backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by callmeroy.. on May 11 at 11:18 AM


Clip from SNL sketch lampooning Toyota's unintended acceleration woes.  (Source: NBC Universal)
Move looks to head off potential legislation from Washington

Privacy advocates believe that any monitoring of a person's driving habits or habits of their daily lives is an invasion of privacy, and many consumers agree with this. There have been flight data recorders or black boxes on commercial aircraft for years to help determine the cause of a crash, and no one seems to mind those.

Lawmakers in Washington are working on draft legislation that proposes new safety features on all new automobiles along with mandatory black boxes for automobiles. Privacy advocates are against the black boxes, but major carmakers have announced that they are for the black boxes today.

The big three automakers along with Toyota have announced that they will support mandatory black boxes on cars and brake override systems on new cars. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers president and CEO Dave McCurdy will tell a house panel today that the automakers support some of the new safety suggestions offered in the draft legislation. McCurdy's alliance represents GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, and seven other companies.

McCurdy's prepared testimony will say, "The Alliance supports a vehicle brake override standard that will reassure consumers that they can count on their automobiles. Brake override technology is a comprehensive solution to unintended acceleration, whether it's caused by faulty electronics or a pedal getting caught in a floor mat; therefore, a pedal placement rulemaking would not provide additional safety benefits."

Support for black boxes and brake overrides appear to be a preemptive move by the automakers to try to prevent legislation that could force other safety measures like specific rules for pedal placement. However, the alliance is concerned about some of the proposed black box capabilities such as those saying the boxes in cars should be like those in airplanes. Aircraft black boxes cost about $22,000; versions in cars that often cost less than the price of the aircraft black box would need to be much cheaper. The automotive black boxes under the proposed legislation would have to record 60 seconds of data before a crash and 15 seconds after.

The alliance of automakers also supports "the intent" of a keyless ignition system that would allow for the ignition of a vehicle to be turned off, killing the engine of a vehicle in an emergency. This is yet another way to prevent unintended acceleration and would appear to be redundant in the face of a brake override.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Confusing.
By bhieb on 5/6/2010 10:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aircraft black boxes cost about $22,000; versions in cars that often cost less than the price of the aircraft black box would need to be much cheaper.
This sentence seems out of place (and awkward), what does the price of airplane black boxes have to do with anything? Maybe you were trying to convey that there is a cost associated with these?

Honestly don't know what your point is here.




RE: Confusing.
By DanNeely on 5/6/2010 10:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
The point is that the people who want black boxes as good as in aircraft (previous sentence) are asking for more than is economically feasible.


RE: Confusing.
By night on 5/6/2010 11:33:03 AM , Rating: 2
They don't need to be anything more than the computer already in the car which has more than enough data to determine what happened. Simply adding some flash memory to write to is all that is needed.
And maybe paint it black.


RE: Confusing.
By MrBlastman on 5/6/2010 11:50:41 AM , Rating: 4
They don't need to be in our cars, period. This seriously opens a huge new door towards Government intrusion into our lives. The Government has no right at all to know where I am going or have been--with these boxes, they could be coupled with a GPS and log your activity. This is a huge violation of my civil liberties and if I were to find such a box in a car, I'd promptly tear it out and shoot it to bits. Well, that or I'd find a way to shield the GPS signal from receiving from the satellites.

As for the brakes, this is also disturbing to me. Some of us prefer more control over our cars rather than a computer deciding what I should or should not be doing. I'd pull the fuse on that measure if I found it in a car also--assuming they don't build it into the ECU.


RE: Confusing.
By dashrendar on 5/6/2010 12:23:23 PM , Rating: 4
What if the box starts shooting back at you? You must need some sort of body armor for that confrontation.


RE: Confusing.
By MrBlastman on 5/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Confusing.
By grandpope on 5/6/2010 1:09:02 PM , Rating: 5
You know, at some point a ridiculous comment becomes too ridiculous and spills into being merely moronic.

Not sure where that point would be, just wanted to make you aware of the possibility.

YW


RE: Confusing.
By MrBlastman on 5/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Confusing.
By MrBlastman on 5/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Confusing.
By ThePooBurner on 5/7/2010 4:34:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only problem is, the box might rip apart due to the time dilation/time length/spacial length differential between the inside and outside box.

Not Necessarily. Adding a single word to the box description will fix all your problems.

Schrödinger's Black Box.


RE: Confusing.
By night on 5/6/2010 12:30:22 PM , Rating: 3
You can make your car a matching aluminum foil hat.


RE: Confusing.
By ekv on 5/6/2010 7:22:12 PM , Rating: 5
I'd like LESS government intrusion into my daily life. Honestly, doesn't the federal gov't have anything better to do? They are dawdling on issues better solved by engineers. And I'm paying for their time to draft useless legislation ... of course, then they'll tack on a rider to the bill voting themselves a pay raise (at my expense). F


RE: Confusing.
By nvalhalla on 5/6/2010 12:34:11 PM , Rating: 5
YEAH! And and and what if, they put a camera in the box and watch where you drive?! And they can have a mic and record conversions! And they could connect it to open wifi routers and upload data in real time! And they could tie that into the credit card systems and the public library system and monitor what you buy and read too! Maybe it could have a little robot that comes out and goes into your house from the garage and watches you at home!

OR, maybe it will just record the speed and pedal activity of the car for the 60 seconds before the deployment of an airbag and 15 seconds after and not do any of those things.


RE: Confusing.
By MrBlastman on 5/6/2010 1:34:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
OR, maybe it will just record the speed and pedal activity of the car for the 60 seconds before the deployment of an airbag and 15 seconds after and not do any of those things.


