What a Black Box Data Dump Looks Like

An anonymous reader writes "Massachusetts Lt. Governor Tim Murray recently crashed his Ford Crown Victoria while reportedly traveling 108 mph. The car was pretty much shredded, but Murray walked away without major injuries. According to data from the car's black box, Murray and the Crown Vic experienced the equivalent of 40 gravities during the crash. The data contradicts the story he gave police. Maybe we should strap black boxes to all our politicians."

Comments

Advice

[stanlyb]

So, the first thing you should do after a car accident is to find and destroy its black box, so your insurance company would have no way to avoid paying the, what, insurance?

Re:Advice

[ackthpt]

So, the first thing you should do after a car accident is to find and destroy its black box, so your insurance company would have no way to avoid paying the, what, insurance?

"The most interesting thing about the damage your vehicle suffered, is that the passenger compartment is largely intact, except for this little plastic box in the back of the glove box, which appears to have suffered severe physical trama at the end of a tire iron. I don't think we're going to honor your policy, sir."

Re:Advice

[mr1911]

The other end of the seat belt connector would be your best bet if you wish to survive the accident you seem to be planning for.

Re:Advice

[Qzukk]

I know people who leave their seatbelt connected 24x7 and just sit on it. I don't ride with them.

Re:Advice

[stanlyb]

You are missing the point. I DON'T have to say anything, or prove anything, It is my right to be silent and to not incriminate myself. It is their duty to prove me wrong. If they refuse to pay without reason/facts, then i will sue them. End of story.

Re:Advice

[stanlyb]

Shit happens, right? So you are not going to honor this contract? Fine, will meet you in the court room.

Re:Advice

[jellomizer]

Insurance companies with staffed lawyers with evidence of insurance fraud.
vs.
You with a single lawyer who is probably charging you an arm and a leg, who is working to make sure you are not locked up for life.

Re:Advice

[DigiShaman]

Temporary insanity. After bringing the car to a safe and complete stop of course.

Re:Advice

[SimplyGeek]

I know people who get spare connectors from the junk yards and keep them plugged in so the car doesn't keep beeping at them about the seatbelt.

Why people go so far to avoid wearing a seat belt is beyond me.

Re:Advice

[hawguy]

Or you could, you know, drive responsibly and treat your car like the potential deadly weapon that it is. So when the insurance company looks at the black box data, it matches your story.

As long as the data is read by an independent third party and made available to the driver (and his lawyer), the black box data shouldn't be something to fear.

Re:Advice

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing the point. I DON'T have to say anything, or prove anything, It is my right to be silent and to not incriminate myself. It is their duty to prove me wrong. If they refuse to pay without reason/facts, then i will sue them. End of story.

You're right. You don't need to say or prove anything when you make a claim. They also don't need to pay your claim. If you believe that they do need to pay your claim and you sue them, then you WILL have to testify and give evidence. A lawsuit is a civil case. It is not a criminal case. The right not to testify only applies to criminal cases.

Please enjoy getting to pay to have your ass handed to you.

Re:Advice

[DragonWriter]

You are missing the point. I DON'T have to say anything, or prove anything, It is my right to be silent and to not incriminate myself.

The right to remain silent and not provide evidence against yourself applies only in criminal proceedings. (See, US Constitution, Amendment 5: "No person [...] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".)

Breach-of-contract is not a criminal case.

If they refuse to pay without reason/facts, then i will sue them. End of story.

And if you sue them, you will bear the burden of proving that the circumstances that actually occurred obligate them to pay you. And they can put you on the stand and compel you testify under oath, even where that might be against your own interests.

Re:Advice

[Luckyo]

For insurance fraud? That's going to do DA prosecuting, not insurance companies.

Re:Advice

[dead_user]

Because they're too stupid to just read their owners manual and disable the seat belt alarm with the computer, rather than manually bypassing the sensor. It was trivially easy to disable the alarm on my mustang. Do be fair, I usually wear my seatbelt, but when I don't, I'm intelligent enough to know I don't have it one without a stupid fucking alarm going off every 15 seconds making sure I'm aware.

Re:Advice

[X0563511]

also put punctuation in your sentence because it shows where clauses start and end

Re:Advice

[Big Smirk]

I didn't destroy the black box, the tow truck driver or yard in which the car was parked for a couple weeks must have done it.

Re:Advice

[Jeremi]

Shit happens, right? So you are not going to honor this contract? Fine, will meet you in the court room.

Of course they will honor the contract. Specifically, they will honor part of the contract that says "this contract is invalidated if the customer deliberately sabotaged the vehicle".

Re:Advice

[a_nonamiss]

Why would you choose not to ride with an unobtrusive safety device that is statistically proven to increase your odds of surviving a crash by an order of magnitude? I mean, I wholeheartedly agree with the premise that it's none of the government's business whether or not you choose to wear a seatbelt, but honestly, logic and sense should compel you to wear one.

Re:Advice

[ackthpt]

DOT approval isn't a one time thing - i.e 1960 seat belts are fine, in a 1960's car, but not approved for a car built after the shoulder strap requirement was added.

Re:Advice

[Marc_Hawke]

If you read that again, you'll see that he doesn't ride in the cars with the people who sit on top of their seatbelts. At least that's how I read his comment.

Re:Advice

[hairyfeet]

It seems like the smarter move would be to simply mod the car yourself and just happen to 'forget' to hook up the back box when you were done. It seems more plausible than taking a tire iron to the box after the fact and would be easier to explain. does anybody know if the newer pickup trucks even HAVE black boxes on them? if so i doubt many of them in my area are hooked up as the good old boys just love to mod the hell out of their trucks.I don't see how they could ding you if you could show you had been modding as long as there wasn't a clause in the insurance that specifically prohibited modding the vehicle.

Bah y'all can keep your fancy schmancy new fangled automobiles, i'll stick with my old ranger. it may get shitty gas mileage but the cast iron Vulcan V6 is built like a tank and purrs like a kitten. I can't believe how many of the good old boys yank a Vulcan to drop a Ford Mustang V8 in the ranger but I give 'em credit with that much horsepower they make a hell of a mudder! And boy could that have sounded anymore redneck? If I don't watch it the next thing i know i'll have those mudflaps with the silver babes on them!

Re:Advice

[www.sorehands.com]

California and most other jurisdictions would imply that the intentional destruction of the black box would indicate that you knew that it had information that would have harmed your claim.

California Civil Jury Instruction 204 states:

"Willful Suppression of Evidence You may consider whether one party intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence. If you decide that a party did so, you may decide that the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party."

California Evidence Code Section 412 states:

If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.

California Evidence Code Section 413 states:

In determining what inferences to draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case.

Also see Willard v. Caterpillar (1995), 40 CA4th 892.

Re:Advice

[GreenTom]

Our, you know, OP could RTFM: The retrieval of this data has been authorized by the vehicle's owner, or other legal authority such as a subpoena or search warrant...

Re:Advice

[Caratted]

Just don't get those fsking bull balls on your hitch. I do not know why that inspires such a deep and angry fire from within.

Re:Advice

[silverglade00]

I'm a pretty big guy (on Slashdot? Shocking!) and in every car I have ever been in, the seatbelt goes right across my neck because of my stomach. I am working on reducing my stomach, but in the meantime I either have to break the law or ride in fear of instant decapitation from the seatbelt in case of a crash. That seatbelt will not protect me at all. It will break my neck or take off my head.

Re:Advice

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I don't want my tax dollars supporting trauma operations on idiots who don't wear safety belts. Thus, let them just die or use the government to enforce seat belt laws.

Re:Advice

[PickyH3D]

No, it's not because they are too stupid to disable the seat belt alarm. It's because they are too stupid to wear their seat belt.

There is no "intelligent" excuse--or manner--for avoiding it. If you are driving long enough for the car to complain that you are not wearing your seat belt, then you are not making an intelligent decision.

Re:Advice

[nschubach]

I usually wear my seatbelt, but when I don't, I'm intelligent enough to know I don't have it one without a stupid fucking alarm going off every 15 seconds making sure I'm aware.

... says dead_user.

(Sorry, I found it amusing.)

Re:Advice

[PIBM]

Actually .. when I'm backing out of my garage, and my 100' entryway, I'm not wearing my seat belt as it prevent me from looking everywhere behind easily. As I wait for the garage door to close, the timer is already elapsed, and it starts beeping. When I'm done backing up, I fasten my seat belt. I believe there might be much more situations, but here's just one to break your argument..

Re:Advice

[shadowrat]

the first thing you should do after a car accident is to find and destroy its black box

first i would asses if i was or was not at fault and if the black box contained information that could help or hinder my case.

Re:Advice

[darth dickinson]

Actually, re-read that contract. The response will probably be, "Fine, let me know when the binding arbitration is scheduled."

Re:Advice

[praxis]

Or you could go to a shop and have them modify the seatbelt for you, which would be the safer thing to do than squabble about minor laws when your safety is at stake.

Re:Advice

[Cormacus]

Generalizing from my own experience: most recent cars don't come with manuals that are worth anything. They basically cover the warning lights on the dash and instruct the user to take the car to the dealer ($$) if any of the little lights come on.

Re:Advice

[scot4875]

Let me guess: you're a big proponent of personal responsibility.

--Jeremy

Re:Advice

[TheCarp]

Well.... I knew someone who was in a car accident.... now.... don't get me wrong, this is one person, in a rather fantastic accident of the kind that doesn't happen every day.... but who escaped serious injury by not wearing it...as she litterally.... saw another car coming to tbone them, and moved aside to another seat....had she stayed where she was, or been belted in.... she would have likely been seriously injured by the impact.

Ok... silly I know...fantasitcal....thats not why I bring it up. After this event, she stopped wearing a seatbelt. In fact, she had massive panic attacks and was unable to take her driving test for a year because she was too paniced to drive at all with a seatbelt on.

I don't suggest this is that common, but, I would suggest that individuals have their reasons. Their reasons may not make sense, their reasons may be entirely emotional. Like mine, I wore mine every time I was in a car, trained by my parents. Stopped the very day I heard that a law had been passed, and I have only occasionally worn one in the decade or so since.

I know I should... I know its safer, but, it just pisses me off that some nosy busibody thinks what I do is any of his business.

Its emotional, its silly.... but we all have our reasons. Though...I put up with the ding. ding. ding.....

Re:Advice

[mr1911]

I either have to break the law or ride in fear of instant decapitation from the seatbelt in case of a crash

You are suffering from irrational fear. If the accident is severe enough for a seatbelt to decapitate you, you will certainly not survive without the seatbelt.

On the other hand, it is not unreasonable that you will be in an accident of such severity that you would not be decapitated by a seatbelt but seriously injured or killed if not wearing it.

Re:Advice

[necro81]

DOT approved seat belts are designed for comfort, not protect

Compare the results of a crash with someone who has used those comforting seatbelts to the results where no seatbelt was used. I think you'll agree that they provide a lot of protection. Most people would say they aren't especially comfortable; people only use them because they could save your life.

Re:Advice

[Nethead]

Hi Hairy:

I could have modded you up but I wanted to brag. My '89 V6 Ranger has over 400k miles and is as strong as an ox. The transmission whines like a stuck pig but it can still haul a full bed of wet maple at highway speeds. The only mods are holes for ham radio antennas.

A man and his truck, it's a beautiful thing.

Re:Advice

[GameboyRMH]

If you want to keep the airbags it should be possible to swap in a regular airbag trigger sensor from another vehicle.

Re:Advice

[GameboyRMH]

That's the only one I can think of (and even then, only if you're old and inflexible).

Re:Advice

[GameboyRMH]

Isn't the upper seatbelt mounting point adjustable? It is on most cars.

Re:Advice

[hawguy]

Our, you know, OP could RTFM:

The retrieval of this data has been authorized by the vehicle's owner, or other legal authority such as a subpoena or search warrant...

I think the OP's point was that insurance companies could require access to the black box data as a part of an insurance policy. There are no clear laws over who owns the data and who can access it:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/02/black_boxes_states.html

What's not clear in this case is if the police had to request permission from Murray to access the data, or if they only had to have permission to release the data.

Re:Advice

[GameboyRMH]

This is why you remove the black box as soon as you buy the car. I'm a person who's more likely to benefit from the black box data, but I'd rather not wait until insurance companies are collecting the information remotely from the vehicle to dynamically adjust my rates, as they do with the tracking modules they're handing out now.

Re:Advice

[KhabaLox]

Not everyone has medical (or car) insurance. If such a person gets in an accident, tax payers end up footing the bill when they go to the ER.

Re:Advice

[digitalsolo]

FWIW, I drive a 2007 Infiniti and it has an excellent manual that goes over all kinds of features, from making the windows roll down with the key, to the the way to change the horn chimes when you lock the doors. Of course it also has all the fluid volumes, change schedule recommendations and even basic "how to fix" type instructions. Far better than the manual that came with my previous (late 90s) BMW.

I suspect that this fact varies greatly by manufacturer though.

Re:Advice

[GameboyRMH]

This is why you should assume that the value of your car insurance is only as a piece of paper to satisfy any cops who pull you over, and as such you should not crash into things.

Re:Advice

[KingSkippus]

For what it's worth, I simply do not believe you. First of all, I wear my seat belt all the time, and I have absolutely no trouble at all with visibility. If you have to get out of your seat to see, you're doing it wrong. Second of all, disabling a sensor so that you don't have to put up with a few seconds of beeping is stupid. My guess is that you are, in fact, driving without your seat belt, and just making up a contrived circumstance to try to convince us that out of all of the people who do so, you're the one exception--the one person who isn't being stupid while doing so.

Yeah, I think not.

The sad thing is that you probably think, "What difference does it make? I'm only hurting myself." Individual liberty and all that, right? Well, 1) if you have kids, you're making a horrible impression on them. Someday if they don't buckle their seat because "Mom and/or Dad never did, and they never had any trouble," there's a pretty good chance that they get messed up at some point due directly to your negligence. 2) If you find yourself in a situation where it is difficult to maintain control of your car, such as roads with black ice, a tire blowout, etc., seat belts help keep you where you're supposed to be--behind the wheel, and not flailing about the cabin of your car. If you're doing the latter, there's a much higher chance that you'll plow into the poor innocent schmuck next to you. And 3) when you do have a wreck and get messed up and you exceed the limitations of your insurance company, who do you think will be paying for your medical bills? Yeah, that would be me and other people who have the gumption to wear seat belts. You could have just walked away from the accident with a bruised rib, but instead, we're having to support keeping your carcass alive on life support for who knows how many years.

Your individual liberty ends when you start being a danger to the public and a drain on much-needed resources. So seriously, please stop making excuses and just wear the damn thing. If not for yourself, do it for your kids (if you have any) and for the public-at-large.

P.S. If you google it, you can find anecdotes like this ad nauseum, but it's personal to me. Two years ago, I had a blowout (left rear wheel) in moderate traffic on I-85 just north of Atlanta, a pretty busy stretch of interstate. I was going highway speed, and spun out. I did a 1080 in the middle of the interstate, was hit by two other vehicles (an SUV and a large sedan), and my car was totaled. I was wearing my seat belt. Even during the accident, until my air bags deployed, I was able to exert minimal control over the car and keep from causing even more damage. I walked away with a sore rib and a small scratch on my thumb. If I weren't wearing my seat belt, there's a pretty good chance I would have been killed or, at best, eating through a straw for a long time. I've also had friend and relatives killed due to not wearing a seat belt.

There are a lot of BS laws passed that are dumb attempts and nannying you. This isn't one of them.

Re:Advice

[Hognoxious]

Actually .. when I'm backing out of my garage

Try backing in, then you could just drive out forwards.

Re:Advice

[operagost]

Have you tried an extender and/or a clip?

Re:Advice

[TheLink]

Apparently a friend of mine was going quite fast, lost control somehow, hit a tree, flew out of his car (because he wasn't wearing his seat belt), and his car wrapped itself around another tree. He was dazed for quite a while, but survived with no major injuries.

So in this case if he was wearing a seatbelt he would be dead, inside his car that was wrapped around a tree.

But on average it's safer to wear a seatbelt...

Re:Advice

[GameboyRMH]

You can do all kind of mods without interfering with the black box. Any vehicles made in the last 5 years or so are likely to have them. They can be integrated into the ECU or the airbag sensor or could be a separate unit.

Re:Advice

[PIBM]

I arrive home when it's totally dark, and sun's out when I leave, so it's much easier to drive in!

Re:Advice

[PIBM]

I'm always wearing my seat belt. As an anectote too, I once had an accident where I flipped my car down a river in the winter, and without my seat belt that could have been much worst, think going through the windshield and getting the car on me afterward. As it was the winter, the only damage was disjointed mirrors, and the engine had to be cleaned as it's not built to be put upside down, but that's it :)

As for why the mirrors ain't enough, it's quite simple. I'm driving a minivan, with 2 kids behind me in their big seats, and I often already opened the DVD player in the middle, which cut the view quite a lot. Anyway, I'm not disabling the censor either, and I just put up with the few beeps until I buckle up. I was not making up the circustance, I was just showing that the (parent to my post) view was limited in this following sentence:

"If you are driving long enough for the car to complain that you are not wearing your seat belt, then you are not making an intelligent decision."

Re:Advice

[JWSmythe]

    There are better seat belts, that do a better job of restraining you. Most people wouldn't want them in their passenger car though.

    I only installed them in one of my cars. On the weekends, I did some amateur class racing in my street car. The shoulder belt was worthless on the left turns. It was much nicer with the belts installed, I didn't have to brace myself while taking the turns. I also couldn't reach the radio or air conditioning controls while belted in.

    Seat belts do save lives. You have a better chance of survival firmly strapped to your seat, than you do being ejected from the vehicle, and potentially your own vehicle landing on top of you.

    Passenger car seat (lap and shoulder) belts do a pretty good job of restraining you, while allowing comfort. The twisting that can occur during a wreck, due to only having one shoulder restrained, is a lot less than what could happen without it. I'll have back and neck pain forever from a wreck I was in over 10 years ago, but I did survive relatively unhurt.

    I've had to give practical demonstrations to kids on why they have to wear their seatbelts. They'll argue, so I'll do a brake check at about 30mph (after checking for cars around me). Although they insist they can catch themselves, they always end up on the floor asking what happened. They usually don't try to argue with me about it after that.

Re:Advice

[Pope]

Just remove the airbags and install real seat belts. (note both of these are illegal. As for installing good seatbelts, you must keep the old, DOT approved, ones intact to remain legal.) Air bags, are part of 'passive restaints' that, despite what is advertised, is made for dopes that don't use seat belts. DOT approved seat belts are designed for comfort, not protect. They are much too narrow for the speeds and energies that you could see at highway speeds.

You are wrong. Seat belts PLUS air bags are better than just seat belts alone.

Re:Advice

[pnewhook]

Your prints on the tire iron and tire iron marks on the black box are pretty conclusive..

Re:Advice

[schwinn8]

Agreed on all counts. But to carry the "doesn't hurt anyone" thought further: I'd be happy if a person who didn't wear their seatbelt was denied coverage by their insurances. If that were to happen, then we are one step closer to really meeting the "doesn't hurt anyone" theory. Granted, the accident caused by the person flailing about is still present, but I might be willing to let that one go in favor of the above.

Re:Advice

[Hognoxious]

First of all, I wear my seat belt all the time, and I have absolutely no trouble at all with visibility.

Perhaps you look over the inside (that's right, if you're American) shoulder? If you looked over the other and you hadn't adjusted the height properly the belt would be in the way, but the solution to that is pretty obvious from the definition of the problem [that won't stop Apple patenting it - Ed].

It's possible that with the old style belts - without inertia reels and tensioners - that it restricts your outer (work it out yourself) shoulder from advancing enough to turn your body enough. But I learned to drive when those were the norm, and I don't recall it giving me problems - and I have a really inflexible neck; the Forrest Gump poster where he's sitting on the bench hurts just looking at it. Any road up, how many of those are still in use?

Re:Advice

[Cormacus]

That sounds like a pretty nice manual. My 2008 Toyota Matrix has absolutely no "how to fix" info, very basic oil info (use 5W-30), and thats about it. I wish it would cover things like "how to turn off the 'needs maintenance' light after the guys at Jiffy Lube forgot that step in the oil change," "how to turn off the weight sensor in the front passenger seat that is letting me know that the pizzas aren't buckled in", etc. I guess they figure the owners of lower-end cars won't care. I may have to shell out for the repair manual.

Re:Advice

[aztracker1]

Usually only takes once for that... kept telling a friend's kid in the back to buckle up, he asked why more than once.. so I accelerated, then braked abruptly.. he never asked again.

Re:Advice

[pnewhook]

If you lived in a sensible country like Canada everyone would have medical care.

Re:Advice

[TheCarp]

Yup.... fantastical...rare.... but happens.

But as I said my point wss not that this legitimizes not wearing the belt, just that, different people have their reasons. Those reasons may not be based on what someone else would call sound judgement but.... isn't letting other people determine what is sound judgement a very basic part of living in a free society... and accepting that some people may take risks for themselves that we think are crazy?

Re:Advice

[schwinn8]

You're referencing a movie to represent reality? Yeesh. I think it would be best to leave the science to others, as you clearly have no bearing on facts and reality. I'm not saying there is NEVER a situation where a seatbelt is more dangerous, but statistically, these are rare... and hence should not be considered for a general rule. For example, some people die just walking down their driveway and slipping on ice... should we ban walking because of this minority, or force everyone to wear helmets all the time? Statistically, this is the risk we all take... and so wearing a seatbelt is a risk you should take, as it's far more likely to save you than kill you. As for allowing people to decide for themselves, I'm all for it... as long as we-the-people don't have to pay for your hospital visit because you didn't wear the seatbelt.

Re:Advice

[pnewhook]

And for the exact same reason I don't want my tax dollars (or if I paid them, my insurance premiums) paying for idiot smokers who then end up with expensive medical procedures as a result.

Re:Advice

[TheCarp]

Yes...and?

Re:Advice

[TheCarp]

Not everyone has medical insurance (or a living wage source of income). If such a person gets pregnant, tax payers end up footing the bill when they go to the delivery room.

There, fixed that for you. So.... you are saying we should be able to require all people to use condoms while having sex? Maybe some special licensing for unprotected sex? Seems reasonable by that rationale.

Re:Advice

[MrLint]

Perhaps you can acquire one of those EMP weapons Newt Ginrich is so worried about?

Re:Advice

[element-o.p.]

No, I think perhaps *YOU* are missing the point.

When the local PD* arrives, measures the excessively long skid marks on the highway, assesses the damage done to your vehicle, and determines that you were traveling well in excess of the speed limit, they have proven what they need to prove. At that point, you had better have some data to back up your claim that you were obeying all of the traffic laws and that the police/insurance agent misdiagnosed the cause of the accident. Otherwise, you will be in for a rather unpleasant reality check when you are now on the hook for the citation issued by the cops, the damage for the car, the damage -- if any -- to anyone else's car(s), and the costs of the lawsuit that you just lost.

*or, more likely, the insurance agent. There was a very amusing anecdote by Joe Gresh in a recent issue of Motorcyclist magazine about him and his friends being able to pull the wool over the local police's eyes, but not being able to fool the insurance inspector -- who was, of course, much more motivated to find out what *really* happened to the custom chopper that one of Gresh's friends wrecked.

Re:Advice

[pdabbadabba]

Because it affects people other than himself when he is killed in a car accident.

Re:Advice

[stanlyb]

Nope, the insurance policy is pretty straightforward (except when it is not of course), but, if the only reason to avoid paying is the missing/broken black box, then it is the insurance company that has to prove it my wrongdoings. And you are again miss-leaded. As a defendant i have the right to not testify, in which case i would not have the benefit of explaining my point, but i would have the benefit of NOT saying something that i dont want to say.

Re:Advice

[stanlyb]

But i am not going to sue them for the missing black box, but for fraud and refusal to pay without any reason.

Re:Advice

[Dahamma]

And seriously - not wearing a seatbelt (or motorcycle helmet, etc) is as much completely selfish as it is stupid. If it's not the government's responsibility to require a seatbelt, it should also not be their business to assist you when you don't. I almost think intentionally not using a safety device like this should be equivalent to a blanket "DNR" order so that the rest of us don't have to foot the medical bill for these morons...

