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.
It will be an interesting debate, because on the one hand the data will be useful (enough so that the automakers think they can make money off of it) and on the other it could cost the auto owner money, either by telling the truth or lying. Yes, these boxes could err, but I would expect that to be just another factor in court. Regardless, the ramifications will be extensive.
Of course, don't forget that a tamperproof box might very well save you in court. We would all benefit from less fraud in court, as it drives up insurance. And then there are the harder to quantify but likely benefits of incorporating lots of real-world data into safety design of brakes and such.
I think it should obviously be up to the driver whether to participate. Some rental car companies might decide to use the boxes to protect their property against illegal misuse -- indeed it may be their insurers that require it; perhaps a discount could be offered to those who want to opt-out, calibrated tp the differential in insurance claims between people who use the boxes and those who do not. Monitoring is not novel: for many years I've seen speed recording devices on some long-distance buses.
All of this can be argued up or down, but I don't think a flat ban on the boxes is appropriate or likely.
SAAB started installing these a couple of years ago. They have denied the Swedish police force access to the data, which caused the media to discuss it a few months ago. The instruction manual mentions that the car records what's going on a couple of seconds before a crash.
The poster and article mistake the reason for automakers being reluctant to standardize on specific crash data. The reason isn't likely a desire to be able to sell the data in proprietary format (which would likely yeild minimal additional revenues compared to their existing revenue streams). The real reason is very likely that easy cross-automaker comparisons would lead to liability issues. If driving a Ford Explorer at 30 mph around a sharp left turn leads to twice as many accident deaths as a Isuzu Trooper (or whatever), Ford could be held accountable in a lawsuit. If plaintiff's lawyers had easy access to data that could be compared between different automakers, the automakers would be in big trouble, given the state of litigation of in this country.
On to the point. The argument that crash data may not be used is ridiculous. Most auto-development takes place on the basis of information you receive from thousands of sensors. But while we'll be seeing more and more sensors in cars for increasing safety (passive), hell, Mercedes already leads the field, we'll not be seing "developmental" sensors anytime soon, because:
1. Collecting information is one thing, applying that to meaningful solutions quite another. One must not forget that auto development is carried out by highly specialized teams, working on some pre-defined parameters. Just how would the G-forces recorded in a pile up with SUV prove useful for Mercedes new S-class? These systems (passive safety) are already incorporated before a car is launched.
2. Development requires controlled conditions. Engineers have to know all the parameters to understand the situation. This is far easily done in the develpoment stage of the product, where you can do as much testing as your budget/schedule allows.
3. Creating an "open-format" makes it easier for companies at the lower rung to access developmental data. Like it or not, this research costs money (Mercedes spent $900 million researching on their new E-class...), and companies are definitely protective of their "way". I wonder, though, just how would a Ford or a Hyundai benefit from all the data of an E-class. It will take them a few years just to analyze the data, heh.
4. Cost. Incorporating data boxes and sensors costs money. Setting up an infrastructure to make use of all the collected data costs money. While "black-boxes" are already incorporated to some extent in higher end.... I wonder how many people would be willing to fork out, say, additional $500~800 for a Honda Jazz/Fit or a Corolla that offers no additional "features" to the consumer.
5. Morality. If we can actually make sense of all the data collected in this way, would we also require manufacturers to meet some criteria in safety? Accept it, "inequality" exists. You'll be much safer in an S-class/7series at 200 Kmph then in an Corolla/Civic at 100 Kmph. Manufacturers are always trying to give more to consumers. There is good competetion already. We don't need asinine regulations.
I am sick and tired of every Tom, Jack and New York Times reporter "advising" auto-manufacturers how to develop cars. Just shut the fuck up. Perhaps these retards don't realize, but modern automoblies are incredible feats of engineering. Thousands of components work together to ensure that some epsilon minus moron can reach his/her NYTimes office and conjure idiotic articles.
Beleive me, automobiles engineers/manufacturers are far more informed in this matter. This is not 1960s. They are already doing an absolutely terrific job, and can do well without such retarded ideas on important matters of safety.
Well, if an ambulance driver wants to determine how many Newtons you were subjected to, a good rule of thumb is to look at how smashed the car is. If the engine is in the backseat, it would be a safe bet that you whacked pretty hard. Sounds like a technology looking for a reason to exist. I can tell you this...I won't buy any car that has this installed in it in such a way that I can't disable or remove it.
