Slashdot Mirror
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.
Most people don't even do a "walk around" their car before getting in and driving off. People run out of gas all the time. They get flat tires, and forget to take off the donut for a week.
Holding car drivers to the same standards as aircraft is such a huge leap that the paperwork generated by it could likely employ everyone in America.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Thus it is important that we (the open/free community) develop a free/open engine management system such as those sold for $3000 by haltech, so we can remove the factory computer and install our own.
Fight the power, go learn how to write assembly and do A/D and D/A conversion using digital electronics today!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
(and I think the automakers realize that selling cars which report on their owners might backfire).
I agree. However what about a future owner wanting to know the history of the car? Take it into service to find out what your getting.
Disable the devices. Unless it becomes state or federal law not to, maybe it is and I am unaware of the respective laws, than no info recorded, no info reported. If an accident can be construed as the other driver's fault, a black box that reported that you were driving 1 MPH over the posted limit at time of impact could negatively iompact any judgement or settlement.
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
Of course they're not equipped to do that NOW - standardization would allow EMT's to carry equipment that could read data from any car.
The point made in the article is that some crashes cause internal injuries that are not immediately apparent to you or an EMT. They say that many people are not transported to a hospital via helicopter becuase the extent of their injuries is not determined until it is too late. If the EMT could see that the type of crash was likely to cause internal injuries, they could get you to a trauma center faster even if you didn't show any immediate symptoms.
When the airbags go off in a new Mercedes SUV, the onboard phone rings the dealer 'concierge', who in turn attempts to contact the driver. It is just a simple leap to imagine a conference call to the nearest ambulance. GPS locators are already in place in the Mercedes...a pre-signed agreement to release your medical data, and the ambulance crew can have a head start on helping you in case of an injury.
Saying this will never be applied indicates a lack of knowledge of that has been happening in vehicle telemetry over the past few years. Look at F-1 racing to see just how much data is gathered and applied, not only as pertains to the vehicle, but to the driver as well.
As far as some evil plan by the dealers to do something devious with data, I think it is giving them too much credit to think they have the brains to go too far. In my experience, it is all they can do to track part numbers, much less throttle habits. Any worry it just Chicken Little talking another walk outdoors...
I suspect that how this data would be used to increase safety would be to compile data on how accidents occur. What are the abuses? What are the common conditions under which accidents occur? Having this information would allow the auto industry to then ask the questions that may help them move to fixing or improving the way cars handle those situations.
Granted, that's an idealistic analysis of the motives that would drive the industry's use of the data. I'm not speaking to any privacy concerns or the like -- I'm just suggesting a possible motive that the NYT is trying to imply.
I can see this being a 'requirement' to get affordable insurance rates.
Since its not a 'law' it will be hard to fight, but will still achieve mass saturation of the things in time.
Then just add realtime reporting.. GPS.. you will tracked how fast you went to the store for that gallon of 'questionable substance', where you paid via your fingerprint..
On a side note, they are working here in my area to make it legal and acceptable to fire someone beacuse they smoke on OFF hours.. So add that to the big database in the sky.. what you buy/do today, may not be legal tomrrow.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Could we all please stop whining about the NYT and just suck it up and take 30 seconds to fill in false registration information?
Honestly, it's not that hard.
As an EMS professional, I can say that the thoughts of using such a system is absurd.
First off, imagine the costs of placing the computer required to access and decode this information on every single ambulance in the fleet. In our Squad the money would be much better spend on medical technology, like updating to the latest generation of defibrillators.
Medically, the information would be of little use. EMTs / Paramedics do not attempt to repair damage to patients caused by trauma. We are trained to always assume the worst, and take universal precautions when packaging, transporting and treating trauma patients. Imagine getting in a wreck and hearing the EMT treating you say "this patient only experienced 3.4 Gs in that wreck, let's just skip the spinal immobilization on this one". Even in the ED or OR the information would be of little use. The diagnostic equipment available in the hospital goes to the root of the issue, which is analyzing the patient themselves.
