Tell-Tale Chips in Chryslers?

Janklow, a former four-term governor who was elected to the U.S. House in

They're going to nail this Congressman for killing a motorcyclist. Janklow
needs the punishment, no doubt. He is a reckless driver.

But, how did they get the exact speed of 71 mph? No policeman was there
with a radar gun. They did it because there are on-board chips that record
all kinds of data like braking and velocity. Its part of the the airbag
safety system, isn't it? Janklow was driving a Cadillac, but what about
Chrysler products? Do they contain this spy chip too? If so, why? For
what legitimate purpose is it installed and by whose directive? Corporate
heads or police authorities?

Its becoming a gold mine for prosecutors and tort lawyers, I'm sure.

 

They are in all new GMs and I think maybe some or all fords. No word yet on
Chryslers. Don't think so.

Heaven forbid they have somewhat accurate info when trying to determine the
cause of an accident.

 

Heaven forbid they have somewhat accurate info when trying to determine
the

But what makes you think they didn't already? The science of accident
forensics is pretty advanced from what I've read and seen about it.

Not that I want a black box riding along with me, mind you, but face it:
commit a crime that results in a death and don't manage to cover it up =
going to jail. Simple as that.

--Geoff

 

The purpose of these chips is to save your life, and to save on
replacing airbags. Why set off and airbag at 5 MPH...no
reason...unless you where just traveling 55MPH, and you locked the
brakes up...ABS is pumping, the computer can't tell how fast you are
going, even though the speedo says five, but it knows that 4 seconds
ago you were doing 55...guess it had better deploy the airbags when
you hit huh...next:
You are doing 5 MPH in a parking lot, and have been just idling around
looking for a spot when someone backs out in front of you...computer
knows you have been doing 5MPH for the last 5 seconds, no reason to
deploy airbag in that situation...just saved you $700...

Spy chip...not even close...just smart cops somewhere figured out they
could use that info to prosecute your manslaughter case.

Anymore dumb questions?

--
--
Joe Pribe
NC
jpribe 'at' nc.rr.com <you know the drill
jegp 'at' hotmail.com < at is really @
---- I Love My O|||||||O TJ



| >Janklow, a former four-term governor who was elected to the U.S.
House in
| >2002, is charged with going 71 mph in a 55-mph-zone, not stopping
at a
| >stop sign, reckless driving and second-degree manslaughter, a
felony.
| >
| They're going to nail this Congressman for killing a motorcyclist.
Janklow
| needs the punishment, no doubt. He is a reckless driver.
|
| But, how did they get the exact speed of 71 mph? No policeman was
there
| with a radar gun. They did it because there are on-board chips that
record
| all kinds of data like braking and velocity. Its part of the the
airbag
| safety system, isn't it? Janklow was driving a Cadillac, but what
about
| Chrysler products? Do they contain this spy chip too? If so, why?
For
| what legitimate purpose is it installed and by whose directive?
Corporate
| heads or police authorities?
|
| Its becoming a gold mine for prosecutors and tort lawyers, I'm sure.
|

 

Ok genius, since you seem a little slow I will help you out...

For started, the computers are there to save your life, and to save
$$$, and a few other things I don't understand...

Life saver: You are doing 60MPH and slam on the brakes, ABS is pumping
and the speedo says 10MPH, but you are still doing 50...computer knows
you are doing 10 now, but 60 1.7 seconds ago...better deploy the
airbags as you hit the semi (1.75 seconds) that just jack knifed in
front of you....

Life saver/money saver: You are roaming the grocery store parking lot
for a spot, and lean over the wheel and peer back and left b/c you
think something, hopefully a car, just moved. Someone backs out right
into you...10 MPH. Airbags dont go off! Why...because for the past 7
seconds you have been doing 10 MPH, idling around trying to get that
sweet parking spot. No need for the airbags. Good thing, too, that
they didn't go off, as your head would've been shot out the rear
window because you were too damn close to the airbag.
And they cost $700 to replace.

Make anymore sense?

