Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Black Boxes to Track Driving Habits? 867

Nofsck Ingcloo writes "Nando Times is reporting on a new model of black boxes to track teens' driving habits. 'This is like having a parent sitting next to him second by second.... The kids don't like it, but the parents love it.... Originally developed... for ambulances and fire trucks to reduce crashes, the black box is a stripped-down version of that model.' So, how long before the insurance companies persuade the states to mandate these devices in every car? Or raise our rates hugely and then give a little of it back if we put in the box?"

Another submitter sent in a related submission about the collision data recorders in many late-model cars - which serve a similar purpose as the black boxes described above, but generally only record the last five seconds before an accident.

geemon writes "With the recent stories of rental car companies using GPS to track how and where their patrons are using their vehicles, this information about autos from 1996 and newer having an airplane-like accident "black box" capability was a complete surprise. Tucked under the drivers seat of most GM vehicles, the "black box" can store a variety of info such as vehicle and engine speed, braking, and seat belt usage. Info from an accident reconstruction service that uses this data can be found here. Called "event data recorders", these devices were, "...Originally designed to improve air bag performance based on the severity of the collision, the event data recorder can tell traffic accident investigators about the car's speed; engine RPMs; how far the accelerator pedal was pressed; if the brakes were applied; whether the drivers seatbelt was buckled and what warning lights were on - all from five seconds before impact..." It seems that GM and perhaps Ford have been using this for some time. Here is one company that makes the Windows based retrieval hardware/software combo for $2500. Imagine the uses of this data that law enforcement, your insurance company, and lawyers may have after your next little mishap."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Black Boxes to Track Driving Habits?

Comments Filter:
  • Paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wrexen ( 151642 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:31PM (#3948094) Homepage
    So, how long before the insurance companies persuade the states to mandate these devices in every car? Or raise our rates hugely and then give a little of it back if we put in the box?

    Can we stop with the black-helicopters-are-watching-me-through-the-tele phone tin-foil hat paranoia for just a day or two? This kind of sensationalizing gets really old when every single piece of technology is just another tool for The Man to spy on us, regardless of legitimate uses (sound familiar?) it might have.
  • by Perianwyr Stormcrow ( 157913 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:33PM (#3948104) Homepage
    First, either kids or criminals. Then whichever of the first two wasn't gotten. Then, those who'll accept extra benefits for it (generally implemented by removing said pre-existing benefits and then only giving what you had before back if you submit.)

    Finally, it's mandatory.

    This is the time to oppose this stuff and set limits if there will ever be any at all.

  • by teetam ( 584150 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:34PM (#3948112) Homepage
    They can put whatever they want in it, as long as it doesn't hinder my driving. When I sign a contract, I am bound by its rules. The rental company can add any device to the car to track and enforce these rules. As long as they make sure the penalties are fair, I don't see anything wrong with the concept. In fact, black boxes might help determine the cause of serious accidents.

    People who disagree can use public transportation. Hopefully, mass transit will get a much needed boost because of people who are unwilling to be tracked.

  • by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:38PM (#3948134)
    Now I don't think this technology is a good idea, but comeon.

    This has NOTHING to do with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nor does it have anything to do with the Articles of Confederation or Decleration of Independance.

    You might be disillustioned, but try to keep this in context.

    It's about technology working for the insurance companies and the police, not about civil rights.
  • hmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neksys ( 87486 ) <grphillips AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:39PM (#3948136)
    I can understand why black boxes are in airplanes - its a huge liability issue. The more info gathered on crashes that do happen may reduce the chances of paying customers dying in the future. It makes good sense from a PR point of view. However, I would contend that black boxes in cars would do little to alleviate motor vehicle related deaths. We know *why* people crash: Many drivers are goddamned morons. We know that many teens are goddamned morons on the road as well - we don't need a black box to tell us that. Rather than putting these black boxes in cars to spy on our teens, we need to deal with the cause, not the symptoms: bad teen driving comes from a combination of outside pressure, overconfidence and under-training. For heavens sake - invest the money in teen driving training instead of these boxes! And parents, do us ALL a favour: Stop buying your children these expensive rockets on wheels!! Make them get a job to buy their OWN vehicle - it'll make them think twice before doing anything stupid that might wreck it.
  • by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:40PM (#3948150) Homepage
    The problem is that these things take no account for actual traffic conditions.

