I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in the UK on private land you don't need insurance to drive, so it wouldn't be an issue. Though they understandably may be concerned that you race your car, I'm fairly sure they wouldn't be able to raise your bill as a result.

Furthermore, roads belong to the Government, and it's the Government's responsibility to keep road users safe. If you don't like they way they go about it, don't use them.

__________________


"What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."- The last words of General John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in the American civil war

The thing is that people don't seem to associate what we are doing overseas as aggressive invasion akin to the Chinese aggressively invading us. Live a day in those people's shoes and tell me our government is doing good things and protecting not just us but human rights on the whole.


Nothing belongs to the Government except those things that belong to the body of the citizenry as a whole, but this is very different than being owned by the government. I can see how you might think this, living in a land owned entirely by one person. I can quote court cases where people have won regarding their right to travel using an automobile on the "government" roads without the obtaining of a Driver's License, because our country works differently and we have a fundamental right to travel in any way we please. The system of law our government is modeled on should mean that criminality is restricted only to cases where actual harm is done, not theoretical potential harm (as in the case of speeding, driving without a license, etc.; you have not technically committed an actionable crime unless you have harmed another person or infringed upon their rights. Malicious intent used to be a requirement for conviction, more or less).

What I'm saying is that our government does not legally have the option to say "My way or no highway" in this country so long as they adhere to the structure of their system of law that the states within set up to protect their sovereignty from the Federal Government. Your country must be pretty crappy about pleasing the people if your idea of a "solution" is "if you don't like it, don't travel". I can not legally be forced to give up any of my rights as a requirement to travelling, in an automobile or anything else. This is why the TSA is an assault on our freedom an unconstitutional. This is why highway checkpoints are an assault to our freedom and technically illegal. This is why I have the right to refuse to be tracked in any situation, and should I be in an accident I have the right to not give up information. If the other driver wants this system to protect themselves legally, great, maybe it should show in court that they were not at fault and successfully get "me" convicted. Regardless, the fact is that we have the right to know what information is gathered, for how long, for who, and most importantly the ability to halt this data collection at the judgment of the citizen. If you disagree, you fundamentally misunderstand common law, rule of law, and the US Constitution.

You must realize that even though they do not seem that different in their present manifestations, the very basis of our government is the antithesis to the way in which yours functions. You can't try to apply your world view, because even if public perception in the US is that the government owns and operates the roads and that highway checkpoints protect the innocent more than they harm the innocent the fact remains that both of these statements are blatantly untrue.

Think about this: We have the right to go out to a store and purchase almost any kind of firearm and ammunition without requiring a license. We can, completely unlicensed, carry firearms with us in vehicles. You see, in legal terms, a license is permission to do something that you do not have a right to do, permission to break the law. It's illegal for you to own a shotgun, but you can become licensed to have limited access to certain kinds of shotguns. In fact, to use anything but an air-gun you need a firearms certificate.

Let me re-apply this legal knowledge. Court cases have been won over here confirming that in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania the legal system recognizes that locomotion is an inalienable (can not taken away or given away in any measure) right and that therefore it is unlawful to require a license for the purpose of leisure travel (any travel that is not for commercial gain through the use of the public freeways). Feel different than what you experience over there?

Are you starting to understand the basis of liberty? The idea of Liberty is the idea that you own yourself. You own your body, it is your property, and it is unlawful for anyone else to dictate to you what is appropriate as far as your own body and your own choices. We have here a body of elected citizens who are (supposed to be) no different than any ordinary or average citizen, and have no more power than any citizen, but are merely there to represent our best interests. Liberty is like a bubble of rights around you that protects you from invasion by the government. The people are supposed to protect each other from the government penetrating this bubble, while the government protects people from having their bubble penetrated by others.

If I were required to have a tracking device in my vehicle in order to use a vehicle as my right on the roads belonging to my community, that is the government saying that my bubble's "travel layer" no longer applies to them - that I do not have to penetrate someone else's bubble in order to be considered a criminal, but that a facet of my bubble is no longer protected. They are breaking the contract that was signed between states as a condition for creating a central government to oversee interstate affairs. If I'm arrested for smoking pot, that is the government saying that it has the ability to dictate what decisions I make about what I ingest or what state of mind I am permitted to be in (thought police, anyone?). If I break current Federal Law by taking a bottle of Raw Milk across state lines, that's the government telling me which foods are and are not appropriate for me to eat or drink, and precluding my judgment on issues of health to say "No, trust us, THIS is what you want for your health".

