Subaru Crew - Meet The Members II

ateixeira

Frank: that's just it, though. Would they really require the owner's permission? That sounds like a good idea, but I imagine police at the scene would gather the data even without permission.

My wife used to have a legal plan at work, it was like $8 per month. We used it several times, to settle the sale of our old home, the purchase of our new home, all for free. It was sweet. Too bad we don't have it any more, we need a will. Legal fees can get prohibitively expensive.

Thanks, Graham. Finally someone committed to a rear seat space number: +25mm. That's about an inch, I guess every bit helps. It may still not be for "paisan sized" adults, but I'm sure it'll keep buyers with 2 kids from looking at Outbacks or other brands.

I'll save the rest of my comments for the Future Models thread.

-juice

tincup47

They could (and should) do it like they do DUI tests. In Md, you always have the right to refuse to incriminate yourself if pulled over DUI or DWI. However, refusal comes with a mandatory 90 day suspension of your privilege to drive. Driving is not a right in this country, it is a (too easily IMHO)granted privelege.

paisan

"Driving is not a right in this country, it is a (too easily IMHO)granted privelege." so then you have no problem with speed limiters I take it? Afterall it is a privelege.

-mike

storyteller

Mike: You seem threatened by the black box because it is new technology that could be abused. What's new about that? Almost any technology could be abused. And sometimes is. But we live in a society with responsive government, and when misguided legislation abuses something like this we pass new legislation.

We aren't going to see something like a speed limiter for at least two reasons. First, it would be unsafe to cap a car's speed at, say, 70 mph because people do occasionally need more speed than that to escape a dangerous situation. Second, people just wouldn't stand for draconian limits on car speed. With all respect, I don't see the notion of a speed limiter as any argument that a box to record actual crash data is a *bad* thing!

So, yes, I have no problem with speed limiters as a concept because I don't think they represent a realistic threat to our way of life.

I'm listening! :-)

paisan

Why would you need more speed to avoid a dangerous situation if there the other cars will not be able to go over 70 either? As stated above, I have no problem if I can choose to turn off the black box, that is perfectly fine with me.

-mike

storyteller

I'm on a 2-lane highway. Guy ahead of me is driving slow. I go to pass, pulling out in the passing lane. Now the guy gets an attack of testosterone and he gooses it just as I clear his bumper. Whoops! Here comes a car at me in my lane.

Maybe I can avoid an accident with braking, but the guy in the right lane might do that, too. I'd want the option of speed to avoid an accident.

tincup47

I wouldn't have a problem personally, as long as they were set at a reasonable limit. A lot of vehicles are already top speed limited. I also have no problem with seat belt laws, helmet laws, bans on cell phone use while driving, etc. I don't think that top speed limiting devices would have a great impact on vehicle fatalities as most occur on surface streets where it would not come into play. There is also a great difference in my mind between a passive recording device and a device that actively interferes with my driving. We seem to accept these already and readily pay extra for them. ABS, ETC, VDC, DSC, and a host of other alphabet acronyms are all intrusive input controls, albeit beneficial ones.

rsholland

He had Dr. Phil (of Oprah fame) on who cracked a joke: Recently saw a sign that posted: "Watch out for the paranoids."

Bob

paisan

I believe the law is that if you see an oncoming car, you should not attempt to pass at all. If the guy speeded up or slowed down, he could do that now w/o a governor on the car. That is not a valid reason since it isn't governor specific. Next reason....

-mike

tincup47

This is also a case of acceleration, which is different than speed. Acceleration is the rate of increase of speed.

storyteller

I didn't see the oncoming car until this jerk decided my passing him was a test of his manhood. Now he is accelerating, dragging out my pass maneuver. And NOW the other car shows up from behind a hill that wouldn't have mattered if this guy had kept his speed steady and let me pass.

Too hypothetical? It's happened to me.

Good one, Bob!

paisan

your passing lane would have ended before the hill. Not to mention everything you have stated could happen with a non-govourned car, except at a higher rate of speed. Remember you would both only be able to reach 70mph, in a non-speed regulated world you could both be doing 90+mph in the same situation. I'd say put on 4-pot brakes, then you could brake faster than him and slide in behind!

-mike

p0926

paisan

I see no one is a believer here!

But don't say I didn't tell you it was coming! THEY ARE OUT TO GET US! haaaa

-mike

tincup47

Remember Mike, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not out to get you

ateixeira

Remember something - many cars already have speed limiters, due to tire limitations. Even most autobahn-bound cars are limited to a mere 155mph. Those commies!

Uh-oh, here come some men in white lab coats. You need me to come with you? Huh? HEY, wait, heeeeeeyy!

paisan

I think we are both low on our meds, can we get a multi-user discount?

