Video while driving hack... | Page 2 | Ford Explorer - Ford Ranger Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free! This box and some ads will disappear once registered!

Video while driving hack...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joe Dirt

Explorer Addict
Joined
October 4, 2007
Messages
13,342
Reaction score
22
Year, Model & Trim Level
07 Camry
Cool off guys. Statistics say that you're distracted while using electronics, no matter how large your penis is.
 
<

Join the Elite Explorers $20 Gets rid of the ads!

Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links, can add their own profile photo, upload photo attachments in all forums, and Media Gallery, create and save more private conversations, and more. Join Today. Your support is greatly appreciated.




peterk9

Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
December 28, 2010
Messages
32,421
Reaction score
2,637
City, State
Russell, Ontario (Ottawa area)
Year, Model & Trim Level
2020 Aviator Reserve
Callsign
VE3
Cool off guys. Statistics say that you're distracted while using electronics, no matter how large your penis is.
Not to worry, I'm done Joe. Happy New Year. :party:

Peter
 
<



Jackal01

Active Member
Joined
September 28, 2011
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
City, State
South Texas
Year, Model & Trim Level
2012 Explorer XLT
Forget it.
 
<



W

w1kedz

Not sure how this thread got to where it is.. but back to the original question.

http://www.navtv.com/MyTouch/myfordtouch.html

There is a bypass available, however it's pricey, surprisingly they want 425$ for it. I have not found anyone willing to shell out the money, so I haven't seen any reviews.

On another note, there are many more reasons for enabling the functionality than "watching movies", and I'm in the boat of thinking it's not the manufacturers responsibility to limit the functionality of the hardware WE OWN. I am unable to use third party navigation systems, or allow my passengers to enter addresses or search for way points while driving, it's crippling. My 2 cents.
 
<



jrmexplorer

Explorer Addict
Joined
April 19, 2011
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
3
Year, Model & Trim Level
2011 Limited
Not sure how this thread got to where it is.. but back to the original question.

http://www.navtv.com/MyTouch/myfordtouch.html

There is a bypass available, however it's pricey, surprisingly they want 425$ for it. I have not found anyone willing to shell out the money, so I haven't seen any reviews.

On another note, there are many more reasons for enabling the functionality than "watching movies", and I'm in the boat of thinking it's not the manufacturers responsibility to limit the functionality of the hardware WE OWN. I am unable to use third party navigation systems, or allow my passengers to enter addresses or search for way points while driving, it's crippling. My 2 cents.

Manufacturers do this so they can avoid liability for injuries others suffer at the hands of a distracted driver using their devices.

A personal injury lawyer who was representing a client who was injured because a Ford Explorer owner was messing with MFT at the time of the accident would probably sue not only the driver, but Ford. Ford has the deeper pockets. I could see them arguing that MFT is a dangerous distraction. Deeper pockets are always sued. Ford has a defense right now that it disables the more distracting portions of MFT (whether or not you agree with this). Whether you agree with this or not, this is what happens and Ford is just trying to protect itself.

Additionally, I'd be careful about bypassing these safety measures, regardless of what you think of them. You might be venturing into the territory of "disregarding a known risk." What that may mean is going from negligent to reckless - as in reckless homicide, reckless driving, etc.... which carries with it significantly more penalties. (that being said - I am not a torts or criminal lawyer so don't take any part of this post as legal advice). Think about removing a guard off a lawn-mower or something else which then injures an innocent bystander. At the very least I think it'd be real damning evidence of your negligence.
 
<



W

w1kedz

Manufacturers do this so they can avoid liability for injuries others suffer at the hands of a distracted driver using their devices.

A personal injury lawyer who was representing a client who was injured because a Ford Explorer owner was messing with MFT at the time of the accident would probably sue not only the driver, but Ford. Ford has the deeper pockets. I could see them arguing that MFT is a dangerous distraction. Deeper pockets are always sued. Ford has a defense right now that it disables the more distracting portions of MFT (whether or not you agree with this). Whether you agree with this or not, this is what happens and Ford is just trying to protect itself.

