NTSB Recommends Black Boxes For All Cars 612
linuxwrangler writes "Officials at the National Transportation Safety Board are recommending the government require data recorders in all passenger vehicles. David Sobel of EPIC says his group has privacy concerns - especially when drivers are unaware of the presence of the devices. Auto black-boxes have been covered here before."
Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Proposal (Score:5, Interesting)
1) The black box will register things such as speed, acceleration, position of the steering wheel, gear shift, pedals, emergency brake, etc.
2) It will not monitor stuff such as GPS
3) It will loop every [30] seconds or so (just a suggestion, maybe a little more)
4) Data will only be available following a crash in which injuries or serious physical damage resulted or with the owner's consent.
5) Optionally, this information will not be available to insurance companies or for prosecution in either civil or criminal cases. I think that the data should be available, but I can see valid objections to this.
That way the safety people get what they want -- a system that will provide information about what happens in a crash -- while not acting very big brothery.
Re:Interesting Train of Thought... (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, because we have voided our personal responsibility in accidents to insurance companies, it will be left to the insurance companies to decide what is best for THEM and their share holders, not their insurance customers.
Much like insurance companies trying to declare bankrupcy to get out of paying claims in California after the big earthquates in SFO and LAX, because they were undercapitalized...
But, should an insurance company pay for damages to your stolen car if it is later recovered with your key in the ignition and no windows broken, etc., or should you have to suck it up because of your own stupid negligence of leaving it unlocked and with the key in the ignition?
Re:why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
This doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea, but the "...if you never break the law..." arguement is naive in the extreme.
This would be ok if... (Score:5, Interesting)
2.the owner of the vechicle must be able to get access to the data (i.e. dump and read it, not change it)
3.the only other people who should legally be able to read it are the police with a warrant. (or e.g. the NTSB or some other agency, again with a warrant)
4.It should be illegal for anyone else (e.g. mechanics) to dump the data without permission from the owner.
and 5.they should not record any information that would link the car to the location the car was at at the time the data was collected.
no surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
It won't make people safer. It won't stop people speeding. After a week drivers will forget the thing is even there, till someone somewhere uses the data in it to fuck them in the ass. (Metaphorically.)
We all commit traffic violations, however minor. Once the population are all criminals, they're *so* much easier to control.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Interesting)
This basically sums up my views on the situation as well. I think it would be a good idea that such data be used to help determine fault in an accident. Perhaps it could even act as a deterrent to reckless unsafe driving. However such technology doesn't offer the descretion that say a police officer or judge has in determining the guilt in say exceeding the speed limit. What if you are speeding because you are trying to get a dying relative to a hospital or something? The law says that you are speeding, a police officer can determine that perhaps you actually need some help not be punished with a fine.
I can easily see however that transport departments would be eager to be able to query the data to apply tickets, especially to bolster the money made from fines and help the fill the government coffers.
Re:How is this a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you being serious? You do realise where the concept of a "black box" first got started? They've been in aeroplanes for years.
Another question is what happens with cars shipped overseas. If a car is made in America for use in England, what happens to the black box? What if a car is made in the UK, where it doesn't have to have a black box, only for the owner to emigrate to the States taking his car with him? What if a car is made in Canada and the owner regularly commutes across the border? How does the black box stop him/her from causing an accident?
It's a nice idea in theory, but enforcing it would be virtually impossible. You'd never be certain that a car had a black box. Unless, of course, the US closes its borders and forces all drivers to use American vehicles only (not impossible in a sufficiently protectionist world!).
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
IANAL, but as far as I know, at least in California, the posted speed limit signs are "suggested" speed limits for drivers; meaning it's not a hard legal maximum speed at which you can drive in that area. You should always consider circumstances, conditions and the surroundings when you determine what is safe speed. i.e. when it's foggy, dark, or crowded, it may be unsafe even if you drive below the posted speed limit (so you may be breaking the law); or if it's sunny and clear it may be safe to drive over the posted limit.
So, saying that there should be a single hard limit on every stretch of the road does not take into account the road/weather conditions and surroundings with which you are dealing when you drive through it. e.g., if it's foggy and dark, you may be unsafe at 30 MPH, but when it's sunny and clear you may be perfectly safe at 50 MPH. So, what should be the "hard" legal limit? If it's 50, then you are allowing legal unsafe driving during bad conditions; if it's 30, then you are unreasonably slowing down traffic. My understanding is they would usually set it at 45 and take into account road/weather conditions.
After all, if you think you have been wrongly accused you can always present your case in front of a judge and explain why you believe you were being safe, not to say that you will always win, or are even likely to win.
I think California basic speed law makes sense as it is, and mandatory black boxes or not, is no reason to change it.
But how does it know? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) How does it know if you're obeying traffic laws? the only thing it could track is whether you're under the speed limit, and that isn't really the primary determination of whether you're a safe driver.
2) When has your insurance rates ever been lowered for any reason? I've been driving for almost 30 years, and they've never gone down. How will you know they've gone down? What will trigger a rise? You drove 61MPH in a 60MPH zone. Your insurance goes up at that point?
This does nothing except make the entire population more trackable and erodes privacy for no valid reason.
which are notoriously corrupt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue described by the parent of this post is profoundly important. It goes to the very issue of citizen rights. In a country where your rights are issued you by the State and you live on its permits, the logic of allowing this sort of information to be used against you without a serious condition such as an accident or personal injury is hard to understand. There you didn't have the rights anyway. In such a case there is no question of the use of this data.
In Nation(s) such as the USA where the Citizen has the rights and they are leased to the State by a Constitution, the authorities must have "Probable Cause" to bring a warrant. (Real or imminant danger of an offense) A person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. In such a State this data is not just a matter of its existence, it is a matter of violation of citizen rights to compel it.
