Big Brother getting Bigger... again...

[70Sixter]

This link and some from the site shed some light on what is or might be done.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/nhtsa_black_boxes.html

Seems like letters to lawmakers are indeed in order.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

WOW! Great analogy! I live in St. Paul/ Mpls. and on the West Side of St. Paul (the historical Mexican Community), there used to be this terrific Taco Van. One of my best friends is of Mexican decent and grew up in that neighborhood and we used to go all the time to get our Tacos there - Best in the City!

Anyway, I used to belong to a Thursday Night Poker Game frequented by several St. Paul Cops, a couple from the Narc and Vice Squads. One Thurs. one of them said "You know, we got you on a Surveillance Tape last week..." Surprised I asked why and he said that the Taco Van was a front for a Cocaine Dealer and that they had a surveillance camera on it all week. He then went on to say that it was lucky I didn't ask for a White Bean Taco, the codeword for a Gram of Coke. Said they nabbed the Dealer and 35 Customers from those tapes. The point is, your analogy is not at all far-fetched, it actually happened to me!

Luckily, I didn't even know about their illegal subsidiary and only visited it when I was hungry. But, upon asking, I was told the tape containing me buying Tacos cannot be erased or sealed, my Privacy, in this instance, will be forever invaded. This is why these EDRs are such a problem. Write in and voice your opposition!...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

OK, so you bought a hot dog, and they have you on "tape". So what? How is your privacy invaded? And, if you did order the "white bean taco" and they handed you a gram of cocaine, would you have taken it? I don't think so.

[eslai]

This will be great because then we can get rid of photo-enforced intersections--just put a transponder in each of these black boxes that gets tripped whenever you run a red light and base a ticket on that! Saves money and generates revenue! Yay!

OK, I am ready to get lambasted by Jim. I can hear him typing away!

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by bmussatti

OK, so you bought a hot dog, and they have you on "tape". So what? How is your privacy invaded? And, if you did order the "white bean taco" and they handed you a gram of cocaine, would you have taken it? I don't think so.

Hi,

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not the fact that I am on Tape, it's that I am on a Gov't. Tape as a potential Bad Guy and without my prior knowledge or consent. There doesn't have to be any more material damage than that.

I went to buy some food, a normal, legal, everyday activity. I have the right to expect that my Gov't. isn't watching my day-to-day activities. Sure, if I went to a McDonald's or Supermarket, I could just as easily ended up on tape, but, these establishments post a notice (albeit often in an inconspicuous place) that there is surveillance and I can choose whether or not I want to patronize them. And, they are not the Gov't., that's a Big distinction. I don't own McDonald's or the Supermarket, but I am one of the owners of my Gov't. and Country.

The Right to Privacy was not given to me. As confirmed by the Founding Fathers, this Right is inalienable and is mine simply because I exist here as a Citizen. It cannot be Granted, I own this Right. It cannot be taken away, unless I (or a majority of my fellow citizens) agree to relinquish it. In the case of the EDRs, I choose not to relinquish it! At least without voicing my opposition and doing all I can to oppose it.

I am not satisfied that this technology is needed to either make my life better or safer. It doesn't prevent a guy from speeding and running me down in a Crosswalk, it merely records the fact that he did. Is this justification enough? Well, most drivers will stop and for those who Hit-and-Run? Well, they catch waay more of them than get away, so I don't see the benefit. Could there be some benefits? Perhaps. But, I feel the detriments outweigh the benefits by a long shot...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

PS As to your query would I accept the White Bean Taco? No! Twenty years ago...???

Good post, Jim. Well spoken (written).

Your "PS" gave me a much needed chuckle today! Thanks

How is you book coming along?

[Grizzly]

O.K. Bmuss, I'll try to help deflect some of the heat.

These things are not as all knowing and all seeing as this thread would suggest. We have them in our newer cars. Not long ago, one of our guys was following someone when he lost control in a corner and struck a light pole. The accident investigators had to physically plug into the unit to get the information from the crash. It is not transmitted anywhere, and it is not maintained for an extended period of time. If you don't crash, the data is written over almost immediately. So the conversation goes like this:

Accident Investigators: "How fast were you going?"

My Guy: "About 45".

Accident Investigators: "No you weren't. Were you wearing you seatbelt?"

My Guy: "Yes".

Accident Investigators: "No you weren't. Was your partner wearing his seatbelt?.

