Mandatory Automotive Black Boxes May Be On the Way 619
Attila Dimedici writes "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to announce a new regulation requiring all vehicles to contain a 'black box.' Not only that, but the devices would be designed to make it difficult (possibly illegal) to modify what information these devices collect or to disable them even though the courts have ruled that the owner of the vehicle owns the data. The courts have also ruled that authorities may access that data (to what degree and whether a warrant is necessary depends on the state)."
Next we will all be required to be chipped (Score:5, Funny)
it's for the children.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And next, it won't be you talking to the chip, but the chip talking to you.
Welcome to the Matrix, Neo, which pill will you have?
Re: (Score:2)
They will be the same pill, regardless of which one you pick. The "choice" is an illusion.
Re:Next we will all be required to be chipped (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
at least in NYC it's the professionals that break the most traffic laws and drive dangerously. bus driver, taxi cab drivers, medical van drivers and other people who drive a lot for work. they are the ones running the most red lights and getting pissed off at you if you drive within the laws
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Driving within the laws in New York would actively be either dangerous or incredibly inefficient for hundreds or thousands of people behind you in a lot of cases. If you follow the wrong signs, you will smash your car into concrete barriers. If you follow "Lane closed Merge [right/left]" signs, you will change lanes without cause many times, increasing the likelihood of accident. If you only drive in lanes, regardless of what street you are on, rather than edging forward into available space, you will ma
Re:Next we will all be required to be chipped (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I lived in NYC for many years and noticed how great the taxi drivers were at driving. No, they do not follow the laws, but they do follow a different set of rules. For example, in Boston or Chicago, when you are inching along, if someone puts the corner of their car in front of you, you can swerve around them and re=cut them off before they get into your late--in NYC, once they cut in, they are in. You have to let them go in. The Boston/Chicago way is very dangerous and leads to games of chicken. The NYC wa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never understood why people feel they have a right to choose to do something dangerous.
It's that freedom thing. I have a right to make decisions, even if I could make choices that are harmful to myself or others.
With mandatory black boxes in vehicles the state will be able to show that the professionals are the ones who should be behind the wheel.
People don't exist for the convenience of the state, but the other way around. I'd rather the state be unable to demonstrate that its drivers are "professionals" in this manner.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
actually, you should have a right to do anything so long as it doesn't trample those same rights afforded to your fellow citizens.
eg: you have a right to go off trail while hiking, but you do not have a right to tax payer money to free you when you get lost. Free speech is fine and all, even if you say the most derogatory comments. Mainly because those offended have a choice not to listen to you. But yelling fire in a cinema?
Re:Next we will all be required to be chipped (Score:5, Insightful)
But yelling fire in a cinema?
At this point I'm tired of that damned example. These days it's used more and more as precedent to just keep eroding freedom of speech until its meaningless. A few years back someone in my state's legislature tried to outlaw PROFANITY citing that it has already been established that some speech is not protected (citing the "Fire!" bit).
Fuck the fire in the theater example. If someone yells fire in a theater, calmly exit the building in an orderly fashion. Free speech should mean free speech with no asterisks beside it.
Re: (Score:3)
The other movie watchers would yell at them to sit down, shut up and stop interrupting the movie. Who expects a real fire to be announced by some dummy in the middle of the crowded room noticing it when nobody else does? I think the crowd would just assume the shouter is being an idiot until they see or smell it or the alarm actually goes off.
Re: (Score:3)
For fucks sake. You believe in not changing the world to make it wholely kid-safe. The same has to apply to laws. Yes Virgina, sometimes more than a 3rd grade education is required.
The Supreme Court has already ruled th
Re: (Score:3)
Which restriction do you think should be undone?
I think I made my point clear when I said no asterisks. However, since you were kind enough to provide a list of the existing asterisks, kindly reference it. Those are the restrictions I want undone.
Re: (Score:3)
I was actually in a theater where there was a fire. You could see one of the speakers behind the screen caught fire and it was burning in an awesome looking circle behind the scene... I thought it was a cool looking fireball effect until I realized it was real and it wasn't moving with the scene.
Now, according to the "yelling fire in a theater" crowd, we should have all gone off and stampeded each other to get out of the building. You know what happened? We all peacefully stood up, proceeded to the exits
Re:Next we will all be required to be chipped (Score:4, Insightful)
No, actually, that's exactly what it means. Its not "freedom" if you have severe consequences for an action.
