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.
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 ----
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.
Not likely. You ain't gonna be able to snip the sensor wires without some consequence. This ain't like ripping the polution control equipment off of a '72 Mustang. You won't be able to remove the sensors without the ECM screaming bloody murder and disabling the auto after a while. If you're good at figuring out what code the ECM is using, you might be able to disable the checks in software - at least until they start encrypting the code in the ECM ROM's. Bottom line, a car is more a set of sensors and actuators on wheels these days, all controlled by your friend "software". Good luck, but I think the days of being able to randomly remove parts is numbered.
That is all.
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.
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
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.
"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.
What will really wind up happening is that disabling the boxes will void your insurance policy.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.