My Guy: "Yes".

Accident Investigators: "No he wasn't".

Without the GPS interface, Law Enforcement is not able to obtain this information without physically hooking up to the data port in your vehicle. Do you really think the Government, local, State or Federal, is going to install and then track the GPS Units for every 2008 and up vehicle in the United States? Not likely. Even if they passed the initial cost on to the consumer, who would pay the freight for the service and then the man hours necessary to administer this enormous undertaking?

Now, maybe if you were being investigated for some reason, which called for surveillance, agents could track you using this system, but they can do that now. They just have to slap a puck on the underside of your ride first.

The only issue I see is that if you crash, you can't lie about it. Whatever.

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not the fact that I am on Tape, it's that I am on a Gov't. Tape as a potential Bad Guy and without my prior knowledge or consent. There doesn't have to be any more material damage than that.

I went to buy some food, a normal, legal, everyday activity. I have the right to expect that my Gov't. isn't watching my day-to-day activities. .

The Right to Privacy was not given to me. As confirmed by the Founding Fathers, this Right is inalienable and is mine simply because I exist here as a Citizen. It cannot be Granted, I own this Right. It cannot be taken away, unless I (or a majority of my fellow citizens) agree to relinquish it. In the case of the EDRs, I choose not to relinquish it! At least without voicing my opposition and doing all I can to oppose it.

. But, I feel the detriments outweigh the benefits by a long shot...

Jim,

I understand your concern, but the Government was not watching you. The Government was watching the establishment, which was the front for a drug operation. You ended up on the tape by happenstance, and because you didn't buy drugs, you were not harmed in any way. The Government did not use the tape against you, or publish the tape of you. The Officers were prohibited from erasing any portion of that tape, so I understand that you are on there for the ages, but, beyond taking drug dealers off the street, who were likely selling dope to our children, what harm did the tape do?

I like the comment about being on a Government tape as a potential bad guy without your prior knowledge or consent. So, you're saying that Law Enforcement Officers should have approached the operators of the Taco Stand and say " Hey, is it O.K. if we set up across the street and record you guys selling dope? Oh, and here's a stack of consent forms. If it's not too much trouble, can you hand them out to the people who come to buy dope? Thanks a bunch. We'll be in that blue van right over there if you need us" I mean, they are entitled to the same protections as you, right? I suspect that surveillances would be highly successful under that set of rules.

If the Government had to guarantee that no "good" person would ever inadvetently cross their camera lens, how could they possibly watch the drug dealers, child molesters, gang members and terrorists who prey upon us. And if the Government couldn't watch the drug dealers, child molesters, gang members and terrorists, how could they ever be expected to stop them?

[Grizzly]

[QUOTE=JackG]It seems you don't know a lot. In it's very basic form, it records your speed for a few moments before you unavoidably T-bone the vehicle that just illegally pulled out in your path. With the data from this EDR, the law tickets you for the accident (because you were doing 4mph over the limit), and the family sues you for the injury/death of their loved one who ran the stop sign/didn't look/was talking on the cell phone/etc.[QUOTE]


That's not correct. The boulevard rule takes precedence. Even if you were going 250 miles an hour, backwards, with your lights out, the car that blew the stop sign and entered your path when you had the right of way is at fault...at least in the eyes of the law. I agree that the family could attempt to use the information that you were over the speed limit to sue you for the death, but you would not be cited for the accident.

[JackG]

[QUOTE=GrizzlyThat's not correct. The boulevard rule takes precedence. Even if you were going 250 miles an hour, backwards, with your lights out, the car that blew the stop sign and entered your path when you had the right of way is at fault...at least in the eyes of the law. I agree that the family could attempt to use the information that you were over the speed limit to sue you for the death, but you would not be cited for the accident.[/QUOTE]

I was stating what could happen. You sure that'll always be the case? Right now it can't be proven easily or at all if the car having the right-of-way was speeding, but once it can be, things may change. Besides your example, as colorful as it was, is surely not correct. If the law doesn't cite that guy for the accident, we've got bigger problems than black boxes, eh?

After all, the "boulevard rule" fails when the driver in the right fails the sobriety test, right? Is it such a far reach from drinking to speeding? Maybe 4mph over is OK, but 5mph over earns you vehicular manslaughter. Even when it is truly unavoidable no matter if the speed is 55 or 60, and the other person is totally at fault.

