Slashdot Mirror
Black Box in Speeder's Car Helped Conviction
sessamoid writes "This article in Newhouse News tells the story of a man who was recently convicted of two counts of manslaughter and vehicular homicide each, partially on evidence obtained from the Electronic Data Recorder (EDR) in the car. EDR's are found in all cars with airbags to measure the performance and effectiveness of the airbags and the conditions in which they are used. In this case, the EDR revealed that the driver was not travelling at 60 mph, as he claimed, but actually peaked at 114 mph (in a residential neighborhood) just seconds before the collision. Could this be the forerunner of many such cases in the future, where our cars tell the unadulterated facts, rather than subjective personal accounts?"
Well, a number of manufacturers would love to be able to get these kinds of data for the purposes of designing better cars and some companies (namely Volvo) have had accident investigation teams for years that actually go out to the accident scene to investigate. However, like any data that is accumulated there is the potential for abuse particularly in these times of Total Information Awareness......Oh, excuse me Terrorist Information Awareness. Seriously though, forensic investigation depends upon data and if it is available, it will be examined.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
he gets it from this paragraph in the article
"While all vehicles with air bags use EDRs, other automakers have not been as quick to increase the amount of information recorded. Some are worried that consumers may resent having such personal information collected and they're waiting to see what happens to GM, Haseltine said."
emphasis added...
Assuming that you're pulling some Dukes of Hazzard style bridge jumping, this might be a problem, but the acceleration of your tires when not on the ground will be substantially higher than that of your tires on the ground. Thus, it can easily be ascertained whether your car was in contact with the road, by actually analyzing the data.
They don't have robots figuring this stuff out, they have forensic experts.
Information is stored at 1 second intervals, and the last five seconds before airbag deployment or near-deployment are saved in non-volatile memory. The information saved typically includes:
There's also post-crash data, which is useful for deciding whether airbag deployment should have occured. (That's actually why the data is recorded and why the NTSB analyzes it for collisions where airbag deployment was unnecessary.)
When you see this data graphed over time, it tells you quite a bit about the accident. There's more than speed information. Seeing throttle and brake inputs for five seconds before the collision gives a good indication of what the driver was doing. In this case, press reports say "Court records show the recorder in Matos' 2002 Pontiac Trans Am measured his speed at 114 mph five seconds before the crash in Pembroke Pines. The device detected he was pressing the gas pedal at 99 percent of its maximum capacity. A second before the crash, he was still doing 103 mph." Any questions?
But this is primitive compared to the Eaton VORAD radar system on some heavy trucks. That collects enough information to show what the other vehicles were doing.
Why can't he? The government already did. Congress recommended some time back that speed limits be set to the 85th percentile speed for a given stretch of roadway if no other major factor dictated that the limit be less (ie, engineering surveys show that a certain turn cannot be safely negotiated over XXmph for the average car). In that vein, surveys are regularly taken showing the speeds for roads. Almost unilaterally, the 85th percentile speed is above the posted limit. Why is that? I'll give you an example. Interstate 405 going through eastside Seattle metro area (Kirkland, Bellevue, Renton) is 60mph. The most recent numbers I've seen from Washington state surveys (2001, I believe) showed that the 85th percentile was approximately 71mph (or so -- you can find the reports on Washington's DOL web site). Just driving that interstate will back up those numbers -- most people on that road drive around 70mph except when approaching known speed traps. Shouldn't the speed limit be around 70mph then, if Washington was trying to follow Congressional guidelines and not attempt to line their pockets with speeding fines?
Yes, there's the occassional bonehead that thinks he needs to speed like a moron. However, studies have shown that these extreme speeders are more likely to actually drive the speed limit when that limit is closer to a speed they're comfortable driving (the difference between 60mph and 80mph is much more than the difference between 70mph and 80mph, so the guy going 80mph would be more likely to drive at 70mph than 60mph). On the flip side, there are those that aren't comfortable going that fast, and that's fine. There's a reason there are multiple lanes. Follow the standard "Keep right unless passing" rule (or "keep middle", since you probably shouldn't block on-/off-ramp access), and you'll do fine. As well, reducing the difference in speed does a whole lot more than just reducing speed. I'd rather get hit by an 80mph car while I'm also doing 80mph than get hit by the same car while I'm only doing 60mph. Obviously this only pertains to wide, divided highways. Residential areas or two-lane non-divided highways are much more dangerous.
Many cities already have cameras on traffic lights to catch people running the red light. I know, Baltimore sent me a nice picture of my car heading through the red light 0.3 seconds after it turned, complete with a close-up of my license plate. In return, I sent them $75. As much as I was annoyed at the time, it's a damn good idea, given the number of people that run the stupid things. Especially those in the left turn lane that keep turning 10 seconds after the light's changed. I got in an accident that way, a guy just turned right into me without even looking to see if I was there.
Actually most police cars aready have these chips. These chips started out in fleet vehicles(ambluances, police cars and the like) and just now are moving to consumer cars. Also many cop cars have video cameras that they turn on when they're pulling cars over or persuing a car. The cameras not only gather evidence, but should they be involved in an accident (Well we can see on the camera that the cruiser cross into the opposing lane.)