You're right, that is all it may do currently--however, it opens the door towards further violating those liberties giving the Government more slack to eventually abuse it.

Give the Government an inch and they _will_ eventually take a mile. Or... are you living in a private Utopia where you think the government is our keeper, protector and our friend?

This doesn't even cover the fact that the boxes will ultimately cost the consumer more to buy the automobile. The car companies won't throw it in for free, obviously. The costs are always passed on to the consumer, and then, through taxes and fines as well so the government can afford to police it.

If your car won't stop, put it in neutral. Isn't that a much less invasive thing to campaign for and advertise about rather than intrusive systems and controls being put into our cars?


RE: Confusing.
By Dr of crap on 5/6/2010 3:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
You're right put in neutral. Sound simple doesn't it.
You forget the average IQ if the average driver is under 70.
I mean the way MOST drive you'd have to guess they haven't finished 5 grade yet, but they can pass the driving test!!!!

You mean I can shift to neutral and slow the car down - amazing!


RE: Confusing.
By MrBlastman on 5/6/2010 5:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're incorrect actually.

The average IQ is 100, not 70. With that said, it sounds simple and should be a requirement of every driving exam... wait, they do test people on neutral and going from P to D etc.

The point is--the system is already in place to fix the problem, people just need to be taught (re-taught) to use it, not more regulation, laws and expensive devices that we do not need.


RE: Confusing.
By bhieb on 5/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Confusing.
By AEvangel on 5/6/2010 4:29:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The only liberty lost with the proposed 75 seconds is the liberty to try and defraud a company.


And I bet you still believe the War in Iraq is keeping you safe at home and the Govt never eaves drops on phone calls with out a warrant.

With your logic you are already assuming everyone is a suspect and the only way to prove your innocence is to let Big Govt or Companies further invade your privacy.

Just given the Govt track record of lying to the public, I would not trust them to just stop at that 75 seconds. Next it will GPS monitoring to help you locate your vehicle is stolen or keep tabs on your kids(do it for the children is always my favorite excuse).

The last thing we need is more ways for the Govt or Companies to violate are liberties with more intrusive data mining.


RE: Confusing.
By MrBlastman on 5/6/2010 5:18:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
just a group of elected officials doing what their voters desire


Oh really? How come they passed healthcare reform when the overal concensus on random walk polling pointed towards greater than 50% of Americans were against them doing so?

Don't use the excuse of "Well, Americans let their answer be known when they voted for Obama!" as that is complete crap. The truth is, most Americans that voted for Obama and the imbeciles in Washington currently didn't have a CLUE about what their constituent (be it Obama, senator or congressman) stood for at the time of them voting.

Most Americans go to the polls clueless and just "go with the flow" at times, or, at best, make an independent, completely illogical decision without ever taking ten minutes out of their day to read about what each candidate stands for.

Washington has NOT been doing what we want for the last TEN years! We did not want the Iraq war--but we got it (we did want Afghanistan though), we did not want Tarp--but we got it, we did not want Healthcare--but we got it, we wanted better immigration reform--but we got a fence instead and nothing else... I could go on. Washington is broken and if you honestly think that they are acting in our interests and per our choices, think again and open your eyes please. Washington is full of self-serving, greed ridden scumbags for the most part as of late. There are exceptions, but, I'd say there aren't many.

Yes, our system is not perfect and I'll take it over any other system in the world right now. What I'm not happy with is the guys in Washington representing us and practically taking a dump on the Constitution daily. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are great, just fix the guys at the helm, that is all.


RE: Confusing.
By raf11 on 5/6/2010 7:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh really? How come they passed healthcare reform when the overal concensus on random walk polling pointed towards greater than 50% of Americans were against them doing so?


Debating the Health Care topic lately with some, I've noticed a good majority of why people were against it was based on misinformation it seems. I am putting together a research project and would be grateful if you could contribute why you were against, if you were. Also, even outside of that point, there have been many issues in the past few years that have been as divisive (Note even presidential elections, where the popular vote was nearly a 50/50 split)

They even conducted polls by first asking whether or not the participant was for or against Health Care Reform, and then after explaining what was in this bill, some of the participants switched their answers to the affirmative. There was so much negative information out there during the reform, that of course anyone who didn't do any independent research would surely oppose it.

Personally, I feel the constitutional argument is way overused. Of course it is important, and part of what our country was founded on, but I see it used way too often lately - especially since this argument is ignored when the topic of further separation of church and state is brought up. It's used too often only in favor of one side's argument, and needs broader context and interpretation.


RE: Confusing.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/6/2010 7:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Debating the Health Care topic lately with some, I've noticed a good majority of why people were against it was based on misinformation it seems.


Oh I love this. Please give me examples of this "misinformation", because they appear to be more informed than you.

Even the premise of the debate is silly. Do you actually believe this President and THIS administration pushed for something so hard, pulled out all the stops, because it was GOOD for you and me and the country?? Do you actually believe we needed to change EVERYONE'S health care because some 30 million ( even that number was inflated ) didn't have health care ??

Government provided health care is nothing but a massive wealth redistribution scheme. And if you can't at least agree with that, then good luck with your "research project".


RE: Confusing.
By raf11 on 5/6/2010 9:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
I expected you to answer. Your extreme hatred for this administration shows in almost everyone of your posts, and many times you were refuted justly, but still maintain your biased view. However, I had more hope for you to actually post some examples of why you were against it, instead of generalizations.