Oh, and ya, most newer Chrylers have them...my '98 Jeep Wrangler
does...if it didn't, I would have gone thru a few dozen airbags by
now...slick trails make for some nice head on collisions with
trees...at 4 MPH

--
--
Joe Pribe
NC
jpribe 'at' nc.rr.com <you know the drill
jegp 'at' hotmail.com < at is really @
---- I Love My O|||||||O TJ



| >Janklow, a former four-term governor who was elected to the U.S.
House in
| >2002, is charged with going 71 mph in a 55-mph-zone, not stopping
at a
| >stop sign, reckless driving and second-degree manslaughter, a
felony.
| >
| They're going to nail this Congressman for killing a motorcyclist.
Janklow
| needs the punishment, no doubt. He is a reckless driver.
|
| But, how did they get the exact speed of 71 mph? No policeman was
there
| with a radar gun. They did it because there are on-board chips that
record
| all kinds of data like braking and velocity. Its part of the the
airbag
| safety system, isn't it? Janklow was driving a Cadillac, but what
about
| Chrysler products? Do they contain this spy chip too? If so, why?
For
| what legitimate purpose is it installed and by whose directive?
Corporate
| heads or police authorities?
|
| Its becoming a gold mine for prosecutors and tort lawyers, I'm sure.
|

 

They didn't you moron. 71Mph is a figure taken out of a hat. The
investigating
officer that arrived at the scene estimated vehicle speed of 70-75Mph and
questioned Janklow who did not deny this. The DA charged him with operating
a motor vehicle at a speed of "71 Mph or above"

Here's the actual docs, see for yourself:

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/janklow/sdjanklow82903cmp.pdf

Note also that the motorcyclist, riding a 1997 Harley, impacted Janklow's
car, not the other way around. The motorcyclist also had a blood alcohol
content of .01 (not legally drunk and it's inconclusive as to whether this
is
a result of drinking anyway) And the motorcyclist wasn't wearing a helmet
either.

This accident occurred at 4:30 in the afternoon at an intersection that was
out
in the sticks, in the middle of a soybean field. In short, this was not a
blind intersection, both
vehicles would have had clear views of the other as they approached the
intersection. Both roads were the same speed and width, the only difference
was that the road that Janklow was travelling on was posted with a stop
sign.

In my view it's frankly questionable that the Harley rider wasn't exceeding
the speed
limit either. Come on, this is rural bean country, on a long boring 2 lane
road for
both of them. Who drives the speed limit on such a road anyhow? The fact
is that
if the Harley rider had been conscious at the accident site, the police
officer would
have probably asked him "were you going about 70" and he would have said he
probably was also. Then both of them would have been written up as
speeders.
In accidents of this kind the officers are trained to ask incriminating
questions ASAP
of BOTH drivers because people are generally still in a daze then and will
readily agree
with most of what is put in front of them, and the cops never believe that
accidents
just "happen" they believe that accidents are always caused by mistakes, and
they
want to dig out the mistakes.

What very likely happened here was nothing more spectacular than a couple of
dumb fucks who both were speeding along daydreaming and not paying attention
to the road or what was going on. It's a damn shame that the Harley rider
had to
die for this, but if it had been 2 automobiles, airbags would have both
blown and
both drivers would have walked away. If you choose to ride a motorcycle,
one of
the things that comes with the territory is the understanding that if your
in a collision
your going to likely die, so you better pay far more attention to the road
and what
is going on than the average automobile driver. And while I hate to say it,
if the
Harley rider was fucking stupid enough to not wear a helmet, he deserved
what
he got. I rode a bike for 5 fucking years and it pissed the hell out of me
the number
of fair weather moron riders that rode by with no helmets or inadequate
helmets,
it's that kind of shit that gives motorcycle riding a bad name.

You are such a bozo. Do you get your dick hard by posting inflammatory
baloney on this forum?

Ted

 

if there is any they (d.c) are not telling dealer techs

 

So let me get this straight. The cyclist was not wearing a helmet
so he deserved to die. He was on a motorcycle instead of car so he
deserved to die because in a car he would have walked away, which by
the way you do not know for sure.

Give me break bozo. The fuckin' moron driving the cage ran a stop sign.
He didn't just run it, he blew threw through it doing 70+ mph. He killed
an innocent cyclist and he deserved to be tossed in jail.