    In the real world, nobody ever drives the speed limit under good driving conditions. Realistic freeway speeds are at least 80 in nondeveloped areas, and cars going under that speed are actually at increased risk.

    Besides, nothing like this will ever stop the experimentation kids do in cars. In my younger days, I did donuts in the empty church parking lot, caught air on the Spooner St. bridge, drove my car over a lawn or two, etc. No excessive speed involved (you'd jump Spooner doing 35).

    IMO, your best bet is to buy your kid a fairly modern, safe car without too much extra juice (try a Toyota with side-curtain airbags with traction control and ABS, or a Volvo if it's in your means) -- buying kids old cars is actually more dangerous due to the lack of modern safety gear. Those parents buying their kids Z3's... well, that's just natural selection at work.

    Base lesson: No good ever came of spying on your kids and making it clear you don't have any trust for them.

  • by gmajor ( 514414 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:43PM (#3948167) Journal
    This would be an excellent device for insurance co's to install in everyone's car. The insurance comapny could reduce their risk by identify which drivers are prone to cause the most accidents, with a greater accuracy. This would raise rates on bad drivers, which would in effect lower the rates of good drivers.

    More importantly, this might save someone's life!

    I'm sure people living in states like New York or New Jersey (where I hear the cost of car insurance is very high) would not mind anything that lowers their rates. So should I pay thousands of dollars on insurance, or let my insurance company install a box that gets my rates reduced by a few hundred, maybe even a thousand? You make the call...
  • by neksys ( 87486 ) <grphillips AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:48PM (#3948195)
    Or don't buy your kids cars at ALL. That's where the, "I can do what I want with this car, mommy and daddy will just buy me a new one" mentality comes from.
  • by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:48PM (#3948200) Homepage Journal
    New drivers don't know what the hell they're doing. I think in order to get your 1st liscense you should have to drive around with on of these in your car for a week, and have the evaluation of your driving habits be part of you 'driving test'.

    As a parent, I will put this in the car my children will drive when they are lod enough. Not as a way to punish them, but as a way to instill better driving habits.

    monitoring your childrem, and the government monitoring, or forcing some to monitor, individuals are two wildly different things.

    I was fortunate, my father sent me to a top notch driving school where I learned how to control a vehical in a great many situations. those class's saved my life more often the knowing what the punishment is for drunk driving.
  • by InsMonkey ( 324276 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:49PM (#3948205) Homepage
    Insurance companies could care less about where you drive, but they are definitely be interested in knowing when you are on the road and for how long. The more time you spend unparked increases your odds of having an accident. That's why they rate older drivers better, because their 25' Buicks spend most of the time parked. Driving at night significantly increases your risk of having an accident. It astronomically increases your risk of having an accident with (or as) a drunk driver. How do I know this? I used to be an underwriter for an auto insurance company...
  • Both good and bad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:50PM (#3948209) Homepage Journal
    Well, on the one hand, I don't care for the loss of privacy. But on the other hand, there are a lot of bad drivers out there. Who don't like to be told that they drive too fast, that yellow does not mean "race the light", and that getting to work 5 minutes earlier is not worth risking your life.

    I used to commute on CA-17, which connects Silicon Valley with Santa Cruz. It's always full of people who think nothing of driving 80 mph on a windy mountain road, who think anybody who observes the speed limit is doing it just to piss them off, and who basically exhibit behavior that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere except on the highway.