I drive 10 miles to work every day in a far from inconspicuous car at approx 80 mph. I notice however that despite the fact that the stretch is patrolled fairly heavilly the cops don't go after folk for speed they go after the assholes driving 15 ft off someone's rear bumper.
Main reason I have to slow down is when some git with a truck a ton heavier than me with shoddy brakes decides to tailgate. I always leave 200 yards to the car in front and I have brakes and a suspension setup that can stop the car dead from 90mph in that space. The git behind would be lucky to respond before he ran into the back of me.
The thing that really gets me is the folk who have to tailgate in the inside lane.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Oh, and one of the things these boxes can do is measure how hard you're stepping on the various pedals and such. Mercedes used this technology on a few thousand cars a while back (as part of a voluntary study) and discovered some interesting things about how people "panic-brake." It turns out that the way most people do it, they actually defeat the antilock braking mechanism. So MB developed a special kind of ABS that works better with how people were doing it.
I imagine you could also use information like this to improve the car's ride, not just its safety, by figuring out how most people drive. This can even include things like most common speeds for gearing the transmission (my car shifts into 4th at 45mph, which makes driving at or near that speed really annoying), how quickly the steering wheel should respond, and all the rest. Yes, manufacturers get some idea of this from their own testing, but a test of a thousand people isn't going to compare to a test of a hundred million in terms of accuracy.
I do have serious concerns about this, though. In particular, I don't want to get a ticket in the mail because I went 60 in a 45 while passing some other car, and I don't want to get a call from my insurance company because some guy backed into me and dented my front bumper a little. But as long as this information is released in a way that doesn't personally identify me, I'd have no problem with it in my car. And if people were allowed to flip a switch and shut it off completely, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
I work on devices similiar to this under a research grant. Ours having nothing to do with the auto manufacturer. I am also limited in what I can say in regards to the technology to implement it, due to NDAs (I could post as AC, but since I'm the ONLY programmer, it would sort of be obvious anyway).
There are a number of uses for the data, beyond litigation. For instance, while there are plenty of numbers of how your Dodge Neon survives running in a brick wall at 20MPH, there's little real world data on the stresses placed on your Dodge Neon when it gets clipped at a 45 degree angle in the right rear quarter by a UPS truck. The onboard accellerometers record this information a certain amount of time before and after the impact event and upload it to a server.
In theory, the data can be used to determine the level of EMS dispatch. If your vehicle is sitting upside down on it's roof, it's far more likely that there are injuries than if you took a 12MPH hit into the rear bumper. Using cellular technology, a voice channel can be opened to the occupant to ask "Are you dead yet?". Or perhaps as EMS is being dispatched anyway, the driver can say "No, everyone is fine. We don't need EMS." This saves money and allows EMS to be dispatched to people how NEED them. And at rush hour in major cities like Atlanta, there are a LOT of accidents, particularly in inclement weather.
Road speed limits are calculated by people who supposedly know what they're doing. If you're like me, you probably wonder how such a title as "Traffic Engineer" exists, since there seems to be little evidence of any "engineering" at some intersections and traffic lights. Data from boxes like (real time data, not just crash data) that show a drivers average speed through areas can be used to calculate how traffic DOES flow, not how it SHOULD flow.
The research boxes we place don't give data back to the volunteers. However, if you're a parent, and have a dependent driver on covered by your insurance, shouldn't and don't you have a right and responsibility to know how that dependent is driving? If Jr. is taking the family SUV up to 126MPH on the local express way, don't you want to pull his keys, if for NO OTHER REASON, to keep YOUR rates low?
Such data can also be used to enforce cost-per-mile insurance. Suppose we both drive 5 miles to work, but I take back roads and you take expressways. Statistically, one will be more safe than the other, depending on area (for instance, back roads are probably LESS safe in mountainous terrain). Why should we pay the same insurance rates when one of us is driving a statistically safer route? And this data can also be used to catch people who lie to the insurance companies and say "Oh yea, I only drive 3 miles to work." when they're actually driving 30.
Emissions information can be gleaned from this data also. When emissions and milage are generated for a given model, it's based on a professional driver, driving a fixed course. The professional driver is needed so that each car is treated the same. However, the driver knows how to drive to meet the requirements. So while uniform, they're loaded numbers. The EPA would like real numbers from real cars driven by real people (for instance, my car has two throttle positions: wide-ass open, and idle). While many view the EPA as an intrusion, they also serve a useful purpose. Numbers for the Koyoto (sp?) Protocol are based on calculated emissions, not measured. I think we can all agree that breathing clearing air isn't going to hurt us, and if we're going to have numbers for how many tonnes of carbin dioxide are spewed into the air each year, they may as well be actual. Side point: Did you know that a standard two cycle engine JetSki spews more pollution in 45 minutes than any American made car manufactured in the last 5 years does in 100,000 miles?
