In an Accident? Your Car May Be a Witness!!
07-01-2003, 09:59 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: niagara falls ont. canada
Posts: 906
In an Accident? Your Car May Be a Witness!!
A Witness for the Prosecution!!
Are vehicle black boxes 'snitches' or 'saviours?'
by Associated Press posted Jun 30, 2003
By Matthew Fordahl
No one disputes that Michelle Zimmermann lost control of her 2002 GMC Yukon as she drove on a two-lane highway in Massachusetts one snowy afternoon last January. Her friend died after the SUV slammed into a tree.
Zimmermann claims she was driving within the posted 40 mph (about 64 km/h) speed limit, but like millions of other Americans the 33-year-old didn't know that her vehicle had a "black box." Monitoring her driving, it recorded the last few seconds before the crash.
Bolstered by data that they say indicates Zimmermann was driving well above the speed limit, prosecutors have charged the Beverly, Mass. woman with negligent vehicular homicide. She has pleaded innocent and faces up to 2 1/2 years in jail if convicted.
An estimated 25 million automobiles in the United States now have so-called event data recorders, a scaled-down version of the devices that monitor cockpit activity in airplanes. Like aviation recorders, automobile black boxes mainly receive attention after an accident.
What the devices record increasingly finds its way into courtrooms as evidence in criminal and civil cases, leading some privacy advocates to question how the recorders came to be installed so widely with so little public notice or debate.
"It's like having a government agent driving around in the back seat of your car," said Bob Weiner, Zimmermann's defense attorney and a former prosecutor. "I think it's a tremendous invasion of privacy."
Most people apparently don't even know whether the vehicles they drive are equipped with event data recorders. Nearly two-thirds of people surveyed by an insurance industry group knew nothing about them.
"The real issue is one of notice, and the problem arises from the fact that information is being collected about people's driving behavior without them knowing," said David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "If drivers knew about the device, they could at least then begin asking questions."
Automakers and regulators have ignored basic privacy questions, leaving individual courts to decide such issues as who owns the information and whether a warrant is required to access it, he said. Some studies have questioned the data's reliability and accuracy.
Prosecutors, police and accident reconstructionists say the boxes yield information no different from what can be gleaned from crushed metal, skid marks and other evidence at the scene. Now, they say, calculations can be backed up.
"It's appearing in prosecutors' cases in support of the normal reconstruction," said W.R. "Rusty" Haight, director of the Collision Safety Institute.
A number of recent court cases across the country have involved event data recorders.
In early June, Edwin Matos of Pembroke Pines, Fla., was sentenced to 30 years in prison for slamming his car into a vehicle driven by two teenage girls, killing both. Data from the recorder showed he was driving more than 100 mph just seconds before the crash.
In April, Arlington Heights, Ill., police officer Charles Tiedje received a $10 million US settlement after data from the hearse that struck his squad car contradicted claims that the driver blacked out. The device showed the supposedly unconscious driver accelerated and braked in the moments before the October 2000 crash.
The devices' primary function is to monitor various sensors and decide whether to fire air bags. But secondary and more recently installed features in many recorders store data from a few seconds before a crash.
Though capabilities vary widely among carmakers, most recorders store only limited information on speed, seat belt use, physical forces, brakes and other factors. Voices are not recorded.
General Motors Corp. has been using recording-capable devices, called Sensing and Diagnostic Modules, since the 1990s to help improve safety and gather statistics. GM spokesman Jim Schell said consumer privacy has always been a top concern.
"We collect the data with the permission with the owner or the person who is leasing the vehicle," he said. "When that data is collected, we take great care to assure confidentiality."
The modules helped GM figure out why some air bags were deploying inadvertently, leading to a recall in 1998 of more than 850,000 Cavaliers and Sunfires.
But there's a lot more interest in the data beyond engineering -- namely, from lawyers.
GM and, more recently, Ford Motor Co. now allow outsiders to access the data by buying a $2,500 US reader built by Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Vetronix Corp. The company says its primary customers are accident reconstructionists, law enforcement and insurance companies.
