Data Recorder mandated by US Gov. by Sept. 1, 2014

Indeed. If you or a family member would like to be shot, the best way to improve your odds is to purchase a firearm. By far the greatest number of people are shot with their own guns or guns originating in their own households.


Another fascinating if macabre aspect of firearms deaths: Well over 60 percent of the firearms fatalities in the USA are suicides. And meanwhile, over half of all suicides are by firearm--the most common means of suicide by a large margin. Which raises a chicken/egg question for sociologists: are gun owners more inclined to suicide, or are suicidal persons more prone to own guns?

Or is it the case that suicide attempts using firearms tend to be more successful?

I seem to recall a figure of $1m per fatality here in Australia, less for injuries.

Seems I was wrong by a factor of 3.

This report estimates the cost to the community (not just the government) of $3.18m for a fatal crash. Serious injuries cost $300,000 each, non-serious injuries $17,500, but injuries are more prevalent than death.

Annual cost for New South Wales over a 5 year period was estimated to be $1.8b for fatalities, $1b for serious injuries and $0.4b for non-serious injuries, a total of $3.2b per year.

Seems I was wrong by a factor of 3.

This report estimates the cost to the community (not just the government) of $3.18m for a fatal crash. Serious injuries cost $300,000 each, non-serious injuries $17,500, but injuries are more prevalent than death.

Annual cost for New South Wales over a 5 year period was estimated to be $1.8b for fatalities, $1b for serious injuries and $0.4b for non-serious injuries, a total of $3.2b per year.

I dispute your serious injury cost, I think it is far more, but I suppose if you define serious as non minor and non fatal that makes sense. Yes 4 million per death is a common CBA number. I'm saving up for my first 4 million...

an AR-15 possesses far more lethal firepower than a Thompson submachine gun.

I have received several requests to explain this.

Thompson submachine gun: full auto, caliber .45 ACP, 30-round magazine

AR-15 tactical rifle: semi-auto, .caliber 223 Remington, 30-round magazine

First, .223 is a more lethal round than .45 ACP, mainly due to the fact that .223 is rifle ammo, while .45 ACP suffers the limitations of handgun ammo in case length, volume, and pressure. The .223 also benefits from another half-century in advances in firearms technology.



.45 ACP = .452-in bullet dia, weight 200 gr, case capacity 25 gr H2O max pressure 21,000 psi, velocity 1080 fps

energy = 520 ft lbf


.223 = .224-in bullet dia. weight 55 gr, case capacity 29 gr H2O, max pressure 55,000 psi velocity 3250 fps

energy = 1300 ft lbf



Not a contest.

Plus anyone operating a Tommy gun is usually shooting from the hip, and wearing a fedora covering one eye. So your odds of getting hit drop substantially.

Plus anyone operating a Tommy gun is usually shooting from the hip, and wearing a fedora covering one eye. So your odds of getting hit drop substantially.

Yes, there is a comic surrealism to this whole deal. Still, we have to remember that these people are totally serious. They're not kidding. At all. Here's the latest from the NRA.


http://www.huffingto..._n_2681260.html

Plus anyone operating a Tommy gun is usually shooting from the hip, and wearing a fedora covering one eye. So your odds of getting hit drop substantially.

You forgot to say that the shooter is usually standing on the running boards of a moving vehicle....

Yes, there is a comic surrealism to this whole deal. Still, we have to remember that these people are totally serious. They're not kidding. At all. Here's the latest from the NRA.


http://www.huffingto..._n_2681260.html

I don't remember my visit to the US a few months ago being so fraught with danger....

You forgot to say that the shooter is usually standing on the running boards of a moving vehicle....

This is why proper shift technique is so important. Don't want to destabilize your gunner.

I was jumping in to post this one ...
http://www.teslamoto...liar-test-drive

Guns gotta go.

It's like Jeopardy. That is the answer to what question...

