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 took out the whole bloody engine.
Of course when they start putting this crap in my heart rate monitor I'm screwed.
KFG
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 ----
Its for drivetrain litigation.
g C: www.sokymat.com/sp/applications/tireid.html
l
: www.sokymat.com/sp/applications/tireid.html
M C: www.aiag.org/publications/b11.html
Remember the many lawsuits over Audi acceleration at stop lights into traffic? Strangely most lurching Audis were occupied by females and the gender of the driver had some role in the "hardware defect" that resulted in many near fatal and fatal accidents.
Experts concluded it was usually the drivers fault.
These spy chips (which also record speeding habits) could have avoided millions of dollars of hassles..... maybe... if they indicated if the driver was holding the gas pedal or not.
I worked on transmissions... the laws for product liability insurance ofr drivetrain components are astounding. Drivetrain component suppliers would LOVE these tattle tale chips!
But worse are the spy chips embedded in tires that can be read REMOTELY while driving.
TOP SECRET FACT:Most modern cars have tracking transponders!
A secret initiative exists to track all funnel-points on interstates and US borders for car tire ID transponders (RFid chips embedded in the tire).
Yup. My brother works on them.
Your tires have a passive coil with 64 to 128 bit serial number emitter in them! (AIAG B-11 ADC v3.0) . A particular frequency energizes it enough so that a receiver can read its little ROM. A ROM which in essence is your GUID for your TIRE. Multiple tires do not confuse the readers. Its almost identical to all "FastPass" "SpeedPass" technologies you see on gasoline keychain dongles and commuter windshield sticker-chips. The US gov has secretly started using these chips to track people.
Its kind of like FBI "Taggants" in fertilizer and "Taggants" in Gasoline and Bullets, and Blackpowder. But these car tire transponder Ids are meant to actively track and trace movement of your car.
I am not making this up. Melt down a high end Firestone, or Bridgestone tire and go through the bits near the rim (sometimes at base of tread) and you will locate the transmitter (similar to 'grain of rice' pet ids and Mobile SpeedPass, but not as high tech as the tollbooth based units). Sokymat LOGI 160, and Sokymat LOGI 120 transponder buttons are just SOME of the transponders found in modern high end car tires. The AIAG B-11 Tire tracking standard is now implemented for all 3rd party transponder manufactures [covered below].
It is for QA and to prevent fraud and "car theft", but the US Customs service uses it in Canada to detect people who swap license plates on cars when doing a transport of contraband on a mule vehicle that normally has not logged enough hours across the border. The customs service and FBI do not yet talk about this, and are starting using it soon.
Photos of chips before molded into tires:
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:TAQIKjBI01
(slashdot ruins links, so you will have to remove the ASCII space it insertess usually into the url above to get to the shocking info and photos on the enbedded LOGI 160 chips that the us gov scans when you cross mexican and canadian borders.)
You never heard of it either because nobody moderates on slashdot anymore and this is probably +0 still. It has also never appeared in print before and is very secret.
Californias Fastpass is being upgraded to scan ALL responding car tires in future years upcoming. I-75 may get them next in rural funnel points in Ohio.
http://www.tadiran-telematics.com/products6.htm
but the fact is... YOU PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE A RADIO TRANSPONDER not counting your digital cell phone which is routinely silently pulsed in CA bay area each rush hour morning unless turned off (consult Wired Magazine Expose article). Those data point pulses are used by NSA on occasions.
The us FBI with NRO/NSA blessings, has requested us gov make this tire scanning information as secret as the information regarding all us inkjet printers sold in usa in the last 3 years using "yellow" GUID barcode under dark ink regions to serialize printouts to thwart counterfeiting of 20 dollar bills. (30 to 40 percent of ALL California counterfeiting is done using cheap Epson inkjet printers, most purchased with credit cards foolishly). Luckily court dockets divulge the existence of the Epson serial numbers on your printouts... but nobody except a handful of people know about this Tire scanning upgrade to big brother's arsenal.
YOU MUST BUY NEUTRALIZED OR FOREIGN TIRES!!!!! Soon such tires will become illegal to import or manufacture, just as Gasoline must have "Taggants" added or gasoline is illegal, as are non-self-aging 9 mm bullets.
It is currently VERY illegal to buy or disable the "911 help" GPS emitter in digital cell phones in the US or ship a modified phone across state borders, but it is still legal to turn off your cell phone in your car while travelling. As you should. And you should be wary of your tires now too. : http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:TAQIKjBI01gC
Alternatively you could illegally build jamming devices at : 13.56 MHz, + 1,356 MHz +- many freqs (TI-RFid) and a few others. If microwave is ever employed you might not be able to effectively jam but your brain would possibly cook over time, as it now known as of this year that the three harmonic resonances of water are not the only chemical actions harming human tissue at gigaherz frequencies. Jammers would be illegal and violators easy to locate. Tire removal is the only option.