So far, about 1,000 of the devices have been sold, primarily in the United States and Canada. The company hopes to reach deals to cover data from other car makers.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been studying data recorders for years, trying to determine whether the auto industry should standardize the equipment. Any decision could be years away, and there's no guarantee privacy would be addressed then. Agency spokesman Tim Hurd said state courts should decide what's admissible.
Haight, a former San Diego police officer, dismisses the privacy concerns because driving -- and crashes -- are public.
But Sobel argues that drivers at the very least have a right to know that their actions might be recorded. He also fears that data recorders will converge with other devices -- such as locators and voice recorders -- now finding their way into cars.
"It's hard to say that there is general public acceptance of this when the public has no idea about it," he said.
Back To News
Are vehicle black boxes 'snitches' or 'saviours?'
by Associated Press posted Jun 30, 2003
By Matthew Fordahl
No one disputes that Michelle Zimmermann lost control of her 2002 GMC Yukon as she drove on a two-lane highway in Massachusetts one snowy afternoon last January. Her friend died after the SUV slammed into a tree.
Zimmermann claims she was driving within the posted 40 mph (about 64 km/h) speed limit, but like millions of other Americans the 33-year-old didn't know that her vehicle had a "black box." Monitoring her driving, it recorded the last few seconds before the crash.
Bolstered by data that they say indicates Zimmermann was driving well above the speed limit, prosecutors have charged the Beverly, Mass. woman with negligent vehicular homicide. She has pleaded innocent and faces up to 2 1/2 years in jail if convicted.
An estimated 25 million automobiles in the United States now have so-called event data recorders, a scaled-down version of the devices that monitor cockpit activity in airplanes. Like aviation recorders, automobile black boxes mainly receive attention after an accident.
What the devices record increasingly finds its way into courtrooms as evidence in criminal and civil cases, leading some privacy advocates to question how the recorders came to be installed so widely with so little public notice or debate.
"It's like having a government agent driving around in the back seat of your car," said Bob Weiner, Zimmermann's defense attorney and a former prosecutor. "I think it's a tremendous invasion of privacy."
Most people apparently don't even know whether the vehicles they drive are equipped with event data recorders. Nearly two-thirds of people surveyed by an insurance industry group knew nothing about them.
"The real issue is one of notice, and the problem arises from the fact that information is being collected about people's driving behavior without them knowing," said David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "If drivers knew about the device, they could at least then begin asking questions."
Automakers and regulators have ignored basic privacy questions, leaving individual courts to decide such issues as who owns the information and whether a warrant is required to access it, he said. Some studies have questioned the data's reliability and accuracy.
Prosecutors, police and accident reconstructionists say the boxes yield information no different from what can be gleaned from crushed metal, skid marks and other evidence at the scene. Now, they say, calculations can be backed up.
"It's appearing in prosecutors' cases in support of the normal reconstruction," said W.R. "Rusty" Haight, director of the Collision Safety Institute.
A number of recent court cases across the country have involved event data recorders.
In early June, Edwin Matos of Pembroke Pines, Fla., was sentenced to 30 years in prison for slamming his car into a vehicle driven by two teenage girls, killing both. Data from the recorder showed he was driving more than 100 mph just seconds before the crash.
In April, Arlington Heights, Ill., police officer Charles Tiedje received a $10 million US settlement after data from the hearse that struck his squad car contradicted claims that the driver blacked out. The device showed the supposedly unconscious driver accelerated and braked in the moments before the October 2000 crash.
The devices' primary function is to monitor various sensors and decide whether to fire air bags. But secondary and more recently installed features in many recorders store data from a few seconds before a crash.
Though capabilities vary widely among carmakers, most recorders store only limited information on speed, seat belt use, physical forces, brakes and other factors. Voices are not recorded.
General Motors Corp. has been using recording-capable devices, called Sensing and Diagnostic Modules, since the 1990s to help improve safety and gather statistics. GM spokesman Jim Schell said consumer privacy has always been a top concern.
"We collect the data with the permission with the owner or the person who is leasing the vehicle," he said. "When that data is collected, we take great care to assure confidentiality."
The modules helped GM figure out why some air bags were deploying inadvertently, leading to a recall in 1998 of more than 850,000 Cavaliers and Sunfires.
