Black Box in Speeder's Car Helped Conviction 864
sessamoid writes "This article in Newhouse News tells the story of a man who was recently convicted of two counts of manslaughter and vehicular homicide each, partially on evidence obtained from the Electronic Data Recorder (EDR) in the car. EDR's are found in all cars with airbags to measure the performance and effectiveness of the airbags and the conditions in which they are used. In this case, the EDR revealed that the driver was not travelling at 60 mph, as he claimed, but actually peaked at 114 mph (in a residential neighborhood) just seconds before the collision. Could this be the forerunner of many such cases in the future, where our cars tell the unadulterated facts, rather than subjective personal accounts?"
Zappers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Zappers (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, this nut was doing 100+ in a residential neighborhood. He got what he deserved.
Re:Zappers (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be true. But so would a murderer whose house was searched without his permission if that evidence were admitted.
Historically, our judicial system has been willing to allow guilty people to go free when their rights (especially privacy) have been violated as a mechanism to deter the law enforcement agencies from violating those rights.
And I, for one, happen to think that things should stay that way.
So, "he got what he deserved" is not the point... the ends do NOT always justify the means.
Re:Zappers (Score:5, Insightful)
In our legal system, a search can be done without permission of the premises owner, provided a judge is shown there is probable cause; and, he agrees to issue a warrant.
In the case where the skid marks and level of damage clearly indicate he was doing in excess of the speed he claimed, I don't see a problem with any judge issuing a warrant to do further investigation, ie. checking the black box.
I don't have a problem with protecting individual rights, in general. The "He got what he deserved" comment comes from my gut impression where I'm imagining my 2 year old playing in the front yard while a car plows through doing 114mph. At that speed, my 2 year old is very dead!
You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, for about 3 weeks before an EDR modchip hits the market that reports whatever you want it to report.
-Rylfaeth
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Funny)
> or a terrorist, whichever is more expensive
> in your state.
How can violating a terrorist be expensive?
Oh, wait you mean,
Ok, nothing to see here, just move on.
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Funny)
In that vein, though, did you ever watch "Pulp Fiction"?
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems awfully big brother-esque material... it's scary to think that I could be "autofined" in the future for whatever offense--running a stop sign etc... using technology available today.
Makes me want to keep my 1987 Dodge Colt
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
its used after the fact
i highly doubt youll find people saying 'hmmm, im not gon do 115mph, cause i know i have a blackbox and might crash"
they dont think theyll crash
it starts with 2x speed limit. then they get greedy. look at the state of speeding tickets right now....its sick. cameras, autotickets- etc, etc. there are other fabolous ways to find crash speeds. a data recorder shouldnt be one of them.
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, if there's not a clear shot of the person's face, there's no way of knowing WHO was driving the car. Even if there was a clear shot, if the police department is using some sort of automated system to mail the tickets it's likely to get enough falty tickets (since it would mail to the person the plates are registered to) to be removed as a legitmate method of distributing tickets etc in the first place.
This kind of technology, especialy given that it is currently only accessable after a crash, is a great way to determine who is actualy at fault. Now, you might argue that there is the danger that this technology will be used out of its intended context, providing data on drivers who have not yet injured someone or their property with their car. But to do that these recorders would have to be equiped with a LOT of new equipment. First among them is GPS and a navigational map of every area the car can reach. Of course all of that data would have to be provided wirelessly, as speed limits change, traffic patterns evolve (or devolve as the case may be) and the timing on stoplights changes.
No, I'm not worried about these invading my privacy. The infrastructure requirements to do this would so far outstrip the possible income to the States and the police departments as to make this a giant hole into which to throw money.
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Informative)
"Your Honor, I was here at 5:45 and I was there at 6:30"
"Your Honor, This evidence from OnStar says he was here at 6:00 and there at 6:15"
"Guilty!"
How long 'till the police are tapped in to OnStar or other similar systems. We've already seen the case of black boxes used by car rental places to monitor the drivers for speeding. That one was overuled, but only because it wasn't the government who got to collect.
For a few years people have been doing research in to automated trafic control where central computer systems control the cars on the road. They will know where your car is and has been.
I prefer to think of them as guided missles (Score:5, Insightful)
I speak tongue-in-cheek because my best friend and his gf were killed by a driver moving at 90 mph thru a red light....by a truck vs a small compact car.
If it helps put the bastards away for life for murder, which is what I felt it was... then all the better. I'll give up that little bit of safety so that no one else will ever have to experience that phone call.
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even remotely comparable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not even remotely comparable (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not even remotely comparable (Score:5, Informative)
true accidents (I'm also an EMT)
--low speed (5mph) side impact that tossed the driver to the right
--low (20mph) speed rear impact, driver pushed back into seat and then forward by the impact, out of position to control the car (the breaks or steering wheel) run into car crossing intersection.
True, neither driver was really "at fault" but both would have avoided off loading their hardship onto other people if they had just been in position to control their cars.
And to address your second part, your personal choice to wear or not wear your seatbelt is tired to your insurance company's responsibility to have to pay your claim. Many insurance companies tie their rates to a promise to wear your seatbelt (I do... as does everyone I know in the public safety business). If you check a box that says that you refuse to use your seatbelt (remember, it's your personal choice) then they can change you a higher rate because, odds are, you are going to cost more to treat after your accident.
