Car Owners to be Notified of Blackboxes in Vehicle 334
smooth wombat writes "As a follow-up to this long ago posting, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has passed a resolution requiring car manufacturers to inform buyers if their cars are equipped with Event Data Recorders (EDRs). The new regulation also standardizes what information is to be collected. Car manufacturers must comply with the new regulation beginning in the 2011 model year."
I like it. (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I've always feared: some huge speed bump because after some driving incident/accident I'm embroiled in an "I said/you said" recount of the event. I try to be as safe a driver as possible and have managed 30+ accident-free years. But almost every trip is an adventure with crazies on the road every day. This black box technology could hedge my (and others) bets on accurately describing what "went down".
I don't like the thought someone would be watching me all the time like Big Brother, but on the other hand if I get t-boned, and the other party claims I ran a red light or some other nonsense I like the thought there could be an electronic record showing the other party was traveling way over the speed limit, weaving, slamming brakes, etc. right up to the event.
It could be a great equalizer for insurance rates. It could even spur better driving in on whole by the general populace (some drivers of course and their negligence is intractable).
And, as for the breach in privacy, I don't see much demand and/or interest in the type of data described in the article in contexts other than accidents. If you're accident free, why would the data be interesting?
(Aside: I actually installed a "Car Chip" in my car for personal monitoring. Most notably I was surprised at the frequency of "hard accelerations" -- far more than I'd have guessed. The data was charted against distance, and I was able to "see" where I was "hard accelerating". Interestingly after knowing this, and paying more attention to accelerating I self-modified my habits and the mileage for my car (Civic) increased almost 6%.)
(NOTE: this doesn't address and/or discuss the notion of tracking movement and travel via mechanisms such as GPS... a whole other ball of wax in privacy discussions.)
Re:I like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not really. You see, the black box can tell your insurance company that you were going 5 over the limit to pass someone, which could invalidate your claim (you were speeding). It has no idea that the other party was a 30-something on their cell phone with their laptop open, swerving to avoid the teenagers joyriding in the wrong lane with their lights off.
~Rebecca
Re: (Score:2)
The blackbox in the idiot's car would indicate his reckless driving.
Re:I like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
And you missed the counter-argument's point.
The blackbox in the idiot's car would indicate his reckless driving.
What if it turns out HIS blackbox shows him driving straight and normal at the speedlimit. (sure he still ran a red light and t-boned you... but the blackbox shows nothing strange)... and YOUR blackbox shows you driving 2km over the limit with a recent swerves when you dodged a few pieces of debris on the road.
Sure he ran the red light, but your own blackbox paints an unflattering picture of your driving.
Its a knife that cuts both ways. Some times it will cut both ways at once; sure it might identify the other driver as a weaving/hard braking idiot -- but what if it also shows you were going slightly over the speed limit or had done some recent swerving around? Your insurance company might still nail you with higher rates or reduce their coverage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's lobbyist pandering, is what it is. (get 'em in there before it's regulated they be in there)
The only real beneficiaries are the lawyers.
SB
Re:I like it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Gotcha... tell them you were speeding up front so they don't even have to look at the black box before assigning you some fault. (And perhaps writing you a speeding ticket; after all you confessed.)
The parent clearly said he was a safe driver.
What exactly does that mean? He never speeds?
What's safer: driving 5mph above the speed limit with traffic, or driving 5mph below* the speed limit (and thus 12+mph below the average speed of traffic)?
Hint: driving with traffic, unless it is driving inappropriately fast is safer.
* you'd have to drive around 5mph below to ensure that you never speed. If you tried to drive right at the speed limit you would still vary 2 or 3 mph due to grades, turns, traffic, etc. So to ensure you "never speed" you actually have to set your target a few mph below the limit. And doing 52-58 in a 60 when traffic is running at 65-70 *is* hazardous.
Re: (Score:2)
There's your lateral movement.
And running a red light? That's what the red light cameras are for.
Re: (Score:2)
The point isn't having absolute proof, but evidence that could support a story.