No one can physically stop me from yelling "The president is stupid".
However, with freedom of speech, the government is prohibited from locking me up for saying that.
Contrast that with other regimes where yelling such an insult would result in a death squad knocking on your door, or you being thrown away in a deep dark jail cell forever.
GP was right -- lack of consequences are exactly what defines freedom.
For the fire example -- yes, yelling fire in a crowded theater and being fined/locked up for it is EXACTLY an infringement of the freedom of speech. However, it is an infringement that the courts decided was appropriate and still met the principle of the law (if not the letter).
Re: (Score:2)
Bringing that back to the original point, if you are too inept to drive, either you shouldn't be allowed to do so (licensing restriction... though this is still a "safety measure" by the above definition), or you should be held res
Re: (Score:3)
"Take a bus. Take a cab. Take the subway."
Yep, at least those have additional video recordings, unlike in your car, they'll know it's you.
Re: (Score:3)
Just another reason not to buy newer cars... or have children.
Not a fan (Score:2, Interesting)
First off, it being illegal to disable a part on my car? Is it making it safer or reducing pollution? Then why should removing it be illegal if it's my car?
I can understand keeping your engine/power at certain levels, keeping pollution to a minimum, and keeping your lights/blinkers in a certain condition.
But why should I be forced to leave a black-box on my car if it's just going to be used retroactively to bite me in the *behind* in case of an accident.
Particularly since I have personal experience with
Re:Not a fan (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple.. because if you don't have one during an accident, you're guilt by default!
Isn't choice wonderful?
Computers are infallible... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply because you do not own the roads, you do not clean up the mess and you don't have to pay for all the costs of hospitalisation, rehabilitation and permanent disability.
It's called vehicle registrations and drivers licence, don't like it, walk or take public transport.
Back to reality, the thing that needs to be locked at is the ramifications of being 1km over the speed 500 metres before the accident. Insurance companies being the scum of the earth that they are, will be looking to exclude payment for the slightest infraction or demanding contributory payment well beyond reasonable levels. The vehicle accident blackbox information should only be used if data indicated the drivers behaviour substantively contributed to the accident.
Driving record audits tied to GPS could be quite the hassle. Get a speeding ticket and based upon that get audited and get a whole bunch more.
Re: (Score:3)
Erm, if the fact of increasing payments towards fixing you car because you were over the speed limit reduces the cost of insurance, then that is a benefit to the careful driver.
What it is more likely do is improve lawyers income with people arguing with insurance companies over the fact that just because I was speeding earlier, at the point of the accident I was driving within the parameters of the law...
What gets me is if they can put these blackboxes in, and my gps does this anyway, why can't they regulat
Re:Not a fan (Score:4, Informative)
What gets me is if they can put these blackboxes in, and my gps does this anyway, why can't they regulate the speeds of the vehicle on the roads. If you are on the limit, the accelerator doesn't allow further acceleration, except in short bursts (which is needed for accident avoidance in certain situations). Oh wait...the police department won't be able to fine any more.
That would require really careful, defensive programming to avoid situations where 'suddenly' the system thinks you're in a residential road when you're in fact on the highway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply because you do not own the roads, you do not clean up the mess and you don't have to pay for all the costs of hospitalisation, rehabilitation and permanent disability.
It's called vehicle registrations and drivers licence, don't like it, walk or take public transport.
Unlike keeping the car in working order, with legal power-ratings, and having the appropriate lighting (all required by registration and inspection) how does the black box clean up the mess and pay for the hospitalization / rehab / etc?
Your explanation is: it should be part of the registration / inspection process because the registration / inspection process does good things and is required to continue driving. It says nothing about why this specific issue should be enforced other than "because they say s
Re:Not a fan (Score:5, Interesting)
Simply because you do not own the roads, you do not clean up the mess and you don't have to pay for all the costs of hospitalisation, rehabilitation and permanent disability. It's called vehicle registrations and drivers licence, don't like it, walk or take public transport.
Neither does the federal government. Roads are owned by state and local governments. The clean up is usually done by the local government. The insurance that I pay for pays for the expenses that result, and if I'm at fault, both my insurance company and myself are liable for damages.