The people on Slashdot should be good enough at physics to know that only a freaking idiot doens't wear a seatbelt because it's a personal choice....it's about as smart a choice as walking at night with sunglasses on. There just isn't a reason.
Re:Not even remotely comparable (Score:4, Interesting)
A seatbelt not only prevents damage to the body in a crash, but also holds the driver in the seat; allowing additional control of the car after hitting something. Try ramming your car into a passenger side guardrail at a 45 degree angle at 90 KPH sometime, with a seatbelt on you'll stay in the seat and be able to control the car (somewhat). Without it, you are not in front of the steering wheel anymore and have NO chance to control the car anymore. That can (and does) mean the difference between a damaged car and a head on with a semi on the other side of the divided highway.
Seatbelts are therefore also a thing that should be worn out of responsability of other drivers, not just the wearer themselves.
Also, insurance companies do not pay, the governement does not pay when you do not wear a belt. *I* pay, along with anybody else that has ever had insurance or who has ever paid taxes. Insurance premiums are used to pay for payouts due to accidents, where do you think the money comes from? Trees?
Your selfish attitude is as disgusting as those people that insist that smoking in a closed room with other people is their "right".
Re:Not even remotely comparable (Score:4, Interesting)
Rich
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Informative)
Works both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Works both ways (Score:5, Informative)
They can speed all they want (Score:5, Informative)
In a sense, they are, "above the law" in regards to the rules of the road. The reasons for this are obvious: secretive persuit, getting to a crime scene without alerting the perpetrators, etc
However, they *CAN* get in trouble if they're just roaming around like a maniac without a good reason. Feel free to report any cop that does this (I've done it, though, I can't say that they were punished for it). One complaint probably won't do much, but it goes on their record for quite some time, so if that cop ever causes an accident or whatever, it could come up in court. Actually, now that I think about it, this probably varies from state to state or perhaps even county to county.
Unfortunately, the only way to complain is to write a written letter to the sherrif's dept. or state police dept. Make sure to include the time and his car number.
Police cruisers (Score:5, Insightful)
Police are supposed to be setting the example, not casually breaking the law as if they were above it. There's absolutely no reason why anybody should be speeding, right? Why shouldn't that also apply to police in non emergency situations? I'd assume that tampering with a police cruiser would be a pretty serious offense, too.
Re:You're asking the wrong crowd (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now: "OK, we'll just download the black box data and..... Gentlemen this car was only ever used once a week to drive to church. Oh, and all you autos are belong to us."
Will the Modchip also let me run linux?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Black Boxen!
Did I miss anything?... I think there is a joke with car crashes and Kernel panics but its just not leaping out at me.
Speed limiters == bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh?! So you'd rather I had a crash with a driver behind me who was half asleep, or knocked a child off her bike as she rode into the road by mistake, than speed for a moment to avoid the hazard? These are two real examples where I broke the speed limit to avoid an accident this week. In each case, I judged that accelerating was less dangerous than braking sharply under the conditions at the time. It's not usual to have two incidents like that in a week, but I've acted similarly on numerous occasions during my decade or so of driving.
I have also broken the speed limit significantly, though always safely, in order to transport an injured patient to hospital as fast as possible. I have also broken the speed limit significantly, though always safely, on my way home to my girlfriend, who was alone in the house an hour after it had been broken into.
In each of these cases, although breaking the speed limit was illegal (possibly excepting the case of transporting the patient to hospital, when I'd have a good defence where I live) I think it was better than the alternative. Yet introducing a mandatory speed limiter would prevent me from doing this.
As one final example, consider that HGVs are routinely speed limited in this way, at least within the UK. As one former HGV driver pointed out to me, they used to vary their speed slightly between say 58 and 62mph on long journeys, to break the monotony and keep the attention focussed. Now everyone has to drive at 60mph to make their deliveries on time, and look what happened to the accident rate. :-(
There is a good argument for adding some sort of recording device to cars, so people who break the law seriously and without good reason can be held accountable for their actions. Perhaps then we could stop putting up highly expensive speed cameras that scare honest drivers who might slip up just over the limit while going past them (yes, I know the ACPO guidelines for prosecution in the UK but most drivers don't) and worry about the people who are really significantly reducing road safety by speeding. Who knows, we might even get speed limits based on safety and not profit. OK, who am I kidding? But it's a nice thought.
please let it's use be limited (Score:5, Insightful)
Use it for serious cases, fine. But don't ticket me!
Re:please let it's use be limited (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem at all with these devices being in my car. I pay the occasional speeding ticket, but I've yet to have these devices influence that. In fact, I feel better knowing that they can help convict people who need to be put away.
Re:please let it's use be limited (Score:3, Interesting)
No, these devices should be illegal and outlawed because, dammit, all drivers and their lawyers SHOULD have the right to try lie their way out of a court case where they killed a couple of teenagers!
[end scarcasm]
Of course, that's the most extreme case - I wouldn't want a cop being able to pull up behind me at a traffic light and see the maximum speed during my travels for the day/month/year, etc.
That said, if there is an accident, especially if there are serious injuries/fatalities, I t
Re:please let it's use be limited (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid idea! Have you any idea how far reaching public transportation is in Europe? Hell, I can get to practically anyplace I want in Germany with a train, subway, trolley, etc, because it is extensive as hell. I don't know about the rest of the countries.....
