Big Brother getting Bigger... again...

[Sammy]

I guess I'll never own a car newer than 2007... Oh well, I've always been a fan of the late 80's early 90's cars... Probably save me a lot of money to buy cheap older cars.

[chows4us]

Who cares?

No GPS, no tracking.

Alarmist crap. See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/

Event recording has nothing to do with seeing where your speeding.

Then again, don't the new computers in cars like Porsche and Lotus record every bit of the RPM usage so they can use it as a means to deny warranty coverage? Don't know.

[JackG]

Originally Posted by chows4us

Who cares?

No GPS, no tracking.

Alarmist crap. See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/

Event recording has nothing to do with seeing where your speeding.

Then again, don't the new computers in cars like Porsche and Lotus record every bit of the RPM usage so they can use it as a means to deny warranty coverage? Don't know.

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.

While the first step of EDR doesn't report your location and speed constantly to your local sherriff's office, it is a significant first step in the process to do so.

Don't think it's possible? Did you ever think you were going to have to check your hair gel before you boarded your next flight?

[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.

[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.

[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."