Engineering News

That's pretty cool.

Speeding, in and of itself, rarely causes accidents compared to cell phone use, inattention, reckless lane changes, intoxication, tiredness, arguments, inexperience, poor vehicle condition, the list goes on.

Try obeying the speed limit on I95 in Westchester and YOU ARE the road hazard.

Phoning in a carjacking and having the engine shutdown is pretty cool though. Until the hackers figure it out.

Typical onstar can be disabled with two or three fuses puled but you may disable some important functions.

Better way would be disable the antenna system I would think.

Some of the engine programmers require you to pull the onstar fuse to keep the two systems from interrupting each other as the programmer updates the engine computers systems.

Anyway down the road one of two things will happen with mandatory black box systems will be tickets sent to you for breaking some law and/or to keep you from exceeding the rules of the road by governing the way the vehicle runs.

Charles

I don't want to start a scuffle (really, I swear!), especially since CR4 is not the forumn to debate such things. But I'm compelled to mention that I find it odd that your argument seems to be largely based on a perception that you have an inalienable right to break the law as you see fit in the name of freedom.

Such a device doesn't intrude on your "right to speed". It merely aids in enforcing the consequences of your choice to do so.

It's curious that people who belive similarly don't seem to mind other "technological opressions" which serve to protect their well-being, as long as it affects someone else. It seems that only when such things have the potential to require personal responsibilty on their own part do they rail against them.

Human nature, I suppose.

You raise a great point and I think it is a good discussion.

I could go on about speed limits are are they really reasonable, but I would like to paint a wider picture.

It's not a right to break a law that bothers me, it is the growing tyranny that such things represent as we reckless drive down that road (at the dictated speed limit).

If what you postulated is true, then where do you stop? Why not cameras in your home to monitor your activities? Surely police could be using them to protect you from break in, fire departments could be alerted to fires or even infrared could catch a blaze before it starts, or paramedics could catch accidents as they happen and swoop in to save you faster and be better prepared. The same goes in public places, hotels, stores, planes, trains, cars, etc...

What if your lives could be carefully guided and cared for cradle to grave by these technologies. No one would break laws because any infraction would be caught instantly or even at the planning stages because someone (or some entity) would be watching over us all of the time providing carefully guided lives - for our benefit, of course.

So, where does all of this end? If your logic is taken to its end as I described above, where in your mind is the tipping point where we stop the intrusion? Obviously, we can't have lawlessness and we don't want dictatorship - at least I hope not.

To answer that question I recommend you might start by reading the "Articles of Confederation" if you haven't already. This question has been discussed at great length and there is a balancing point between the rails of tyranny and anarchy.

You are right; many people seem to not mind those technological oppressions and that, in my humble opinion, empowers our governments too much. Human nature, indeed! :)

Almost all (if not all) technological innovations come to us as double-edged swords. In this case where you see the tyranny of a shadowy and malicious government controlling your driving behavior, I see a tool which would deter drivers not so accomplished as yourself from recklessly harming myself, my family or others - as well as protecting my personal property in my absence.

I also see a data collection tool which perhaps makes it easier for officers to establish who is at fault in accidents. I find it unlikely those not at fault would petition the police, the insurance companies and the court to supress the information in the offender's black box on the grounds that it interfered with his freedoms. But perhaps I'm underestimating the conviction of their principles. In a way, I actually hope I am.

While your examples of applications of other technologies are extreme and facetious, your point is made. Of course we must always strive to strike a balance between usefulness and intrusiveness. And I think we generally have the wisdom and the will to do so. The line between eternal vigilance and rampant paranoia is invisibly thin and I suppose it's to be expected that it will be crossed on occasion.

Again, I don't want this discussion to veer too far away from technology in this forum and at this point it can easily do so. I'll let it rest at this: I wish you well, sir!

Larry,

All true. However it does take us a step closer to cars driving themselves, which I really wouldn't mind at all. Imagine getting to go on a long trip while your car takes care of of driving.

Roger "Computer, wake me the next time we are close to a McDonalds."
Honda Civic Computer "No Problem...._{I can't wait till we destroy you and the human race}"
Roger "I'm sorry, I didn't catch that last part"
Honda Civic Computer "Nothing, sleep well."

It's gonna be awesome.

We have that down here. It is called the Auto Train. Drive up and into the train at Orlando, catch dinner and a movie, sleep, wake up in Maryland and detrain with your car.