But in America, when was the last time you took a train anywhere outside a city? Can you vi
Accountable my ass... (Score:5, Informative)
60mph sounds reasonable to most people because they drive that fast about every day. This guy was traveling almost twice as fast as he was willing to admit. That is 84mph over the speed limit. Look at it this way, whatever the stopping distance of his car is (was) at 30mph, he was traveling almost 4 times faster. His stopping distance isn't increased 4 times, it would be closer to 16 times as far as his 30-0 braking distance.
Check here [cwc.net] and here [freeserve.co.uk] for some braking distances up to 100mph. Note the measured 30-0 versus the 100-0 stopping distances. A 2002 Corvette Z06 takes 108feet (60 - 0 mph) and 312feet (100 - 0 mph), 114mph would take the vette over 400feet.
This equates to the two drivers having 1/16th of the time and distances to react and make corrections. He was traveling at
114*5280/60/60=167.2 feet per second. His car weighed over 3600lbs with him inside, convert weight to mass, 3600/32.17=111.91lb
(167.2^2)*111.91/2=1,564,269
He was wielding a kinetic energy of over 1.5 million ft/lb, more than enough to destroy a school bus or go through a house, etc.
In my opinion, he wasn't even close to being accountable by admitting to 60mph.
Re: please let it's use be limited (Score:3, Insightful)
> It's great for cases such as manslaughter, but coupled with GPS, it could be used to enforce speed limits. [...] Use it for serious cases, fine. But don't ticket me!
That's the predictable outcome. It won't be used for routine tickets because governments thrive on the cat-n-mouse game of cops and speeders. If it ever gets to the point that people who speed are ticketed with high probability, then people will stop speeding - and city/county/state revenues will plummet.
Camera-based ticketing has been
Re:please let it's use be limited (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just change the speed limit to the higher limit then, and make that the hard limit, 1 mile over is heavily penalised?
The whole point of having the speed limit is to set the MAXIMUM speed you can go... you can't arbitarily decide that you know better and really 70 is just as safe as 60 on this piece of road.
Re:please let it's use be limited (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't he? The government already did. Congress recommended some time back that speed limits be set to the 85th percentile speed for a given stretch of roadway if no other major factor dictated that the limit be less (ie, engineering surveys show that a certain turn cannot be safely negotiated over XXmph for the average car). In that vein, surveys are regularly taken showing the speeds for roads. Almost unilaterally, the 85th percentile speed is above the posted limit. Why is that? I'll give you an example. Interstate 405 going through eastside Seattle metro area (Kirkland, Bellevue, Renton) is 60mph. The most recent numbers I've seen from Washington state surveys (2001, I believe) showed that the 85th percentile was approximately 71mph (or so -- you can find the reports on Washington's DOL web site). Just driving that interstate will back up those numbers -- most people on that road drive around 70mph except when approaching known speed traps. Shouldn't the speed limit be around 70mph then, if Washington was trying to follow Congressional guidelines and not attempt to line their pockets with speeding fines?
Yes, there's the occassional bonehead that thinks he needs to speed like a moron. However, studies have shown that these extreme speeders are more likely to actually drive the speed limit when that limit is closer to a speed they're comfortable driving (the difference between 60mph and 80mph is much more than the difference between 70mph and 80mph, so the guy going 80mph would be more likely to drive at 70mph than 60mph). On the flip side, there are those that aren't comfortable going that fast, and that's fine. There's a reason there are multiple lanes. Follow the standard "Keep right unless passing" rule (or "keep middle", since you probably shouldn't block on-/off-ramp access), and you'll do fine. As well, reducing the difference in speed does a whole lot more than just reducing speed. I'd rather get hit by an 80mph car while I'm also doing 80mph than get hit by the same car while I'm only doing 60mph. Obviously this only pertains to wide, divided highways. Residential areas or two-lane non-divided highways are much more dangerous.
Limits are too low (Score:3, Interesting)
Laws that are regularly broken by 80+% of the people are ridiculous and just make people have contempt for our government and legal system.
Re:please let it's use be limited (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, these are the same people who say the stopping distance from 60km/h today is about 5 - 10m more (can't remember the exact figure) more than it was ten years ago.
Go and dig up some old material giving stopping distances from 10 - 15 years ago. You'll find the distances given were metres less than they are now - despite today's cars being fitted with better tyres and better brakes.
In sho
5 seconds of recorded data. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting that it has the top speed recorded, which is kinda the death blow in this case. In most speed-related auto collisions, law enforcement goes by road conditions and skid marks to determine the speed of the vehicle at impact. Imagine the mess if that were a child running after a ball...
Personally, I'm glad this guy is going to prison. There is no excuse for excessive speed in a residential neighborhood...especially when that exceeded by a factor of four. That's what they built highways for!
Re:5 seconds of recorded data. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a problem with where they draw the line though. Since it's currently somewhere reasonable, I guess this makes me a privacy-freak.
It doesn't seem like it would be hard to pass a "Car Consumer Saftey Protection Act" (with riders for new child restraints or something equally popular) to mandate that it also store the top speed in the last 15 minutes. If that act also mandated a standard interface, little greedy municipalitities all over the country would be issuing their officers the readers and making it legal for them to be able to interface with any car they pull over.
