Just an update in case you haven't seen....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html

What one man invents another disables....

Don't those old school speedometers stop at their last reading when involved in an accident? I don't really see this being much different, except you need a computer to get the info instead.

Actually, the old school had a spring to return them to 0 (the ones I know of). However, my '89 Formula had a servo motor that drives the needle. I guess that could "stick" if power were cut suddenly. Though, I'm not sure you could lose power quickly enough.

"we want to understand crashes better"

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! If that isnt jerking on someones chain, I don't know what is. Isurance companies are going to eat these things up! It will be an excuse for them to jack you rates unless you have one in the vehicle. At first its going to be "all new cars will have these" and with our luck it will move to "if you don't have one of these you need to report to the state inspection facility to have one installed"..........I hate to sounds all "big brotherish" but mark my words.

This takes the cake........



Here is the quick fix rather than using a bullshit exuse to monitor what everyone is doing and how they are doing it.
Keep anyone over age xx that cant prove that they are cognative behind the wheel of a freaking car from getting/renewing thier drivers license. How bout that just from a common freaking sence standpoint.

In the above situation, I garangoddamntee that that old man had no fooking idea what was going on around him. Probably couldnt see past the hood of his 74 lincon continetal. The guy shouldnt have been behind the wheel in the first place.

Sorry but this kind of stuff gets me all wrapped around the axle.

I studied this for hours about 2 years ago. From a technical standpoint of GM saying 'we want to build better cars, and do so more cheaply' is reasonable goal. It costs lots of dollars to crash vehicles. The loss of a sale, the time for a team to examine the wreckage adds up.

One of their means to do is with the Diagnostic and Energy Reserve Module (DERM). The argument is they could collect crash data and use that information to improve automotive safety on current models or future ones.

I really think that is a fine intention. I however do not want to give that data away for free. GM wants to cut costs crashing their own vehicle, then the data from my crash is has a monetary value.

The real rub is the misuse of that information. It should be 100% my choice as to where, how and if that data is collected. At this time I do not feel I have choices that I find acceptable.

I know where the module is. I have disconnected it and noted the service light come on as a result of the disconnection. I did not try to drive the car with it disconnnected.

NataSS, this is DERM stuff is not new news as you probably have realized. I am at least as unhappy about it as you are.


Below is one of many write ups on the system.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_rec/procee...s/chidester.htm

If any of you clever folks out there are aware of a how-to to disable the abilty the DERM module it to record and not cause it to stop deploying the airbags, then please share. There has to be an easy hack. This is from the article above“The near-deployment record is cleared after 250 ignition cycles.”

I'd rather see more comprehensive driving tests for all people, not just the elderly. There are plenty of people half his age and probably one quarter his age who can't drive well, yet have a license (or don't and drive anyway). I'd even go so far as to say that driving exams should be annual or bi-annual, and if you don't pass, you don't get your license renewed. (Lots of caveats there, but didn't go in to it.)

The black box problem is just another indicator of our society being taken over by the big brother syndrome. I'm not keen on the Onstar being able to monitor my location, but if the truck were stolen, I know I stand a better chance at getting it back versus not having the system. I'm also not too keen on wireless throttle control, but the right size electromagnetic pulse would shut down a computer-controlled car regardless of throttle connection type. (Maybe shut down non-computer cars too..)

I believe it was one of the "one lappers" on this board that said a Corvette had onstar activate (during the one lap of america) at 140 mph on a road course to tell him that he was exceeding the design limits of his vehicle or some such statement.

Take that one in for warranty service.

Also, I figure if I wreck my car, I'm going to the storage yard and remove said box. "I don't know where it went, someone must have stolen it for another airbag system or something". Grab it and head to the rifle range.....

Onstar only became available on the 05 Corvettes, of which none have participated in a one lap event yet. For that matter, I haven't even heard of any of them actually making it to a roadcourse yet over on Corvetteforum.

Back to the main discussion. GM has been putting these boxes in their cars since around 97 depending on the model (I believe the first was the 97 C5). I don't really have a problem with them being in the car, but I do have a problem with the data being used against my will. If I pay for the car, I expect to have complete control over it and determine when/if it's used for anything.

Interesting. I'll have to check that out then. I'm not sure of the vehicle, I thought it was a vette, I may be wrong, or I was misinformed.

See:

http://frrax.com/rrforum/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=1361

John Oliver did not say what car. Guessing that it was a Caddy.

Now THAT is cool! I wish MY car could tell me I am going too fast!

I would love to hear it.....

...of course I would and keep on :drive:

Thanks, I'm not crazy.....

Relatively speaking of course.....