Motor vehicle transportation, including licensing and registration, has always been a state issue - so why is it acceptable for a group of unelected federal bureaucrats to pass a decree that would greatly implicate the privacy for the majority of the population? Where do they derive their authority? Do you think something like this would actually go anywhere if they tried to enact it by legislation?
Furthermore, is there a real problem that this solves, or is it just a solution in search of a problem? Will this really provide that much more useful data that can't be determined through traditional means (aka measurements and physics)? I just see this being too susceptible to abuse - ie police scanning impounded cars as part of their 'inventory inspection' and writing additional summons for what they find.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(seriously, not trolling!)
Re: (Score:2)
"First off, it being illegal to disable a part on my car? Is it making it safer or reducing pollution? Then why should removing it be illegal if it's my car?"
Why is it illegal if it's your machine gun or cannon?
It's the law, silly.
Re: (Score:2)
There are safety features on a car (all I can think about on the spot is a seat belt) that should be illegal to disable (if it isnt already).
Owning something does not mean you can necessarily do whatever you want to it in the name of "ownership" even if it will only hurt the said owner in the end.
Re: (Score:3)
At least in America, there has been a "computer" installed in every licensed vehicle for decades that has been illegal to modify or disable:
The Odometer
Yes, as far as computers go it is an analog computer (usually now... there are some electronic ones in automobiles at the moment) based on very simple principles, but it still is there and certainly is illegal. The precedent is already there for automobiles, so all you are talking about is splitting hairs in terms of how much additional information is also
Limitation (Score:3, Funny)
As long as the use is limited to investigate accidents ONLY, and they retain only about 15-30 minutes of data, it would be OK.
They shouldnt be used for general law enforcement like speeding,etc..
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the use is limited to investigate accidents ONLY, and they retain only about 15-30 minutes of data, it would be OK.
They shouldnt be used for general law enforcement like speeding,etc..
to paraphrase Murphy, anything that can be used, will be used. The upside is if courts accept the data they could also be used to show you are innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be simple to prevent speeding, with GPS enabled black boxes, they know you're in a 30mph zone, so it won't let the car exceed that.
Re:Limitation (Score:4, Insightful)
They shouldnt be used for general law enforcement like speeding,etc..
When first implemented they'll say they won't be used except for accident investigation. Then over time, the use will expanded far beyond anything reasonable.
Look at the seat belt laws. When first implemented, the story was that a seat belt violation alone wouldn't result in being pulled over. Now, they will pull you over in a heartbeat if they spot you not wearing one.
Re: (Score:3)
And we as a people don't want to end up paying for your stupidity.
Fine. Stop paying for it!
I've always been irritated by the "logic" that says "we're implementing a system that forces everyone to participate in the system and that pays for everyone's stupidity, therefor you *must* lose your freedom to make your own choices because your choices might, in some people's opinion, be stupid/risky".
Just another variation on the idea that people cannot be trusted to make any choices for themselves or be expected to take any responsibility for their own actions.
It's one of the mo
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the use is limited to investigate accidents ONLY, and they retain only about 15-30 minutes of data, it would be OK.
They shouldnt be used for general law enforcement like speeding,etc..
LOL You're cute. With your naive innocence. Get out of here ya lil' scamp.
Re:Limitation (Score:5, Informative)
The current EDRs (Event Data Recorders) only store the last few moments leading up to a crash (crash is judged by either rapid deceleration, or by air-bags being deployed). In their current state, they wouldn't retain information long enough to be able to be used for anything like you mention.
AFAIK, as an emergency first responder, these boxes have been present in most vehicles already for quite a few years (close to a decade). You may very well have one in your current vehicle but are unaware of it. The new part is making them mandatory.
Some items that it stores in the moments before and during a collision:
- Speed immediately before rapid deceleration
- RPMs
- Brake application or lack there of
- Force of impact
- Which airbags were deployed
- Whether the driver was wearing a seat-belt (other passengers too, if the vehicle is equipped to sense that)
Those are the fairly standard/common items. Other vehicles with steering-response and/or traction control etc. will also log those items.
Re: (Score:2)
Is speeding not a crime?