If OZ $ 4M is a rough " value of a life " then the EU is so seriuosly screwed up on imposing mandatory low tyre pressure sensors( LTPS) its not true.

They have made LTPS mandatory from this year.

http://green.autoblo...tory-in-the-eu/

Noe LTPS is £150 option in the Uk , at 2 mlilion units per yr thats £300M per year extra cost to society. Forget " marginal cost etc" hardly anybody makes money on volume sales int eh EU, mfrs or dealers so the £300M is real.

In 2011 car ocupant deaths were 833 from 30M cars on the road. That includes deaths where no safety belt was worn, so avoidable deaths could be as low as 600 ( based on hosrpital data estimates ).

So £300M has to save that part of 600 to 800 deaths that are a result of low tyre pressure.

I dont know how often low tyre pressure killed a car occupant but I would be amazed if it was more than 2 -4% of deaths. So £300M probably buys you 12 to 32 lives.

Which means this Eu mandate costs £10M to £ 25M per live saved.

Now what is REALLY anger making isnt teh cost per life saved but that £300M cost to society could buy a huge chunk of life saving medical care. Howevr inefficient hospitlas under any system can be I think they can do beter than £10M per life.

Now teh Eu wil claim huge fuel/climate cahnge savings but that assumes (a) people actaully pump the tyres pump every time teh sensor comes on and (b) some proportion of the sensors will fail , probably a lot as its on the roadwheels - each faliure will cost about £100 so wiping out any fuel cost savings - and as it will be a inspection (MOT) failure item any failure wil have to be fixed.

Perhaps the rationale is MPG based and not occupant safety based?

I have a few family members who never check tire pressure and although the difference between warm and cold seasons does change tire pressure a fair amount (35 psi to 28 psi cold) it's not enough to cause an accident in my opinion. tire growth is about 2-3 psi so when they come up to temperature at the low, pressure is at 31 psi. This assumes that the tires are in good shape to begin with.

I agree, the investment, or financial burden doesn't seem to warrant this device. ...who determines the psi threshold?

Edited by meb58, 14 February 2013 - 14:28.

Wouldn't they be adjusted for each vehicle, which is going to use a certain classification of tire?

Magoo - that picture is fantastic. I guess I sort of wonder why only the gunner gets a shield, though ...

If OZ $ 4M is a rough " value of a life " then the EU is so seriuosly screwed up on imposing mandatory low tyre pressure sensors( LTPS) its not true.

On the one hand, I'm completely with you. Besides your well-stated arguments, we need added weight and complexity just because some idiots don't know to check their tire pressures once in a while? On the other hand, my low tire pressure light came on the other day ...

I guess I sort of wonder why only the gunner gets a shield, though ...

Perhaps because at any sort of speed the gunner might be catching up on his own fired bullets. When I was in my teens a few of us used to go rambling, armed to the teeth with air weapons. One of us had a very tired .177 Webley rifle, and I suggested that if he had turn-ups on his jeans he'd get most of his slugs back.

I agree, the investment, or financial burden doesn't seem to warrant this device. ...who determines the psi threshold?

I don't know who ,or how , it is being determined but you raise an extremely good point - the old "false positives" or " crying wolf" problem.

If you set the threshold too low then there will be less chance of reducing accident risk and no fuel saving. Conversely set it too close to normal and the warnings will happen so often that they wil be ignored. Even large external temperature variations might trigger an alarm.

Plus of course , the system must be fail safe so any malfunction or loss of radio signal will light up the dash.

Personally I would have done something entirely different. ASC is now also mandatory in the EU for new cars - that system can determine any abnormal yaw response with just a bit of software writing. Use an algorithm to see if yaw response to steering angle is beyond expected limits and it would identify low tyre pressure plus any major suspension issue - like broken springs - now a huge problem on the Uk's broken up road surfaces.

There - Ive just saved the Uk £300M per year!!

How much will tire pressure vary at say in the desert of sahara when you get 50+ down to -5 or something.

