Slashdot Mirror
Automakers and Crash Data Recorders
The New York Times has a decent story about automakers not wanting to standardize car data recorders. There are a couple of nuances which the reporter mostly misses. The automakers want to avoid standardization because they can then sell access to the proprietary data format (NYT does cover this, but ignores the profit motive). The story mentions privacy issues but dismisses them as solved, yet notes that there are no privacy protections whatsoever for this data, and you can expect it to be used against you in any incident (and perhaps other times: wait until service under your warranty is refused because your car reported your bad driving habits to the dealer). That's not "solved" in my book (and I think the automakers realize that selling cars which report on their owners might backfire). Speculation about ambulance crews using crash data is just hype - no ambulance is equipped to do that, nor would I want an EMT to spend time decoding the crash data instead of, say, saving my life. The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur.
Most people don't even do a "walk around" their car before getting in and driving off. People run out of gas all the time. They get flat tires, and forget to take off the donut for a week.
Holding car drivers to the same standards as aircraft is such a huge leap that the paperwork generated by it could likely employ everyone in America.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Thus it is important that we (the open/free community) develop a free/open engine management system such as those sold for $3000 by haltech, so we can remove the factory computer and install our own.
Fight the power, go learn how to write assembly and do A/D and D/A conversion using digital electronics today!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
(and I think the automakers realize that selling cars which report on their owners might backfire).
I agree. However what about a future owner wanting to know the history of the car? Take it into service to find out what your getting.
Speculation about ambulance crews using crash data is just hype - no ambulance is equipped to do that, nor would I want an EMT to spend time decoding the crash data instead of, say, saving my life
Of course they're not equipped to do that NOW - standardization would allow EMT's to carry equipment that could read data from any car.
The point made in the article is that some crashes cause internal injuries that are not immediately apparent to you or an EMT. They say that many people are not transported to a hospital via helicopter becuase the extent of their injuries is not determined until it is too late. If the EMT could see that the type of crash was likely to cause internal injuries, they could get you to a trauma center faster even if you didn't show any immediate symptoms.
When the airbags go off in a new Mercedes SUV, the onboard phone rings the dealer 'concierge', who in turn attempts to contact the driver. It is just a simple leap to imagine a conference call to the nearest ambulance. GPS locators are already in place in the Mercedes...a pre-signed agreement to release your medical data, and the ambulance crew can have a head start on helping you in case of an injury.
Saying this will never be applied indicates a lack of knowledge of that has been happening in vehicle telemetry over the past few years. Look at F-1 racing to see just how much data is gathered and applied, not only as pertains to the vehicle, but to the driver as well.
As far as some evil plan by the dealers to do something devious with data, I think it is giving them too much credit to think they have the brains to go too far. In my experience, it is all they can do to track part numbers, much less throttle habits. Any worry it just Chicken Little talking another walk outdoors...
I suspect that how this data would be used to increase safety would be to compile data on how accidents occur. What are the abuses? What are the common conditions under which accidents occur? Having this information would allow the auto industry to then ask the questions that may help them move to fixing or improving the way cars handle those situations.
Granted, that's an idealistic analysis of the motives that would drive the industry's use of the data. I'm not speaking to any privacy concerns or the like -- I'm just suggesting a possible motive that the NYT is trying to imply.
I can see this being a 'requirement' to get affordable insurance rates.
Since its not a 'law' it will be hard to fight, but will still achieve mass saturation of the things in time.
Then just add realtime reporting.. GPS.. you will tracked how fast you went to the store for that gallon of 'questionable substance', where you paid via your fingerprint..
On a side note, they are working here in my area to make it legal and acceptable to fire someone beacuse they smoke on OFF hours.. So add that to the big database in the sky.. what you buy/do today, may not be legal tomrrow.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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.
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.
Not likely. You ain't gonna be able to snip the sensor wires without some consequence. This ain't like ripping the polution control equipment off of a '72 Mustang. You won't be able to remove the sensors without the ECM screaming bloody murder and disabling the auto after a while. If you're good at figuring out what code the ECM is using, you might be able to disable the checks in software - at least until they start encrypting the code in the ECM ROM's. Bottom line, a car is more a set of sensors and actuators on wheels these days, all controlled by your friend "software". Good luck, but I think the days of being able to randomly remove parts is numbered.
That is all.
is about to double. I know I'll drive it to the bitter end rather than have some "flight data recorder" accessible to my insurance company, opposing counsel, nosy cops, and Bob-knows-who else.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
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.
Solution: Never drive under 100 MPH
.
I'm already so damned trackable that I don't honestly care about my car being slightly more trackable. I carry one or two cell phones, I use automatic toll collection systems when they're available, and I pay for nearly everything with American Express.
If the government starts using these tags, or the alleged tracking system, in unconstitutional ways, then I'll be concerned. If, however, they just make it so they can locate my car faster after it's been reported stolen, then I'm happy.
Like so much of government these days, the big problem is that they're not being open and honest with us.
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.
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
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
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.
Yes, because as we all know, politicians have no interest in using technology to intrude into our lives and/or further corporate profits.
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...
-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.
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.
