Automotive "Black Box" Coming in 2014

Government does things because of business all the time.

ASE bitched that untrained employees at auto parts stores were reading OBD codes and selling parts based on that "diagnosis"

They successfully lobbied California to make it illegal for an auto parts store to touch a customer's vehicle or perform diagnostics unless they are a full service shop.
They can loan you the code reader and allow you to read the codes, and they can translate the code into English from the book, but they can not recommend and sell parts based on that code except as requested by the customer.

 

Chris / Rich,

Thanks for the replies guys.

I am aware EDRs are installed in most newer (though not all) trucks / cars.

By asking the question, I am/was attempting to "mine" the thoughts of the poster I quoted...

Attached we all can read in detail the actual rule(s) governing the installations of EDRs if anyone is interested.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/Vehicles

CFR 49 part 563...

 

I sure believe it. Toyota has a special team that comes out to check the cars when people scream "sudden acceleration!" I have seen these damaged cars first hand. I have even examples of the event data reports. We are not allowed to see the customers names or any of that. All the cases show no brake input with a sudden spike with accelerator pedal input. Toyota is aggressive with this crap now because they have been dragged through the mud enough.

 

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-bypasses-congress-mandate-black-boxes-all-cars-beginning-14

Jason, To provide some input about your question. BTW, there are a few groups that can make binding (legal) regulations without approval of all or most branches....

 

Maybe I'm naive. While I haven't formed an opinion yet, I would like to believe the main factor / justification is to benefit safety. While much of the rules & regulations were decided prior to the Toyota "sudden" or "unintended" acceleration other similar events sure come to mind (Audi lived through the same bullshit as Toyota years ago).

Additionally, I fund it bullshit that larger vehicles and certain public (like mail carries) get a pass from the requirement.

 

Right, I tend to agree Chris.

I support the use of EDRs for safety. I have a problem where artical 5 is in question. Also with enough reading, one can find required (and recommended) captured parameters & standardized methods of collection (and a host of other info). But, no limitation as to what specific data may not be collected...i.e. conversation, potential phone calls using Blue Tooth etc.

Several, most noted being Mercedes Benz, European manufacturers do NOT install any EDR or similiar product unless required by legislation.

As far as the artical I attached you referenced...required vs. elective application is a main philosophical difference between current & previous POTUS.

To my knowledge EDR technology has been in (maybe limited) use since the 70s in light vehicles.

 

Yeah, I have some concerns about about the erosion of freedom but I just don't see this (EDR) as an example at this point. Could it be abused? Certainly. Do we have examples of the abuse? Not that I am aware of.

The thing that people have to come to grips with is that the world is much changed from the world of the 1700s. Population growth/density is one factor, and industry and technology are sort of a Pandora's box that will continue to progress. There is a balance that must be achieved between freedoms and control.

We have never had absolute freedom and have always been subject to controls, be it government, big business or whatever.

 

Well said / spoken, I certainly respect your thought process here.

Preservation of and or at least following proper methods for revision (rather or not I personally agree with what that revision might be) is, in my mind, a key element in maintaining law & quality of our existence. Artical / Amendment 5 is very clear...I hope you see my own conflict in supporting EDRs without revision or at least exclusion of certain technology.

 

So most of you have seem to forgotten that Driving is a "privilege" and not a "right"

Pretty much have very little say on how the Gov regulates vehicles and the laws.

 

Not trying to be a smart ass (really, please don't take it that way) as I'm leaning towards mandatory use of EDRs for purposes of safety improvement and depending on what data is required/collected but.....

Do you believe because one is observing or enjoying a privilege they should automatically for go their Constitutional and Bill of Rights...rights?

 

Why are you guys so bent out of shape about this? I see nothing but positive things coming out of this.

Help improve vehicle safety in crash collisions = sign me up.
Lower my insurance rates by driving speed limits = sign me up.
Prove to cops I was not speeding =sign me up
Prove other driver was not obeying driving regulations after he/she rammed into me= sign me up.

Let them watch me all they want. Heck my phone is already tapped by FBI, CIA and NSA. My sorry ass is already on cameras just about everywhere I go. They track my purchases and spending and know of my credit history, my travels are well documented. More they know about me, less I have to worry about trying to prove I did something wrong if shit hits the fan.

And yes... they can use information against me... we all know that but in this fine country our rights have been stripped long ago so this little law is pretty much insignificant as far as I am concerned.

AND

Driving is a privilege not a right so lets not forget that.

 

Your car's information can and will be subpoenaed to be used in any court of law here in the United States.

 

Your bill of rights/constitution have nothing to do with operating a motor vehicle, those documents were written when? And Motor vehicles were available for the public when? If your argument is We, U.S. citizens have a right to enjoy our life as we see fit as per the pitch of those documents and driving, you need to take a closer look.

I'm quite sure if your DL was being pulled in traffic court and you tell the judge that he is violating your rights of freedom, Im pretty sure he wont think twice.

 

Overall I'm leaning towards support of EDR use (as if my thoughts matter).

OTHO, any descent from me is all about preservation of our Contitution & Bill of Rights.

I'm a fundamental Constitutionist (to be clear, not even close to occupier rather I'm about the opposite) so I firmly stand behind the reason our country exist as it does and don't feel compelled to change it without due process because it "feels good". Further, I'm not really sure one surrenders their God given and inalienable rights because they are enjoying a "privilege".

Below is an excerpt from the 5th Amendment:

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

Does data you own being used against you violate the above?

I'm not sure myself without further reading/case study. Regardless of where youstand on EDR data usage I'd like to read your and others take on the subject...

 

Why is this even a debate ?

They already exist in all new cars .

 

Thanks for your feedback!

Regarding "my Constitution and Bill of Rights".

You may be correct as far as the EDR data usage however, I disagree with your "chronology" rationale of when the Constitution was written vs. when DLs came about. That's why our guiding document is flexable. It can be changed if needed but, I don't feel it should be ignored.

And, my rationale and question revolve around the applicability of mainly Fifth Amendment (and to a smaller degree the 4th)....nothing at all to do with driving.

 

You ask that question?

This is TW.

 

Not true Oz. Currently installation of EDRs are elective and optional at manufacture discretion in the United States. Not all manufacturers have opted to install them in all light vehicle applications yet.

In this specific case we are still in the public comment phase of the legal decision. The public has input regarding implementation of the law for a period of 60 days once intent is established (07-December-2012 in this case). This is a department or agency law not requiring congressional or senatorial approval. In any case, as of yet, it's not the law. Further, I almost expect SCOTUS involvement once ownership is no longer reasonably optional.

As far as why I'm posting on this thread, two reasons:

1st, The topic itself and peoples take on how it relates to our laws/Constitution/Bill of Rights intrigues me.

2nd (maybe most important), So far I've decided to NOT be a part of the many debates in the school shooting thread. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed at some of the subject matter and follow response provided.