Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries
in [Cars]
|
From: John Lansford on 1 May 2010 09:47 Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 1, 12:10�am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> said: >> >> >On Apr 30, 6:07�pm, lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote: >> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1270042/Toyota-safe... >> >> >black boxes in each new car? �I bet all both the manufacturers and >> >customers are going to like that idea - not! >> >> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T. > >well... they're sort of like air bags and security cameras, right? > >would you willingly pay $1000 extra "up front" for air bags if it >saved you $2000 in insurance premium costs? > >some would and as we know, others would go "bare" - right? > >when the govt and/or the insurance industry totals up ALL the costs >for ALL incidents and determines that a required safety device costs >will be less than all the totaled costs without it - we >get ...regulation..right? > >I wonder how many of the anti-govt people would advocate that seat >belts and air bags be optional accessories? > >but I digress... back to the black box > >I wonder how many airline pilots DON'T do stupid stuff BECAUSE this IS >a BLACK box on board? > >I wonder how many fleet truck drivers similarly behave themselves when >their truck is instrumented with event recorders an GPS tracking? > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder > >these things are already here and in use in a wide variety of existing >activities. > >so.. the question is.. can you conceived of the govt making them a >standardized mandatory thing like seat belts and air bags? > >I can but it would surely result in more govt.. right? I don't recall my car insurance going down just because I bought one with airbags. In fact, it's been rising steadily despite neither my wife or me having any traffic violations. If these cars are safer, why doesn't the insurance go down? John Lansford, PE -- John's Shop of Wood http://wood.jlansford.net/
From: Floyd Rogers on 1 May 2010 10:00 "John Lansford" <jlnsford(a)bellsouth.net> wrote > Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>On May 1, 12:10 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: .... >>I wonder how many airline pilots DON'T do stupid stuff BECAUSE this IS >>a BLACK box on board? Pilot unions have gotten rules in place that the cockpit voice recorders can't be used to discover if they've done dumb things that didn't result in an accident. Non-digital CVR's only record about 1/2 hour in a continuous loop anyway, so they're kind of useless except for an accident investigation. > I don't recall my car insurance going down just because I bought one > with airbags. In fact, it's been rising steadily despite neither my > wife or me having any traffic violations. If these cars are safer, > why doesn't the insurance go down? The went down initially, back between '90-'95. FloydR
From: Sancho Panza on 1 May 2010 10:08 "John Lansford" <jlnsford(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:d5cot5d9tm3f4snrqiup5p5cnkvd7bsoe5(a)4ax.com... > Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On May 1, 12:10 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> said: >>> >>> >On Apr 30, 6:07 pm, lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote: >>> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1270042/Toyota-safe... >>> >>> >black boxes in each new car? I bet all both the manufacturers and >>> >customers are going to like that idea - not! >>> >>> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T. >> >>well... they're sort of like air bags and security cameras, right? >> >>would you willingly pay $1000 extra "up front" for air bags if it >>saved you $2000 in insurance premium costs? >> >>some would and as we know, others would go "bare" - right? >> >>when the govt and/or the insurance industry totals up ALL the costs >>for ALL incidents and determines that a required safety device costs >>will be less than all the totaled costs without it - we >>get ...regulation..right? >> >>I wonder how many of the anti-govt people would advocate that seat >>belts and air bags be optional accessories? >> >>but I digress... back to the black box >> >>I wonder how many airline pilots DON'T do stupid stuff BECAUSE this IS >>a BLACK box on board? >> >>I wonder how many fleet truck drivers similarly behave themselves when >>their truck is instrumented with event recorders an GPS tracking? >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder >> >>these things are already here and in use in a wide variety of existing >>activities. >> >>so.. the question is.. can you conceived of the govt making them a >>standardized mandatory thing like seat belts and air bags? >> >>I can but it would surely result in more govt.. right? > > I don't recall my car insurance going down just because I bought one > with airbags. In fact, it's been rising steadily despite neither my > wife or me having any traffic violations. If these cars are safer, > why doesn't the insurance go down? Increases in many factors like liability judgments and repair costs.
From: Brent on 1 May 2010 14:08 On 2010-05-01, Harry K <turnkey4099(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 9:10�pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> said: >> >> >On Apr 30, 6:07�pm, lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote: >> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1270042/Toyota-safe... >> >> >black boxes in each new car? �I bet all both the manufacturers and >> >customers are going to like that idea - not! >> >> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T. > Customers maybe, manufacturers won't care - that cost is paid by the > consumer. Manufacturers always care about the cost. The point of using government regulation to require additional equipment is often that it costs those who are pushing the mandate less than their competition. For instance several years back GM bought a DRL supplier. Their cost to fit every vehicle with DRLs would be lower than that of all the other automakers. GM pushed for a regulatory requirement for DRLs. Media scares are big oppertunities for such regulation. The 'lead in toys' scare being a recent example. Mattel, the company that had the problem pushed for the new legislation on lead testing. Every expensive to the point of crippling to small toy makers. To mattel given their volume and resources it wasn't so bad. Then after it was in place for awhile Mattel got special dispensation to do in house testing themselves. Which automaker is behind this push for black boxes I wonder. I'll wager it's GM because of their On-Star system and data recorders already in place.
From: Brent on 1 May 2010 18:05
On 2010-05-01, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 2:21�pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> >> said: >> >> >> >black boxes in each new car? �I bet all both the manufacturers and >> >> >customers are going to like that idea - not! >> >> >> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T. >> >> >Customers maybe, manufacturers won't care - that cost is paid by the >> >consumer. >> >> Manufacturers absolutely will care. The more cars cost, the harder it >> is to sell them. Lower sales means less profit for the automakers. >> -- >> The MFFY Litmus Test: >> If your maneuver forces another driver who has the right-of-way >> to alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY. > > if the govt "believes" that ultimately black boxes will result in less > accidents, and less irresponsible driving.. and a way to get to the > bottom of claims like unintended acceleration.. brakes that don't > work, etc... then I think it's a no brainer. > > you asked to give an example. My understanding is that things like air > bags, ESC, and such have a positive cost benefit. Didn't the > insurance companies make this point? > > If the insurance company offered you a 30% reduction in your premium > if you allowed an on-board event recorder.. would you do it? 40%, > 50%? how about they tell you they are going to RAISE your premiums > 50% if you do not? > > Bonus Question: if the insurance company did that to you - would you > go running to that big bad over-regulating nasty big govt for help? If an insurance company did that to me it would because they went to government and had laws changed/passed. Otherwise I'd just go to a different insurance company when they raised my rates for no reason other than a desire to track me. Lots of people don't want to be tracked. There is just barely enough of a free market in auto insurance in IL that such customers can go elsewhere. Every notice that in some states auto insurance is very expensive for no good reason? There's a reason for that, and it starts with a "G". It is the closing off of a free market that forces people to seek help in the political process rather than just taking their business elsewhere. |