Heh, speeding is not in itself a crime. I've heard of a couple of criminal cases of speeding, but in these cases, the guy wasn't merely going a little over. In one case, the police didn't actually have something fast enough to overtake the guy (rumor had it, Maserati going full out on an interstate highway), so they waited for him at the exits.
Road pricing (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, the idea is that all cars will be equipped with some kind of GPS enabled device that records the movements of the car and reports this to big brother...err, I mean the tax administration. Based on how much you've driven your car and on what kind of roads and on what times your taxes are calculated. They say this system is a lot fairer than the current 'one tax level for all car owners' system. The idea is also to make the car owner responsible for the condition of the device and driving around with a disabled, modified or broken device is punishable with a fine. It's the govt's form of automated road pricing. I think it's a really, really bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the govt's form of automated road pricing. I think it's a really, really bad idea.
No, it is the government's way of introducing tracking everybody who drives, but you are correct, it is a really, really bad idea (if you value freedom).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was already proposed and shot down in California over privacy concerns, but if this happens then that will happen, and probably nationwide.
Re: (Score:3)
It's ridiculous. If they want to tax car owners based on how much they use the roads/pollute, they don't need to know how far they've travelled. They can just slap a tax on gasoline. Surveillance is the motive behind this - it's no coincidence that the "GPS tracking of all cars for tax purposes" scheme was initially proposed in the UK.
Taxes (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with taxing based on mileage? We already do it indirectly through gas taxes.
Actually, nothing's wrong with it any more than any other tax scheme - as long as the gas tax goes away first. Double taxation isn't right.
The other point is that there's already a "mileage tracking device" in the car called an "odometer". There's no need for a "black box" to collect a mileage tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no! Double taxation isn't right!
That will stop them from doing it!
Re: (Score:2)
taxing based on miles is better than charging everyone road tax, and vehicle tax, and a tax on car purchase, and a tax on fuel, etc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not better unless it also takes into account the mass of the vehicle. Road wear increases with the cube of vehicle mass. A 5400 lbs Hummer causes 8x as much wear on the roadway as my 2700 lbs compact car. If we're taxing by miles driven, I demand to tax by the amount of wear caused during those miles. In which case, the Hummer can pay 8x taxes per mile.
We actually have a system in place that's more fair than tax by mileage. More massive vehicles require more energy to accelerate to speed (a result
Re: (Score:2)
Differential tax rates depending on the vehicle..
for example,
a very simplistic formula based on car type and weight could be
car type(c) = 0 for electric, 1 for petrol, 2 for diesel
x=car weight in Kg
tax = (c*10+(x/1000)*10)%
Re: (Score:2)
This will be used to track your mileage so you can be taxed that way.
No, they will introduce GPS devices in order to track you, using a mileage tax as the excuse. If the idea of a mileage tax was the goal, they would talk about doing periodic odometer readings. I have yet to hear anyone who is proposing a mileage tax suggest basing it on odometer readings. They all propose installing new GPS tracking devices in order to implement this new mileage tax. The obvious conclusion is that getting the GPS tracking devices installed in every car is the goal, not the mileage tax, sinc
Re: (Score:2)
Mine will be subject to random and inexplicable bursts of EMP.
Motor Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like it's time to store away my red barchetta up at my brothers farm. Maybe someday my son will get to drive it.
There is so much win here I cannot begin to express it. Bravo to you, Mr. Rush fan.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bravo to you sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Automobilism (Score:2)
Who wants to start a new religion proclaiming that our cars are part of our free-spirited self, and that tampering with them like this would be a direct violation of our commandments given to us by the Great Mechanic?
This is the beginning of the end (Score:5, Insightful)
I seriously doubt that it will be more than a year or two before some state allows you to be pulled over and the data pulled from this to write speeding tickets. And the amount of data they will contain will only increase, before long they'll be able to cite you for infractions from weeks ago. Soon it will be argued that GPS data will be needed too, so 1 MPH through a stop sign can be ticketed, too. They'll probably "need" to check it when you register or emission test your car.
Illegal to modify or remove? Why? Who would that harm, other than the police ability to fine you? It's a money grab, nothing else.
Why did we bail out the auto industry if we're going to kill new car sales a couple years down the line when new cars can convict you of speeding without an officer having to observe it?
