Since when is CAN bus mandatory for new vehicles? The CAN bus Wikipedia page states that: CAN bus is one of five protocols used in the on-board diagnostics (OBD)-II vehicle diagnostics standard. The OBD-II standard has been mandatory for all cars and light trucks sold in the United States since 1996, and the EOBD standard has been mandatory for all petrol vehicles sold in the European Union since 2001 and all diesel vehicles since 2004. The OBD Wikipedia page further states that: 2001: The European Union makes EOBD mandatory for all gasoline (petrol) vehicles sold in the European Union, starting in MY2001 (see European emission standards Directive 98/69/EC). 2003: The European Union makes EOBD mandatory for all diesel vehicles sold in the European Union 2008: All cars sold in the United States are required to use the ISO 15765-4 signaling standard (a variant of the Controller Area Network (CAN) bus). Except the 2008 date these quotes primarily talk about the OBD/EOBD. How is the OBD and CAN exactly related? Is CAN a mandatory protocol for OBD-II/EOBD? In case it was I see a conflict in the 1996 and 2008 dates for United States... My final question is simple - are there certain dates since which all cars sold in particular markets have to use CAN bus for the internal communication between car's electronics? The reason I am asking this is I want to reverse engineer the signaling from various vehicle sensors (steering angle sensor etc.). If I knew something like "all European cars since 2004 use CAN for the internal communications between electronic parts" that would help me a lot. EDIT: Obviously the CAN bus is somehow mandatory since 2008 in the US at least. However, I do not know to a what degree in detail - usually there are CAN bus pin-outs on the OBD-II connector. However, there may be multiple CAN buses present within a single vehicle - one for critical functions like ABS, ESP etc. and another for infotainment like radio etc. I wonder if any of these buses has to be connected to the OBD pin-out...
Good timing: I just got a new OBD II scanner yesterday. Since this might hit a wider audience, I'll take a foundation-first approach. Your vehicle is comprised of things like brakes, ABS, fuel injection, gear box. Nowadays, these parts are operated by electronic controllers. The physical path by which the controllers receive and transmit electronic signals is called a bus. (It performs the same function as the internal bus in your computer, which connects the CPU, memory, etc.) CAN is simply a protocol for how information travels on the bus. So it does all the things you'd imagine a protocol does (boring things like dictating message formats be 64 bits and exciting things like determining priority). Protocols are defined by standards. Prior to widespread implementation of CAN, there were other standards (four, I believe) used by various manufacturers. CAN is widespread, but it's important to note that it's only standard on lighter vehicles. 40 CFR 86.005-17(h)(3) Beginning with the 2008 model year and beyond, ISO 15765-4.3:2001 “Road Vehicles-Diagnostics on Controller Area Network (CAN)—Part 4: Requirements for emission-related systems”, (December 14, 2001) shall be the only acceptable protocol used for standardized on-board to off-board communications for vehicles below 8500 pounds. The statute goes on to discuss other standards for heavier vehicles. What's unique about CAN? It's faster, but more importantly, it's a protocol that doesn't require a central computer. All the controllers get all the messages. It's kind of like having a bunch of people in a room yelling things out: everyone hears everything. And that's what you want in a car. However, the messages have to be interpreted by the controllers themselves, and that requires a separate &quot;higher-layer&quot; protocol. Electronic components need CAN to function, and if you have a car with electronic components, you need CAN in order to make it run. On the other hand, a vehicle can run without OBD--it's just a nice secondary feature to help diagnose system performance (and problems). It obtains access to component information like speed, RPM, fuel trim, etc. Likewise, that pesky &quot;check engine&quot; light gets activated by a diagnostic code. CAN is not mandatory for OBD. OBD is designed to use a number of different standards, and CAN is one of those (remember, light vehicles makes beginning with 2008 use CAN, but OBD is in use in other types of vehicles, too). At it's heart, OBD II is just another protocol: it specifies message format and the connector's pinout. In the best teaching document I've seen on the CAN vs. OBD subject, Michael Wen mentions you can often deduce which signaling protocol is in use by looking at the pins in the connector (remember, CAN should be standard for light vehicles after 2008, but you might see one of the other four formats in older vehicles). How do OBD and CAN work together? OBD sends messages over the CAN bus (that is, the vehicle bus with the CAN protocol). OBD basically queries components by sending specially formatted messages via the CAN bus. The components respond via the CAN bus. That information goes either to a warning light on the dashboard or to a diagnostic scanner attached to the connector.