But there's a lot more interest in the data beyond engineering -- namely, from lawyers.
GM and, more recently, Ford Motor Co. now allow outsiders to access the data by buying a $2,500 US reader built by Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Vetronix Corp. The company says its primary customers are accident reconstructionists, law enforcement and insurance companies.
So far, about 1,000 of the devices have been sold, primarily in the United States and Canada. The company hopes to reach deals to cover data from other car makers.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been studying data recorders for years, trying to determine whether the auto industry should standardize the equipment. Any decision could be years away, and there's no guarantee privacy would be addressed then. Agency spokesman Tim Hurd said state courts should decide what's admissible.
Haight, a former San Diego police officer, dismisses the privacy concerns because driving -- and crashes -- are public.
But Sobel argues that drivers at the very least have a right to know that their actions might be recorded. He also fears that data recorders will converge with other devices -- such as locators and voice recorders -- now finding their way into cars.
"It's hard to say that there is general public acceptance of this when the public has no idea about it," he said.
Back To News
07-01-2003, 10:27 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Southwest MI
Posts: 652
*sigh* Big Brother strikes again... 
Wonder if there's one in any of the cars I drive on a regular basis?
I have a problem with invasions of my privacy like that. I mean, at least tell me that you're recording info about my driving...
Wonder if there's one in any of the cars I drive on a regular basis?
I have a problem with invasions of my privacy like that. I mean, at least tell me that you're recording info about my driving...
07-01-2003, 12:55 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: troy,mi,usa
Posts: 147
I hate that they might use these, but I also like that they might
I'd hate to be caught doing something wrong with one
BUT
I'd love it to be used on the drunk ******* who slammed into my best friend and killed him =\
There are always 2 sides to this kinda stuff, and it sucks.
I'd hate to be caught doing something wrong with one
BUT
I'd love it to be used on the drunk ******* who slammed into my best friend and killed him =\
There are always 2 sides to this kinda stuff, and it sucks.
07-01-2003, 01:14 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 1,541
My fiance's father is a crash investigator/safety engineering analyst and we asked him about the black boxes. He said that they constantly record but erase every so often unless the airbag is deployed then it saves the last few moments before and after impact recording data such as vehicle MPH, airbag deployment, braking functions, steering input, etc. They then can determine if a wreck was driver error or something else.
07-01-2003, 01:55 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 472
I don't like it at all. I have been an opponent of computers in cars for years, but no one ever listens to me.
At first it was so the auto manufacturers could comply with outrageous emissions laws. Then the snowball gained momentum... TPS, seat belts, brakes, everything is now connected to the computer. But it's just for emissions, right? Or it's a better way to design the car. Sure.
So the "black boxes" (computers) only corroberate the skidmarks and crunched metal? For now they do, but let's take a little journey into the future, shall we?
Suppose I'm on some stretch of straight, level freeway in the middle of nowhere in Nevada, and there are no cars for miles. I decide to see how fast my Cavalier can go, and it gets up to 95. Then I slow down and resume cruising along at the posted speed. Little did I know that the OnStar GPS system sent the data corresponding to my harmless little speed test to the Nevada State Police, and I get a ticket in the mail. Yup, I broke the law for no reason so maybe I even deserve the ticket... but how do the Nebraska State Police know I was driving? Think it can't happen? Three words: red light cameras... (which are unconstitutional, BTW)
Now imagine I'm approaching an intersection, and the light is green. As I enter the intersection (driving at the posted speed limit), I see a car to my left zooming up about to blow through his red light and T-bone me. This time I'm in a new GTO so I slam Second and floor it to get out of the way of the maniac. I avoid being a slpat, he gets a ticket in the mail for running the red light, and I get a ticket in the mail because I was speeding. Yeah, that's great.
No thanks Big Brother, I think I'd rather just look out for myself!
At first it was so the auto manufacturers could comply with outrageous emissions laws. Then the snowball gained momentum... TPS, seat belts, brakes, everything is now connected to the computer. But it's just for emissions, right? Or it's a better way to design the car. Sure.