For example, if my car shows that I'm going from 0 to 10 miles per hour and the other car accelerated from 30 to 45 right before the accident, it would support my "the light turned green and I started to go when I got t-boned" story instead of his "*I* had the green light and he ran the
Re: (Score:2)
Someone better tell Bo and Luke Duke to stay away from the new Chargers.
Re:I like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, there's a good chance that any such black box that is installed in any car I purchase will suffer the effects of a nearby lightning strike. Or maybe a transient short in the ignition system will take care of the problem. Unfortunately, odds are that this will not be a separate device but simply more memory and firmware in the existing vehicle computer.
Still
Re: (Score:2)
Until a law is passed preventing such modifications. Because the recorder functions will most likely be part of the engine control computer, the lawmakers will use concern over tailpipe emissions or something similar to outlaw modified firmware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Faraday cages work both ways. Reciprocity, as it is called; the equations describing how it works give the same solution for waves going in either direction. Same thing as an antenna being equally able to transmit and receive.
However, the degree of shielding will depend on the sizes of the openings in the cage, and the wavelength of the signal. If the openings are larger than about 1/10 the wavelength, they will let some of the energy or signal through, and the larger the opening is the more energy or sig
Re: (Score:2)
What, me worry?
Re: (Score:2)
Driving habits could be of a lot of interest to car manufacturers and law enforcement, who could pay garages to secretly extract this information from any such logging device without your knowledge (unless the device is only constantly re-recording the last few seconds rather than keeping a comple
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you not concerned, it may lie/break? "He said vs. she said" has the (somewhat dubious) advantage, that neither side is 100% trusted...
Your box may be off by 15%, but no one will believe you...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On a purely selfish reason, I'd like to agree with you. I've mused many times about getting a camera for my car, like police cars, to catch some of these idiots doing some wonderfully graceful moves. I go 65-70 tops on the freeway, and pretty much everyone passes me... going 80...90...100... dodging, swerving, 4-lane changes
Discount? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you're terrorist free, why would recordings of all your telephone conversations be interesting?"
"If you're treason free, why would a log of all your internet activity be interesting?"
"If you're not searching for child porn, why would a database of all your searches/web browsing being released to the general public be interesting?"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love it!
Good move... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And because it will almost certainly be integrated into your car's engine management system your car will be reduced to being a fancy pushcart.
FYI, in all states that I'm aware which requre exhaust emissions tests, they require that the engine computer download it's cache of "check codes" and interacting "normally" with the test computer via the OBD (on board diagnostics) interface. Don't kjnow the format... Challenge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is no separate one, perhaps pulling the anti-lock brake and air bag fuses would work.
You'd still have normal brakes, you'd lose ABS and air bags, but if as the article says and it is tightly integrated with the above, pulling those fuses may work. No power = no data.
A Better System (Score:4, Interesting)
There is always a cost.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a big fan of this level of privacy invasion but their is too much precident for privacy crushing actions that this will likley be mandatory in the near future(7-21 yea
Re:There is always a cost.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is always a cost.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:There is always a cost.... (Score:4, Informative)
If you can poke a hole in the police version of events, you're home free. Hell, if the Police wrote down the wrong information on the ticket, pleading not guilty = case dismissed.
All you have to do is show that the facts, as presented by the police, are incorrect, even if it is something as simple as a wrong date on the traffic citation. Knowledge of the law helps in those not-so-simple cases.
Re:There is always a cost.... (Score:5, Informative)
If you've been tagged with radar/laser, the best solution for most people, especially those with a clean record, is just to plead guilty (IN COURT -- don't pay in advance), apologize, and ask for the mercy of the court. Emphasize your record, and that you really want to keep it spot free and promise that this was a one-time thing. If your case has anything unusual about it, then it might be beneficial to argue, but in most cases it's not and will only convince the judge that you're not remorseful and therefore deserve the full punishment.