    And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Communication. One reason people love their cars is that it's the one place they don't have to listen to anybody. Unfortunately, lots of people abuse this solitude. If you behaved, say, in a line at McDonalds the same way people behave on Highway 17, people would communicate a lot of anger to you. (That kind of communication while driving is known as "road rage".) Attempts have been made to communicate to the over-assertive driver. With results even -- whenever the CHP ups its presence on 17 the death rate goes way down. But the concept communicated is not "speed kills" but rather "be a good little boy when daddy's watching."

    If some people end up getting supervised because they think good behavior is just a game, they've only themselves to blame.

  • by slagdogg ( 549983 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @07:57PM (#3948255)
    I can see the thinking here, but since it only monitors the driving from the perspective of the car, it misses some important things ... like why they are happening. For example, most erratic or irresponsible driving amongst teens is due to them talking to their friends in the car, trying to use a cell phone, drinking, fiddling with the radio, etc.

    For example, even with this device installed I could be driving down the street (at the speed limit) talking on my cell phone, smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer through a straw, having sex with my girlfriend and tailgating the car in front of me ... and I'd still look like a perfect driver according to this device. So much for accountability :)
  • Re:hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neksys ( 87486 ) <grphillips AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @08:00PM (#3948269)
    Its NOT spying if they know its there. BTW, teens need to be spied on

    I know there are US operatives at home and abroad covertly seeking out terrorists. Are they not spying? And no, teens do not need to be spied on - they need to be instilled with a good set of values at an early age, then be allowed to make their own mistakes. Guided and watched, yes - much like how you taught them to ride their two-wheeler, but spied on, no. If you only spy on them, they'll never lose their training wheels - I hope you realize that, if you're a parent.

  • by Zenki ( 31868 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @08:01PM (#3948273)
    I have a friend whose mother was waiting at a red light, when another vehicle backed out of a drive way and into her car pretty hard. When the police came, the driver of the other vehicle had the audacity to claim that my friend's mother actually backed into him and tried to pin the fault of the accident on her.

    Fortunately, a person who saw this happen hanged around until the police came and was able to refute the other driver's fabrication.

    If the car had a black box, the police officer could have quickly determined that my friend's mother's car was stationary up till the moment of impact regardless of whether a nice person did or did not loiter around at the crash scene.

    Granted, people might complain about details such as the car's location and a log of speeds. These issues can be solved by convincing law makers to dictate a standard set of statistics said auto boxes would record.
  • interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dalroth ( 85450 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @08:04PM (#3948281) Homepage Journal
    I have a webcam. I put it on the floor so I can watch my dog all day while I'm at work. I do it because it helps me keep an eye on her, it's fun, other people like it too, and it hurts nobody.

    When I have kids (God permitting), I may consider putting the webcam on the baby's crib. It would be fun, other people would like it, it would be a good way to keep an eye on the baby when nobody is with him/her for whatever reason, and it would hurt nobody.

    Once that kid starts moving around, and growing up into a person, I would *NEVER* subject my children to that kind of oversight. I can imagine it would be VERY detrimental to their social life. Children need to live lives seperate from their parents. God knows there are things I've done (and still do) that my parents don't need to know. I'm sure my kids will do the same, and I don't want know about it (as long as they aren't hurting themselves or others).

    You *NEED* some privacy in your life. I will NEVER vote for somebody who supports making something like this mandatory (and I hope my stubborn side will continue to keep this true, even as I grow old and raise kids of my own).

    Bryan
  • Re:Paranoia (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @08:09PM (#3948315)
    The fight is individual rights versus corporate profits. The insurance industry wants to monitor the how people drive so they can charge more money. The MPAA/RIAA want to restrict people's rights to protect their profits.

    I see no problem with the argument.
  • by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @08:10PM (#3948317) Homepage Journal
    Having a lot of data is a good thing when reconstructing accidents. Being able to determine exactly what the driver was doing to the car will help to distinguish between skids where the driver was making it worse, skids where the driver didn't do much to help, and skids where the driver was doing the right thing and didn't recover control in time, all of which can leave about the same evidence on the road and car.