Odds are no Congress person will spend any "juice" putting a law on the books that keeps this to a reasonable 5 seconds.
So I agree it's not a problem today, but is it not just a matter of time?
Re:5 seconds of recorded data. (Score:5, Insightful)
How quickly a court will accept readings from a persons own car that might not have been serviced for 6 months is a big if.
I can't see local cops being able to use the 15min data without some serious adjustments to the law.
Groundless fears (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, there's no legitimate reason for that claim, and I have yet to hear a 'privacy pundit' explain WHY it's an invasion of privacy. I'm very pro-personal-privacy, and I didn't like the idea when I heard about it- but I've long since realized that there really wasn't any basis for those feelings- that it was just a knee-jerk reaction.
I realized that the data would only help me if I was not at fault, since it would be more accurate than 'accident' reconstruction. It could help me even if I was at fault. In either case, maybe a witness claims I was doing "at least 60", and the black box shows them to be dead wrong(I won't say lie- people are very bad at speed estimation as a rule, and that's under excellent circumstances). The box shows I was doing 40. A 60-in-a-35 now turns into a 40-in-a-35; still speeding, but a whole other picture.
Suddenly the "speed freak murderer who couldn't avoid that kid in the road because of his speed" turns into "that driver couldn't avoid that kid who ran out into the road without looking."
However, the 5 seconds leading up to a crash can provide important data for the manufacturers and accident investagators...particularly if the driver of the car is killed in the crash.
...or if the driver simply doesn't remember, as often happens to people involved in collisions. Someone I know was rear-ended by an SUV-driving-moron doing about 80. One second, the other driver was doing 25 in the right lane(slowed traffic), minding his own business. The next thing he remembered was lying in the grass with an EMT leaning over him saying, "hey, you okay buddy?" He remembers nothing about getting rear-ended by the SUV driver.
Re:Groundless fears (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:5 seconds vs. lifetime surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
Until there's some kind of requirement to have these devices in every car and then subsequently the authorities start pulling data on a routine basis off without a search warrant, IMO there's nothing consitutionally interesting here. This isn't about "acquiring data on citizens" in some sort of sinister context - it's acquiring data regarding the conditions of a fatal car accident.
Re:5 seconds vs. lifetime surveillance (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, I disagree with you mainly because you're making a false assumption. Specifically, you mentioned that if police wiretap you without a warrant that would be wrong. Good, great. By the same token, though, aren't they going to have to get a warrant to inspect your EDR (or anything else in your car, for that matter)? True, if a law is put on the books that states the police can take the data from your EDR anytime they want, that would be wrong. But this story shows no evidence of that. In this case, the car was involved in a fatal accident - that means that automatically the entire car is potentially evidence of a crime and that everything in it (by virtue of "probable cause") is subject to search.
I think that any outry over privacy springing from this is an over-reaction.
Accidently . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Could be helpful but... (Score:5, Informative)
An even more likely cause of the "speed" reading.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if there was any other evidence that showed that he was going 114mph? I doubt if they felt it was not needed. Computers never make mistakes, do they?
Re:An even more likely cause of the "speed" readin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An even more likely cause of the "speed" readin (Score:5, Informative)
They don't have robots figuring this stuff out, they have forensic experts.
Re:An even more likely cause of the "speed" readin (Score:5, Insightful)
Eventually, we will see a better system for data aquisition. Imagine being able to get statistics on weight shifts to specific wheels during acceleration or breaking. Imagine being able to see the effect on gas mileage from all those Mountian Dew (God's own caffene source!) cans in your floorboard.
As a geek, I love charts and graphs and numbers. I'd love to be able to do "snmpwalk" on my car and get detailed statistics from my trips. Yes, it could be used agianst me, it could also be used to show that I am a good driver. If a kid runs in front of you and you hit him, the proper numbers could show that there was no way you were violating the law and you couldn't stop in time.
Numbers could be used both ways. Do you really want to hide numbers that could be used to prove your innocence? Do you want to hide numbers that could prove my guilt?
What makes you think that what you do on a public road should be private?
Re:An even more likely cause of the "speed" readin (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:An even more likely cause of the "speed" readin (Score:5, Insightful)
Not nearly as often as humans.
But a human will never make the same mistake 50,000 times in a row in under 2.5 seconds wiping out an entire database.
To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer
-
'Privacy' and 'Stupidity' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:'Privacy' and 'Stupidity' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:'Privacy' and 'Stupidity' (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Your tires and engine have inertia. You could find (if you don't mind doing something horribly dangerous for you and bad for your car) that even if your car that is completely suspended (only friction is air on the tires), your car's tires can't actually instantly accelerate from 55 MPH eq
Re:'Privacy' and 'Stupidity' (Score:3, Insightful)
They seem to have no trouble adapting to requirements for headlights, restraint systems, exhaust systems, computer maintenance interfaces, and all that other stuff.
This isn't like erasing a message on your answering machine. It's a little chipset integrated with your other car electronics. To tamper with it, you'd have to know how to get to it, how to access the
Bah.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bah.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The fifth amendment was written (and has been interpreted through the years) to cover your "right to remain silent." In other words, you can't be compelled t
I think my signature says it all (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in all cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Did it to himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks,
Leabre
The machines are always right, yep! (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, my speedo can read really high speeds on ice but that doesn't mean i'm going anywhere.
