Automakers and Crash Data Recorders

The New York Times has a decent story about automakers not wanting to standardize car data recorders. There are a couple of nuances which the reporter mostly misses. The automakers want to avoid standardization because they can then sell access to the proprietary data format (NYT does cover this, but ignores the profit motive). The story mentions privacy issues but dismisses them as solved, yet notes that there are no privacy protections whatsoever for this data, and you can expect it to be used against you in any incident (and perhaps other times: wait until service under your warranty is refused because your car reported your bad driving habits to the dealer). That's not "solved" in my book (and I think the automakers realize that selling cars which report on their owners might backfire). Speculation about ambulance crews using crash data is just hype - no ambulance is equipped to do that, nor would I want an EMT to spend time decoding the crash data instead of, say, saving my life. The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur.

Comments

An impressive lack of creativity.

[Anonymous Coward]

The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur.
Is this some sort of a criticism of the article? Or it is a confession of ignorance by /. editors? Really, now, do we have to even dignify this comment with suggestions how data can improve crash safety? Evidently so:

1. Most crash data is from experimental (read: artificial) simulations of crashes. What if the assumptions researchers have about speed, force, and other factors were proven false? Would that influence car design?
2. Airbag deployment is based on timing studies of crashes. Real-life crash data might yield better understanding of when, in microseconds, an airbag sould begin inflation, and under what circumstances.
3. Crash testing is extremely expensive, not merely because of the instrumentation needs, but also because of the need to destroy complete cars in each run. As a result, the small amounts of data are used to support vast speculation about safety. What if we harvested data from the enormous number of crashes that happen on roads today? Why, that would yield statistically significant information.
4. I think by now you get the idea. You can insert your own completely freakin' obvious observation here.

Perhaps instead we should read the /. editor's comment as a journalistic suggestion. That is, instead of doubting the usefulness of crash data, perhaps this comment was meant to suggest a new journalistic standard of thoroughness.

Oh, wait. This is /. Journalism is a foreign concept.

Not profit ! Not accountability ! Oh the horror !

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously because I know michael will infinite-mod this down. That said:

The automakers want to avoid standardization because they can then sell access to the proprietary data format (NYT does cover this, but ignores the profit motive).

Michael Sims is at it again - disparaging anything and anybody who seeks a profit. Hey guess what - automakers need to turn a profit in order to write paychecks and pension checks or support their market valuation so that poor auto factory workers and poor retirees with modest investments( the only demographics michael thinks worthy of life ) can eat.

and you can expect it to be used against you in any incident (and perhaps other times: wait until service under your warranty is refused because your car reported your bad driving habits to the dealer).

God forbid that drivers be accountable for their actions, micheal. Let's ignore the fact that the insurance industry is based entirely on the need for risk information on a per-person basis to, among other things, keep down costs for people who choose to be safe drivers. I don't see how such a system should not be applied to things like warranties. As a safe driver, I sure as hell don't like to be subsidizing the repairs of people who rally race every weekend.

So here's my advice to you, Mr. Sims:

Shut the fuck up. Post the news and attach your useless, flawed 'analysis' as a comment.

Re:Most people don't even do a "walk around"

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a very important thing... remember the bulk (90% or greater) of drivers on the road do not have enough driving abilities let alone a high enough IQ to even be operating cars. These "crash data recorders" for cars is just another example that cince the general public is so fricking stupid that they cant obey simple traffic laws that the government needs to watch them or at least collect data.

If you actually impounded cars when someone loses their license and NOT return it until they get their license back AND make it a mandatory 90 day jail stay plus a $10,000.00 fine for driving without a license... this will eliminate the certified idiots off the roads (drunk and cought reckless drivers)

They also need ot make EVERY driver pass a physical driving test every year. if you fail you lose your license AND car (It get's 2 boots put on it unless you prove that someone else needs that car then the above huge fine + jail time applies) plus multiply all traffic fines by at least a factor of 10... (if your 5 mph over costs you 500 dollars you wont be an asshole and drve fast now will you.)

the problem is that this still doesn't fix the underlying problem.... the general public is so stupid they cannot handle driving a car in a safe manner...

MOD PARENT DOWN, HE IS NOT AN EMT

[metalhed77]

if you look at his posting history, here is a post in which jaredmartin claims to be a highschool freshman not a year ago! MOD PARENT DOWN