Just a few very general points of misinformation since you requested:
- We have the best health care in the world, and this plan will ruin that
- It will bankrupt our country/Increases our deficit with no budget plan
- Death Panels
- Backroom deals (They were repealed with reconciliation)
- Provides federal funded abortions

And these are just a few. If you agree with any of the above, I can direct you to the actual information regarding the matters.

quote:
Even the premise of the debate is silly. Do you actually believe this President and THIS administration pushed for something so hard, pulled out all the stops, because it was GOOD for you and me and the country?? Do you actually believe we needed to change EVERYONE'S health care because some 30 million ( even that number was inflated ) didn't have health care ??


Your above statement (especially with emphasis on THIS) pretty much sums up your attitude and blindness to anything this administration will do. But please, elaborate on "change EVERYONE's health care" - what changes will go into affect, and most specifically, what detrimental changes?

I know many hard working people that were screwed by their health insurance providers. The small business I work at has been getting hammered with health insurance premiums that have risen every year for the past few years (In some cases, multiple times per year) - And even after getting top tier insurance, they still refused to pay for some normal procedures. Real hard working Americans have this problem, and there was a definite need to stop this abuse. Wouldn't you agree? Even the polls showed many were for reform of some sort, so what would have been your alternative reform plan?

Also, what are you referring to within this bill when you refer to redistribution of wealth? I would gladly take a 0.9% increase (That's less than 1%) in my medicare taxes (Which is the tax increase this bill puts into places on individuals who make $200,000 or more or families who make $250,000 or more) - I would gladly increase my own medicare tax withholding by 1-2% more to solve the nations health insurance problems. That's very little to ask in my opinion.

My boss was against the health care bill until we discussed it at length. The NFIB even called him and said "This is gonna hurt your small business, help us stop this" - so he donated money to them because in his mind anymore of a rise in his insurance would have been extremely detrimental (It was sky high as it is) - Now, he's finding out he qualifies for tax credits for what he pays for employee's insurance, helping to make it more affordable for him (The exact opposite of what opponents of this bill wanted him to believe)

Please, abandon your habit of cheap attacks and list some actual points. I welcome an intelligent open debate, but you've already started the mud slinging, and that just makes those that hold your views look bad. If you really care about what's at the heart of this debate, then contribute in a humane way.


RE: Confusing.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/6/2010 9:49:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Please, abandon your habit of cheap attacks and list some actual points. I welcome an intelligent open debate, but you've already started the mud slinging, and that just makes those that hold your views look bad. If you really care about what's at the heart of this debate, then contribute in a humane way.


It's not possible to have an "intelligent" debate with someone who actually believes the Government of the United States can not only provide better health care than the private sector, but also efficiently and competently provide for it on a scale this large. And that it won't actually make a bigger mess than what it set out to "fix".

If you would look around and open your eyes, you would see how completely and totally mismanaged and broken almost everything the Government sees fit to run, implement, or take over. From the Post Office, to Cash for Clunkers, not to mention Social Security which, ironically enough, was founded to provide for the very same thing !

Forget Obama, Death Panels, and everything else. This is the true heart of the debate. That people like you actually think the people and country will be better off with the Government taking one sixth of our private economy, muscling out the private sector, and providing AND managing health care.

quote:
I can direct you to the actual information regarding the matters.


I love all the pro-gov side people like who who claim to actually have all the information. Even though the bill is thousands of pages long, they haven't actually read it, and they believe ANYTHING in it is written in stone and won't be altered later.

quote:
I know many hard working people that were screwed by their health insurance providers.


I know many hard working people who were screwed by government run programs. What's your point? So if it's not perfect lets scrap the whole thing?

quote:
The small business I work at has been getting hammered with health insurance premiums that have risen every year for the past few years (In some cases, multiple times per year) - And even after getting top tier insurance, they still refused to pay for some normal procedures. Real hard working Americans have this problem, and there was a definite need to stop this abuse.


*rubs forehead*

The reason this is the case is BECAUSE government in the first place. We don't truly have a "free market" health care system anymore. The amount of unfunded mandates the government has placed on Insurance providers is so numerous and well documented, I'm constantly disappointing that it has to keep being brought to you peoples attention. When you increase operating expenses on a business, it's ALWAYS passed down to the customer. This is basic business 101 stuff here.

Not too long ago in this country you could actually walk into a doctors office or hospital and pay a very reasonable cash price for services rendered. You did not "need" insurance. You did not need a health plan. Hell you didn't even need a referral. Now honestly ask yourself, what changed? What middle man got involved and gummed up the works with mandates, bureaucracy, legislation, regulations, taxes ect ect. Hmmm it's a tough one, who knows !?

You completely mischaracterise me and others on this issue. We are FULLY aware that we need health care reform. However this plan isn't the way to go about it. In fact it's SO off the mark on what we actually need, I'm convinced people on your side aren't for "reform", they are simply for "free government ran health care.". Except if you think it's expensive now, wait until it's "free"!

quote:
Now, he's finding out he qualifies for tax credits for what he pays for employee's insurance, helping to make it more affordable for him (The exact opposite of what opponents of this bill wanted him to believe)


Who's paying for those tax credits though? You people are amazing. I honestly think you guys believe Obama has a magical Wealth Machine that can subsidize everything from water heaters to cars to health care, sign trillion dollar "stimulus" plans, and everything else under the sun and somehow everything will turn out fine. Most of this being done during the worst economy in decades and periods of hyper-unemployment.

This plan is raw, naked, uncut socialism and wealth redistribution. Up close and in our faces. And if you will at least concede THAT, I would be willing to maybe go halfway with you. But I cannot sit here and debate someone who is arguing about a tree while the whole forest burns around him.