So the "black boxes" (computers) only corroberate the skidmarks and crunched metal? For now they do, but let's take a little journey into the future, shall we?Suppose I'm on some stretch of straight, level freeway in the middle of nowhere in Nevada, and there are no cars for miles. I decide to see how fast my Cavalier can go, and it gets up to 95. Then I slow down and resume cruising along at the posted speed. Little did I know that the OnStar GPS system sent the data corresponding to my harmless little speed test to the Nevada State Police, and I get a ticket in the mail. Yup, I broke the law for no reason so maybe I even deserve the ticket... but how do the Nebraska State Police know I was driving? Think it can't happen? Three words: red light cameras... (which are unconstitutional, BTW)
Now imagine I'm approaching an intersection, and the light is green. As I enter the intersection (driving at the posted speed limit), I see a car to my left zooming up about to blow through his red light and T-bone me. This time I'm in a new GTO so I slam Second and floor it to get out of the way of the maniac. I avoid being a slpat, he gets a ticket in the mail for running the red light, and I get a ticket in the mail because I was speeding. Yeah, that's great.
No thanks Big Brother, I think I'd rather just look out for myself!
07-01-2003, 02:47 PM
#7
Eternal Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Warren / Mi
Posts: 1,064
They are working on ways now to turn off your engine in a police chase just by punching in a few numbers. They can shut down the spark or fuel flow.
They have been installing these bklack boxes in cars since 96 on most cars. Like was said they can read your speed how long before the chrase the breaks were applied. In time you will have to have a inspection once a year and they will be able to tell everytime you did a WOT and what speed you went. Then all they have to do is write the ticket. I can hear them say the computer doesn't lie. What next.
They have been installing these bklack boxes in cars since 96 on most cars. Like was said they can read your speed how long before the chrase the breaks were applied. In time you will have to have a inspection once a year and they will be able to tell everytime you did a WOT and what speed you went. Then all they have to do is write the ticket. I can hear them say the computer doesn't lie. What next.
07-01-2003, 03:14 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 960
Originally posted by TheNovaMan
I don't like it at all. I have been an opponent of computers in cars for years, but no one ever listens to me.
At first it was so the auto manufacturers could comply with outrageous emissions laws. Then the snowball gained momentum... TPS, seat belts, brakes, everything is now connected to the computer. But it's just for emissions, right? Or it's a better way to design the car. Sure. So the "black boxes" (computers) only corroberate the skidmarks and crunched metal? For now they do, but let's take a little journey into the future, shall we?
Suppose I'm on some stretch of straight, level freeway in the middle of nowhere in Nevada, and there are no cars for miles. I decide to see how fast my Cavalier can go, and it gets up to 95. Then I slow down and resume cruising along at the posted speed. Little did I know that the OnStar GPS system sent the data corresponding to my harmless little speed test to the Nevada State Police, and I get a ticket in the mail. Yup, I broke the law for no reason so maybe I even deserve the ticket... but how do the Nebraska State Police know I was driving? Think it can't happen? Three words: red light cameras... (which are unconstitutional, BTW)
Now imagine I'm approaching an intersection, and the light is green. As I enter the intersection (driving at the posted speed limit), I see a car to my left zooming up about to blow through his red light and T-bone me. This time I'm in a new GTO so I slam Second and floor it to get out of the way of the maniac. I avoid being a slpat, he gets a ticket in the mail for running the red light, and I get a ticket in the mail because I was speeding. Yeah, that's great.
No thanks Big Brother, I think I'd rather just look out for myself!
I don't like it at all. I have been an opponent of computers in cars for years, but no one ever listens to me.
At first it was so the auto manufacturers could comply with outrageous emissions laws. Then the snowball gained momentum... TPS, seat belts, brakes, everything is now connected to the computer. But it's just for emissions, right? Or it's a better way to design the car. Sure.
