unless mandated).

I'm in the market for a car right now. With a long commute, I'd love to buy a PHEV, but all of them have EDRs, and I'll be damned if I buy a car with one.

12/8/2012 2:31:29 AM

here's the problem as I see it:

To the average Joe, an EDR is just one more thing that could be used against him, but it unlikely to ever help him.

Our broad problem is loss of trust in our institutions. With increasing complexity of (technical) systems, and every new law added, it just adds one more way the deck is stacked against the little guy. The big guy knows to ask for the EDR, knows what tiny tiny loopholes exist to screw someone.

12/8/2012 3:02:41 PM

People say "well it can either help you or hurt you--it can back you up that you weren't doing anything wrong. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

I don't see it that way--if I'm not doing anything wrong, they're gonna have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt (or even a preponderance of the evidence) via conventional means that I was doing something wrong.

The other thing is that there's rarely a time when I'm not speeding. Not necessarily anything egregious, but let's say I'm going 60 in a 45, or 70 in a 55 or something. That's pretty routine, and depending on the situation, perfectly fine. If a drunk guy walks out in front of me, or some idiot pulls out in front of me and gets T-boned, as far as I'm concerned, that's their fault. Who's to say, though, that I wouldn't be held responsible in a situation like that? I'm not taking the chance--I'm limiting my car search to German cars and older cars. I won't have an EDR, at least one that records pre-crash data. It's 100% non-negotiable.

12/8/2012 3:35:03 PM

^ Anyone who follows the rules of the road more than average has an incentive to have it connected, anyone who is on the other side of the average has an incentive to not have it connected. What you say makes complete sense and I don't think you should be forced to have it. I suppose it would be preferable if you could just buy and American car and disable it, although this is sure to be illegal as hell.

12/8/2012 5:04:23 PM

It's not illegal. It's just that the EDR is tied in to lots of other electronic systems. You'd prob lose your airbags, belt pretensioners, etc. you'd prob throw CELs, etc. I could see it potentially messing with your ABS/TC/stability.

And I don't totally buy that it's even a net benefit to very conservative drivers. The times where it could potentially be your alibi, I maintain there usually wouldn't be any other evidence against you, anyway.

12/8/2012 5:37:50 PM

theduke, one of the many reasons we have speed limits is exactly so that you'll be able to slow down in situations like that.

The idea isn't "This is a safe speed for a person to go in a vacuum," it's "This is a safe speed for a person to go in a world with drunk people wandering into streets and people missing stop signs." So yes, you absolutely should be held at least partially responsible if you T-bone somebody while you're going 30 mph over. It's not your fault that guy stepped into the street, but it IS your fault that you couldn't slow down in time.

Further, if you're allowed to bend the rules of speed limits, whose to say other drives can't bend the rules of stop signs, and drunks can't bend the rules of crossingwalks? I'm seriously not seeing anything in your post besides a general attitude of "Rules apply to me only loosely, but should I ever get in a pickle then I expect them to be applied to everyone except me extremely strictly."

edit: At the very least, in either of those situations, EITHER party could have prevented the accident if they'd followed rules more closely. I certainly wouldn't hold the speeder as being solely at fault, but it takes two to tango when it comes to a collision.

[Edited on December 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2012 10:46:43 AM

^ did you miss the part where theduke and I concluded that EDRs would result in unfair selective application of the law to citizens who aren't breaking the law?

Although, I should qualify that you can't avoid breaking the law. The better people understand the legal system, the less they believe they can follow laws. This is because our legal institutions have failed us in that regard.

Your entire post is an appeal to the reasonability of laws, but even you can't possibly believe that premise. What your say would be true for an effective legal system, which we don't have. Believing in the law of the US is like believing in the bible. It outright contradicts itself in places, but at least you have a chance of reading the entire bible.

12/10/2012 3:53:52 PM

when some dude who brags about "paying a tax" because he thinks he's an awesome driver and can break laws left and right without endangering anyone else starts bitching about people tracking how he drives, i just laugh

[Edited on December 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM. Reason : .]

12/10/2012 9:33:20 PM

^

12/10/2012 9:39:40 PM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/10/3719038/charlotte-mecklenburg-police-want.html

12/10/2012 10:45:42 PM

Quote :

"Police Chief Rodney Monroe"

12/11/2012 1:16:02 AM

Quote :

"did you miss the part where theduke and I concluded that EDRs would result in unfair selective application of the law to citizens who aren't breaking the law?"

You mean this?

Quote :

"To the average Joe, an EDR is just one more thing that could be used against him, but it unlikely to ever help him."

It can only be used against him if he speeds. That's basically all EDR data seems to reveal with any certainty.

Quote :

"Your entire post is an appeal to the reasonability of laws, but even you can't possibly believe that premise. What your say would be true for an effective legal system, which we don't have. Believing in the law of the US is like believing in the bible. It outright contradicts itself in places, but at least you have a chance of reading the entire bible."