Re: (Score:3)
Another thing to buy/break on a vehicle? (Score:2)
very good, iff done properly. (Score:3, Interesting)
this is something the judges in the court have long asked for. After an accident its difficult to establish howfar the accident was caused by the behavior of driver or circumstances - e.g. - did the driver go 150km/h for 6h without a break or did he feel compelled by somebody driving 1m to his rear end to go faster just at the location of the accident? I also think its ok to confiscate the record if the driver was caught speeding or stopped in a control because its suspected that he drove to long (a mechanical recorder to prevent speeding/going without a break is mandatory for trucks in Germany, and in general the experiences seem to be quite good).
What would *not* be ok would be any function where the police can ask "list all drivers who did this or that". There is no way to prevent this from being used to track people, e.g. by setting up a 50cm long speed regulated zone in the database to get all driver passing this point.
The mandatory things would be:
*encryption, where the keys are stored in a way that they can be only recomposed either from the owners/driver (the driver can e.g. insert an electronic license) keyring (to defend himself), or from several institutions agreeing and providing the key for a specific case.
*a legal framework which highly discourages institutions from even trying to abuse this data
*no network connection of the device. The memory should be a removable part, which is secured by a normal lock/seal. Implementations which do not contain the data only in this removable part should be forbidden.
*the only normally accessible interface should be a port used to set the currently used license (this is, downloading a public key from it).
Unintentional Acceleration (Score:2)
*puke* (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't they just shove a tracker up everyone's ass and call it a day?
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't they just shove a tracker up everyone's ass and call it a day?
If they thought they could get away with it they would.
Re:*puke* (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no need. Most people voluntarily carry a phone anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Remove the battery when needed and the tracker is inactive. You'd need an induction-based approach or add redundant system which charges its own battery from the main battery to keep the tracking ability alive. And you can simply deposit a phone somewhere in order to cheat the system. But try to detach your ass ...
Any different from a license plate? (Score:2)
I've been wondering for some time now if license plates will become 'high tech'. What if they added this system into all license plates?
Plus, people are already complaining here that they would be mad if they can't remove something that is on their car that they own. Well you can't remove your license plate. How is requiring this any different?
I've no problem with it, to a degree (Score:4, Interesting)
Just like in an airplane, I think a black box device is a great idea. Far to many accidents occur with no witnesses that this will give an opportunity to work out what went wrong (why were there no skids, how fast were they going, where the bulbs in the headlights working).
For people who are safe drivers, again there is no problem. Yes, we all drive a bit over the speed limit all the time - part of the whole 'keeping your eyes on the road' thing we are expected to do means we can't drive permanently looking at the speedometer to ensure we don't just sneak over the limit. But many accidents are caused by drivers driving excessively over the limit, and if I'm involved in an accident with someone like that, I like the idea that I can point to my black box data and say 'see, I was 2km/h over the limit, whereas they were 45km/h over the limit'. It'll protect me and put the blame on those who were actually responsible.
Which means that they have to be tamper-proof or the just can't be admissible.
So, so long as they are used only in the purpose of an accident and proving fault, I have no problem with them.
In the case of a Big Brother type situation, there I _do_ have a problem.
But I'm try to remain optimistic that the Big Brother element won't be present.
Oh, also, I want to be able to read the data myself at any time! It would be a great way to learn about your own driving habits, what causes fuel use to go up, am I subconsciously sitting at a red light with my foot depressing the throttle, etc. With GPS, I can track everywhere I've been (but this does tend to imply Big Brother stuff, so no GPS please).
Store everything on the box, but only store a certain amount. If it's to be use for crash analysis, how much data is needed? An hour? A day? A week? more data allows an investigator to analyse driving patterns and behaviour ("this guy always speeds", or "this guy has no habit of speeding - did his foot slip?")
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm try to remain optimistic that the Big Brother element won't be present.
Why? Can you cite one case in history where a surveillance power was not abused?
Re:I've no problem with it, to a degree (Score:4, Insightful)
see, I was 2km/h over the limit, whereas they were 45km/h over the limit
So, Mr. Jones, by your own admission, you were driving with reckless disregard for the law. Please explain to the court why it is that your insurance company should pay these damages - indeed, why it is that you should not be charged criminally for this behavior. After all, the bad actions of others are no excuse for your own criminal behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
The great majority of the time airplanes are operated within the federal aviation regulations. For cars, a significant fraction (probably a majority) of drivers regularly operate outside of the law (speeding). This system would in principal make it possible to completely enforce ALL speeding laws - is that what people really want?