RFIDs have been covertly used and sold by TI for over ten years are in many many products... and now your tires are being read by the us gov as you drive at speeds of up to 100 Mph on primary US interstate corridors. (Actually 160 km/h).
Those same US interstate corridors have radiation detectors too, but a small layer of stacks of interlocked graphite blocks those from detecting stealthy deliveries. Graphite blocks are IDEAL for shipping "dirty bomb" components, I believe.
Anyway, regarding tire radio transmitters: the sokymat LOGI 160, and sokymat LOGI 120) are just SOME of the transponders found in modern tires. The earliest tire radio spy chips had only 64 bit serial numbers but they have rapidly evolved post Sept 11 bombings: LOGI 160 LOGI 120 has 224 bit R/W memory (sokymat.ch) to be marked using external hand help injectors with "salt" info when the fbi tags your parked car.
Basically the FBI "marks your car" without touching it physically, thus eliminating a "warrant" to put a locater on your vehicle. Just as the FBI can listen to you while you are at home by LEGALLY bouncing an infrared beam off your vibrating window pane and modulating the signal, the US Gov can LEGALLY inject (program) a saltable read-write sokymat LOGI eeprom tire chip (and other brands of tire transponders)
Using these chips to track people while they drive is actually the idea of the us gov, and current chips CANNOT BE DISABLED or removed. They hope ALL tires will have these chips in 5 years and hope people have a very hard time finding non-chipped tires. Removing the chips is near impossible without destroying the tire as the chips were designed with that DARPA design goal.
They are hardened against removal or heat damage or easy eye detection and can be almost ANYWHERE in the new "big brother" tires. In fact in current models they are integrated early and deep into the substrate of the tire as per US FBI request.
Our freedom of travel are going away in 2003, because now there is an international STANDARD for all tire transponder RFID chips and in 2004 nearly ALL USA cars will have them. Refer to AIAG B-11 ADC, (B-11 is coincidentally Post Sept 11 fastrack initiative by US Gov to speed up tire chip standardization to one read-back standard for highway usage).
The AIAG is "The Automotive Industry Action Group"
The non proprietary (non-sokymat controlled) standard is the AIAG B-11 standard is the "Tire Label and Radio Frequency Identification" standard
"ADC" stands for "Automatic Data Collection"
The "AIDCW" is the US gov manipulated "Automatic Identification Data Collection Work Group"
The standard was started and finished rapidly in less than a year as a direct consequence of the Sep 11 attacks by Saudi nationals.
I believe detection of the AIAG B-11 radio chips (RFIS serial number transponders) in the upgraded car tracking http://www.tadiran-telematics.com/products6.html is currently secret knowledge. Another reason to leave "finger print on Driver license" California, but Ohio gets it next, as will every other state eventually.
The AIAG is claiming the chips reduce car theft, assist in tracking defects, and assists error-proofing the tire assembly process. But the real secret is that these 5 cent devices are a us government backed initiative to track citizens travel without their consent or ability to disable the transponders in any way.
All tire manufacturers are forced to comply AIAG B-11 3.0 Radio Tire tracking standard by the 2004 model year.
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:-qJPsZjkMA
Viewing b11 synopsis is free, downloads from that are $10 and tracked by the FBI. Use the google cache to avoid leaving breadcrumbs.
And just as showerheads are now illegal to import into the USA from Canada or mexico, as are drums of industrial Freon, and standard size toilets are illegal to import for home use, soon car tires without radio transponders will be illegal to bring across state borders.
The US gov is getting away with this. You read it here first.
Learn and read.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why doesn't anyone post these links in the original article?
~Idarubicin
The original poster is correct. EMS crews have many things to do in the field, and finding some little plug on a crushed vehicle so they can gather data (that will probably NOT be useful at the hospital) is NOT a priority.
This is just one more thing that can break down, and get lost/stolen, dead batteries, etc. Many medics will bring me a polariod of the vehicle the patient was in... that's about all I need, in addition to some other basic info about the crash. Medics are trained to gather this kind of thing already; it's dogma in the care of the blunt trauma patient.
How much intrusion into the passenger compartment?
Restrained? (seat belt)
Air bag deployed?
Did anyone in the vehicle not survive?
Prolonged extrication time?
Ejected from the vehicle?
Was it a rollover accident?
etc.
Hospital personell are trained to consider these factors, not that the vehicle was traveling at 37.8MPH at the time of collision... Physicians are, for the most part, not engineers; they are not trained to translate that information into something clinically useful. Further, other factors (how much slack in the seatbelt, etc) will obfuscate the usefulness of that measurement.
Most "mechanism of injury" info is only useful to raise or lower your clinical suspicion for certain types of injuries. You'd still try to treat the patient, not the number.