RE: Confusing.
By raf11 on 5/6/2010 11:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Forget Obama, Death Panels, and everything else. This is the true heart of the debate. That people like you actually think the people and country will be better off with the Government taking one sixth of our private economy, muscling out the private sector, and providing AND managing health care.


I think we have a misunderstanding. I never said the government can provide better health care than the private sector. Also, how is the government muscling out the private sector? It was these arguments that caused the public option to be scrapped from the bill. If anything, this will help boost the private sector now that the public option was removed and their is an insurance mandate. Wouldn't you agree? Can you please elaborate on this point? Because in your post you frequently cite the government taking over health care and providing health care, yet this is not the case with this bill.

The comparison you make to public programs isn't an apples to apples comparison. If we actually would implement programs like a public insurance option or nation wide federal/public hospitals, then the comparison to the Post Office would be true, but setting regulatory laws on the private sector isn't the same thing (The correct comparison would be if we put regulatory laws on UPS and FedEx for not delivering our packages, but even that isn't a perfect comparison). In any case, USPS is hitting rock bottom because of the nature of technology in my opinion - think of how many things are handled electronically instead of being sent through the mail within the last couple of years.

Social Security was not founded for the same purpose as this health care reform. On a side note to this point, part of the reason for health care reform is to control the increased waste and spending in Social Security and Medicare. But what's funny is Medicare Part D that was passed in 2006 is responsible for a good portion of our medicare over spending in the past few years - were you in favor of that bill? Likely you didn't hear about it, even though it was unfunded, and was deemed "The most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 60's" by the then administration's comptroller. Where's the outrage over that?

quote:
I love all the pro-gov side people like who who claim to actually have all the information. Even though the bill is thousands of pages long, they haven't actually read it, and they believe ANYTHING in it is written in stone and won't be altered later.


I'll admit I haven't read the entire bill. I did read portions of it relating to specific areas, but not the entire thing. But have you read it, or any of it for that matter? If not, wouldn't you consider it hypocritical to point out that supporters of the bill haven't read it? I actually thought it was interesting during the floor debates that many of the opposing republicans DID NOT say that they read it, when confronted with the question. What's interesting is that the burden of proof is on me to refute your claims, but that assumes you are correct and have provided your own facts, yet you haven't cited any sources.

I first started my research by looking into the negative claims on health reform (I did NOT vote for Obama, and did not have a political opinion prior to health care reform). When I realized that much of the negative things said do not reference ANY source, and were exaggerations or just plain out deceitful misinformation is when I formed my opinion. So where is the proof for your claims? In any case, which claim would you like me to provide information for? I can provide you with any information you are looking for, but you haven't challenged any of the points I made, but rather made a different point about the inability for the government to sustain and run public programs (Which doesn't really apply in this situation because it's not technically a public health care program, but reform on health care) But please, if you dispute the points I make, please specifically state which so that I can refer to my sources and link to the relevant info. Many of this information is publicly available (CBO estimates on cost, and how many Americans will receive insurance, etc are available at cbo.gov) - are you familiar with this information?

Also, what do you believe will be changed in this bill when you say that we shouldn't believe this "is set in stone"? No legislation is set in stone, but I haven't heard any reasonable concern that anything will be altered in this bill at this point. Can you provide more information?

quote:
I know many hard working people who were screwed by government run programs. What's your point? So if it's not perfect lets scrap the whole thing?


What government run programs and what do you mean "screwed"? Please answer that question, because depending on which programs you are referring to and what situation occurred, I don't see how that point really relates to what you are saying. I'm not sure why you make the above point regardless, because health care reform didn't "scrap the whole thing". Do you not see the positive in this bill? Do you believe people should be dropped for pre-existing conditions, or have the burden of being tied to a specific job because of their health care benefits? Do you not agree that those are real problems in today's world?

quote:
The reason this is the case is BECAUSE government in the first place. We don't truly have a "free market" health care system anymore. The amount of unfunded mandates the government has placed on Insurance providers is so numerous and well documented, I'm constantly disappointing that it has to keep being brought to you peoples attention. When you increase operating expenses on a business, it's ALWAYS passed down to the customer. This is basic business 101 stuff here.


What well documented mandates are you referring to? The only legislation that I'm familiar with in the past few years was the Medicare reform legislation that included Medicare Part D. And that actually helped the private sector by implementing legislation that prevented Medicare from negotiating cost of Pharmaceuticals. Why is that you attack me earlier in your post for referring to information that I didn't provide (But will be happy to provide when you let me know specifics) - yet you refer to "numerous and well documented" mandates but don't cite what they are. What are these mandates you are referring to? And how did this increase operating costs for insurance providers?


RE: Confusing.
By raf11 on 5/6/2010 11:55:21 PM , Rating: 3
- Sorry for the split reply, it seems there is length limit on posts so I had to split it up -

quote:
Not too long ago in this country you could actually walk into a doctors office or hospital and pay a very reasonable cash price for services rendered. You did not "need" insurance. You did not need a health plan. Hell you didn't even need a referral. Now honestly ask yourself, what changed? What middle man got involved and gummed up the works with mandates, bureaucracy, legislation, regulations, taxes ect ect. Hmmm it's a tough one, who knows !?


