Slashdot Mirror
Black Boxes to Track Driving Habits?
Another submitter sent in a related submission about the collision data recorders in many late-model cars - which serve a similar purpose as the black boxes described above, but generally only record the last five seconds before an accident.
geemon writes "With the recent stories of rental car companies using GPS to track how and where their patrons are using their vehicles, this information about autos from 1996 and newer having an airplane-like accident "black box" capability was a complete surprise. Tucked under the drivers seat of most GM vehicles, the "black box" can store a variety of info such as vehicle and engine speed, braking, and seat belt usage. Info from an accident reconstruction service that uses this data can be found here. Called "event data recorders", these devices were, "...Originally designed to improve air bag performance based on the severity of the collision, the event data recorder can tell traffic accident investigators about the car's speed; engine RPMs; how far the accelerator pedal was pressed; if the brakes were applied; whether the drivers seatbelt was buckled and what warning lights were on - all from five seconds before impact..." It seems that GM and perhaps Ford have been using this for some time. Here is one company that makes the Windows based retrieval hardware/software combo for $2500. Imagine the uses of this data that law enforcement, your insurance company, and lawyers may have after your next little mishap."
So, how long before the insurance companies persuade the states to mandate these devices in every car? Or raise our rates hugely and then give a little of it back if we put in the box?
e phone tin-foil hat paranoia for just a day or two? This kind of sensationalizing gets really old when every single piece of technology is just another tool for The Man to spy on us, regardless of legitimate uses (sound familiar?) it might have.
Can we stop with the black-helicopters-are-watching-me-through-the-tel
First, either kids or criminals. Then whichever of the first two wasn't gotten. Then, those who'll accept extra benefits for it (generally implemented by removing said pre-existing benefits and then only giving what you had before back if you submit.)
Finally, it's mandatory.
This is the time to oppose this stuff and set limits if there will ever be any at all.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
People who disagree can use public transportation. Hopefully, mass transit will get a much needed boost because of people who are unwilling to be tracked.
All your favorite sites in one place!
Now I don't think this technology is a good idea, but comeon.
This has NOTHING to do with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nor does it have anything to do with the Articles of Confederation or Decleration of Independance.
You might be disillustioned, but try to keep this in context.
It's about technology working for the insurance companies and the police, not about civil rights.
I can understand why black boxes are in airplanes - its a huge liability issue. The more info gathered on crashes that do happen may reduce the chances of paying customers dying in the future. It makes good sense from a PR point of view. However, I would contend that black boxes in cars would do little to alleviate motor vehicle related deaths. We know *why* people crash: Many drivers are goddamned morons. We know that many teens are goddamned morons on the road as well - we don't need a black box to tell us that. Rather than putting these black boxes in cars to spy on our teens, we need to deal with the cause, not the symptoms: bad teen driving comes from a combination of outside pressure, overconfidence and under-training. For heavens sake - invest the money in teen driving training instead of these boxes! And parents, do us ALL a favour: Stop buying your children these expensive rockets on wheels!! Make them get a job to buy their OWN vehicle - it'll make them think twice before doing anything stupid that might wreck it.
In the real world, nobody ever drives the speed limit under good driving conditions. Realistic freeway speeds are at least 80 in nondeveloped areas, and cars going under that speed are actually at increased risk.
Besides, nothing like this will ever stop the experimentation kids do in cars. In my younger days, I did donuts in the empty church parking lot, caught air on the Spooner St. bridge, drove my car over a lawn or two, etc. No excessive speed involved (you'd jump Spooner doing 35).
IMO, your best bet is to buy your kid a fairly modern, safe car without too much extra juice (try a Toyota with side-curtain airbags with traction control and ABS, or a Volvo if it's in your means) -- buying kids old cars is actually more dangerous due to the lack of modern safety gear. Those parents buying their kids Z3's... well, that's just natural selection at work.
Base lesson: No good ever came of spying on your kids and making it clear you don't have any trust for them.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Insurance companies could care less about where you drive, but they are definitely be interested in knowing when you are on the road and for how long. The more time you spend unparked increases your odds of having an accident. That's why they rate older drivers better, because their 25' Buicks spend most of the time parked. Driving at night significantly increases your risk of having an accident. It astronomically increases your risk of having an accident with (or as) a drunk driver. How do I know this? I used to be an underwriter for an auto insurance company...
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy.
I used to commute on CA-17, which connects Silicon Valley with Santa Cruz. It's always full of people who think nothing of driving 80 mph on a windy mountain road, who think anybody who observes the speed limit is doing it just to piss them off, and who basically exhibit behavior that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere except on the highway.