I think this is an attempt to put a good-for-the consumer spiel on something that would primarily be used by law enforcement.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Insurance companies will probably give you a discount if you let them install a data recorder in your car... :-/
Actually, the automakers might also. Remember that they crash test autos in order to design safety features in later versions? That's expensive, and it doesn't always reflect the common types of crashes. So, once they're sure this version is reasonably safe, they'll hand the data collection off to the customers. That way it'll pertain more to the types and speeds of crashes that people actually get into. For next year's model, they don't have to crash-test so many cars to design the cages and crumple zones.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
is about to double. I know I'll drive it to the bitter end rather than have some "flight data recorder" accessible to my insurance company, opposing counsel, nosy cops, and Bob-knows-who else.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Auto makers will also be able to blow away lawsuits much easier if the operator of a vehicle doesn't operate the vehicle as outlined in the operator's manual.
If you are driving to fast, operating a modified vehicle, haven't followed the recommended service schedule, or whatever, they will have evidence that you -- and not the manufacturer -- was to blame if there is a failure that leads to serious loss or injury.
A little off topic, but this bugged me so much that I thought it was worth mentioning.
/. readers are guilty of this, SOMEONE out there is...
No disrespect to Americans, but this statistic came from the USA.. so whilst I am sure none of you American
You know that recently car manufacturers have been going nuts on making more strongly reinforced roofs, and putting about 8 airbags in every single direction.. the reason for this is, and I kid you not, that market research in the USA has shown that a number of Americans dont like having to use their seatbelts. As a result, the motor industry has been ordered to make it as safe a possible in a car to cater for those who dont use the seatbelt.
Now... excuse me.. but am I the only one who finds that f*cking laughable? Its down to the motor industry to cover for some lazy fool who decides that today he wont bother to use his seatbelt, and will sue because he gets seriously injured in a car accident?
Give me strength.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
When the airbags go off in a new Mercedes SUV, the onboard phone rings the dealer 'concierge', who in turn attempts to contact the driver. It is just a simple leap to imagine a conference call to the nearest ambulance. GPS locators are already in place in the Mercedes...a pre-signed agreement to release your medical data, and the ambulance crew can have a head start on helping you in case of an injury.
You have got two seperate problems all mixed up and are using a flawed argument for one to advace the other. Medical records have nothing to do with automobiles. Your car having the brains to call an ambulance has nothing to do with propriatory formats.
Who needs the automobile vendor in the middle medical records? Does a doctor need permission from an unconcious victim to get medical records? I don't want my vehicle giving that kind of permission, espcially over something silly like an air bag explosion.
In any case, a standard format for the data should be made and it should be under the vehicle owner's control. I should know if someone I lent my car to has abused it. I should also be able to keep information about where I've been to myself or delete the information if I want to. This can't be done if every vehicle is built with a different, seceret format. A box I can't control in my vehicle makes my vehicle less mine and more someone else's spy and that is evil.
Your potential benifit is a seperate, spurious issue and you have not considered the implications of propriatory formats. You might be more careful in your advocacy. Don't call people Chicken Little when you don't know what you are talking about.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
As far as some evil plan by the dealers to do something devious with data, I think it is giving them too much credit
The parent poster makes an excellent point. The original article poster wrote with an extremely opinionated, anti-technology viewpoint. They were bound and certain that allowing data to become public would do nothing but hurt people.
I have to disagree. Generally, I'd say that making more data available helps a system as a whole.
For example, in the original post:
The automakers want to avoid standardization because they can then sell access to the proprietary data format
This may be legitimate, and if so, it's a good point. But it's the only one.
The story mentions privacy issues but dismisses them as solved, yet notes that there are no privacy protections whatsoever for this data
I just don't seem to see a big privacy issue here. I don't think that there's any big benefit to society in keeping secret exactly what someone was doing when they rammed into another car.
and you can expect it to be used against you in any incident
Or for you. It all depends on what you were doing, doesn't it? If you were doing fifteen miles over the speed limit and the roads are slick, and you run someone down, then you're probably going to get in hot water. OTOH, if you were driving safely, hit the brakes to avoid the other guy (who was going well over the speed limit), and was hit in the side, then his insurance company is going to be paying out to you. Having crash data available benefits the honest people that *aren't* misusing their cars. Sounds fine to me, frankly.
perhaps other times: wait until service under your warranty is refused because your car reported your bad driving habits to the dealer
Well...yes. Again, if you've been abusing your car, like drag racing it, and if your warranty doesn't cover that, then it'll be found out and service refused. Again, results in lower prices to those of us that *aren't* thrashing our cars -- we don't have to subsidize your bad habits.