Point is, it is a slippery slope, and once we've started down it, there's no going back. Also, you seem to be on the enforcement side of things... is that tainting your opinion? Anything is OK as long as your job is easier?

We still have the right to be judged by our peers... not by some black box without the ability to think or reason. I'll hack or disable it any way I can. I'm sure the big brother "do-gooders" will pass a law against that as well.

[Bob O]

The potential intrusion into my activity by this device is totally unacceptable. I'm not doing anything illegal or untoward, but,,, even if I were.........its none of their (the government OR any private concern) business where I go or how I get there, unless they have a warrant for it . The constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable search and seizures, and the issuance of a warrant before either a search or a seizure can occur. And this appears, to me anyway, ultimately, to be a search, and a seizure, conducted by the government. (Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights)

So.. if the government wants to go to a judge and get a warrant for each and every car they want information from, then go ahead. THEN it might be legal. IMHO....layman's opinion.

A little disagreement........Speaking of the constitution.....I have to disagree slightly with MNboxster. The constitution, and the bill of rights, don't explicitly guarantee the right to privacy. (Go read, or remember if you're old enough , the transcripts of the Bork Supreme Court hearings if you think otherwise, or those of any of several other recent nominees.) The inalienable rights you're referring to are "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ", not privacy. I've had this discussion with several attorney friends........and they agree, rather adamantly in fact, that the right to privacy doesn't exist, explicitly anyway, and questionably in the abstract. Hence, the occasional "discussion" in congress about this issue. It generally comes up in Supreme Court nominee hearings.

And on a similar note, the taping of the taco drug dealer was most certainly done with a warrant, and you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong trime. Why would you feel intruded upon in this situation? You were taped buying a taco, by a legal surveillence. They weren't interested in YOU,, they were interested in the taco stand and its drug dealing customers. You didn't buy any drugs from him, as evidenced by the tape, which, in and of itself clears you of any illegal activity. Yes, you are on tape, but, fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view I guess, it was legal. Was it disturbing to find out you were on a surveillence tape??? SURE!!!!! BUT... what if your friends hadn't told you? (hmmmm if a tree falls in the forest....) You'd be none the wiser, and nothing, absolutely nothing, would result from it, as is the case now. Forgive me, but, personally, I'd forget about it, or tell a really interesting story to the grandkids. (oops.. sorry. I forget, everyone isn't as,, ummmm "experienced" as I am)

I absolutely agree with you that we have to defend to the utmost, our rights and liberties. They have been won, and kept, with blood and honor over several hundred years, and its our responsibility to keep those rights and liberties as envisoned by Thomas Jefferson, et al. And this black box proposal is certainly a case of potential intrusion on both of those guarantees. It is, as someone stated, a slippery slope we've undertaken here and its best not to put a foot on it, lest we find ourselves at the bottom of the hill.

I'm sure the attorneys out there will have differing, and certainly more studied, opinions

Bob

Not looking for a fight.. just an observation or two

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by JackG

[
I was stating what could happen. You sure that'll always be the case? Right now it can't be proven easily or at all if the car having the right-of-way was speeding, but once it can be, things may change. Besides your example, as colorful as it was, is surely not correct. If the law doesn't cite that guy for the accident, we've got bigger problems than black boxes, eh?

After all, the "boulevard rule" fails when the driver in the right fails the sobriety test, right? Is it such a far reach from drinking to speeding? Maybe 4mph over is OK, but 5mph over earns you vehicular manslaughter. Even when it is truly unavoidable no matter if the speed is 55 or 60, and the other person is totally at fault.

Point is, it is a slippery slope, and once we've started down it, there's no going back. Also, you seem to be on the enforcement side of things... is that tainting your opinion? Anything is OK as long as your job is easier?

We still have the right to be judged by our peers... not by some black box without the ability to think or reason. I'll hack or disable it any way I can. I'm sure the big brother "do-gooders" will pass a law against that as well.

Certainly, I haven't exhausted the case law on the Boulevard Rule because there's a lot of it, but as colorful as my example was, it appears to be correct. Though the driver of the backwards jet car would surely get a bunch of tickets, he would not be faulted for the accident. The boulevard rule dates back to 1937. The only thing I've ever read is a 1971 case that says that the favored driver is responsible for the well-being of his passenger. I haven't found anything that says the favored driver has to look out for anyone else. It appears that if you're driving alone, you can drive on your roof if you want, as long as you have the right of way. The courts have consistently rejected the argument that the favored driver being reckless, drunk, speeding, whatever, contributed to the accident. Had the driver of the non-favored vehicle not pulled into the path of the favored vehicle, the accident would not have occurred...so far anyway.