Edited by MatsNorway, 14 February 2013 - 18:20.

What became of indirect TPMS? Was it shot down?

Magoo - that picture is fantastic. I guess I sort of wonder why only the gunner gets a shield, though ...

Oh, you'll be wanting more then. Very well.

that is so cool

reminds me of the dragon I built for a parade around a 4 wheel bike - modified garden paraffin flamethrower in the ally paneled head

Magoo- Sadly, you fail to appreciate that the NRA is the single largest civil rights organization in the US. Far larger than the NAACP, ACLU, SPLC, etc.

The reality is that any regulatory action the federal government takes, whether it's gun registration, mandatory automotive data recorders, mandatory collection of personal medical records, or mandatory collection of personal financial activity by banks, it has nothing to do with safety or public welfare. Instead, it has to do with government control over private citizens.

To me it seems the NRA have totally lost the plot.The American preocupation with guns is frightening. And yes I grew up in a rural enviroment with guns and I used to shoot a few bunnies.But gun crime is over the top and needs big stick control. Not Bans.
As for the rest I agree, too much Big Brother intervention in all you say. All over the world. Safer cars are fine, recorders really are not. And controlling medical records and financial records is just plain Big Brother. That is what that recording was about.
Though see my previous post about so called safer cars. A lot of people are being conned with these so called safety features. That really are very dubious.
And governments are perpetuating the crap. Stability control is one, make a car idiot proof, but really they are just idiot cars.
And you vehicle industry people stand back and take a look at it. And realise that may be fine on a dry straight bitumen road,, but not on a wet muddy dirt road. Or towing a trailer or caravan where the driver inputs are often totally reversed.
And Big Brother is pushing for this garbage on all cars.. Yeah Right!!

Oh, you'll be wanting more then. Very well.

Thank you. I'm baffled, but thank you.

EDIT: any chance of getting that first one in a bigger res?

Edited by munks, 14 February 2013 - 21:21.

So let me get this straight. Are we advocating fitting guns to cars or not?

and there was me thinking that I was joking....

This is why proper shift technique is so important. Don't want to destabilize your gunner.

If only seamless shifts really were seamless.

I was jumping in to post this one ...
http://www.teslamoto...liar-test-drive

Good find Mats. Nice piece of investigative data logging.

The crew have run away and the machine is leaking - ambush?

Is that a pile of solid, dark matter under the rear axle?
May well have been ambushed!

Edited by gruntguru, 15 February 2013 - 00:07.

Consider this: If automotive data recording systems are mandated by US federal law starting in Sep. 2014, this would mean that the OEMs have been designing their electronic controls and softwares to accommodate this requirement for at least the past 4 or 5 years. Electronic systems, instrumentation and software always require the greatest amount of time to move into production. So the obvious conclusion is that there has been some behind-the-scene collusion between US federal government regulators and the auto OEMs for the past few years.

Personally, I would have no issue with these data acquisition systems if they were voluntary. But as a strong supporter of the principles of Civil Rights enshrined in our US Constitution, I have a serious problem with them being mandatory.

Lastly, it was unfortunate to see this discussion get sidetracked by the politics of US Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights.

Lastly, it was unfortunate to see this discussion get sidetracked by the politics of US Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights.

. . but you defend our right to do so?

http://www.nhtsa.gov...search Web site

The crew have run away and the machine is leaking - ambush?

Alien abduction ?
or the crew really are bushed - pushing that all the way to the frontline is tiring work

Alien abduction ?

I missed the most obvious! One minute you're in command of a hoseless gun carriage, the next you are confronted my a small grey humanoid with an anal probe and no sense of humour.

Re the side airbag thing, I'm not surprised, we need a curtain airbag down from the centre of the roof.

Greg, the countermeasure being tested at the time involved side airbags on both sides of the seats, sort of instant bucket seat. From what I witnessed, the tests were successful.

