Quote:
|
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