The United States Senate has passed a bill that would require all car manufacturers to install "black box recorders", or "event data recorders", from 2015 onward. These recorders would act in the same fashion as those in aircraft: it would record all information going on at a particular time - speed, air bag deployment, brake activation, etc. While it sounds innocuous enough, but privacy hawks have started raising their hackles over the invasion of privacy that could occur.

In my opinion, I don't think it's a bad option at all. One of the principle reasons why accidents can take so long to clear is the amount of time it takes emergency services to piece together the series of events that led to an accident. With black box recorders, part of this time will be dramatically reduced and will eliminate a whole aspect of guesswork in piecing together the events that led to an accident, particularly fatal ones where there is not access to driver(s) involved with the incident.

This is another important point to make: the only reason why the data would be accessed to begin with is when there's a need - i.e. there's an accident that needs to be investigated.

I see far more positives than negatives: it'll help as an educational tool through the data that's recorded and interpreted, it can help reduce insurance costs as insurance companies can get better information in order to spread costs more accurately, and can provide training tools for all drivers to make roads safer with better drivers.

While I can appreciate privacy concerns, driving affects so many people than just individuals and the amount of data collected would be so vast that it would be difficult to tie to any one individual. In addition, the data recorder would just record data linked to the vehicle not the driver so personal information would be protected.

What are your thoughts?

The primary season is about half way done now, and it's fairly obvious to most that Mitt Romney is in the process of sowing up the nomination. It's a case of "when", not "if" Romney will clinch before we see out June, especially as the rate of big name endorsements accelerates. Certainly by the time the party convention in Tampa rolls around the main discussions will be about potential running mates (more on that later) rather than the possibility of dark horse candidates or contested conventions.

Ron Paul has stayed where he's always been - at the back of the pack, bobbing along at between 5-10% of the vote without every truly making the big splash his candidacy needed to move into the mainstream public spotlight.

Newt Gingrich has more-or-less thrown in the towel without saying it, through firing his campaign manager, laying off a third of this staff and moving the focus of his campaign into swaying non-pledged delegates directly rather than hoping the remaining states will rally to his call. It's indicative of a campaign sinking under the weight of debt it's saddled with, particularly when faced with a spending machine in Mitt Romney.

This leaves Rick Santorum as Romney's closest challenger, the self-styled "true conservative" who is the GOP's best option to face Obama in November. Unfortunately for Santorum, not only is he being outspent by Romney by three, four or even five times as much in the remaining key states (such as Wisconsin in the coming days), he's creating faux pas after faux pas that is sinking his campaign faster than an iceberg sank the Titanic a century ago.
The latest gaff came yesterday, when he almost called candidate Obama the "N-word" but caught himself before finishing the remark. See for yourself: LINK
On the heels of remarks such as "not caring for the poor", calling Romney the "worst Republican candidate to face Obama", and the support of faction favorites but mainstream pariahs such as Sarah Palin, it is clear that Santorum at best could hope for will be a vice-presidential nod. This is also unlikely, particularly with comments highlighted above that question the candidate's moral character that will certainly have caught the independant voter's attention - the electoral group who will decide the election.

On that note, lets return to the most pressing political question for the GOP in the coming months: who to pair with Mitt Romney to complete the GOP ticket to face Obama/Biden in November. While there are no shortage of potential candidates, there are many who have already ruled themselves out of the running - such as Tea Party favorite Florida senator Mark Rubio.

Let's start with those with overt Presidential aspirations - Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. I've already ruled out Rick Santorum - as much as he could energize the party base with his moral rhetoric and stance on moral issues from gay marriage to abortion, he has committed too many faux pas to be considered a viable electable candidate. Add to that the vindictive nature of the primary season it is difficult if not impossible to conceive of a Romney/Santorum ticket patching up the differences between the two men to run a successful campaign.

The same issues plague a potential Romney/Gingrich ticket - the vindictive nature of the primary season, coupled with Gingrich's questionable moral foundation among GOP party faithful makes this ticket a non-starter. A positive for Gingrich would be the years of Capital Hill experience he would bring with him from his time as Speaker, but with a GOP-controlled house with somewhat-decent leadership from John Boehner, this positive is a stretch.

Ron Paul is an interesting man, candidate and vice-presidential nominee. However, his political positions and fringe-character suggests that he would not be suited for a vice-presidential role; being relegated to the back of the ticket and not being the main candidate and person. I also believe the ideological differences between Romney and Paul would be too great to bridge, dooming this ticket before it even got started.

So, who does that leave? Names being bandied about include US Representative Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget committee, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, current Florida senator Mark Rubio, Nevada governor Brian Sandoval, Nikki Haley (South Carolina governor) or Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire senator), but all have their drawbacks: Christie does not make for a viable #2 candidate, and has also repeatedly said that he wants to spend more time as governor of New Jersey first. Paul Ryan and Mark Rubio have made plain their intentions to serve out their current terms in Congress and aren't interested a vice-presidential nod. While their youthfulness, enthusiastic and the fact they're women make Haley and Ayotte plausible candidates, particularly with their ethnic origins, both would be seen as too inexperienced for the role of vice-president, let alone president should the need arise. Jeb Bush would be too closely tied to the unpopular (rightly or wrongly) George W. Bush presidency, which leaves Brian Sandoval as a potential running mate. He would certainly tick a lot of boxes - Hispanic, young, exciting - but his stance on abortion could be a deal-breaker for Romney, who wants someone ideologically in tune with himself and the party base. The Indiana governor, Mitch Daniels, could be a possibility - certainly as a rising star in the GOP (giving the Republican reply to the 2012 State of the Union address), and with the media coverage of the way he handled the tornado tragedies in his state as well as the exposure of hosting the Super Bowl earlier this year he has the name identity to be a strong running mate. However, like many other names in this list, he has a loyalty to his electorate that is admirable.

An ultra-longshot candidate could be David Letterman,the late-night talk show host, who has been floated up as a possibility but I doubt voters could take him seriously as a candidate.

Ultimately, this exercise is more-or-less for fun, and one that is usually never correct - see John McCain's surprise pick of Sarah Palin in 2008 as an example - but I think that this election cycle it will be a case of "who's left over?" then one where candidates put themselves forward to run. Similar to the number of GOP candidates who withdrew or did not run this year, I think a large part of the decision making process is selfish: they'd rather keep their powder dry for a more realistic shot in 2016 without the taint of a lost election in 2012.

So, as always - watch this space!