Pat

If OZ $ 4M is a rough " value of a life " then the EU is so seriuosly screwed up on imposing mandatory low tyre pressure sensors( LTPS) its not true.

They have made LTPS mandatory from this year.

http://green.autoblo...tory-in-the-eu/

Noe LTPS is £150 option in the Uk , at 2 mlilion units per yr thats £300M per year extra cost to society. Forget " marginal cost etc" hardly anybody makes money on volume sales int eh EU, mfrs or dealers so the £300M is real.

In 2011 car ocupant deaths were 833 from 30M cars on the road. That includes deaths where no safety belt was worn, so avoidable deaths could be as low as 600 ( based on hosrpital data estimates ).

So £300M has to save that part of 600 to 800 deaths that are a result of low tyre pressure.

I dont know how often low tyre pressure killed a car occupant but I would be amazed if it was more than 2 -4% of deaths. So £300M probably buys you 12 to 32 lives.

Which means this Eu mandate costs £10M to £ 25M per live saved.

Now what is REALLY anger making isnt teh cost per life saved but that £300M cost to society could buy a huge chunk of life saving medical care. Howevr inefficient hospitlas under any system can be I think they can do beter than £10M per life.

Now teh Eu wil claim huge fuel/climate cahnge savings but that assumes (a) people actaully pump the tyres pump every time teh sensor comes on and (b) some proportion of the sensors will fail , probably a lot as its on the roadwheels - each faliure will cost about £100 so wiping out any fuel cost savings - and as it will be a inspection (MOT) failure item any failure wil have to be fixed.

I asked this earlier but it likely got lost in the several other parallel discussions: What about Indirect TPMS? Since indirect is just software negotiating ABS data, the cost is essentially zero. I don't know anything of the EU politics-- has it already been shot down?

Everything I know about iTPMS I learnt from a quick glance at wiki, which gives the impression that the first gen systems weren't good enough, but that the ones that use signal analysis will be.

While I will agree this Big brother technology?? is stupid the amount of under and overinflated tyres I see is horrendous. At least in part caused by broken down clapped out equipment at retail petrol stations. The few times I have used them thjey are NEVER right, or even near. And often let tyres down instead of inflating them.

A female friend totally verifies that, she tries but seldom achieves. She now comes and uses mine and has no trouble whatsoever. Because mine is serviceable.

As for accidents due to low tyre pressures I am sure there is plenty, but really how can they been proven.So many other factors. But prematurely worn out tyres, failed tyres is very easy to see for any experienced person. Probably half of the tyres I replace are or have been underinflated, and more than a few over too. Like 45lbs in a normal car tyre. Some people consider they save a lot of fuel like that,, wrong they save none and just pound the suspension to bits and have minimal wet [and less dry] weather grip too.

Read the owners book, and my suggestion is use the full load pressures on a passenger car empty or loaded. Often around 32-34 lb on a bigger car. Some small cars use exceptionally [to me at least] high pressures in their tyres. Like 36lb. But they should know so use the pressures.

Consider this: If automotive data recording systems are mandated by US federal law starting in Sep. 2014, this would mean that the OEMs have been designing their electronic controls and softwares to accommodate this requirement for at least the past 4 or 5 years. Electronic systems, instrumentation and software always require the greatest amount of time to move into production. So the obvious conclusion is that there has been some behind-the-scene collusion between US federal government regulators and the auto OEMs for the past few years.

Personally, I would have no issue with these data acquisition systems if they were voluntary. But as a strong supporter of the principles of Civil Rights enshrined in our US Constitution, I have a serious problem with them being mandatory.

Lastly, it was unfortunate to see this discussion get sidetracked by the politics of US Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights.

There is no significant collusion. The auto manufacturers installed these things so they could gather data when the cars were brought in for service, and so they could have data to refute certain warranty claims. Insurance companies also wanted the data for litigation, which is a contentious topic of discussion. Some insurance companies, like Progressive, encourage drivers to use a black box in their own vehicles to help them earn discounts (or reject a claim).

