More Big Brother stuff

[Kwacky]

Tbh I don't think you would need the cars computer info to verify the car was travelling at 125 mph. The injury's sustained and the length of skid marks would verify the car was travelling at excessive speed.

But it's another piece of evidence for the prosecution, so why not use it?

[Mac]

Tbh I don't think you would need the cars computer info to verify the car was travelling at 125 mph. The injury's sustained and the length of skid marks would verify the car was travelling at excessive speed.

But it's another piece of evidence for the prosecution, so why not use it?

Coincidentally enough, just over a week ago we investigated a similar collision where three cars were traveling at high speed on a local road. An individual turned left between the second and third cars just after they crested the top of the hill. The third vehicle collided with the individual turning left, resulting in a fatality to the left-turning vehicle. Witnesses had observed the vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed just prior to the collision, and the speedometer of the vehicle traveling straight was stuck on 102 mph, indicating the speed at impact. A download of the black box showed that he was running at a speed of 123 miles an hour before applying the brakes. After proper foundation, that evidence will be admissible in court here in NC. Like Blade said, the download of the box was not necessary to show the vehicle was traveling at a high rate of speed, but it does go to show exactly how fast that vehicle was traveling.

I'm not sure this post adds to the conversation of whether we should have that technology or not, but it does go to show how it's used.

[D41]

Out of curiosity....approximate age of the drivers??

Totally understand if it can't be discussed.

[Mac]

Early 20's

[D41]

'Bout what I figured.

Not exactly rocket science though.

[Kwacky]

Talking about drones

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eries.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't see this ending well. As Blade says, imagine if one drops out of the sky and causes a crash or injury? I reckon a decent .177 or .22 air rifle would do enough damage to down one.

[Monty]

I'm not so sure, if you remove human error flight gets a lot safer. Even driving does as the google car has proved.

[Monty]

http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/artic ... Id=2864437

[Kwacky]

Sorry, I don't follow. I'm talking about having large numbers of small drones making deliveries and being used for surveillance. Not for carrying people.

[Monty]

I meant that the drones flown by computers are probably going to be safer than current piloted aircraft.

[Kwacky]

I agree. Human error is costly.

I was going more along the lines of a drone failing or being taken out, then crashing and causing problems.

Can you imagine thieves reactions to flying parcels of goodies?

[Monty]

Ah see what you mean, sounds like a great sport though. Baddie drones chasing Amazon and Pizza Hut drones.

[Deegee]

McCholestrol drones shooting down KFCardiac drones and curry house drones drifting past open windows with open cartons of jalfrezi as part of the Salivation Wars.

Oh yes I can see it all now. Mwahaha.

[D41]

The USAF operates drones the size of a 727....not sommit you want to see dropping out of the sky.....they're the way forward....forget all that crap about Biggles.

I mean, we're not using them for fun.....they diminish risk to human life, and war has evolved into something quite different to what it was even 20-odd years ago.