Re:Advice

[ILMTitan]

If you mean driver side, I can agree, but some cars also complain about the passenger's side also not using the seatbelt, even when the thing sitting in the passenger's side seat is not a person (such as a cooler full of meals on wheels).

Re:Advice

[element-o.p.]

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?

I did, in fact RTFA (or one of them, anyway), and it sounded to me like some of the evidence may have been GPS based. Since I had a GPS show me travelling at 140 MPH in my Nissan Frontier on the way to work a couple of years ago (it also showed a single waypoint on my track to work out in the middle of the inlet near the city where I live -- which is impossible since the water there is too deep to drive through and there are no bridges over the inlet), please excuse me if I claim to be a little...leery...that the data provided may not be 100% accurate.

For the record, the fastest I have ever gone on a land vehicle is ~120 MPH -- and I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to prove that I achieved those speeds in a place where it was not legal. Also for the record, on the day my GPS showed I hit 140, I I don't believe I actually even exceeded 50 MPH. It's kind of hard to hit triple digit speeds in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Re:Advice

[TheCarp]

> As for allowing people to decide for themselves, I'm all for it... as long as we-the-people don't have to pay for your hospital visit because you didn't
> wear the seatbelt.

I think it is generally a mistake to conflate these two, totally separate issues.

You see.... the public does pay for ER visits of the uninsured however, that has nothing to do with driving. We pay for ER visits of the uninsured whether they were in an accident and didn't wear a seat belt, or if they tried to blow their brains out, or just jumped out a window. When have we heard the issue of paying for ER visits of attempted suicides? Ever?

These people are WAY more personally responsible for those costs than someone who gets in an accident without a seat belt. Such a person maybe through lack of skill, or even through the actions of another driver, ended up in an accident. All they did was fail to take a precaution which, in the very unlikely event of an accident (which is all it was before the accident happened), might have reduced overall cost. However, a suicide? They did it themselves...to themselves.... on purpose.

Now, I don't care about either, I am more than happy to pay for Single Payer healthcare and just cover everyone, all the time. Suicides or not, seat belts or not, illegal immigrant or not, any human being that needs medical attention. Happy to do it, no qualms. I don't have that option, but hey, I would. In the mean time, I pay for private insurance.

What I don't get is how we allow this circular reasoning. Yes, the taxpayers pay for this....because they setup a system and laws that said they would pay for it. I don't see why deciding to pay for it, allows them to then turn around and use the fact that they pay for it as an excuse to mandate behaviour.

If I came to you today and said "Hey, I am going to just start paying you rmorgage for you, because I think its the right thing to do".... would you say that gives me any right to come by tomorrow and start telling you that you must take care of the house a certain way because, afterall, I am paying for it?

One does not follow from the other. Its a false connection.

Re:Advice

[pixelpusher220]

Ambulances/Firetrucks are still sent out and that person is still sent to the hospital for life threatening issues. That cost is billed to said customer who I will assert won't be able to pay the ridiculous bills.

You and I end up paying for that through higher insurance premiums. So yes people get 'hurt' by someone not wearing their seat belt.

Re:Advice

[silverhalide]

Stop right there. This is hands down the shittiest advice I've ever seen posted to a forum that could get someone killed. I really hope you're trolling. Saying air bags aren't designed for seatbelt use is completely ignorant and life-threateningly wrong. In fact, it's quite the opposite, an airbag could potentially kill you if you use it without a seatbelt.

While I don't like calling people names in forums, you are an ignorant idiot that could get someone killed if they follow your advice and get in a wreck.

Passive restraint systems ARE without a shred of doubt designed for maximum effectiveness with the active restraints in place. It's a SYSTEM. You could, for example, fly over the steering wheel airbag if you're not wearing the belt. OEM seatbelts are designed with a very carefully calibrated amount of "stretch" to them that will give in a crash too. Changing these out is potential suicide. You are not a crash safety engineer, and god help us if you ever become one. Leave that to the pros. Wear your OEM, crash-tested seatbelts and never ever touch the airbag system.

Re:Advice

[Ofloo]

I was referring to a news item where a baby was thrown out of a car not a movie, well maybe the word movie was wrong of me, .. i'll see if i can find the event. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/little-known-seat-belt-danger-could-claim-life-of-child-in-seconds/ http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1194767n i'm sure if you check google you'll find several, .. also i'll try and find the news event i was referring to.

Re:Advice

[umghhh]

There is always something to fear from hands of insurance companies after all they are not there to pay you but to provide good salary to their bosses. The good ones among them sometimes pay as you expect. The bad ones invest in lawyers and calculate their fees into your premiums. So let us see the black box shows that indeed you have not sped up at the time of accident but you did that few times before - you are a reckless driver and albeit not at the time of accident you violated pour terms of service etc or your black box shows that you used hard breaking involving ABS activation 10 times last week so albeit you did not drive too fast you were not watching what you do etc I am not a lawyer of course but I know enough about insurance companies, if they are bad in Europe the chances are that they are even 'better' in US of A. Other than that I agree: black boxes are a good thing. If (and that is a big if) their use is regulated and assessment of their contents standardizes. I guess we have nothing to say in that matter anyway and can only hope this will not bite us in the arse by first occasion.

Re:Advice

[onkelonkel]

"Most people would say they aren't especially comfortable

Oddly enough, I feel uncomfortable when I don't have a seatbelt on. It feels like nothing is keeping me in my seat. I know it's all in my head, but for me it's one more reason to wear the seatbelt.

Re:Advice

[nullchar]

When he's badly injured and uninsured and taken to the emergency room and I pay for it. That's where the law helps me anyway.

Re:Advice

[Medievalist]

Good one!

I have a similar situation myself, due to a large evergreen tree. I buckle up after I clear the tree because I'm more concerned about not running over a child or pet than I am about somebody driving off the road, through the woods, over my yard, and colliding with me in my own driveway.

In my car I can't lean far enough over to get a good view past the tree if I've got the seat belt on.

Re:Advice

[JWSmythe]

Since I've seen accidents where people were backing out of their driveways, and other accidents where cars on roadways go out of control and slide into parking lots, the measure of "long enough" should be "before the car is put into gear". Plenty of people do dumb thing in tons of steel.

Re:Advice

[PIBM]

LOL :)

Yeah, the house is lit, but I'm not lighting the whole entryway =) Beside, that would still require backing into the garage, where the visibility required would still be high.

Re:Advice

[Ofloo]

Also car seatbelt are bad for children especially buckling your kid without child seat could be deadly. Wearing a seatbelt is only safe when you wear it right and some people just don't fit the criteria, but wear them anyways because it is obligated. Skinny people tend to move forward before the seatbelt works and get killed because the belt moves up, ... small people are just not on the right height to wear it and might get neck damage, .. you should be so judgmental in some cases wearing one is good but for others it's just as bad. Making a law for everyone to wear it to me is stupid. >I'm all for it... as long as we-the-people don't have to pay for your hospital visit because you didn't wear the seatbelt. Lol I wear mine, .. but I think it should be a choice, .. not an obligation, .. and you don't pay anyones hospital bill but your own, ..

Re:Advice

[LateArthurDent]

I know I should... I know its safer, but, it just pisses me off that some nosy busibody thinks what I do is any of his business.

I always wear a seat belt, but I do hate the seat belt laws myself. If adults want to risk their lives, no matter how stupid and preventable the risk is, they have a right to. It's their own life. The government should spend money educating people that seat belts save lives, but when people know that and still make a decision to not wear them, that's their problem and no one else's.

Re:Advice

[quacking duck]

Problem is if they extend "take risks for themselves" to "take risks with their dependents," i.e. not buckling their kids in because of a fear stemming from a personal but statistically improbable experience.

Now I know emotion is severely overriding common sense, but these anecdotes are the equivalent of winning the jackpot in the lottery. If you continue playing the lottery afterward, statistically any future winnings will be small like everyone else. Translating this analogy, the next big accident they get in, they'll die because they *didn't* wear a seatbelt.

Re:Advice

[LateArthurDent]

I disagree. I don't want my tax dollars supporting trauma operations on idiots who don't wear safety belts. Thus, let them just die or use the government to enforce seat belt laws.

Your tax dollars are being wasted on way or another. I would rather my tax dollars support saving the life of a moron who didn't wear a seatbelt than my tax dollars being wasted to enforce a law that infringes on people's freedom to take a stupid risk.

Not that my dollars are going to trauma operations anyway. The US doesn't have government health care, so you should more accurately say that you don't want your insurance premiums going up. Either way, the above paragraph applies.

Re:Advice

[geekoid]

Of course there a better belts. OTOH, you aren't supposed to be racing during normal driving.

The risk is higher at racing speeds, as well as the risk from loosing control.

FTR: Many people wanted seat belt initially either.

Re:Advice

[marcosdumay]

And your car have bad mirrors.

Re:Advice

[icebike]

As long as your total claim is under the small claims limit perhaps. Even a Crown Vic exceeds that limit in every state.

Re:Advice

[a_nonamiss]

You, sir, are correct. My apologies to Qzukk.

Re:Advice

[BitZtream]

Too bad, when you become 'part of the group' to get a 'reduced rate' it means you're subsidizing some people. If you want to make sure you pay 'your fair share' go ahead, you'll most likely end up paying more than you do now.

Idiots like you don't deserve the benefits granted by group, that way we don't have to pay for your stupid shit either.

Re:Advice

[geekoid]

Simple Solution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbXvBeL8-YY

Re:Advice

[icebike]

If you read thru the data supplied in the linked article (page 4), you will see the Lt Governor did NOT have his seatbelt on, and was protected ONLY by the airbags. He actually had zero injuries.

Had he been wearing the standard belt and impacted at 108mph I doubt you could predict zero injuries.

Re:Advice

[hazah]

So what about the unfotunate moron who was simply caught in the headlights of the truck?

Re:Advice

[a_nonamiss]

Salt is bad for you. The government should outlaw salt because it increases healthcare premiums. And alcohol. And ice cream sandwiches. And swearing. You can see where I'm going with this...

Re:Advice

[stanlyb]

Here the maximum reward is $25k. Anyway, even if it is only $!, the main point is actually to win the claim, not the win some big amount. After that, the fact is that you are innocent, and they are guilty....

Re:Advice

[icebike]

Well.... I knew someone who was in a car accident.... now.... don't get me wrong, this is one person, in a rather fantastic accident of the kind that doesn't happen every day.... but who escaped serious injury by not wearing it...as she litterally.... saw another car coming to tbone them, and moved aside to another seat....had she stayed where she was, or been belted in.... she would have likely been seriously injured by the impact.

Silly contrived story that has been floating around the internet for years.

Re:Advice

[JWSmythe]

    I can't argue with most of what you said, but....

    There are circumstances where it's necessary to drive (although slowly) without a seat belt.

    I have back and neck problems, due to car accidents (with seat belts). When my back and neck are acting up, I can't turn to check behind me when backing out of a parking space. I have to undo the belt, so I can turn my whole body. Some will say "but check your mirrors". Sure, but I don't want to be the guy who ran over someone because he only checked his mirrors and didn't *look* before backing up.

    The other exception is parking some large vehicles. Sometimes it's easier and safer to open the door and lean out to see where the back of the vehicle really is, rather than the impression given by looking in the mirror. I've moved cars in parking lots and driveways, because I was going to be working on other cars. No need for a seatbelt there.

    That amount of time is insignificant in the total drive time and/or mileage. I've probably driven in reverse a mile or two total. I've probably driven a mile or two total just moving cars in parking areas. I've driven forward with my seatbelt on a million miles.

    There really is no valid excuse for not wearing your seatbelt when driving.

    My dad did make excuses for not wearing seat belts. He had his hands on the wheel. His vehicle was bigger and safer. What if he needed to get out quickly? etc, etc, etc... The reality is, he would have been a statistic if he was involved in a serious accident. He was lucky. Well, for the most part. In WWII, he was in a jeep that hit a land mine. It exploded, the vehicle flipped, and pinned both him and his friend under it. His friend died. My dad spent a lot of time in the hospital because of it. Would he have been safer? Probably not, as an WWII jeep had no rollover protection. I don't believe seat belts were even available at the time.

Re:Advice

[geekoid]

So.. you argument is that parent who don't properly stow the strap means seatbelts aren't safe?

Or the second link where they specifically say it was not because of the seat belt.

When she reclined, feet on the dash, and her seat belt loose.

She was an idiot, and payed the price.

You know what? riding on top of the car isn't safe, but there is no sticker on the roof saying not to ride there.

Re:Advice

[Ameryll]

So you might die, but at least you didn't do what the law says?

Re:Advice

[LVSlushdat]

Ever since airbags came out I'd always wondered what a deployment felt like to the driver in a frontal crash.. I'd been in a frontal crash back in the 70s in a VW Rabbit. A truck ran out in front of me from a cross road with no time to avoid a crash. I managed to turn the car so I hit him at about a 45 degree angle while dynomiting the brakes. With the seatbelt, all I came out with was a left hand (holding the steering wheel that displaced about 6 inches on impact) with broken metacarpal bones. Without the seatbelt, I'd have had the steering column coming out of my chest. Fast forward to July 22 of last year. Wife and I were on vacation in Salt Lake City. I took a drive out in the morning by myself near the airport. I'd just merged onto I80 at about 40 mph and all the sudden the traffic came to a sudden/complete STOP.. I managed to dynomite the brakes, but it was too late. I got a first hand demonstration of airbag deployment. I came out of that with "airbag rash" on my arms that faded after about a week, a sore shoulder from the shoulder belt that ached for about a week, and a ticket by the UHP for following too close, plus a totalled 2008 Hyundai Accent. This was a multicar pileup, where the original driver who apparently stopped on the transition road to I80 (according to the other victims in the pileup) and left the scene of the pileup and left the 3 others behind him (me and 2 others) to fend for themselves. My curiousity has been satisfied about airbags...

Re:Advice

[evil_aaronm]

Anecdotal, but true: I smashed into the back end of a stationary vehicle - changed lanes on the highway and didn't see that he was stopped (on the freakin' highway??) until it was too late - and both the airbag and the seatbelt did their jobs. Without the airbag, I probably would've planted my face in the steering wheel, or worse. As it was, I coughed a couple of times - from the smoke from the airbag inflation explosion - and that was it. In fact, my sunglasses remained on my face, undisturbed, through the entire event.

I'm definitely a believer in airbags, in most cases. I'm sure there are some corner cases where they might be less useful.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

It's obvious your just attempting to be spiteful, and not actually listening to yourself with the preceding text accompanying it...

Re:Advice

[Raistlin77]

Compare the results of a crash with someone who has used those comforting seatbelts to the results where no seatbelt was used. I think you'll agree that they provide a lot of protection. Most people would say they aren't especially comfortable; people only use them because they don't want to get a ticket.

FTFY

Re:Advice

[evil_aaronm]

I'll bite: Because common sense isn't all that common.

Not that I agree with it - I don't need or want a big brother telling me what to do - but some people do.

Re:Advice

[s4ltyd0g]

I drive a pickup truck. I have no problem turning around to look behind me on the right hand side. When I turn around to look on the left hand side though, the shoulder strap obscures my view. I always wear my seatbelt except when I'm backing up, because I'm more concerned with hitting someone or something behind me than I am about being thrown from the vehicule. How fast do you drive in reverse anyways to not feel safe backing up unless you are wearing your seatbelt? Big difference between I-85 and your own driveway don't you think?

regards

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

Correction: zero MAJOR injuries.
And yes, if he survived a 108 MPH accident without a seat belt and the air bag saved him without major injuries it's nearly a guarantee he'd have the same outcome with a seat belt.

Re:Advice

[Lusa]

I may just be incredibly cynical but I believe this is so joe public is more likely to return the vehicle to the dealer for any and all work. Making it difficult or near impossible to switch out bulbs for example. On my car some people suggest removing the front bumper! The manual isn't too bad though. What bothers me more is the fact the cd/radio manual was thicker than the car one.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

your a passive individual who believes kids should not be slapped, aren't you?

Re:Advice

[TheCarp]

Did I say I "heard a story" or "read a story"?

No...it happened to someone I know.... lets be less coy about it.... it happened to... my sister. I have seen her have panic attacks trying to wear a seat belt (she is over it now, but it took a few years).

Believe it or not if you like but... I didn't get the story from the incident or third hand about someone's cousin.

Re:Advice

[bws111]

You are very, very wrong. First, if the insurance company says they're not going to pay, how are you going to collect the money? The only way to do that is for YOU to sue THEM. That makes YOU the plaintiff, not the defendant. And, as the plaintiff, it is up to YOU to show why they must pay you.

Independent of that, as others have pointed out, a civil case is not a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove it's case, and the defense doesn't really have to do anything. The hurdle the prosecution must overcome is 'reasonable doubt'. In a civil case, BOTH sides have equal responsibility, because the burden is 'preponderance of the evidence', meaning whoever has the most credible evidence wins. So when the insurance company shows up and says 'we have been involved with thousands of cases, and the black boxes almost always survive, and when they don't survive we can piece together what happened to it, and this case indicates that what happened to it was willful destruction', and you sit there saying nothing, you WILL lose.

Re:Advice

[KhabaLox]

Why should I pay for your reckless behavior?

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

It's not all in your head, you're right.
There isn't anything keeping you in your seat when there's no seat belt on. You're a projectile plummeting down the road at the speed indicated on the dash. It's only the fact that another projectile is in sync with your velocity underneath you (and imposing kinetic energy upon you) that makes it seem otherwise.

I agree fully with you... I feel the same as you, without a seat belt.

Re:Advice

[KhabaLox]

Straw Man.

(Though, I agree that birth control should be widely and cheaply available.)

Also, some people hold religious convictions about reproduction. I'm not aware of any major religion with a stance on seat belts.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

THANK you... what you said was exactly right.
Some things are not worth some conspiracy theory materials... that includes seat belts & airbags.
And they aren't there for government control either... I know someone's going to say that.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

Yes, the seatbelt is a great choice for this. It's a great seatbelt connector linkage.

Re:Advice

[bws111]

They have a reason - the missing black box. The black box is part of the airbag system. The airbags deployed. What made that happen - pure luck? So your case comes down to the black box somehow survived long enough to deploy the airbags, then magically was destroyed/disappeared from it's location under your seat, yet you still survived the accident (in good enough condition to destroy the black box). Good luck getting a jury to buy that one while you sit there providing no defense.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

I have to agree there. I wear my seatbelt nearly all of the time, but my Prius alarm would beep incessantly if I took it off at the drive-thru, or while reading mail, etc etc. (within the first day or two of owning it)
I had the dealership program it for me as a buy option. Told them it'd be returned that same day if they didn't do it.. .they were good enough to disable it. That, and the reverse beep that was only inside the car.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

Your age and flexibility has nothing to do with your body not being able turn around because of an obstruction.

It's also not the only thing.. even if you can't think of it, I named off a couple of reasons off-the-cuff in another post.

Re:Advice

[stanlyb]

I will loose what? That the black box is missing? So, if i was hit by someone for example, while driving with 120mph (over speed limit), then we are both guilty, no matter that the other guy hit me. But if there is no other way to prove that speed, except having the black box, then HOW they are actually going to prove my over-speeding!!!! Simply because the black box is missing, does not give you the right to "imagine" that the actual speed was what, 120mph? 200mph?350mph?

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

Maybe the situation doesn't warrant it. You realize the objective is to get the job done as easily as possible, and the belt is not to protect you from accidents backing out of your garage, right?

Re:Advice

[silverglade00]

What I ended up doing is getting a $1 clip made for such problems. Seatbelt no longer goes across my neck. But I think you missed my point. The minor law made to keep me safe was really putting me in greater danger. I am padded enough I could probably survive a moderate collision without the seatbelt. I'm not so sure I would survive the same collision with a strap cutting across my throat.

Re:Advice

[silverglade00]

It is also not unreasonable that I would not be decapitated, but rather trapped in my seat with a stupid cloth strap cutting off my air. This is really what I am worried about, not decapitation. I found a clip for $1 that fixes the problem, but still...

Re:Advice

[DriedClexler]

If you are driving long enough for the car to complain that you are not wearing your seat belt, then you are not making an intelligent decision.

*What?* My car gives a loud, annoying seat belt warning the *moment* the engine is turned on. Now, I don't object to wearing a seat belt (I wear it every time), and I don't even object to being reminded to wear one, but come on: you can't tell me I'm an unintelligent seat-belt opponent just because I don't have the seat belt on before turning the ignition!

Usually, it's fastest, to turn the ignition, put the seatbelt on, and then put it into drive/reverse to start moving. Yet the annoying-ass beep goes off if your engine has been on for more than *zero* seconds without the seat belt plugged in. Give me a f'in break! Is it too much to ask that the warning not come on until I shift out of park?

(You might have a point if you were talking about some other, secondary alarm that activates later.)

Re:Advice

[stanlyb]

Even citing the "solar eclipse" is more meaningful reason for not being paid than some black box. The black box itself is not the reason, but the information inside. If they don't know what actually happened, they have to prove with some other means what actually happened. And then and only then they could point out the missing black box as an additional reason, but as a primary reason.

Re:Advice

[Rie Beam]

I just have to point out that seatbelts are designed for crash scenarios, not landmines. Yes, theoretically you could end up in a situation where the seatbelt keeps you pinned in a vehicle following a major accident; but the alternative would have been being tossed and ejected from the force of the vehicle during the original accident, so I consider it a minor risk at best.

Seatbelts will not protect you from devices deliberately designed to destroy the vehicle you're in, but that goes without saying.

Re:Advice

[mr1911]

Still an irrational fear. You are going to have to be in a very odd, very specific position for the scenario you fear to come about. There are many other more likely scenarios where the seat belt will benefit you.

There is no good argument for not wearing your seatbelt as far as safety goes. If you don't want to wear your seatbelt, man up and say you don't want to wear it. At least that is an honest reason. Throwing out nonsense arguments on how the seatbelt may hurt you makes you look foolish.

Re:Advice

[muckdog]

Can you sight the law that says this is illegal? I've never heard of a federal law and my state doesn't require seatbelt use for adults.

Re:Advice

[pnewhook]

Your comments about lowest common denominator doctors show you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

Re:Advice

[mr1911]

I have heard many "so-and-so was saved because they weren't wearing a seatbelt" stories. Very few of them come with a citation. And for every true story with a verifiable citation you come up with I'll match you 100 of where people died without wearing a seatbelt and 100 where people lived because they were wearing a seatbelt.

I have never operated a car without first fastening my seat belt, and I have never driven under the influence.

I couldn't agree more.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

The reason is because he obviously doesn't care about his safety, instead using circular logic to attempt validation.

Re:Advice

[SniperJoe]

While you are certainly right that airbags are designed to work with a seatbelt, the author's suggestion that current DOT approved seatbelts (aka the lap and shoulder belt combination) are wholly insufficient is 100% correct. They are indeed too narrow for the kind of energies that are involved in high speed crashes. 3" harnesses are FAR more effective at securing a person in a car when used effectively.

However, the caveat at that point is that to effectively utilize a harness in an automobile, you need proper mounting points, which are not provided in many cars as well as rollover protection such as a roll bar/cage. If your car rolls, the harness will not allow your body to slide out of the way, thus saving you from breaking your neck and or other injuries. Of course, if you have a roll bar/cage, you have to wear a helmet while driving to protect your noggin from hitting it.

Personally, I'd be perfectly fine if all cars had roll cages and harnesses and wearing a helmet / HANS device every time I drove, but something tells me that I'm in the minority there.

Re:Advice

[pnewhook]

I live in Canada - I don't pay for anything except maybe parking.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

... a seat belted person would have been able to push their body down...
I've done it, just to get something from the passenger side floor... it's forward it restricts you from.

I'm sorry, these stories really grind my gears. Validating not wearing a seatbelt by saying he's safer laying free-form under the dash while a car is careening through vegetation... drunk or not... damn...

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

My friend was in the passenger seat of a guy who had a few, and didn't have a belt on. his head smacked the dash during a 50 mph accident, killed him instantly. (a friend in high-school)
My cousin was in a plymouth neon passenger seat with a seat belt on, had an accident at 80 mph, he complains about air bags and how they burn your face and should be banned. After an 80 MPH accident, being able to walk away while only complaining about abrasion burns on your face from an airbag is a virtual god-send.