The other difference is that airplanes fly to airports - their location doesn't give a lot of information about what the pilot is doing. Cars tend to drive to much more specific l
Not most of my vehicles (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The article mentions vehicles from the early 90's as having data recorders which doesn't surprise me as that was when OBD I was really becoming standard and being used to its fullest.
This is true of only a vanishingly small percentage of vehicles from the era. Most of them were putzing around with 8 bit microcontrollers running at single-digit speeds at the time and they won't store anything more complex than a fault code.
Nice (Score:2)
I like how they call it a black box, to equate it with safety, as if it's going to be used to investigate crashes and nothing else.
The only question is, will they speed-limit every car to the speed limit on that road, force your car to brake in time to make the red lights, etc.? Or will you still be free to break the law, but check your email for the ticket and fine?
(Like there's any question which one the government would prefer, "safety" or fine revenue...)
Ray LaHood (Score:2)
Prediction comes true for me (Score:3)
I predicted that most INSURANCE companies should or would have these to help get a better understanding of their customers driving habits 15 years ago, as I worked for an insurance company where i pitched my idea to the president. He looked at me with a puzzled look on his face as i began to explain that we could offer better rates to our clients with the gps driven blackboxes telling us all driving info such as on 50km streets, our client was seen attaining speeds of 70 km, so for prevention reasons would tell us we should consider giving him higher rates as he is taking risks, where as the younger yet safer driver who always stays within the speeding limits, would not get high rates as per usual with younger drivers, because we would see his driving habits much quicker, so we could offer him better rates quicker....but it fell on deaf ears....
15 years later, we now see this story here where the government ( good move!) might make it obligatory to have these installed, which I agree for same reasons as 9/11, a vehicle can be used as a means of heavy destruction, so why not log all data on each....
Re: (Score:3)
No need to store 1h if it is for accidents. 10 min before and 5 min after a shock should be more than enough.
Re: (Score:2)
It is laughable that law enforcement needs these "tools" when they already have more than enough tools to tell them speed/direction of the auto in a crash. Also, no doubt that insurance companies love data to invalidate your insurance contract on the one rare occasion that you actually collect on your policy.
I am pretty sure that the true reason for these "black box" is to force GPS data to be collected so that it can be used by governments to tax by location and distance travelled. In local government m
Re: (Score:2)
"I am pretty sure that the true reason for these "black box" is to force GPS data to be collected so that it can be used by governments to tax by location and distance travelled."
Additionally they'll know when and where you speeded,
If they make blackbox needing a license to start the car, it can collect the fines automatically and refuse to start if you didn't pay or if you overdid it.
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn, you're an idiot. I don't claim to be a perfect driver but the fact there are people on the roads like you worries me.
And in some countries, the official advice if someone is too close to your backside for you to have an adequate braking distance is to brake in order to recoup that distance from the front instead. I'd be very surprised if "slower yields to faster" is actually written ANYWHERE in the US Highway Code.
If someone's doing the speed limit it is legally *CORRECT* (but not necessarily the safest possible thing for that particular driver) to not go any faster. To "get out of your way" is up to the lane rules, which say that so long as THEY are overtaking, it's fine to be in the second overtaking lane (or third, if you have a four-lane motorway). Yes, they are called overtaking lanes (all except one). "Fast lane" is a term you won't find on any legal document or driving course.
The most dangerous thing on a road is tailgaters like yourself, especially high-speed tailgaters. If someone's doing the speed limit, sit behind them. They just might save your life one day.
That said, I'm far from a goodie-two-shoes and if you try that shite with someone who just-doesn't-care about your urgent appointment, or their clapped-out-old-motor, they might just choose to slam their brakes on. Guess who'll pay for having insufficient braking distance and travelling too fast? Guess whose car will be ruined beyond repair and whose car will just have the boot pushed out a bit, a new exhaust and be back on the road? Not the guy in front. "I was doing 70, officer, and saw a flash out of the corner of my eye - my instinct was to brake to avoid a collision and in doing so the idiot behind ran straight into me because he had insufficient braking distance between himself and the car in front".