Now, there is a dark side to all this techology. Our boxes are placed in volunteer vehicles, and not installed by manufacturers. There is a few sheets of legalise that people sign (that I haven't read) that indicate what this data from this device can and cannot be used for. I am TOTALLY against the anyone knowing where I am at all times, and how I drive. I believe in anonymous data, but I also know that data is rarely stays anonymous. It can be cross correlated with other databases, and allow people to figure out things I really don't think they have any business knowing. I have no idea how to handle that particular issue.
Lawyers and insurance companies would LOVE devices like this installed. Hell, they'd like to have cameras, pulse rate monitors, blood alcohol monitors, and orbital satellite laser platforms. Their reason is a little valid: Make the culprit, not the victim, pay. But since insurance is nothing more than government sponsored Mafia gambling, you know that will be abused in any way possible. And used to weasle out paying the victim, one way or another. (yes, IANAL, and if I had any offspring that became lawyers, I'd shoot the little bastard.)
There IS a lot of useful and cool data that can come out of this. It is a step to drive-by-wire cars, which if it eliminated accidents on expressways, I wouldn't be adverse to enabling. But there are a lot of ways this data can be misused, and I'm confident that Congress and the insurance criminals will figure out a way to abuse it.
--jcwren
This technology has one obvious benefit - those who are incapable of (or unwilling to bother) driving safely can be removed from the roads after just one accident, so the overall safety will go up. Certainly bad drivers don't want to be recorded - tough. Drug dealers don't like neighborhood watch programs, and most people don't have a problem with those. My life has been endangered many times by criminally negligent drivers, why shouldn't they have to pay for risking my life?
I agree with you in that Slashdot should really just not post NYTimes articles, but to be fair and get their side of the story, I emailed NYTimes about their registration policy a while back. See their response here.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
People posting here seem to have missed the main point. I bought the car. I paid for the computer collecting all of that data. The data does not belong to the auto industry, they have no business securing it with special connectors and custom systems to extract and decrypt it, just so they can sell it back to me when the car needs service. What we need are some nice class action suits against the major auto companys who think they still own the data after they sell us the car.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I can't think of a single situation where this type of "on-board computer" would have helped me! I can only think of situations where my insurance company or somebody else's insurance company would have screwed me over with information like this. I don't drive crazy, but insurance companies are in the business of NOT paying claims!..The more they can avoid paying, the better for their bottom line. And I think we all know where lawyers rank on the humanity scale..I once got sued for bumping into a woman at my highschool...I was on foot when this happened and I still had to pay $9000 to her quack lawyer
As soon as this data gets recorded, it's "subpoena-able" by lawyers representing anyone else on the road. Remember that old woman that bumped into your car at the supermarket?...Her lawyer could subpoena your "black box" for any fishing expedition that he thinks might be profitable. The best answer is simply NOT to keep records which might implicate you in the future....even if you have nothing to hide, go the speed-limit, drive carefully. Big companies do this already with their e-mail policies and document retention policies....if it's around, it could be subpoenaed for use against you....get rid of it now before it gets called into court
Your "black box" could be called into court to show virtually anything a lawyer wants to show. If it doesn't show anything at all, do you think for one second that the other side will use that "inconclusive" evidence to help vindicate your side?.....bullshit..this whole "data computer" thing is simply the insurance industry attempting to get out of paying claims, coupled with the trial lawyers guild smelling a new source of contingency fees......
Only way to avoid it is to drive an old car that you own outright!
OK. So when your cruise control lets you drift 1 mph over the speed limit, you're breaking the law. And when the laws are changed to make your current behavior illegal, will you still cry "Don't break the law" like a good little sheep?
/em wrenches mind back
Crashing a car in most any event is dangerous. 60kph vs. 50kph - the car, and likely you, are going to sustain some damage.
Interestingly, the Autobahn in Germany is one of the safest roadways in the world. Oh yeah, the same Autobahn with 100+ mph traffic.
When Montana dropped their speed limits a few years ago, they found the average speed was 78 miles per hour. 3 mph over the previously posted limit. When the government threatened to pull their funding, they reinstated 75mph speed limits.
Define "better driving habits". Driving like you? Like me? Take a mother with 4 kids in the SUV, yapping on the cell phone. She's never had an accident, her insurance is clean. Are those good driving habits?