Additionally, I'd be careful about bypassing these safety measures, regardless of what you think of them. You might be venturing into the territory of "disregarding a known risk." What that may mean is going from negligent to reckless - as in reckless homicide, reckless driving, etc.... which carries with it significantly more penalties. (that being said - I am not a torts or criminal lawyer so don't take any part of this post as legal advice). Think about removing a guard off a lawn-mower or something else which then injures an innocent bystander. At the very least I think it'd be real damning evidence of your negligence.

having an iPad in your front seat doesn't mean you were watching a movie from iTunes while driving... If you were a lawyer you wouldn't be representing me ;)

We all understand WHY Ford has the restrictions, and they are the same restrictions that are some aftermarket head units as well, however I've never seen an aftermarket head unit disable navigation entry while driving, nor have I seen one that didn't have aux video input for 3rd party navigation units.

Ford should allow for removing restrictions on the devices by dealers w/ proper waivers and notarized receipt of information regarding the risks involved. Ultimately I own the hardware, and should be able to use it as I want, regardless of what you may deem a risk.

I can drive my car 50mph in a 25mph zone, even though the navigation shows that it's clearly a 25mph zone, by your logic Ford should be enforcing the speed limits and governing the cars accelerator in areas where it has the existing speed limits. If I get a ticket I'm going to sue Ford for allowing me to drive so fast. If I kill someone, their family should sue Ford for allowing me to drive so fast when the car clearly knew the speed limit.

If I remove the guard off a mower and the mowers blade flies off and cuts someones leg off, I did not use the machine as the manufacturer intended and I will be held accountable, not the manufacturer. Should the manufacturer have welded on the guard? I fail to see the logic there.
 
<



peterk9

Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
December 28, 2010
Messages
32,421
Reaction score
2,637
City, State
Russell, Ontario (Ottawa area)
Year, Model & Trim Level
2020 Aviator Reserve
Callsign
VE3
Good sound advice jrmexplorer.:thumbsup:

Hope you have a Happy New Year!:chug:

Peter
 
<



hannibalhector

Active Member
Joined
April 4, 2011
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
City, State
Bronx, NY
Year, Model & Trim Level
2011 XLT
having an iPad in your front seat doesn't mean you were watching a movie from iTunes while driving... If you were a lawyer you wouldn't be representing me ;)

We all understand WHY Ford has the restrictions, and they are the same restrictions that are some aftermarket head units as well, however I've never seen an aftermarket head unit disable navigation entry while driving, nor have I seen one that didn't have aux video input for 3rd party navigation units.

Ford should allow for removing restrictions on the devices by dealers w/ proper waivers and notarized receipt of information regarding the risks involved. Ultimately I own the hardware, and should be able to use it as I want, regardless of what you may deem a risk.

I can drive my car 50mph in a 25mph zone, even though the navigation shows that it's clearly a 25mph zone, by your logic Ford should be enforcing the speed limits and governing the cars accelerator in areas where it has the existing speed limits. If I get a ticket I'm going to sue Ford for allowing me to drive so fast. If I kill someone, their family should sue Ford for allowing me to drive so fast when the car clearly knew the speed limit.

If I remove the guard off a mower and the mowers blade flies off and cuts someones leg off, I did not use the machine as the manufacturer intended and I will be held accountable, not the manufacturer. Should the manufacturer have welded on the guard? I fail to see the logic there.

brilliantly worded!
 
<



jrmexplorer

Explorer Addict
Joined
April 19, 2011
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
3
Year, Model & Trim Level
2011 Limited
having an iPad in your front seat doesn't mean you were watching a movie from iTunes while driving... If you were a lawyer you wouldn't be representing me ;) .

You can better believe that MFT is recording everything you do and a timestamp of when it is done (same thing goes for iTunes and iPads). Black Boxes in cars are very sophisticated. Keep in mind that the burden of proof in civil cases is normally a preponderance of the evidence (e.g., more than a 50% chance). That means a lawyer only has to convince a jury that there was a 50.1% probability that you were watching a movie. That's in contrast to the reasonable doubt standard for criminal cases. The point being - dont make assumptions about what they can and cannot prove. There may be witnessess as well (e.g., a car behind you, passengers, etc...)

We all understand WHY Ford has the restrictions, and they are the same restrictions that are some aftermarket head units as well, however I've never seen an aftermarket head unit disable navigation entry while driving, nor have I seen one that didn't have aux video input for 3rd party navigation units.

Ford should allow for removing restrictions on the devices by dealers w/ proper waivers and notarized receipt of information regarding the risks involved. Ultimately I own the hardware, and should be able to use it as I want, regardless of what you may deem a risk.