YOU are the reason that speed cameras even exist - if you drove reasonably at those speeds, it wouldn't be a problem. Expecting the world and his brother to get out of your way is a good way to end up in the rear of a truck that just doesn't care, or didn't even see you (and didn't really need to if you were behind him).
Go for a drive on an Autobahn - I went there once and it was fabulous. Not the speed, the sheer courtesy of other drivers and the fact that ALL of them stick to the rules all the time. I nearly got arrested for turning in an empty two-way street, for God's sake! It's the least stressful driving experience I've ever had - 10 minutes in my home town had me cursing at people and braking to avoid the local nutters in their souped-up cars tearing across lanes without looking.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone's doing the speed limit it is legally *CORRECT* (but not necessarily the safest possible thing for that particular driver) to not go any faster.
However, it is not legally correct for them to do the speed limit in the passing lane if someone wants to go faster, in many places; in those cases both drivers are breaking the law.
Go for a drive on an Autobahn - I went there once and it was fabulous. Not the speed, the sheer courtesy of other drivers and the fact that ALL of them stick to the rules all the time.
That's because if you fuck up on the Autobahn they just take away your license. And if we pulled over and ticketed and perhaps deprived of their license the people who won't get out of the fucking passing lane here then there would be more courtesy and you would enjoy driving more.
Simple truth, getting out of the passing lane wh
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be very surprised if "slower yields to faster" is actually written ANYWHERE in the US Highway Code.
Umm in many states it does say something similar.
Most states follow the Uniform Vehicle Code and require drivers to keep right if they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic (regardless of the speed limit; see below)
http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html [mit.edu]
Some states didn't allow left-lane lingering but didn't enforce the law. Now they are.
At the start of the summer, the Washington State Patrol began pulling people over for violating the state's left-lane law, which prohibits "impeding the flow of other traffic."
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/left-lane-slowpokes-drive-you-crazy.aspx [msn.com]
For shits and giggles I pulled a few states laws on the matter
Nebraska: http://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/2006/s60index/s6006131000.html [justia.com]
Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
Arizona: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00721.htm [state.az.us]
B. On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
Virginia: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-804 [state.va.us]
1. Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions existing, shall be driven in the lane nearest the right edge or right curb of the highway when such lane is available for travel except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or where right lanes are reserved for slow-moving traffic as permitted in this section;
These three states all imply that you must move over if
Re: (Score:3)
"Fast lane" is a term you won't find on any legal document or driving course.
Then why do I see signs like this in Northern Virginia?
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=21034,filename=Keep-Right.jpg [fairfaxunderground.com]
"SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a dumbass, you're not supposed to drive in the left lane, it's for passing. If someone wants to pass, you let them. Forcing them to pass on the right is dangerous, and you're creating unsafe driving conditions.
You need to get off your high horse where you think you're better than everybody else and think everybody should drive slower than you. I usually drive in the left lane, and faster than most other people on the road. You know what happens when I see some guy whipping down the road at breakneck speeds? I move the fuck out of the way and give him right-of-way. I don't want that jerkwad driver tailgating me.
Anecdotal Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for your anecdotal evidence.
Here's mine:
I've been driving for over 10 years, have had no at-fault accidents, and only 1 accident where I was a passenger. I do a mix of city driving and long range highway driving. I spend a majority of the time driving in the right lane (I live in a country where we drive on the left) and I'm often over the speed limit. On the freeway I'm way over the speed limit, if circumstances permit.
I can assure you that I ALWAYS encounter people in the "fast lane" going beneath the speed limit, due to congestion, impatience, underpowered cars, nervous uncertain drivers, old people, and similar.
It's a regular occourence for me, to come across a truck, over taking another truck, whom is sometimes also being overtaken by another truck, blocking all 3 lanes, up a steep hill, where the one in the left hand lane is 40kmph under the speed limit, the one in the middle is 35kmph under, and the one on the right is 30kmph under. Effectively creating a giant rolling road block for the next x kmph, that it takes for all of them to overtake each other.
What I can tell you, however, is that no matter how "fast" I am going in the "fast lane" (60mph, 70mph, 80mph, even 90mph at times)--there is always at least *someone* that wants to go faster, this is why I'm a good drive, and ensure I stick left (in your country, stick right), as to not impede other drivers, force errors, and generally annoy people.