Yyyyeah we're talking about speeding laws here, they aren't exactly super ambiguous or anything

Sorry you guys think you're entitled to break the law because you think you're super-good drivers or something.

[Edited on December 11, 2012 at 9:49 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2012 9:46:39 AM

would the new legislation standardize the data format? because currently its not an easy task to get the data, there are no standards.

12/11/2012 10:21:55 AM

Quote :

"Sorry you guys think you're entitled to break the law because you think you're super-good drivers or something."

I am a conservative driver to the point that friends make fun of me. But I never had the misconception that following the rules absolutely prevents prosecution for breaking the rules. What about this do you not understand? As members of society we are subject to risks from people who ignore the rules and harm us and people who use the rules to harm us.

Quote :

"It can only be used against him if he speeds. That's basically all EDR data seems to reveal with any certainty."

http://www.harristechnical.com/mediaQ&A.htm

You don't know what data it collects (it collects 15 data points by that link... maybe).
You don't know who owns the data.

You can't possibly know what information could come out of your EDR and you can't possibly know how that information will play a role as you're picking up the pieces from a major crash. Who's interests does the EDR serve? Not yours.

12/11/2012 10:41:40 AM

Quote :

"But I never had the misconception that following the rules absolutely prevents prosecution for breaking the rules."

You keep trying to pull this back into a vaguer discussion. We're talking about speeding in your car, something an EDR can unequivocally determine, whether you're abiding the law or breaking it.

Quote :

"You can't possibly know what information could come out of your EDR and you can't possibly know how that information will play a role as you're picking up the pieces from a major crash. Who's interests does the EDR serve? Not yours."

If I'm driving along at the speed limit and t-bone theDuke666 as he blows through a stop sign, it will definitely serve my interest to have evidence that he was speeding and I was not. Law-abiders, both drives and pedestrian benefit immensely from there being relatively hard evidence-trackers installed in cars that might hit us.


[Edited on December 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM. Reason : ..]

12/11/2012 10:49:40 AM

It will likely not determine it for the person who was speeding and hit you. It might just not take the data correctly, or they'll mount legal objections. Or maybe he just bought a car without an EDR because he knows he speeds. Say you get access to it, and it turns up no evidence.

Then they'll go subpoena you for your EDR information. You then find (or at least are threatened with) some law you didn't know you were breaking uncovered.

[Edited on December 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM. Reason : ]

12/11/2012 10:52:03 AM

Quote :

"It will likely not determine it for the person who was speeding and hit you. It might just not take the data correctly, or they'll mount legal objections."

You mean like all other evidence in a court of law? Just because it's not a silver bullet in the case does not make it meaningless as evidence.

Quote :

"Then they'll go subpoena you for your EDR information. You then find (or at least are threatened with) some law you didn't know you were breaking uncovered."

Like what? What kind of secret law will you be found to have broken 5 seconds before the crash?


[Edited on December 11, 2012 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2012 10:53:01 AM

seatbelts

It could record airbag warning lamp status. It could have been giving a signal that indicated malfunction, but you didn't know that's what it meant. So you could be sued by your passenger for endangering them.

The way that you applied the breaks could be admitted. The problem isn't the data, but the data combined with selective application of it.

Advanced EDRs could give driver steering input. They could even report the weight sensors from the seats, telling who was sitting where and how much they weighed.

12/11/2012 11:00:05 AM

Quote :

"seatbelts"

So obey the law and wear your seatbelt.

Quote :

"It could record airbag warning lamp status. It could have been giving a signal that indicated malfunction, but you didn't know that's what it meant. So you could be sued by your passenger for endangering them."

It's your responsibility to understand how your car works and what the signals indicate.

Quote :

"The way that you applied the breaks could be admitted. The problem isn't the data, but the data combined with selective application of it."

???? Laws about how you apply the breaks, please go on.

Quote :

"Advanced EDRs could give driver steering input. They could even report the weight sensors from the seats, telling who was sitting where and how much they weighed."

So what?

12/11/2012 11:06:55 AM

You're basically upset that an EDR means you might not get away with being a negligent asshole who endangers other people with his recklessness.

12/11/2012 11:08:36 AM

wouldn't accessing the EDR data require expensive engineering?

12/11/2012 11:13:55 AM

You continue with these personal attacks. The only evidence you have to build a case of me being a reckless driver is that I see the present issue as a stacked deck. That's like calling someone a pedophile because they're against zero-tolerance minimum sentencing laws. You have no basis to suppose that you break traffic laws less often that I do.

The problem is the lack of the consent of the governed. When very few people know about data recording that's going on, then just like laws, the only people who will know about it are those who intend to break the laws. Criminals about to commit a crime know the laws about that crime more than the average population.