And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Communication. One reason people love their cars is that it's the one place they don't have to listen to anybody. Unfortunately, lots of people abuse this solitude. If you behaved, say, in a line at McDonalds the same way people behave on Highway 17, people would communicate a lot of anger to you. (That kind of communication while driving is known as "road rage".) Attempts have been made to communicate to the over-assertive driver. With results even -- whenever the CHP ups its presence on 17 the death rate goes way down. But the concept communicated is not "speed kills" but rather "be a good little boy when daddy's watching."
If some people end up getting supervised because they think good behavior is just a game, they've only themselves to blame.
I can see the thinking here, but since it only monitors the driving from the perspective of the car, it misses some important things ... like why they are happening. For example, most erratic or irresponsible driving amongst teens is due to them talking to their friends in the car, trying to use a cell phone, drinking, fiddling with the radio, etc.
... and I'd still look like a perfect driver according to this device. So much for accountability :)
For example, even with this device installed I could be driving down the street (at the speed limit) talking on my cell phone, smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer through a straw, having sex with my girlfriend and tailgating the car in front of me
(Score:-1, Wrong)
I have a friend whose mother was waiting at a red light, when another vehicle backed out of a drive way and into her car pretty hard. When the police came, the driver of the other vehicle had the audacity to claim that my friend's mother actually backed into him and tried to pin the fault of the accident on her.
Fortunately, a person who saw this happen hanged around until the police came and was able to refute the other driver's fabrication.
If the car had a black box, the police officer could have quickly determined that my friend's mother's car was stationary up till the moment of impact regardless of whether a nice person did or did not loiter around at the crash scene.
Granted, people might complain about details such as the car's location and a log of speeds. These issues can be solved by convincing law makers to dictate a standard set of statistics said auto boxes would record.
I have a webcam. I put it on the floor so I can watch my dog all day while I'm at work. I do it because it helps me keep an eye on her, it's fun, other people like it too, and it hurts nobody.
When I have kids (God permitting), I may consider putting the webcam on the baby's crib. It would be fun, other people would like it, it would be a good way to keep an eye on the baby when nobody is with him/her for whatever reason, and it would hurt nobody.
Once that kid starts moving around, and growing up into a person, I would *NEVER* subject my children to that kind of oversight. I can imagine it would be VERY detrimental to their social life. Children need to live lives seperate from their parents. God knows there are things I've done (and still do) that my parents don't need to know. I'm sure my kids will do the same, and I don't want know about it (as long as they aren't hurting themselves or others).
You *NEED* some privacy in your life. I will NEVER vote for somebody who supports making something like this mandatory (and I hope my stubborn side will continue to keep this true, even as I grow old and raise kids of my own).
Bryan
Having a lot of data is a good thing when reconstructing accidents. Being able to determine exactly what the driver was doing to the car will help to distinguish between skids where the driver was making it worse, skids where the driver didn't do much to help, and skids where the driver was doing the right thing and didn't recover control in time, all of which can leave about the same evidence on the road and car.
It's not useful to know everything the driver normally does without having the road conditions in extensive detail. There's no way the box is going to be able to tell what a safe speed is, whether someone is driving erraticly in response to other cars and pedestrians. Someone driving slowly could be driving in fog, following a bicycle, in traffic, reading signs and ignoring the road, or just stoned.
This data is only really useful in conjunction with scene evidence and other witnesses (except that you could easily tell where the kid took the car and when). You can't really use it to measure driving skill.
You can get these just the way they say right now. It's a volentary thing that a parent can put into their kids car. Wouldn't be that bad of an idea, but I wouldn't want it to be able to be used in court unless both cars had one. Sure the one in my kids car could say that my kid was going 10MPH over the limit, but it wouldn't say that the other car was on the wrong side of the road, going 2x the speed limit, or didn't have his lights on...
Xaotik Designs
Some vehicles, especially those manufactured during the mid to late 90's already have a black box that *they* neglected to tell us about. If you're curious, its normally located beneath the driver's seat. From what I understand of the hidden black box, is that it only stores retains driving information for a few seconds, but stops recording when a serious event occurs, such as an airbag sensor being triggered. The concept is that law enforcement would then be able to use the black box data to make critical determinations in accident investigations, such as speed, braking, etc.
I'm not 100% sure about why these weren't put into widespread use, but I believe the necessary laws have not been passed, so law enforcement is unable to use the data. Not all vehicles have been equipped.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
That's too bad. At least you might trust one or two of the companies you buy things from. I don't trust a company that puts in extras like this, without telling me. You know that you have to pay for the things you buy.
No, that's pretty normal. I don't know too many people who disassemble each and every product they purchase (including grinding down each and every IC so they can visually inspect each circuit to double check it only does wha the spec sheet says it does). We all make assumptions about things we buy.