The intent of my post was that YOU cannot waive a THIRD PARTIES right to sue Ford. Ford might have you indemnify them against a lawsuit by a third party, which means you would pay all expenses and judgments Ford suffered in a lawsuit, BUT, Ford realizes that you probably couldn't pay it and would go bankrupt leaving them holding the bag.


I can drive my car 50mph in a 25mph zone, even though the navigation shows that it's clearly a 25mph zone, by your logic Ford should be enforcing the speed limits and governing the cars accelerator in areas where it has the existing speed limits. If I get a ticket I'm going to sue Ford for allowing me to drive so fast. If I kill someone, their family should sue Ford for allowing me to drive so fast when the car clearly knew the speed limit.

Look, it's possible someone might try this argument. I doubt it would work for a number of reasons though. First, its not technically feasible right now. Second, its arguably not even safe (you may have to make avoidance manuevers that require speed above the speed limit), and Finally, since no other manufacturer likely does this, its not unreasonably dangerous. The key word is what is "reasonable."

If I remove the guard off a mower and the mowers blade flies off and cuts someones leg off, I did not use the machine as the manufacturer intended and I will be held accountable, not the manufacturer. Should the manufacturer have welded on the guard? I fail to see the logic there

You're absolutely correct. If you re-read my post, I never suggested FORD could be sued if you remove the MFT protections. My point with the hypothetical is that if YOU (as the driver) take the guard off a mower (or remove the restrictions on MFT) YOU are taking a step beyond carelessness, and veering into "disregarding a known risk" - an active step - which can take YOUR liability (as the driver) from being negligent to being reckless which carries steeper penalties. It was a friendly warning to consider the full ramifications of such an action.

If on the other hand, your point was simply that Ford could eliminate its liability by claiming that it had you sign all kinds of documents saying that Ford never intended you to use features X,Y,Z while driving and then Ford could later claim that by using X, Y, or Z while driving, you were using it in a manner not intended, then I think, here again, that argument wouldn't work. It'd be more akin to the manufacturer of the lawn mower selling the lawn mower without the guard in the first place rather than the homeowner removing the guard. The key is to look at who is taking the action here. If Ford is removing the guards, then they are putting into commerce an arguably dangerous product. If you remove the guards, then Ford has no liability. While its not outside the realm of possibility that a jury could buy your argument, Ford's lawyers wouldn't want to have to make that argument as I think its a weak argument.

Look, I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning, and I'm not saying I think that the third party here would necessarily WIN against Ford, or that the MFT restrictions would even work to help Ford escape liability, BUT, It's my way of trying to explain the likely reason that Ford WILL NOT remove the restrictions. They have armies of lawyers that probably billed significant time researching this issue.
 
<



W

w1kedz

dont make assumptions about what they can and cannot prove.

I didn't... I said that just because it's there, doesn't mean I'm using it for that reason. There are 100 justifiable reasons why the restrictions shouldn't exist. My comment was that just because there is an iPad in the front seat, doesn't mean I was using it to watch movies.

The intent of my post was that YOU cannot waive a THIRD PARTIES right to sue Ford.

A third party would not get a court date on a case against Ford for my negligence. This statement makes absolutely no sense. If that was the case cars would be governed at 70mph in the US since that's the maximum federal speed limit. Anyone going over 70mph could sue the auto maker for making a car that exceeds this limit. The person driving is the responsible party. I can't sue a gun manufacturer cause some guy used one to shoot my kid.

Look, it's possible someone might try this argument. I doubt it would work for a number of reasons though. First, its not technically feasible right now. Second, its arguably not even safe (you may have to make avoidance manuevers that require speed above the speed limit), and Finally, since no other manufacturer likely does this, its not unreasonably dangerous. The key word is what is "reasonable."

I admit the example was a bit far fetched, however it's very technically feasible. The throttle is computer controlled, and the map data has most US street speed limits, marry the two to create the behavior described. And as it is with sway control and assisted braking, sometimes trying those avoidance maneuvers already gets your throttle choked.


I never suggested FORD could be sued if you remove the MFT protections.

as I read it, that's exactly what you suggested.