Speeding tickets are income; it's as simple as that. There's no incentive for the courts to take the cases seriously because there's a ton of cases and, for most people, the penalties are minor enough that they won't do anything beyond complaining to their friends. Hiring a lawyer usually means the case will just last longer, which will likely irritate the judge -- not what you want to do. The reality is that speeding in and of itself is not reckless or dangerous. If passing someone going 20MPH faster on a freeway is reckless, then by that logic, passing someone coming the opposite direction on a two lane road at 45MPH (closing speed of 90) must be downright suicidal, yet somehow most of the country manages such feats without much of a problem. Dodging, weaving, driving erratically, unpredictibly, and/or inattentively is what's really dangerous. The fact that speeding often accompanies those behaviors, and the fact that it's easier to spot speeders than inattentive drivers has villianized speeding. The fact that some people get mad seeing others "break the law" while they're working hard to obey it doesn't help either. These people don't question the rules; they just want everyone to follow them because they feel obliged to. They're free feel that way, of course, but it just perpetuates the situation.
At any rate, speeding tickets aren't much of a problem for most people, because they're statistically unlikely to get more than an occasional ticket. Unfortunately -- by virtue of random distribution -- some people accumulate a lot of tickets and suffer serious, life-altering consequences such as losing their license indefinately. The "simple" solution is, of course, driving the speed limit, but in most places that's tough to do. "Peer pressure" to go with the flow of traffic can be overwhelming, especially for new drivers/young people, and the flow is rarely at or below the speed limit. Nobody wants to be "that guy" with 20 cars stuck behind him. Furthermore there's no such thing as a perfect driver, since we're all human. It's just a matter of chance as to whether there's a cop around to see you screw up, and whether or not he wants to write tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
Removing a safety feature like ABS, traction control, or airbags permanently is a dumb thing to do. Those options are there to help the general public be safer in thier cars. The accident rate may not be going down, but the number of cars on the road is at an all time high, and still climbing. So e
Changes nothing ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Renters? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The presence of the recorder will be disclosed in the fine print you don't read. Duh.
The "telemetry" of your drive will be disclosed to the rental car company (the car's owner - seems fair) in preparation for computing you bill.
Re: (Score:2)
This happened in Hawaii as well as I was down there in 2001 and had to acknowledge that I would get fined if I sped.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001-07-03-car-t racking.htm [usatoday.com]
http://www.newmassmedia.com/nac.phtml?code=new&db= nac_fea&ref=16435 [newmassmedia.com]
another new law (Score:5, Interesting)
Are police just entitled to come along and remove it from my car without my permission now? Do they have to ask?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the data in your black box are important, the police will obtain them without your permission in the same way they would obtain the car itself: a search warrant.
Just because it's "yours" doesn't preclude their obtaining access to it. The data may considered evidence relating to a crime; an accident will involve some form of citation for breaking an obscure traffic law, even if fault is not readily apparent. The data in your box could be considered pertinent, even though the argument for their pertinen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why people might be reluctant to have such a device, but the possibility that it might be used as evidence against you in a case where you have committed a crime is silly. Privacy rights are not supposed to keep you from getting cought committing crimes.
"If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried" is just as bad of a justification as, "If you have something to hide, you should be able t
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree,
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes the text:
No person shall be
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, AFAIK, nobody ever gets their hands on this data except in situations where the Insurance Company is in control of your car.
That is why we only hear about the black box in relation to serious car accidents, where the car is totalled and (because you're making an insurance claim) is now the property of the Insurance Company.
I agree with everything the parent says, especially the conclusion.
P.S. I thought that Asian Import
Re: (Score:2)
Not "intent" but recklessness/negligence (Score:2, Informative)
But the answer to your question is no. A new law isn't needed.
The thing you have to realize is that there are very few "accidents" in traffic situations. There's a reason the police refer to them as "collisions" and not accide
Re: (Score:2)
or if someone could show that you engaged in some behavior, which society has an interest in preventing. [wikipedia.org]
So if you broke a law, and leading up to breaking that law you took any avoidable action that would have within reason caused you to break that law...