    It's not useful to know everything the driver normally does without having the road conditions in extensive detail. There's no way the box is going to be able to tell what a safe speed is, whether someone is driving erraticly in response to other cars and pedestrians. Someone driving slowly could be driving in fog, following a bicycle, in traffic, reading signs and ignoring the road, or just stoned.

    This data is only really useful in conjunction with scene evidence and other witnesses (except that you could easily tell where the kid took the car and when). You can't really use it to measure driving skill.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @08:24PM (#3948396)
    Hahahahahaha. That's good. You _actually_ think insurance rates would go down.

    As mentioned above, the only thing you would see is the insurance rate for "bad" drivers would go up...but the insurance company would immediately start touting "Lower rates for safe drivers!" at every opportunity.

    In retrospect, I wish you were right...it would be nice if they lowered rates for, well, anybody. But why should they? You're happily (as far as they can tell) paying your current rate.
  • by Xaoswolf ( 524554 ) <Xaoswolf.gmail@com> on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @08:45PM (#3948528) Homepage Journal
    You can get these just the way they say right now. It's a volentary thing that a parent can put into their kids car. Wouldn't be that bad of an idea, but I wouldn't want it to be able to be used in court unless both cars had one. Sure the one in my kids car could say that my kid was going 10MPH over the limit, but it wouldn't say that the other car was on the wrong side of the road, going 2x the speed limit, or didn't have his lights on...
  • by cr@ckwhore ( 165454 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @09:04PM (#3948649) Homepage
    Some vehicles, especially those manufactured during the mid to late 90's already have a black box that *they* neglected to tell us about. If you're curious, its normally located beneath the driver's seat. From what I understand of the hidden black box, is that it only stores retains driving information for a few seconds, but stops recording when a serious event occurs, such as an airbag sensor being triggered. The concept is that law enforcement would then be able to use the black box data to make critical determinations in accident investigations, such as speed, braking, etc.

    I'm not 100% sure about why these weren't put into widespread use, but I believe the necessary laws have not been passed, so law enforcement is unable to use the data. Not all vehicles have been equipped.
  • by FatRatBastard ( 7583 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @09:22PM (#3948720) Homepage
    That's too bad. At least you might trust one or two of the companies you buy things from. I don't trust a company that puts in extras like this, without telling me. You know that you have to pay for the things you buy.

    No, that's pretty normal. I don't know too many people who disassemble each and every product they purchase (including grinding down each and every IC so they can visually inspect each circuit to double check it only does wha the spec sheet says it does). We all make assumptions about things we buy.

    They will get it at break tag inspections, oil changes or what not. Insurance companies will pay for the data untill it's mandatory, then they will just put in a cell phone and make you pay for that too. More power to you if you never have to take your car to someone else's garage.

    I have a very hard time believing that unauthorized collection of the boxes data would be legal (and the Harris Technical website seems to back this up, re: Brady vs Maryland) and an equally hard time believing that it would be found constitutional if a law was passed making it legal.

    I'm hoping my next job is in bike riding distance, like my last one. Cars just suck more and more. Riding my bike to my office at the local university was so much more relaxing than my current dodge of road kill and pickup trucks.

    Wow, something we agree on.

  • Re:Bullshit. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by undeg chwech ( 589211 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @09:26PM (#3948735) Homepage
    you have the unalienable right to obtain a driver's license

    You have the unalienable right to ask for a driver's license. The state has the unalienable right to deny you one if, for example, you fail the test.
  • Re:Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rasta Prefect ( 250915 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @09:33PM (#3948760)
    The government has successfully brainwashed you into believing that driving is a privilege they may bestow or take away. In reality, with public transportation unservicable in much of the US, driving is an absolute necessity for one's day to day life. It is no more a "privilege" than the "privilege" of food and water.