-mike

bluesubie

Feel free to continue the paisan paranoia disucssion live, in Southern NJ at the RalliSpec meet on Saturday. :-)

I think a few of the Maryland i-clubbers are attending. I'm hoping to be there by around 3-3:30.

-Dennis

barresa62

Don't bogart all the meds! Save some for me!

Stephen

ateixeira

paisan

Good thing it's friday THEY don't work on the weekend. I should be at Rallispec by about 12:30-1pm

-mike

cliffy1

Sorry all, but I skipped some here. I hate the idea of black boxes. I also hate the idea of government monitored security cameras, speeding cameras, national ID cards and all kinds of other intrusions into our lives. None of them allow for discression. Sure, a black box may show that you were "speeding" when an accident occurred (and how would you like your own car testifying against you in court?) but did speeding contribute to an accident? Unless a person was there, you couldn't prove that.

Picture this scenario: You are involved in an accident. You a a person of means and the other person was not and was killed. That person's family would sue you in court. A jury would be shown all kinds of testimony and you would stand up and tell your side of the accident and how it was not really your fault. Then, the plaintiff's attorney introduces evidence taken from your car indicating that you were going 7 MPH over the speed limit. You were braking the law. Civil trials do not have the same burden of proof as a criminal case. As a defendant, you can't rely on reasonable doubt as a defense. It is simply the preponderance of evidence that weigh in the favor of the plantiff. Your own car has just made your life more diffilcult.

ateixeira

Interesting to see another manufacturer's employee take an opposing view.

-juice

tincup47

Cliffy works for a dealer, not a manufacturer. Having done both myself, there is a larger distinction than you would think. This is a subject that there are many different opinions and arguments both pro and con. This would not be an automatic home run for the manufacturer either, the data could indict them just as much as it could the operator. Using the Explorer again, if the data showed that a single wheel locked when the tread wrapped around the axle housing and threw the vehicle out of control, that would have been actual evidence that the drivers actions did not cause the loss of control. In the infamous Audi unintended acceleration investigation, this kind of information could have given proof one way or the other as to what really happened. The IRL, CART, F1, and even Nascar have mandated data recorders for information to make their drivers safer.

cliffy1

My views on the subject are not governed by much more than a political philosophy.

tincup47

I was not trying to imply that working for a manufacturer made me better than someone at a dealer, just that I know my perception of the business changed after I saw first hand what actually goes on at the maufacturing level.

rsholland

You gotta be quick to survive here.

For such a small brand, the Subaru topics are among the hottest of all here at Town Hall. In fact, it's a rare day that at least one Subaru topic isn't listed in the TH "Top 10 Hottest Discussion" list on the TH home page.

Bob

cliffy1

I got your meaning. I've been doing this long enough to figure out when I've been insulted and when I haven't. I knew I wasn't when I read your post.

barresa62

Boy, we post a lot! :-)

Stephen

ateixeira

For those of you heading to the Grand Re-opening of Rallispec, have a great time! :-)

-juice

storyteller

A little black box that reliably records when people have done routine maintenance. If a guy has carefully kept to the schedule for oil changes, etc, that's information locked up in the black box. Or if he hasn't. So some guy chages oil once a year and he comes to the manufacturer and cries because he has oil sludge. He wants to sue. He's gonna post nasty comments on Edmunds. Ha! You'd just read the data in the black box and tell him he doesn't have a snowball's chance in court.

Just a thought. :-)

ateixeira

BMW have service lights, I bet they record data like that. But it's a pain if you change your oil yourself, you have to pay $50 or so just for a tool to reset the light each time.

-juice

cliffy1

LOL. I like it. Believe it or not, I'll stick to my principles on this one, but good point.

kate5000

I'm with Juice: in-car cameras will be useful -- but using their data should be at the owner's discretion. There are so many jerks recklessly cutting in front of me every day, and in case of accident I want to be able to protect myself from any fake injury claims and such.

Black box -- not so sure. They'd only record what your car is doing, not the overall situation on the road, so I doubt they'll be all that useful.

Note that in almost all the latest plane crashes info retrieved from the black boxes turned out useless.

ateixeira

Since I seem to have a bull's eye on me as I drive around, I try to carry my digital camera with me, to take photos of the position of the cars before they are moved.

-juice

tincup47

It may not point out exactly what happened, but it does give a picture of what the control surfaces, engines, control inputs were doing. Any lack of info normally is due to the incredible impacts and fire they are exposed to. These are many times more severe than what an auto would be subjected to.

rsholland

As I've said, I'm not at all opposed to exploring the possibilities here, as with everyone else, it's more a matter of execution, and how this information will ultimately be used.