I don't quite understand your above point either. We statistically pay the most for health care than most (if not all) other developed countries. Many cite health care administration costs. Yet, your above paragraph implies the government is somehow responsible for this. What did the government specifically do that caused this situation? You speak in generalizations, and then do not refer to the specifics of what you are saying. What mandates, bureaucracy, legislation was enacted that caused my employer's premiums to sky rocket? What mandates, bureaucracy, legislation was enacted that enabled insurance companies to deny coverage for not only those with pre-existing conditions, but for legitimate procedures that should have been covered and that my employer paid for? These are not isolated incidents either, I know many people that have had these problems, and I also have family in the health care business.

quote:
You completely mischaracterise me and others on this issue. We are FULLY aware that we need health care reform. However this plan isn't the way to go about it. In fact it's SO off the mark on what we actually need, I'm convinced people on your side aren't for "reform", they are simply for "free government ran health care.". Except if you think it's expensive now, wait until it's "free"!


I never once mentioned "free government run health care". In fact, I currently pay for my health care, and stated earlier that I would gladly take an increase in my withholding to solve our nation's health care problems, did I not? But regardless, you didn't answer my previous question as to what you would reform. That is one of the biggest issues I had with the health care debate, is there was a huge effort to block it, but not contribute to a common solution. you just said it above by saying "So if it's not perfect lets scrap the whole thing" - why do you want to scrap the whole thing, instead of contributing specific points that you wanted changed. Yet you don't provide any of those points. Why? Also, what will cause insurance to be more expensive in the future?

quote:
Who's paying for those tax credits though? You people are amazing. I honestly think you guys believe Obama has a magical Wealth Machine that can subsidize everything from water heaters to cars to health care, sign trillion dollar "stimulus" plans, and everything else under the sun and somehow everything will turn out fine. Most of this being done during the worst economy in decades and periods of hyper-unemployment.


In regards to your above paragraph, please refer to the CBO estimates that can be found on the CBO site I linked to above for how this bill is being funded. The requirement for this legislation was for it to be budget neutral at least for it to be considered, and CBO reports it will reduce the deficit. The bill does plainly state how these things will be paid for. What's interesting to me is, that you have that report, and then you have those that are saying it's unfunded. We've used the CBO for most, if not all, pieces of legislation for a number of years. Yet in regards to this bill, opponents simply either disregard it as inaccurate (Citing previous government estimates that were wrong, yet were NOT made by the CBO), or act like it simply does not exist. So let me ask you, do you know how this bill is being funded? And if not - then how can you argue so adamantly against it on a fiscal basis?

quote:
This plan is raw, naked, uncut socialism and wealth redistribution. Up close and in our faces. And if you will at least concede THAT, I would be willing to maybe go halfway with you. But I cannot sit here and debate someone who is arguing about a tree while the whole forest burns around him.


You make the wealth redistribution argument again, but have not provided anything concrete to back up your statement, or the detail what it is about the bill that is redistributing wealth. Why? And why make all these general arguments and not answer my initial questions? It seems you state many times that you cannot debate with me, but provide alternate debate points after that fact, and then do not address my original questions.

So in summary, I believe this is where we currently are:

1. You agree that we need health care reform, yet haven't stated what reform we need, only that the current reform is incorrect.
2. You believe that the government is responsible for our CURRENT health care problems, yet have not cited why
3. You believe that health care reform is wealth redistribution, but have not stated what about the reform bill redistributes wealth, or on what scale, etc.
4. You disagree with reform because of your faith in current public programs, yet there isn't a government run public insurance option or public health care PROVIDER being offered
5. You cite the fiscal impact of this bill, but imply that is unfunded, and ignore the official information on how this is funded, just simply stating that it will increase costs.

If you are unable to debate this via this thread anymore, I can provide my email address. Since I've been researching this, I have been adamantly searching for legitimate reasons for people to be against the health care reform for my research, but keep running into the same misinformation and haven't come up with really anything. If you don't believe it is misinformation, than please provide more specifics and fact backed information as to why it is not.


RE: Confusing.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2010 1:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
Repeating the same Democrat talking points and simply going by what only one side says doesn't seem like "research" to me man.

I'll try more tomorrow. It's very late, and you wrote a TON.


RE: Confusing.
By raf11 on 5/7/2010 7:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
These points are all backed by the legislation, and I am specifically asking you for your side, so how am I only going by what one side is saying? I have done more research on what the opposition's points were then supporter's points. I barely even needed to look up supporting arguments, because the legislation aims to fix problems that I had encountered in everyday life in society. So the legislation itself was a supporting point. Yet the opposition's points were mostly fear mongering and misinformation as far as I can tell, if you have differing information, please provide it.

Thus far, this is where we currently stand, so why are you so against this health care reform? You have bought it into the hate mongering propagated purposely against this administration, and because of that, you will forever have a one sided view of whatever happens. Your previous posts about this administration and your current disapproval for the health care bill with no real points on why suggest that very strongly.

My final question to you then, if you will not answer my above questions, why do you side with those that CAUSED the deficit we have? (If you don't believe this, I will gladly explain that also) Party affiliations are not a good thing in my opinion, and I'm not into demonizing either party. (I'm registered no affiliation) I don't understand how we could have had the 8 years that we just did, and then believe the words that are coming out of the mouths of those that caused the problems within those 8 years. It just doesn't make sense.


RE: Confusing.
By mfergus on 5/10/2010 6:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe he doesn't side with either party at the moment if i had to guess, it isnt black and white, the parties are not just total opposites of each other.

It's also never really just one parties fault, blaming just one side for all the problems shows a lot of bias.


RE: Confusing.
By mfergus on 5/10/2010 7:08:00 AM , Rating: 2
The president never deserves all the blame or credit with how the country is operating under him. Not in a republic.


RE: Confusing.
By callmeroy on 5/11/2010 11:18:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you think the government is our keeper, protector and our friend?


Actually the government is SUPPOSED to be our protector....even the constitution says that.....

;)


RE: Confusing.
By gmyx on 5/6/2010 1:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
I thought they were already in many cars? Check your owner's manual.