Let's be realistic. It is our business as well, since we cover the bill if you get torn up.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

Weeeeelllllll... speaking from experience, they serve you... but also charge you extensively, and if you don't pay it your credit is shot to hell in a handbasket for 7-10 years....

Re:Advice

[KingSkippus]

Anyway, I'm not disabling the censor either, and I just put up with the few beeps until I buckle up. I was not making up the circustance, I was just showing that the (parent to my post) view was limited in this following sentence:

"If you are driving long enough for the car to complain that you are not wearing your seat belt, then you are not making an intelligent decision."

Then my apologies, I thought you were saying that you had disabled your sensor due to always having to drive without your seat belt.

I'll admit that there are bizarre, contrived circumstances under which I've been beeped at for not wearing my seat belt. Still, I like the fact that it nags people to put it on. Those circumstances are so short and few and far between that the positive of having a nagging dinger (people putting on a seat belt to shut it up) easily outweighs the negative (having to tolerate it once in a blue moon).

Re:Advice

[Firehed]

Doing it once in a controlled environment to prove a point is very different than reckless trolling. The comment also suggested the kids are bracing themselves so the chance of a neck ending up wrapped around the head restraint of the seat in front is minimal. Granted I'd probably only do it at 15-20mph (it doesn't take much), but even still, you have to do something to make your point.

Re:Advice

[arkane1234]

ummmm ok... do you have full coverage on that ranger?
If not, this doesn't apply to you.

Re:Advice

[starfishsystems]

There are a lot of BS laws passed that are dumb attempts and nannying you. This isn't one of them.

Agreed. It's troubling to see the development of so much cognitive dissonance in American culture. Resist seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws, but accept body scans and patdowns at the airport. Oppose universal health care but legislate equal time for creationism in schools. Resist gun laws but build gated comunities and treat high schools like jails. Be suspicious of government but cover elections as if they were popularity contests.

I know, I know. Every culture has its weirdnesses, without exception. You only have to live in one or two other countries to appreciate this. But you also find yourself appreciating what other countries do right. Broadly speaking, I think that what other developed nations have over the US is an abiding sense of community. For example, with a few notable exceptions (soccer louts and neo-nazis come to mind) Europeans tend to favor whatever makes sense in terms of the common good. Having been through two world wars, they have a firsthand experience of facism and react instinctively against it.

Meanwhile, it's perhaps understandable that the emerging pattern of facism in the United States goes almost unnoticed. I didn't intend my comments here to become a political rant, but I guess they have. Sorry about that. All I really meant to do was to encourage Americans to get out more and maybe gain some perspective from within another culture. It's not good to live in insularity.

Re:Advice

[davewoods]

My wife never wore her seatbelt because she believes that the protection afforded only actually helps %50 of the time.

I kept trying to tell her that I would prefer her to wear her seatbelt because I have the ability to assess a situation more quickly than the typical driver, and thus I am able to stop or dodge before a collision occurs. The exact situation that I explained has happened a couple of times, resulting in her hitting her knees/head/elbows on the dash/visor, then glaring at me afterward because I caused her to be injured, all the while ignoring the fact that I clearly prevented a collision. For all those wondering, yes, this is what marriage is like.

Anyway, after about the third time of her being injured from not wearing her seatbelt, she has started buckling up every time we get in the car. I am just glad we never got in a wreck, surely she would have taken more damage than I.

Re:Advice

[Nethead]

It has a canopy, is that full enough?

Re:Advice

[tragedy]

The "apparently" worries me a little there. Did this friend of yours also once need to be rushed to the hospital for food poisoning after eating at KFC where they pumped his stomach, analyzed the contents, and discovered he'd eaten rat meat?

Re:Advice

[bored]

And yes, if he survived a 108 MPH accident without a seat belt and the air bag saved him without major injuries it's nearly a guarantee he'd have the same outcome with a seat belt.

I'm not so sure. _IF_ you hit the airbag just right its probably better than having a seatbelt on. That is because the deceleration of automobile crumple zones, and the airbag pressure is probably less than the seatbelt impact and the crumple zones. Seatbelts save lives because they keep you in the automobile, and they keep you from being impaled by something in the automobile (think gearshift). With seatbelts, your deceleration rate is mostly dependent on the crumble zones. With the airbag, your getting a foot or so extra deceleration space added to the crumple zones.

All that said, In his case it sounds like he was _REALLY_ lucky as the car flipped. Those are the kinds of situations where you really want to have the seatbelt.

Re:Advice

[praxis]

I see your point, but the minor law does say to wear the manufacturer's seatbelt, only a seatbelt. I agree that you should do what's safer for you, but finding a seatbelt solution that works is safest, and satisfies the law to boot. Not wearing a seatbelt is less safe and breaking the law to boot.

Re:Advice

[gknoy]

A good first step is to drive responsibly, not over the speed limit into the realm where you'd be embarassed to expose your speed. I have no fear of my insurance company finding my speed data, because I don't speed (much). The only reason to fear the contents of a black box enough to destroy it is if you've already been driving like an idiot -- don't do that, and you'll feel no need to destroy the box.

Re:Advice

[PIBM]

Ignorant asshole for being overly cautious of other people / kids / animals when backing out of my garage ? What's wrong with you ?

Re:Advice

[EdIII]

I guess I must be really weird, no real surprise, but I use seat belts *because* they make me feel comfortable. I don't like the feeling without it.

It might be because I had a fairly good understanding of physics before I even started driving. Either that, or the fact that I got put in the back of huge ass track as a teenager when the cab was full.

At this point a nice comfortable bucket seat with a seat belt is luxurious when you have grown up holding on to the sides of a truck for dear life with a crazy fucker behind the wheel aiming for pot holes :) It was not that bad of course.... I had the dog with me for company.

In any case most people I found uncomfortable with a seat belt just did not figure out how to adjust the damn thing.

Re:Advice

[JWSmythe]

    When I read it, they attributed his survival to the way he went off the road. When he fell asleep, his foot pressed on the gas, and he fairly gracefully went off the road.

    The article cites the report with numbers including "108", "100", "92" and "75". Those numbers don't show up in the report.

    I doubt that we'll get the actual accident reconstruction report. That would be an interesting read, and probably more accurate than the included report.

    You should read page 1 of the report, under "Data Limitations". The black box does not record speed, throttle position, brake on-off, and other data... It records data used to help determine if the airbags should deploy. The powertrain control module does, but it can be inaccurate.

    If (as demonstrated by the remains of the car) it did roll over, the powertrain control module will retain information about speed. That can be influenced by outside conditions. For example, if the wheels were not in firm contact with the ground. I strongly suspect when the vehicle was sliding off the road on ice and snow, and inverted, the wheels were most likely not in firm contact with the ground.

    Try it for yourself. Spin the tires, and see if your speedometer indicates movement. I used to love doing power braking in rental cars. I'd show speeds in excess of 50mph, without moving an inch. I've done that in both Crown Victoria's, and Lincoln Town Cars, of the approximate age of that vehicle, which both use the same systems.

    I don't recommend rolling over a rental car to fully demonstrate what happened. They get a bit pissy about things like that.

    They cite the report, regarding the velocity. I don't find the speed indicated in the report, nor even the "108", "100" or "92" number anywhere in it. They do show a -22.67 mph change at around the time the airbag deployed. The graph shows that there was little violent shaking (probably on or just off the road) to rolling over.

    The article states he was driving at 75mph. "as he slid off the roadway" his speed reached 108. That would be consistent with tire spin. He would also be losing speed at that point. "upon impact with the ledge" he was 92mph. Too bad they don't illustrate the rollover. I'm guessing it wasn't a direct hit on the front which flipped the car. The report does indicate damage to the right front and side, which at sufficient speed would flip the car.

    So, he went bouncing off the road, hit a rock, possibly at 75mph, but not definitely since he encountered tire spin or otherwise inaccurate speed measurements as he slid off the road. When he did hit the rock there was a 22.67mph deceleration as it rolled.and the airbags deployed.

    If you've ever driven off a road at any substantial speed, you'll already know that it's a very bouncy experience. Unless you are intentionally keeping your feet on the gas or brakes, you will lose contact with them. If you're not wearing a seatbelt, even more so, as you'll likely bounce around in the car. Your speed does drop drastically, as being off-road terrain is not as conducive to a smooth roll as a paved highway. You'll slow down pretty quickly.

    I have been run off the road a few times, by oblivious other drivers. I do wear my seatbelt, so at least I have the luxury of keeping a position mostly in the right place.

    The biggest factor was, he was lucky.

    Only a fool depends on luck for his survival.

    And only an idiot believes a news report, without looking at the supporting documentation.

Re:Advice

[stanlyb]

I was hit by some idiots two times, while waiting at the red light, 0% my fault, and do you know what? Now my car is "repaired", but if i am to sell now, these "not my fault" accidents would cost me at lest 2-3k. Is my car insured? Yes. Is the insurance company going to compensate me? NO. So, whose fault is that i am paying my insurance, i drive responsibly, i did not cause the accident, but.....at the end i am the sucker!!!!
Oh, and btw, this kind of reasoning like "if you are good guy, you should not be afraid of being rapped by TSA" was tried many times, and found stupid (i am restraining myself of using some more appropriate words).

Re:Advice

[JWSmythe]

    So you married my ex? You poor, poor man... You have my sympathies...

    My only advice to you is, sleep with one eye open... She you see her standing at the foot of the bed with a large kitchen knife .... RUN! It's much easier to defend if the attacker is way behind you. Trust me. The wound healed into a very lovely scar. I usually tell people it's from protecting school children from a marauding gang of outlaw bikers.. The lie gets better the more I drink.

Re:Advice

[JWSmythe]

    Somehow I've avoided airbag deployments.

    Several years ago, a Ford Ranger decided that stop signs were optional, and drove straight out in front of me, and then stopped. I hit him at about 45mph just about as his drivers side rear tire, and spun him across the road. Ahhh, kinetic energy. I found out the hard way, the airbags in that car didn't work. The lap and shoulder belts did a wonderful job though. We came out unscathed, but a few thousand dollars of damage to my car. That car went off to the boneyard later on...

   

Re:Advice

[drfreak]

R.I.P., Friend's Kid.

Re:Advice

[JWSmythe]

From 30mph, you don't have to come to a full stop, just hit the brakes hard for a fraction of a second. You'll lose 10 to 15 mph, but it'll be enough to dump the kids on the floor, and sling whatever is in the trunk against the back of the seats. :)

    I've done it more often with idiots on the road. That's not to scare them in my back seat, it's to avoid hitting them, because they do stupid things in front of me. I guess it's no longer required for people to use turn signals, have functional brake lights, or use common sense. I've always though it wasn't very nice to pull out in front of someone on a 55mph road, and do 15mph.

    I've rather enjoyed working from home. I only see those people on the occasional trip to the store for provisions. I used to see 3 or 4 accidents daily, and it was only 15 miles. I can't imagine they were the same idiots over and over.

Re:Advice

[loneDreamer]

Well, I agree with you, and of course I always use my seat belt and enforce that others do if I'm driving. The tradeoff is spectacularly good I believe.

But on the other hand, I cannot cease to wonder where is the thin line that divides the choices that you have on your own life versus what others decide for you, knowing that EVERYTHING is interconnected. Also, when do we stop worrying about security and simply live life as it comes? The problem is that this line is probably not the same for everyone.

There is no such thing as free safety, and people should have figured that by know, but instead it's always "safety first" or "safety no matter the cost" and that if a cost is even mentioned. Helmets for example are mandatory for bikes in many places, but I find them detrimental to my biking experience to a point that I prefer to risk injury, else I would just stop biking at all. Some people actually believe on helmets all the time, even for pedestrians. Safer? Sure, so is staying at home all your life. Worth it? Not for me.

Re:Advice

[DriedClexler]

This is one of those days when I wish I had mod points, and could dump every last one of them into uploading a single comment.

Re:Advice

[bubblejet]

You can buy cushions that go between you and the seatbelt in order to position it properly and keep it from sliding up your neck. I sometimes see them at yard sales that have pregnancy/baby items, because an improperly positioned seatbelt could kill a fetus in a crash.

Re:Advice

[Smurf]

Here the maximum reward is $25k. Anyway, even if it is only $!, the main point is actually to win the claim, not the win some big amount. After that, the fact is that you are innocent, and they are guilty....

Except that... your are guilty (of insurance fraud), remember?

So, the first thing you should do after a car accident is to find and destroy its black box, so your insurance company would have no way to avoid paying the, what, insurance?

You also seem to think that taking them to small claims court will somehow prevent them from taking you to court for insurance fraud. I don't know where you got such a weird idea.

Re:Advice

[dave420]

Abject fucking bullshit. Seatbelts are far safer than no seatbelts. Yes, in a very unfortunate incident they could cause damage, but in your examples the kids might have probably already been dead if they weren't wearing their seatbelts. Your logic is ridiculously short-sighted. As someone dying in a car crash affects more than just those in the car, it's not up to them whether they should travel safely or not. After all, it's not the person in the car who has to scrape up their own remains after a crash, or treat themselves in a hospital afterwards. You seem to be ignorant of the fact we all live in a society where one person's well-being directly affects others around them. This isn't the wild west - no one has the right to negatively affect those around them, even if you think it's awesome and cool.

Re:Advice

[rtb61]

It with certainty did indicate one thing, the Massachusetts Lt. Governor gave false testimony to the police regarding a traffice accident, now, normally that is a crime so why is he not being charged with it. One rule for them another rule for us.

Re:Advice

[hairyfeet]

Got the V6 have you? You go to any of the Ford sites and you'll hear tons of stories of guys with insane mileage on the V6. that is one of the reasons i got mine, I'm barely up to 122,000 on mine but with that Vulcan i should be able to get 300,000 easy before needing a rebuild and after rebuild get ANOTHER 300,000 on it! I just need to get me a bit of sandpaper and a paint pen as these roads throw up pebbles like crazy and i have a couple of ping dents that are starting to get a little rust but other than that she is still as good as the day she rolled off the line. Real bitch to find in a parking lot though, I swear company white was the color a good 95% of the Rangers came in so I have to be careful to remember which lane I'm in or I'm screwed LOL!

But its a damned shame the idiots at Ford killed the Ranger because its a hell of a great little work truck. if they would have bothered to update it occasionally like they did the Explorer they'd probably still be selling but that works for me as there is nearly 7 years worth of Rangers i can interchange parts with. But those idiots at Ford and Chevy obviously never went down to the deep south because in any parking lot its Rangers and S10s as far as the eye can see. and just about every place that had to send workers, from the cableco to Napa to Orkin ALL used the Ranger. Kinda funny that Ford is gonna have to wait to get the last Ranger to put in their little museum as Orkin bought it the second it rolled off the line.

But I'll be keeping my Ranger until either it dies or I do and I'm hoping that will be quite a long time.

Re:Advice

[billcopc]

If I'm in an accident so violent that a seatbelt alone can't keep me safe, the last thing I want is an explosively inflated balloon shooting toward my face, pushing my head and torso back into the seat at equally violent speeds. I would much rather have a stronger belt system that does a better job of keeping me in the seat in the first place.

I personally know two guys who were severely injured by airbags. One was a driver, he was hospitalized for weeks, because the airbag smacked him so hard it broke his left arm and dislocated his jaw. His passenger, who did not have an airbag, walked away with just cuts and bruises on from his head smashing the window. Seatbelt 1, Airbag -10.

The other guy was a passenger, in a newer car with passenger-side airbags. He suffered several fractured vertebrae and is paralyzed from the waist down. The real clincher is the car wasn't even in motion at the time: a drunk driver lost control on an icy road and swerved into the intersection. The drunk driver broke his leg, friendly driver had nothing but soiled underwear. Seatbelt 3, Airbag -9000.

So please, before repeating the crap you heard on TV, get yourself some first-hand facts. I used to think airbags were a good idea, back in the 80's and 90's when they were starting to catch on. My own car at the time didn't have any airbags, and I survived a terrifying roll completely unharmed, just with a seatbelt and hanging on to the wheel for dear life. The car looked like it had been in a compactor, and we found some debris flung 50 feet away. Didn't have an airbag, and didn't need one. Then my buddy got badly injured by an airbag, but I figured it was a freak accident, perhaps caused by excessive speed or odd positioning. It's not until I met the guy in the wheelchair that I started looking into studies about airbag injuries and fatalities, and the data isn't pretty. Airbags have been steadily improving over time, with many efforts focused on dynamically adjusting inflation speed/pressure, but there is still a LONG way to go before I'll be ready to trust an airbag. There are enough threats on the road, I don't want to be worrying about the devices inside my own freakin' car.

Re:Advice

[billcopc]

When in doubt, thermite!

Re:Advice

[billcopc]

If the alarm only sounds when the car is in motion, then fine, but that's not often the case.

My car's seatbelt alarm was even dumber than this: it would beep with the key on "accessory". If I was parked, and wanted to play the radio or turn on a reading light, it expected me to buckle up or suffer constant beeping after a 15 second warning timer. You know what ? FUCK THAT! I disabled the dumb thing. I'm responsible enough to put on a seatbelt when I'm driving/riding, I don't need a dumb resistor-capacitor circuit to remind me.

Re:Advice

[JWSmythe]

    1) Money
    2) Power
    3) Influence
    4) PROFIT

    When you're a politician, you don't need the "???" step. I'm in the wrong business.

    JWSmythe for President 2012! I stand on the intellectual freedoms and otherwise Slashdot friendly platform!

Re:Advice

[JWSmythe]

    Well.. not really...

    I raced the amateur class, but I was with racers all the way up to NASCAR level cars on shorter tracks. They'd easily see 80 to 100 mph, and occasionally they'd have a serious smashup, such as direct into the wall. While any driver on the track *must* have a helmet, they don't require neck braces and HANS devices (a tether from the helmet to the seat, for those that don't know). That helps when they have their 200+mph wrecks, which most people won't ever experience in a street vehicle. Some of the drivers wore the neck braces, but since they were racing in the Southeast US, they preferred the little bit of comfort they could get, over heat exhaustion and falling out during the race. Causing a pileup on the track can be a bit embarrassing.

    Any seat with a decent headrest is made to prevent whiplash.

    The preferred child safety seat has the 5 point restraints. It's people wanting their creature comforts, and that extra few bucks to install that they aren't in regular production vehicles. You know, creature comforts like being able to reach their radio, A/C controls, grab your marijuana from the glove compartment, and grope your girlfriend in the passenger seat while you drive. You know, normal stuff.

    Most harnesses can be bolted to the floor, but they should be bolted to something strong. Many cars have decent mount points for this. There's no big sign that says "mount your seatbelt here", except for the standard belt mount points. If your car doesn't have them, or you aren't sure, a good performance shop with a good welder will be able to help you out.

Re:Advice

[Nethead]

Yeah, it's my second one. My first was an '89 4cyc that got sandwiched. I though it might be ok but then I noticed I had to close the ashtray to put it in first. Ouch. Then the cop when asking if I was hurt pointed out the cracked glass rear window. The one I have now is a red (inside and out) extended cab. I love the extra room inside. The only thing I've had to do is new tires and keep clean oil in it. I'm a short fuck, 5'4", Rangers fit me like a glove.

I looked up the specs on the latest Ranger and found that the 4cyl gets about the same MPG as my old 6cyl, WTF? (about 22ish MPG on the highway) The 2.3cc is just the old Pinto engine with extra spark plugs. Maybe the future is the Connect. I'll have to see how they are in 5-10 years. I'd love to be able to afford one though. But until my Ranger dies, I can't even think of getting another truck. And I suspect that it might just outlive me. I'm only putting a few hundred miles a month on it, it's mostly retired to hauling firewood and those few jobs where I need my 20' ladder.

Re:Advice

[adolf]

This. It's easy for someone with their wits about them to add a 5-point harness to a random car that is stronger than the rest of the vehicle surrounding it, especially if you don't care too much about added weight (as is the case in a normal street-driven car).

It's impractical, though. If there were a 5-point with self-retracting shoulder straps, along with sprung/pyrotechnic/whatever pretensioners, it might be a good balance between what we've got now and the inconvenience of race restraints.

On another note, please kindly ignore the folks who take offense to the brake-check trick. It works, and whatever temporary damage you cause to the kids is far less than the damage that will occur to them when something unexpected happens.

I've done it to my own kids, and never had to do it again: They simply wear their seatbelts, now. No questions. I'll do it to other people's kids, too, if they ever find themselves arguing with me about seat belt usage in the back seat of my car.

Hell, I've done it with an adult friend in my BMW. He was asking why I drove such a "fancy" car, and I opined that it was because everyone else was stupid. He asked what I meant, and I re-checked the mirrors and demonstrated the brakes. Left a nice bruise on his shoulder from the belt, and his left arm knocked the GPS off of the side of the dashboard rather unintentionally. He said "wow," and my wife (in the back seat) said "I knew that was coming."

One should never be afraid to stop.

Re:Advice

[Phoghat]

While I don't like calling people names in forums, you are an ignorant idiot that could get someone killed if they follow your advice and get in a wreck.

Count - Counterpoint

or as thick fingered vulgarian Chevy Chase might have said

"Jane, you ignorant slut"

Re:Advice

[Anonymous Coward]

All I hear is "anecdote, anecdote, anecdote".

Re:Advice

[quenda]

Just remove the airbags and install real seat belts.

CAUTION: This only refers to the United States (presumably the poster's home). In the civilised world, air bags are designed to supplement seat belts, not replace them, and are much safer than US airbags (unless you are not wearing a seatbelt.)

Re:Advice

[shiftless]

Then my apologies, I thought you were saying that you had disabled your sensor due to always having to drive without your seat belt.

Whew.

I'll admit that there are bizarre, contrived circumstances under which I've been beeped at for not wearing my seat belt. Still, I like the fact that it nags people to put it on. Those circumstances are so short and few and far between that the positive of having a nagging dinger (people putting on a seat belt to shut it up) easily outweighs the negative (having to tolerate it once in a blue moon).

Or you could, you know, grow a pair of balls and just order your passenger to buckle their seat belts. Then you wouldn't even need a nanny to beep and annoy you into doing it. Imagine that, a personal sense of responsibility, rather than the government and car industries nannies constantly nagging you to do "the right thing", and police officers constantly watching over your shoulder to ensure you're doing what they say.

Re:Advice

[shiftless]

As for allowing people to decide for themselves, I'm all for it... as long as we-the-people don't have to pay for your hospital visit because you didn't wear the seatbelt.

Great! I'll just write your statement down on a note, and you can sign it, then I'll show it to the police officer next time when he pulls me over, with the potential threat of arrest and being sent to jail at gunpoint hanging over my head because of my personal choices. I'm sure he'll then feel justified in just letting me go about my business, rather than looking for bullshit 3-4 other items to ticket (legally stealing money right out of my pocket) while he's there.

Hint: waxing poetic about the safeties and virtues of seat belts is helping the present situation just about as much as waxing poetic about the evil of cigarettes does for solving our smoking "problem." We fucking know it's dangerous not to wear a seat belt; our argument is this is completely irrelevant because it's none of the police's, or anyone else's, goddamn business whether I wear my belt or not. So fucking tired of this police state always jumping in my business.

Re:Advice

[shiftless]

Problem is if they extend "take risks for themselves" to "take risks with their dependents," i.e. not buckling their kids in because of a fear stemming from a personal but statistically improbable experience.

No, that's none of the state's goddamn business. When you start dreaming up these special cases where it's OK for the state to be in somebody's business, they will stick their foot in the door and take more, more, more, every time.

I don't give a fuck if a person kills themselves and their entire family because they were too stupid to buckle themselves and their dependents up. That's one less carload full of stupidity to pollute the roadways, and our gene pool. Let everyone decide for himself how best to take of himself and his family.

Why is the concept of personal liberty so scary and appalling to some people?

Re:Advice

[shiftless]

Let's be realistic. It is our business as well, since we cover the bill if you get torn up.

No, that's fucking bullshit. There's no reason in a sane country you should be required to foot my bill for a goddamn thing. That's what insurance companies are supposedly for. And using this lame, jacked up excuse of a medical system as a good excuse to pass restrictive nanny state laws that tell ME what you claim I can and can't do in MY OWN FUCKING CAR, is just plain disgusting. Almost as disgusting as seeing ignorant citizens continue to parrot the same nonsense, while their masters in Washingston smile at the blessing of having so many useful idiots of the side of tyranny and oppression.