 

He deserved to die if he got into an accident. No, I don't think that just
because
someone gets on a bike without a helmet that he should be immediately shot
off of it. But speaking as a rider, if I was ever stupid enough to get on
my bike
without a helmet I'd definitely deserve to die if I got in an accident. Do
you have
a problem with that, you non-rider?

No, he didn't deserve to die because he was on a motorcycle instead of a
car.
He deserved to die because he decided to get onto a motorcycle without a
helmet. Why do you have a problem understanding such a simple concept?

If I dived out of a plane without a parachue I would deserve to die when I
hit the ground. Get it?

The fucking moron did run a stop sign. But he did not do so deliberately,
it is not as though he saw the motorcyclist and decided to try to hit him,
like some drivers I've dealt with on the road. Yes, he was irresponsible
for
not paying attention to the stop sign. But given the road conditions, 70Mph
was not an excessive amount of speed for the road. The motorcyclist also
was speeding if you want to get into hair splitting game, although not as
much.

It is wrong to assign the entire blame to the moron in the car. He
certainly
had the bulk of the blame, but you and the press are making it out as though
the rider had absolutely no fault in this accident, when in reality the
rider had
a lot of fault too. The point is that if the rider had been properly
equipped with
a helmet and body armor, he most likely would have survived.

The sad part of this is that the fact that the rider deliberately chose to
ride
in a stupid manner is not going to be reported in most of the stories on
this.
Thus the other stupid moron riders out there who think it's their God-given
right to be idiots and not wear helmets will not see that in print and
perhaps
start to realize what dumbshits they are for riding without helmets.

So in the meantime since there's too many moron riders out there like you
who
seem to think it's OK to ride without helmets who are regularly filling up
the
hospitals and morgues, the responsible riders like me and others are paying
the price in the form of higher insurance rates, more negative attention by
cops
on the road, loss of the ability to purchase high power motorcycles because
the politicians make them illegal, and loss of many other small riding
privileges
(such as a lack of motorcycle parking spaces) that impact our ability to
enjoy
being on the bike. So yes, we definitely want riders that think like you to
get
themselves aced as quickly as possible so you don't infect other newbie
riders
with your sick philosophy that it's just jolly good OK to get on a bike
without
a helmet.

Ted

 

Yes. If someone decides to ride withoput a helmet what they deserve
to get is whatever happens to them. Maybe nothing, maybe death or
maybe some other injuries. I suppose you also think if someone does
not wear a seatbeklt and they get into an accident they desserve to die
also.

I have no problem with your simple concept. Simple concepts come from
simple minds. I just don't agree with it. Following your logic.

Get in a car without a seatbelt on - die
Go to McDonald's if you are fat - die
Eat a piece of cake if you are a diabetic - die

Apples vs. Oranges

Where did I ever say the driver of the car ran the stop sign
deliberately.

Maybe, Maybe not. There odds were much better that he would have
survived but know one can really know.

Make up your mind. Up above you call me a non-rides and now you call me
a moron rider. You don't have a clue on whethere I ride or don't ride
so quit making assumptions about me when you know nothing at all about
me.

And my insurance goes up because moron drivers run stop signs and hit
things. My insurance goes up because some moron does not wear a
seatbelt and kisses the windshield. The list goes on and on. Everybody
in society is paying for morons in one way or another so quit whining
about how persecuted you are.

The problem with high power motorcycles is all the young yahoo riders
who like to go from 0 to 80 in a couple of seconds on local streets.
The may or may not be wearing a helmet. Helmets having nothing to do
with the fact that these morons like to haul ass in local residential
settings, pop wheelies and all other kind of stupid things.

You sure know a lot about me considering I never indicated any of it. I
have no sick philosophy about riding with or without helmets and to be
honest I don't give a rats ass if newbie riders wear a helmet or not.
The choice to wear a helmet should be in the hands of the rider not big
brother government or religious zealots like you. Last thing any of us
need is for you to be decided if we should or should not wear a helmet.

OK Ted. Now that we are at the end I can enlighten you as to a few
facts about myself so you can quit making bogus assumptions. Yes I do
ride. Yes I do wear a helmet but no body armour. I do wear gloves and
full leathers almost all of the time and riding boots so I am fairly
well protected. I have been riding for 25 years plus.