RE: Confusing.
By jhb116 on 5/6/2010 8:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
You are falling for the sensationalism. The article starts off with a conflicting paragraph that contrast something like a stalker and an aircraft black which records the aircraft information and voice from the pilot and copilot for some number of minutes such that in an accident they NTSB can figure out what happened. Further down in the article - it specifically states that such a box would only record 60 seconds of data. It isn't going to connect to the internet or some other such nonsense. When the day comes that they can do so afford-ably - we'll be tracked by the gov't and other more notorious organizations.


RE: Confusing.
By drycrust3 on 5/7/2010 5:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
The problem here is a small number of drivers don't seem to know how to turn the ignition key back one notch if the engine seems to have a mind of it's own or if you get cramp in your right foot while it is on the accelerator and your left foot is so numb and you don't know it's on the brake pedal. Then the car maker is sued for millions because these people don't know that you can turn the engine off anytime besides when the car is stationary.
The easy option, of course, would be to just install a kill switch inside the car.


RE: Confusing.
By theapparition on 5/6/2010 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.
We don't need the tinfoil hats, the government isn't going to use this information, nor will it have the ability to track us.

But let's not kid yourselves. Manufacturers support this for the simple fact that it allows them to gather enough evidence to deny warranties.

What, you shifted from neutral to drive at 6000RPM and your tranny blew? You were going 120mph when going lean and a cylinder head blew?


RE: Confusing.
By HotFoot on 5/6/2010 4:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
That'd be fine with me. I don't need the cost of my vehicle going up to cover people committing warranty fraud.


RE: Confusing.
By jonmcc33 on 5/6/2010 12:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
If they start putting any type of black box into a car and increasing the price to reflect this, I will be telling them to rip it out of the car and deduct the price difference before I will even consider the purchase.

Besides, Toyota cars are already a rip off.


RE: Confusing.
By bhieb on 5/6/2010 1:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point is that the people who want black boxes as good as in aircraft (previous sentence) are asking for more than is economically feasible.
Only the author is implying that they be of the grade of an aircraft black box, I have not heard any such request from the "people". As for it not being economically feasible. Go ask Toyota if they'd rather pay their legal fees this year, or throw some memory into a box that already records this info. Wonder what they'd say is more economically feasible?


RE: Confusing.
By Sapiens on 5/6/2010 11:02:28 AM , Rating: 3
Read it like this:

"...versions in [ cars that often cost less than the price of the aircraft black box ] would need to be much cheaper."


RE: Confusing.
By bhieb on 5/6/2010 1:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
So read it as blatantly obvious is what your saying. Really the black box needs to be cheaper than the cost of the car!!! OMG say it isn't so.

My point was the sentence is not needed at all. No crap it needs to cost less than $22K. Just a worthless sentence that threw an otherwise good article off is all.

If the author wanted to convey a concern of potential cost increases, that would be valid, but it was done awkwardly IMHO. The fact that you have to tell me how to read it, is a testament to my point.

Didn't really intend this to be a big thread, just a suggestion.


RE: Confusing.
By HotFoot on 5/6/2010 7:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
Complaining about all those wasted words in such a rant... lol


Brake Overrides?
By HighWing on 5/6/2010 1:35:59 PM , Rating: 3
Am I the only one that see's a problem with these? First off I don't like the fact that the idea for a Brake Override is mostly a "reactive" temp fix based on the problems of many Toyota cars. A problem I might add that was primarily a Toyota only problem, meaning why force on other cars? Second, what happens if the Override fails and brakes for no reason? ... on a Highway? ... or someone finds a way to hack it? Seriously I find that more of a problem then the initial gas pedal problem this is supposed to safeguard against!




RE: Brake Overrides?
By geddarkstorm on 5/6/2010 1:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
As a wise man once said, "The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain"


RE: Brake Overrides?
By SoCalBoomer on 5/6/2010 3:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
you know, the easiest method to fix the whole brake thing?

put back the direct connection from your foot, through the pedal, to the booster/master cylinder . . . you know, LET ME CONTROL THE FRIGGIN BRAKE!


RE: Brake Overrides?
By erikstarcher on 5/6/2010 5:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that the brake override is not something that overrides the brakes, or applies the brakes, right? It overrides the gas pedal when the brake is pushed. If the override fails, then the gas pedal will not be overridden, but nothing will make the brakes engage.


RE: Brake Overrides?
By MightyAA on 5/6/2010 5:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
It'd annoy me to no end. Some manufacturer's already do this like Audi. I like performance driving. There's a technique called left foot braking. You use it to help balance a car during transitions. Drag racers also do a similar type thing to get their best launch. Not all of us out there are idiots and need saving.

As for shifting into neutral or shutting off your car... some won't let you do this and lock you out. It's another one of those "I need to save you" because there are idiots out there who have turned off the car while driving or went into neutral and damaged the vehicle.

To me, the whole thing is rather stupid. I'm not worried about "them" tracking me. I'm worried we'll see more and more done in the name of public safety until we end up driving pos cars made of foam that we have to pedal down the street. What they are trying to fix are the very rare problems that are caused by idiots. Why don't they invest instead in making better drivers?


RE: Brake Overrides?
By erikstarcher on 5/6/2010 6:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, what happens if the Override fails and brakes for no reason?
This is what I was replying to. I too have used my left foot for braking while on the racetrack, but what I was replying to was his comment about the brake override failing and causing the car to come to a screeching halt.


RE: Brake Overrides?
By MrBlastman on 5/6/2010 5:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
Left-foot braking while on the throttle is common practice when racing cars. In SCCA events in production-class cars, this would be detrimental.