So the "black boxes" (computers) only corroberate the skidmarks and crunched metal? For now they do, but let's take a little journey into the future, shall we?Suppose I'm on some stretch of straight, level freeway in the middle of nowhere in Nevada, and there are no cars for miles. I decide to see how fast my Cavalier can go, and it gets up to 95. Then I slow down and resume cruising along at the posted speed. Little did I know that the OnStar GPS system sent the data corresponding to my harmless little speed test to the Nevada State Police, and I get a ticket in the mail. Yup, I broke the law for no reason so maybe I even deserve the ticket... but how do the Nebraska State Police know I was driving? Think it can't happen? Three words: red light cameras... (which are unconstitutional, BTW)
Now imagine I'm approaching an intersection, and the light is green. As I enter the intersection (driving at the posted speed limit), I see a car to my left zooming up about to blow through his red light and T-bone me. This time I'm in a new GTO so I slam Second and floor it to get out of the way of the maniac. I avoid being a slpat, he gets a ticket in the mail for running the red light, and I get a ticket in the mail because I was speeding. Yeah, that's great.
No thanks Big Brother, I think I'd rather just look out for myself!
07-01-2003, 04:58 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Rives Jct Mich. USA
Posts: 848
How come you darned...
Canadians didn't know what you were putting in our F-Bodies??
I can hear the GM union man (Canadian) saying "what's this black box, eh?" Boss replies," I dunno, just put it in Canuckboy, eh!, it ain't gonna hurt anybody, eh"
By the way CANADA... BURY YOUR OWN TRASH!!
HInk
I can hear the GM union man (Canadian) saying "what's this black box, eh?" Boss replies," I dunno, just put it in Canuckboy, eh!, it ain't gonna hurt anybody, eh"
By the way CANADA... BURY YOUR OWN TRASH!!
HInk
07-01-2003, 06:31 PM
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: niagara falls ont. canada
Posts: 906
Re: How come you darned...
Originally posted by Redbird
Canadians didn't know what you were putting in our F-Bodies??
I can hear the GM union man (Canadian) saying "what's this black box, eh?" Boss replies," I dunno, just put it in Canuckboy, eh!, it ain't gonna hurt anybody, eh"
By the way CANADA... BURY YOUR OWN TRASH!!
HInk
Canadians didn't know what you were putting in our F-Bodies??
I can hear the GM union man (Canadian) saying "what's this black box, eh?" Boss replies," I dunno, just put it in Canuckboy, eh!, it ain't gonna hurt anybody, eh"
By the way CANADA... BURY YOUR OWN TRASH!!
HInk
On the trash note,its not like your state is taking it for free
The people of Toronto are paying you folks good old Canadian Multi-Color Backs to take it
07-01-2003, 06:48 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 132
Re: How come you darned...
Originally posted by Chris Ja
They are working on ways now to turn off your engine in a police chase just by punching in a few numbers. They can shut down the spark or fuel flow.
They are working on ways now to turn off your engine in a police chase just by punching in a few numbers. They can shut down the spark or fuel flow.
Originally posted by Redbird
Canadians didn't know what you were putting in our F-Bodies??
I can hear the GM union man (Canadian) saying "what's this black box, eh?" Boss replies," I dunno, just put it in Canuckboy, eh!, it ain't gonna hurt anybody, eh"
By the way CANADA... BURY YOUR OWN TRASH!!
HInk
Canadians didn't know what you were putting in our F-Bodies??
I can hear the GM union man (Canadian) saying "what's this black box, eh?" Boss replies," I dunno, just put it in Canuckboy, eh!, it ain't gonna hurt anybody, eh"
By the way CANADA... BURY YOUR OWN TRASH!!
HInk
I have lived in both countries all my life - the technology in Canada is a much higher standard than I have ever seen here - so is the education system.
Guess that is why they figured it to be cheaper to ship the garbage here than to purchase a new incinerater and landfill site to serve the GTA.
Last edited by smiley23; 07-01-2003 at 06:51 PM.
07-01-2003, 07:27 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Rives Jct Mich. USA
Posts: 848
Re: Re: How come you darned...
Careful Red - Canucks may be smarter than you think.
I have lived in both countries all my life - the technology in Canada is a much higher standard than I have ever seen here - so is the education system.
Guess that is why they figured it to be cheaper to ship the garbage here than to purchase a new incinerater and landfill site to serve the GTA. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not down grading Canadians except the morons in the NorthWest who found it neccessary to rip the USA when the Iraq war was almost over. Telling me how the rest of the whole world HATES the United States. We don't care how the world feels about us! They hold out one hand for help and flip us off with the other behind their back! REAL KOOL of the rest of the world!