So the GP's claims of "people going 1 under" in the "fast" lane are well founded, and you are actually an idiot, who likely doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, or speaking in overly simple generalities, as if his experiences, no matter how accurate, somehow can be correlated to the experiences of everyone.
Oh also, just to show how much fucking bullshit you're spewing, here's a video, of people, in your country, on one of your highways creating a dangerous situation, and effectively a rolling road block by... GOING THE SPEED LIMIT.
55: A Meditation on the Speed Limit (Extended Cut) [youtube.com]
So, effectively every car behind them, especially the ones trying to get around them, would be going over the speed limit, meaning anyone going under would be a law abider, but dangerous as they haven't grasped the social norms. Especially if they're an arrogant arsehole like you, and are sitting in the "fast lane" because "I live in a state where we don't have a keep right law".
Here's a tip for you: shut the fuck up.
Wow, I really escalated this by the end. Seriously started writing and replying line by line to yours, was fine, calm headed, but by the end of yours and the end of writing this, I just wanted to stab you in the heart with a trident [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Holy shit, thank you for posting that and saving me the trouble of writing it up myself. I live in Michigan and drive to Detroit every day from the suburbs, and I can say for a certainty that I encounter assholes driving just above the speed limit in the passing lane on a daily basis. Most of them never move over to let me pass, so I'm forced to pass them on the right. Speed limit is 70mph for a good portion of my commute, yet in light traffic I still find people going 60-65mph in the left lane while peo
Re: (Score:3)
What if I'm going 85 in a 65 zone. Do I still need to move out of the way of the guy wanting to go 90?
Yes.
What's the upper limit here? Am I still a holier than thou slowpoke if I'm at 100 mph and you are behind me wanting to go 105?
Regardless, you shouldn't want to be tailgated by someone who's going that fast anyway. Move over and let them pass as soon as you can safely do so.
Re: (Score:2)
I encounter people who drive below the speed limit in the fast lane on an almost daily basis, and I certainly encounter Grandma and Grandpa doing 10 below on a two-lane road with no ability to pass them daily. At the very least, these activities cause congestion (especially on the two-lane highway I drive on) and frustration. Frustrated drivers aren't the safest to be around. Don't assume people are good drivers, perfectly emotionally stable, not prone to road rage, etc. Get over. I do it, and have never ha
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the other thing that'll be required is an in-car camera recording at all times. That way it'll be easy for the "friendly" state trooper to check if you're wearing your seat belt, or texting...or doing anything else illegal.
I wonder how much longer eating in your car will be allowed. It causes a lot of accidents, you know...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the UK...well, for the cameras anyway: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5834725.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
300 times a day...
Oh, and I know that this information is collected in squad cars and transmitted wirelessly every time the car docks at the station, both video and audio...
I'm sorry Dave (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that.
But on a more serious note. What if the devices function was central to the motors operation. You know a lot of your motor is computer controlled these days.
Additionally, if they become ubiquitous and are seen as a "flawless device which is on the whole tamper proof", regardless of the reality, if your device is faulty, that may be entered into evidence in a trial against you, as evidence of your guilt. This might satisfy mens rea, instantly, and might even be secondary evidence (forget the proper name) of actus rea. Though, traffic violations in many countries already immediately satisfies mens rea, and so it wouldn't help much there.
I don't like where it's going. Especially with regards to Tom Tom, iPhone GPS, and similar data, also being used, while shows like CSI lead people to believe that this data is perfect evidence which can't be faked.
This is not good news. Though, it would make a nice black market for older cars, which don't or couldn't have them installed.
Re:I'm sorry Dave (Score:4, Interesting)
We have an imported Eunos Roadster (aka Mk1 Mazda MX-5/Miata). It cost us ~£1,000 and is a lovely little car. Clean and tidy, fairly rust free and problem free running gear and engine.
Our government would give us more than the car is worth (with inflation) to keep it for a year and them scrap it against the price of a new car with no soul, no history, a black box, better brakes, more efficient engine and proper crash test safety.
Do not want! I want to be able to drive this dangerous expensive to run little piece of history and love it. I understand what they want, but I want my kids to be able to buy cars like this too.
Re: (Score:2)