Re:The machines are always right, yep! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure I saw a Perry Maison epsiode where someone was convicted based on the date-stamp of a file on his Macintosh. At the time neither my mother nor I had a PC with a correct real-time clock. It always worries me when real events appear close to this fictious one...
The bottom line (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, irregardless if the EDR was used or not, his speed at impact can be easily determined from the physical evidence. The EDR merely shows the level of intent by the driver. They can determine if he attempted to slow down, or hit them at WOT and continued to floor it.
They stated he was going 98MPH at impact. The fact of the matter is that if you take the mass of the struck car, the type of tire and it's coefficient of friction, and the mass of the car which struck it, you can determine speed. When the moving car strikes the one backing out of the driveway, it transfers energy into the slow one. How far the slow car is moved from it's original position and the COF of the tires will tell them how much energy transfer took place. You can determine the velocity of the striking car by dividing the energy by the mass of the vehicle.
Again, this guy got what he deserved, EDR or none. I don't like the concept of EDRs for this purpose; I have no intention of purchasing a car with one.
That's the way I see it.
Re:The bottom line (Score:3, Informative)
You can also test the tire, and this is where the information comes from in the first place. You test what fraction of forward and side loads a tire will sustain before slipping. All of this is covered in automotive texts on racing and design.
How is this any different then ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unadultured? HA! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what I hate about searching for the "truth" - it's subvertible to the point where if you think about all the possible ways you could be decieved, you'll go nuts. It's not conspiratorial to say someone could set you up; the more technology we have, the more likely I think it will become.
And some wonder why people like being ignorant...
Matt Fahrenbacher
Let me tell you a little something about speeding (Score:5, Insightful)
Speeding became my life. I'd fly along the freeways by day, but at night it was a fucking free for all. Top speed down highway 85, racing through the santa cruz mountains, tearing up hwy 101, you name it.
There were a dozen times I pushed it to the edge and came out okay, but there was one that changed my speeding career forever. I was coming home from a ski trip, just entering the Si valley and getting pissed as hell about all the traffic. I was going about 130MPH up hwy 280, and all of a sudden the fast lane came to a stop. I swerved to the right just as the Lawrence expwy exit was coming up, and holy shit there were 50 cars at a standstill in the slow lane. I stood on the ABS - the car started to fishtail and I went flying down the emergency lane kicking up dust with 4" on the right between me and the guard rail. Finally I came to a stop just before the exit, and figured the quickest way out of there was to get my ass back on the freeway and head home, do I did. 100 horns honking.
I will never forget that. 10ms later on the brakes, and I'd have killed myself and at least the occupants of a couple other cars. I quit speeding right after that and sold the 'stang.
Not sure what the moral of this story is - speeding will kill you, everyone knows that. But if you're really into speed, I don't think anything but a near death (or death) experience will change your ways.
Re:Let me tell you a little something about speedi (Score:5, Informative)
You were speeding irresponsibly.
Yes folks, there is a way to speed responsibly and it can be accomplished by following some basic guidelines.
1) Know your speed. If you don't know your speed, how can you possibly know how long it will take you to stop the car?
2) Know your road. What may seem like a small and shallow pit in the road when you drive at 55mph can act as a ramp when you drive at 100mph and send you hurling in the air without any control over life or limbs. Can one expect animals to cross the road suddenly?
3) Know your car. Will it start to swerve at a certain speed? Are the brakes OK? How much pressure to the brake pedal will cause the tires to lock? Is the ABS in perfect working condition? What's the condition of the shock absorbers, the brakes, the tires? Will it hydroplane on small puddles of water? How long will it take for you to put the car at a complete stop at X mph on a wet road, dry road, concrete road, asphalt road, gravel road?
AND number 4 which really should be common sense (which by itself usually isn't all that common)
Never EVER drive faster than you can actually SEE the spot where you will come to a full stop, should it be necessary to hit the brakes NOW, preferably with some distance to spare.
There is also a number 5 which is also pretty basic. If you happen to pass a cop and the cop decides to engage in a pursuit. By all means, STOP. It's better to have just the reckless driving on your record than reckless driving + resisting arrest (which I believe is what you're doing if you decide not to pull over). Also remember that if you decide to make a run for it you're not going to be as focused on the driving with the cops behind you, as when you're just driving all by yourself. That lack of focus is likely to be the prime factor in accidents caused by reckless drivers.
Speeding by itself doesn't kill, it's the idiots who speed recklessly and irresponsibly that do.
Readout units are available (Score:5, Informative)
Information is stored at 1 second intervals, and the last five seconds before airbag deployment or near-deployment are saved in non-volatile memory. The information saved typically includes:
There's also post-crash data, which is useful for deciding whether airbag deployment should have occured. (That's actually why the data is recorded and why the NTSB analyzes it for collisions where airbag deployment was unnecessary.)
When you see this data graphed over time, it tells you quite a bit about the accident. There's more than speed information. Seeing throttle and brake inputs for five seconds before the collision gives a good indication of what the driver was doing. In this case, press reports say "Court records show the recorder in Matos' 2002 Pontiac Trans Am measured his speed at 114 mph five seconds before the crash in Pembroke Pines. The device detected he was pressing the gas pedal at 99 percent of its maximum capacity. A second before the crash, he was still doing 103 mph." Any questions?