No, selling a car "as-is" is not a valid reason for not having a smog certificate. According to the DMV here, the smog certificate must have been done within 90 days of the sale. The exceptions are: The transfer occurs between a spouse, domestic partner, sibling, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild. A biennial smog certification was submitted to DMV within 90 days prior to the vehicle transfer date (a vehicle inspection report may be required for proof of certification). There are a few other exceptions based on the type/year of the car like gasoline-powered and older than 1975 or electric-powered.
No. Such a marking is equivalent to a solid double yellow line, and passing is not permitted. These raised pavement markers are known as Botts' dots and are commonly used in California together with, or instead of, painted lines. A line of evenly spaced dots is meant to signify a solid line. Since here there is a double line of dots, it is a solid double yellow line. If passing were allowed, you would see a single yellow dashed line, which would be indicated with dots by a group of 3-4 evenly spaced dots, then a longer gap, and repeating. California Vehicle Code section 21460 provides as follows: (a) If double parallel solid yellow lines are in place, a person driving a vehicle shall not drive to the left of the lines, except as permitted in this section. [...] (e) Raised pavement markers may be used to simulate painted lines described in this section if the markers are placed in accordance with standards established by the Department of Transportation. The relevant standards are found in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). On page 655, Detail 23, you can see a diagram showing exactly this configuration of dots and stating that it is an alternative to a solid double yellow line. It appears that current policy is to phase out the use of Botts' dots, so this question may become moot in the future.
Is there any sources of information where extraction of data from a closed source application and provided to a data subject is further defined? No, the GDPR is based on &quot;general principles&quot; and does not concern itself with implementation details for such matters. It's possible there's EU case law on this, but I can't find any. Am I within my rights to insist on this, even if to comply they would have to do some software development? Yes you can demand it, but they don't have to comply with your demand. The information only has to be provided in a &quot;concise, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language.&quot; and they only have to provide the information electronically where &quot;reasonably practical&quot; to do so, and they only have to take &quot;reasonable steps&quot; to do all this per Section 52 of the Data Protection Act 2018 which implements GDPR into UK law. You can complain to the Information Commissioner's Office, and they will decide if Section 52 has been complied with or not. 52 Form of provision of information etc (1) The controller must take reasonable steps to ensure that any information that is required by this Chapter to be provided to the data subject is provided in a concise, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the information may be provided in any form, including electronic form. (3) Where information is provided in response to a request by the data subject under [the Right of access by the data subject], the controller must provide the information in the same form as the request where it is practicable to do so.
There are multiple questions on different areas of law, but I will answer purely on any criminal liability arising by the drivers concerned and leave the question(s) on civil liability to others. The general rule to avoid creating unsafe situations appears to be in the Royal Decree of 1 December 1975, at Article 7, which states (via English translation): 7.2 Users must behave on public roads in such a way that they do not cause any inconvenience or danger to other users, including the staff working for the maintenance of the road and the equipment bordering it, the surveillance services and priority vehicles. Here are some specific regulations/offences relating to the railway crossing incident: Under Article 4 of the 30 September 2005 Decree: It is forbidden to stop or park a vehicle on level crossings. Carol may have committed an offence under Chapter 2, Article 2 of the 1975 Decree: It is forbidden to stop a vehicle or park it in any place where it is obviously likely to constitute a danger for other road users or to obstruct them unnecessarily... Dave may have committed an offence under Article 20 of the 1975 Decree: 20.2. The user approaching a level crossing must be extra careful to avoid any accident: when the level crossing is not equipped with barriers or traffic light signals or when these signals do not work, the user can only enter it after making sure that no vehicle on rails is approaching. ... 20.4. The driver cannot enter a level crossing if the traffic congestion is such that he would in all likelihood be immobilized on this crossing.