I wouldn't say that anything is O.K. as long as my job is easier. I would warn however, that we shouldn't endeavor to hamstring law enforcement when the bad guys are using every technical advancement available to victimize us. I'm not talking about speeding drivers and at fault accidents, but about real stuff. You can't banish your law enforcement agencies to the dark ages and expect them to successfully battle today's criminals. Law enforcement is at a disadvantage from the outset because they are bound by a set of rules that the bad guys don't live by. We certainly shouldn't make it any harder for them than it already is.

I agree with you about disconnecting the black box. I suspect it will carry a stiff penalty, like removing your emissions equipment. Someone will certainly come up with a disabling device and make a whole bunch of cheese...and on some screen somewhere, we'll all look like we're going to church at 30mph.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

O.K. Bmuss, I'll try to help deflect some of the heat.

These things are not as all knowing and all seeing as this thread would suggest. We have them in our newer cars. Not long ago, one of our guys was following someone when he lost control in a corner and struck a light pole. The accident investigators had to physically plug into the unit to get the information from the crash. It is not transmitted anywhere, and it is not maintained for an extended period of time. If you don't crash, the data is written over almost immediately. So the conversation goes like this:

Accident Investigators: "How fast were you going?"

My Guy: "About 45".

Accident Investigators: "No you weren't. Were you wearing you seatbelt?"

My Guy: "Yes".

Accident Investigators: "No you weren't. Was your partner wearing his seatbelt?.

My Guy: "Yes".

Accident Investigators: "No he wasn't".

Without the GPS interface, Law Enforcement is not able to obtain this information without physically hooking up to the data port in your vehicle. Do you really think the Government, local, State or Federal, is going to install and then track the GPS Units for every 2008 and up vehicle in the United States? Not likely. Even if they passed the initial cost on to the consumer, who would pay the freight for the service and then the man hours necessary to administer this enormous undertaking?

Now, maybe if you were being investigated for some reason, which called for surveillance, agents could track you using this system, but they can do that now. They just have to slap a puck on the underside of your ride first.

The only issue I see is that if you crash, you can't lie about it. Whatever.

Hi,

OK, I agree with you to a point. The technology used to date records only a few hundred incidents and parameters. But, the leap to an actual intrusion already exists on the shelf and as these things gain popularity, the urge to record more and retain records longer will be irresistable to Law Enforcement.

But, more importantly, in an effort to gain higher profits and more market share, the component manufacturers who make these devices will not be able to resist adding more capability - Engineers are never satisfied with a stagnant technology, they are driven to push the envelope further - it's what they do. If nothing else, it's a way of justifying their existence and jobs once the 1st Generation of these boxes exists.

Once NAV systems predominate in cars (and the percentage of cars on the road with them increases almost exponentially every model year), it's not difficult to have a fully-automated system which triggers a citation if the offender's box chirps.

It's a proverbial Cash Cow for Gov't. Treasuries and a Politician faced with raising Taxes (and the constituents' ire) or turning to this ready source of Cash will be irresistable. That's reality, that's how things evolve.

Should that point occur, there's likely to be a Public Backlash which would ammend if not repeal the requirement. But, what happens in the meantime?

So what if an accident investigator dodges the occaisional claim? That happens now. In reality, the insurance process assesses blame correctly most of the time without these devices. Their hope is to avoid the Big One, but they are shortsighted as a good attorney will find other ways of argueing the case. DNA Testing was supposed to be irrefutable, but what happened in the OJ case? The Marquis Legal Team simply discredited the ways the evidence was obtained and handled, all they had to do was instill Reasonable Doubt. The same thing will occur with these devices.

Will it help reduce the cost of your insurance? ABS and SRS systems were supposed to do that too. Pull your Insurance statements from the last 10 years. Is there even one year where the cost didn't exceed the previous one?

Car Manufacturers want to use them to deny warranty claims which have risen tremendously. So what? Boo-Hoo! It was the Car Manufacturers who first instituted Warranties to lure more buyers in the first place, and raised the price of the vehicles to accomodate them, instead of just making better, more reliable cars to begin with.

