http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011-05/new-federal-rules-could-require-cars-black-boxes-record-driver-activity

They've existed for some time, but once it's standardized expect to see your driving habits used to set insurance rates and issue speeding tickets.

Quote :

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to issue federal guidelines for how the data can and cannot be used, Autopia says. "

Translation: Many more people/agencies will be allowed to use it.

Progressive Insurance already has the voluntary black box program, which I don't oppose.

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM. Reason : .]

5/25/2011 12:59:07 AM

that's terrible. it's bad enough that they require stability control and shit on everything. You can't build a sports car at a reasonable weight now, due to all the goddamn federal mandates.

Also, if the privacy issues start becoming a problem, I will be driving a kit car for fun and an older car for transportation. I'll be damned if I'm gonna get charged with traffic offenses, get my insurance rates jacked, or get found liable for an accident because I was exceeding some gayass arbitrary speed limit.

5/25/2011 1:05:22 AM

they might as well just drive cars out of the market and go for all public transit.

5/25/2011 1:09:01 AM

Excessive regulation and mandated features does create a very high barrier to entry for potential new domestic automakers. As a silly example backup cameras will become mandatory in 2014:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/02/feds-postpone-mandatory-backup-camera-rule/1

I don't oppose any of these technologies, and in fact the black boxes could be very beneficial in exonerating you during an accident, but making them mandatory is bad news.

Kit cars are already facing tighter inspections from more rigorous inspectors that want to see it at every stage of construction and plenty of paperwork as well. The old days of "just title it as a VW" are pretty much gone.

Engine swaps are very limited now as well. When this last hurrah for high horsepower is over(probably within the decade) people will be clamoring to pull every last LSx and swap it into some vehicle that will slip through loopholes before it's too late.

5/25/2011 1:13:03 AM

fucking BACKUP CAMERAS mandatory? Holy shit.

We need a bare-bones but well-built $7000 car. It could be a usable size, but 1000 lbs lighter and therefore very efficient. No (or optional) backup cameras, black boxes, stability control, ABS, airbags, etc.

Something, say, Civic-sized, with about 90 hp (so no need for traction control, either).





That, and we need sports cars that don't weigh 3500 motherfucking pounds.

I mean, God bless backup cameras. They make for a fine addition to something like a 7-series. Making them mandatory on everything is retarded.

5/25/2011 2:21:54 AM

I saw backup sensors on a Mini Cooper S yesterday when I was behind it at a redlight. I thought to myself, "Who the fuck honestly needs backup sensors on a fucking Mini? Is that seriously necessary?" I was truely flabbergasted.

5/25/2011 2:27:48 AM

you know, having a light performance vehicle is something that appeals to <1% of the population. if you want all the things, you're going to have to deal with them being in not street legal packages. I hope legislation like this spurs more and better public transit. I hope for the day that road traveling cars are nearly autonomous and only necessary for roads not traveled by public transit. It'll get more people to the track, more tracks built, and cheaper track time for all.

5/25/2011 8:33:29 AM

This is just gonna increase demand for used cars. I'm not buying a new car with that shit in it.

5/25/2011 9:08:55 AM

At this point I don't think I'm ever going to buy a new car. The question, of course, will be when they start making it illegal to drive older cars that haven't been retrofitted without all this crap. I say around 2030 or so.

5/25/2011 5:56:06 PM

^or they'll just keep increasing the ethanol content to the point that older cars can't handle it

5/26/2011 9:00:54 AM

you can always retrofit. hell, steve has an SS454 Chevelle that runs on E85.

5/26/2011 10:03:19 AM

I wouldn't worry about it until cops start carrying around scantools or cars start wirelessly relaying data to central servers while you drive. And that may very well happen, but for now it's just more newfangled shit that nobody will understand how to use.

5/26/2011 11:01:36 AM

if that happens... i will have a stand alone in my economy/dd car 364 days per year.

5/26/2011 11:30:53 AM

Quote :

"We need a bare-bones but well-built $7000 car. It could be a usable size, but 1000 lbs lighter and therefore very efficient. No (or optional) backup cameras, black boxes, stability control, ABS, airbags, etc. Something, say, Civic-sized, with about 90 hp (so no need for traction control, either)."

5/26/2011 11:35:49 AM

lol

5/26/2011 11:44:40 AM

^^ Exactly. It was a runaway success. We need a modern equivalent.

5/26/2011 5:38:21 PM

5/26/2011 5:42:36 PM

^Nein!

5/26/2011 5:59:46 PM

Im all for it. Once its done, and all cars are smart cars there will be more driver cars for the rest of us.

5/26/2011 7:55:15 PM

Shit would be cool for a track day.

5/26/2011 11:07:23 PM

Quote :

"As a silly example backup cameras will become mandatory in 2014"

it's already been said, but this is goddamn retarded.

i can turn my fucking head around to back up. ALSO I HAVE MIRRORS.

5/30/2011 12:16:50 PM

the U.S. continues to legislate itself right into a hole

5/30/2011 12:51:21 PM

Quote :

"Something, say, Civic-sized, with about 90 hp (so no need for traction control, either). "

1991 honda civic, to be exact.

5/30/2011 1:09:37 PM

well yeah, that's kinda my point...you have to go back 20-40+ year. We need a modern interpretation of that.

I don't know if it could be done nowadays, with so much silly bullshit being required by law for the American market.

5/30/2011 1:22:43 PM

It's a crazy idea, but imagine if the US gov't decided to make drivers safer and more intelligent. Doing that would seem like a smarter move than turning all our cars into overweight tanks.

Too logical for the gov't, I know

5/31/2011 8:19:05 AM

this would piss me off to no end

put all that stupid shit on a car that i dont want and then make me pay for it. backup camera really? give me a break.

i agree with the above, how about they spend that money to better teach morons how to fucking drive.

6/4/2011 9:15:31 PM

While I agree that most of this stuff is rather pointless, complicates things, etc. the cost a crappy back up camera would add is negligible. Stability control probably doesn't add any measurable amount of weight or complexity to a car that already has an intelligent ABS system either. IMO, in a perfect world, all would be optional.

Full disclosure:
I believe in active + passive safety. I drive a car with multi-stage side and front airbags, seat belt pre-tensioners, outstnading bi-xenon headlights. It also has an amazingly low center of gravity, lots of grip, lots of power, and sub 3000lbs weight. "Stability control" is optional (it has a steering wheel and several pedals). <3 Porsche!

6/4/2011 10:02:28 PM