Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson
Robert - There's plenty of probable cause in the Josh Brent case, with intoxication, history of intoxication, and ~300 yards out of control in a 45 zone . . . in this case the EDR is only going to confirm the obvious, plus maybe a seat belt violation or two.
I think the concerns with EDR are that
(1) the amount and duration of data collected in the future will likely be more extensive than it is now
(2) there will be fewer restrictions on who has access to it
I would venture a guess that relatively few people have objected is because EDR isn't very well known and certainly not widely understood.
If voluntary EDR were a low-cost option (just enough $ to cover the costs and not add any profit), I wonder how many car buyers would have actively selected it over the last 10 or however many years.
Norm
|
Few people would voluntarily purchase an EDR option for their new car.
Some insurance companies (Progressive) are offering insurance discounts if you voluntarily install a code reader/memory into your OBDII port.
I agree, EDR was a well kept secret for the past 10 years. A GM engineer I spoke to (10 years ago) was reluctant to discuss it due to proprietary issues and privacy politics.
What upsets government is each automaker runs their own programs and EDR algorithms. Government wants uniformity so EDR's can be uploaded with one cable and one software program.
The point I was making about Josh Brent accident is that is the type of case where an EDR is uploaded. Fender benders..NOT!
We all know Brent was speeding and the EDR confirms it.