I feel that a person, not the subject of arrest, should be protected by the 4th amendment if they choose to remain in their vehicle, even if “ordered” to exit the vehicle by an officer. The intuition is fine, but is basically incorrect. I’m most interested to know: How would a driver (1) Politely (2) determine if a given instruction to exit the vehicle must be complied with, and (3) decline the instruction without giving the officer “cause” or otherwise damaging a potential case? From a practical perspective the only workable response is to comply. There are times when this is done without a reasonable suspicion (or in some cases probable cause) or other legal basis, but it is pretty much impossible for you to dispute this one the spot. Most of the time, the officer will have the legal authority to order you to leave the vehicle. If they order you to exit the vehicle despite not having the legal authority to do so, the right course of action is to comply and then to file a complaint with the agency employing the officer or to bring a civil lawsuit against the officer. There are good answers to a basically duplicate question at How can you tell if you have to follow a police officer&#39;s instructions?
Using two states as examples: In California, emergency vehicle operators are exempt from pretty much the entirety of the rules of the road (VC 21055). They can pass you on the right if they want to. Department policy might say no, but that depends on department policy and the details of their emergency vehicle operation course. However, California law requires all drivers to pull to the right when an emergency vehicle approaches (VC 21806). Even though an ambulance driver legally could pass you on the right, you are required to pull right. According to the BLM's emergency response policy for fire personnel in California, this means passing on the right is heavily disfavored: the emergency vehicle operator doesn't know that the driver (who is clearly not paying much attention) won't suddenly notice them and comply with the vehicle code, cutting them off or running into them. Other policies/things which seem to reflect policies say similar things, and all make it clear that operators need to be careful that the car they're passing won't drive into them. In Maryland, the law is a bit different. Section 21-405 of the Maryland Code obligates drivers to move to the edge of the roadway. This means either edge, so on a divided highway you might pull left. On a non-divided road, you obviously pull right. In this case, the vehicle may end up passing you on the right, but again: they are going to be careful about it, and would rather you get out of their way so they don't have to worry that you'll suddenly see them and drive into them.
It depends on the laws of the jurisdiction. In Washington, speed limits are implemented via Chapter 46.61 RCW, the very first section of which states: The provisions of this chapter relating to the operation of vehicles refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon highways except: (1) Where a different place is specifically referred to in a given section. (2) The provisions of RCW 46.52.010 through 46.52.090, 46.61.500 through 46.61.525, and 46.61.5249 shall apply upon highways and elsewhere throughout the state We then turn to the question of what a &quot;vehicle&quot; is (this is the discussion of a number of legal treatises). Title 46 is about motor vehicles, but still you should look at the definition, if any, of &quot;vehicle&quot;. We have two definitions of vehicle in RCW 46.04.670. Definition 1 says that &quot;Vehicle&quot; includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles Definition 2 omits the italicized bicycle inclusion, and explicitly excludes A bicycle, for the purposes of chapter 46.12, 46.16A, or 46.70 RCW, or for RCW 82.12.045((.)) This is a bit of a mess arising from legislative screwup, which should be resolved by appeal to RCW 1.12.025. The explicit-exclusion sections are about registration, dealers and taxes, and not speed limits. The latter version was recently reaffirmed effective July 23, 2023. The courts could therefore be somewhat inclined to not apply speed limits to bicycles, because bicycles were recently removed from the set of explicit vehicles. But as notes in the Eskridge's extensive discussion of a hypothetical ban on vehicles in Lafayette Park, there are multiple principles for interpreting laws, and &quot;legislative intent to assure safety&quot; would be one prominent consideration, in case the wording of the law is not crystal clear – as it is not, in this case.