Re:Advice

[shiftless]

Your tax dollars are being wasted on way or another. I would rather my tax dollars support saving the life of a moron who didn't wear a seatbelt than my tax dollars being wasted to enforce a law that infringes on people's freedom to take a stupid risk.

Yes. And even as bad as the theoretical improvement outlined above would be (requiring one person to subsidize another's health care), it's nowhere near as bad as the status quo, which is this: those who "infringe" on these laws (whether they actually harmed anyone or not, or cost you a single dime) are targeted for "enforcement", thus having dollars siphoned out of their pockets by the millions daily by corrupt judges to support corrupt police departments, who then turn around and spend that cash to stockpile assault rifles, body armor, and other tools of oppression, while hiring juiced up control freak ex-soldiers, fresh from the hell of Iraq, ready to inflict suffering and exert control on people's lives.

All of which come in handy when storming in someone's house at 3AM on a no-knock raid, shooting the dog (a very aggressive Pomeranian) and humiliating the wife, then systematically destroying their lives by outright seizing their house, car, and all other valuable possessions, just for being accused (not convicted--accused or even acquitted) of a drug-related "crime", such as allegedly planting seeds and sprouting a common plant that has lived in harmony with mankind since the dawn of civilization. This is assuming they don't somehow "find" a bag of weed in your house and some scales while you were pinned down on the floor struggling to breathe, thus sealing the case against you. Hope you got a few tens of thousands for lawyer fees stashed away in buried mayonnaise jars or in an offshore bank account, if you expect to ever see your kids again.

I hope nobody reading this thinks I'm exaggerating. All of the above has happened, tons of times, and only continues to escalate. I could put in a lot more links, to various stories I remember seeing on the news, but I would rather spend my time stocking up on supplies for the upcoming potential World War than educating some slashdot readers who are presumably still clueless (in this day and age?) about the goings-on of our police state. As much as I despise them, seatbelt laws are actually the least of our nation's concerns right now.

Re:Advice

[schwinn8]

I don't believe to be an unreasonable conflation. Yes, you're correct that taxpayers cover all uninsured insurance payments, but car accidents constitute a larger percentage of events versus your example of suicides. Also, car accidents are not always the fault of the driver (hence the term "accident")... so they are not only in the victim's control... hence we need to be defensive about it. It's like wearing helmets and pads in a football game... players don't only hurt themselves, but carry a higher threat of being hurt by others... hence the pads and such. If they stopped wearing such equipment, would you be quick to say the taxpayers should cover their injuries too?

On your second point, yes, I agree that suicides shouldn't be covered by taxpayers either. The problem is, you can't know it was a suicide until AFTER the emergency has passed... so you simply can't segregate the incoming patients to the ER. But since they aren't as frequent/common as car accidents, I think it's something a civilized society should just accept and deal with. Hell, that's all the more reason to support suicide prevention and such, but that's a totally different point.

As for the healthcare topic, I agree with you there - I, too, would support this system as you would. But I still think there are limits to what's considered acceptable. In your example of the mortgage payment, would you be ok with paying the mortgage, and then having the resident damage the place to the point of worthlessness? Does that seem fair to you? Unless you want to pay the mortgage with no expectation of any return value of any kind... in which case you're just talking about "social charity" essentially... which is admirable, but not really relevant to the topics here.

Re:Advice

[schwinn8]

It's all a game of probability. If wearing a seatbelts saves you 95% of the time, and hurts you 5%... would you still rather take the 5% side of the equation, rather than the 95% side? It would be like saying that you don't want to wear a condom, since it's not effective 1% of the time. Or that you'd rather play "Russian Roulette" with 5 out of 6 bullets, because with 1 out of 6 bullets still means you may die 1/6 of the time. It's a ridiculous statement to make, statistically speaking... particularly for the small inconvenience seatbelts cause, in general.

Re:Advice

[schwinn8]

Try reading the statement I made. The point is, it IS my problem because when you get hurt, if you don't have insurance, we have to pay for it. I am fine with your decisions, if they don't affect me... your smoking and non-seatbelt wearing DOES affect me because I can't trust that you will pay your healtcare bills. So, if you want to sign that you will NEVER leave a healthcare bill unpaid, then I'm fine with you doing whatever you want - smoking, not wearing a seatbelt, etc. Of course, that doesn't help your police-case at all... this is a systemic issue that needs to choose a direction: Care for the people and keep them from doing stupid things, or let them suffer for their mistakes. I prefer the latter... but how do you "make" someone pay if they can't? And who pays for the pursuit of payment, when most of this can be "written off" by bankruptcy and such? You can't have it both ways... though the government continues to try.

Bottom line, hold everyone accountable for their own actions, and don't support anyone... OR if we must support them and protect our citizens, then we must prevent them from being idiots.

Re:Advice

[AmiMoJo]

Thing is if you really had bothered to do some research you would have discovered that despite some problems the overall effect of having air bags is massively positive. The most dangerous thing in a crash is head trauma from your face hitting the wheel or being slammed into the window/door by lateral acceleration. Airbags also help to prevent debris from slicing you up.

So on the whole you are better off with them. Just like seatbelts they can go very badly wrong. Lap belts in particular are really nasty and can cause severe and paralysing injury. A seatbelt that is too stiff can dislocate joints and cause other serious injury. Still, overall they do a lot of good which is why we have them.

Re:Advice

[M1FCJ]

Because history has shown again and again that humans are very bad at judging risk.

Re:Advice

[peawormsworth]

Apparently a friend of mine was going quite fast, lost control somehow, hit a tree, flew out of his car (because he wasn't wearing his seat belt), and his car wrapped itself around another tree. He was dazed for quite a while, but survived with no major injuries. So in this case if he was wearing a seatbelt he would be dead, inside his car that was wrapped around a tree. But on average it's safer to wear a seatbelt...

Accidents by definition are not planned decision. Wearing a seatbelt or not is a conscious decision. Choosing not to wear a seatbelt was still a bad decision even though it may have saved a life in this one instance. I mean if he were to repeat the accident 100 times, without a seatbelt he probably dies in the other 99 outcomes. Because being thrown outside of a vehicle during an accident has an excessively high death rate. His experience is only significant to others in a greater statistical view which clearly shows... seatbelts are the conscious choice of intelligent people. Regardless of the outcome, ur friend made a poor decision to not wear a seatbelt. And if this story is being repeated as a possible excuse not to wear a seatbelt, then it is irresponsible. I know someone who was thrown out of a car during an accident and landed in a snow bank and survived. I dont know this, but suspect that the injuries would have been less if he was belted and remained inside the whole time... as the other occupants did. But to tell this story as if suggesting that sometimes it saves lives to not wear ur seatbelt is irresponsible. Because it gives stupid people an excuse to continue stupid behaviour.

Re:Advice

[TheLink]

But to tell this story as if suggesting that sometimes it saves lives to not wear ur seatbelt is irresponsible. Because it gives stupid people an excuse to continue stupid behaviour.

In my last line I said: "But on average it's safer to wear a seatbelt..."

So it should be clear that I'm telling my story just to give stupid people an excuse to post stupid replies.

Re:Advice

[KingSkippus]

You must be confused. I most certainly do order my passengers to wear their seat belts.

As for "personal responsibility," see my post above. The dingers are for people who are too stupid or too stubborn to accept personal responsibility. If everyone had a keen sense of personal responsibility, we wouldn't need a lot of laws, duh.

Re:Advice

[sjames]

I take my seatbelt off when I back up my driveway so I can turn around a bit more and see where I'm going properly. Since I might get up to 2 MPH in the process, I would say the danger of NOT doing that far exceeds the danger of taking my seatbelt off.

You may feel free to conclude that I am also lying, that it can only mean that in fact, I'm going 300MPH on a dirt road while drinking 5 gallons of rum and playing Death Race 2000 with pedestrians if you want, but it's more a reflection on you than on me.

Re:Advice

[sjames]

I was once thrown out of a car in an accident because I wasn't belted in. Given that the roof of the car was squashed down into the seat I was in, I consider myself lucky.

I have seen in the news at least one case where an airbag killed a child in what would have otherwise been a minor fender bender.

I do typically wear a seatbelt because I know that in spite of my one experience, in general wearing it is a statistically safer option. However, pretending that there are no trade-offs is disingenuous.

As for allowing people to decide for themselves, I'm all for it... as long as we-the-people don't have to pay for your hospital visit because you didn't wear the seatbelt.

So if someone is injured because they DID wear the seatbelt, should We the People pick up the tab for the bum advice, or is that magically different?

Re:Advice

[Ol Olsoc]

I personally know two guys who were severely injured by airbags.

Funny, years ago everyone knew someone who's life was saved by not wearing seatbelts. And they had a lot of just so stories. People surviving by being thrown from their vehicle, people drowning because they went into a river and couldn't get out of their seatbelt. Getting stuck in a fire. People decapitated by the seatbelt. People half dismembered at the waist or being directed underneath the seatbelt.

A person would have to be a fool to use seatbelts!

Re:Advice

[hairyfeet]

Ahhh...another XLT owner, congrats! I have the XLT as well, just loooove that extra room! I put a trunk on mine so i can haul gro or anything else in the rain and just pop it off if i have to haul big loads, its just too damned sweet. I figure i get around 18MPG city and around 22-24MPG highway depending on how bad i leadfoot it. Yeah that sucks but you know what? Its built like a damned tank and just soooo comfortable! It costs me a good $50 to go spend the weekend with my GF's family up north but I figure WTF. Funny my GF warned me when we fist went up there, she was like "My dad is ex Army and has NEVER liked ANY man I dated, just don't be intimidated, okay?" and I pull up and he's like "IS that a 2000 Ranger XLT? You got good taste boy, My truck is a 99 XLT!" and within 5 minutes we've got our hoods popped comparing engines and she just rolled her eyes and said "Men and their trucks..." LOL!

Me I haven't owned a car since 1989 when my Camaro which I had to use a net to catch the falling parts gave out. Since then i've owned just about every kind of truck, Chevy and Ford, a couple of Nissan king cabs (not very comfortable but GREAT on gas BTW) but out of all my trucks I'll take the Ranger. I think with all the beating and banging down the backroads i'll probably have to have the ball joints replaced this spring but other than that she's been a sweetie and I can't really blame her for that as the first thing we had to do when my dad got the oldest his S10 was change out the ball joints. AR roads kill them things deader than dixie but for comfort and ease of driving and just plain old fun you really can't beat a Ranger. I got a nice CD/MP3 player in mine and there is nothing like that long run up to Branson just enjoying the open road in my Ranger. Let them city slickers keep their little beep beep cars we got shit to haul dammit!

Re:Advice

[Thing 1]

You also seem to think that taking them to small claims court will somehow prevent them from taking you to court for insurance fraud. I don't know where you got such a weird idea.

Reminds of that scene from Blazing Saddles, where he has the gun to his own head...

Re:Advice

[TheCarp]

I find it fascinating that you agree to things that I did not say. I said that, if culpability were to come into the picture, then suicides are more cupapble for their situation than many drivers. HOWEVER I don't think culpability is what matters, I think it doesn't belong in the issue.

> ... in which case you're just talking about "social charity" essentially... which is admirable, but not really relevant to the topics here.

No... thats where you are wrong...since my analogy is supposed to be an analogy for "the people" "the government" "the taxpayers" whatever you want to call it. So yes, social charity is a more applicable model here.

I am saying the discussion of what the taxpayers are willing to pay for is, and should be, a completely different discussion from that of what behaviour is allowed. That is...its ok to say "We pay for this" or "We pay for that" but...its wrong to say "You must behave this way because we pay for this".

Re:Advice

[KhabaLox]

meh.. AC.. but oh well. You did threaten me with violence....

No, I'm not willing to pay for other's reckless behavior. What I am willing to do is enter into group insurance coverage that covers everyone, and subject everyone to certain rules, such as, you must wear a seat belt. The tricky part comes when you start talking about other reckless behavior, such as smoking. I'm not sure how to handle that.

Re:Advice

[Drugmath]

I could be wrong, but I suspect that they didn't need his permission, as it was a state-owned vehicle, and the state has granted permission

Re:Advice

[silverhalide]

Generally falls under the laws about "Equipment violations" - same laws that get you a ticket for having a tail light out, for example. Obviously harder to spot from the road, but a really observant cop could cite you. And should. Because it's retarded.

Re:Advice

[schwinn8]

I am sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. But, to comment on your statement above, social charity is fine, if it were dependable. It is not. Therefore, a mechanism needs to be in place to financially support these operations.

As for the paying for services, and then not expecting to have certain "good" behaviors, that's just a good way to throw away money. Even a few "bad apples" who continue to do dumb/unhealthy things would put a strain on the system, causing it to require more money to support these people... to pay for the care they need because they don't care for themselves. For example, it would be like forcing a car maker to honor a warranty, even if the owner never bothered to perform basic maintenance or repairs... or, more relevant to this story, if the owner intentionally drove it in a manner that damaged it (racing, driving into walls, etc). In your parlance, the owner should be allowed to do this, because you don't want to force them to behave in a certain way... and yet the mfg should cover the damage. That would not be considered fair to the manufacturer, so why would it be considered fair in healthcare?

Re:Advice

[billcopc]

Too bad Canada isn't one of those countries. Having them designed and tested to work in tandem with seatbelts is something I can agree with, unlike the idiot-proof approach of the U.S. airbags.

Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

Some luck was involved, but anything that and car that can handle a crash at 108mph ( a bazilion kph for those of you out of the US) is damn amazing. I love engineers. They have made our lives so much better and are so unappreciated.

Re:Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

Any crash that can shred a Crown Victoria is likely to have been one hell of an impact. There's a reason nearly every police cruiser in North America was a Ford Crown Victoria for a long time - they're damn near indestructible. A friend of mine had one from when he was in high-school through about 10 years, and over 30 other people's cars destroying themselves against his car. (usually while it was parked, or stopped at a red light - his car was some kind of drunken idiot magnet or something.) The worse damage he ever had was a broken tail light, and some scratches in the paint. Most of the cars that hit his were write-offs. Any collision that can do what that picture shows to that car would have vaporized a Neon.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

Examples like this are what I use to counter people who say regulation is horrible, free market should reign uncontrolled. Cars weren't and would not be this safe without regulation enforcing it.

Re:Engineering

[Noughmad]

Some luck was involved, but anything that and car that can handle a crash at 108mph ( a bazilion kph for those of you out of the US) is damn amazing. I love engineers. They have made our lives so much better and are so unappreciated.

108 mph is only around 174 km/h. I know Americans like "crusing", on big roads with low speeds, but on our highways people going over that are fairly common, despite the 130km/h limit.

More on topic: isn't it possible the data was wrong?

Re:Engineering

[DigiShaman]

A Chinese accordion.

Re:Engineering

[SimplyGeek]

"I love engineers. They have made our lives so much better and are so unappreciated."

The flip side to making cars safer is that over the year's they've also gotten lighter and more powerful. It's a game of cat and mouse between increasing (potentially deadly) performance and safety.

Re:Engineering

[jellomizer]

For most cars After 80mph driving gets very difficult. A while back I hit 100 on my car (long stretch, downhill, straight, and I could see for miles, and no cars) and at that speeds it was difficult to make the minor changes to keep me straight on the road. The Average Driver in the average car shouldn't be going much past 80mph on even on a good road. The Autobahn in Germany is design for high speeds which makes going at such speeds much safer, compared to the average Highway in the US. Which is designed for lower speeds.

Re:Engineering

[couchslug]

"I love engineers. They have made our lives so much better and are so unappreciated."

True, true. We may even give ours some leftovers from the next Sales luncheon.

Re:Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

Your car must suck. 100 mph is not very extreme speed unless you car is from the 70s...

Re:Engineering

[0123456]

For most cars After 80mph driving gets very difficult. A while back I hit 100 on my car (long stretch, downhill, straight, and I could see for miles, and no cars) and at that speeds it was difficult to make the minor changes to keep me straight on the road.

In an American land-barge, perhaps. I never noticed a problem at 120mph in my old Italian sports car, other than having to turn the volume up on the stereo.

Re:Engineering

[Chrisq]

For most cars After 80mph driving gets very difficult. A while back I hit 100 on my car (long stretch, downhill, straight, and I could see for miles, and no cars) and at that speeds it was difficult to make the minor changes to keep me straight on the road. The Average Driver in the average car shouldn't be going much past 80mph on even on a good road. The Autobahn in Germany is design for high speeds which makes going at such speeds much safer, compared to the average Highway in the US. Which is designed for lower speeds.

If I travel at 80mph in the UK I am constantly overtaken. I would say that 85 is my usual speed in this car, but when I had a citroen xantia cruising at 105 was no problem.

Re:Engineering

[Mysticalfruit]

This is Massachusetts... out the mid west you can go those speeds and not get yourself into trouble, but around here, you'll ended up just crashing... Though the story being spun now is that the fell asleep at the wheel.

On a side note, if I read that document right, he didn't have his seat belt buckled...

Re:Engineering

[omz13]

Not so much the road being designed for those speeds, but more the car being designed, and more importantly the driver being able to cope. Then again, I'm in Europe and am always amazed how Americans get freaked out when we drive at normal speeds on the motorway which to them are "super fast".

Re:Engineering

[roman_mir]

I don't understand, you are talking about 140km/h, that's almost standing still.

Re:Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a ridiculously untrue comment. Most cars purchased in the last 10 years can be driven at speeds well over 100 mph and be handled just fine by anyone, and the vast percentage of US interstate road miles are long, straight, boring roadways that could easily support greater speeds.

The current speed limits are an affront to our liberty perpetuated by the scare mongering of safety and environmental groups.

The fact of the matter is that differences in vehicle speeds on the same road are the biggest cause and predictor of accidents, and there is plenty of room for increasing speeds limits across the country, and the increased efficiencies / convenience that they would provide.

Re:Engineering

[Big Smirk]

Depends where the computer got its data.
If the data came from the same speed sensor the car's speedometer uses (a sensor on the transmission), then the moment the car left the road the rear wheels would be spinning on grass or whatever else he was traveling over.

If the black box used the input from the ABS system, that should be based on 3 or 4 sensor that measure actual wheel speed.

Typically the black boxes record the last 5 or 10 seconds before an air-bag deployment event. 5 seconds would be a long time at 75mph (~100 ft per second). So you should be able to trend the data and correspond that with the maximum acceleration of the car.

I suspect a 300hp Crown Vic would take quite some time to go from 75mph to 105... like 10 seconds. I base this on the belief that the car's 0-100 times are on the order of 17 seconds (and I suspect never reaching 100mph in those 17 seconds).

Re:Engineering

[caseih]

I can attest that not all German cars can safely go 100 mph even on the Autobahn! I got my rental car just barely up to 100 mph, and at that speed the steering was so sensitive that a bump to the steering wheel would have probably rolled the car. And there's no way it would have taken a curve at that speed. A short, wide sports car this rental car was definitely not! So despite the Autobahn being designed for speed (parts of it are, parts of it aren't), to routinely drive over 80 mph is probably unsafe for a lot of drivers and cars.

I was nowhere near Berlin where I've heard drivers are really fast; most cars were doing about 120-130 kph most of the time, which was completely comfortable. Despite the marginally higher average speed over an American freeway, I felt much safer because drivers didn't tailgate, they always passed on the left (it's illegal to pass on the right, and illegal to be driving such that someone has to pass you on the right). Also they strictly obeyed speed limits when they were in place, such as across bridges where the limit drops to 80 kph in a few places. Compared to drivers in America, it was very nice.

Re:Engineering

[bobcat7677]

It's possible that the seat belt sensor no longer worked and he really was wearing a seat belt. That would not be unheard of on a 6 year old Crown Vic. Other then that, the sensor data is almost certainly correct.

Re:Engineering

[omnichad]

Those crumple zones protect the other driver too. There's a reason they don't make cars like they used to. And that regulation protects ME from YOU.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

You can. It is called a bicycle.

Re:Engineering

[hackertourist]

Your increased likelihood of injuries will be reflected in everyone's insurance premiums. It's not just your risk then.

Re:Engineering

[Big Smirk]

Not sure what you define as average. The average Toyota? sure 80mph it will probably rattle the wheels off. The car in question is a Crown Vic which was bought via the police department (police service package?). It would probably have been equipped with high performance black wall tires and almoust undoubtably a V-8 (I think about 300hp). Further more, the car was probably maintained by the same mechanics that maintain the police car fleet. In my opinion, most Fords have numb steering which only gets worse with age, but in this case, I would assume it was maintianed in good condition. Bottom line, 80mph on a highway is not a big deal (depends of course on the highway and conditions). The big German car makers (Audi, Mercedes, BMW) often argue against speed limits on the Autobahn because it would water down the need for performance sedans. These cars are often limited by their computer to 155 or 165mph.

Elwood: "It's got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch plant, it's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks." (err., OK 4.6liter motor)

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

Not true at all. Can you tell me what cars were as safe as we have today prior to the regulations were put in place? Do you believe we would have cars as safe or safer without those regulations? Why or why not?

Re:Engineering

[asc99c]

For most cars? I've got a little Citroen C2, a 1.4 diesel that I commute in, and that only goes safely to about 80, but that is definitely a very low-end car. I have had the opportunity to take a hire car down an empty toll road, and hit 130mph. I chickened out at that point because I could finally see a car in the distance going quite a lot slower, but as I was slowing down, a BMW came flying past, that was almost certainly going above 150mph.

My big family car is a Ford Mondeo ST220, which I have taken on a track, and it will happily, and safely, go round a decent corner at 80, but no idea how fast it could go on a long straight.

Re:Engineering

[Amorymeltzer]

If the population as a whole was actually capable of acting responsibly then a lot of "safety stuff" would be less necessary. We might as well remove the unnecessary regulations stopping cocaine from being sold at middle schools, people should just act responsibly and know not to do it. And, as long as you're driving, let's toss the regulations for bridge safety - do the responsible thing and only drive on bridges you know to be structurally sound!

Re:Engineering

[spidrw]

It's also to protect you from sleeping Lt. Governors, over which you have no control.

Re:Engineering

[LS1 Brains]

Cars that feel sketchy at a mere 100mph / 160kph have NO BUSINESS on today's freeways - in the USA or anywhere else in the modern world. People who feel uncomfortable or uncertain driving at those speeds also have no business on the freeway. 100mph/160kph is NOT THAT FAST, especially when in many areas of the country the average traffic flows between 70 and 80 mph.

There is a significant amount of kinetic energy a driver responsible for controlling - a vehicle that reaches its limitations at 80mph in my mind is still unsafe at 70, and still unsafe at 60. A sketchy driver is unsafe at any speed, and this is really the biggest problem and a whole other argument (too many people have driving privileges when they shouldn't).

I've been as high as 175mph in my American-built sports car on regular DOT street tires, and have absolutely no problem confidently placing the car exactly where I want it on the road. I'd crush any car that floats at a mere 100 mph.

Re:Engineering

[Ferzerp]

I don't think you understand what makes a car safe. You don't want something that is indestructable. You want something that dissipates a majority of a crash specifically by destructing. Previously, vehicles weren't designed to do this, and so the weakest area was the cabin. Now, they're designed to do that, and the cabin usually remans the most intact part of the vehicle, while most of the crash energy goes in to "shredding" (to use your terms) the rest of the vehicle. Ever seen an F1 crash? The reason they typically survive is that all that energy goes in to making the car practically disintegrate...

Re:Engineering

[UnknownSoldier]

> at 108mph ( a bazilion kph for those of you out of the US)

Are you really that fricken lazy?
kmph = mph * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 / 10
i.e.
  = 108 * 2^4 / 10
  = 216 * 2^3 / 10
  = 432 * 2^2 / 10
  = 864 * 2^1 / 10
  = 1728 / 10
  = ~172.8

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=20&gs_id=3d&xhr=t&q=what+is+108+mph+in+kmh
Real answer: ~173.8

And to easily convert from kmph to mph in the ballpark figure ...
mph = int(kmph/2) + int(kmph/10)
i.e.
  = 172/2 + 172/10
  = 86 + 17
  = ~103

Re:Engineering

[whoever57]

A while back I hit 100 on my car (long stretch, downhill, straight, and I could see for miles, and no cars) and at that speeds it was difficult to make the minor changes to keep me straight on the road

Without delay, take your car to a competant mechanic and have him check over the suspension, steering, tires, etc.. You should not have any problem keeping a car going straight at this speed, unless it was very windy, even on US roads.