All that aside, I think a good open standard for these recorders would be a good thing... just not for EMS reasons.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Insurance companies will probably give you a discount if you let them install a data recorder in your car... :-/
(But what if it turns out that wrecking your car was your own fault...)
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
Should I wrap my tires and my printer in tinfoil then? ;P
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
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.
They would not put these gadgets in the tires, they get replaced several times in the life time of the car.
Everyone know that the sensors are in the cusion of the driver seat so they can measure the amount of gas released during thier commute. To bad they cannot measure your output, but your posting will provide ample data.
It is odd how all the worlds secrets are known only to a few impossibly inarticulate jackasses. Probably the same effect causes UFOs to only appear to drunken cowboys and tornados to only hit trailer parks.
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.
I don't believe you!
...
From the site:
SOKYMAT® has developed special epoxy transponders which, already at an early production stage
When exactly did they start chipping? Why hasn't all that business gotten these chips past the early production phase?
Informative? I'll go huff some solvents and this will still read like weekly world news.
C'mon.
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
Everyone should already know that the American mass media disseminates FUD because FUD sells. It's about money - increased viewer/readership means more revenue.
If it bleeds, it leads, right?
Having high expectations of the media may not be unreasonable, but it is a bit unrealistic.
Geez you are such a troll.
It IS true that RFID tags are used in tires, just not passenger car tires. I am a retired chip designer and have worked on several designs of these. One of them even had a Goodyear blimp as part of the logo, the work was funded in part by Goodyear.
One important application of RFID tags is for TRUCK tires in fleets. These are very expensive tires and (I am told) the tags are coupled with pressure sensors to help drivers and maintenance personnel read pressures on the tires they can't see. This is something of an inventory control problem, for which RFID tags are particular well suited.
Sure, you can imagine a day when we all are are tracked by our tire signatures at US borders, right now that is just a rejected XFiles script.
%Gotta sig?
No match.
Solution: Never drive under 100 MPH
.
If the police were really interested in catching the asshats going 90+ in the 25MPH zones, that's where they'd wait for speeders. Instead, they sit on the highway during rush hour. You tell me where their priorities are.
Woah dude, I'm like totally inspired. All these assholes suck ass yeah.
I melted my tires just like you said and loads of weird shit fell out. I was a bit suprised because my car is a 1982 Daihatsu, but I'm not sure when the tires were fitted. I found something that might have been a silicon chip but without an electron microscope its pretty hard to tell.
I totally agree with you man. Like, unless you can disprove something, its gotta be true, right?
And shit dude, I've seen fuckin millions of UFOs. They used to be on Fox all the fuckin time.
Fuckin yeah.
Sure, it's not that hard. It could also be taken as "giving fraudulent information to gain access to a computer system", and in my state such access to a computer system is a felony, but what the heck, they probably won't catch and prosecute me, and even if they do I have all the money in the world to fight it, right? Seems to me that just not bothering with the NYT makes more sense.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I also feel the same way. There is little legitimate reason to link to NYT stories when other sources almost always have an equivalent story.
I'd like to see a Slashdot moratorium on links (in articles, not in comments, obviously) to sites that require registration or hoop-jumping to see the article.
May we never see th
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!!"
... not necessarily in the event of a crash or accident, but it might on the next one. Data recorders help engineers determine what went wrong with the related technology and if that information can be used to help save the life of someone in the future by improving the technology, perhaps someone like myself or my loved ones, I'm all for it.
Regarding the privacy issue, I believe the issue of personal data privacy to be our future "civil rights" issue for the next 20 years. Laws need to be written around the use and abuse of this information.
Which do you do first? Save lives now or put it off until some civil rights legislation that make huge corporations less profitable passes?
Speak truth to power.
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
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?
The origin of the word is french... it means "to sort."
You are talking about the difference in triage between normal situations, versus mass casualty. In a mass casualty incident, you would be correct; the most-critically injured, who could not be saved without an inordinate amount of resources expended (resources that could be used to save multiple other patients) are made comfortable and allowed to die.
This situation is very uncommon in normal civilian EMS in the United States. For a mass casualty incident, however, your point is a valid one.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Just install catterpillar tracks under your SUV then, problem solved and it looks spiffy, too.
Hate me!
...the car monitors how fast the driver is going!
Oh wait...
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Im a tech, but I wish I could go around and hit everybody involved with technology, with a CLUESTICK (patent pending). Just bacuse we can do this, and it helps 1 in 100, is not a excuse to do it. Almost all "New Technology" we have seen in the last year, in about monitoring somebody/something. Im telling ya, its not the right thing to do. You will box yourself in a corner, when your boss says "you might want to take a pee, cause it looks like your bladder is full"
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...