    Sure, you have a right to drive. However, if you'd like to drive on public streets and highways with the rest of us, that is very much a priveledge. A privledge earned through drivers training and testing. You play by the rules so that you don't get the rest of us killed. If you don't and your license is pulled, you need to look into alternative forms of transportation. Bike, walk, whatever. Not my problem. But you have no inalienable _right_ to drive. You have a right not to be discriminated against in the assignment of this privledge, but of you're pulling DUIs or too many speeding tickets, or can't see sufficiently well to pass the driving test - No license for you.
  • Re:hmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zrodney ( 253699 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @09:34PM (#3948769)
    We know *why* people crash: Many drivers are goddamned morons.

    yes... but the problem is the people who think
    "the other people are moron, but I just
    drive a little fast sometimes."

    something like this black box really would put them
    in their place and help remind them how they behave.
  • by acceleriter ( 231439 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @09:57PM (#3948849)
    Whats wrong with insurance based on usuage?

    For one, the "base price" for no usage at all will be the same as the amount you pay now. Actually using it will cost even more. Never underestimate the greed of the bandits of Hartford.

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @10:19PM (#3948937) Homepage
    first, every teen that drives like a jerk/idiot I can show you EXACTLY where they got that habit.

    Their parents. If a child grows up watching daddy tailgate that little Kia in his big-bad yukon while trash talking, "Man this asshole is doing the speed-limit.. I wish I could just push him out of the way" or watches mommie floor it up to the barrels and arrow-board in a construction area and FORCES her way in to the merged traffic at the last second..

    This is how these teens that drive like idiots and morons get their driving habits... from the idiots and morons that had and raised them.

    And being a regular commuter..The numbers of drivers that drive like idiots and morons is increasing..

    I dont think the parents should be black-boxing the kids... it should be the state, and pull their drivers license until 25 if the box reports idiot driving.... But then I also believe that the driving test/license requirements should be quadrupled, as with giving 50% of the traffic fines to the officer as an incentive to enforce traffic laws.

    too many people are content with driving like morons, and they are breeding more morons for the roads.

  • Re:not quite (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mosch ( 204 ) on Wednesday July 24, 2002 @11:17PM (#3949173) Homepage
    Maybe I'm off-base here, but I wouldn't want to know what was going on. I know that boys drive like idiots on purpose, girls drive like idiots by accident, and both of them occasionally use the cars for puroposes other than transportation.

    Any parent who gets one of these really needs to reevaluate their relationship with their kid, and their parenting techniques.

  • by Dascen ( 19119 ) on Thursday July 25, 2002 @12:06AM (#3949358)
    {rant}
    This little device doesnt teach them proper driving. I mean since when has coming to a complete stop at every stop sign made someone a better driver? Never, its the concious, logical thought that goes into driving. A good driver does not neccisarily follow the rules. "Obey the law but dont let it rule you." What does it matter if I come to a complete stop at every stop sign if no one is there? They need to learn how to use their brain! Not become little socially controlled automatons who learn to obey the "black box" without thinking. This program isnt making good drivers, its making nice little tax paying, go exactly the speed limit, good citizen sheep that vote the way N'Sync tells them to.
    When i was young, my mother never went through my drawers looking for pot, spying on my habits to protect me from myself. She would never resort to installing filters on our computer to make sure i wasnt looking at how to make bombs. Invading your childs privacy and forcing them to act like there is a camera over their shoulder is not the way to make sure they dont hurt themselves. What people do in front of a camera is different from what they do in private. Fear of consequences is not a substitute for morals. This "black box" is just another way for parents to invade their childrens privacy.
    This is just another step towards Hilary Clintons "It takes a Village" perfect world for raising children.
    {/rant}
  • by Julian352 ( 108216 ) on Thursday July 25, 2002 @12:34AM (#3949438)
    So you want to give benefits for cops to pull over more people? Have you thought of repricussions:

    *But officer, I wasn't speeding over 10 mph. 3mph speeding doesn't count. (a minimum fine for speeding is like $50 [estimating]) so $25 for each person just barely speeding, sounds VERY lucrative. Don't tell me you've never gone a mile or two over the limit down the hill or something like that.