I know I will hear from some idiot who remarks about driving not being a "right" but a "privilege." This has always been a questionable ruling of law covering the requirement to carry a drivers license and for "implied consent" for Drug testing of drivers (DUI). If people accept that such an "implied consent exists, they may as well allow electronic devices that can control the car's speed and prevent violations all of the time. But this would defeat the purpose of the violations and citations because they are really issued for revenue reasons and not public safety reasons.
Also violations that are issued by vending machine as these would be have absolutely no consideration of circumstances or conditions.
It might be acceptable under "Probable Cause" to evaluate the data if an accident has occurred. There you have probable cause to look.
Non USA posters will probably not understand this because the logic of most if not all other nations is that the power is the right of the State (Nation syn State) and a person merely gets their rights from a State. Note the (s) after State(s) above. The USA is 50 Nations in a Constitutional Federal Republic. These are nations on their own right. Several of these States approximately equal the greatest of States of the rest of the world (Non-USA) in economic power. Most of these States (USA) have armed forces ranking on their own in the world as world powers and I am not talking about the US Army/Air Force/Navy etc. The Citizens of these States(USA) have their rights and they lease them by Constitution to the States etc.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm...the police can determine you need help and not issue you a ticket you say? Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I mean, when would the police ever issue you a ticket instead of giving you help when it is clearly needed and it is a pressing emergency?
http://www.nbc13.com/family/3596912/detail.html [nbc13.com]
Oh... nevermind.
"There's no exception to the rule." Yeah, that's great.
Log kept for how long ? erasable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Has much thought been given to the quantity of data involved and how long it will it need to be archived ?
Accidents happen very quickly and so, to be useful in accident analysis, readings would have to be taken many times a second. Readings would probably include wheel position, accelerator position, braking state, grip, suspension movement, temperature, weather(!) as well as all the internal readings from inside the engine. This could amount to a considerable stream of data.
How would this data be stored ? Solid state or hard drive ? Would there need to be a mandatory minimum size for the log? One week's data or one year? Could it be an offence not to have enough capacity?
Would the on-board log wrap round or would it get reset? Could the driver reset the log? Would it be an offence to reset the log immediately after an accident?
If the log was used for maintaining the car would the garage doing the servicing have to download the log? Would they have to pass on details to the police? Would you be allowed to carry out servicing at home or only at "authorised" garages?
In imagining uses for this log it is interesting to note the differences between the US and the UK when it comes to the use of aircraft "black boxes". US airlines are required to record a minimal set of parameters and then these are used as part of any crash investigation. UK airlines, on the other hand, are required to record hundreds of parameters and each log has to undergo computer analysis after every flight. This analysis looks for values (or combinations) outside normal ranges and is used to trigger preventative maintenance and more detailed safety inspections.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:2, Interesting)
This may be the purpose of other nations, but it isn't the purpose of the US. The Constitution of the US preserves individual rights and makes no mention of the common good. The only thing close is in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, there's a "base rate" for your age group / car, and a modifier for you personally. If enough people in your age group have wrecks (which there are actuarial tables that give good predictions of how many there will be in a year)or if the manufacturer raises the costs for fixing your type of car, the "base rate" will go up. Did your driving experience have anything to do with it? No. But, someone elses did.
So yes, I think it would be a good thing, if only so the insurance co's could adjust the rates of only those unsafe drivers. But personally, I'd prefer it if insurance co's would automatically adjust your payments down when "incidents" fell off your record (I think it's 5 yrs, but I've heard 3 and 7 as well).
But, as usual, I may be talking out my arse here... Of course, the fact that I work for an insurance company shouldn't bias that opinion at all.
Re:Discussion never going to be settled (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically in my state in the US it is ok for me to have a little flashing red light in/on my car to "warn" other drivers when on the way to the station, but legally they do not have to get out of my way, nor am I allowed to break any traffic laws in my personal vehicle. Only once we get to the fire station and in the firetruck can we officially break traffic laws, with the condition that we have "due regard to safety" while doing so. The reason for this, I assume, is that a firetruck if more visible, has many more emergency lights, plus a siren and airhorn.
Now to my point: There is not one single firefighter I know of that does not speed when responding to the station for a serious fire, such as when someone's life or a major amount of property is in jeopardy. How could it be otherwise? How could anyone honestly say "please proceed slowly and cautiously to the fire at my house. BTW I'm burning to death, but please, obey the law instead of getting here in time to save me!" Since they are reasonable, police tend to not enforce traffic laws when we are responding to the station for serious fires, as long as we are not being stupid or reckless. We of course do this at our own risk. Just like the fact that we could die in a split second by running into a burning building on a daily basis, if anything happened while responding to the station and we were breaking the law, we are completely screwed.
Now, what happens when we all get black boxes? It's a little harder to ignore cold hard data downloaded at the next inspection than it is for a cop to look the other way when we blow by them. Volunteer firefighters will be forced to respond at 25mph down an empty road with clear visibility while someone burns to death, because you can't sweep the data under the rug, nor can you give exceptions once the data is recorded and presented to a judge because the law specifically forbids it. So, my take on this blackbox concept is that people will die because of it. Property will be lost because of it. In the real world things are never as simple as people who call for technology like this seem to think.
Re:How about your abuse? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its been pretty private so far....in many states, the car is an extension of your home, hence you can carry a gun in it.
I think the question is...why should the car become LESS private than it is now? There is no compelling reason to make it less so than it is now.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe to some but not to the people in charge. If they were able to stop all speeding their budgets would be massively reduced from the lack of income generated by speeding tickets and they'd find some other way to harrass people to generate income. Speeding tickets are big money to most police agencies.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)