Re:Engineering

[AngryDeuce]

The alternative is to allow auto makers to do whatever they like and then deal with the resultant lawsuits after the fact. For instance, when you're sitting at a light in your Ford Caveat Emptor and someone plows into your rear-end, crippling you because it was poorly designed and you lacked the engineering background to know this before you bought the car.

How does the free-market correct for other people that may or may be driving responsibly? What if those people are in a Mad Max style war machine with spikes and blades welded all over the thing? How does the market correct the fact that you're dead now because of someone else? "Ha ha, should have bought a better car, asshole?"

The difference between the regulation and the free market you espouse is that a lot of injuries are prevented with the regulations. It is much more proactive. Your method would force people to choose between safety and cost, because we all know that automakers will already do whatever they fuck they can to get around spending money designing a vehicle. There are numerous examples. The Ford Pinto, Pontiac Fiero, Ford Bronco II, the Chevrolet Corvair...just to name a few.

I'd rather spend a few thousands bucks more on a car that meets a certain minimum safety standard, and I really have no desire to share the road with anyone in a vehicle that does not, because they're not the only ones that have to pay for their stupid mistakes, everyone around them does. We may not be able to protect everyone all the time, but we can at least try.

To be fair, I'm not anti-free market or pro-regulation in all things. For instance, if you want to eat or drink yourself into an early grave, that's your business, because the only person your hurting is you. But the free market can't correct everything. How many more people would have to be sickened by something before the market even knew there was something wrong? How many more people would have to die before the market figures out that a particular car is a death-trap, or that a certain building product causes cancer? The free market doesn't help me a fucking bit when I've got 3rd degree burns all over my body because you decided to buy the cheap piece of shit car that burst into flames at the moment of impact. I shouldn't have to drive an M1 Abrams tank to make sure my kids will get to school safely because you wanted to save a few dollars. Some things have a value that is not measured in dollars and cents.

Re:Engineering

[johnjaydk]

I'm afraid this speaks more about Your driving, Your car and Your local roads.

I've spent a good deal of time with a german driver in a high-end BMW on the autobahn and most of that time was spent above 150 mph. I was pretty scared but for the driver it was business as usual. We even had a normal conversation while driving that fast.

Re:Engineering

[Bobfrankly1]

Yea regulations, I get to pay extra for car and continue paying extra over its entire life in added fuel, because regulations require it be built to protect me from myself. Here's a crazy thought drive responsible, which includes not doing so while drunk or sleepy, and all that safety stuff would be less necessary.

If I want to take the risk I should be able to buy something made of light weight bicycle tube and nylon.

Regulations also require the car be built to protect you from others. I consider myself as a pretty good driver, but even if I was perfect it wouldn't matter because there are always idiots on the road. Sometimes an idiot will come around a blind corner at speeds no sane person would consider. Sometimes an idiot will change lanes right into the space you're occupying.

I've been fortunate to see and dodge all the idiots thus far, but I know sooner or later I'm going to encounter an idiot that will do something stupid where I don't have the time or space to react to it. At that point I'm going to be very happy that those regulations made me pay for all that "safety stuff".

Re:Engineering

[prisoner-of-enigma]

440 cu in = ~7.2L, actually. Do you work for NASA?

Re:Engineering

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Amen to that! I've driven Italian sports cars for the past 22 years and hitting the 100mph+ mark is easily done and *very* controllable.
Topped 135 in my old Alfa 164 once, smooth ride.

Re:Engineering

[Kamiza Ikioi]

108 mph is only around 174 km/h. I know Americans like "crusing", on big roads with low speeds, but on our highways people going over that are fairly common, despite the 130km/h limit.

The speed necessary to break bones, puncture vital organs, crush skulls, and kill a human being is universal, regardless of any nation's preference for driving speeds, common or not.

Or more simply, if you survive a 108 mph or 174 km/h is damn lucky no matter where you're driving or how good of a driver you think you are.

Re:Engineering

[publiclurker]

Except you delusions of adequacy would not protect you from any other idiots out there. also, since you seem o be the perfect example of a dunning incompetent, I'd say that it's a good thing for all of these regulations, as it prevents your stupidity from being a burden on everyone else.

Re:Engineering

[fridaynightsmoke]

If I travel at 80mph in the UK I am constantly overtaken. I would say that 85 is my usual speed in this car, but when I had a citroen xantia cruising at 105 was no problem.

This. On certain English motorways at certain times of the day the average speed of traffic is 90-100mph. I've seen (once) around 20 cars flagrantly driving at 110mph in front of police (ordinary motorists, not a race meet/cruise or anything like that).

When I've visited Scotland I've found the locals to drive even faster...

Re:Engineering

[MaWeiTao]

That's BS. The average car available in the United States is easily capable of handling 100mph. Sure, some malaise era automobiles were uniformly awful but I'm talking about a reasonably modern car. I'm not suggesting that it's safe to be driving at those speeds, but that it shouldn't be the ordeal you suggest it is. If it were that bad you wouldn't be seeing people routinely going 80mph and faster.

Of course, a lot of it has to do with road construction. But I've found that most highways easily support speeds much higher than the speed limit. It's usually in dense urban centers where that's not the case. Although, I do agree that the overall quality of road construction is far superior in Europe.

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

Bazillion? That's around 170kph. Well over any limit in the US but far from a bazillion (I would define "bazillion" as anywhere over 200mph).

Re:Engineering

[MaWeiTao]

On the Mass Turnpike people routinely do 80-85. They get close to those speeds on I-95 as well, but traffic tends to be a bit heavier. Most of Eastern MA is quite flat.

Re:Engineering

[operagost]

We're trying to save fuel, which Europeans apparently aren't concerned about even though their cars are no more efficient and fuel costs twice as much.

Re:Engineering

[operagost]

No, he means that the last model of Crown Vic had a 4.6L V8.

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

Actually not a good example, the ever-increasing safety regulations have reduced car performance dramtically by effectively mandating an increase in weight (unless you use costly exotic materials). Many motorsport enthusiasts debate the creation of an "ultralight vehicle class" allowing lightweight cars that don't meet safety regulations to be mass-produced. Right now the only way to skirt the safety regulations, apart from buying an old car (there is a thriving market for many old lightweight cars...try buying an AE86, AW11 or CRX these days) is with a kit car or custom-build car.

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

And that regulation protects ME from YOU.

Only if you're a pedestrian (ped. crash safety regulations) or a passenger in someone else's car.

Re:Engineering

[digitalsolo]

I've been around 190 mph in my car on a public highway. Not exactly safe assuming other cars are anywhere in the vicinity, but overall control of the vehicle was still trouble free, and staying straight was not at all difficult.

At speeds of ~135-140 mph, it's not even particularly exciting. FWIW, the car in question will stop in less distance at 135 mph than a semi can at 70 mph (speed limit).

ASSuming you are familiar with the road you are traveling on, aside from other vehicles, excessive speed can be maintained without much effort on many US roads. This does, obviously, rely a great deal on the driver's skill and the vehicle in question. I am also not advocating felony level speeding, just noting that 100 mph is not particularly fast or difficult to control.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

False. Unless you think you can prevent someone from rear ending you while you're stopped at a stop light with traffic flowing in front of you?

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

Wait, what was wrong with the Fiero?

Re:Engineering

[guyfawkes-11-5]

So in other words, you're an idiot that doesn't do any research on the products you buy. If people refuse to buy unsafe cars *gasp* then no businessman in his right mind would make them. Smarten up, dummy.

You know that the auto companies fought vociferously against seat belts,safety glass and air bags right?

Re:Engineering

[tibit]

It's the deceleration that kills, not the speed. If you'd run at 130mph into a wall, the car may as well be your coffin. If you'd run into a field with shrubs/bushes, and not overturn, you'll be fine.

Re:Engineering

[digitalsolo]

Or mph * 1.6 = kph. Or, your way works too.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

How is it not a good example. I wasn't saying the cars were more efficient. I said they were safer.

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

If a fragile car hits you it should do less damage to your car. Unless safety regulations limit the weight and chassis stiffness of other vehicles, but since semis and H1s are driving around I guess they don't.

Re:Engineering

[omnichad]

And don't forget the cell phone user who veers into your lane for an offset head-on collision.

Re:Engineering

[Solandri]

In an American land-barge, perhaps.

It actually has more to do with the size of the tires and the beefiness of the suspension/steering. The land-barges actually do pretty well at high speed (though the steering feels like mush). It's the very small econo-boxes with thin, low rolling resistance tires and small suspensions which start to feel out of control by the time they hit 100 mph.

Front wheel steering is dynamically stable - you can let go of the steering wheel and the car will naturally straighten out (wheel alignment problems excepted). Without getting into a full-blown essay on dynamics, it has to do with the geometry of the wheels relative to the body - try pushing a bicycle forward vs. backward. When going forward, slightly turning the steering wheel results in the body following in a way which straightens out the steering wheel. When going backward, slightly turning the steering wheel results in the body turning in a way which makes the steering wheel turn even more.

As you increase speed, the forces that imperfections in the road impart onto the wheels increases. The smaller wheels with less mass and the smaller suspensions with weaker springs will, at a lower speed, hit the point where these forces overcome the dynamic stability of the front wheel steering configuration.

Re:Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that regulations have made the entire world on average a dumber place. See, all the dumb people who get in crashes are more likely to survive now, where before the dumbest drivers would perish. Therefore, in order to advance humanity, I propose we get rid of all safety regulations that protect the stupid.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

You're wrong. You assume people understand what they are buying, which is false in the vast majority of people who buy cars.

Re:Engineering

[netwarerip]

Actually, not much of anything. 1984 models with the 2.5 had a few engine fires but that was a whopping 0.07% of them. Urban legend, if you ask me. FWIW, Fiero GTs are a ton of fun to drive and pretty damn quick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Fiero#Crash_Safety - and see below for the engine fire info.

Re:Engineering

[jmottram08]

Your assumption is that regulation drove any and all technical innovation in automobiles for the past 40 years. This isnt true.

Re:Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

If people don't understand what they're buying, then they don't care about any added safety features. And if they don't care about the added safety features, then the cost of adding them isn't justified.

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

Huh, it caught fire because owners let the oil run out and the engine ate itself? And people were upset over this? What's next, complaining that cars don't stop if you never change the brake pads?

Re:Engineering

[pnewhook]

Or, be very stiff and hit something else that is absorbing the impact energy. As long as something absorbs the energy you're fine (except for the poor guy who is absorbing all the energy. That's why you're safer in the biggest thing you can be in if you are going to collide with something like a transport truck. The worst thing is to have two stiff vehicles colliding.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

Regulation was the target that the innovation went towards. It was the destination, not the driver.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

This is where we will part ways and disagree. Unless of course you can convince me that unsafe cars are better for society...

Re:Engineering

[pnewhook]

We should be free to choose what car we drive, not forced to drive whatever the government dictates.

If that ever happens then I plan on surrounding my car with sharp spikes and gasoline cans to keep the idiots away from me.

Re:Engineering

[element-o.p.]

If you think engineers have made the (modern) world far worse than it would have been otherwise, you are welcome to move to some third-world backwater where the things those engineers have brought to us are still unnecessary. No? Then kindly STFU. At the very least, it's highly disingenuous to complain about the miracles of modern technology while typing on a computer connected to the Internet.

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

Well sure they're safer, but instead of settling on a safety level the regulations have arbitrarily become much tighter over the years. Will there ever be "good enough?" I wouldn't be upset if the increasing safety standards at least didn't (vastly) outpace the development of technologies that can realize them without impacting performance or cost.

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

Wow, looks nice. I wonder why Lotus never took advantage of this exemption? They could sell an extra-light sports car locally and export them for track use.

Re:Engineering

[element-o.p.]

Every car I've ever owned could exceed 85 MPH with no problems whatsoever. If you can't exceed 80 MPH without stability issues, then either your car sucks or your driving skills do (and I apologize; I'm really not trying to be offensive, but 80 MPH really isn't *that* fast).

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

I have a cheap '90s Japanese sports coupe and it does 100mph no problem. With the stock suspension it was like sitting on your couch at home watching TV. With the coilovers now, you can feel the transition between sections of highway that were paved separately but it's still easy to control.

Re:Engineering

[netwarerip]

Back when I was working on cars for a living we had 2 that I can recall that had caught fire. One was a v6 that the fuel hose had sprung a leak. Early GM fuel-injected engines were known to have the fuel hoses get brittle after a while and that's probably what happened with that one. The other was a 4 cyl that had an elec connector melt onto the exhaust manifold. Looking at the wiki it looks like that one should have been recalled. When you consider that Corvairs weren't even remotely as bad as Ralph Nader made them out to be, and the Audi 'unintended acceleration' b.s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi#Audi_5000_unintended_acceleration) it's just another case of dumbasses jumping on a bandwagon.

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

Lighter!? I think you mean heavier. MUCH heavier.

Re:Engineering

[Charliemopps]

It would be several orders of magnitude safer if they just created a regulation banning cars altogether.

Re:Engineering

[element-o.p.]

This is purely speculation; I have no data or citations to back this up. However, my *suspicion* is that U.S. highway speeds are still largely a legacy of the '70s when speed limits around the nation were capped at a max of 55 MPH, due to a study that claimed most vehicles were most fuel efficient at that speed. Finally, a little sanity started to return in the mid to late '80s (I don't recall exactly when, but something like that), and speeds started increasing. However, since a lot of the people in positions of power now grew up when 55 MPH was the norm, our speeds haven't varied terribly far from that point, unfortunately.

Re:Engineering

[Noughmad]

We're trying to save fuel, which Europeans apparently aren't concerned about even though their cars are no more efficient and fuel costs twice as much.

You spend more fuel (per unit of distance) driving in city traffic than speeding on highways, unless your speed really exceeds what the car was designed for.

Re:Engineering

[RedShoeRider]

"If I want to take the risk I should be able to buy something made of light weight bicycle tube and nylon."


Funny you say that. 4130 CrMo is a steel alloy very frequently used in roll cages of race vehicles of all sorts.

It's also very common to build lower end bicycles frames from it.

Re:Engineering

[geekoid]

haha, no.

The stiff car frame explodes while the engine is dumped onto the front seat.

There are some videos of older cars impacting with new cars. The 'stiff' metal just disintegrates.

Re:Engineering

[jafac]

I don't think it takes an "italian sports car". Most American sedans are simply designed with crappy leaf-spring or dependent suspensions, or with rear-drum brakes. Many poor trade-offs. On the other hand, not very Americans actually DRIVE American cars anymore! Mostly, we're driving the same European or Japanese-made cars that you guys are driving. With this exception: When American auto makers export our cars to the European or Australian markets, they seem to get better suspensions, upgraded engines, better brakes, and, oddly, crippled emissions-control systems? Then they market them under a different name. And we go over there, and drive them, find out they're better, and can't re-import them to the US. :( So we buy BMW's and Porsches.

Re:Engineering

[jafac]

Oh - it takes probably another 20 hp, and two more gears in the transmission. For some reason, you limeys get 5, 6, 7-speed gearboxes, when we get 3 and 4-speed gearboxes, and crippled engines.

Re:Engineering

[geekoid]

due to regulation, you pay less for fuel. Why do you think cars no longer get 8mpg?

The are designed to protect people, not just you. You're passengers, any Innocent bystanders that get killed because you're out of control car careened into them.

You also assume only YOU can cause accident to YOU. You are not an island, you are in a civilization and society. Behave as such.

OTOH, your an idiot and want the 17th amendment repeal. Which tell me you don't take history into account when ever a random neuron fires and gives you an idea. An idea you think is good imply because it occurred to you.

Re:Engineering

[geekoid]

less damage then what?

You you where sitting in a 1970 era boat of a car, and were reaerend by a prius doing 60, you would be seriously hour, and possible killed, as would your passengers.
You are talking out of your ass and no nothing of this topic; which wold be fine, but some poor shmuck will read your post and not know why you are wrong.

Re:Engineering

[geekoid]

Idiots are idiots because they aren't paying attention. Adding spikes does not mean they would suddenly be paying attention.

The larger percentage of people who run read lights do it because they weren't paying attention. Getting hit by one of these yahoos will kill you in a pre-safety regulation car.

You know what? I just realized why old people are grumpy. We have the history of why things happens during our lives, and young idiots who don't read up on why something exist come along and say its wrong, and give complete boneheaded examples.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

Re:Engineering

[geekoid]

Depends. the faster you go the harder it becomes to push through the air.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g I disagree completely.

Re:Engineering

[evil_aaronm]

Before my son wrecked it - unrelated accident on a snowy hill - I used to love driving our Chevy Cavalier above 100 mph. That thing was as smooth as glass. At 110 mph, it felt like I was hovering over the road, not even touching. No control issues at all, even following the wide bends of a river.

It could be what you were driving, though a Cavalier is hardly a top-of-the-line vehicle.

Re:Engineering

[GameboyRMH]

You you where sitting in a 1970 era boat of a car, and were reaerend by a prius doing 60, you would be seriously hour, and possible killed, as would your passengers.

That's right, I didn't say otherwise.

If you were driving a modern Volvo and were hit by some unregulated car made of toothpicks you wouldn't be hurt. Unless safety regulations limit the mass and structural strength of other cars on the road, cars that don't meet safety regulations, when driven by others, would only pose a risk to pedestrians and people inside that car. That was my point.

Re:Engineering

[Gordonjcp]

Yeah, but if a Hummer H1 hits you at anything above walking pace the occupants are dead anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Re:Engineering

[0ld_d0g]

What research is this? Crashing a car at 100mph?

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

I'm not sure I agree with you. I think a lot of the regulations came slow... a good example in my opinion is the creation of seat belts laws and the enforcement of them. http://www.iihs.org/laws/SafetyBeltUse.aspx Example: New Jersey passed the law in '85 and it took effect in '00. Some states passed the law and it was needed immediately, but that was on new car purchases only. If the car didn't have safety belts when sold it is grandfathered in.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

I agree. But, like it or not, cars are a huge net gain for society. So by being proactive on safety features and mitigating the risk we get from an inherently unsafe thing such as driving we can have our cake and eat it too.

Re:Engineering

[Gordonjcp]

Ford and other manufacturers had a problem with the Essex V6 where if the underbonnet temperatures got too high the brass fuel inlet pipe in the carburettor worked loose because it didn't expand as fast as the carb body. This then filled up the middle of the V with petrol, with hilarious consequences.

Re:Engineering

[Gordonjcp]

When I've visited Scotland I've found the locals to drive even faster...

... and on twistier roads.

I had some friends over from the US. They took 14 hours not counting an overnight stay to make a journey I typically do in five hours. Even allowing for not knowing the roads, that's pretty damn slow. They really just had never had to deal with narrow twisty country roads before.

Re:Engineering

[pnewhook]

Ever see the result of a Mazda Miata hitting a transport truck? I have. YOu couldn't even tell the color of the Miata and the transport was unharmed.

Re:Engineering

[Binestar]

I see. So, lets say that Malibu is going its safe speed and you are going your safe speed. Now redo the test. What is the safe speed for the Bel-Air? 0? Reverse? Reverse at the same speed as the malibu? What the safety ratings have done is to say we are going to test cars this year for 35MPH (Or whatever) frontal offset. We will rate cars based on that and consumers can buy cars after they read the ratings.

Re:Engineering

[TheRealMindChild]

How do you consider extreme? My Camero with a 5.8v 8 cylinder mad-bitch starts to act wonky above 100mph. It can go ridiculous speeds, but the fact remains, regardless your vehicle, physics act different after that point. The manufacturer had no intention of you going that fast.

Re:Engineering

[JonySuede]

My new car has a feature called ambient noise cancellation. If the temperature control kicks in or if I increase the motor RPM, the volume and tone of the music adjust itself to compensate for the added noise so I don't even need to turn up the volume !

Re:Engineering

[Zironic]

You're aware that there's a slight difference between a sports car and city sedans right?

There's no issue with cars becoming sketchy past 100mph when the traffic flow is 80mph, since there exists no reason for you to go up to 100mph.

Re:Engineering

[Zironic]

In general. Small cars regardless of when they were built are just not designed to go much past 160 km/h.

They are
A) Light
B) Tall
C) With little to no downforce

It's just elementary physics that they become unstable at high speeds.

Re:Engineering

[arkane1234]

You realize the Prius weights ~3980 lbs, right? It has a frame, and has a very high accident rating. It was built for safety. It gains fuel economy through non-petrol technologies.

Considering you're just being a douche, I'm not going to explain the rest to you. Consider it an exercise for the reader.

Re:Engineering

[arkane1234]

It has to do with the roads, really. Most are uneven, and the pattern of driving by most Americans is almost always manic-aggressive.
Add that together, and it's white knuckled at 65-70 MPH as people scream from one side of a 4 lane highway to the other, braiding traffic, and tailgating so close that tapping on the breaks to avoid hitting someone would cause a rear accident.

Naturally, this varies across the entire country since there are 50 states and 4,000-5,000 miles of land from coast to coast.

Re:Engineering

[LS1 Brains]

Certainly some sedans, but not all. Our family sedan (driven primarily by my wife) is quite stable at 100mph and much faster (SRT8 Charger). I would beg to differ with the opinion there's no issue with an unsafe-at-100mph turd bucket traveling 80mph. Well, I would agree IF there were never a reason to do anything but float down the freeway. But, that isn't always the case now is it? Things happen, that an aware and attentive driver must respond and react to. Would you rather be piloting a vehicle capable of safely and predictably executing an evasive maneuver, or one that ... can't, and becomes part of the wreck?

Re:Engineering

[whoever57]

I can attest that not all German cars can safely go 100 mph even on the Autobahn! I got my rental car

Key word: "rental". Probably a previous renter had hit a kerb and ruined the front alignment, thus making the car unstable.

Re:Engineering

[arkane1234]

100mph/160kph is NOT THAT FAST

In America, the highest speed limit is 80 MPH, and that's in Texas in certain locations. Where I live in Arizona, it's 75 out of the city, 65 in the most highways in the city, and 55 in urban highway areas.
It's not usually the vehicle, it's the law. ... of course, there are people that just don't take care of their front-end section and have bad alignment/loose suspension/bad aerodynamics/etc. Those people suck.

Re:Engineering

[Zironic]

There's a reason I said 'City' sedan, because I was talking about cars like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Aerio

Which gets really rather unstable at 100mph.

However, if you're doing evasive manoeuvres at 100mph on a freeway, then you're a fucking moron that should never ever be allowed behind the wheel of a car again.

On Swedish roads you get basically two options, either you can cruise in the 'slow' lane at 110-130km/h aka 70-80mph (110-120 is the speed limit) or you can cruise in the 'fast' lane at 120-150km/h aka 75-95 mph.

The above mentioned Suzuki has no issues cruising up to 140-150 km/h, however at 160 km/h it starts getting wobbly due to the high air resistance. However as mentioned earlier, if you're doing 160 in a Suzuki you're a fucking moron that deservers to die.

Re:Engineering

[jareth-0205]

So in other words, you're an idiot that doesn't do any research on the products you buy. If people refuse to buy unsafe cars *gasp* then no businessman in his right mind would make them. Smarten up, dummy.

Of course if you thought about this *for a second* you'd realise that democratising safety is going to be a non-starter. If there are "idiots" around who will do no research on what they buy then *there will be manufacturers around to make them*. And since we all have to live in the same world then we all have to be at risk from those products.

I mean, *come on*, think before you post!

Re:Engineering

[jareth-0205]

Yea regulations, I get to pay extra for car and continue paying extra over its entire life in added fuel, because regulations require it be built to protect me from myself. Here's a crazy thought drive responsible, which includes not doing so while drunk or sleepy, and all that safety stuff would be less necessary.

And... of course... protect *everyone else* from your good (or bad) driving.

Excuse me for shouting, but it seems that there's a massive hole in your and several people's logic in this discussion: YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS AFFECTED BY YOUR CAR.

We all think we're better drivers than we are. Don't think you're infallible, even a perfect driver will have unexpected things (oil, ice, tire puncture) that they won't be able to deal with. Then when you hit me in my car or as a pedestrian, I will be much happier that some safety standards were inflicted on your vehicle.