RE: Brake Overrides?
By erikstarcher on 5/6/2010 6:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't hear you complaining that your street cars anti-lock brakes are detrimental to SCCA racing. You have to make a lot of changes to a production car to run it in an SCCA production-class event. You have to remove the airbags, replace the seat belts with a minimum of a 5 point harness, install a roll cage, window net, etc. This would just be another change to make. Reprogram the computer to remove the override, hit the track and have fun.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that most of the computer systems in cars should be remove. I would much rather have a direct linkage to my throttle, and no brake, stability or other computer controlled dumbing down of the systems. I repair computers for a living, and know how bad things can get when you remove direct control and replace it with the cheapest electronics money can buy.


RE: Brake Overrides?
By Beenthere on 5/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Brake Overrides?
By MrBlastman on 5/7/2010 12:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
You do? If you want to participate in Solo II Autocross, you can race your car stock if you wish. :)


Black box protects who?
By JoelM on 5/6/2010 12:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
The black box (made by the car maker) will show up in court to say "Oh my goodness, your foot was on the accelerator the whole time!" Case dismissed!

In England they are already issuing speeding tickets based on GPS data. If you go from point a to point b in less than the minimum legal time, a ticket shows up in your mailbox. Get ready, friends.

Next episode: a black box for your house!




RE: Black box protects who?
By bhieb on 5/6/2010 1:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In England they are already issuing speeding tickets based on GPS data.

Really do you have a link for that? How do they get your GPS positions? Does your on board CPU upload them wirelessly to the cops? I know they have camera enforcement, but you realize there is no data stored in the GPS satellite array. It is merely an array of transmitters that you can triangulate to find position. A device in your car would have to store and send that information off.

I highly doubt this is true, maybe I misread your post and that was just playful banter.


RE: Black box protects who?
By GreenEnvt on 5/6/2010 2:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was a little confused.
They have a camera that snaps a picture of your plate at point A, and another camera at point B. If you travelled that distance in less time than possible at the speed limit, you are issued a ticket.


RE: Black box protects who?
By phu5ion on 5/6/2010 3:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that far of a leap to suggest that, if we start logging gps data points and timestamps that when you get your car serviced, those figures are data mined and flagged as "illegal" activity and reported to the authorities to have a ticket issued. No transmitter needed.


RE: Black box protects who?
By bhieb on 5/6/2010 3:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
On the contrary that is a pretty large leap.

A camera based system that is monitoring public activity and calculating speed based off that vs. a device that auto tracks your movement and reports it, are 2 vastly different things. The cameras are doing what 2 cops with a couple of stop watches could in theory already do. They are not invading your privacy they are monitoring your public actions.

The GPS thing would be a BIG leap, because now they are using a sensor internal (aka private) to your car. If that were an easy leap for legislators to pass, believe you me we would all have a speed governor already (afterall that would be far easier than data mining).


RE: Black box protects who?
By AEvangel on 5/6/2010 4:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that were an easy leap for legislators to pass, believe you me we would all have a speed governor already (afterall that would be far easier than data mining).


I disagree, they would never actually govern your speed that way, if they did then they can't make money from the fines. Keep in mind speeding ticket income is a huge money maker for our court system, and not just for the state but attorneys as well.


RE: Black box protects who?
By MightyAA on 5/6/2010 5:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think there was a case around were I live that was upheld by the courts. It involved the highway patrol trying to gain access to the quickpass toll data and using it to issue citations to speeders. The highway authority denied them access and the court upheld their decision if I remember right.
Doesn't mean it couldn't happen the future if they cooperated, but it does mean that just because they could doesn't mean they will.


Punishment?
By hughlle on 5/6/2010 11:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
What are the proposed punishments on this then?

as with anything it won't be long before epople work out how to disable or remove them. i certainly would. it's not a matter of what the black box does it's a matter of principal and rights.




RE: Punishment?
By Spivonious on 5/6/2010 12:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
What does your principal have to do with this?

Oh wait, you meant principle.


RE: Punishment?
By grandpope on 5/6/2010 1:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
Forget about his principal, i'm more concerned about these epople he is speaking of. Are they some sort of electronic people, akin to Jobe in Lawnmower Man?

Scary stuff indeed.


By AEvangel on 5/6/2010 11:24:45 AM , Rating: 3
All this is for is less privacy and more control by the Govt. Now I have more of reason to keep my current vehicle or buy used.




Commercial vs private
By lowsidex2 on 5/6/2010 11:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There have been flight data recorders or black boxes on commercial aircraft for years to help determine the cause of a crash, and no one seems to mind those.

The difference is a commercial (for hire) vehicle vs a private one. Put them on buses and trains and taxi cabs, fine... but leave them off my own car where they will be used against me in time for anything from issuing speeding tickets, to mileage taxes, to my wife proving I visited my mistress.




Great FP
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/6/2010 11:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
I don't usually watch SNL, but I heard about the Ford "commercial" and checked it out on YouTube. It's hilarious. Here's a link in case you missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8MJ_iLtfkE

Almost as funny was the serious commercial from GM for the Equinox. It was this "personal testimonial" sort of piece, playing up the "safety" of the vehicle. They said the word "safe" like 6 times in the ad. And the women even said when she was driving it she "felt in control at all times". I definitely lol'ed.

And the new Toyota commercial where they say something along the lines of "You might have heard some things about recent quality issues at Toyota..." is pretty comical too.

At least we get some laughs out of this mess.

"Put the car in neutral?!? I don't have time for that, the car is out of control!"




By NicodemusMM on 5/6/2010 12:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
"...legislation that could force other safety measures like specific rules for pedal placement."