A 75-year old man on the Interstate doing 55mph - he's well within the legal limits, but when a group of traffic doing 80mph comes up on him, that creates a tense moment and a lot of brake lights. Is he displaying good driving habits?
I set my cruise at 78mph for my 25-mile commute. I wear my seatbelt, use my signals, don't talk on my cell, don't eat breakfast while I drive, etc. OK, sometimes I sing with the CD I've got in. Are my habits good? I'm 3 mph over the speed limit - moving with the flow of traffic. Should all of us be arrested?
Speed limits are an artificial creation designed as a fee collector for cities. People will drive at the speed they are comfortable with. If someone is doing 50 in a residential, they should be cited, by all means. If 50 becomes a median speed in that area, why is that? Is it a quicker way across town, etc.? Traffic patterns are so poorly researched and not planned ahead for that many thoroughfares become chokepoints, forcing people to alternate routes.
Bah, I'm way off-topic.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about", you claim. What about when what you're doing legally now *becomes* something to hide? Your drive to your AA meeting? The surprise shopping for your wife becomes a reason to pull you over? A desire to try a new dish leads you to a neighborhood you've never visited - and a reason to stop you? How about when you and your wife just decide to "see where that road goes" - that's unusual activity and should be flagged. Complacency is the problem, and our government and corporations are preying on it.
"If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
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.
While you'll probably get a lot of "not practical/desirable" responses to this, I think you have touched upon a valid point: if these devices do end up making it in every vehicle, understanding exactly what data is recorded and what is considered to be within desired tolerances by manufacturers, insurance companies and law enforcement agencies should not only be made public, but also be part of written driver's license exams.
I can see it now when driver X gets rear-ended by a drunk on a cell phone and the drunk's insurance company downloads driver X's black box data and finds that driver X's radio volume was 0.001dB above what they considered to be acceptable and therefore they deny all claims. Of course, the operator had no way of knowing this ahead of time because it was proprietary information; the drunk walks and the insurance company finds another way to fuck the public.
moto411.com
"I do have serious concerns about this, though. In particular, I don't want to get a ticket in the mail because I went 60 in a 45 while passing some other car, and I don't want to get a call from my insurance company because some guy backed into me and dented my front bumper a little. But as long as this information is released in a way that doesn't personally identify me, I'd have no problem with it in my car. And if people were allowed to flip a switch and shut it off completely, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all."
Wouldn't accessing such information collected by a computer that is in YOUR car, that YOU own be called "hacking"?
If breaking into GM's computers to collect information by me is a crime, so should accessing one that I own, whether GM sold it to me or not.
Just because IBM sold me a computer doesnt' give them the right to collect information from it. Why should GM, Ford, etc be exempt?
Corporatism != Free Market
...well, at least mine does. I have a MINI Cooper S (the new model from BMW).
When we did the 'walk through' of the controls, the dealer told me, that when you turn on the ignition, it displays the ESTIMATED number of miles to your next service. I asked the guy - "What do you mean 'estimated'? Surely it just counts down the miles? Since the odometer and the miles-to-next-service indicators are both digital, why would they ever disagree?"
Aparrently not. It monitors how 'agressively' you drive and counts the miles down faster if you redline it a lot (very tempting with the MINI BTW). This makes sense - a car that's driven hard needs servicing more often. The onboard computer knows the RPM - the number of times the traction control and dynamic steering controls kick in and everything else there is to know about how hard the poor beast is being thrashed - it's in a good position to know when a service is likely to be needed.
Does this happen in practice? Yes!
When I took delivery, there was 20 miles on the odometer and since the first service is nominally at 10,000 miles, the miles-to-next-service indicator was reading 9980 as you'd expect.
After I'd clocked up ~500 miles, driving it fairly agressively (because it's my new toy) the service indicator was saying ~9440 to go - suggesting it needed servicing 60 miles before it 'nominally' should. In the past few weeks, my driving style has returned somewhat to 'normal' and when I hit 1000 miles, the service indicator was showing ~8930 to go - so my better driving style had only cost me an additional 10 miles of 'penalty'.
So - there is no doubt that the car monitors my driving style and makes that readily apparent to the dealership - requiring me to undergo more frequent services in order to stay withing warranty if I drive agressively - and rewarding me with fewer services if I'm a good person.