Re:Engineering

[jareth-0205]

However, since you are not the only person affected when you have an accident (even one through no fault of your own) then you really shouldn't have complete autonomy on what you are allowed to pilot.

Re:Engineering

[UnknownSoldier]

Uh, where do you think I originally got 2^4/10 from? =) I intentionally wrote it out long hand so that anyone could do this calc in their head.
i.e.
constant 1.6 = 2^4 / 10 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 / 10
e.g.
kmph = double the mph four times and divide by 10

Re:Engineering

[evilviper]

Your car must suck. 100 mph is not very extreme speed unless you car is from the 70s...

His comment is true of most econo-boxes. In most, the engine vibrations start getting unpleasant around 90MPH. This may be significantly affected in either direction by whether you're on an inclining or declining highway... I certainly don't have any place here out west where I could get my car up to 100MPH without having to climb over a mountain in pretty short order.

Re:Engineering

[adolf]

I'm from a very flat portion of the US that is built on a very large grid system, so I have to seek out my twisty roads (and I do).

But when I find one, especially one that's far away, I tend to slow down and/or stop to admire the surroundings more. I could easily turn your five-hour trip into either fourteen hours, or just four. Or maybe even three, if my balls were on fire...

But I'd certainly prefer to take my time the on my first pass just to attempt to absorb what I could about the place.

But if you do that trip routinely, there's really nothing new for you to see, so you probably don't bother with trying. A visitor who is unfamiliar might (and I dare say should) take a bit more time to look around.

Re:Engineering

[Gordonjcp]

I'd be interested to see what you've got that can cover 260 miles in three hours and still stay on the ground ;-) Consider that 25 miles of the trip are along a very narrow road (about the width of a normal motorway lane, for two-way traffic) that winds along the side of a loch with buses and trucks coming at you in the opposite direction.

I'm not admitting to having done it in just over four hours, because that would involve breaking the speed limit.

Re:Engineering

[vrt3]

I have driven a Citroen Xsara Picasso, a small non-sporty family car at speeds of 180 km/h (112 mph). It had a wimpy 2 L 4 cylinder diesel engine which produced only 97 hp IIRC. At that point it was close to its top speed, but apart from more wind noise and noise from the tires everything was completely normal. There was probably more engine noise too, but it got drowned in the wind noise.

And I've once done 200 k/h (124 mph) (measured by GPS, so that's the real speed as opposed to the inflated speed shown on the dasboard) in a Toyota Corolla Verso which was sligthly less non-sporty and had a 2.2 136 hp diesel engine. 200 k/h was above its posted top speed; I guess the road went a bit downhill. I've driven that car at 180 k/h and 190 k/h with no problem whatsoever.

I'm very surprised to learn that Camero's start to act wonky at speeds even lower than that. Maybe next time you should buy a well-build Japanese or European car (which is not intended to mean that all Japanes or European cars are well-built).

Re:Engineering

[adolf]

If it can routinely be run in 5 hours, then it can certainly be occasionally done in 4 hours. Maybe not 3, but meh.

My main point was, I think, that it's not so much that your visitors from the US were particularly slow, but that visitors anywhere can tend to be slow.

Re:Engineering

[MiniMike]

In an American land-barge, perhaps. I never noticed a problem at 120mph in my old Italian sports car, other than having to turn the volume up on the stereo.

No, my American land-barge handled quite nicely around 100 mph. His car must really suck, or have mechanical problems. I used to have a sort-of sucky American car (sub-barge size), and it handled decently up to its maximum speed (~95 mph floored on straight and level highway, I did say it was sucky). I now drive a Japanese land-barge, fyi, which also handles decently at those speeds.

Re:Engineering

[Coren22]

The average Toyota? Have you ever owned one? My Camry easily goes that speed...

Re:Engineering

[Coren22]

According to the article, he was traveling at 75, apparently fell asleep, floored the gas up to 108, went off the road, and impacted at 92. When he left the road, his speed dropped, probably due to the roughness of the shoulder area.

Re:Engineering

[jmottram08]

There is no regulation driving technology that alerts you if you fall asleep at the wheel, that slows your cruise control when you approach a slower moving car, or that puts blind spot detectors and signals on side mirrors. Yet these things all are significant improvements in safety.

I didnt, or dont state that regulation didnt help by forcing seatbelts and airbags, or forcing safer cars by making them pass impact tests. But to assume that everything is based upon that is naive. Safety is a selling point and therefore car manufactures put 8 airbags in a car, well above what is necessary by regulation.

blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicles

[peter303]

They usually record less data for maintenance purposes than the kind the insurance companies are clamoring for. These limited datasets have been subpoenaed for auto accidents.

Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was going that fast, he'd be dead. He didn't have a single scratch on him at the press conference. If the tires spin out on black ice, does the black box adjust for that? or would it just assume he's actually moving at the rate the tires are spinning?

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[ByOhTek]

Accelerometers are cheap. A crash from that speed isn't necessarily lethal.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[ByOhTek]

addition: And a person, if luck, could get away with it, with only bruises, many of which, internal and not visible.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[v1]

The box has no accurate way to tell your spontaneous speed unless blondestar is recording your gps positions constantly (it may be) But it CAN use accelerometers to measure g-forces while it's recording time. g-forces over time between start of event and full stop can pretty accurately measure how fast you were going when you started to slow down, whether the slowdown was applying the brakes or hitting a tree. (this works as long as you end up stopped, which serves as the reference point)

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[jandrese]

I take it more as an indication of how good the safety systems on modern vehicles are, he crashed at over 100mph with no seatbelt on, and basically the airbags and crumple zones saved his life. Twenty years ago this would have been a story about how he skidded on some black ice and died.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[mr1911]

If he was going that fast, he'd be dead.

Obviously not. The cage in modern vehicles is safe. His vehicle presumably had airbags. With modern safety systems, accidents are quite survivable. It is surprising he didn't have more obvious injuries since he was not wearing his seatbelt.

The article states the hypothesis is that he fell asleep at the wheel. The phenomena is much like drunk drivers -- when the person is relaxed they often escape an automobile accident with fewer injuries than an alert person that tenses up in during impact.

If the tires spin out on black ice, does the black box adjust for that? or would it just assume he's actually moving at the rate the tires are spinning?

In this case the condition of the car after the crash seems to confirm the recorded speed. If the vehicle has traction control it is likely data from spinning tires would be recorded.

Relying on black box data alone would be foolish. Considering the black box data in addition to other evidence may prove valuable.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[ackthpt]

I take it more as an indication of how good the safety systems on modern vehicles are, he crashed at over 100mph with no seatbelt on, and basically the airbags and crumple zones saved his life. Twenty years ago this would have been a story about how he skidded on some black ice and died.

This is a Crown Victoria, sir, one of the very last battleships of the road from the bygone era of 20 foot long, V8-powered, family cars. It's the one I often see driven by tiny little white-haired people - presumably because "Large" is the only car size they'll buy - which gives them that advantage of surviving to drive even more years, while you and I are a smear on the pave.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[ByOhTek]

Again, wrong. I've seen cases where someone actually survived an accident with little injury from *not* wearing a seatbelt, where they'd have died if they didn't wear one. In the case I'm thinking of, the accident popped the windshield out, and they got jettisoned before the passenger cabin had deformed significantly.

Also, it's not the speed you were going, but the rate at which you change velocity (and the duration of that, at any given rate), that causes the damage. Even crashing, a light post will be different from a brick wall, which will differ from a tree, which will differ from a 50' diameter marshmallow.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[idontgno]

If the black box is directly measuring acceleration (actual G-forces) rather than drivetrain RPM, than it's already compensated for.

The 108 mph would be inferred from RPM, but it's hard to create 40G deceleration measured by an actual accelerometer in any way than an actual 40G deceleration. Maybe a temporary black hole?

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Gideon Wells]

You can be surprised what you can get through without injury. My sister was in a crash that totaled her car. Flipped at least once, hit an embankment, speeding on an old dirt road, down hill, in winter. The only injury she received was to her feet from running to get help in her bare feet as she lost her shoes in the wreck.

She also hadn't been buckled in. Her car flipped at least once, like this. When her car quit sliding on its roof she was in the back of the vehicle, laying where her hatchback rear window used to be. Crazy dumb luck.

Like my sister, it doesn't look like the car came to a dead stop according to the article, and looking at the car it doesn't appear he hit the ledge dead on (or it was a small ledge). So it was a (relatively) glancing blow and did not cause a dead stop.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Synerg1y]

I wonder if the momentum of the crash from that speed allows the car the flip fast enough where it actually reduces pressure on the crumple zone via the forward momentum. This of course would never apply to a head on collision, the car would still be pancaked, even at a 5 star level. This guy hit a rock wall, bounced off it and flipped to a stop.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[blackraven14250]

Even if the other comments don't hold true, you can tell if you hit ice and had tires spinning equivalent to 108 mph while doing 50 mph in reality by seeing the spike in speed from hitting the ice patch, given a long enough recording interval.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[b4dc0d3r]

That is exactly the reason they did not want to release the data - it could be misinterpreted. As I remember, wheels speeding up due to hitting ice is the example they gave.

That said, and this is the first time I've seen a black box report so don't trust me, it looks like all delta-V was negative. If it were recording tire speed and it slipped on ice, we should have seen acceleration exceeding what the car is capable of. So either it happened before the recording, or it didn't happen.

Analysis of the crash scene is probably going to be more helpful here than the black box, I hope someone took pictures.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[bennomatic]

Ever hear of airbags?

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[DarkOx]

If you create a 50' marshmallow (real and edible all the way thru) I volunteer to drive my car into it!

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[ae1294]

but the rate at which you change velocity (and the duration of that, at any given rate)

Umm the car recorded a 40g change... No need to say anymore.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Did you see the wreck? I don't care how fast he was going, it's a miracle of engineering that he's alive.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Andy Dodd]

One thing that may have helped - It sounds like while the front end of the car took a BIG hit in the initial impact, the initial impact was not a 108-0 event - it sounds like the car hit an object, and then began flipping/rolling.

In some ways, it's a miracle he didn't get injured here due to lack of seatbelt - seatbelts are a MAJOR benefit in a roll incident. My dad once rolled a vehicle (swerving to avoid deer + sand patch + curb = rolled car on its side) - he walked away without a scratch thanks to the seatbelt.

As you mentioned (but summary didn't - classical sensationalism), the records indicated 75 mph (fast and speeding - but not overly so and in fact consistent with "matching traffic flow" in many places) up until immediately before impact, indicating the driver likely fell asleep and unintentionally put pressure on the gas pedal then.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[pedrop357]

If it monitors the individual ABS wheel speed sensors, it can determine that. A rear wheel drive vehicle spinning out on ice should significant differences in speed between the front and rear tires. An open diff rear wheel drive car should show some difference in speeds between the two sides as well.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Anonymous Coward]

nay. size plus center of gravity = crown vic rules.

i would never stick my daughter in a suburban, tahoe or expedition. ...SUVs had the highest rollover involvement rate of any vehicle type in fatal crashes -- 36 percent, as compared with 24 percent for pickups, 19 percent for vans and 15 percent for traffic cars. SUVs also had the highest rollover rate for passenger vehicles in injury crashes -- 12 percent, as compared to 7 percent for pickups, 4 percent for vans and 3 percent for passenger cars.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[pedrop357]

It could be using the ABS sensors at each wheel to determine speed or if it's more sophisticated, smoothing the output to compensate for a fast rise in speed from one tire.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[ackthpt]

I take it more as an indication of how good the safety systems on modern vehicles are, he crashed at over 100mph with no seatbelt on, and basically the airbags and crumple zones saved his life. Twenty years ago this would have been a story about how he skidded on some black ice and died.

This is a Crown Victoria, sir, one of the very last battleships of the road from the bygone era of 20 foot long, V8-powered, family cars. It's the one I often see driven by tiny little white-haired people - presumably because "Large" is the only car size they'll buy - which gives them that advantage of surviving to drive even more years, while you and I are a smear on the pave.

Not exactly the last battleship. Now we have Suburban, Expedition, etc. They dwarf the Crown Victoria in size and weight. The survival rates in these SUV behemoths are also very good.

Actually, they are very bad. As most of these vehicles are built for larger space inside, they generally do not have strong enough roof support to keep the top from caving in due to increased mass of vehicle. There are many cars which are safer in a collision or rollover than SUVs. From the look of that Crown Vic, crashing at about 90 MPH into a "rock ledge" it's quite impressive the Lt. Guv wasn't paté. Over New Years I saw a few SUVs and Minivans which looked far worse, and were likey to have been involved in slower velocity collisions on the highway.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[X0563511]

... which will differ from a 50' diameter marshmallow.

... I'd almost want to try that!

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[saint0192]

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/gov-tim-murray-traveling-mph-time-nov-crash-fell-asleep-the-wheel/xb4PPxUcuG2PM4QzsS8lNJ/index.html You're wrong. He SHOULD be dead from the crash based on how fast he was going, but he miraculously was unhurt. It is still surmised he fell asleep at the wheel, but that has not been proven...

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Sometimes, you won't be able to stop in time - but speeding up can get you out of the situation. It's unfortunate that this is de-emphasized when teaching driving here in the US, to the point where you're brainwashed into thinking that the BEST and FIRST automatic response to an unexpected scenario is to use your brakes. In reality there is no single best response - it should always be dictated by your situational awareness.

Of course that wasn't your point at all -- but mine is that there may be valid reasons for acceleration beyond the love of speed.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Ogive17]

Well, in one of the articles the Lt. Gov. says he accepts the results of the black box investigation and that it is likely he fell asleep at the wheel.

In my non-expert opinion, the damage on the car would indicate a more glancing blow on the passenger side of the vehicle.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[DamnStupidElf]

If you look at the actual data (the second link) you can see that in the 82 milliseconds leading up to the crash he was decelerating rather hard (about half a G, although it looks like the accelerometer's precision is a bit less than 0.4 Gs and I suppose it could have just been reading 0 acceleration inaccurately).

The most interesting thing is the wild oscillations in the accelerometer data during the crash. There are some pretty amazing vibrations traveling through the frame during a collision. It's important to note that the accelerometers experience much more acceleration than the passenger does due to being mounted on the frame. While the sensors saw +/- 40G it's likely that the dude experienced roughly 9 or 10 G's given the delta V over the last 70 ms.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Bobfrankly1]

Ever hear of airbags?

Thats enough about my wife...

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Uhhh...do you know what an airbag is and how it works? It's specifically designed to prevent the injuries you describe, even if not wearing a seatbelt.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

So long as the SUV doesn't rollover, the greater mass and size of the SUV makes it a better choice against pretty much anything else in a collision. While SUV's are more prone to rollovers than passenger cars, it doesn't make a rollover a foregone conclusion.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[WastedMeat]

Not quite. Where was the sensor located? The front fender would have decelerated much, much, faster than anything in the cabin, behind the crumple zone. The acceleration of a component/occupant is roughly inversely proportional to the distance it travels after impact. The cabin might get three feet closer to the object of the collision, but something mounted far forward of the firewall might move inches.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your story is absurd. People ejected from a car are always injured far worse than those who are restrained.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[necro81]

the accident popped the windshield out, and they got jettisoned before the passenger cabin had deformed significantly.

While your annecdote is interesting, the fact remains that being ejected from the vehicle in a crash is usually a pretty sure way to get killed.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Doctor Memory]

Is this a Ford thing? All the cars I've owned in the last 20 years have measured speed from a non-driven wheel, so if you spin the tires your speedometer is still accurate. My mom's old Country Estate wagon did this, but my '78 Firebird didn't, and I'm pretty sure my wife's Dodge Caravan doesn't. I imagine my A4 would, but it's all-wheel-drive, so there's no undriven wheel to measure from...

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Whorhay]

One of my younger brothers for years refused to wear a seatbelt because he thought it'd be safer to be ejected from the vehicle in case of a crash. This despite me trying to tell him about the higher chance of getting crushed if that were to happen. He just wouldn't believe it or whatever.

Then one of our best friends from grade school was partially ejected from a pickup truck during an accident. The truck rolled and he was cut in half just below the rib cage by the roof. I've never seen my brother not put on his seat belt first thing since then.

Not everyone that isn't wearing a seatbelt gets ejected, and not all ejections are full ejections. I've seen lots of pictures during first aid training courses where people got partially ejected and scalped in the process by hitting something on the way out, or when being pulled back in.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[blackraven14250]

I have no idea how they're typically engineered, but saw there wasn't anyone else who mentioned that you can filter out the spike fairly easily with some common sense interpretation of the data.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[GameboyRMH]

If the tires spin out on black ice, does the black box adjust for that? or would it just assume he's actually moving at the rate the tires are spinning?

Good question. The speed is measured at the trans. output so the speedometer would see a higher speed, but the front ABS sensors (if present) would see something closer to the car's true speed. If it records ABS sensor data it should at least be possible to tell if the rear tires were spinning. If the car had traction control though it shouldn't have allowed this to happen at all, the rear brakes would clamp down once the rear tires accelerated faster than the front.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[GameboyRMH]

Most cars measure from the transmission's output shaft, but newer cars also have a speed sensor in each wheel for ABS.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[xenoc_1]

i would never stick my daughter in a suburban, tahoe or expedition. ...

You really shouldn't be sticking your daughter at all.

Now as for the rest of us...

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[BeardedChimp]

No need to say more as in yes he very easily could have survived 40g?

From wikipedia

Toleration of g-force also depends on its duration. Shock is a short-term transient exitiation and is often measured as an acceleration. Very short duration shocks of 100 g have been survivable in racing car crashes.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[schlachter]

It's not just wheel spin. Modern cars have all kinds of inertial sensors for the various safety systems to operate. I imagine that speed should be accurate. Nonetheless, it would be a good idea to drop a $5 video camera into the front bumper and store a 60 second video buffer in the black box to better protect the consumer from software and hardware bugs that might distort the numerical data.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[arkane1234]

It hurts my brain just thinking about what it'd be like cleaning my car after that :)

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[gknoy]

You merely need to find a very large pair of graham crackers, some slabs of chocolate, and the local elementary school population.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[dbIII]

No. A lot of people are surviving crashes like that now with the sort of injuries that were previously only seen on dead people (eg. detatched retina from sudden deceleration). Air bags, seatbelts and crumple zones actually do make a difference.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[toddestan]

The Crown Victoria was pretty much the last of the V8 powered, rear wheel drive, body-on-frame cars left - a direct descendant of the US cars popular in the 60's and 70's. I believe it's out of production now. The massive SUVs are a different thing entirely.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[toddestan]

You really have to look at accident rates. You may have a better chance to survive the crash, but that's negated by being more likely to be in a crash in the first place. This is especially true with a lot of SUVs which are a lot more likely to be in single-vehicle crashes (rollovers, going off the road. and such). Statistically the safest vehicles on the road are generally the large luxury sedans due to their larger size and advanced safety systems, such as the Lincoln Town Car (which is basically an upgraded Crown Vic).

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[ByOhTek]

Yes. Indeed.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[ByOhTek]

Oh, you are definitely more likely to be injured if you are ejected, than if you follow all safety procedures.

But more likely isn't guaranteed, and that's the key point. Exceptions can happen, even if they are only 1%, when something happens a lot of times, there will be plenty of 1%s. I never said that you would be better off being ejected all the time, I simply stated that it isn't always the case that you would be worse off because you fail to do something that is usually beneficial. Usually you'll be worse off, but not always.

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[ByOhTek]

I know a case where a gal was driving way to fast, and slammed into a tree in her van. She was ejected and killed instantly. From the state of the cabin of the van, she probably would have ended up with broken ribs, whiplash and maybe a concussion if she had worn her seatbelt.

Neither option ALWAYS provides better results, and usually the seat belt is the better option. I was just trying to point out that it isn't always the better option, and just because someone didn't wear their seat belt, even in a really bad accident, doesn't mean they will always be worse off (just usually, and usually probably being > 99% of the time).

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[bennomatic]

Rim shot!

Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice?

[Coren22]

The 82 milliseconds of low deceleration was probably the part where the car was driving on grass/gravel, just before hitting the wall. Apparently, the car dropped 16 mph in that period of time, as the impact was at 92mph and the acceleration was up to 108.

Maybe we should...

[ackthpt]

"... Maybe we should strap black boxes to all our politicians."

Don't be foolish, they would explode from all the weaving, diving, bobbing, feints, corrections, double-backs and plowing through verbal feces (the black boxes, not the politicians.

Re:Maybe we should...

[QuantumRiff]

Politicians are kind of like Cockroaches.. In more ways than one...

Re:Maybe we should...

[sconeu]

It's not necessary to do so to detect lies.

There's already a simple way to tell if a politician is lying... his lips move.

Re:Maybe we should...

[TigerPlish]

Don't be foolish, they would explode from all the weaving, diving, bobbing, feints, corrections, double-backs and plowing through verbal feces (the black boxes, not the politicians.

Back when the earth was still cooling, somewhere in Alabama, I was on a green light going through an intersection, when from the road perpendicular to mine came a huge Lincoln black sedan, a big one (but not a limo) doing about warp 3. All I saw was a huge black blur cross my bow a few feet from my little car's nose. As it passed, I saw the "STATE SENATE" license plate, or something like that -- an Alabama hi-level government plate. He'd ran his red light, and was going quite fast. I'd say a goodly 70-90 mph, on a street marked for 45.

Had that Lincoln plowed into my little '84 Rx-7 (first gen.. very light.. no door beams, no airbags, and it was at least 40% rust overall) he would've tore through me like a locomotive. It'd been a fatal t-bone. Good thing that little rustbucket actually had some brakes to go with the go. She stopped quick-like, among the smell of hot brake and burnt rubber (ok, so I locked 'em up a bit.. this is before ABS.)

I actually considered giving chase (things like that bring on the red haze.) Then I thought: "A car like that is likely to have MiBs with who knows what in their shoulder holsters.." so instead I went home and then the shakes began.

I think it's time we turn Big Brother loose on himself. Twit(ter) is kinda helping with that, so's Facebook and the almighty sms. I say we implant our politicos with chips that reveal to us when they go the local crackhouse, cathouse, or other houses of ill repute. It's only fair. They want into our daily life, we'd like to get into theirs. I bet it'd be far more entertaining and illuminating than watching whatever dreck is playing on the muggle box.

LONG LIVE BILL THE CAT! Ackthpt, you have got to have the best nick in this here place n.n Ye gods, how I miss Bloom Co.! Senator Bedfellow has nothing on the craptacular people we've put into office now. I wish Brethed would revive Bloom Co as a daily, with all the main characters. What fantastic fodder these past 10 years would've been!

Re:Maybe we should...

[Anomalyst]

Politicians should be strapped regularly and frequently.

Re:Maybe we should...

[dpilot]

Unfortunately...

In modern America, Politicians strap black boxes to YOU!

Re:Maybe we should...

[holmstar]

Actually, we're doing that to ourselves. Most smartphones already record high g events, presumably so that the carrier can void the warranty and tell you that it doesn't work because you dropped it on the pavement.

I have a better idea...

[AngryDeuce]

Maybe we should strap black boxes to all our politicians.

Explosives would be far more beneficial to society in general...

Re:I have a better idea...

[mr1911]

Maybe we should strap black boxes to all our politicians.

Explosives would be far more beneficial to society in general...

And probably result in the same amount of mess they make each time they do something "for the children" or for "your safety".

Re:I have a better idea...

[broknstrngz]

Let's be humane. Let's trigger the blow with a polygraph.

Re:I have a better idea...

[hey!]

Politicians are no worse than the people who elect them, albeit in different ways. The character faults of politicians are dishonesty, hypocrisy, egotism, and inattention to duty. The faults of the people who elect them (or allow them to be elected if they don't vote) are laziness, ignorance, credulity, cowardice and bigotry.

In the US given the difficulty of an Constitutional amendment, the only way to fix the system is to improve the electorate. That's why politicians either hate education, or love the status quo in education.

Re:I have a better idea...

[bigrockpeltr]

but you would only have to clean up the mess once!

Re:I have a better idea...

[AngryDeuce]

You've reminded me of something I've often fantasized about: a political debate, moderated by FactCheck.org in real time. Put a "Truth-O-Meter" in front of every podium, and as they're talking just swing the meter from true/???/false as applicable. It would be goddamned hysterical to see them try to bullshit while the red lights are going off and the needle is bouncing off of FALSE FALSE FALSE (I always imagine an audible alarm similar to an aircraft's "stall" warning going off...)

No politician in the world would agree to something like that, but damn would it be fun to watch. Hell, we could even turn it into a game show, have all the candidates compete for a cash prize directly to their election fund; 1 point for truth, 0 points for ???, and -1 point for false. Whoever uses the most factual information in their responses wins. Maybe it would even get people interested in politics again?

Either that or let's just open it up to physical combat already so we can at least get a real life President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho elected. It'd probably be just as detrimental as the legitimate candidates are, but it'd be far more amusing at least.

Re:I have a better idea...

[AngryDeuce]

And we'd get to use a really fun squeegee!

100mph and no seatbelt?

[jpapon]

I think they buried the lead here... 100mph, sans seat-belt, and he walked away? That's goddamn incredible. I've seen first hand what an accident at 170km/h looks like (on the Autobahn) and walking away seems basically impossible.

Re:100mph and no seatbelt?

[Animats]

I think they buried the lead here... 100mph, sans seat-belt, and he walked away? That's goddamn incredible. I've seen first hand what an accident at 170km/h looks like (on the Autobahn) and walking away seems basically impossible.

You have to be impressed with the performance of the air bag system. The logging shows the seat belt unbuckled, and the air bag controller firing the first stage charge, then the second stage charge 10ms later as the system detects a severe crash.

The accelerations indicate the car first hit something that didn't stop the vehicle. Then it hit something hard, but either bounced off or broke through. That's the brief 40G spike. (Football players experience 40G spikes in normal play.) Then there's some banging around.

Understand that this is just the airbag's record. All the airbag controller has is some accelerometers and seat belt information. Airbag controllers record that data primarily to improve the performance of airbags. In the early years of airbags, there were a very few incidents where airbag deployment caused fatalities. (The worst it ever got was 0.5 fatality per million years of car registration.) This was essentially fixed (down to 0.01) by 2003. About a second of data is kept at all times, and shortly after the airbag fires, that data is locked in memory. Note that there's only 712ms of history here. The deceleration of 23MPH during airbag deployment is about typical for a crash that didn't involve hitting a solid obstacle like a bridge. The airbag has to fire at just the right time to be most effective, and the two-stage systems have to react properly to accidents of various types and severity. Here, the airbag system did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the driver walked away from the crash.

There's no vehicle computer data in the report. Vehicle data has more data sources and much longer term.

Re:100mph and no seatbelt?

[asc99c]

It all depends on what you hit. If it's a head on collision with a tree, it doesn't budge, and you stop dead. If it's a glancing blow that sends you flying / skidding to a stop over a distance, it isn't really that bad. Richard Hammond survived a crash caused by a tyre blowout at 288 mph ...

Re:100mph and no seatbelt?

[Solandri]

It's not how fast you're going, it's how quickly you stop. A 100 mph crash into a solid barrier like a bridge pillar or tree is basically unsurvivable. A 100 mph crash where the car skids and tumbles across flat land is almost certainly survivable.

Re:100mph and no seatbelt?

[Anonymous Coward]

The accelerations indicate the car first hit something that didn't stop the vehicle. Then it hit something hard, but either bounced off or broke through. That's the brief 40G spike. (Football players experience 40G spikes in normal play.) Then there's some banging around.

I don't think I buy that. 108mph is about 160 fps or 2 inches per millisecond. It's only 20 ms between initial impact and 40g spike, or about 3'. The whole record is only 70 ms (call it 10 feet) after the initial impact. I think it's safe to say that these accelerations relate to a single impact with a lot of deformation in the vehicle and noise or ringing in whatever the accelerometer was mounted to.The blue trace in the graph is probably more representative of what's actually happening to the car and shows accelerations substantially less than 40g.

Re:100mph and no seatbelt?

[GameboyRMH]

Actually he had brain damage and was in the hospital for a while. The roll bar on the dragster-style vehicle he was in dug into the ground.

Re:100mph and no seatbelt?

[Anachragnome]

"I think they buried the lead here... 100mph, sans seat-belt, and he walked away?"

When I was 18, I crashed a 1970 Plymouth Belvedere (Police package) at 105 mph. I know that I was going this fast because I was barely passing a big-rig and was trying to determine how fast the crazy fucker was going on I-10 in Arizona (two trailers!). I was looking at the speedometer when left front tire blew just after I passed the truck. The steel wheel cut into 130F+ asphalt and instantly yanked the car 90 degrees to the left, sending it hurtling off the road--straight into a 6 ft-high pile of boulders the DOT piled along the median. I had almost zero chance of reacting in time to correct before I was in soft shoulder dirt. I almost walked away.

Here is where things got really crazy. According to the driver of the truck I had just passed (it was all a jumbled blur to me), my car impacted the boulders in the highway median, launching upwards. The rear of the car impacted the boulders (tearing open the fuel tank) sending it into a cartwheel/spin. The truck driver claimed the car did at least two complete somersaults before impacting HARD on it's roof and sliding back into the roadway upside down.

I, AND my two friends in the backseat, were NOT wearing seat-belts. All four door windows were rolled down because of the desert heat.

Looking to see if my friends were hurt, my attention was immediately drawn to the rear window, amazingly intact--a waterfall of fuel was sheeting across the glass. At that point, my only thought was to get out of the car. One of my friends was already on the way out one window and I shoved the other out another window and onto the hot desert asphalt, quickly following her myself. Once out, I tried to stand up and failed completely as my left leg was bent at a 90 degree angle about 3 inches above the ankle. That was the only injury I sustained, and, to this day, I have a 7-inch steel plate and 7 screws in my leg (it looks like the Docs went to Ace Hardware for parts in the x-rays). BOTH of my friends were completely uninjured.

Laying there on the ground, with melted asphalt sealer sticking to me, I saw what I thought was glass scattered around me and reached out to pick a piece off my arm--it was cold. I realized that it wasn't glass and looked back at the car--not a single broken window in the car. Fucking amazing. What I thought was glass turned out to be the ice from our cooler that had exploded after being ejected from the car. This cooler was as large as a human in the fetal position. It very easily could have been one of us that was ejected.

As it turns out, the landing on the roof was what broke my leg--the first impact had jammed me forward, my leg wedging under the brake pedal, and the landing slammed me against the inside of the roof...while my leg remained under the pedal. Snap. I didn't feel a thing until later.

The truck driver pulled his rig across the road (preventing anyone from running us over) and ran to help. He and one of my friends helped me to the side of the road to some shade under a large creosote bush, and went back to help my other friend who was still laying, stunned, in the middle of the road. Going into shock (the heat waves from the road appeared to fill my entire vision--weird visual, to be sure), I heard a loud rattle just behind me. I shit you not--they had lain me down almost directly on top of a rattle snake. The last thing I remember is yelling "SNAKE!!!". The friend that had lain me there was a fellow crew-member of mine on a wildland fire-fighting crew and knew exactly what "SNAKE!!" meant. Apparently he killed the snake with a rock while I was passed out. Being snake-bit while already in shock probably would have killed me considering the ambulance took over 40 minutes to arrive.

Several things I have drawn from this event. One, the 1970 Plymouth Belvedere (Police package) was the sturdiest automobile I ever owned. Two, seat-belts are a good thing, but only when worn. Had I been wearing mine, I wouldn't have suffered the bro

Re:100mph and no seatbelt?

[schlachter]

It really depends on how the force is distributed more than the absolute speed.

I crashed a car on the highway going 70 mph but I hit the median at an angle and bounced off of it before coming to a stop. I had no injuries. Just a bit in shock. On the other hand, people die from accidents half that speed under the wrong circumstances. Of course I was wearing my seat belt. :)

He did not experience 40g's

[RichMan]

The black box is hard mounted to a solid part of the car. The black box and associated accelerometers stop hard.
A person in a seat, surround by air bags and wearing a seat belt does not stop nearly as hard.

Now if there had been no seat belt and no air bags .....

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[FTWinston]

Also worth pointing out that the log shows 40 gravities was experienced for just under 1ms - even without airbags etc, he would only have been accelerated towards the windscreen at ~1 metre per second by this acceleration. Obviously this was only part of the overall incident, I just want to point out that the magnitude of an acceleration is only one factor, the duration is just as important.

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[Jawnn]

Partly correct. The occupant most certainly did not sustain a deceleration anywhere near 40 g's. In the time frames we're talking about in auto crashes, absorbing that much energy is virtually universally fatal. One or more sensors on the vehicle did register that figure, so they were probably located on the part of the car that stopped "right now" on impact. Happily, that part of the car was probably one of several that absorbed enough energy that the unrestrained idiot driving the car didn't get smucked by other parts of the car when they stopped (or slowed down quickly) and he didn't. That the vehicle is described as "shredded" is telling as well. Those dramatic crashes, even end-over-end crashes, that take a long time to happen are typically much more survivable than those that involve most of the force arriving from a single vector in a short period of time. They look horrific but all that energy spent tearing up the outside of the car is energy that doesn't get to the occupants.
As for the speeds recorded. They are derived from the speedometer. Yes? Which is derived (through the transmission, in most cars) from the rotation of the drive wheels. If they were spinning because they broke traction, it's easy to make it look like the vehicle was going faster than it really was.

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[binford2k]

Were you awake when you read this? Or do you just moonlight as the Internet Strawman Vigilante?

"He did not experience 40g's" doesn't even close to meaning "do not experience any g's"

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[pedrop357]

Agreed, his peak deceleration rate was lower rate then the car's. His seatbelt stretched a little, he met the airbag, etc.

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[fafaforza]

Ah, so the other 20 seconds, he was only subject to anywhere from 10 to 30 times the force of gravity. Yeah, that's nothing. I do that every time I get on the NYC subway.

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[prisoner-of-enigma]

John Stapp survived decels in excess of 40g's but it doesn't state the duration. However, I believe the medical data derived from his testing showed a properly-restrained human body is capable of surviving a surprising amount of deceleration, much more that most people believed possible prior to his tests.

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[omnichad]

You continue moving forward at your current rate of speed until something stops you (You start at 0G's). When the car hits something, it slows down very quickly. You experience a few G's from the friction of your seat, maybe. The bulk of the force comes when your body hits the airbag. But the airbag is deflating, so it isn't pushing against you at the same speed that the car is decelerating.

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[asc99c]

You're misunderstanding his point. At high g's you're accelerating very quickly, that's a given. It won't take long until you're being accelerated into something. For a fighter pilot that would be the seat or harness. But if the acceleration is sub millisecond, you've barely even begun to be pushed against the seatbelt, so you don't really feel the 40g acceleration.

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[tibit]

Uh-huh, much good a know-it-all brain does you when you're asleep...

Re:He did not experience 40g's

[dbIII]

Which is a good reason to exclude him from any sort of position of responsibility in the future now that the air bags saved him.
If you are electing people too stupid to live under normal circumstances then that explains a lot of US politics.

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[ackthpt]

They usually record less data for maintenance purposes than the kind the insurance companies are clamoring for.
These limited datasets have been subpoenaed for auto accidents.

How do they go about recording? I presume it's a loop in memory, which is only so many hours, or days capacity. My 3 year old car already has 115,000 miles on it. Some tale it could tell.

108? Typical /. bull

[mapkinase]

The investigation showed Murray was driving 75 miles per hour in the seconds leading up to the crash, which occurred before dawn on a stretch of Interstate 190 in Sterling. But his foot fell harder on the car’s accelerator, increasing his speed to 108 miles per hour as he slid off the roadway and into a rock ledge, flipping twice. His speed was recorded at 92 miles per hour upon impact with the ledge.

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[Sez Zero]

That's not BS, the car was going 108 as it slid off the roadway.

Here's the BS:

Lieutenant Governor Timothy P. Murray was driving 100 miles per hour, without a seat belt... The investigation showed Murray was driving 75 miles per hour in the seconds leading up to the crash... The posted speed limit in the area is 65 miles per hour, and the lieutenant governor had previously said that he had not been speeding and that he had been wearing a seat belt.

So he was speeding 10 mph over and he wasn't wearing a seat belt. That's exactly like "wearing a seat belt" if by "wearing" you mean "not at all wearing".

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[Baloroth]

So he fell asleep. Could happen to anyone, only a story because this involves a politician. Wait, still not a story. Even if he lied about going the speed limit and wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt is stupid, true, but most people go at least 70 in a 65. 75 is quite common.

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[Sez Zero]

Even if he lied about going the speed limit and wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt is stupid, true, but most people go at least 70 in a 65. 75 is quite common.

Yeah, I totally hate it when people try to hold public officials to higher standards.

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[Jeremi]

Yeah, I totally hate it when people try to hold public officials to higher standards.

I should point out that a lot of people who are involved in accidents suffer from short-term memory loss regarding the time immediately before the trauma.

Furthermore, recalling an event is not like retrieving a file from a computer, it is an active process of reconstruction, where some details may be accurately recalled, while others are pulled in via inference or conflation with other (similar) events. That is why eyewitnesses are so notoriously unreliable in court -- it's very common for people to "remember" things that didn't actually happen.

Okay, my point is: politician jokes aside, it's entirely plausible that the governor did indeed honestly "remember" putting on his seat belt and driving under the speed limit, and therefore was not lying when he said that. Memory is faulty, especially after you've been badly shaken up.

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[spire3661]

Never in my life have I ever fell asleep at the wheel or even come close. If you fall asleep at the wheel its not an accident, thats criminal negligence. NO it could not 'happen to anyone' because most people arent stupid enough to operate a speeding hunk of metal while drowsy.

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[Ogive17]

You need to read the entire article. The police later changed their story after examining the black box data.

Their initial conclusion was based on the Lt. Gov.'s story and the road conditions. The fit the circumstances of the crash to his story.

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I have personally pulled over on the side of a highway and taken a nap when I felt I was to tired to drive. I woke up with a cop knocking on my window.

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[fafaforza]

And no punishment for lying to investigators. And why should citizens be fully forthcoming with cops, again?

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Ah, but there are controls on normal citizens breaking the speed limit--if you or I do it and aren't driving in the hyper-aware state that allows us to slow down when we see the top of a cop car over the next rise before they can get their speed gun on us, we get a ticket.

A governor though? Hah! Governors' nephews get off for drunk driving. Any highway cop's career could be squashed like a bug by a governor, or even a governor's aid hearing about a cop giving a governor a ticket, or the cop's direct boss who doesn't like their subordinates making waves, even if the governor him/herself wouldn't have done a thing to the cop and happily pays the ticket.

The end result? The governor gets to speed without consequences, and does things like speeding while half-asleep. Unless you think the idea of someone being literally above the law is cool, people in a position of power like that need to be held to a higher standard in order to be held to any standard at all. And that's of course not addressing the question of why, if even the governor can't follow the law, and we don't penalize them when they break it, the law is what it is in the first place.

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[JonySuede]

Sometime you have no choice...

I did fell at sleep in car once, many years ago when I was 20. It was after a service call to a place located one hour from the home-base. It was also my last service call at the end of a 70hr on-call week from hell (30Hr paid over, yay!, or so I thought), back at the shop, and it was someone else turn to wear the bonding gear from hell known as a pager.

So I stepped into the car and I was not drowsy, I filled my bureaucratic form, put on a black metal CD, and went on the highway, as usual. About halfway home I felt an uncontrollable drowsiness. I fought it few second then the last thing that I remember, is that I said to myself: I will take the next exit and take a small nap. I was lucky to be wake by the sound of the grinding on the railing so only the car paint was damaged and I got my overtime pay but it could have easily turn out differently...

But what should I've I done differently ? I said I was not feeling tired nor drowsy, in fact, I was enthusiastically thinking about the overtime pay and the
transfer of the device from hell..

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[gknoy]

Which is infinitely nicer than an EMT knocking on the window. (:

Re:108? Typical /. bull

[dbIII]

You don't put the memory of people on trial, you put their actions on trial.

Exploding

[zooblethorpe]

"... Maybe we should strap black boxes to all our politicians."

Don't be foolish, they would explode from all the weaving, diving, bobbing, feints, corrections, double-backs and plowing through verbal feces (the black boxes, not the politicians.

Exploding politicians would still be nice.

(At least, ones that explode if they do too much weaving, diving, bobbing, feints, corrections, double-backs and plowing through verbal feces.)

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[glop]

They will ask Walmart for video footage to identify who bumped into your car and drove away.
At least that's what the insurance told my wife once...

Re:40 gravities?

[SJHillman]

And what do you think the G in G-force stands for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

1G is equivalent to Earth-normal gravity (an object at rest on the planetary surface). 40G is equivalent to 40 times Earth-normal gravities. Gravities is commonly used when discussing force related to multiples of Earth-normal gravity.

Not a great example of a data dump

[Wierdy1024]

It seems, looking at the raw data, that while "40G's" is quoted by the summary, and words like "totalled" are used, the data recorded by the box only shows a 15MPH crash.

There is other dubious data - for example, the box sensors indicate that the box accelerated by 22MPH while the data was being retrieved - ie. while sitting on some investigators desk - seems unlikley!

The crash acceleration data itself contains some very high amplitude high frequency oscillations - with a frequency around 200Hz. These are much bigger than the crash itself. That could be vibrations going through the car after something goes "twang", but could even be the stereo bass turned up loud. These vibrations are where the "40g" comes from - the actual crash is more like 1 or 2 g.

Note however there may be more information that wasn't recorded.

Re:Not a great example of a data dump

[jpapon]

could even be the stereo bass turned up loud

Would accelerometers inside a sealed black box register anything from pressure waves coming from speakers? I don't really see why they would. I'm pretty sure that if I stick a Wiimote in front of my subwoofer and blast the bass it won't experience accelerations comparable to those experienced in a car slamming on the brakes.

Re:Not a great example of a data dump

[Anonymous Coward]

box sensors indicate that the box accelerated by 22MPH while the data was being retrieved

MPH is not an acceleration. It is a velocity.

Re:Not a great example of a data dump

[Leuf]

So, you read the data and tried to interpret it, but didn't RTFA or look at the picture of the mangled car? Here's a hint, a 2g crash does not result in the right front tire being separated from what used to be a car. It was severe enough to bend the A pillars, but that probably happened while the car was flipping over twice. Yeah, it was probably just the stereo though.

Re:Not a great example of a data dump

[DamnStupidElf]

Maybe you should RTFD (. . . disclaimer) about delta V a little closer. It's that part before the raw data that actually explains what was recorded, and how. Given only Acceleration(t), you can integrate it into Velocity(t) + C where C is unknown because no initial velocity is given. I'm not sure where you saw the 22MPH "acceleration" while the data was being retrieved, but all the data is stored in NVRAM and retrieved later. TFD clearly states that you have to be careful to plug into the module correctly so that new trouble codes don't overwrite old data, and presumably whoever read the module data was careful.

Strike any rigid object against a rock wall and it will develop oscillations at its resonant frequency. If it deforms, you'll get even more interesting waveforms.

Re:Not a great example of a data dump

[tibit]

15MPH crash?? Informative? Of course there will be oscillations, you integrate them to see what was the change in speed (not absolute speed!) during the period the recording was taken in. Those oscillations are mostly immaterial, you can put a low pass filter to get a more accurate representation of what the driver was subjected into. His bones were not bolted to the chassis, W2^10. The recording is not long enough, in this case, to capture entire delta-v from initial impact to the car coming to a rest.

Re:Not a great example of a data dump

[tibit]

Given only Acceleration(t), you can integrate it into Velocity(t) + C where C is unknown because no initial velocity is given.

And that's what one should know pretty well upon leaving high school, too.

Re:Not a great example of a data dump

[elistan]

Hey there. It seems you've mis-read what the report is actually saying.

1) The 22.67 mph change in speed did not happen during data retreival. It happened during the 712.8 ms that the recording algorithm was running during the crash.

2) Yes, the swings from +40g to -40g in 1.6 ms are odd. (I suspect vibrations through the frame of the car. 40g, by the way, is the max the sensor reads.) However, your stating that the crash was more like 1g isn't accurate. From time 0 (the moment of impact) to 70.4 ms (the end of time being reported) the delta-v is 15.13 mph. That's equivalent to an acceleration of 214.9 mph per second, or about 9.8 g. 10-ish g seems reasonable to me for the first moment of impact of a crash. Too bad the document only covers 152.8 ms.

Re:Not a great example of a data dump

[LearnToSpell]

MPH is not an acceleration. It is a velocity.

It's actually a speed, not a velocity.</pedantic>

Re:Not a great example of a data dump

[drinkypoo]

There is other dubious data - for example, the box sensors indicate that the box accelerated by 22MPH while the data was being retrieved - ie. while sitting on some investigators desk - seems unlikley!

What do you think happens if you pick up the box, or drop it? It has cables and such on it so don't expect it to give you any perfect numbers.

The crash acceleration data itself contains some very high amplitude high frequency oscillations - with a frequency around 200Hz. These are much bigger than the crash itself. That could be vibrations going through the car after something goes "twang", but could even be the stereo bass turned up loud.

No, no it couldn't.

Note however there may be more information that wasn't recorded.

Like your BAC over the course of authoring this comment?

Re:40 gravities?

[FTWinston]

*headdesk*
So G is short for "G-force" - well what's that short for? That's certainly not a unit of measure, but a scale. Anyway, "Big G" is a universal constant. You're probably thinking of small g, often used as a measure of acceleration, representing the acceleration due to gravity at earth's surface. And as 99.9999998% of us have only ever experienced this one gravity well, it's usually not considered necessary to say "Earth surface gravities" and so "gravities" is a perfectly acceptable synonym for this (somewhat vague) unit of measure, the symbol for which would be "g" (NOT "G").

Disclaimer

[girlintraining]

There's a disclaimer right there on page one:


Accident reconstructionists must be aware of the limitations of the data recorded... should compare the recorded data with the physical evidence...

Those disclaimers do mean things. The data was never intended to be used as a "black box"; That's purely media hyperbole comparing it to what's in an aircraft, which is designed to aid in accident reconstruction. The courts routinely dismiss GPS tracking data on phones used as evidence that the driver wasn't speeding because the device isn't meant to be used for that, and isn't precise enough anyway. An officer's radar gun, however, is.

That said... let us all look to the sky now and return to mumblings about conspiracies between or about the government and/or insurance companies.

Re:Disclaimer

[Eyeballs]

The disclaimer also notes that the sensor _can't_ record anything higher than 40Gs (in section 3.2), so the actual G forces of the accident could be higher than mentioned in the article.

Re:Disclaimer

[Zan Lynx]

The courts routinely dismiss GPS tracking data on phones used as evidence that the driver wasn't speeding because the device isn't meant to be used for that, and isn't precise enough anyway. An officer's radar gun, however, is.

Interesting how my phone's GPS speed reporting matches up far more accurately with measured time between mile posts than those road-side radar signs (Your speed is: ). If that's the same "precise" radar gun technology police use, I'd rather trust the GPS.

Re:Disclaimer

[ebunga]

The courts routinely dismiss GPS tracking data on phones used as evidence that the driver wasn't speeding because the device isn't meant to be used for that, and isn't precise enough anyway. An officer's radar gun, however, is.

Interesting how my phone's GPS speed reporting matches up far more accurately with measured time between mile posts than those road-side radar signs (Your speed is: ). If that's the same "precise" radar gun technology police use, I'd rather trust the GPS.

Many of those use ultrasonic devices, and even if they do use radar or lidar, they are rarely calibrated and are measuring across multiple lanes of traffic, rather than being pointed at a specific target like an officer pointing a radar gun.

Re:Disclaimer

[girlintraining]

Interesting how my phone's GPS speed reporting matches up far more accurately with measured time between mile posts than those road-side radar signs (Your speed is: ). If that's the same "precise" radar gun technology police use, I'd rather trust the GPS.

Anyone with a basic understanding of statistical sampling can see the flaw in your conclusion.

Over the course of a mile, travelling at highway speeds, your average speed will more closely correlate with your GPS because your GPS is also averaging your speed over a number of datapoints lasting about 15 seconds or so (the time it takes to get a 'warm' GPS lock). Those posts are standing still, calibrated to measure the speed of more than one object passing through a narrow cone -- optimistically 50' across, but more likely considerably smaller.