I responded to you in the fashion that I did because you seemed to
be focued way to much on the fact that the rider was not wearing a
helmet and not eoungh on the fact that the driver blew through a stop
sign and took out the cyclist.

 

If they are not wearing a seatbelt in a car with no airbags where seatbelts
are
available, then in certain
accidents (like anything high speed) then yes, they do deserve to die.
However keep in mind that
choosing to ride in a car is choosing to lard around an extra 2000 pounds
of metal fashioned into a "cage" as you put it, so they have at least tried
to be safer. That should count for something. By contrast when you get
on a bike you have made the choice to forgo ALL safety devices that
could save your life in a crash in exchange for a more pleasant method
of transport, and part of the tradeoff is that you are expected to wear
those
safety devices on your person. The biking community doesen't need
people that don't understand this.

die in a serious collision - yes, how is this different from reality?

how is this different from reality?

Do that enough times without proper insulin control
and you either will die immediately or die early of a drastically
shortened lifespan. So one again, how is this different than reality?

Since you were not sporting enough to announce your bias at the beginning of
this
discussion I decided to goad it out of you, which as I see, worked. That
may not
have been sporting of me but tit for tat.

But when the majority do moronic things, they don't persecute themselves.
How much better it would be for everyone if the majority
required more strict licensing requirements for getting a drivers license
than what is currently done, for example.

This is a basic fairness issue. The majority for example mandates more
strict requirements to get a motorcycle endorsement - but then you go into
a state like Arizona that has a majority of seniors and try mandating more
strict requirements for keeping your license after age 70 and see what
happens.

In fact, in a lot of ways the motorcycle riders and the seniors have a lot
in common - both groups suffer when a small minority of them does dumb
crap - the bikers when some moron goes without a helmet, and the seniors
when some moron refuses to give up his license when he should. And
both groups also have these foolish people that run around saying that it's
perfectly OK to continue driving when your age has made you a hazard
because it's "your right" and it's perfectly OK to get on a bike without a
helmet because it's "your right"

Now your being self-contradictory. You start out saying "the problem with
high power motorcycles" then proceed to claim that it's the riders.

High power motorcycles are not the problem. The problem with young
yahoo riders that like who do all those daredevil stupid stunts in
inappropriate
locations is that they like to buy superbikes. So the stupid general public
thinks let's outlaw the superbikes because it's a superbike problem. It
would
be a lot better for riders if the young yahoos were out there proving their
dickhood with
bungee jumping or some such, let the general public go chase that turkey and
leave us alone.

The exact same issue holds with helmets. Instead of young yahoos buying
superbikes it's dumb fucks that like to go riding without helmets and gear.
Both are equally toxic to bike riding because both provoke the general
public into trying to "fix" the problem by interfering with something they
don't understand.

That _is_ a sick philosophy about riding.

Bullshit. If all roads were privately owned then fine. But I pay tax money
to fund the road you ride on, you pay tax money to fun the road I ride on,
and everyone else pays tax money to fund the roads that both you and I
ride on. Thus I, you, and everyone else has plenty of right to insist on
any
set of rules we want to apply on anyone riding on those public streets.
Thus when the people vote in a mandatory helmet law on the ballot, such as
the
people of the State of Oregon did in 1988 by a 2 to 1 margin, then by God
your going to obey
what "big brother government" tells you to do because Big Brother Government
is in the damn mirror!!!

So you now going to argue that 2/3s of the population in the State of Oregon
are religious zealots?

"us" voted the helmet law in, in Oregon. Not I alone. Open your eyes
and look around you. This "us" only exists in your head. And guess
what - there were several attempts to repeal the law early on, but as
the years have gone by and the older riders who remembered helmetless
riding have gone to the Great Bike Junkyard in the Sky, the current
crop of riders doesen't see the helmet law as a big fucking deal anymore.
The last helmet law repeal campaign in the state sputtered out over
5 years ago and nobody but a few conservative freaks gives a crap
anymore.

If you honestly and truly want this then you would want all riders to wear
helmets, because it's the lack of wearing helmets that causes riders to
die in accidents and the general public to insist on helmet laws.

Your obviously a rider since you say "we should or should not wear a hemlet"
a car driver doesen't normally wear a helmet and so would never think this,
much less say it.