Let's look at this another way. Texting while driving is illegal in most/all states now, and texting while walking, or moving is dangerous. All modern cell phones have gps built in. The restrictions Ford has placed on MFT are akin to cell manufacturers disabling texting while in motion. It's severely crippling, and unnecessary. It's up to me as the user to decide whether my own use falls within legal and acceptable guidelines, and creates any unnecessary danger to myself or others. It's not Ford's responsibility.

They have armies of lawyers that probably billed significant time researching this issue.

And now you're talking! The real reason why the restrictions exist, and why they aren't going away. Lawyers made a lot of money on doing no research into the affects of the restrictions on the consumer.
 
<



jrmexplorer

Explorer Addict
Joined
April 19, 2011
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
3
Year, Model & Trim Level
2011 Limited
For anyone interested, take a look at this article on products liability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability

It's my opinion that Ford most certainly could be sued by a third party under a number of different product liability theories if the driver was distracted by MFT and the distraction caused an accident which injured the third party.

In my experience, it's ridiculously easy to get a case in front of a judge (even under the new caselaw of Iqbal and Twombly). While the third party ultimately may not prevail, both sides will rack up significant legal bills. Moreso, the deep pockets ALWAYS get sued.

Second, the second paragraph of my original post was directed at the individuals on this thread who are contemplating hacking MFT to allow you to display movies and other things. It was meant as a friendly warning that those people personally might want to consider the ramifications. Obviously Ford cannot be held liable for an owner hacking MFT to allow them to perform functions they are not intended to. If that was unclear in my first post, this should set the record straight.

My intention was to provide some perspective to those who feel that Ford is being unreasonable.

as far as im concerned I've said my piece and will let others viewing this thread decide the reasonableness of Ford's actions and/or whether or not the ramifications of "hacking" MFT are worth it.

Have a happy new Year w1kedz.
 
<



W

w1kedz

It's my opinion that Ford most certainly could be sued by a third party under a number of different product liability theories if the driver was distracted by MFT and the distraction caused an accident which injured the third party.

And you have confessed you are not a lawyer, so this opinion means very little.

In my experience, it's ridiculously easy to get a case in front of a judge (even under the new caselaw of Iqbal and Twombly).

And what experience is this? How many cases do you attempt to bring before a judge, and of those cases, how many are related to suing a vehicle manufacturer for an accident that their negligence caused?


Second, the second paragraph of my original post was directed at the individuals on this thread who are contemplating hacking MFT to allow you to display movies and other things. It was meant as a friendly warning that those people personally might want to consider the ramifications. Obviously Ford cannot be held liable for an owner hacking MFT to allow them to perform functions they are not intended to. If that was unclear in my first post, this should set the record straight.

I understood the reason for your post. However you have no experience or expertise to make the statements. There is no precedence cited that would allude anyone to believe that bypassing the restrictions would increase the "amount of negligence" charged for an accident. And as I stated above, there are numerous reasons that are perfectly legitimate and legal for bypassing the restrictions.

My intention was to provide some perspective to those who feel that Ford is being unreasonable.

A perspective I feel you are unqualified to offer

Have a happy new Year w1kedz.

Happy New Year to you and your family! I myself am hoping that 2012 brings better fortune to all than 2011 did.
 
<



peterk9

Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
December 28, 2010
Messages
32,421
Reaction score
2,637
City, State
Russell, Ontario (Ottawa area)
Year, Model & Trim Level
2020 Aviator Reserve
Callsign
VE3
For anyone interested, take a look at this article on products liability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability

It's my opinion that Ford most certainly could be sued by a third party under a number of different product liability theories if the driver was distracted by MFT and the distraction caused an accident which injured the third party.

In my experience, it's ridiculously easy to get a case in front of a judge (even under the new caselaw of Iqbal and Twombly). While the third party ultimately may not prevail, both sides will rack up significant legal bills. Moreso, the deep pockets ALWAYS get sued.

Second, the second paragraph of my original post was directed at the individuals on this thread who are contemplating hacking MFT to allow you to display movies and other things. It was meant as a friendly warning that those people personally might want to consider the ramifications. Obviously Ford cannot be held liable for an owner hacking MFT to allow them to perform functions they are not intended to. If that was unclear in my first post, this should set the record straight.

