6 ms·

It's with some irony that the ads I see on that page are for Vauxhall. I can't zoom in because I'm on a mobile but the final picture looks like it has the vehi

• mschuster91 11y ago
  > Does it have telemetry data they can use post accident to figure out speeds and things? I would be surprised if not. The problem is that unlike years ago, the cops can now use the data of your own car to screw you over for speeding, improper turns, running red lights... and insurances already offer heavy discounts to those who let themselves be data mined for every meter they drive. Hello 1984.
  • karyon 11y ago
    could you expand on in how far this is a problem? i must say i'm glad there's finally no way of talking out of it, if the data says you did it wrong, then you most likely did it wrong and the cops should make you pay money or jail time, shouldn't they? no matter whose data it was. even if there is something like a chilling effect, if it prevents people from speeding and running red lights, that sounds pretty cool to me. insurances are another matter. although we probably disagree over that as well, it's certainly (even) more debatable.
    • Hondor 11y ago
      I agree. Traffic offenses are often the reasons accidents happen. I bet if that girl knew the cops were monitoring her speed and she was guaranteed to get fined for speeding, then she wouldn't have been speeding.
      • dsfyu404ed 11y ago
        Tell that to the Google fleet...
    • lobotryas 11y ago
      Ok, but where do you draw the line? In CA the speed limit is usually 65. Should I get automatically fined the moment I go from 65 to 66? How do you distinguish between reckless speeding and overtaking a slow-moving vehicle by using the fast lane? What about real emergencies where you speed to get your wife to the hospital because her water just broke, she is in pain and there is no time to wait for an ambulance? There are many variables to consider. I hope such omni-present telemetry never comes to pass. I'd rather people have more freedom than for the state to try and create a rubber-covered world where everything is safe. Heck, I'm even worried about self driving cars because I know someone with good intentions will propose we outlaw manual driving "for the greater good".
      • Cthulhu_ 11y ago
        The difference happens when you're involved in an accident, i.e. when personal or financial harm is involved (insurance etc). While there is an amendment stating that a suspect cannot incriminate him/herself, I don't think it applies to a traffic accident (where the car is impounded and its data read for information that could previously only be gathered by looking at skidmarks and the like). Automatic fining, best not, but alternatively as a driver you should be able to automatically limit your speed, especially in a car like the Tesla where speeding is very easy. Wouldn't you agree that preventing an accident is better than finding out who is to blame, or survival chances, etc? Speeding is still one of the main causes of traffic accidents, and even if it's not the cause, it's the primary factor in the amount of damage caused.
      • karyon 11y ago
        The question of where to draw the line does not come with more telemetry data collected by cars. If you would deploy lots of speed traps everywhere, you'd have a similar situation. Overtaking a slow-moving vehicle does probably not allow you to ignore speed limits. And I'm pretty sure you are allowed to ignore speed limits to a certain extend in case of emergencies. I don't want the car to enforce the speed limit by itself, and even if, you could solve that by an "emergency button" of some sort. You'd need to justify it's use when asked by the cops of course. I also do value freedom and think that absolute safety is not something desirable, but considering the tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year, people apparently abuse their freedom in traffic and we do need more safety there.
    • burfog 11y ago
      I'm bothered by the "no matter whose data it was", especially for multi-car crashes and for crashes without other parties being hurt. In a multi-car crash, I'd like to see this: all data is available for defense in court. For offense, you get your own data and you also get the common subset of data from every car. If somebody's car provides nothing, then nobody's data can be used for offense. Example why: Suppose your car records that you are going 20% too fast. The other person was going 150% too fast, but his car didn't record anything. It's not fair that he can use your evidence to prove that you are at fault. His failure to provide evidence lets him get away with much worse.
  • __m 11y ago
    Isn't that a good thing? The next step would be to automatically revoke the driver's license which is required to start the car.
  • Cthulhu_ 11y ago
    So breaking traffic laws and being held accountable for it is now the cops screwing you over? Same with the insurances bit. Allowing yourself to be held accountable for your driving habits creates a safer world. There's a fad saying that traffic will be safer with more self-driving cars; it'll be safer with people being held accountable for their driving habits, too. Driving would already be 90% safer if nobody was speeding, driving drunk or running a red light; if telemetry and financial advantages (i.e. insurance) can help with that, then by all means. Much cheaper than self-driving cars, too.
    • gambiting 11y ago
      So by that logic, would you support a motion to have your ISP monitor all of your internet traffic and hike your internet prices the second you go on a torrent website, connect to TOR or go to "unnaproved" websites on the internet? Surely the internet would be safer if we automatically punished people who do things that are normally associated with certain unsavoury activities, so financial penalties should be most appropriate? Because that's exactly what insurance companies are doing with cars nowadays - there's a lot of factors that can contribute to increasing your premium, like....driving at night for example. Or accelerating quickly from traffic lights, or driving fast on a country road(even if within a speed limit). As long as I can afford to, I will always chose insurance policies without telematics boxes, for the same reason why I will always pay more to have unmetered and non-monitored internet, to the extent that is possible in the current world.
      • thecolorblue 11y ago
        I don't think that is a good comparison. There are no safety concerns with how you use the internet. Also, it doesn't cost your ISP more money (as far as I know) to use TOR. When you drive aggressive you increase your chance of an accident and the chance that your insurance will have to pay money for your mistakes.
        • FussyZeus 11y ago
          I have to take issue with this statement: In my experience slow, overly cautious drivers cause much more traffic issues and potential for accidents than people who drive aggressively. A simple example is in a roundabout, if someone happens to approach the inlet at high speed, and cuts me off a little bit, it doesn't endanger me because their velocity ensures that they're long out of my way by the time I'm crossing their path, with no action on my part. On the other hand, someone going 5 mph under the limit on the highway causes a backup of traffic, and any time you have multiple vehicles occupying a small amount of roadway the chances of a fender-bender go up, especially when one driver is making a whole lot of people who need to be somewhere sit and wait for an opportunity to pass. I'd love to see the crash data on aggressive versus docile driving, I think the results would be very interesting as to who is the root cause of the majority of wrecks.