But this is primitive compared to the Eaton VORAD radar system on some heavy trucks. That collects enough information to show what the other vehicles were doing.
A couple views (Score:3)
by CrudPuppy (33870) on Saturday May 17, @03:57AM (#5979217)
I guess I am torn on this issue.
On one hand, if black box data is used against you, you could claim discrimination since not all cars have the boxes and therefore you are being punished to a greater extent as a direct result of the car you chose to purchase.
On the other hand, I think it would be a good idea (Big Brother paranoia aside) for the industry to create a standard for what kind of dasta is collected and mandate the use of these devices on all new cars. Unbiased witnesses in courtrooms is badly needed these days due to blatant disregard for truth and justice.
Now how do you stop Big Brother from tapping this info? You KNOW they're gonna wanna give this thing an IP address that maps to your Social Security Number and is able to broadcast on wireless networks...
--
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
Old news (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a propietary code in a certain manufacture's SRS that basically says "crash event occured." Certainly there must be useful information stored in the module once that code is set. I can even think of one event where an SRS module was removed and sent back to the manufacture for a lawsuit.
Is it a intrusion on privacy? Hard to say. Driving is a privilidge, not a right. At the same time, manufactures use this information to design better (translated "safer") cars. Used for law enforcement purposes? I won't even go into what is already available in a vehicle's PCM but hidden to the average user. Shoot, I would presume there is stuff that is hidden to even me, the technician who makes those little lights on the dash prove out. Does this make me nervous? Sure, but what shall I do about it? As a part-time admin, I can understand them leaving backdoors and "honeypots" in the vehicle to gather information that would be useful, if not incriminating. Where shall the line be drawn? Call/write your Congressman to make a law that would prevent this type of information from being used in a court of law if you are that worried.
But the law's punishments are purposed for those who break them. He was going 60MPH in a residential neighborhood. The SRS module said 114MPH. I agree with an earilier post - it was still too fast anyway.
Don't like it that your car can be used against you - don't drive or do anything stupid. Real easy.
But what do I know? I only work as a technician for a dealership.
Warrants? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if I do allow my car to do so, why should it be any different from any other search? I think a warrant should be necessary, just as it would be if they wanted to search my laptop (at least it is in theory
Accident investigators said 98 MPH (Score:3, Interesting)
This is especially important section:
"Defense lawyer Robert Stanziale said Matos was going about 60 mph. Assistant State Prosecutor Michael Horowitz said that his accident investigator calculated Matos was traveling about 98 mph. The electronic data recorder in Matos' car showed his peak speed was 114 mph in the seconds before the crash."
The driver says a much slower speed, an accident investigator says 98 MPH, the EDR says it peaked at 114, whichever way you look at it this guy was going to jail, the EDR most likely provided the icing on the cake. Two young girls died innocently in this, don't forget that.
As for privacy...Not really, there is plenty more things that could cause privacy to be invaded. Oh and for those who were worried about mis-readings; This is up to the defense lawyer to question, if in an accident the car became airborne for 5 seconds the lawyer can ask what affect this would have on the EDR, or if the car had a different set of wheels, this is also something the lawyer could have bought up. But, in the case mentioned who was going to go to jail, defense saying 60 MPH is still over the limit in a 30 mile an hour zone. One less idiot on teh road, just a shame two young girls had to die from this idiot.
How ould this have turned out? (Score:3, Interesting)
Defendant says he was going 30 MPH
Accident investigator says 29 MPH
EDR says 35 MPH
What would the judge decided then?
Already admitted to 60 MPH is already too fast, to me that seems he was admitting guilt.
Interstate Commerce and Insurance Ramifications (Score:5, Interesting)
The first was:
Blackboxes can be mandated on U.S. airplanes (which are privately owned) because the U.S. government can regulate interstate commerce and the airspace above the U.S. belongs to the citizens of the U.S. and are administrated by the government on our behalf.
Similarly, the interstate highway system is basically under the jurisdiction of the federal government and regulated by them (cars must meet federal safety guidelines, etc.) so it seems fairly straightforward to me that requiring black boxes in cars is well within the purvue of what we have allowed the government to handle in the past , especially since more people die in car accidents in the U.S. each year than in airplace crashes.
There is also precident for the concept that you can't just do anything to your own property (e.g. building permits, zoning regulations, child abuse laws..sorta). So this doesn't bother me too much as long as we are vigilent about misuse.
Which leads to the second point we discussed: the big problem is with the insurance companies. Their interest as a business is not really to protect you from harm, but to avoid paying claims since this costs them money. Often times this manifests itself in positive ways (credits for joining a health club, driver safety programs), but can also be rife for abuse. Everyone I know seems to have a story about recalcitrant insurance companies dragging their feet on legitimate claims. Personal injury lawyers prey on those fears all the time.
I could easily see a world where insurance companies look for any scrap of evidence they can to avoid paying your claim... these black boxes can supply it in spades: you were going 5 mph over the limit, zagged left instead of right, etc... until basically there would come a point where it would be difficult or impossible to get the insurance company to perform the service that you pay them for: to help you absorb some of the cost of a tragedy, self-inflicted or otherwise, in your life.