And if you really do all the above then why don't you care if newbie riders
ride without helmets? You know it's those types that spurred the helmet
laws
in the first place. You should be preaching personal responsibility not
telling
people it's no big deal to ride without a helmet.

As I said, it is wrong to assign the entire blame to the moron in the car.
He
certainly had the bulk of the blame, but the rider had some fault too,
especially
with the result of the impact being his death.

And, read the report at the URL given, the driver didn't "take out" a
cyclist.
That implies the driver impacted the rider which is the opposite of what
happened - the rider impacted the driver. In short the forward velocity -
this alleged speeding - did NOT translate into kinetic energy imparted to
the rider. The driver could have been going 120Mph or 40Mph the result
would have been the same. The result was the same as if the rider rode into
a parked car on the side of the road. The actual accident cause was failure
to obey a stop sign
and thus look both ways and make sure the road was clear before proceeding.
Speeding didn't cause the driver to fail to obey the stop sign, people have
no problem driving 70Mph on highways that are posted for this (many of
these out West) and seeing all traffic control signs. In fact
the driver stated that he failed to obey the stop sign because he failed to
see it. It's inattention, not speeding, that caused this.

Of course, failing to obey a stop sign doesen't sound nearly as exciting
as speeding does. And it's a given that how most of the news articles on
this were written that most of the readers probably think that speeding
was the cause, and fell for the made-up BS in the news just as you did.


Ted

 

Any percieved bias that I may or may not have has nothing to do
my status as a rider.

[snip]

There is fatal flaw in your logic. If a senior citizen refuses to stop
driving and demands to keep their license they become a danger to
everyone on the road. Their mistakes can cause injury and death to
otheres. When a biker does not wear a hwlmwt, they do not become a
danger to others on the road. There is a fundamental difference and
that is where your argument falls down.

You are correct. My choice of bad wording.

I did a bad job of communication but in general I agree with your above
comments. It is the riders of the superbikes that are causing the
problems and not the machine itself. I have also suffered because I
happen to ride a Harley. 25 years ago before Harley's became chic that
meant I was a beer drinking, druggie who loved to fight and that is
not the case.

In your opinion, of which we already know that I don't agree.

No. I am going to comment that 2/3 of the people in Oregon are liberal
do gooders who are willing to give away their and my rights of freedom
for the percieved good of the state. Problem is they never asked me for
my permission before they gave away my rights.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
- Benjamin Franklin

I don't live in Oregon but I have been to Portland many times. Like I
said above, a bunch of liberal do gooders trying to make me wear
a helmet when they have no right to. They don't care about the fact
that I am willing to wear a helmet because I wan't to. They just want
to pass a law telling others what to do, giving away the personal
rights and freedoms of others, and then walk around patting each
other on the back and commenting on what a good thing they have done
today.

Of course it would be nice for all riders to wear a helmet.
However they don't need big brother telling them to do so.

I do preach personal responsibility. I just don't believe in
big brother telling me how to be responsible or what I must do
to conform to someone elses view of how I should be responsible.

Like I said, a bunch of do gooder liberals making decisions
for others when they have no right to do so. And don't use
this quote to try and paint me as an anarchist. That
statement is made in the context of the current discussion on
helmet laws which is different than say passing a law against
raping, pillagaing and plundering.

Come here to the Northeast in NH. We won't laugh at you
if you wear a helmet and body armour but we also won't
pull you over and hassle you if you don't

We don't like do gooder liberals up here telling us what to do.

Live Free or Die !!!!!!

 

However, since you are a rider you have bias. Everyone has bias it comes
from
the environment they were raised in, what they were taught, etc. etc. and
there is
nothing wrong with this, however it is wrong to not mention it when it is
important.

For example if I were running around advocating a racist stance such as
Blacks
are inferior to Whites, don't you think it would be relevant that I happen
to be White
myself? If you advocate not wearing helmets don't you think it would be
relevant
that you are a rider and don't wear one yourself? That's what I was talking
about.

Exactly, you were stereotyped because of what you chose to ride, and
that is not fair, right?