I think their would be a strong argument that you couldn't legaly destroy the box, after the moment you knew that your vehicle caused property damage, or injury. So the moment you open
I understand why regs take so long, usually. (Score:3, Insightful)
But if this is just about notifying buyers, it should be immediate. There's no need to give GM five years to get out a dealer bulletin and some stickers for the owners manuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Attorneys everywhere rejoice!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curioust what your attorney friend thought. Here's my take:
Is the information on this machine considered part of a persons "papers or effects"
Yes, just the same as, say, a bundle of files in your back seat. Subject to the warrant requirement.
is all information now property of the government court to be surrendered on demand?
Of course not.
Is destroying this device considered tampering with evidence...
It could be, if you have reason to know that it is probably evidence.
do I have a right to smash
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Attorneys everywhere rejoice!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the law says I have a right to hide something, then fuck off.
If the law doesn't, then there is no reason to pull out that asinine argument.
P.S. "your child or family member" is a great appeal to emotion.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil liberties sell great here on Slashdot, but imagine if your child or family member was hit and injured by a guy who was street racing. The prosecution needs to prove speeding or reckless driving to convict the defendant on the most serious charges. Would you say that getting data from a device in that case would be wrong? In this particular case, the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" flies pretty well because the information on the device could exculpate the defendant as
Re:Rhetorical Questions At Best (Score:2)
It won't ever belong to you. "Your honor this person is tampering with the car's safety system." Pretty much says it all.
do I have a right to smash up my own car
Yes, but don't fsck with the black box. Kind of like people rewinding odometers, it will be forbidden.
You are lucky to have such thought provoking friends, but I'm afraid the in
Re: (Score:2)
At present these devices are not required, and you may be able to remove the EDR BEFORE an accident if you so choose, depending on how the manufacterer integrated it into the vehicle. Removing or destroying the ED
Re: (Score:2)
The short answer is "No". If you try to say that to an officer of the law, the presumption is that you have something to hide. And that presumption is often correct, but the further presumption is that what you are trying to hide would incriminate you in some way. And that presumption is usually automatic in law enforcement, who feel entitled to know everything about us whether we want them to or not. All of us (and I mean, ALL OF US) have somethi
Useless and unreliable (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me glad... (Score:2)
The fact that this is a problem people have to deal with makes me glad I bike to work.
Of course, I'm also glad that the car my wife and I own is from 1990. We're considering getting a newer car, but only for safety reasons (airbags). As with many software manufacturers, car companies hope their customers will feel compelled to buy a new model every few years. They also don't give much tangible reason to upgrade: my 16-year-old car still gets an average 28mpg.
With the potential privacy concerns, obvious
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it did til he rolled it through a stone wall.
Everyone is watching everything! (Score:2)
Just one more piece of paper to sign (Score:4, Insightful)
RTFM (Score:2)
But wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I'm no expert, but I do know a little something about automotive control systems, and my understanding is that part of OBD-II is that vehicles record at least 30 seconds prior to and after any event that bears reporting; this is called snapshot data. In most systems, only one snapshot can be stored, and there are IIRC four levels of criticality; snapshot data is overwritten when a more critical message must be logged. At that point, the last 30 seconds of data is written from RAM and, if processing continues, the next 30 seconds are recorded. One of the things that can trigger this event is if the airbag computer indicates that the airbag has deployed.
Mind you, this is on 1996 and newer vehicles - and some vehicles went OBD-II before the deadline. I believe (just as an example) that the 1995 Nissan 240SX is among them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
self-incrim. isn't just anything u don't want seen (Score:2)
Self-incrimination is forcing someone to orally testify against him or herself in questioning or trial -- a compelled confession for example, which in our early (colonial, for example) jurisprudence was unfortunately not a forei
Consider the license agreement? (Score:2)
You dont own it, you have a right to use that can be removed,
they can look at what you are doing, yada yada yada...
I would bet that you wont own your car for much longer - the
Licence agreement around this data and these computer systems
will soon go the way of the software agreements that we put up with.
The good news is that perhaps one day we may see a GPL car.
