• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

Big brother joins you in your car

Recommended Posts

As some of you know, I've been toying with buying a new car and have stumbled upon something that I find very disturbing. 

On the test drive, the nice sales woman pointed out the button on the dash.  Apparently, if I had an accident, or witnessed an accident, I just need to press the button and someone (don't know who) will be alerted.  With even more safety in mind, if I was incapacitated in said crash, the car would automatically contact someone.  

I didn't think any more on this but after a google search I have found this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3002878/Cars-automatically-call-help-set-law-2018-EU-rules-demand-makers-install-emergency-black-boxes.html

From March 2018 every new car sold in the European Union will legally have to be equipped with eCall technology.

This will consist of a 'black box' that detects a crash and automatically calls the emergency services for help. 

This box is also fitted with a GPS sensor so it can send the car's precise location to the control room.

 

Motorists will be unable to switch it off and it will be tested in MoT checks. 

Emma Carr, of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘Motorists will not be comfortable forcibly having a black box installed which is capable of recording and transmitting their exact location when they are driving.’


Is anyone else deeply concerned about this?  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

transmitting their exact location when they are driving.’

And no doubt their speed relative to the limits.

My friend's son had one of these for insurance purposes. Went a couple of miles an hour over the limit twice and they cancelled his insurance.

Now almost uninsurable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

And no doubt their speed relative to the limits.

My friend's son had one of these for insurance purposes. Went a couple of miles an hour over the limit twice and they cancelled his insurance.

Now almost uninsurable.

 

My daughter did too. That was by choice and it was with the insurance company. Tptb would have to get court orders to access the data I would think.  Not insurmountable but an added hurdle. My issue with this on all new cars is that it is very unclear how the dat will be used and by whom.  I've visions of someone sat at gchq monitoring everyone.  I can also see it linked into road charging in the very near future. No need for all those roadside cameras. They can just track your gps movements and charge accordingly. 

I wonder if there is a tin foil wrap for cars?  

On the insurance issue, my daughter was with a company that gave refunds for safe driving, all detailed through an app on her phone. It worked well for her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

With this and the enforced EVs for new cars I think we're going to end up like Cuba with vast numbers of people driving forty year old cars because there isn't an equivalent new car available.

They're going to get older cars off the road. They won't do it directly, it'll be done by charging old cars more to enter low emission zones which will be brought into other cities as has been done in London. There's not much the individual can do about any of this. Go Galt? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but but but tptb are doing this to protect us from hurting ourselves, can't you see? 

Road charging was my immediate thought too One percent! If half of new cars on the road are going to be electrified in 2028 then this will inevitably be used to tax the motorist. There is no good reason for your car to alert the authorities in an accident in 95%+ of instances as either you'll report it yourself or other motorists will for you. When I took 999 calls the switchboard would light up for all collisions no matter how trivial (or break downs). Probably 30 calls per incident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, longtomsilver said:

but but but tptb are doing this to protect us from hurting ourselves, can't you see? 

Road charging was my immediate thought too One percent! If half of new cars on the road are going to be electrified in 2028 then this will inevitably be used to tax the motorist. There is no good reason for your car to alert the authorities in an accident in 95%+ of instances as either you'll report it yourself or other motorists will for you. When I took 999 calls the switchboard would light up for all collisions no matter how trivial (or break downs). Probably 30 calls per incident. 

Even though I brought up the road charging, it doesn't make sense to introduce all this technology just to charge to use roads. Just bung it on the price of petrol.  Unless they are considering differential charging; charging more to travel in busy periods/on busy roads 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, One percent said:

Even though I brought up the road charging, it doesn't make sense to introduce all this technology just to charge to use roads. Just bung it on the price of petrol.  Unless they are considering differential charging; charging more to travel in busy periods/on busy roads 

Nail on head! 

Petrol will be taxed out of existence. It makes sense to charge people more in rush to get themselves to work 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, longtomsilver said:

Nail on head! 

Petrol will be taxed out of existence. It makes sense to charge people more in rush to get themselves to work 🙄

Another reason that working will no longer make sense if the cost of commuting outweighs the wage earned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, One percent said:

Another reason that working will no longer make sense if the cost of commuting outweighs the wage earned. 

You'd just need to live near your work.

Up to this year the Cornwall councillor responsible for transport was Bert Biscoe; who didn't actually drive.  So he had a "different" view to the 99.9% of adults in Cornwall who do drive because the public transport is non-existent.

When pushed as to what his "vision" was he said that all the transport problems would be solved if everyone lived and worked in the same town.  And basically didn't go anywhere!

This explained his general anti-car stance; he saw them as unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

And no doubt their speed relative to the limits.

 

I dont have a problem with this. I have a strong libertarian streak, and I accept that a lot of speed enforcment is just revenue raising, but surely the answer is not to speed.

I live in a street where cars are supposed to drive no faster than 20mph, and all who use the street (cars, pedestrians, cyclists) have equal right of way, called a "Home Zone". I doubt that 1 car in 20 drives down the road at anything less than 35, so if most motorists are too ignorant or selfish to obey the rules, why shouldnt they be fined and have their licences endorsed until they do?

Its all very well to bang on about civil liberties, but we also need to consider the rights of kids who live in my street and others like it.

Id be more than happy for all cars to be fitted with automatic speed GPS speed limiters, which will of course soon be the case when self driving cars take off (NPI).

Edited by Mirror Mirror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, One percent said:

I agree with him Frank and if the government had as a central policy full employment, then we would all be more likely to live and work in the same town.  It would vastly improve the quality of life for a lot of people. 