Ok... maybe it's just me, but when did our legislators get engineering degrees? This is not the job of CONgress. Hell.. they can't handle their true responsibilities properly. What makes them think they can do this right?

TLDR: Everything congress touches turns to shit. They need to stay out of my car as well as my house.




I think you miss the point...
By AEvangel on 5/6/2010 1:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There have been flight data recorders or black boxes on commercial aircraft for years to help determine the cause of a crash, and no one seems to mind those.


Commercial aircraft are for business use and that is up to the business to dispute whether or not they want them or want to deal with that regulation when they start their business.

This would be forced on the public whether we want it or not. Since cars are a necessity in some parts of this country to live and work you wont have a choice whether you want one or not. Like I said earlier this is just another way for Big Brother to strip more of our freedoms away and invade our privacy. All done in the name of keeping us safe.




Well yeah, because...
By geddarkstorm on 5/6/2010 1:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There have been flight data recorders or black boxes on commercial aircraft for years to help determine the cause of a crash, and no one seems to mind those.


No one minds those because a plane is transporting a large group of paying people, is commercially run, and follows a specific route and time table as sold to the customer. A car is /your/ car, transporting only who and what you say, to where and when you desire. It's private, not commercial. We don't need these black boxes, crash scene investigators are amazingly good at their jobs as it is.

So, what really do black boxes give? Certainly nothing to us! And it isn't like they can protect the consumer or public in any way. Driving up the prices of our cars, reducing liability for companies so they can't be sued as easily, that's about all they really do.




By YashBudini on 5/6/2010 2:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
the states had made any effort in keeping bad drivers off the road. Learners permits are rubber stamped, the entire process is a joke. Half the US population wouldn't be able to get a driver's license in Europe.




nice...
By strikeback03 on 5/6/2010 2:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Brake override technology is a comprehensive solution to unintended acceleration, whether it's caused by faulty electronics..."

Great, so the solution to faulty software is... more software.




Why?
By The Raven on 5/6/2010 2:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The big three automakers along with Toyota have announced that they will support mandatory black boxes on cars and brake override systems on new cars.


If they all support this, why does it need to me mandatory? Do they fear a Mexican standoff or something?
It smells of a disingenuous PR move. If they support this, then they should just put them in their vehicles as an option, and let the cards fall where they may.

On the other hand, they would like a measure of protection from these people with their crazy claims of unintended acceleration. (I'm not saying that all claims are false BTW)




Fail
By wiz220 on 5/6/2010 3:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There have been flight data recorders or black boxes on commercial aircraft for years to help determine the cause of a crash, and no one seems to mind those.


Logic fail!

This is completely different from having a black box in every car. Black boxes in aircraft are generally there to monitor pilots doing a job. When you are at work you can expect to be monitored to some extent and have little privacy when it comes to what you're doing. Also, the black boxes in a commercial aircraft aren't monitoring ME or anything I'm doing on the plane, just the pilots and the mechanical systems.

Black boxes in cars means monitoring private citizens going about their private lives. The analogy to me would be putting black boxes on buses and cabs, that would be fine. Not to mention that in aircraft crashes it is far more likely that everyone on board will die leaving no one to explain what happened, making black boxes much more necessary.




GTFO
By Yawgm0th on 5/6/2010 3:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There have been flight data recorders or black boxes on commercial aircraft for years to help determine the cause of a crash, and no one seems to mind those.
I don't fly a plane, I fly on a plane. It's not my plane, and I don't pilot it. I don't need air travel, but I couldn't reasonably do my job without a car (in fact I couldn't at all, as my job necessitates inter-city but intra-metro travel). I don't have any privacy on a plane (unless, of course, it's a private plane/flight, which the vast majority of us will never, ever fly on).

I can't accidentally drive my car into a skyscraper, and if a bird gets in front of my car, there's a pretty low risk of widespread death and destruction, if any at all. Terrorists are not looking to hijack my car and drive it into a building. I don't have to go through an (already overly invasive) scanner to drive my car. My car doesn't cost tens of millions of dollars and carry a double- or triple-digit number of people. My car doesn't f'ing fly.

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily that butthurt about the thought of a car blackbox, but the airplane analogy is so flawed that your ridiculous editorial assertion is clearly invalid. Using your logic, blackboxes on bicycles would be similarly noninvasive, since we don't mind them on airplanes.




"Brake Overrides"
By Kary on 5/6/2010 3:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
OK, "Brake Overrides" just sounds like an awful idea. While the idea behind it is probably good how about changing the name to "Accelerator Overrides". If your holding the accelerator to the floor while trying to stop then the accelerator should be overridden and you should stop. If you are holding the brake to the floor while trying to go then you shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place (parking lot burnouts aside :).




stupid article
By zmatt on 5/7/2010 12:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
Some thoughts,

The OBDII computer in modern cars already records this information. many new cars record the highest speed it was taken too, when and how many times the redline has been hit, when the brakes have been slammed etc. My friend's 2004 Mercedes will tell him all of this without hesitation. In light of this all the government should say, if anything is that the computer needs to be well protected to survive a wreck, but this is also taken care of for the most part.

As far as spying on drivers, I wouldn't be surprised, these are the same guys who secretly tapped citizens phone lines and suspended habeus corpus. Tin foil hat? No, suspicious of the government when they want to "protect" me? yes.




By EasyC on 5/7/2010 11:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't they try to do something like this with OnStar? I remember reading an article years ago about the government trying to tap into OnStar to send out tickets for speeding and what not. I can only imagine what they'd do with this sort of "safety" feature.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki