What a Black Box Data Dump Looks Like

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What a Black Box Data Dump Looks Like

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 6, 2012 @05:24AM from the recording-for-posterity dept.

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."

102 of 643 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Advice by stanlyb · 2012-01-06 05:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?
1. Re:Advice by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 05:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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."
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:Advice by mr1911 · 2012-01-06 05:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
3. Re:Advice by Qzukk · 2012-01-06 05:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I know people who leave their seatbelt connected 24x7 and just sit on it. I don't ride with them.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
4. Re:Advice by stanlyb · 2012-01-06 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  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.
5. Re:Advice by jellomizer · 2012-01-06 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
6. Re:Advice by DigiShaman · 2012-01-06 05:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Temporary insanity. After bringing the car to a safe and complete stop of course.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
7. Re:Advice by SimplyGeek · 2012-01-06 05:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
8. Re:Advice by hawguy · 2012-01-06 05:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 05:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:Advice by DragonWriter · 2012-01-06 05:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:Advice by Luckyo · 2012-01-06 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  For insurance fraud? That's going to do DA prosecuting, not insurance companies.
12. Re:Advice by dead_user · 2012-01-06 06:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
13. Re:Advice by Jeremi · 2012-01-06 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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".
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
14. Re:Advice by a_nonamiss · 2012-01-06 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  -Arthur
  Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
15. Re:Advice by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 06:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
16. Re:Advice by Marc_Hawke · 2012-01-06 06:22 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
17. Re:Advice by hairyfeet · 2012-01-06 06:24 · Score: 2
  
  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!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
18. Re:Advice by www.sorehands.com · 2012-01-06 06:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Fight Spammers!
19. Re:Advice by GreenTom · 2012-01-06 06:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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...
20. Re:Advice by Caratted · 2012-01-06 06:34 · Score: 2
  
  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.
21. Re:Advice by silverglade00 · 2012-01-06 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  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.
22. Re:Advice by PickyH3D · 2012-01-06 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
23. Re:Advice by nschubach · 2012-01-06 06:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.)
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
24. Re:Advice by PIBM · 2012-01-06 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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..
25. Re:Advice by shadowrat · 2012-01-06 06:48 · Score: 2
  
  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.
26. Re:Advice by darth+dickinson · 2012-01-06 06:48 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, re-read that contract. The response will probably be, "Fine, let me know when the binding arbitration is scheduled."
27. Re:Advice by praxis · 2012-01-06 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
28. Re:Advice by TheCarp · 2012-01-06 06:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.....
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
29. Re:Advice by mr1911 · 2012-01-06 06:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
30. Re:Advice by necro81 · 2012-01-06 06:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
31. Re:Advice by Nethead · 2012-01-06 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
32. Re:Advice by hawguy · 2012-01-06 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  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.
33. Re:Advice by KhabaLox · 2012-01-06 07:09 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
34. Re:Advice by KingSkippus · 2012-01-06 07:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
35. Re:Advice by JWSmythe · 2012-01-06 07:28 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
36. Re:Advice by Pope · 2012-01-06 07:29 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
37. Re:Advice by pnewhook · 2012-01-06 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you lived in a sensible country like Canada everyone would have medical care.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
38. Re:Advice by TheCarp · 2012-01-06 08:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  > 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.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
39. Re:Advice by silverhalide · 2012-01-06 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
40. Re:Advice by onkelonkel · 2012-01-06 08:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "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.
  
  --
  None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
41. Re:Advice by davewoods · 2012-01-06 10:48 · Score: 2
  
  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.
42. Re:Advice by drfreak · 2012-01-06 14:31 · Score: 2
  
  R.I.P., Friend's Kid.
43. Re:Advice by Smurf · 2012-01-06 16:20 · Score: 2
  
  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.
44. Re:Advice by billcopc · 2012-01-06 17:16 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
Engineering by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Engineering by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 05:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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.
2. Re:Engineering by Binestar · 2012-01-06 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Do you Gentoo!?
3. Re:Engineering by Noughmad · 2012-01-06 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
4. Re:Engineering by couchslug · 2012-01-06 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  "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.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
5. Re:Engineering by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 06:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Your car must suck. 100 mph is not very extreme speed unless you car is from the 70s...
6. Re:Engineering by 0123456 · 2012-01-06 06:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
7. Re:Engineering by Chrisq · 2012-01-06 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  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.
8. Re:Engineering by omz13 · 2012-01-06 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  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".
9. Re:Engineering by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
10. Re:Engineering by omnichad · 2012-01-06 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:Engineering by Binestar · 2012-01-06 06:34 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  Do you Gentoo!?
12. Re:Engineering by Amorymeltzer · 2012-01-06 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  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!
  
  --
  I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
13. Re:Engineering by LS1+Brains · 2012-01-06 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  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.
14. Re:Engineering by Ferzerp · 2012-01-06 06:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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...
15. Re:Engineering by whoever57 · 2012-01-06 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
16. Re:Engineering by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-06 06:46 · Score: 2
  
  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.
17. Re:Engineering by johnjaydk · 2012-01-06 06:48 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  TCAP-Abort
18. Re:Engineering by fridaynightsmoke · 2012-01-06 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  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...
  
  --
  This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
19. Re:Engineering by Solandri · 2012-01-06 07:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
20. Re:Engineering by pnewhook · 2012-01-06 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?
1. Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice? by ByOhTek · 2012-01-06 05:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
2. Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice? by Synerg1y · 2012-01-06 05:50 · Score: 2
  
  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.
3. Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice? by ae1294 · 2012-01-06 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  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.
4. Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice? by necro81 · 2012-01-06 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  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.
5. Re:Does the data reflect tires slipping on ice? by Whorhay · 2012-01-06 07:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
Maybe we should... by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 05:31 · Score: 3, Funny

"... 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.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:Maybe we should... by QuantumRiff · 2012-01-06 05:42 · Score: 2
  
  Politicians are kind of like Cockroaches.. In more ways than one...
  
  --
  
  What are we going to do tonight Brain?
2. Re:Maybe we should... by dpilot · 2012-01-06 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately...
  In modern America, Politicians strap black boxes to YOU!
  
  --
  The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I have a better idea... by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-06 05:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe we should strap black boxes to all our politicians.
Explosives would be far more beneficial to society in general...
1. Re:I have a better idea... by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-06 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  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.
100mph and no seatbelt? by jpapon · 2012-01-06 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
1. Re:100mph and no seatbelt? by Animats · 2012-01-06 06:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
He did not experience 40g's by RichMan · 2012-01-06 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 .....
Exploding by zooblethorpe · 2012-01-06 05:36 · Score: 2

"... 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.)

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle by glop · 2012-01-06 05:36 · Score: 2

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? by SJHillman · 2012-01-06 05:39 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by Wierdy1024 · 2012-01-06 05:40 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
1. Re:Not a great example of a data dump by Leuf · 2012-01-06 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
Disclaimer by girlintraining · 2012-01-06 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Disclaimer by girlintraining · 2012-01-06 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 05:42 · Score: 3, Funny

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...

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Asleep @ the wheel... by Sez+Zero · 2012-01-06 05:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
He was doing 75 and fell asleep by ohnocitizen · 2012-01-06 06:04 · Score: 2

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? by hawguy · 2012-01-06 06:10 · Score: 2

*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 by ae1294 · 2012-01-06 06:10 · Score: 4, Funny

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!
Re:Unpossible by PPH · 2012-01-06 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:108? Typical /. bull by spire3661 · 2012-01-06 06:14 · Score: 2

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.

--
Good-bye
Re:insurance liability by hawguy · 2012-01-06 06:16 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
Re:blackboxes already in most 21st century vehicle by midicase · 2012-01-06 07:04 · Score: 2

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.
Rear view camera by Kupfernigk · 2012-01-06 07:37 · Score: 2

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.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
1. Re:Rear view camera by adolf · 2012-01-06 19:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
See my post above by Kupfernigk · 2012-01-06 07:38 · Score: 2

Get a reversing camera. You will thank me the first time you don't drive over something below the rear sill.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Seatbelts? by ratboy666 · 2012-01-06 08:02 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
1. Re:Seatbelts? by karmatic · 2012-01-06 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  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:Seatbeltless? by goodmanj · 2012-01-06 08:28 · Score: 2

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