It would be nice if EDRs would help catch negligent assholes. While it has in the past, it's a side purpose to simply deepening our surveillance society. EDRs can't be said to benefit the well-intentioned, good people of the world when those people don't know about its existence. It's a stacked deck against those people and in favor of the not-so-well-intentioned people.

12/11/2012 11:19:06 AM

Quote :

"The problem is the lack of the consent of the governed."

That's not a problem when laws are made by a representative government, you're sounding like GXB now.

Quote :

"When very few people know about data recording that's going on, then just like laws, the only people who will know about it are those who intend to break the laws. Criminals about to commit a crime know the laws about that crime more than the average population."

You don't need to know what data's being recorded as long as you wear a seat belt, don't speed, and understand how your car works before you drive. This is shit that is expected of all drivers on the road, and as someone who myself drives on roads, am vastly in favor of being a standard requirement that people fulfill before they strap themselves to a multi-ton hunk of metal that I'll be coming in close contact to at relative speeds of 120 mph or more on roads that I pay for.

Quote :

"It would be nice if EDRs would help catch negligent assholes."

I gave multiple perfectly good examples of how it would help (and has). You were unable to give me any except pretending that anyone doesn't know about seat belt laws, and making up some weird class of laws about "how you apply brakes" and how fat your passengers are.

Quote :

" While it has in the past, it's a side purpose to simply deepening our surveillance society."

Oh give me a break. It records basic system information with a buffer of a few seconds, there aren't enough icons for calling this "part of our deepening surveillance society." It's not like it's sniffing your car for drugs or operating a camera that searches for firearms or controversial literature or a microphone that links up to the NSA.

Quote :

"EDRs can't be said to benefit the well-intentioned, good people of the world when those people don't know about its existence. It's a stacked deck against those people and in favor of the not-so-well-intentioned people."

It's stacked against people who speed, don't wear their seat belts, and can't be bothered to figure out what the blinking light on their dashboard means. All of these people are endangering me and everyone else on the road by being lazy and entitled assholes.



[Edited on December 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2012 11:25:32 AM

Quote :

"The other thing is that there's rarely a time when I'm not speeding. Not necessarily anything egregious, but let's say I'm going 60 in a 45, or 70 in a 55 or something. That's pretty routine, and depending on the situation, perfectly fine. If a drunk guy walks out in front of me, or some idiot pulls out in front of me and gets T-boned, as far as I'm concerned, that's their fault. Who's to say, though, that I wouldn't be held responsible in a situation like that?"

I'm sorry, but this is just arrogant. You think you're special and should be able to drive 60 down Glenwood or Capital? You never make a mistake, take your eyes off the road for a second? People make mistakes all the time, you think that means that they should deserve to be seriously injured if they make a mistake and you t-bone them going 15 over the speed limit, when you could have avoided the accicent if you were going the posted speed limit? I'm definitely not immune from speeding sometimes, but your arrogant attitude is troubling.

12/11/2012 11:29:01 AM

the only time your competence and experience as an excellent driver is a valid excuse for speeding is if you can ensure that everyone else around you is too. but since you can't do that, its not one.

12/11/2012 11:38:20 AM

Quote :

"You don't need to know what data's being recorded as long as you wear a seat belt, don't speed, and understand how your car works before you drive."

Oh, officer, here's the keys to my apartment. I'm not doing anything wrong so you can come right in whenever you feel like it.

Let me ask you this: do you support driver ownership of the EDR data? Because that's the case in some places, in some places it isn't. In many states you're required to have insurance, and in many insurance policies you're required to offer the information without a warrant. But you don't fucking know. The people you're facing in court someday (like your insurance company) could have direct access to your records. But then you may not be able to get access to the records of the guy who hit you AT ALL!

You're okay with that? Are you mental?! Have you not, at even a single point, considered the concept of a stacked deck. If you believe that theduke should be held liable by the data in his EDR then you should be outraged too. You should be outraged EITHER WAY!

Quote :

"You don't need to know what data's being recorded as long as you wear a seat belt, don't speed, and understand how your car works before you drive."

You can't follow the law. The law was not written to be followed. It's only the next evolution from the state of nature. A power struggle by rules, as opposed to a power struggle by force.

Quote :

"but your arrogant attitude is troubling"

His attitude is only a natural consequence of our institutional failures.

12/11/2012 11:39:40 AM

did you just quote the same text twice and answer it differently in the same post

now that's what I'm talkin about

12/11/2012 11:51:42 AM

Given that over 95% of the population speeds I think this whole speeding argument is complete crap. Even the school buses and Wolfline buses I see on a weekly basis speed. Just because some local government determines what the best speed limit is for the lowest common denominator of a driver is doesn't mean going faster is dangerous.

And I think we can assume that everyone in this thread is responsible enough to closely follow the speed limits in urban and residential areas.

[Edited on December 11, 2012 at 3:04 PM. Reason : k]

12/11/2012 3:02:21 PM