Pthththth-fit. EMT need to get you to a trauma center based on their jundgment of your condition. A silly box in your car would provide them with few clues that can't be had from the apearence of your wrecked vehicle. There's only one speed they take people to the hospitial based on need, they go no faster or slower than they can safetly. If there's any chance you need to go, you go. No first responder is going to waste time looking for a little black box which may or may not provide uselful information and may or may not even be working.
This has noting to do with automobile makers charging you for a box you can't talk to or control. Let's just say that you are going to have a hard time convincing people that such a device is a feature they want, especially from the same companies that balked about the costs of putting in reasonable seatbelts and air bags. "Oh, that will ruin us" they told us. Right, safety is job one and this is being done for my good.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
-This man's neck is broken...
-How broken?
-Let's check... he was going at 90mph... it's VERY broken.
-Aright, I guess we can take a break, there's no way he's coming back alive... Hey we even got proof he was going faster than a cesna.
Well, OK. The ignition is electronically controlled. And the radio doesn't really count. But, there's very little in the car that is electronic, and even less that isn't field-repairable. Which is just the way I like it.
Well, the circumstances are much different. With an airplane, land with a flat tire and you may die. With an airplane, run out of gas and you may die. Car drivers can meet the same fate, but it's a whole lot less likely, and they usually take fewer people with them.
There's an old expression: "Aviation is not in itself inherently dangerous. But to an even greater extent than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect."
[... or re Air Traffic Control, "What is the similarity between air traffic controllers and pilots? If a pilot screws up, the pilot dies. If ATC screws up, the pilot dies."]
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.
Not... those $25.00 each tires on my winter beater I got at Discount Tire do not have ANY RF tagging equipment in them... but for fun I'll take my activation coil and RF service monitor out to the parking lot tommorow at work looking for tires that transmit....
:-)
I'm betting that I dont find anything
BTW, I have sucessfully snooped many tipes of RF tag devices... Motorola alarm door entry badges are easy... Mobil speedpass are different. looking like a rolling code or something like that.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Ok, let's examine this statement of opinion:
"The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur."
If I am a person who drives a car nicely all the time, and I drive defensively to avoid accidents, I shouldn't have any -- right? If I am a crazy person who drives without regard to others, I won't.
So if I am a good person and I drive defensively, but someone hits me and it's easy to say 50/50, this little black box says that it's not my fault because I braked and swerved like I should've. The other person shows excessive speed and other issues. This would certainly cause people who are irresponsible drivers to be held accountable for their actions more often.
If you go further along these lines, we could also get more detailed crash statistics. We could find out how dangerous a crash at 60 kph vs. 50 kph is. More detailed information about how crashes can be made less dangerous is also good.
Together we have the twins of more knowledge, and encouraged better driving habits. How is this bad? Road ways are a commons, paid for by everyone's tax dollars. When the government sets a speed limit, it's the people it's speaking for in setting that speed. To say that it's bad that you might be prosecuted for speeding is like saying it's bad that a drunken driver is held responsible for killing me in an accident. Are you sure about that, Michael? If you have problems with people finding out you broke the law, don't break the law.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
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.
twitter,
:)
The device that djupedal referred to, Tele-Aid, contacts the Mercedes-Benz emergency center after a collision has occurred. It can also be utilized to establish a conversation with a representative of the company, summon roadside assistance, or obtain directions and reservations in a manner similar to General Motors' On-Star. With the exception of certain C-Class vehicles, Tele-Aid is provided with every Mercedes-Benz assembled as a standard feature. More information is available here.
djupedal, out of curiousity, were you referencing the G-Class or M-Class?
Regards,
Scoria
Do you like German cars?
"UFOs to only appear to drunken cowboys "
You think UFOs are only witnessed by drunken cowboys? Why oh why do ignorant, clueless fools keep insisting on posting here.
War is necrophilia.
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!
>I have to disagree. Generally, I'd say that making more data available helps a system as a whole.
Generally, yes, but what of the privacy of the consumer? That seems to be the real issue here. Its fairly obvious we're living in a time where an incredible amount of data can be collected about an individual very cheaply. Without some kind of state-level legislation protecting what Bob-knows should be private data then there will continue to be backlash.
Because alot of companies that send out service trucks want them, to keep tabs on their drivers. They've also made there way into quite a few Chevy Silverado 1500's & Ford F-150's which the general public buy.
And there's a microphone in the cab to record the last 30 seconds of sound in the passenger compartment.
Police have analyzed these whenever available, especially in fatal accidents.
Usually, the last thing heard is pretty mundane, some trite cell phone call wich distracted the driver, some conversation, whatever, with "Oh God!" or "Holy Shit!!" at the very last second.
They did find a disturbing trend in the deep south, though, where the last thing heard was usually something like:
"Ya'll Hold my beer and watch this"
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
For me to hang on to my 1993 Ford Escort with a quarter million miles on it.