I wonder how many people would start dropping their car insurance because it really provides them with no value since there could always be some momentary fault found with their driving that the insurance company could point to. Perhaps we need to think about how absolutely some of this data should be interpreted; maybe the splitting of blame between parties in an accident handles this already. Should no-fault insurance become mandatory? Or should the adoption of this technology herald the beginning of individualized mass transit (that makes my head hurt typing it, I mean basically smart highways)?
How different is an aircraft flight recorder. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that their use in cars for accident investigation might have some benefits but even flight recorders don't help 100% of the time and they have a lot more stuff recorded and teams of engineers going over the data.
If all you get from the car recorders is speed then you still rely on the two drivers about when the light turned red and who wasn't looking at the road.
As for privacy and self incrimination, if ask truck drivers to log their time behind the wheel so we don't have as many cranked up hallucinating maniacs behind the wheel of 50 ton trucks bearing down on us then using car data to see what happened in an accident is OK by me.
Whats next, No you can't look at the accident scene, those are my private skid marks which may tend to incrimate me"
Black Boxes, GPS and Gradiated Speed limits... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now we have to live with the lowest common denominator of driving skills (of which the star of the article was one). This means an SUV driving soccer mom with 5 brats is held to the same standards as a dedicated* rider on a GXR1000 motorcycle. Vehicle differences aside (braking, handling etc...) the people behind the wheel are completely different as well.
Since realtime reporting of all vehicle activity stresses the current regulations to the point of ridiculousness*2, start keying it into drivers as well.
For example I really wish there was some way to do gradiated speed limits. Some sort of transponder (similar to the tolls) or a broadcasting black box that lets the police know you are qualified to go that speed (so one doesn't get stopped without cause/waste police time etc...).
Add in a fee for qualification testing and usage to make up for lost revenue in tickets (are they really about anything else?). I'm sure people would jump at the chance despite any costs the state imposes.
Yes there are plenty of details to work out in the system, but hey, it's a slashdot post.
*This does not include the teenager riding around at 90+ in sandals, shorts, sunglasses and a helmet if the law requires it.
*2 If you honestly believe that you have never broken a vehicular law, you've probably just not read the laws close enough.
Re:Black Boxes, GPS and Gradiated Speed limits... (Score:3, Interesting)
You aren't the only one who's been dreaming of this.
Been driving for 5 years, accident-free? I think you should be allowed to go +5 on the interstate without the cops bugging - not that they generally do anyway for 5 miles over the
Careful now.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The other driver claimed I was going too fast, whereas they were doing about 20MPH. My insurance company looked at the damage on both cars and determined the speed of impact was in excess of 55MPH. For a while my insurance company believed this other driver's statement, and was blaming me for the accident.
It started to get really hairy when the other driver decided to sue me for causing personal injury.
Then - at my behest - the garage took a look at the black box in my car to determine why the airbag didn't deploy. To discover my speed at the time of impact was 10MPH. When my insurance company was informed they apologised to me, and rang the Police, who threw the book at the other driver.
Scream all you want about privacy, but sometimes big-brother technology has a tangiable benefit.
... cannot be used everywhere (Score:3, Informative)
Based on this story, it seems that anyone can use the data from the black box in any way they see fit --- in the US.
In Sweden, this would break a law called PUL. For the Police and/or insurance companied to be able to use the data from the black box, the owner of the car must agree to the data being used. The owner of the car can simply refuse and say that no-one is allowed to use the data, in which case it shouldn't affect the owner in any way.
I guess the data can be useful, and it is good that it is there, but I do like the fact that I get to choose wether or not the data should be used.
As there is no law saying the box must be working, if I was in the US, I'd disconnect mine for sure!
Similar to Blood Alcohol Level (Score:5, Interesting)
2. In this case, the evidence from the black box did not by itself decide the case. The speed limit was 30 MPH, he said he was going 60 MPH, the investigator estimated 98 MPH and the EDR indicated 114 MPH. Now, 60, 98, or 114 in a residential 30 zone is reckless driving anyways. All this proved was that he was lying,
3. There was no problems with unreasonable search, in as much as the judge had issued a search warrant for this information.
4. The problem is with automated prosecution, which is what traffic-cameras are, and some say this could be turned into. Combined with GPS and tables of speed limits and such.... Seems this enormous focus on speed to the detriment of other dangerous behavior is caused because speed is easy to measure. I do not for a second believe that we will be any safer with people going 30 MPH, behaving like zombies. Just because the speed limit is 30.
Breaking the law! (Score:3, Insightful)
Preventive Programming (Score:4, Funny)
{ airbag(deploy); }
a thought (Score:4, Insightful)
Note: IANAL, but I watch a *lot* of Law & Order.
Re:Where do you get "all cars with airbags"? (Score:5, Informative)
"While all vehicles with air bags use EDRs, other automakers have not been as quick to increase the amount of information recorded. Some are worried that consumers may resent having such personal information collected and they're waiting to see what happens to GM, Haseltine said."
emphasis added...
Re:Let him fry... (Score:5, Insightful)
The accident investigator was able to calculate that he was driving 98 mph using skid marks and the condition of the vehicles, and they didn't have to utilize a black box that could easily be fooled.
The police can piece back together accident scenes with very little eye witness testimony, I only see these new EDR's as an erosion of privacy. How long will it be before the police can scan my vehicle to see if I'm wearing my seatbelt, or ticket me remotely (think red light cameras only for speeding?)