What's Good for GM is Good for America (Score:2)
What Needs to be required (Score:4, Insightful)
Is my Yugo safe? (Score:2, Funny)
Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:3, Insightful)
If the data is a loop of recent events and data is not leaving your car how are they watching you?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:5, Insightful)
"If the data is a loop of recent events and data is not leaving your car how are they watching you?"
Because in the event of an accident the police can easily download the events off the black box and use it against you in court. It's happened several times already.
That's not the collecting 5 years of data. the statement that I questioned. Secondly, I bet you are being told if the police are touching your vehicle. Alternatively your insurance company may have right to the data and they may turn it over, but you had agreed to that, so you were told. My question stands.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:5, Interesting)
now perhaps that wouldn't fly in court, but it's an interesting thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:4, Interesting)
I would argue that any unpublished recording or document should be considered equivilent to the memory of the person who made it; just as one cannot be forced to testify against oneself (divulge one's memories as evidence against oneself), one should not be forced to divulge private (audio, video, data) recordings that one has made. Such will undoubtably become even more important as we begin to develop ever more effective electronic (and possibly cybernetic) aids to memory, and as our technology for decoding the neural patterns in the human mind improves.
Perhaps one day we might discover a way to read a person's memory directly; will this technology be used to circumvent our laws against self-incrimination? What if the memories are encoded, not in human neural tissue, but rather in an electronic implant? Why should there be any difference? And if reading an electronic implant is considered self-recrimination, then why would an external memory device be any different? On the other hand, if one can subpoena the blackbox in the defendent's car, or the contents of the defendent's PDA or laptop, then what makes the defendent's biological memories special? Had we the technology, would it be right to submit the defendent's own memories as evidence? That would make a mockery of our laws against self-recrimination -- and yet we do the same today by seizing and entering into evidence the private documents and recordings of the defendant.
No offence is truly committed when the defendant is demonstrated guilty, provided that the infringement of the defendant's rights does not exceed the crime itself. However, should the defendant not be demonstrated guilty, then the infringement is entirely unjustified, and those responsible should be open to countersuit by the (presumably innocent) former defendant. This would go a long way toward curbing abuse of power in carrying out justice -- as would the addition of a requirement that the prosecutor be the victim of the crime (or the victim's appointed representative, but not the government), with clear (though not necessarily precisely measurable) damage as the basis for restitution (and possibly retribution; this is rather more controversial).
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:4, Informative)
Been there and done that one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So: Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari, and even lowly Rustang owners should forfeit their warranty if they use their vehicles in activities for which the vehicles are specifically designed - and advertised - for?
Interesting.
Arguing with engineers is like wrestling pigs (Score:3, Funny)
No, I'm an engineer, suspensions on Mustang, engines on Corvette.
"Your low profile tires comment makes absolutely no sense."
Because you don't know what you are talking about.
"They are indeed not designed for racing."
Thank you, that was my point.
" However, they are high" (ish) " performance vehicles (the Corvette more so) and they should be fully capable of being used in closed course events such as driver education (racetrack) and autocross.
Of course they are. But that's no
Re: (Score:2)
And besides, they use this data to help who was at fault. If you're not at fault, it also indicates that.
If you're stationary at a red light and someone smacks into you and claims it was you that smacked into them, well the data suggests otherwise.
If you *are* at fault, well take it like a man and admit it. Jeez.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that blackboxes on airplanes require specific auditing requirements and not just any hardware can be used for it.
As for the boxes in cars, well, at this point the manufacturer is under no obligation to disclose circumstances in which the data may be meaningless, misleading, or worse.
Now somebody has to explain to me why they require several years to inform customers. 2007, or 2008 would be quite reachable as target dates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, your post proves that. Unlike computer software packages, auto insurance companies are essentially interchangable and there is essentially no switching cost to the consumer. So they compete on service and perception, market forces work well under such circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
They have no legal right to use the data inside of it.
Siezure laws work in your favor...
Re: (Score:2)
Does it have write only memory? If the answer is "no" then they can watch you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, how would they know from the blackbox data that the speed you were travelling was in fact, in excess of the limit without also knowing the road you were driving on?
Dude (Score:2)