Speculation about ambulance crews using crash data is just hype - no ambulance is equipped to do that
As others have pointed out, this is ludicrous. Yes, these things are not fully deployed yet. Granted, I don't see them being used much by ambulance crews -- they'd be almost useless to them. Their real value comes in court.
nor would I want an EMT to spend time decoding the crash data instead of, say, saving my life
That would happen in a blue moon. Blatant alarmism.
The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur.
Um...I'd image that it's pretty straightforward, not even worth spellingout explicitly. Someone gets in a crash at a weird angle and gets exposed to stronger forces than is desired. the front of a car rips apart in a collision -- why? Exactly what got hit? A car catches on fire in a collision...what type of impact would cause that? It's *far* easier for an engineer to go about fixing problems if they have actual disaster data to work on, not just speculation and some attempted simulations of what might happen, plus a few plain-vanilla crash logs.
To be honest, from the NYT article, it sounds mostly like the only reason the car manufacturers were dragging their feet on releasing the data was because they didn't want hard data available that might expose *them* to liability (like that the occupuant was hit with more Gs in a head-on collision than they should have been). That's the only benefit I see to auto manufacturers in not allowing the data to be publically distributed.
May we never see th
Okay, how would knowing how fast someone was going in a crash where the airbag deployed really help the paramedics?
Assuming the person was wearing a seatbelt the airbag and belt would be the two big absorbers of shock, so a quick assesment of how smashed up the face is would cover that, and any internal injuries that may be been caused by the seat belt (if used improperly) wouldn't be easily assed by a paramedic in the field anyway, and knowing the speed of the car would have no impact on determining those injuries.
If there was no seatbelt being worn you may as well call in the helicopter because the person most likely will have had gone though a window, and you don't need a computer to tell you that. From there, if ther person is still on the ground you can get a good estimate of how fast they were going based on how far they are away from you.
And on top of that direction would have no bearing on medical treatment, and as the article states there would be no point in having to get information from that with a wire 'cause then it would be useless to emergency personell, and if it can be obtained wirelessly I think we have the single most accurate form of speed detection for police if they can grab the information that fast, because you would have a tough time proving your cars computer wrong.
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
...the car monitors how fast the driver is going!
Oh wait...
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
There can only be a few reasons (rather than excuses) to want black box data and connections non-standard.
Clearly, owner privacy is just an excuse unless they're championing encrypting the data under a key only the owner has. After all, if nobody can read the data, it's not useful to log it at all.
The first that comes to mind is the 'authorized mechanic' scam. Must be certified to buy the hardware, certification requires $5000 and pass an exam (one question: Is the engine most likely to be found under the hood or in the back seat). Naturally, new adapters will need to be purchaced from time to time to stay up to date (that is, one for each make of car, every year).
Two, can't have those black boxes telling the press that collisions < 10 MPH result in a totaled car, now can we?
3, Can't have the black box proving that the air bags go off unnecessarily (or fail to go off when needed).
Must not reveal the bit fields that tattle on the owner during warranty service.
Can't hide bugs by declaring them features if there's a standard to follow.
If they're all standard, users might be able to gain full control over their engines.
There may be other reasons, but this is a good list to start from.
This is one of the FUNNIEST examples of what happens on Slashdot when people don't read the article that I've seen in a LONG time.
... they may be wrong.
People are shouting "I won't buy a car with such a recording device" or "this is a blatant example of government intrustion into privacy" etc etc.
What's being missed - though it is clearly stated in the article - is that companies like GM and Ford have included data recorders in newer cars for some time now. As part of the airbag system.
So the issue isn't whether or not such recorders are going to be standard issue on future cars. They're already standard issue on many current cars.
The issue is whether or not the industry should adopt a data standard for the devices so that information may be more easily shared, by safety researchers among other things.
As to whether or not those experts arguing that information on deceleration may be useful in the field after an accident are right or not
But they're a hell of a lot more likely to be right than your typical pimply-faced Slashdot poster.