Now that the pendulum has swung against them they want to cry foul? But, most Car Companies are profitable. Many post losses either as accounting trickery, Labor concessions, or because the losses are due to poor Management decisions, not the sale of their cars or cost of the warranties.

So again, I have to ask where is the benefit to the consumer? I can see the benefit to Gov't. and to Corporations. But I'm not willing to buy and drive around one of these little Lie Detectors for their benefit alone. Now, if they want to pay me, then perhaps the cost/benefit analysis may warrant further consideration... if their offer were generous enough...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Bob O

...A little disagreement........Speaking of the constitution.....I have to disagree slightly with MNboxster. The constitution, and the bill of rights, don't explicitly guarantee the right to privacy. (Go read, or remember if you're old enough , the transcripts of the Bork Supreme Court hearings if you think otherwise, or those of any of several other recent nominees.) The inalienable rights you're referring to are "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ", not privacy. I've had this discussion with several attorney friends........and they agree, rather adamantly in fact, that the right to privacy doesn't exist, explicitly anyway, and questionably in the abstract. Hence, the occasional "discussion" in congress about this issue. It generally comes up in Supreme Court nominee hearings.

And on a similar note, the taping of the taco drug dealer was most certainly done with a warrant, and you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong trime. Why would you feel intruded upon in this situation? You were taped buying a taco, by a legal surveillence. They weren't interested in YOU,, they were interested in the taco stand and its drug dealing customers. You didn't buy any drugs from him, as evidenced by the tape, which, in and of itself clears you of any illegal activity. Yes, you are on tape, but, fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view I guess, it was legal. Was it disturbing to find out you were on a surveillence tape??? SURE!!!!! BUT... what if your friends hadn't told you? (hmmmm if a tree falls in the forest....) You'd be none the wiser, and nothing, absolutely nothing, would result from it, as is the case now. Forgive me, but, personally, I'd forget about it, or tell a really interesting story to the grandkids. (oops.. sorry. I forget, everyone isn't as,, ummmm "experienced" as I am)


Bob

Not looking for a fight.. just an observation or two

Hi,

You're absolutely correct. Law Enforcement had prior permission in the form of a warrant to do what they did. I merely recounted the story to show how an innocent person can end up on the bad end of a stick through no fault of their own. That a device like this further increases that potential, such as only the car, not the driver is identified, but the owner would be cited.

But what if a tree falls in the forest... Scenario: I'm looking for a Gov't. job, or any job for that matter. Someone sees this tape and is acquainted with the person who decides whether I get it or not. He casually says "I saw that guy on a Drug Surveillance tape..." Farfetched? Perhaps, but stranger things have happened.

This EDR device will increase this potential, to say nothing of simple error. Suppose your insurance is denied because of faulty information derived from one of these boxes? Ever try to fix an error on your Credit Report or Credit Card statement? Will we now have to audit the files kept to insure that it contains no errors? How do we prove that we weren't going such and such speed on such and such day and time - 6 mos. ago? We're soon going to have to spend all our leisure time making sure that our lives as represented in the various data banks truly reflect who we are...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

But How do we prove that we weren't going such and such speed on such and such day and time - 6 mos. ago?

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

... but your Honor, I couldn't possibly have been speeding in that part of St. Paul on that date and time. I was clear across town buying dope at a Taco Van. I can prove it! Here's the tape!

[Bob O]

True.. errors do happen (ever had an electronic problem with your car, ever had a GPS tell you that you were at sea level,or close to it, when you were in the mountains, how accurate is your electronic speedo???? remember, these devices AREN't being designed for the aviation industry, where double and triple safety devices are in place) and I didn't take that into account. But I do agree that your scenario is just a smidge far fetched. Not that something like that couldn't happen, sure it could. Unlikely, but not inconceivable.

But back to the topic......yes... errors in the black box could (would?) be rampant and the effects of THOSE errors are potentially enormous. You name just one example but there are innumerable others. And you're example of the credit reporting is to the point. Let alone trying to prove that, yes I was speeding, but the accident was unavoidable, disregarding the speed, because driver X ran the stop sign, driver X crossed the double yellow, driver X ????????????.

Not to be a Chicken Little but, big brother is getting verrrrrrryyyyyy close, or appears to be anyway. (George is shaking his head, saying, "see, you thought this was fiction!)

