5 ms·

>>I'm not sure what the right solutions are Giving the federal government the ability to dynamically control my car based on crash data is 1000000% NOT the rig

>>I'm not sure what the right solutions are Giving the federal government the ability to dynamically control my car based on crash data is 1000000% NOT the right solution.... The black box is bad enough... giving them control HELLLL no

bkallus 3y ago
Curious to hear your objections to the black box. Black box data (speed, steering+pedal input logs) were invaluable in determining fault in an accident involving one of my family members recently. As long as the data doesn't leave the car under normal circumstances, what's the harm?
- deschutes 3y ago
  There are a lot of people that don't want to be held accountable for their negligence and blatant disregard for the safety of others. Driving like you're the main character is so normalized that it will take generations to fix the problem.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  I dont think giving the government the power to force by law people record their movement, operating conditions, and other factors is inline with spirit of constitution. Sure it makes it easy to "determining fault in an accident" but same could be said if everyone was required to wear a body cam, or install surveillance camera's in their home that the police monitor 24x7. I am opposed to any and all government mandated surveillance, I do not want to live in the surveillance state we do, I sure as hell do not want to see it expanded I also reject the narrative that another commenter basically claims, one of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", that old trope has been proven through out history to be moronic statement
  - bkallus 3y ago
    I care very much about privacy. I use only free and open source software on my personal and work computers, as well as my phone and router. I do not use social media, except for this site. I do not connect anything to my network that I do not control. For this reason, I don't have a smart TV, smart speakers, or smart appliances. I drive a car from 2009 with no cellular connection or GPS unit. I agree that the "nothing to hide" argument is weak. I am opposed to indiscriminate government surveillance. This is not that. I have seen what it looks like when this data is used as evidence in court. The EDR provides information about the driver's last inputs to the car, and it has a very small amount of storage. The data is only accessible through physical access to the unit. In the event of a fatal accident, there are very few sources of information: - Survivors (biased) - Witnesses (not always present) - Forensics (squishy) - EDR data The EDR is a crucial source of truth for determining the cause of an accident. When you drive on busy roads, you are taking others' lives into your hands. In the event of a serious accident, it's critical that the details of the seconds before the accident are available to inform legal decisions. If we remove the EDR, we are left only with less reliable sources of information. I do not support making black boxes mandatory because it feels like it violates the 5th Amendment. I will also never purchase a car without one, because I think it is more likely to prevent harm than cause it.
tallowen 3y ago
> federal government I had assumed it would be state government since they normally control traffic law? What other solutions would you propose for enforcing speed/safety regulations on state owned infrastructure? Personally, given my experience interacting with police, hate our current system that relies on being pulled over and interacting with them. I would much prefer an automated solution (e.g. speed governors or automated speeding cameras).
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>I had assumed it would be state government I dont want them either, but these types of things are really controlled by Federal Highway regulations in practice. > I would much prefer an automated solution (e.g. speed governors or automated speeding cameras). Well I have the right to face my accuser, and speed camera's have been ruled a few times to be unconstitutional for that reason. I for one DO NOT want automated speed camera's and much like Red Light Camera's you will find they are not deployed to increase safety but solely for Revenue generation, and often have the impact of REDUCING safety not increasing it. red Light camera's caused more crashes then they prevented, and speed camera's would do the same >What other solutions would you propose for enforcing speed/safety regulations on state owned infrastructure? Well I would start with a reduction of said regulations, and a more rational objective way to not only set the regulations but also appeal them. LOTS of speed regulations are less about safety and more about setting up revenue streams for towns and cities. You seem to believe that all of these regulations and government actions are purely out some altruistic motive to protect you the driver. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the regulations are designed to 1. Create Revenue stream 2. Give the police a pretense to look for other criminal activity Safety is maybe 3rd on the list, maybe in short, i do not trust government, and I do not look to government to protect me.

bkallus 3y ago

Curious to hear your objections to the black box. Black box data (speed, steering+pedal input logs) were invaluable in determining fault in an accident involving one of my family members recently. As long as the data doesn't leave the car under normal circumstances, what's the harm?

deschutes 3y ago
There are a lot of people that don't want to be held accountable for their negligence and blatant disregard for the safety of others. Driving like you're the main character is so normalized that it will take generations to fix the problem.
phpisthebest 3y ago
I dont think giving the government the power to force by law people record their movement, operating conditions, and other factors is inline with spirit of constitution. Sure it makes it easy to "determining fault in an accident" but same could be said if everyone was required to wear a body cam, or install surveillance camera's in their home that the police monitor 24x7. I am opposed to any and all government mandated surveillance, I do not want to live in the surveillance state we do, I sure as hell do not want to see it expanded I also reject the narrative that another commenter basically claims, one of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", that old trope has been proven through out history to be moronic statement
- bkallus 3y ago
  I care very much about privacy. I use only free and open source software on my personal and work computers, as well as my phone and router. I do not use social media, except for this site. I do not connect anything to my network that I do not control. For this reason, I don't have a smart TV, smart speakers, or smart appliances. I drive a car from 2009 with no cellular connection or GPS unit. I agree that the "nothing to hide" argument is weak. I am opposed to indiscriminate government surveillance. This is not that. I have seen what it looks like when this data is used as evidence in court. The EDR provides information about the driver's last inputs to the car, and it has a very small amount of storage. The data is only accessible through physical access to the unit. In the event of a fatal accident, there are very few sources of information: - Survivors (biased) - Witnesses (not always present) - Forensics (squishy) - EDR data The EDR is a crucial source of truth for determining the cause of an accident. When you drive on busy roads, you are taking others' lives into your hands. In the event of a serious accident, it's critical that the details of the seconds before the accident are available to inform legal decisions. If we remove the EDR, we are left only with less reliable sources of information. I do not support making black boxes mandatory because it feels like it violates the 5th Amendment. I will also never purchase a car without one, because I think it is more likely to prevent harm than cause it.

tallowen 3y ago

> federal government I had assumed it would be state government since they normally control traffic law? What other solutions would you propose for enforcing speed/safety regulations on state owned infrastructure? Personally, given my experience interacting with police, hate our current system that relies on being pulled over and interacting with them. I would much prefer an automated solution (e.g. speed governors or automated speeding cameras).

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>I had assumed it would be state government I dont want them either, but these types of things are really controlled by Federal Highway regulations in practice. > I would much prefer an automated solution (e.g. speed governors or automated speeding cameras). Well I have the right to face my accuser, and speed camera's have been ruled a few times to be unconstitutional for that reason. I for one DO NOT want automated speed camera's and much like Red Light Camera's you will find they are not deployed to increase safety but solely for Revenue generation, and often have the impact of REDUCING safety not increasing it. red Light camera's caused more crashes then they prevented, and speed camera's would do the same >What other solutions would you propose for enforcing speed/safety regulations on state owned infrastructure? Well I would start with a reduction of said regulations, and a more rational objective way to not only set the regulations but also appeal them. LOTS of speed regulations are less about safety and more about setting up revenue streams for towns and cities. You seem to believe that all of these regulations and government actions are purely out some altruistic motive to protect you the driver. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the regulations are designed to 1. Create Revenue stream 2. Give the police a pretense to look for other criminal activity Safety is maybe 3rd on the list, maybe in short, i do not trust government, and I do not look to government to protect me.