The argument that insurance companies will eventually require these is even more likely.
Re:Let him fry... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, raw data like that can be compared with other statistical information about the individual to help determine their risk as a driver. Your risk as a driver is what the insurance company bases your rate on. If devices like this can indicate you are a better driver than you are currently classified in, you may demand a better rate for your current insurance company, or try to get an offer from one of their many many competitors.
Driving safer puts less wear and tear on your vehicle, uses less gasoline, gives you more time to make decisions in dangerous situations, makes the road safer for other drivers around you, makes your bed in the morning, washes your dishes, cooks your food, and cleans your clothes. Oh wait...I had a point in there somewhere. Oh yea! Driving safer generally makes you less of a risk to insure, and when you are a low risk driver, you enjoy better rates.
Beyond that, all I can say is that I am all for safer roads. The mentality in the U.S. is that of driving being a right, and it is not. Driving is a very serious responsibility, and too many Americans take it far too lightly. Ride along in a police cruiser, or with an EMT for a busy evening, and you will understand exactly why we need to make people aware just how serious the situation is, and why we cannot stress enough just how dangerous our roads are when people abuse their privilige.
Re:EDR Inaccuracy potential (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's when your lawyer comes in handy. Newsflash: lots of useful things give misleading or even downright incorrect info -- for example: all media
As long as these factors are accounted for when the data from the EDR is being analyzed, then it's (somewhat) safe...but if just the numbers from the device are presented without their real-world correlation, that could cause some trouble IMHO.
Well, of course these factors would be considered. Otherwise your lawyer is not doing his or her job. This is no different than any other soft of evidence -- it's introduced by a side who thinks it will help them, then it is analyzed and dissected and peppered thoroughly with interpretation by judge and jury.
Nothing to see here, move along . . .
Re:EDR Inaccuracy potential (Score:3, Interesting)
Having been on the inside of a number of reasonably high-profile news stories, I'd wipe that smiley off of that post if I were you.
I woouldn't say that all media is misleading/wrong all the time, but I would definitely not stake my life on the accuracy of a media report without independent verification.
Re:EDR Inaccuracy potential (Score:5, Insightful)
Surley if the data were used in something like a court case, or for any important reason, tiresize and other factors would be considered? Any alyer woorth his/er salt would be on top of this.
Not only that, but I'm sure most people would spend the 50$ or so to reprogram the vehicles computer, since putting wrong size tires on your vehicle and NOT doing this will lead to horrible fuel mileage, acceleration, etc on any modern vehicle that relies on accurate info to forecast what will happen next
Re:EDR Inaccuracy potential (Score:4, Insightful)
Had that by changing the tires on my dad's 15 year old GSA from medium profile 15" WS (bought with these) to high profile 15" D (only ones I could find of the 15" that did not cost more then the car at the time).
As a result the speedo went off by about 7% which exceeds the legally allowed error and had to be retuned for the car to pass the yearly safety check. Thank's god that all it took was to adjust two screws (after spending 2 hours to get to them).
Re:Privacy of speed? (Score:4, Interesting)
You are presuming guilt. "This guy is a sleazebag and it was okay to violate his privacy".
The use of these things for determining the facts in an accident is valid, but thinking that tools like these are okay simply because they are only used on bad people is dangerous.
Re:Insanity..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Contest a Speeding Ticket with EDR data? (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of the specifics, you would have to stop your car immediately after getting a ticket, have it towed someplace, and then let it sit there until your court day, because the data pertaining
Re:Inaccuracy my ass.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Try inserting, say, skin color into that statement- and see how ignorant you sound. Nothing like good old stereotyping.
Typically on normally aspirated cars, computer mods yield a few HP tops or a little more torque...and usually they mostly shift the torque and HP characteristics across the rev range. On turbocharged cars, it's a whole other matter. In both cases, however, HORSEPOWER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW SAFE A DRIVER YOU ARE. If I've got 280hp, and you've got 160- I'm gonna get to 65 coming off that on-ramp faster than you are. That's all. Just because you like to get going fast doesn't mean you like to speed.
There are a variety of reasons for changing rim and tire sizes. Asthetics. Performance. Ride characteristics.
Yes, I said 'performance'. Performance as in, maybe you want to fit larger brakes under the wheels. Maybe you want less sidewall flex under cornering. Maybe you want a wider tire(and wider tires are easier to find in larger diameters). Most of those reasons actually make your vehicle perform better in an emergency situation- especially upgraded brakes, or better tires. In fact, those who modify their cars are often far safer on the road not just because of their upgrades, but because they care about driving, they value their car(and take good care of it)...the list goes on and on. The soccer mom putting on her lipstick while ordering pizza via on-star in her Suburban is far more of a danger to the motoring public than me and my 'hot rod'...
Re:Blackbox=NOTHING! What about RFID transmitter! (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't only female drivers. It was, however, fabricated. The Audi 5000 never had any "runaway accelerator" fault, it was all driver error and an overly sensationalist story by 60 minutes. D
+5 Interesting or +5 conspiry theory (Score:5, Funny)
p.s. AC you better watch out for those my^H^Hthose stealth tracking packets that are now winging there way to your PC now and will be tracked all the way by my^H^H those Sentinals^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H UN Stealth choppers.
Agent^H^H^H^H^H Fred Smith.