Bob O

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Bob O

True.. errors do happen (ever had an electronic problem with your car, ever had a GPS tell you that you were at sea level,or close to it, when you were in the mountains, how accurate is your electronic speedo???? remember, these devices AREN't being designed for the aviation industry, where double and triple safety devices are in place) and I didn't take that into account. But I do agree that your scenario is just a smidge far fetched. Not that something like that couldn't happen, sure it could. Unlikely, but not inconceivable.

But back to the topic......yes... errors in the black box could (would?) be rampant and the effects of THOSE errors are potentially enormous. You name just one example but there are innumerable others. And you're example of the credit reporting is to the point. Let alone trying to prove that, yes I was speeding, but the accident was unavoidable, disregarding the speed, because driver X ran the stop sign, driver X crossed the double yellow, driver X ????????????.

Not to be a Chicken Little but, big brother is getting verrrrrrryyyyyy close, or appears to be anyway. (George is shaking his head, saying, "see, you thought this was fiction!)

Bob O

Hi,

Hail Hail Napoleon!! But, errors aren't as farfetched as they may seem. Back in the '80's I bought a new car (the 1st Merc. Sable delivered in IL, 6 weeks before the Dealers got them in) and got it insured through my Agent. Called him from the Dealership, supplied the VIN and got a policy # and was told I was good to go.

5 weeks later I get a letter from the Ins. Co., along with a refund check, saying my policy was never activated because an invalid VIN # was submitted with the application. Turned out that their Data Base hadn't been updated with the VIN sequence of the new models at the time my application was submitted.

I called my Agent and was told that essentially I had been driving for 5 weeks with no coverage. That had I had an incident, I would have been unprotected.

It finally got straightened out, but not without numerous calls from both my Agent and I to the Parent company. Then, to add insult to injury, I got a citation from the State of Illinois citing me for driving without insurance and suspending my driver's license and registration. It took a trip to Court to get those charges dropped. Finally, I got a letter from the Finance Agency saying they had been notified that the Insurance on the Car had been cancelled which I fixed with a call to the Agent.

Ironically, the car was totalled 3 weeks later by an intoxicated off-duty Chicago Police Officer while it was parked overnight on the street outside my Girlfriend's apartment. Guess it just wasn't meant to be...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

... but your Honor, I couldn't possibly have been speeding in that part of St. Paul on that date and time. I was clear across town buying dope at a Taco Van. I can prove it! Here's the tape!

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

Once NAV systems predominate in cars (and the percentage of cars on the road with them increases almost exponentially every model year), it's not difficult to have a fully-automated system which triggers a citation if the offender's box chirps.

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Somehow, I can see this happening especially with people so willing to give up their right to privacy as evidenced by the last two pages. Some people don't mind being sheep I guess.

[1JB]

I believe your analysis of the "Boulevard Rule" may be incorrect. The rule simply states that: "a driver approaching an intersection from an unfavored road must yield the right-of-way to drivers on the "through highway" already in or approaching the intersection." If the driver does not stop and look before entering then they are contributoryily negligent under the boulevard rule and cannot recover. If the driver does stop and look and there is still an accident then it becomes a question for the jury as to whether the non-favored driver was contributoryily negligent because of poor judgement. Whether the judgement of the non-favored driver was poor will also allow the jury to evaluate the behavior of the favored driver. If the favored driver was negligent then the non-favored driver can recover. In short, if you stop at the intersection of a highway, and look both ways and judge it to be safe to enter or cross or see no cars or judge it to be safe to enter as you enter a highway from an on ramp and the favored driver is exceeding the speed limit then the jury can find the favored driver negligent. Anyone who thinks they can barrel down, while speeding on drivers as they enter an on ramp and face no liability for an ensuing accident is sorely mistaken.

To quote from one case: "From the host of cases this Court has reviewed in the last century, we encapsulate the following rule: the mere occurrence of an accident in a protected intersection will not of itself establish negligence against the unfavored driver. Whether one looked and failed to see a vehicle within the zone of danger is a jury question, except in those rare instances when the evidence is so definite that reasonable minds could not differ. Before a court may declare contributory negligence more than slight as a matter of law, the location of the oncoming vehicle must have been in an obviously favored position within the radius of danger; otherwise, the question is one for the jury."