People posting here seem to have missed the main point. I bought the car. I paid for the computer collecting all of that data. The data does not belong to the auto industry, they have no business securing it with special connectors and custom systems to extract and decrypt it, just so they can sell it back to me when the car needs service. What we need are some nice class action suits against the major auto companys who think they still own the data after they sell us the car.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I can't think of a single situation where this type of "on-board computer" would have helped me! I can only think of situations where my insurance company or somebody else's insurance company would have screwed me over with information like this. I don't drive crazy, but insurance companies are in the business of NOT paying claims!..The more they can avoid paying, the better for their bottom line. And I think we all know where lawyers rank on the humanity scale..I once got sued for bumping into a woman at my highschool...I was on foot when this happened and I still had to pay $9000 to her quack lawyer
As soon as this data gets recorded, it's "subpoena-able" by lawyers representing anyone else on the road. Remember that old woman that bumped into your car at the supermarket?...Her lawyer could subpoena your "black box" for any fishing expedition that he thinks might be profitable. The best answer is simply NOT to keep records which might implicate you in the future....even if you have nothing to hide, go the speed-limit, drive carefully. Big companies do this already with their e-mail policies and document retention policies....if it's around, it could be subpoenaed for use against you....get rid of it now before it gets called into court
Your "black box" could be called into court to show virtually anything a lawyer wants to show. If it doesn't show anything at all, do you think for one second that the other side will use that "inconclusive" evidence to help vindicate your side?.....bullshit..this whole "data computer" thing is simply the insurance industry attempting to get out of paying claims, coupled with the trial lawyers guild smelling a new source of contingency fees......
Only way to avoid it is to drive an old car that you own outright!
OK. So when your cruise control lets you drift 1 mph over the speed limit, you're breaking the law. And when the laws are changed to make your current behavior illegal, will you still cry "Don't break the law" like a good little sheep?
/em wrenches mind back
Crashing a car in most any event is dangerous. 60kph vs. 50kph - the car, and likely you, are going to sustain some damage.
Interestingly, the Autobahn in Germany is one of the safest roadways in the world. Oh yeah, the same Autobahn with 100+ mph traffic.
When Montana dropped their speed limits a few years ago, they found the average speed was 78 miles per hour. 3 mph over the previously posted limit. When the government threatened to pull their funding, they reinstated 75mph speed limits.
Define "better driving habits". Driving like you? Like me? Take a mother with 4 kids in the SUV, yapping on the cell phone. She's never had an accident, her insurance is clean. Are those good driving habits?
A 75-year old man on the Interstate doing 55mph - he's well within the legal limits, but when a group of traffic doing 80mph comes up on him, that creates a tense moment and a lot of brake lights. Is he displaying good driving habits?
I set my cruise at 78mph for my 25-mile commute. I wear my seatbelt, use my signals, don't talk on my cell, don't eat breakfast while I drive, etc. OK, sometimes I sing with the CD I've got in. Are my habits good? I'm 3 mph over the speed limit - moving with the flow of traffic. Should all of us be arrested?
Speed limits are an artificial creation designed as a fee collector for cities. People will drive at the speed they are comfortable with. If someone is doing 50 in a residential, they should be cited, by all means. If 50 becomes a median speed in that area, why is that? Is it a quicker way across town, etc.? Traffic patterns are so poorly researched and not planned ahead for that many thoroughfares become chokepoints, forcing people to alternate routes.
Bah, I'm way off-topic.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about", you claim. What about when what you're doing legally now *becomes* something to hide? Your drive to your AA meeting? The surprise shopping for your wife becomes a reason to pull you over? A desire to try a new dish leads you to a neighborhood you've never visited - and a reason to stop you? How about when you and your wife just decide to "see where that road goes" - that's unusual activity and should be flagged. Complacency is the problem, and our government and corporations are preying on it.
"If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
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
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
A few years ago, I was involved in an incident where the other driver was high on PCP and was deliberately ramming other vehicles. There were five collisions before his car got stuck over a median. At that point, he stripped off all his clothes because he thought it would make him invisible.
His insurance company (State Farm) paid the claim.
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.
What will really wind up happening is that disabling the boxes will void your insurance policy.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
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.
There is no such thing as "driving safely" on a road with more than one vehicle on it.
There is a commonly accepted meaning to "driving safely" which does not imply 100% assurance that you will not get injured -- just the absence of particularly unsafe actions.
Have you done much driving in the US?
I'm not a race car driver, nor do I drive as a profession, but I certainly do drive in the US.
If you are going the speed limit, you are not driving safely
Potentially, yes. If it's snowing heavily and you have 30' maximum visibility and you're doing 45 MPH on a 45 MPH road, you could well get warned or even cited for reckless driving. It's quite rare that this happens, though.
On a road with traffic flowing at 15 miles per hour over the speed limit, you can, quite seriously, be ticketed for "reckless driving" for driving the speed limit.
No, you can not. Feel free to link to a state DoT resource or reputable legal source that says so.
The system is designed so that you are, simply by being on the road, acting outside the law
I disagree.
It is also designed with the assumption that traffic laws will be enforced by a reasonable human being, so that conflicting laws will be properly applied.
I think you're operating on a misconception of what the laws are, rather than under a conflict of law.
Congratulations, your insurance company probably has no liability when you are not "driving safely".
And you know who's the final arbiter of that? A judge. Who is "human", as you mentioned above.
My best friend's father was mowed down by a drunken driver when he was six. I have absolutely no tolerance for people who have been fortunate enough to never hit anyone and somehow feel that they are justified in breaking the speed limit or breaking traffic laws. They were put in place for a reason, not arbitrarily.
This also goes along with the problem of technology giving the ability to actually enforce all laws all the time. Most law wasn't designed with that in mind.
That's somewhat true. Penalties can probably be reduced if the rate of successful enforcement grows significantly, since sentences are partly set to have deterrent value to those who manage to slip by the system a few times.
Most non-felony law would be truly awful if it were actually completely enforced all the time.
I really cannot agree. There are a few outdated laws on using profanity that are at issue, and I think that laws should probably be altered so that a 15 year old that mows his neighbor's lawn doesn't need a business license. So there are some exceptions. But as for traffic violations...no, I don't think that they're out of line at all. More young people are killed by car accidents each year than from anything else. It's great that you've never been involved in an accident, but other people are.
May we never see th