I have to say, even though I don't smoke, and don't like people smoking around me, I think this would be a very unfair law. Smoking is addictive, and it's not fair that if someone can't quit, that they should lose their job. Fine, make them pay a surcharge to cover the higher insurance rates for smokers, but that's it.
"The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur. "
At best this might settle insurance disputes. The only way I can see this data being useful is if they can plug the recorder into a laptop and see a 3D animation of accident occuring. They *might* be able to save an occasional life with it.
I realize I'm being a little naieve here, but I've never studied medicine. TV is all I have to go by here. I've seen a couple of different shows where people have been involved in an accident and walked away, only to collapse later due to undetected head trauma. Now, this is TV, it's fiction, so I don't know if this happens in real life or not. But let's say it does: Wouldn't something like this give EMT's a clue that somebody could be more seriously injured than they appear?
I doubt this is something you'd turn the industry over for, but I can see uses for it popping up here and there after it's installed.
It's really quite simple: 1. Control. 2. Fear.
Automakers are used to being completely in control of how their products are designed, sold and repaired. Look at what data is available from cars. The emissions and diagnostic data that any garage can read out (OBD-II) is essentially what's mandated by the California Air Resources Board. Newer model years incorporate more and more features to prevent hacking into engine controllers... well, into any embedded controllers in the car.
Look at the business practices of the car companies and you'll see how control is valued over nearly everything else. The Vetronix link in one of the replies is typical. Look at how Vetronix has an exclusive contract and how customers are locked into proprietary cables and software.
Fear also runs rampant in the industry. You want 20 MPG SUVs? The cost is $500 or so, but cost has little to do with why they aren't sold. The higher-ups will do almost anything to avoid upsetting the fabulous cash flow they control. That's why the pace of technological innovation in autos is so slow. There's also a lawsuit mentality in the industry. The perception they might be sued drives their actions far more than any actual lawsuits.
These two reasons, control and fear, are why any crash data recording standard would have to be imposed from outside the industry. They're also why both Bill Gates and Linux geeks are dreaming when they spin the fantasy of "open" car electronics.
On the posted topic: too many Slashdotters didn't RTFA. The NY Times article talks about recording the last few seconds before a crash. That's maybe a few hundred data points. It's not a voice recording or a demerit mark every time you break the speed limit or stand on the brakes.
There are 2 good reasons why the crash recorder would be part of the airbag module. First, the data is already used by the module. Second, the airbags have to deploy even if the car electrical system is hosed, so their power supplies have a "hold-up" time of tens of milliseconds. That's enough time to fire two-stage airbags with the battery disconnected. That's also enough time to write crash data to EEPROM.
Would the kind of recorder in the article make cars more expensive? No. Any cost increase would be in the software engineering before the first car was built, not in the manufacturing cost.
Are there good reasons to have them? Yes, but not what's in the article. One reason flying is a couple of orders of magnitude safer than driving is because the FAA is a lot more concerned with finding the causes of aircraft accidents than with assigning blame. If an agency like NHTSA or an industry group like SAE were to use crash data to improve safety, then the technology makes sense. But don't hold your breath - that kind of activity won't happen until after 2004 at best.
Upon arrival we have to give the patient details to the doctor. After the vitals (respirations, pulse, 'state of consciousness' - aka GCS, Glascow Coma Scale, temperature, and change since the last set) we describe the results of the secondary evaluation (what's broken, bent, and/or leaking and what its leaking), then we have to describe the scene so that the doctor can try and figure out what forces caused the individual's day to become bad. This can be critical information!! If there is a half moon shape of broken glass in the windshield the patient HAS a head injury! If they hit with the part of their head that is covered in hair this injury is usually not evident. It is up to us to tell the doctors about that part of the scene so they know the patient needs a CAT scan.
Was the patient wearing a seatbelt? If not then their upperbody impacted the stering wheel. You might think that a bruise would result but depending upon the interupption of the blood flow this is not always the case. What could that cause? Many things. It could cause the aorta artery to tear off the heart killing you in about a minute. A small tear could cause internal bleeding that might not be evident for hours. It could fracture a rib. Since ribs don't break cleanly -- they break with what's called a 'green stick' break -- you basically have many very sharp objects in you chest. They could puncture a lung and cause it to start filling with blood. It could puncture the pericardium -- the linig around the heart -- causing it to fill with blood and not leaving any room for the heart to beat. In fact, there are a great many things that can be harmed by sharp things (rib fragments) in your chest poking other important things.
