Prev: My registration jumped from $27 to $60
Next: finally, some rational thinking re: DUI
From: richard on 10 Jun 2010 00:20
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT), gpsman wrote:

> On Jun 9, 6:24�pm, The Real Bev <bashley...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've searched for a while and I can't find a bill number.
>
> H.R. 5345, The Consumer Auto Safety Enhancement Act of 2010
>
> http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_5345.html
> -----
>
> - gpsman

Title 49? That would be the trucking industry.
Doesn't say anything about being mandatory for cars.


--
I learned my lesson well. You can't please everyone, so you got to please
yourself.
- Ricky Nelson from "Garden Party"
From: richard on 10 Jun 2010 00:27
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:20:10 -0400, lil abner wrote:

> http://www.driving.ca/story.html?id=3131257

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5345

For those interested in the full text of the bill.

Title 49 is purely for the trucking industry. I did not see anything that
said the EDR's would be mandatory in cars.


--
I learned my lesson well. You can't please everyone, so you got to please
yourself.
- Ricky Nelson from "Garden Party"
From: Gary V on 10 Jun 2010 07:02
On Jun 10, 12:27 am, richard <mem...(a)newsguy.com> wrote:

> Title 49 is purely for the trucking industry. I did not see anything that
> said the EDR's would be mandatory in cars.

Title 49 is Transportation; it covers more than trucking. For
example, that's where the fuel economy (CAFE) reporting requirements
are found.

And quoting the bill that you linked but evidently didn't read, "‘(1)
requires each motor vehicle manufacturer to equip each motor vehicle
of model year 2012 or later manufactured by such manufacturer,
regardless of the gross vehicle weight rating of the motor vehicle,
with an event data recorder that meets the specifications set forth in
subsection (b); "

"Each motor vehicle" - that includes cars
"Regardless of the gross vehicle weight rating" - that means all
vehicles, light duty and heavy duty.
From: Brent on 10 Jun 2010 08:35
On 2010-06-10, Gary V <gjvoshol(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 12:27?am, richard <mem...(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Title 49 is purely for the trucking industry. I did not see anything that
>> said the EDR's would be mandatory in cars.
>
> Title 49 is Transportation; it covers more than trucking. For
> example, that's where the fuel economy (CAFE) reporting requirements
> are found.
>
> And quoting the bill that you linked but evidently didn't read, "?(1)
> requires each motor vehicle manufacturer to equip each motor vehicle
> of model year 2012 or later manufactured by such manufacturer,

Model year 2012. Exactly when in the remaining development time for 2012
models are the manufacturers supposed to squeeze in this universal data
recorder that the government probably hasn't even decided on yet? They
haven't even decided on what the maximum fire temp survival is yet. And
the manufacturers are supposed to design this unknown box up, do the
tooling, testing, retest the car to make sure things didn't get messed
up from adding it... and 2012 models should start launching in a few
months. From a design stand point essentially those cars are done as I
type this. All that is expected would be relatively small changes, not
adding whole new sub-systems.

And it's going to require new sensors too... "E) Rollover data."

Undefined "tamper resistance": "(4) TAMPER RESISTANCE- The event data
recorder required under subsection (a)(1) shall have such safeguards as
the Secretary considers appropriate to prevent alteration of the data
recorded."

Then there's the whole problem of congress thinking government has
unlimited power and all...


> regardless of the gross vehicle weight rating of the motor vehicle,
> with an event data recorder that meets the specifications set forth in
> subsection (b); "
>
> "Each motor vehicle" - that includes cars
> "Regardless of the gross vehicle weight rating" - that means all
> vehicles, light duty and heavy duty.
From: Brent on 10 Jun 2010 11:10
On 2010-06-10, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said:
>
>>On 2010-06-10, Gary V <gjvoshol(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 12:27?am, richard <mem...(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Title 49 is purely for the trucking industry. I did not see anything that
>>>> said the EDR's would be mandatory in cars.
>>>
>>> Title 49 is Transportation; it covers more than trucking. For
>>> example, that's where the fuel economy (CAFE) reporting requirements
>>> are found.
>>>
>>> And quoting the bill that you linked but evidently didn't read, "?(1)
>>> requires each motor vehicle manufacturer to equip each motor vehicle
>>> of model year 2012 or later manufactured by such manufacturer,
>>
>>Model year 2012. Exactly when in the remaining development time for 2012
>>models are the manufacturers supposed to squeeze in this universal data
>>recorder that the government probably hasn't even decided on yet?
>>
>>And it's going to require new sensors too... "E) Rollover data."
>
> Probably not. Any car with traction control already has yaw sensors.

False. Cheap traction control uses the ABS wheel speed sensors. Only a
full blown vehicle dynamics system would have yaw sensors.

> The hard part will be implementing the standard external interface so
> that the same software will be able to download data from ALL cars.
> The way the car industry moves, there's no way in hell they can all do
> that by 2012, let alone the 2012 model year.

Either the whole industry coming upon an agreed upon universal interface
or the government coming up with one would take years. Should this bill
clear both houses of congress the first 2012 models will be weeks from
being in the showrooms when dear leader signs it.

>>Undefined "tamper resistance": "(4) TAMPER RESISTANCE- The event data
>>recorder required under subsection (a)(1) shall have such safeguards as
>>the Secretary considers appropriate to prevent alteration of the data
>>recorded."

> Heh! Of course, these modules get most of their data from the vehicle
> network. Brake application data comes from the brake control module,
> engine data from the engine control module, steering wheel position
> from the steering module, current gear selection from the transmission
> control module, etc. A man-in-the-middle attack would work perfectly
> here: unplug the vehicle network wire(s) leading to the data recorder
> and put your own "filter" module in series with the network. Filter
> out the real messages and substitute your own (benign) replacements.
> Imagine the look on the cop's face when he pulls your data after the
> crash and sees you were going a straight and steady 30 MPH. :)

This depends if it is implemented as a physically separate module. It
will likely be so on some early variants but it will be integrated into
some vital component like the engine management computer eventually.

>>Then there's the whole problem of congress thinking government has
>>unlimited power and all...

> Unless someone stops them, they effectively do.

So much for that free country BS. Long live the empire as they say.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: My registration jumped from $27 to $60
Next: finally, some rational thinking re: DUI