I'm sorry you feel that Canada is so much more advanced then the USA. Maybe we could count on some HELP in the future dealing with countries that have not the same ideals as us.
Thank GOD for Great Briton, our one TRUE ally besides Isreal.
Meanwhile... your trash dumping days are limited over here. Our Governess is seeing to that!
This is only a comment to your quote above. It is not intended to anger my Canadian friends, but neither shall I let another country play smack with my country. Any reference to CANUCK was purely jokingly, not intended to hurt or offend, my apoligies.
We have a great deal of respect for Canada, much more so than Mexico, our neighbors to the south.
Kevin Hinkley (Thank-you GOD for placing my soul here, in the USA!)
I have lived in both countries all my life - the technology in Canada is a much higher standard than I have ever seen here - so is the education system.
Guess that is why they figured it to be cheaper to ship the garbage here than to purchase a new incinerater and landfill site to serve the GTA. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not down grading Canadians except the morons in the NorthWest who found it neccessary to rip the USA when the Iraq war was almost over. Telling me how the rest of the whole world HATES the United States. We don't care how the world feels about us! They hold out one hand for help and flip us off with the other behind their back! REAL KOOL of the rest of the world!
I'm sorry you feel that Canada is so much more advanced then the USA. Maybe we could count on some HELP in the future dealing with countries that have not the same ideals as us.
Thank GOD for Great Briton, our one TRUE ally besides Isreal.
Meanwhile... your trash dumping days are limited over here. Our Governess is seeing to that!
This is only a comment to your quote above. It is not intended to anger my Canadian friends, but neither shall I let another country play smack with my country. Any reference to CANUCK was purely jokingly, not intended to hurt or offend, my apoligies.
We have a great deal of respect for Canada, much more so than Mexico, our neighbors to the south.
Kevin Hinkley (Thank-you GOD for placing my soul here, in the USA!)
07-01-2003, 09:20 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Detroit
Posts: 62
Re: Re: How come you darned...
Originally posted by smiley23
the technology in Canada is a much higher standard than I have ever seen here - so is the education system.
the technology in Canada is a much higher standard than I have ever seen here - so is the education system.
*gasp* 
But seriously folks
It's true as stated above
The PCM records information leading up to an airbag deployment.
as always
07-01-2003, 10:28 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 132
Red - I did not take offence to what you stated. I am American and Canadian at birth.
Youre reply mixed up 2 distinctly different points. Politics and technology. Politics in Canada is NOT advanced - only the technology. This is why I live here - I was very tired of the Canadian politics.
smasher94z - I dont suggest you make such a comment unless you can back it up with proof. I can since I lived in both countries. I can go for days proving that point too. I still see things coming into the US that existed in Canada years ago.
Technology and policy
ie.
- Daytime running lights mandated in Canada back in around 1989 - here just recently thinking about it.
- Cable modem - had one of the first beta modems by Rogers Cable back 9 or 10 years ago or so. Just a recent thing around here (Detroit area)
- Seatbelt laws well before the US
- Everyone's fav legal home rollies and topless women - not here yet but they are working on it.
No offence taken - none dished - There are pros and cons for both places - I prefer the US myself
Youre reply mixed up 2 distinctly different points. Politics and technology. Politics in Canada is NOT advanced - only the technology. This is why I live here - I was very tired of the Canadian politics.
smasher94z - I dont suggest you make such a comment unless you can back it up with proof. I can since I lived in both countries. I can go for days proving that point too. I still see things coming into the US that existed in Canada years ago.
Technology and policy
ie.
- Daytime running lights mandated in Canada back in around 1989 - here just recently thinking about it.
- Cable modem - had one of the first beta modems by Rogers Cable back 9 or 10 years ago or so. Just a recent thing around here (Detroit area)
- Seatbelt laws well before the US
- Everyone's fav legal home rollies and topless women - not here yet but they are working on it.
No offence taken - none dished - There are pros and cons for both places - I prefer the US myself