I know everybody (or think I know) is probably opposed to "rigid" speed laws, which is what has been in effect since day one of speed laws. Is always the safest speed for that road, at all hours of the day, and in different weather? I'm all for "variable highway speed limits." Limits that are based upon actual road and weather conditions, rather than some iron-fisted, rigid, unyielding number. I would think black boxes could help here. It could relay road condition information to some highway "input depot" and then in turn, the highway road signs could vary the speed limit as needed. It could also relay information as to whether the roads are being heavily traveled (at any given time) by trucks or other less capable road vehicles; the highway "vehicle mix" if you will. I think that could be a very useful benefit of a black box.

In a nutshell, we don't know where this could lead, but it could be very beneficial.

Bob

cliffy1

Actually, what you are envisioning is far more intrusive and subject to abuse. Onstar makes me nervous enough, but I certainly would not want a government agency knowing where I am and at what speed and conditions.

[Deleted User]

I'm going to play devil's advocate in this post.

Is driving a right or a privelege? Since it's not mandated in the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights, I'm going to say that driving is a privilege.

Who doles out that privilege? Our government determines who is fit to drive and grants those people that privilege through licensing agencies.

Since driving is a privilege granted by the government, shouldn't the government have the ability to monitor how that privilege is used? Seems logical to me.

If the goverment should have the ability to monitor how we use our driving privileges, black boxes seem like an efficient, effective way of doing that.

What do you think?

tincup47

Makes sense to me.

kens

Deep thought of the day:

If blackboxes surive airplane crashes, why don't they just make airplanes out of blackbox material?

Sorry -- it's late on Friday and my brain's toast.
Have a great weekend everyone!

Ken

locke2c

No way...

Something about being monitored at all times goes against the basic "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't it?

They already control your priviledge to drive. See driver's license, registration, traffic laws.

-Colin

cliffy1

Please reference the 9th Amendment.

[Deleted User]

Interesting points.

I have to disagree with the "traffic laws" part, though. Traffic laws are not control unless they are enforced. Black boxes could be used as an enforcement tool.

[Deleted User]

Could you be more specific? This is what Amendment IX in the Bill of Rights states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

How did you mean for this to apply?

cliffy1

Hmmm... How political do you wish to get here? One of the tenants of the Framers was the Lockian idea of natural rights. Those are rights that are inerrant to the human condition. The right of free travel would likely fall under this clause.

Combine this with the 4th Amendment's prohibition against self incrimination and you've got a pretty good argument against black boxes.

tincup47

Has withstood many court tests for constitutionality. These types of Laws are covered under the 10th Amendment. The fact that states can automatically suspend your drivers license for failure to submit to a balloon or blood test when you are stopped for suspicion of DUI is testament to this. Seat belt laws and helmet laws have also been upheld.
The Federal government has been able to mandate all manner of safety related equiptment, whether we as individuals want them or find them intrusive.

[Deleted User]

The self-incrimination issue is a great point! Definitely one I had not considered. I have to wonder about it, though, based on what tincup47 said.

tincup47 brought up a related idea: DUI tests. Most would agree that DUI testing is a good thing. But isn't that a form of self-incrimination since a person's blood, breath, or urine is used to test and even convict them? If we're willing to allow our own fluids and breath to testify against us, why not a box that records our illegal driving actions?

I agree that free travel should be considered a right, but why free travel using a 3,000 pound automobile? If that's the case, then anyone should be able to drive...even people we currently see unfit to drive.

(Please don't misunderstand me, I'm just trying to explore this issue)

paisan

Should not have a problem with electronic governours to limit you to the posted limit, right? As well as numerous other things like:

o You can't buy a 4 seat car unless you are going to use all 4 seats
o Geo Metros are the std car since it gets one of the best milages around, afterall it can do 70mph which is now the limit on cars, and it will save energy.
o AWD is only allowed in states where there is significant snowfall

I'm sure there are more examples of this, but you always need to look at what you are saying and say to yourself, if we take this to the extreme case, would it make sense... I don't think so. Then again I'm against speed limits as static #s. Police should be able to ticket you at any time for an un-safe speed. For instance I like to drive fast, but in snow, I'm the one going slow with people riding up my butt, cause the conditions warrant me driving slowly.

-mike

hondafriek

This has been a very interesting discussion to observe.

I have to agree with Colin, we pay very dearly for our so called priviledge to drive,in fact giving us this so called priviledge to drive makes us collectively a very large cash cow for various levels of government.

On another subject I would have absolutely no problem if governments mandated the installation of an ignition system that you had to blow into before the vehicle would start.

While some habitual drunk drivers would find a way around this such as having a sober individual blow into the ignition make the penalties especially severe for someone caught in this situation.

In the long run I think this would go along way to keeping the one time drunk drivers off the road, If it saved just one life I would gladly put up with the inconvenience.

I would be interested in the observations to this suggestion.

Cheers Pat.