Corporatism != Free Market
I think it is one of those Dvorak Keyboard things -- the Audi/VW pedal layout was probably for getting faster response on the brakes, all very scientific UI engineering and all, but for us dumb clucks trained on conventional pedals, it turned out to be an easy way to make a new opening in the garage.
Yes, the drivers were at fault, but I think it was a UI issue compared to experience with other cars of where your feet think the gas and brake are. And once you make the wrong connection, you are in a kind of PIO (pilot-induced oscillation or feedback) -- you press to stop, no stop, so you press even more. You can call the victims dumb women drivers, but it is really, really hard not to make a new door in the garage once you connect with the wrong pedal -- your reflexes get the better of you.
Oh, and I am pretty sure that it was a UI issue rather than some mystery bug in the engine controller. I didn't buy that Quantum because I thought that pedal layout would give me a back ache.
I am a flight instructor, CFII, about 2000 hours. You may psychologically feel more comfortable in the air, but that's exactly the attitude that can set you up for a big disappointment.
You can be forced to produce most recorded information (save what is privileged) or to testify (except not to incriminate yourself in a criminal proceeding, or to reveal what is privileged). Either kind of evidence can be falsified, by forgery or perjury. The kind of trouble you describe is that your records might make it more difficult to lie. I'm not too sympathetic.
On the other hand, where it can be a problem is when the records are misunderstood or misused. That is bad.
People from President Nixon to Oliver North to these stock analysts have been nailed by their own records.
However, many employers keep on archiving because they know these records can protect them as defendants, and they may even hope to be honest.
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 say, go for it. I know I'm a safe driver, and it sure would be sweet to see all those assholes who zip through traffic in their Expeditions with monster truck tires get busted through their data recorders.
--sdem
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 kind of trouble you describe is that your records might make it more difficult to lie. I'm not too sympathetic."
Dude, the vast majority of sexual harassment lawsuits are bogus. I've seen more than one incompetent woman try to sue the company for harassment when she was let go.
Corporatism != Free Market
One common unit from Vetronics can read out both GM and Ford airbag units. As of 2001, the other manufacturers weren't on board on this. It's just a little adapter box that plugs a laptop into the airbag unit.
The certification course for learning how to read out this data costs $250, not $5000, as someone else suggested. The Vetronics hardware and software, though, costs about $2500, not including the Windows laptop required.
When the airbag fires, the following data is stored:
Airbag units first started recording this data in some 1991 models, but it wasn't widespread until 1996.
Even from a wrecked vehicle, you can usually read out this data, although it may be necessary to pull the airbag controller from the vehicle.
Now that's just crash data. It's often possible to read out other units of the vehicle system as well, usually via the SAE J1978 OBD-II diagnostic connector near the steering column. This is more useful for diagnosing engine problems than for crash analysis.
More recent vehicles have a whole LAN on board, with many units that can be read out. Newer heavy trucks use a standardized SAE J1939 LAN (250Kb/s), and even have a network bridge between the tractor and the trailer. Engine/transmission/brake coordination, plus many auxiliary functions, takes place over that network. Some agricultural implements talk that protocol, too.
Incidentally, if anybody is into J1939 protocol stacks, please contact me. I need one, with source.
...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
That is not entirely correct. I posted that over a year ago. I am currently a junior in high school and I am also a member of the Harvard, MA EMT squad. My highschool has a special state varience allowing students under the age of 18 to become licensed EMTs. I have no particular way of proving this to you save to say its the truth.
"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.
All hail technocracy.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I work in this industry and spent a stint doing just this sort of thing. I put some of the first data loggers on a certain auto makers certain sport ute.
Its there, and its never in the past been for improving the performance. Just for saying, you were going x MPH, you had no seatbelt on, and our airbag DID deploy properly and on time.
What happens when the "hackers" reverse engineer this and then are able to put in false data?
Michael was doing 70, but his car only says 45....
Do you Gentoo!?
I have two issues with your post:
First, the American legal system is fucked. I don't know about the details of your case, but I find it hard to belive that 12 people found you liable for $9000 just for bumping into someone. Unless there was intentional malice (get outta my way, bitch), or incompetence (you walking backwards, talking with friends), or maybe unintentional personal injury (you bumped her, she fell down stairs). If you settled out of court, I'm sorry. Everyone in this country has the right to vote, and the right to have a jury decide their fate. If you give up the right to vote, you can't complain about the president. If you give up the right to a trial, you can't complain about the legal system.
Second, and this is sketchy. If I buy a car that records everything, I don't think the law requires you to surrender this data. There is an ammendment to the constitution that, basicly, says you cannot be called on to testify agianst yourself. If you go out and kill 20 people, the prosicution can't call you to the stand. For anything. At all. If your lawyer call you to the stand, the prosicution cann cross-examine you, but he cannot call you on his own.
So by that accord, data that your car collects shouldn't be able to be entered as evidence agianst you. Yes, corporations have documents entered agianst them all the time, but a corporation is not granted rights under the constitution. You are.