In 15 seconds, at 60 MPH, your car travels 1,320 feet (About 3-1/2 football fields). I assure you, the area being measured by that stationary device is far, far smaller.

Stay in school, kid. Someday you might make a half-way decent engineer.

Re:Disclaimer

[Zan Lynx]

You were doing so well until the gratuitous insult at the end.

Get out of school and do some actual work. Someday you'll be able to produce work as nice as mine.

Re:Disclaimer

[tibit]

I don't think any of those use ultrasound. It doesn't really work all that well over the distances in question (dozens of metres).

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[ackthpt]

They will ask Walmart for video footage to identify who bumped into your car and drove away.
At least that's what the insurance told my wife once...

I need fore and aft GoPro cameras in my car - record my drives. What amazing things I could turn over to the CHP! The people passing on the shoulder, tailgating, yakking on phones. putting on make-up, shaving, picking noses...

Gas Pedal

[pavon]

Yeah, it's hard to measure velocity exactly, but from the article it sounds like the increased tire spin was preceded by increased pressure on the accelerator. So the increased tire revolution rate was probably caused by him going faster, not a spin-out.

Re:Asleep @ the wheel...

[Sez Zero]

At a auto racing school I attended, the "If you know you're going to crash" advice was to cross your arms on your chest and go limp. A death grip on the steering wheel is a sure way to break your elbows.

The Strap-On treatment

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Maybe we should strap black boxes to all our politicians."

Strap on to them as they strap on to us!

Re:The Strap-On treatment

[Reverand Dave]

I was thinking more of

Maybe we should strap black boxes to all our politicians.

and then run them over with a car going 108mph

Re:The Strap-On treatment

[Zero__Kelvin]

You might want to think about changing your moniker to "Irreverent Dave" ;-)

Thanks for ruining my country

[Zero__Kelvin]

"So he fell asleep. Could happen to anyone, only a story because this involves a politician. Wait, still not a story. Even if he lied ..."

You are the epitome of exactly what is wrong with this country. All polticians lie, and that is perfectly acceptable behavior, eh? I wonder why they continue to lie to us ...

40 g without major injuries?

[Arancaytar]

Is he named Clark Kent? Guy should have become an astronaut, not a politician.

He was doing 75 and fell asleep

[ohnocitizen]

From TFA: He was doing 75mph in the seconds leading up to the crash, then accelerated to 108mph. This lead them to believe he probably fell asleep at the wheel. I sympathize, having lived in MA 75mph on the Pike is nothing (people drive far faster). Also having lived in MA I can sympathize with him falling asleep at the wheel. Massachusetts residents often drive while asleep or at least while dozing.

Re:40 gravities?

[hawguy]

*headdesk*

So G is short for "G-force" - well what's that short for? That's certainly not a unit of measure, but a scale. Anyway, "Big G" is a universal constant. You're probably thinking of small g, often used as a measure of acceleration, representing the acceleration due to gravity at earth's surface. And as 99.9999998% of us have only ever experienced this one gravity well, it's usually not considered necessary to say "Earth surface gravities" and so "gravities" is a perfectly acceptable synonym for this (somewhat vague) unit of measure, the symbol for which would be "g" (NOT "G").

Since accident investigators and car companies so rarely need to use the Gravitational Constant in their calculations (not even a Hummer is large enough to have gravitational attraction be a factor in an accident), it's perfectly acceptable for them to represent g as G as there's no ambiguity in their field. And it even helps to distinguish between g as in gravitational acceleration and g as in gram.

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[ae1294]

They will ask Walmart for video footage to identify who bumped into your car and drove away.
At least that's what the insurance told my wife once...

I need fore and aft GoPro cameras in my car - record my drives. What amazing things I could turn over to the CHP! The people passing on the shoulder, tailgating, yakking on phones. putting on make-up, shaving, picking noses...

STOP S.T.A.L.K.I.N.G MY WIFE!

Seatbeltless?

[ischorr]

It's 2012 (or was 2011 at the time). Who in the world is driving around without a seatbelt on?

Re:Seatbeltless?

[goodmanj]

Massholes. Trust me, I live in MA, it's a plague.

Re:Unpossible

[PPH]

Air bag.

The accelerometer attached to the car frame measured 40G. The driver's body would experience much less. What surprises me is surviving the subsequent rollover while not wearing a belt. People have been killed in much lower speed crashes getting bounced around the inside of a car or ejected.

Toyota

[Anonymous Coward]

The manual for my Corolla says that the blackbox data can only and will only be used by Toyota (to absolve themselves from liability) and isn't readable and won't be released to any other party. Including the owner of the vehicle.

Inflammatory summary

[binford2k]

The guy fell asleep. Read the linked article. Then move along. No story here.

Another winner from the People's Republic of MA

[Squidlips]

When you have a one-party system as Massachusetts does along with a voting public that is only interested national / global issues, you have to expect that the government is loaded with drunken patronage solons. The last three Speakers of the House have been indicted. Even before that the system was corrupted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Thompson)...

Re:insurance liability

[hawguy]

I can see the insurance companies now: "Sorry Mr. Smith, but the speed limit is 60 and you were travelling at 61 so we are denying your claim."

No insurance policy that I'm aware of excludes coverage if you're speeing. I'm not even sure that's legal.

Insurance will also cover you if you're committing a felony DUI or driving recklessly.

They may cancel your policy afterwards and refuse to write you a new policy, but they won't refuse to cover you just because you were going over the speed limit at the time of the accident.

Since we are being pedants

[Chrisq]

Don't you mean 40G (which is short for G-force). A gravity is not a unit of measure.

Since we are being pedants I think you mean g (little g), not G (big G).

Re:Since we are being pedants

[BobK65]

Here is a video of an Air Force deceleration test at 40g. http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/10/40G-Stop-Test-581623

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[pedrop357]

Everything I've read about black-boxes and event-data recorders suggests they're all in a loop.

Airplane black boxes apparently run on a 30 or 60(?) minute loop. What's being recorded now is overwriting what happened 30 mins ago. When an event occurs that stops the recording, there's a snapshot of the time running up to the event. I understand it's a 15-30 second timeframe for automobiles and airbag deployment.

There are driver monitoring systems that work the same way. There are videos on youtube from companies that make products for companies that records driver behavior-they record G-forces, delta-v, directional change, and speed; some can also record throttle and steering angle, etc. as well.
They run on something like a 2 minute loop and if certain thresholds are exceeded, will commit the last two minutes to some form of non-volatile storage and continue recording on a new two minute loop.

I've seen videos and read things that led me to believe that there are some models of police dash cam systems that operate like that. Running on a specific timed loop, but stopping the recycle part of the loop when the lights or siren are turned on.

40 gravities?

[macshome]

That box must have been really, really heavy!

40 G, no seatbelt, no injuries?

[hackertourist]

One of the indications in the log is that the damn fool wasn't wearing his seat belt. That makes him lucky to be alive.

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[nigelo]

I picked my nose once - I thought they said 'Roses', so I asked for a great big red one...

strap black boxes and cameras to public servants

[Dan667]

but not to Citizens.

reminds me of when Rick Perry was LT. Governor

[SethJohnson]

Somehow this reminds me of when Rick Perry was the LT. Governor of Texas and got pulled over for speeding. He did his best to intimidate the DPS officer into letting him "just get on down the road." Man, where are these guys having to always get to in such a hurry?!?

Seth

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, if everyone is tailgating and they feel they need to pass you on the shoulder... perhaps you are driving to slow?

Easy way to deal with tailgaters, move to the side and let them pass. If you feel you must drive fast, you can then follow them and let them get the speeding ticket at the next speed trap. You always want a 'rabbit'.

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[NevarMore]

The people passing on the shoulder, tailgating, yakking on phones. putting on make-up, shaving, picking noses...

They should be pointed outside the car!

Seatbelt laws in Mass?

[mswope]

Does Mass have a seatbelt law? Is the Lt. Gov exempt from such laws? Data shows that during both bag deployments, the driver's seatbelt was unbuckled.

Re:Seatbelt laws in Mass?

[goodmanj]

Yes, MA does have a seatbelt law. No, the lt gov is not exempt: he received a fine for not wearing a seat belt, as well as for speeding and a "lane violation". (Apparently driving out of your lane and into a big rock without signaling your intentions is a ticketable offense.)

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1891053/WAMC.New.England.News/MA.Lieutenant.Governor.Will.Not.Contest.Ticket

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[fafaforza]

If only they gave a crap or had the desire to do anything about any of it :P

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[ackthpt]

Uhm, if everyone is tailgating and they feel they need to pass you on the shoulder... perhaps you are driving to slow?

Easy way to deal with tailgaters, move to the side and let them pass. If you feel you must drive fast, you can then follow them and let them get the speeding ticket at the next speed trap. You always want a 'rabbit'.

Driving an infuriatingly slow speed appears to be about 5 MPH over the speed limit. Though I must say, I have seen dozens of different drivers who tailgate out of habit. You can generally find them, after a rainfall, standing outside a shattered pile of plastic by the roadside.

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[Skater]

I need fore and aft GoPro cameras in my car - record my drives. What amazing things I could turn over to the CHP! The people passing on the shoulder, tailgating, yakking on phones. putting on make-up, shaving, picking noses...

I want the same. My idea is to at least have a camera on the back of the rearview mirror, facing out the windshield, just recording everything I see like a DVR. Then, I'd hit a button when I see something stupid to have it save the last 30 seconds or so of video. In the DC area, I would have new videos for a website demonstrating aggressive and/or stupid behavior DAILY. And it'd be great evidence if I'm involved in an accident, since, the last time, the other driver lied about what he was doing and it all got blamed on me.

VIN in public view?

[Wingfat]

I know i wouldnt be happy if the VIN of my car was posted for the world to see.. you can get keys / key fobs made rather easy to break in and seal things inside or start the car up and go.. nice work everyone for posting this information to the world.

Re:VIN in public view?

[_0xd0ad]

Um, I don't think that car is going anywhere. And if you want to break in, you'll probably have to go through the holes where the windows used to be - I doubt any of the doors will open, key or no key.

Re:VIN in public view?

[dino2gnt]

You mean on a metal plate at the front left corner of the windshield, where anyone walking by can see it? The horror.

Re:VIN in public view?

[Wingfat]

exactly... you don’t cover yours? if no, then why not? - Agreed on the other post, yes the car is totaled but that wasn’t my point of my posting about things being posted that should be personal.

Maybe not so fast afterall

[Big Smirk]

Its unclear when the black box stopped recording. But it had a peak of -16G (smoothed average) and it increase almost linearly for 70ms.
So 1G = 32 ft/sec^2. So its a triangle with the area (1/2bh): .070 * 32 * 16 /2 and you have a total velocity change of 17.92 ft/sec or 12 mph.

I see nothing on this plot that would indicate that the car was traveling at any higher speed. Did I miss it?

Note at the beginning of the document it says something like 24mph - which is probably a better estimate than me assuming its a triangle and it take into account all the data, not just the uptick at the end.

Still, no where near 105mph.

Its a well known fact

[Stan92057]

Its a well known fact our politicians speed. Its happened here in PA and NJ. I don't care, but if they have to go over 70 miles an hour to get to a meeting then they should be flying not driving. If they kill someone they have to go to jail. Its just that simple

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[midicase]

I have fore and aft cameras on my vehicle that record when driving. It is fairly easy to setup. A mini camera mounted above the rear-view mirror. Another at the top of the back windshield. I replaced the stock lens on each with wide-angle to get a broader view but it is not as fun to watch the fish-eye results. The feeds are recorded on a vanilla 100 USD 4-channel home security camera system mounted in the trunk. Replaced the hard drive with an SSD and slightly modified to run off DC only. Spent about 225 USD on the entire system.

Nothing much to get excited about that has been recorded. Bad drivers, people running red lights, etc. Just waiting for the day to catch something awesome.

Re:Unpossible

[Big Smirk]

If you look at the data and read the report you will note that 40G is the maximum that can be recorded by the black box. More importantly it was only instantanious reading. Most likely a vibration, not a sustained 40G. Peak deceleration, according to the data, was more on the order of 16G, and even then, only for a few milliseconds.

Air force pilots have sustained 9+ G's during manuevers and stunt pilots + or - 9Gs.

According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force
100Gs, in short duration, is survivable in car accidents.

Re:40 gravities?

[snowgirl]

And it even helps to distinguish between g as in gravitational acceleration and g as in gram.

To be fair, even at Mini-Cooper scales, I don't think a single gram would be significant... so even that distinction would likely be necessary. And besides, we're f*ckin 'mericans! We use pounds!

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[tibit]

Should have read the fine report :) The retained data is a rather short freeze-frame data that includes a couple hundred data points at most. It's there mostly for the manufacturer of the restraint system controller to be able to cover their asses in case the customer, say, claims that the airbags deployed for no reason. It's not designed to be a real crash recorder. For those, you'd want decent inertial reference (6 DOF), audio recording, survivable memory module, etc.

Rear view camera

[Kupfernigk]

The rear view camera built into my car is the single really useful gadget it has over the last one. Until you have experienced reversing with a properly sited camera, you do not know how easy reversing can be. Mind you, I reverse into the garage...my years in the Mafia taught me that being able to drive straight out is a potential life saver.

If it wasn't for the insurance problems I would probably replace the wing mirrors with camera and in-car monitors too. The field of view is better, with no blind spot, the distortion is less. Perhaps some brave manufacturer will try it, possibly with emergency fold-out mirrors in case the camera fails.

Re:Rear view camera

[adolf]

Mind you, I reverse into the garage...my years in the Mafia taught me that being able to drive straight out is a potential life saver.

I disagree.

Unless you live at the end of a road and can therefore perform a proper balls-out drag launch from your garage, backing out is always better. It prevents the assailants from munging up the front of your car (no chance for the hood to obscure forward visibility) as you roar over them, and offers reasonable protection against the hollow-point bullets that such people are likely to be firing at that time without endangering any critical engine parts (which, at this point, are just as valuable as you are).

And reverse is generally geared lower, which allows for quicker acceleration in the first few critical seconds.

After all that, you've got choices: You can just make a quick partial J turn of the correct angle for the street in question and get the hell out of there driving forward (with little loss of momentum if executed correctly). Or keep reversing down the street while firing madly with your left hand hand, and either execute a high-speed J turn where appropriate, or a slower 3-point turn if conditions allow.

Choices are always good.

If overall speed in reverse is an issue, simply don't let it be: Mercedes-Benz has transmissions with two reverse gears for a reason and if you don't know that, you're just not doing it right.

See my post above

[Kupfernigk]

Get a reversing camera. You will thank me the first time you don't drive over something below the rear sill.

Re:See my post above

[Rhys]

I am seriously pissed that pretty much the rest of the #@*&(%#!@ world has rear view cameras in cars as basic as the Fit/Jazz but it is absolutely not available in the US-of-A.

Re:See my post above

[arkane1234]

You can have one in with a nice stereo.
I have one in my Prius, also.

10% error

[Kupfernigk]

Have you compared your speedometer to a satnav? Most cars over-indicate by about 10%, so an indicated 77 is really 70. (Fiats can be an exception). My current car (Toyota) is out by exactly 10% from 30 to 70. I had a Ford in the 90s which was 10mph out at 70; this is legal. A colleague had a BMW, no less, that indicated 95 at a real 80mph.

Since the police normally ignore drivers who behave safely who are doing a real 80 on motorways, an indicated 85 is within what they will accept.

Re:10% error

[fridaynightsmoke]

Have you compared your speedometer to a satnav? Most cars over-indicate by about 10%, so an indicated 77 is really 70. (Fiats can be an exception). My current car (Toyota) is out by exactly 10% from 30 to 70. I had a Ford in the 90s which was 10mph out at 70; this is legal. A colleague had a BMW, no less, that indicated 95 at a real 80mph.

Since the police normally ignore drivers who behave safely who are doing a real 80 on motorways, an indicated 85 is within what they will accept.

Funnily enough I did this last night; at 80mph (by GPS) my speedometer reads 84mph, a 5% over-read. This is in a 2006 BMW.

Re:10% error

[arkane1234]

My 2011 Toyota Prius is usually about 1 to 1 1/2 MPH slower than the speedometer. At 80 the GPS says between 78 and 79. (it bounces between the two)

Re:10% error

[adolf]

My 1995 BMW is also off by about the same amount (5%) on the speedometer dial by default, though the speed reported by the car's OBC is much closer to being accurate.

Much of this got fixed by fitting slightly larger-than-stock summer tires, though I do need to recalibrate my brain back to BMW specifications in the winter. :)

Fuel efficiency

[Kupfernigk]

The last set of statistics I saw said that the weighted average of fuel consumption for the European car fleet was just over half that of the US, and the average for Japan lower still. Therefore, our actual fuel costs are on average pretty close to those of the US.

Seatbelts?

[ratboy666]

Sure, seatbelts and airbags save car drivers -- which is why I am against them.

As a pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist, I think that ANYTHING that increases car driver confidence is... bad.

Get rid of seatbelts. Get rid of airbags. Put broken glass into the dashboard.

That should act to straighten out a lot of car drivers!

And, who knows? Maybe the additional care will balance out the removal of protection; hey, we may even have a reduction of fatalities.

Smear a bit of blood on the glass in the factory, just to be sure to get the point across.

Re:Seatbelts?

[geekoid]

yes, there was no accident before seatbelts.

Everyone else should suffer because you choose a low visibility mode of transportation.

Re:Seatbelts?

[arkane1234]

Saying that is equivalent to saying "no helmets for bicycle riders, that'll teach them"....
People are like dogs, you have to scold them to the point they can remember it, not knock it out of their brains like a car/bike accident.

Re:Seatbelts?

[arkane1234]

.... Actually, bicycles are not low visibility, they reflect lots of light and are pretty damned colorful. This usually includes both the bicycle & the rider.
Whether or not a motorist can be bothered to look for items in front of them is another story, however.

Re:Seatbelts?

[Rie Beam]

No, getting rid of seatbelts won't knock down the amount of incidents you experience on the road. Morons were plowing over motorcycles long before most of these safety features were implemented.

What can help is removing distractions from a vehicle. As someone who rides a motorcycle as his only mode of transportation, it alarms me to get into a modern car and hear...absolutely nothing. Engineers have succeeded in creating vehicles where the amount of auditory feedback from the world around them is minimalized as much as possible, while still cranking out cars with better sound systems, audio hook-ups, etc etc. I ride with my friends and my general impression is that everything is being focused on except the road in front of them, with a lot of short braking and a heavy reliance on the power of modern brakes (God help them should they ever wear those pads down and not have them replaced).

I love driving, I really do. With the radio off, the windows down (Yes, even in winter, although I may have them cracked with the heat running), and at worse a cup of coffee in the cupholder, in a spot where I can grab it with my right hand while maintaining both eye contact and at least keeping one hand on the steering wheel (People who drive with their knees should be shot). People don't really seem to enjoy driving, though. It seems to be a burdensome chore, or worse, simply part of a morning routine, where any and all distractions are open and welcome to alleviate the boredom. I don't know if this is uniquely American or what, but I would love for people to actually take the concept of driving several tons of steel down the road at Interstate speeds just a little more seriously; an attitude change would work wonders for those accident rates.

Re:Seatbelts?

[CaptSlaq]

Pardon me as I may be feeding a troll, but this kind of stuff annoys me.

As someone who used to commute via bicycle and motorcycle, I understand your vitriol against cage drivers.

As someone who commutes by cage now (partially because of bad cage drivers), I'll say "whenever bad cyclists quit flaunting the rules and antagonizing pedestrians and cage drivers, complaints about bad cage drivers will be more valid.".

Complaining about bad drivers and claiming the sainthood of the two wheeled set, particularly when bad cyclists just as annoying to pedestrians and cage drivers for much the same reasons you're annoyed by bad cage drivers, is just uncalled for.

An example: Is lane splitting legal where you're at? Not here, yet it happens all the time. Seen motos in the bicycle lane here too, another no-no.

How many times do pedestrians get buzzed by cyclists where I'm at? Often enough that I sometimes rant about it.

There are plenty of bad examples on both sides. The only reason that cyclists complain is a sheer statistical thing: There's significantly more cages on the roads than there are two wheelers, thus the likelihood of finding a bad driver goes up accordingly. Granted, the two wheel op goes home in a box of some sort (ambulance or casket) when someone screws up, but that's the risk you take.

Instead of wishing for less cages on the road, or wishing more cage drivers DEAD, why not try and educate those around you a little more? Maybe, just maybe, you'll make a difference, that ulcer in your gut will go away, and you'll be happier when you do enjoy your two wheeler of choice.

Re:Seatbelts?

[karmatic]

Get rid of seatbelts. Get rid of airbags. Put broken glass into the dashboard.

That should act to straighten out a lot of car drivers!

I'm a fan of replacing airbags with a giant well-sharpened spike in the middle of the steering wheel. It would reduce average road speed significantly, both from voluntary compliance from responsible drivers, as well as a rapid reduction in the number of irresponsible drivers on the road.

Re:Seatbelts?

[tragedy]

Ah, looks like you'd be a fan of the Steering Wheel Spike. Since you're a pedestrian or cyclist, you might not be such a fan of the "pointy thing in the front" that's standard on all cars from the Badi Dea Motor Corporation.

Re:Seatbelts?

[Burning1]

I'm a motorcyclist. Fear of certain death if I'm involved in a serious accident doesn't slow me down any.

Re:Seatbelts?

[adolf]

Challenge accepted.

Airbags? Feh. I already treat my car as if it already has a giant pointy-stick in the middle of the steering wheel and a dashboard covered in broken glass.

Or at least I do once I get some of the blood off of the window.

If that's all you've got for contrivity, then as far as I'm concerned it's game on.

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[pnewhook]

Its a recording of the few seconds before and during an event impact. Seconds, not hours or days.

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[pnewhook]

Then stop driving in the left lane!!! Geez nothing is more infuriating than people with no highway courtesy.

When did things change?

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I was in a wreck and I begged the two insurance companies involved (there were multiple vehicles but the question of fault came down to a he-said-she-said between just two of the drivers) to pull the black boxes to veryify my account of how it happened.

Everyone who interviewed me, from the police on the scene to four different interviews from investigators from two different insurance companies said that my account of the accident was completely different from everybody else. The last two investigators who talked to me took recorded statements and, after the interviews were finished, said that my story was the only one that actually made sense in light of all the physical evidence but that it was *so* different from everybody else that there had been a tendency to discount it.

My story blamed the accident, basically, on the utterly insane driving of one of the cars involved. If speed and throttle position for the 15 seconds prior to impact were recorded, it would completely back me up.

*Everybody*, however, completely dismissed the notion of looking at the recorder data. They *all* said that those things were examined *only* in the case of a fatality.

I thought that was stupid. I'm glad to see it's changed.

Where's the obstruction of justice charge?

[BBTaeKwonDo]

Since the black box showed his seatbelt was unbuckled and his speed (before falling asleep) was 10 mph over the limit, but he told the police that his seatbelt was buckled and he wasn't speeding, he should be subject to prosecution for obstruction of justice. Or does the law apply only to little people in Massachusetts?

power & accountability

[SkunkPussy]

Someone with that much power should be held to a higher standard of accountability.

Re:Asleep @ the wheel...

[MattBurke]

In a racing harness in a car without airbags, I'd agree that'd be the best thing to do, but in a road car I think I'd prefer to tense my chest/stomach to add some resistance to the seatbelt+pretensioners+impact force trying to break my ribs, and keep my hands loosely on the wheel at the 9:15 position so the main airbag can deploy if necessary without propelling my hands through my skull...

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[arkane1234]

That happens in every lane, not just the left lane.

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[RubberChainsaw]

I am looking for a setup such as this. Do you have more information on the specific parts and mountings that you used? Perhaps I could.. subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[gknoy]

Wiretapping requires the video feed to have audio.

Weakest spot

[DragonHawk]

Previously, vehicles weren't designed to do this, and so the weakest area was the cabin.

Correction: The weakest area was not the cabin. The weakest area was the people sitting in the cabin. When those people impacted on the much stronger cabin walls, the injuries were often quite severe.

Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle

[Coren22]

Another at the top of the back windshield.

If the rear window on your car is a WINDshield, you are driving in a very odd manner.