Your allegations of collusion and conspiracy suggest a competent bureaucracy. No such bureaucracy exists. The government is a decade late to the party, and upon discovering that one of the major lobbyists isn't getting the booze and hookers he wants, the government is naturally interested in changing the rules of the party.

. So the obvious conclusion is that there has been some behind-the-scene collusion between US federal government regulators and the auto OEMs for the past few years.

It's been a long time coming. There has always been the "need" to know what the sheeple are up to. These car systems, combined with the system demonstrated below, is about as Big Brother as it gets:

Argus drone surveillance system


As the original poster points out, given we are being allowed to see this iteration of this system, operationally they are no doubt 5-10 years ahead of that ...

I wonder if cars that informed the civil authorities each time a speed limit was exceeded resulting in a ticket automatically sent would result in people re-examining speed limits. People where I live exceed the posted limit in perhaps 8 or 9 out of ten cases yet we live in a democracy where if we cared to we could have the limits raised so that we wouldn't need to exceed them to maintain the same speed. Yet there is absolutely no push to do so. It's almost as if people *want* to break the law.

Absolutely. The best way to repeal the bad law is to enforce it vigorously and consistently. The current situation of speed enforcement being sporadic at best just encourages arbitrary enforcement, while neither pressuring the motorists to obey, nor pressuring the politicians to set an adequate speed limit.

Sometimes I think the speed limit is set as a soft target. So saying a highway system is 65 keeps us there or thereabouts, rather than doing 90. Likewise if it says 45 we slow down 'a little'. The pace stays about where it needs to for the traffic levels/police frequency.

Sometimes I think the speed limit is set as a soft target. So saying a highway system is 65 keeps us there or thereabouts, rather than doing 90. Likewise if it says 45 we slow down 'a little'. The pace stays about where it needs to for the traffic levels/police frequency.

That may be how it works in practice, but the problem is that the speed limit is a law, and laws don't make for good soft targets by their nature. It is true that police often use their discretion to ticket only flagrant violations, but that's a bad thing in itself. Wherever you have discretion, you also have abuse of discretion. Sometimes discretion is required, since the world is too complicated to codify into simple laws, but speed limit laws are about the easiest laws to enforce strictly, without requiring any human judgment.

It's been a long time coming. There has always been the "need" to know what the sheeple are up to. These car systems, combined with the system demonstrated below, is about as Big Brother as it gets:

Argus drone surveillance system


As the original poster points out, given we are being allowed to see this iteration of this system, operationally they are no doubt 5-10 years ahead of that ...

Can't wait to get your views on the moon landings. Ok, not really.

Setting speed limits too slow merely encourages me to break the law every day for minutes or hours at a time. Strangely this is tolerated by society and the courts, Yet if I were to break one of their other laws, say a slight case of murder, everyone would get hot under the collar.

The law is an ass, and the people making the law have made it that way.More fool us for voting them in.

Can't wait to get your views on the moon landings. Ok, not really.

My post is not "my view", it's reality, is it not?

It is true that police often use their discretion to ticket only flagrant violations,

Hah, not where I live. Too good of a source of revenue.

. . but you defend our right to do so?

Yes I do, since this is a 1st Amendment principle. But you fail to appreciate that even if I wanted to prevent you from posting your opinions regarding such a political subject, I have no power to prevent you from doing so. I am grateful that the forum moderators are so supportive of free speech principles that they have not flagged the posts, even though they are way OT. Internet forums like this are one of the most fundamental examples of free speech rights.

Disagree. We have no rights here - none at all. We don't have a right to access, read, participate or otherwise engage this forum. We are guests, given the permission of those who own this virtual space, to be here in whatever form they determine. It's owned by a British company and appears to be hosted by a Canadian one so no US law is applicable here.

If we had rights, we wouldn't be able to help beam-axle propeller heads and its-not-seamless!! find their way to the door without legal reprecussions.