I'm probably wrong, but I think a judge might see it as a constitutional rights issue and not allow it to be entered.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Sorry, no. There is no such thing as "driving safely" on a road with more than one vehicle on it. In your previous sentence, you stated "over the speed limit" so I'm going to assume you include "driving within the speed limit" in "driving safely". (Yes, this is putting words in your mouth. If I'm wrong, I apologize.)
Have you done much driving in the US? If you are going the speed limit, you are not driving safely. You are being a traffic hazard. 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. Because you are a traffic hazard by driving within the speed limit.
The system is designed so that you are, simply by being on the road, acting outside the law. 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. Mostly, with humans enforcing the laws, this works rather well.
With insurance companies run by computers and actuarial tables, this works much less well. Your car will record that you were doing something dangerous while driving. It doesn't much matter what you were doing, it was still dangerous somehow. Congratulations, your insurance company probably has no liability when you are not "driving safely".
This isn't bad so much from the point of view of being used against you, as it is from the point of view that it needs to be understood that life is dangerous, and you don't lose coverage simply for living.
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. Most non-felony law would be truly awful if it were actually completely enforced all the time. But technology is coming close to giving that ability, and we as a society need to consider the implications of that before we jump into it.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
The Audi 5000 debacle, mentioned by another poster was never fully resolved. Audi did have some defective transmissions, but just a few. The main factor appears to have been nonstandard pedal placement, such that someone going for the brake would hit the accelerator and go into a nightmare feedback loop, esp. because the Audis tended to idle high. IMHO the driver error was not continuing to press the accelerator down so much as shifting into gear without a foot on the brake; and the fundamental error was Audi's varying the pedal layout and not including an interlock preventing changing gears inless the brake was depressed (are these pretty much standard now?). Blaming to drivers -- and worse a cheesy sexist slur -- doesn't tell the complete story.
:)
Search the web, there is a ton of info.
It is odd how all the worlds secrets are known only to a few impossibly inarticulate jackasses.
That's because the United Nations world gov't assimilates or murders the credible ones. Hear that knock at your door? Better answer it...
See, I'm not always serious.
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.
The traffic junctions were equipped with data recorders connected to sensors placed under the ground. The data was latere used for reconstruction using computer models. All this about twenty plus years ago. The problem was that it cost a fortune to implement the logging and then processing the data afterwards. Getting the logging data out of a vehicle should be a lot cheaper (making holes in the road is expensive, and only that spot would be instrumented).
OTOH, accidents cost a lot of money. The direct costs attributable to a major accident can exceed half a million dollars, probably a lot more in the US because of higher health costs.
In Germany, we have some of the best vehicle accident related trauma care in the world. We even have mobile theatres. It is normal for an MD to be in attendance at a major accident. MDs here are generally badly paid unless they are in senior positions or are self-employed so it is possible to start treatment at the accident site.
What would be useful is to know whether it is worth sending in the 'A' team for a major accident or the 'B' team for a minor one. The ambulance should arrive asap and it is not a good idea to wait for the police to arrive at the site to classify the accident. In general after a major accident it is the care you receive in the first half hour that contributes the most towards survivability.
As you correctly guessed, my case was one of "un-intended personal injury"...I was pushed by another student and bumped the woman. No, she didn't fall down the stairs, she didn't even fall down! She sued myself, the student that pushed me and the school district.
She dropped the case against the school district when her lawyer learned that "it is school district policy to pursue every case" because they have an army of lawyers on staff. As directed by her lawyer, the case was filed against my parents home-owners insurance even though it did not happen at our home and I was "under the direction of the Portland Public Schools" at the time.
On the other points, you are simply wrong....the police are entitled to collect evidence against you. This is why they often search peoples homes/cars/person for incriminating evidence. The black box in you car could be considered such evidence....and because it (the box) is not the accused, could therefore can be compelled to respond (again with the subpoena power or sit in jail). Lawyers are also entitled to subpoena information which they think will be usefull to them in a case where they have legal standing (i.e. some legit reason to be looking, and any personal injury would be a good one). They are granted this power during the "Discovery" phase of their case, where they get to investigate and see everything that you have, all of your evidence pro and con. Your black box would be an exellent place to start.
Wrong on the corporation law too....Corps assume the legal liability and responsabilities of their board/president/ceo/etc. as long as those boardmembers/directors/shareholders act within the law. Corps can be held responsible for actions that the board members cannot (i.e. bankrupcy, legal liability, etc.)....that's the advantage of a corporation, it shields the directors/board/officers. But this exemption comes at a price. Like a person, corps have legal standing and can sue/be-sued, have seperate tax-id numbers, and bear legal responsibility for it's actions. In many ways, corps have the legal standing of a person without the actual body. Here too, in a legal case, it's not the corporation testifying against itself, it's the individual documents testifying against the corporation...Andrew Fastow and the Enron boys can be compelled to testify against the corp.too. This happens except where such testimony would incriminate them.