Whether that's a good thing or not depends on your perspective. Yes, it's a slight invasion of privacy because your car dealer now knows you are a bad person. But if you intend to keep the car beyond the end of the warranty then you are better off for knowing that you need to service it more often in order to avoid it crapping out on you. I guess it also allows the manufacturers to set the service intervals nominally further apart - so they don't penalise good drivers by requiring more frequent services.
www.sjbaker.org
You are assuming a non-catastrophic failure. What if you are doing 80mph on the freeway and your front tire (which has been running on low pressure for 2 months) blows out.
Right there, you are doing 2 things which directly contribute to the accident, speeding and low tire pressure. Should you be held accountable for that? What if someone dies in the accident? Does the family of the victim deserve to know that you killed their loved one? Do the cops deserve to have access to information that could prove you commited a crime which caused an accident?
People need to take their cars more seriously. They need to learn how to drive, not by dad, but by people who are professional drivers. They need to know that the oil, water, wiper fluid, tire pressure, tread, and a myrid of other things are important.
I'd love to see one case on Court TV where someone was held liable for an accident in a rain storm where the person couldn't see because their wipers were 4 years old.
The real question here is not about the usefulness of the device. It is about the specs for the device.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
There is no such thing as "driving safely" on a road with more than one vehicle on it.
There is a commonly accepted meaning to "driving safely" which does not imply 100% assurance that you will not get injured -- just the absence of particularly unsafe actions.
Have you done much driving in the US?
I'm not a race car driver, nor do I drive as a profession, but I certainly do drive in the US.
If you are going the speed limit, you are not driving safely
Potentially, yes. If it's snowing heavily and you have 30' maximum visibility and you're doing 45 MPH on a 45 MPH road, you could well get warned or even cited for reckless driving. It's quite rare that this happens, though.
On a road with traffic flowing at 15 miles per hour over the speed limit, you can, quite seriously, be ticketed for "reckless driving" for driving the speed limit.
No, you can not. Feel free to link to a state DoT resource or reputable legal source that says so.
The system is designed so that you are, simply by being on the road, acting outside the law
I disagree.
It is also designed with the assumption that traffic laws will be enforced by a reasonable human being, so that conflicting laws will be properly applied.
I think you're operating on a misconception of what the laws are, rather than under a conflict of law.
Congratulations, your insurance company probably has no liability when you are not "driving safely".
And you know who's the final arbiter of that? A judge. Who is "human", as you mentioned above.
My best friend's father was mowed down by a drunken driver when he was six. I have absolutely no tolerance for people who have been fortunate enough to never hit anyone and somehow feel that they are justified in breaking the speed limit or breaking traffic laws. They were put in place for a reason, not arbitrarily.
This also goes along with the problem of technology giving the ability to actually enforce all laws all the time. Most law wasn't designed with that in mind.
That's somewhat true. Penalties can probably be reduced if the rate of successful enforcement grows significantly, since sentences are partly set to have deterrent value to those who manage to slip by the system a few times.
Most non-felony law would be truly awful if it were actually completely enforced all the time.
I really cannot agree. There are a few outdated laws on using profanity that are at issue, and I think that laws should probably be altered so that a 15 year old that mows his neighbor's lawn doesn't need a business license. So there are some exceptions. But as for traffic violations...no, I don't think that they're out of line at all. More young people are killed by car accidents each year than from anything else. It's great that you've never been involved in an accident, but other people are.
May we never see th
do you really think you would see just one cent of this money???
Yes. That's what competition is for, and insurance is quite fungible and price-competitive.
Why do you think prices drop on *anything* you buy?
in the case of a crash logs should be just accessible to the police to prevent manipulation by garagists or manufacturers
I very, very strongly doubt that a manufacturer would ever risk tampering with data like that. The auto industry is quite PR-sensitive, and the damage caused by one person getting in a crash (which at the *very* worst can be spun to look much more minor by PR flacks) is nothing compared to the kind of a scandal that a manufacturer would get in if anyone discovered that they were falisfying crash data. That sort of thing looks very sweet for investigative reporters who want to drag someone through the mud to make their career. You really don't even need to consider the civil and criminal penalties a court would hand down for tampering with evidence. It's simply not worth it in terms of dollars risked in sales by a company.
this means there has to be an open standart or it will be to expensive
I'm dubious about this, though I'm definitely with you in desiring an open standard.
privacy reasons the logs of the crash-relevant data shoul be submitted anonymous to manufacturers
I really don't see the need for privacy here, and I'm quite privacy-conscious when it comes to my data.
and all saved data should be accessible by the car owner in a noncrash case =)))
That would be nice, though I doubt it would be legally mandated or even actually done.
May we never see th