However, the reality is that there are no longer jobs for life.  There is massive exploitation through zero hour contracts and the like. People (or jobs?) are much more transient and people do have to travel for work.  

He would have to change a lot of things to get that.  As you have expensive housing by the coast and cheap housing inland a lot of the low paid jobs in somewhere like St Ives will be staffed by people living in Camborne / Redruth.

You can't really square that circle, your average shop assistant couldn't afford to live in St Ives.

I use St Ives as an example because earlier this year there was a loan from hotels there about not being able to recruit staff and the So-Called BBC used it as an excuse to moan about Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

And no doubt their speed relative to the limits.

My friend's son had one of these for insurance purposes. Went a couple of miles an hour over the limit twice and they cancelled his insurance.

Now almost uninsurable.

 

Just a couple of miles over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sarahbell said:

Just a couple of miles over?

I think, from what the parent said, it was 5 or less.

 

7 minutes ago, Mirror Mirror said:

I dont have a problem with this. I have a strong libertarian streak, and I accept that a lot of speed enforcment is just revenue raising, but surely the answer is not to speed.

Maybe. Can you honestly say you never speed? - for example to overtake a cyclist, or just when you are on a 40 mile per hour dual carriageway.

There will be no excuses. No margin of error.

Life on the road will be crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mirror Mirror said:

I dont have a problem with this. I have a strong libertarian streak, and I accept that a lot of speed enforcment is just revenue raising, but surely the answer is not to speed.

I live in a street where cars are supposed to drive no faster than 20mph, and all who use the street (cars, pedestrians, cyclists) have equal right of way, called a "Home Zone". I doubt that 1 car in 20 drives down the road at anything less than 35, so if most motorists are too ignorant or selfish to obey the rules, why shouldnt they be fined and have their licences endorsed until they do?

Its all very well to bang on about civil liberties, but we also need to consider the rights of kids who live in my street and others like it.

Id be more than happy for all cars to be fitted with automatic speed GPS speed limiters, which will of course soon be the case when self driving cars take off (NPI).

Then the revenue stream from various fines will dry up as bot cars comply. Consequently congestion charging will then be a universal but variable tax for every mile travelled along every road.

Edited by Chewing Grass
really must proof read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

I think, from what the parent said, it was 5 or less.

 

Maybe. Can you honestly say you never speed? - for example to overtake a cyclist, or just when you are on a 40 mile per hour dual carriageway.

There will be no excuses. No margin of error.

Life on the road will be crap.

So in reality, probably 10 mph.

I try not to speed, but obviously I do from time to time, thus exposing myself to the risk of prosecution or worse, if I were to kill or injure someone while speeding, thats why I support the idea of automatic speed limiters for cars.

Life on the road is crap now, has been for the last 20 or 30 years. I hate driving but of course I appreciate that other like, even love it, and that for others in rural areas there is little alternative. None of that is a reason however to put the safety of others at risk.

8 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Then the revenue stream from various fines will dry up as bot cars comply. Consequently congestion charging will then be a universal but variable tax for every mile travelled along every road.

No problem with that either. I would magine that a sensble debate would take place where driving would end up costing roughly the same (ok, Im a realist, a bit more).

Edited by Mirror Mirror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mirror Mirror said:

I try not to speed, but obviously I do from time to time, thus exposing myself to the risk of prosecution or worse, if I were to kill or injure someone while speeding, thats why I support the idea of automatic speed limiters for cars.

Life on the road is crap now, has been for the last 20 or 30 years. I hate driving but of course I appreciate that other like, even love it, and that for others in rural areas there is little alternative. None of that is a reason however to put the safety of others at risk.

OK - a scenario.

You are trying to join a dual carriageway / motorway from a slip road.

There are a couple of cars parallel to you on the motorway and you can see that there are lorries behind them for ages.

Do you accelerate (possibly momentarily above 70mph) and join in front of the vehicles, or stop and then try to accelerate from zero to join the motorway?

I know what I would think is the safest option. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this only a worry if you don't carry a smartphone?

This technology can easily be overridden for £20 or so via a jammer on eBay. It's the same technology that the Eastern European 'stolen to order' gangs use to jam tracker signals on high end cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cunning Plan said:

OK - a scenario.

You are trying to join a dual carriageway / motorway from a slip road.

There are a couple of cars parallel to you on the motorway and you can see that there are lorries behind them for ages.

Do you accelerate (possibly momentarily above 70mph) and join in front of the vehicles, or stop and then try to accelerate from zero to join the motorway?

I know what I would think is the safest option. 

 

I quite agree, maybe there could be exemptions for obvious cases like this, but this is a long way away from inconsiderate arseholes driving at double the speed limit down my road.

I wonder how many accidents are due to people focussing too much on their speedo to avoid being done to the detriment of what is going on around their car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By WorkingPoor
      Seems to be a multi pronged concerted effort underway to silence the public on social media in the wake of terror attacks 
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41203920
      Guidelines to staff, terror attack victims and their families to warn them about the risks of using socal media have been issued by NHS England.
      The guide cautions that internet trolls may subject victims to "vile and upsetting abuse", as was seen after the Manchester and London terror attacks.
      It also warns people to be wary of journalists, who monitor social media. 
      But it adds that social media can also play a positive role in helping victims and families after attacks.
      For example, it points out that coverage can help people by appealing for help, getting questions answered or paying tribute to those who have been killed.
      However, it warns, people may say more than they intend to when "vulnerable, upset or angry" and that the process of retelling a story can make people "relive the worst parts" of horrific events. 
      "Journalists' questions can seem very intrusive, and sometimes blunt," the guide explains, while warning that their tweets can be "seductive".
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.