So 2/3 of Oregon is composed of liberal do-gooders? Now you are
stereotyping 2/3 of Oregonians as do-gooder liberals just because they
voted in a helmet law. You didn't like it when people were stereotyping
you as a druggie, now your stereotyping 2/3 of the state's population as
do-gooder liberals? Don't you see a problem here?

I guess you are so blind to this helmet-law thing that you cannot even
conceive that anyone in the 2/3 that voted in the helmet law did so
for logical reasons, and that anyone in that 2/3 might happen to be
a conservative, not a do-gooder liberal. In short, when faced with
the possibility that there might actually be people out there who are
just like you and think just like you, on everything other than this helmet
law thing, your brain cannot conceive of this because you might then
have to admit to yourself that your wrong, and you just cannot have
that.

Now, certainly there were do-gooder liberals in the group that voted
in the helmet law. But to claim that every single last person that
voted in the helmet law was such, is rediculous. Your only doing this
because you can't even consider that you might be wrong.

2/3 of the population of Oregon concluded that they do based on the number
of riders that were not wearing helmets and ending up as vegetables or dead
in the emergency rooms of the state.

If you don't want freedoms taken away then you must act responsibly. It is
just like the highway speed limits being set at 60-70Mph when in fact there
are
a great many cars and drivers that could safely drive these same highways
at 100Mph particularly in rural areas. Originally when automobiles were
first manufactured, no roads had speed limits. Limits were instituted
because
too many drivers were causing problems by speeding in inappropriate places.

This in fact is one of my biggest beefs about the speed limits, enforcement.
When I am pulled over doing 70 in a 55 zone, in broad sunny daylight with
very
few cars on the road, it makes me furious that the officer does not take
road
conditions into account. However I would never argue for getting rid of the
speed limit because there's too many foolish idiots that will drive the same
stretch 70mph at night in the rain with many cars.

This is fine for individuals. Unfortunately on the public highways we
must deal with people as a mob/crowd/whatever. In short, the laws on
the roads must be written in response to what the crowd does, not
what a few responsible individuals do. Unfortunately the crowd right
now has too many people that act irresponsibly when driving.

I got a personal reminder of this last Friday night, by the way - my wife
was rear-ended on the highway by a hit and run driver. Did over $3K
damage to the back of the van. Fortunately nobody was hurt and
insurance will cover. But this has been the 3rd auto accident that I or my
wife has been the victim of over the last 2 years. It it is pretty clear to
me that espically in the last 10 years there has been a huge increase in
irresponsible drivers out there. Thus I will support more curtailment of my
"personal freedom" on the road that would result in the police being
able to remove these drivers from the road. This includes things like
tremendously raising penalties for driving while license is suspended, etc.
It is after all ultimately a survival thing, you see. If this trend keeps
up
then it's statistically inevitable that I or someone in my family will be
seriously
injured or killed by an irresponsible driver before the end of their natural
lives.
Until the day comes that drivers quit drinking and smashing up other
people's property as a result, we have no real choice other than to bring
down the hammer.

But they do have that right. You seem to think that wearing a helmet
should be optional because if the rider doesen't wear one that
it won't endanger anyone else on the road but himself. While it
may be true that nobody else will die if the rider gets killed, the
unfortunate fact is, and this is bourne out by studies, that a much
larger number of helmetless rider do in fact not die, but instead have
much worse injuries, often permanent brain damage. This many
times causes the rider to be so disabled they can no longer work and
end up being permanent wards of the state, living off the tax dollars
of all those other people on the road that "didn't get injured because
the rider chose to not wear a helmet".

In fact, it doesen't even take a lot of riders. Do you know how much
it costs to care for even ONE person who has critical head injuries
and spends several months in the hospital and several years with
therapists and such?

In fact one of the big arguments that won people over to the helmet
law in Oregon was the cost savings because so many of these helmetless
riders were ending up in public hospitals and costing the state literally
millions of dollars.

Yes, and if I'm a resident there and end up disabled for the rest
of my life by a severe head injury caused by not wearing a helmet
and riding into a pole, are you all going to pay for me to live
in medical-assisted housing for the rest of my natural life too?

No you just like to pay a lot of tax money on stupid morons that
think it's OK to not wear a helmet and then go injure themselves
in a motorcycle crash.

Live Responsibly or lose Freedom!

Ted