Now I am a typical slashdotter in the following respect: I value my privacy! There is no way that I want the insurance company to have access to this information. I would consider it an invasion of privacy. My trauma surgeon, on the ohter hand, is someone that I want to have all of the information possible so as to better my chances of survival. If my life was at risk I would want the cops to get the information and forward it to the hospital; I would like for the police officers not to have access to the information for a minor traffic accident. The problem is: once the information is available, it will be used by everyone that wants it. The police won't need a warrant because they have probable cause -- an accident happened. I don't see anyway to take the good and leave the bad. If you think that you can keep the information from the insurance company think again. First off, it will most likely be in the cop's accident report. If it isn't there then they may refuse to pay; forcing you to file a law suit for compensation. At that point the insurance company has subpeona powers. If the info is available it WILL get used!
The minor things will also try for the information. A warranty disclaimer that says the manufacturer/dealer is not responsible for the vehicle if you drive like me^h^h a nut. Rental cars will have them and try the same stunt as sending tickets to speeders they discovered by the GPS trackers. There was a slashdot story on this not too long ago. Insurance companies will offer discounts for people that have them in their cars and agree to let them have access to the data. It will be interesting to see how they actually work when they are mass deployed. Will they work in Fritz Hollings mode where it will be a felony to try to plug anything into it that is not approved by the manufacturer/insurer? Or will they work in a consumer friendly mode where the owner can plug a device in to read the data and erase it afterwards? Will we be able to disable them? The black boxes in airplanes (they are actually a neon orange) only record half an hour of data. If this is the case, and your car needs warranty work, drive like grandma for half an hour going to the dealer! If the data is available wirelessly will the same idiots that designed WEP for 802.11b design the security or will the boxes become a boon to stalkers?
The report incorporated an April 13 press release that said the standard would "define what data should be captured, including date, time, location, velocity, heading, number of occupants and seat belt usage." Now correct me if I'm wrong but in order to know the location of the car it would have to have GPS equipment. This piece of data is not really relevent to a crash and it STINKS of big brother. Congress will probably have to pass PATRIOT Act II to get access to this without a warrant.
Interesting medical facts.
An interesting thing about the GCS - Glascow Coma Scale - is that you get three points just for showing up. Even if your dead you get three points. Although some slashdotters may lose a point for not being completely lucid, most healthy people will get a score of fifteen.
Another interesting point about defibrillators is that they are not used when the EKG is reading a flat line - CPR is. Defibrillators are actually used to induce a flat line! When the heart is fibrillating it is actually shorting out. In computer speak this would be the same as using many oscillators for the various subsystems -- memory, north/south bridge, CPU, etc. -- and not synchronizing them. The computer would be trying real hard to do something but fail as the data states would be unpredictable. The heart is the same way. The Sino Atrial Nerve should be the master clock for the heart and all of the other parts should sychronize with it in a kind of cascading way. Instead the electrical system of the heart is just firing in an uncoordinated way causing the various heart muscles to contract at the wrong time. The defibrillator overwhelms the heart and causes it to stop beating! All the muscles stop contracting. Usually the Sino Atrial nerve will start on its own in a few seconds. When this happens the rest of the heart falls into line and synchronizes with it. On the rare occasion that it does not CPR is used. Every TV show before ER got this wrong. ER is an amazingly accurate show, from a medical standpoint, and that's what had me hooked for the first few seasons.
The legal aspects of the show are also pretty interesting too. One important thing to remember is that if you are conscious and want to refuse treatment you MUST be awake, alert, and oriented. If you are not then I, or any other EMT, can do whatever we think is best -- including ordering a cop to restrain you by force. When an EMT asks you your name, what day it is, and where you are the answers that you provide determine who is in charge of your care. If you answer correctly and refuse to be treated then there is nothing we can do -- even touching you could be considered assault! Answer wrong and don't cooperate with me/them and you will get forcably restrained! Just something to keep in mind.
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!