It's starting to sound like slavery instead of freedom, and THAT is why I am taking the time to make sure that people understand not just the issue itself but what about it makes it an issue in the first place. I can spout off pages of examples just on how the FDA (the board of directors consisting mostly of ex-employees of the pharmaceutical industry), by being brought into existence with one law, has repeatedly failed to protect the people or serve their interests. In fact they've taken actions repeatedly that are direct public health dangers to the people for the profit of Monsanto and their buddies, and I'd contend it's because of the conflict of interest of the people running the agency.

(Applequest: HERE is where I would insert the slippery slope argument. I just listed one tiny set of legal developments over the past hundred years that paint a slope before your eyes and lube it up.)

[/epicrant]

__________________

In this day and age, its just unrealistic for government to maintain as small a role as you would like Boa. In theory, yes it would be wonderful, same as communism, but in today's modern complex world, the government has to be responsible for protecting the population. The TSA might not go about things in the right way, but we need to be protected. Same goes for patrolling against drunk drivers, and to some extent for monitoring the seconds before a crash. I understand your constitutional based arguments, but again, a lot has changed since 1776. It just seems to me a very quaint idea that government should do THAT little. And believe me, I am not a big government guy, but I expect my quality of life to be protected from stupid/malicious people, and I expect the government to meet that need.

__________________

Hidden: 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have not thought about that



VERSUS




You both are making a good point on what is constitutional and what has changed/ what they should be doing for us.

__________________


Road to Insane Final Boss

__________________


Road to Insane Final Boss

If you want to complain about people tracking your every move, I think cellphones and internet tracking software are much more worrying that those black boxes.

I think having a device that can allow for a better understanding of an accident is a good thing. The only risk is that it starts overriding any other evidence in the eye of the law, which is kind of what happened with DNA testing.
Obviously I'm against having tracking devices implemented into cars, but as far as I understand that's just speculation at this point.

__________________

RV's JTA ni yōkoso!
‪‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮҉

Works most of the time, but still has its drawbacks

__________________


Road to Insane Final Boss

To shut down the whole blablabl defense spending blablabla

Black boxes are almost already industry standard.
*thunder*

Buick has been putting them in their cars since like...2000.

What does this law do?
Makes something into law that most cars already do.

The you think "ok why a law" because every single company uses a different format...... and then to analyze each crash, you'd need to go buy another reader for the box from that particular dealership.

So the law basically takes a look at the industry standard and say

"ok guys... these are valuable sources of information with infallible proof but it's killing the police budget buying 20 readers.. lets make one standard so we can protect people better"

Honestly, when I scrolled past the 100% irrelevant defense spending graph I figured I'd shut this down.

This law doesn't cost a ton of money, it just standardizes the recording boxes that most manufacturers already use. /thread]

__________________
"The good warrior knows when to fight, and when to withdraw."
- Sun Tzu

I'll smith anything up to 93 smithing if you have the material for me to make it with
My Story, Horrors of Myron County
RV's Drawing archive topic, post yours or comment on others

That post about the spending could mostly be about anything and everything else, and everything costs money what about the vehicles that don't have the manufacturer "recording boxes".

The car dealerships that put in those boxes are able to remotely disable your car if you don't make the payment. that still leaves the majority without such protection.

Also think about a Nation Wide scale changing every new vehicle to having another addition to them will cost.

Imo it's just another way for the vehicle to have a mechanical malfunction, and it's getting harder to work on your own vehicle besides taking it to the dealership to fix it up. More computer technology inside the vehicle.

__________________


Road to Insane Final Boss

Ok...
1) They just... won't not put them in. The car dealership will pay for them as they make new cars. New cars might cost more as a result, but we're talking 100-200 dollars in a 10,000 dolar or more vehicle. This law only applies to newly made vehicles. Older vehicles don't matter.. it's only a law to retrofit old cars.

2) No, that's not reasonably possible. That's not the scope of this law. These boxes record like 10-20 seconds of velocity, acceleration, and other data about the vehicle before a crash eg. were the brakes on, angle of the wheels... Upon a crash, they save the data and it's stored.

So these boxes do little more than record data about the vehicle they can't control it at all.

__________________
"The good warrior knows when to fight, and when to withdraw."
- Sun Tzu

I'll smith anything up to 93 smithing if you have the material for me to make it with
My Story, Horrors of Myron County
RV's Drawing archive topic, post yours or comment on others