One last fun note....courts have the power to compell testimony from witnesses also...but because of the fact you cited above, they must first grant immunity against self incrimination before they can compell testimony. Once done though (you've been given immunity) you must speak, otherwise you are in contempt and get to go to jail too.....in the case of an "onboard computer" observing an accident, it has no jeoperdy and should testify. It's also property, therefore not legaly entitled to any protection or identity (unlike a person or a corp.)
Didn't you every watch Perry Mason?
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.
I doubt ambulance crews would be the ones to carry equipment to read crash data. On the other hand I could imagine either the Police or insurance investigators having the equipment. I've yet to see an accident where an ambulance was called that the police didn't show up and take a report as well.
Its fairly obvious how such devices would "improve safety". You are much more likely to not break traffic laws if you know Big Brother is watching your driving habits. I could see insurance companies requiring a data download when you renew your insurance. Ever exceed a certain speed? You pay more. Rev your engine a lot? You pay more. Slam on the brakes frequently? You pay more. Ever turn without using turn signals? You pay more.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Hell, when a car is driven truly agressively, it should need service after a few blocks, along with some other cars and a few innocent bystanders.
:)
Agressively. Bah.
Back with the SUV tire mess a while back congress decided to make everyone safe in intorduced a bill to make sure that all new cars (but not SUVs?) had sensors in the tires to measure pressure. There are a few ways to do this and none of them are very good. The most common idea is a to put a small RFID type tag that measures pressure and with a RF, you don't need to run any wires into the axle. Other ways would put a small sensor in the wheel at attempt to run a signal over the bearings. All these have problems with the G forces in a tire and if its too close to the rim, you get some interesting RF issues.
It should be able to read the RF tags at high speed if you've got sensors ever 3 inches across a lane but you have to tune the system to every different type of rf tag. I suspect it would also pick up some of car keys that make use of RF as well.
Its possible to that these could be read at a large distance but so far no one is selling any RFID type reader that works at any distance. Where I work would be interested in talking to someone who know how to read a TIRIS tag at 100 yeards and show its general direction.
Sure, you could have vehicle monitoring that might be intrusive. GPS monitoring everywhere could be quite intrusive. Cell phones provide a wonderful location marker on you, that provides a fantastic data source for telecom companies to profit from (and actively are, finding high traffic areas to let store owners build shops and the like). But read the article. These things are pretty simple, cheap data recorders. It looks pretty much like the manufacturers really want to collect some data for their own internal engineering use (and actually aren't too thrilled about it getting out of their hands at all). There's really almost nothing on the table besides crash data. Oh, your car alread records odometer readings, and some record things like miles per gallon you're getting.
May we never see th
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!
If you remove the slashdot induced space..
..
Read closely.. geesh.. perhaps its not cigarettes you have been smokin
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And in fact BMW has denied more than one engine warranty claim based on data downloaded. IMO this is CRAP especially when it was later found that BMW had produced DEFECTIVE engines. Nothing like having $10K worth of repairs denied huh?
:-)
http://members.roadfly.com/jason/m3engines.htm
As for creating a replacement engine management system - why do this yourself? AEM sells a PnP unit for qyuite a few vehicles and has just started. When done they'll have covered a TON of various models and makes. Drives my Supra daily to and from work just fine
http://www.aempower.com/bbs/
Want to get scared? Do some research into the proposed OBD-III engine management spec. Pay particular attention to those things proposed that didn't make it into this round of engine management stuff. Remote shutoff of your car anyone? some of the things our politicians wanted added are frightening!
P.S. There are stories of GM having DL'ed crash data from Corvette's in the past to defend themselves against lawsuits. Don't know if it's true or not but these rumors have existed for YEARS now.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Stating that it's "not all it's cracked up to be" without supporting information is worthless. Have YOU used the AEM? I have, every day for 6 months - works great. Closed loop auto-fuel mapping (using a W/B O2) and soon to be released traction control are just two of the many reasons I chose the AEM and I doubt I'll regret it anytime soon.
The AEM isn't hard to program, I'm no engineer and yet my car runs fine. My time is valuable to me and while I'd love to have enough time to design my own system or build someone else's it's not going to happen.
My fun is in the tuning and getting max power\economy not in figuring out what just locked up my realtime OS while driving down the freeway some cold night. If you think the "AEM can be hard to tune" then go right ahead and design your own system. And then tune it. Heck, just get it to start from a bare bones baseline. I think you'll very quickly find out just what "hard to tune" is indeed! Just wait, you'll see.
In my case potentially melting a many thousand dollar engine to save the $1300 purchase price of an aftermarket ECU was insane - but hey, have it your way (ahem). You would be tuning that Civic NOW if you were running an AEM (shrug).