They will get it at break tag inspections, oil changes or what not. Insurance companies will pay for the data untill it's mandatory, then they will just put in a cell phone and make you pay for that too. More power to you if you never have to take your car to someone else's garage.
I have a very hard time believing that unauthorized collection of the boxes data would be legal (and the Harris Technical website seems to back this up, re: Brady vs Maryland) and an equally hard time believing that it would be found constitutional if a law was passed making it legal.
I'm hoping my next job is in bike riding distance, like my last one. Cars just suck more and more. Riding my bike to my office at the local university was so much more relaxing than my current dodge of road kill and pickup trucks.
Wow, something we agree on.
you have the unalienable right to obtain a driver's license
You have the unalienable right to ask for a driver's license. The state has the unalienable right to deny you one if, for example, you fail the test.
The government has successfully brainwashed you into believing that driving is a privilege they may bestow or take away. In reality, with public transportation unservicable in much of the US, driving is an absolute necessity for one's day to day life. It is no more a "privilege" than the "privilege" of food and water.
Sure, you have a right to drive. However, if you'd like to drive on public streets and highways with the rest of us, that is very much a priveledge. A privledge earned through drivers training and testing. You play by the rules so that you don't get the rest of us killed. If you don't and your license is pulled, you need to look into alternative forms of transportation. Bike, walk, whatever. Not my problem. But you have no inalienable _right_ to drive. You have a right not to be discriminated against in the assignment of this privledge, but of you're pulling DUIs or too many speeding tickets, or can't see sufficiently well to pass the driving test - No license for you.
Why?
For one, the "base price" for no usage at all will be the same as the amount you pay now. Actually using it will cost even more. Never underestimate the greed of the bandits of Hartford.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
first, every teen that drives like a jerk/idiot I can show you EXACTLY where they got that habit.
Their parents. If a child grows up watching daddy tailgate that little Kia in his big-bad yukon while trash talking, "Man this asshole is doing the speed-limit.. I wish I could just push him out of the way" or watches mommie floor it up to the barrels and arrow-board in a construction area and FORCES her way in to the merged traffic at the last second..
This is how these teens that drive like idiots and morons get their driving habits... from the idiots and morons that had and raised them.
And being a regular commuter..The numbers of drivers that drive like idiots and morons is increasing..
I dont think the parents should be black-boxing the kids... it should be the state, and pull their drivers license until 25 if the box reports idiot driving.... But then I also believe that the driving test/license requirements should be quadrupled, as with giving 50% of the traffic fines to the officer as an incentive to enforce traffic laws.
too many people are content with driving like morons, and they are breeding more morons for the roads.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Any parent who gets one of these really needs to reevaluate their relationship with their kid, and their parenting techniques.
{rant}
This little device doesnt teach them proper driving. I mean since when has coming to a complete stop at every stop sign made someone a better driver? Never, its the concious, logical thought that goes into driving. A good driver does not neccisarily follow the rules. "Obey the law but dont let it rule you." What does it matter if I come to a complete stop at every stop sign if no one is there? They need to learn how to use their brain! Not become little socially controlled automatons who learn to obey the "black box" without thinking. This program isnt making good drivers, its making nice little tax paying, go exactly the speed limit, good citizen sheep that vote the way N'Sync tells them to.
When i was young, my mother never went through my drawers looking for pot, spying on my habits to protect me from myself. She would never resort to installing filters on our computer to make sure i wasnt looking at how to make bombs. Invading your childs privacy and forcing them to act like there is a camera over their shoulder is not the way to make sure they dont hurt themselves. What people do in front of a camera is different from what they do in private. Fear of consequences is not a substitute for morals. This "black box" is just another way for parents to invade their childrens privacy.
This is just another step towards Hilary Clintons "It takes a Village" perfect world for raising children.
{/rant}
-blar
What good is that going to do? If a 16 year old passed a driving test at 16, he or she can repass it at 21. With the exception of really old people, most accidents are usually caused by carelessness, not lack of skills.
Have you ever driven on snow and/or ice? If somebody can't do it, they shouldn't be driving here. Ideally, everybody would take their test in the winter, or on some simulated winter conditions.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
See, now there's where you're wrong. You will get it installed in your car or you won't have a car to drive anymore. Teenagers today are way too spoiled and think they have some right to drive. Giving your parents a smartass attitude is just another reason why the average adult American hates teenagers and why this entire thread started. You're not invincible, you're not special, and frankly, none of us really like you driving in the first place. The driving age should be 21 so that people are a little more mature before they're put behind the wheel of a one and a half ton killing machine.