EU Parliament Adopts eCall Resolution 212
arisvega writes with news that the European Parliament has pass a resolution in support of eCall, an initiative to install devices in vehicles that automatically contact emergency services in the event of a crash. The resolution calls on the European Condition to make it mandatory for all new cars starting in 2015.
"The in-vehicle eCall system uses 112 emergency call technology to alert the emergency services automatically to the location of serious road accidents. This should save lives and reduce the severity of injuries by enabling qualified and equipped paramedics to get to the scene within the first “golden hour” of the accident, says the resolution. The eCall system could save up to 2,500 lives a year and reduce injury severity by 10 to 15%, it adds."
Sounds like a great idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering all of the crazy technology we have in even the cheapest modern cars, it is amazing something like this isn't commonplace outside of high end systems like OnStar by now. Would love to see this in the US too.
Re:I've got an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Actyally : less cars wouldn't be a bad idea to reduce the amount of accidents ( a lot of accidents happen due to traffic jams ).
But it doesn't need to be forced : ensure good public transportation, and people will use that instead of their cars.
Re:STUPID (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to remember this post when you're upside-down in a ditch with two broken arms at 3 AM on a country road.
Me? I'll gladly pay $500 extra dollars per car even if only one in a hundred people ever go through that experience. I know a hundred people, and I don't think any of them should spend a minute more in that ditch than they have to.
Re:I've got an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
We really should do this, starting with the largest cities. Start with the largest vehicles and work your way down, adding in public transportation as cars are eliminated. I really love to drive, right until I get into some shitty city where you can't do it meaningfully anyway. And cities are fucking horrible really, but they would be wonderful without the cars. The "freedom" of driving is largely illusory. Your car can be taken away from you at the drop of a hat and even if you get it back without paying anything you're not going to get anything for the time you spent without it.
Re:STUPID (Score:2, Insightful)
Fine, pay for your own service.
The same argument could be made for seat belts. In both cases it ignores the fact that an accident affects not only the people inside the vehicle but also everyone who who wants to use the road and the public services aren't free either. So it isn't difficult to make an argument that if you're going to drive a heavy box of metal at high speeds you should take a few steps to minimize damage.
And if you're worried about being tracked I hope you don't use a cellphone. Still, the thing should be required to not track anyone, or be open-source.
cue fearmongering in 3... 2... (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me to sum up the first 5000 or so comments:
Oh yeah, it's an evil conspiracy. Sure. "They" will monitor every car in the world through this, because... uh... no idea.
Funny how geeks have become innovation-phobic. It used to be the other way around.
Re:OnStar is a bug (Score:5, Insightful)
"citation needed."
Look it up yourself you lazy cunt.
I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to spend 10 seconds on Google.
Hell no. If I had to go and google every crackpot theory every retard on the internet cites as fact I'd never get anything done. Why don't you spend 10 seconds pasting a link and save everyone else the time. This has the added bonus that when we see that your citation is theonion.com we can laugh at you instead of wasting time reading it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and potty mouth retorts don't count as evidence, no matter how many expletives you might use).
I should add that I am fully prepared to believe that your claims might be true, they certainly sound plausible, but i'm not going to waste time listening to the ramblings of some AC that was too lazy to provide evidence and too gutless to put their name to them.
How will it determine if assistance is needed? (Score:3, Insightful)
One problem is: How will it tell apart a serious accident in which people were hurt, and one in which the car was damaged but the people inside were unscathed. Once it gets installed in all cars, this could result in emergency services rushing to places where they are not needed, wasting time.
Not a fetish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OnStar is a bug (Score:4, Insightful)
I can totally understand your sentiment, but at the same time, I can understand being frustrated by the pedantic "citation needed" bullshit, it's just more of of that deliberately obtuse affectation that makes it so hard to have a productive conversation these days. That guy didn't want any citations so he could learn something, he wanted a citation so he could find some reason, ANY reason, to refute it. This is how all controversial posts are here on slashdot anymore. Hell, that's how controversial subjects are ANYWHERE these days, not just here. So many people don't ask for citations for proof anymore, they ask for citations so they can attack them and reinforce their own presuppositions. From the start, that guy was antagonistic towards the idea that OnStar could be being used illegitimately, something that has been in the news many times over the last few years. I doubt a citation from the goddamned FBI themselves saying they do exactly what is being claimed here would have been accepted as fact.