My intention was to provide some perspective to those who feel that Ford is being unreasonable.

as far as im concerned I've said my piece and will let others viewing this thread decide the reasonableness of Ford's actions and/or whether or not the ramifications of "hacking" MFT are worth it.
+1 :thumbsup:
 
<



cryptiq

Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
City, State
Florida
Year, Model & Trim Level
'11 XLT
I wish my Explorer wouldn't let me put the gear selector into drive unless it knew I was buckled up...I feel so unsafe and exposed because of this...come on Ford, make this damn thing safer already!
 
<



jrmexplorer

Explorer Addict
Joined
April 19, 2011
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
3
Year, Model & Trim Level
2011 Limited
And you have confessed you are not a lawyer, so this opinion means very little.



And what experience is this? How many cases do you attempt to bring before a judge, and of those cases, how many are related to suing a vehicle manufacturer for an accident that their negligence caused?




I understood the reason for your post. However you have no experience or expertise to make the statements. There is no precedence cited that would allude anyone to believe that bypassing the restrictions would increase the "amount of negligence" charged for an accident. And as I stated above, there are numerous reasons that are perfectly legitimate and legal for bypassing the restrictions.



A perspective I feel you are unqualified to offer



Happy New Year to you and your family! I myself am hoping that 2012 brings better fortune to all than 2011 did.

All I said was that I wasn't a torts or a criminal lawyer and that my posts are not intended as legal advice for you to rely on. ;)
 
<



Ted22

Well-Known Member
Joined
November 24, 2011
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
City, State
Virginia beach
Year, Model & Trim Level
05 explorer 4x4 6cyl
Driving isnt a "right" so grow up and stop acting like it is. And yes, the state can tell you what you can and can not do when driving, and can deny you the provision to drive (revoke your driver's license).

The state knows best, right. At one time there were independent people in this country.

When someone figures out how to disable for my passenger (or myself if i so choose) please post. I will do same.
 
<



13Sport

Explorer Addict
Joined
June 29, 2012
Messages
1,128
Reaction score
6
City, State
Los Angeles, CA
Year, Model & Trim Level
2015 Explorer Sport
The state knows best, right. At one time there were independent people in this country.

When someone figures out how to disable for my passenger (or myself if i so choose) please post. I will do same.

There are numerous posts that explain the current two options. Coastaletech.com has their my touch lockpick, and nav-tv has the mytouch vim. Price and options say the lockpick is the better option.

Lockpick = $319 (USD)
Nav-tv VIM = $424 (USD)
 
<



Ted22

Well-Known Member
Joined
November 24, 2011
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
City, State
Virginia beach
Year, Model & Trim Level
05 explorer 4x4 6cyl
There are numerous posts that explain the current two options. Coastaletech.com has their my touch lockpick, and nav-tv has the mytouch vim. Price and options say the lockpick is the better option.

Lockpick = $319 (USD)
Nav-tv VIM = $424 (USD)

Thanks for the info! Just got the car after I killed my 05, so didn't search as much for the info as I should have. Definately annoying not being able to play with while moving. Sort of weird here in that I bought the car to GO between point A and B. guess I see why the California drivers don't mind so much... They spend much more time on freeways not moving than we do
 
<



cw21726

Member
Joined
February 13, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
City, State
Spring, Texas
Year, Model & Trim Level
2013 Limited
You can better believe that MFT is recording everything you do and a timestamp of when it is done (same thing goes for iTunes and iPads). Black Boxes in cars are very sophisticated. Keep in mind that the burden of proof in civil cases is normally a preponderance of the evidence (e.g., more than a 50% chance). That means a lawyer only has to convince a jury that there was a 50.1% probability that you were watching a movie. That's in contrast to the reasonable doubt standard for criminal cases. The point being - dont make assumptions about what they can and cannot prove. There may be witnessess as well (e.g., a car behind you, passengers, etc...)

Speaking of assumptions, can you provide a source that shows MFT use being datalogged in the EDR?

Yes I realize this is a necro post. lol
 
<

Join the Elite Explorers $20 Gets rid of the ads!

Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links, can add their own profile photo, upload photo attachments in all forums, and Media Gallery, create and save more private conversations, and more. Join Today. Your support is greatly appreciated.




foxtemple

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
City, State
Philadelphia, PA
Year, Model & Trim Level
2011 Ford Explorer
I haven't been following the discussions on this forum but this is a product I read about somewhere. I'm not really sure if it actually works. In my opinion the website looks kind of shady. Might be worth looking at though!

http://www.coastaletech.com/mytouch.htm
 
<



Status
Not open for further replies.
Top