For those interested in this sort of thing the AEM software is available for free on the site I linked before which is an EXCELLENT support forum - not demo software either. The software is based on the GEMS EMS software which is a UK company I'm told. You can also check out the DFI demo off of my site - www.blkmgk.com - the software is buried in the pictures section I think (doh!). I think you'll find that DFI has no such support forum. Nor does Haltech to my knowledge. Or Electromotive. Or FAST. MOTEC apparently had one but I'm unable to find it. MOTEC's software is available from their site and is supposed to be pretty good now that they've moved to a Windows (GUI) platform. The AEM is comparable to MOTEC in features and priced WAY below their insane pricepoint...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Ultimately cars are pretty simple systems, the only bummer about them is that if you screw up you could permanently break something. That's harder than it seems though, cars will run with all kinds of suboptimal settings. Your timing can be off by as much as ten degrees and your car still run pretty close to properly, for example (which of course depends on how sloppy the engine is, amongst other things.) Your biggest problem is probably running lean. Fortunately there are many documents on the subject, and many many people have spent a LOT of time working on cars and understand them at a gut level. Some of them have even spent enough time programming fuel maps to be able to intuitively feel the relationships between the design of the engine and the amount of fuel and air to be delivered.
Hence the trick is to get all the right people together -- I don't have to tell you this -- But even *I* know a number of them. Hell, I even know a guy who does realtime x86 assembly for a living and has for years and years who is into cars; I'm sure there's lots of people out there like that though, I'm not trying to say I have the holy grail for this project in my hands or anything.
As for hardware, some of the most brilliant people I know are self-taught EEs. One of them owns/operates Pacific Neotek and makes the Omniremote software for palm pilots and the omniremote handspring module. He designed it himself, he reverse-engineered the palm IR hardware because palm claimed that there was no access to it in the way he was doing it... He's definitely both smarter and better-learned than I am :) I'm working on the latter... But the point is, there's lots of people capable of building the hardware, which is not really that hard a task in the end. You don't even have to reverse engineer anything because there are countless books on engine control and the various factory service manuals will tell you the voltage/resistance ranges expected back from the sensors, and what the signal from the crank angle sensor looks like. Then, depending on what approach you take (which is to say, how much CPU power you have) you either write a single process to do everything including all I/O, or you run some RTOS and write one or more process(es) to do your control, I/O, communication with the user, and so on. The former approach suggests (to me) a 683xx series microcontroller, probably the 68332. The latter would suggest either a MIPS processor to me (which has proven to be completely invaluable in embedded solutions... R3000 maybe?) or perhaps that new linux-on-a-chip guy, it has a whole grip of I/O (most of which will not be useful to us without additional hardware like PIC chips to do the A/D and D/A) and a tolerably quick processor.
The 68332 is probably a better solution because it has 16 independent "channels" which can be used for timers or counters. Frankly if you could use one pin for each signal on the car that would just about be enough for most applications. For instance, my nissan has three signals on the crank angle sensor (1 degree, 90 degrees, and 0 degrees) (1,2,3), mass air flow (4), intake air temp (5), throttle position (6), AIV and EGR for smog(7,8), probably some kind of feedback from the electronic timing advance unit (9), an engine temp sensor (10), an O2 sensor (11), an exhaust gas temperature sensor (12), some transmission sensors for detecting gears (I think three (!) of them but we can build something small and simple and put that on one wire) (13)... That's all I can think of that the ECU is actually tied into at the moment. So without even multiplexing (most of those signals are voltage or resistance based and not timed or counted, with the obvious exception of the crank angle sensor and possibly the timing advance and as such can be multiplexed) we can handle enough signals for a fairly modern automobile. The newer version of my car has one more sensor (for knock detection) but that's probably just one more wire.
On the other hand, using the linux chip means we have a buttload of serial I/O and it also handles storage (like what, we're going to need more than 2mb storage for our image? only if we're horrendously inefficient) and we could break those out to less expensive microcontrollers to handle various aspects of engine control. PIC chips are the obvious suggestion because they are very well-known, but there are plenty of other possibilities of course (68HC11 anyone? $10 will get you all the parts you need to build a little development board.)
This isn't as hard as it looks at first, it can be done very inexpensively, and while there are obviously problems to be ironed out (or it would be done already!) it can definitely be done, and I think it's worth doing.
Reverse-engineering someone else's solution still doesn't solve the problem with someone else being in control of it and able to discontinue or raise the price, but it is better than nothing. There is a grassroots effort to reverse-engineer the Nissan 240SX ECU going on right now. Even if it bears fruit, though, it won't remove the need (even MY need) for a complete replacement since I want on-the-fly tuning and feedback, and it doesn't have OBD-II. (Only later models.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
By "I" of course I mean what I would like to see. I'm definitely not to the level where I can pull this off either... yet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"