    *Did you know that non-working light is equal to a stop sign, so running one is reckless driving due to running a stop sign. Hmm.. don't cops have access to the light controls? Think about this one yourself.

    *Do you always turn on your signals 100 yds for 35mph or faster and 50 yds for under that limit? What about keeping the exact distance in front of you? (2 sec. on normal conditions and then whatever the cop feels like for rain/snow/dark/etc. There are no specific rules, but cop can at discretion call any speed/distance "too dangerous for current conditions )

    * Do you have ANYTHING hanging on your mirror? (like your parking pass, air freshener, etc.) ALL of them are illegal, as parking passes should only be displayed when parked.

    * Have you ever had to pass on the right a slow driver in the left lane of you? That's illegal in many states, and driving 45 mph in 55/60/65 mph is completely legal.

    I can keep going with examples of laws that are commonly broken due to limited knowledge and very little repricussions. (parking passes almost don't block visibility, but are still illegal) I would rather not have the cop benefit from giving a specific ticket because not only could they start charging for very small offenses, but they could add offenses togeter for bigger fine. (You have been speeding by 5 mph, have a parking ticket hanging off the mirror and failed to signal for 100 yds: That'd be $300)

    Yes, parents/teens should be educated, but don't give cops incentive for giving tickets. They should do it because of safety/traffic reasons, not because they'd be making bigger profit with more tickets. Otherwise it'd be more cost-effective for them to just go after rich middle-class folks that break small rules than fining that bastard that ran 2 lights, sped by 30 mph but drives 1980 Chevy with almost no paint on it.
  • by dadragon ( 177695 ) on Thursday July 25, 2002 @01:57AM (#3949674) Homepage
    What good is that going to do? If a 16 year old passed a driving test at 16, he or she can repass it at 21. With the exception of really old people, most accidents are usually caused by carelessness, not lack of skills.

    Have you ever driven on snow and/or ice? If somebody can't do it, they shouldn't be driving here. Ideally, everybody would take their test in the winter, or on some simulated winter conditions.
  • Re:not quite (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25, 2002 @07:32AM (#3950305)
    See, now there's where you're wrong. You will get it installed in your car or you won't have a car to drive anymore. Teenagers today are way too spoiled and think they have some right to drive. Giving your parents a smartass attitude is just another reason why the average adult American hates teenagers and why this entire thread started. You're not invincible, you're not special, and frankly, none of us really like you driving in the first place. The driving age should be 21 so that people are a little more mature before they're put behind the wheel of a one and a half ton killing machine.
  • by stewby18 ( 594952 ) on Thursday July 25, 2002 @07:53AM (#3950360)
    first, every teen that drives like a jerk/idiot I can show you EXACTLY where they got that habit.

    Not necessarily; people learn a lot of their driving from those around them. I moved to Cleveland several years ago (City motto: "The red lights aren't decorative?") and the vast majority of drivers here have trouble with the concept of stopping BEFORE the intersection, and stopping when the light is red, unless it's been red for 5-10 seconds.

    I've seen other people who've moved here start out driving like normal people, but many quickly start driving like everone else. People go with the majority and the flow of traffic more often than they follow laws or their own ideas about driving.

  • by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot@org.gmail@com> on Thursday July 25, 2002 @08:36AM (#3950496) Homepage Journal
    >As long as they make sure the penalties are fair, I don't see anything wrong with the concept.

    Neither do I (to a certain degree), but I think a rider needs to be tacked onto that.

    If you are going to charge a large penalty (over, say, $50) you should verbally and visually (as in a BIG RED SIGN IN ALL CAPS) warn the renter of just how much trouble they could be in.

    I know you should read all of a contract, but in reality, we don't have time to read all of them, and we just assume that if a company has such an egregious policy that they'd let us know the "nice" way. (I mean, do you really want to be sued over your policy? Its just that much more airtight when you let the person know verbally as well as in the contract).

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...