Does X5 has 'black box'???

chubyball · #1 11-26-2006, 07:21 PM

On CNN.com disclosed 'black box' is hiden in side most of cars and it could send you to jail.

Sponsored Links

bimmerFanatic · #2 11-26-2006, 07:25 PM

http://www.bmwcca.org/news?from=30

If you read between the lines, he says BMW does install Black boxes (EDR) but that they don't meet the NHTSA definition. Umm...what does that mean?

Quote:

According to a BMW spokesman, "Up to now, BMW has not installed EDRs that meet this definition ... [the] NHTSA definition from the EDR Final Rule is: 'Event data recorder (EDR) means a device or function in a vehicle that records the vehicle's dynamic, time-series data during the time period just prior to a crash event (e.g., vehicle speed vs. time) or during a crash event (e.g., delta-V vs. time), intended for retrieval after the crash event. For the purposes of this definition, the event data do not include audio and video data.'"

Curious Joel · #3 11-26-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubyball

On CNN.com disclosed 'black box' is hiden in side most of cars and it could send you to jail.

I think in a lot of cases they don't use the black box. But if you were driving like an idiot, and the crash was YOUR fault, you deserve to go to jail. Why is this a problem? People don't ever want to think they're at fault for driving like an idiot. Like they say, you can tell whose fault a car accident is by the one who gets out yelling..

motordavid · #4 11-26-2006, 09:57 PM

CBall...
"Black boxes" don't send one to jail...
doing something really stupid in your
car and getting convicted, sends one
to jail. The Black Box may/can, tell a tale.
BR,mD

Quicksilver · #5 11-26-2006, 10:36 PM

Why do you ask.

You been doing something you aint got no business doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubyball

On CNN.com disclosed 'black box' is hiden in side most of cars and it could send you to jail.

Eurosport · #6 11-27-2006, 05:35 AM

i think he has every right to ask,
as a consumer we should all be aware of the info we give to any company etc., yes most people are not aware of existance of such a box, but they are more and more QUIETLY implemented into newer cars. I think they should disclose them more straight forward. wtf is next, sensors on your vehicle if you go 1mph over speed limit goes to your insurance co? just like everything else, if they see people are not against it, they'll keep pushing the limits invading our privacy more and more.

john348 · #7 11-27-2006, 06:27 AM

But there have already been trials of speed limiters based on GPS technology this year. I think there is a voluntary scheme to use it at the moment in the UK.

I would like to know what is in the car etc. But also feel that it is hopefully a help to me to "prove my innocence". Like carrying a camera with you or even an incar video recorder or caught on cctv. It can only be an aid and not the proof but it can only help.

X5Jay · #8 11-27-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious Joel

I think in a lot of cases they don't use the black box. But if you were driving like an idiot, and the crash was YOUR fault, you deserve to go to jail. Why is this a problem? People don't ever want to think they're at fault for driving like an idiot. Like they say, you can tell whose fault a car accident is by the one who gets out yelling..

This is a problem because in this country, you are not required (and rightly so, IMHO) to ever testify against yourself. With this device, you are actually paying your hard earned money to buy a device that can and will testify against you. How many of us would buy one of these things if we had a choice?

AzX5 · #9 11-27-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X5Jay

This is a problem because in this country, you are not required (and rightly so, IMHO) to ever testify against yourself. With this device, you are actually paying your hard earned money to buy a device that can and will testify against you. How many of us would buy one of these things if we had a choice?

I tend to think of it as testifying "for me", not "against me". No problem here.

X5Jay · #10 11-27-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzX5

I tend to think of it as testifying "for me", not "against me". No problem here.

But what if it's not working correctly? In the case mentioned, it said the driver was going 114mph while the scene investigator said he would have estimated the accident at somewhere around 60-80mph (if I remember correctly). Personally, I wouldn't want anything that has the potential to testify against me, ever!

Sponsored Links