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
And yet even something like red light cameras, which seem so obviously beneficial, can actually be used in unsafe and counter-productive ways.
60mph sounds reasonable to most people because they drive that fast about every day. This guy was traveling almost twice as fast as he was willing to admit. That is 84mph over the speed limit. Look at it this way, whatever the stopping distance of his car is (was) at 30mph, he was traveling almost 4 times faster. His stopping distance isn't increased 4 times, it would be closer to 16 times as far as his 30-0 braking distance.
Check here and here for some braking distances up to 100mph. Note the measured 30-0 versus the 100-0 stopping distances. A 2002 Corvette Z06 takes 108feet (60 - 0 mph) and 312feet (100 - 0 mph), 114mph would take the vette over 400feet.
This equates to the two drivers having 1/16th of the time and distances to react and make corrections. He was traveling at
114*5280/60/60=167.2 feet per second. His car weighed over 3600lbs with him inside, convert weight to mass, 3600/32.17=111.91lb
(167.2^2)*111.91/2=1,564,269
He was wielding a kinetic energy of over 1.5 million ft/lb, more than enough to destroy a school bus or go through a house, etc.
In my opinion, he wasn't even close to being accountable by admitting to 60mph.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
The mistake you made was a common one, and is my explanation of why speeding kills.
You were speeding irresponsibly.
Yes folks, there is a way to speed responsibly and it can be accomplished by following some basic guidelines.
1) Know your speed. If you don't know your speed, how can you possibly know how long it will take you to stop the car?
2) Know your road. What may seem like a small and shallow pit in the road when you drive at 55mph can act as a ramp when you drive at 100mph and send you hurling in the air without any control over life or limbs. Can one expect animals to cross the road suddenly?
3) Know your car. Will it start to swerve at a certain speed? Are the brakes OK? How much pressure to the brake pedal will cause the tires to lock? Is the ABS in perfect working condition? What's the condition of the shock absorbers, the brakes, the tires? Will it hydroplane on small puddles of water? How long will it take for you to put the car at a complete stop at X mph on a wet road, dry road, concrete road, asphalt road, gravel road?
AND number 4 which really should be common sense (which by itself usually isn't all that common)
Never EVER drive faster than you can actually SEE the spot where you will come to a full stop, should it be necessary to hit the brakes NOW, preferably with some distance to spare.
There is also a number 5 which is also pretty basic. If you happen to pass a cop and the cop decides to engage in a pursuit. By all means, STOP. It's better to have just the reckless driving on your record than reckless driving + resisting arrest (which I believe is what you're doing if you decide not to pull over). Also remember that if you decide to make a run for it you're not going to be as focused on the driving with the cops behind you, as when you're just driving all by yourself. That lack of focus is likely to be the prime factor in accidents caused by reckless drivers.
Speeding by itself doesn't kill, it's the idiots who speed recklessly and irresponsibly that do.
In Europe, or at least Germany, they already test if you haven't been wearing your seatbelt. Not by any fancy technologies recording that fact, they simply cut off a portion of your seatbelt and analyze the fabric, they can tell whether it has been worn or not that way..... and if it wasn't worn the insurance company won't pay your medical bills.
Just an FYI: A cop has no obligation to put on their sirens or emergency lights when doing the things you describe. It's merely an option for them--and they should use those tools whenever possible for their own safety.
In a sense, they are, "above the law" in regards to the rules of the road. The reasons for this are obvious: secretive persuit, getting to a crime scene without alerting the perpetrators, etc
However, they *CAN* get in trouble if they're just roaming around like a maniac without a good reason. Feel free to report any cop that does this (I've done it, though, I can't say that they were punished for it). One complaint probably won't do much, but it goes on their record for quite some time, so if that cop ever causes an accident or whatever, it could come up in court. Actually, now that I think about it, this probably varies from state to state or perhaps even county to county.
Unfortunately, the only way to complain is to write a written letter to the sherrif's dept. or state police dept. Make sure to include the time and his car number.
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
Have you seen OnStar? People are paying for this technology them selves already! GPS, check. Map, check. Satellite communications, check. Sure, your not going to catch people running stop lights, but you can get them at stop signs, it's not a large leap to catch them with the stop lights and you sure can track when and where a car has been, and how fast they are moving.
"Your Honor, I was here at 5:45 and I was there at 6:30"
"Your Honor, This evidence from OnStar says he was here at 6:00 and there at 6:15"
"Guilty!"
How long 'till the police are tapped in to OnStar or other similar systems. We've already seen the case of black boxes used by car rental places to monitor the drivers for speeding. That one was overuled, but only because it wasn't the government who got to collect.
For a few years people have been doing research in to automated trafic control where central computer systems control the cars on the road. They will know where your car is and has been.
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Wrong wrong wrong! A seatbelt does in fact help other drivers ...no seat belt...hangs on to the bottom of the steering wheel turns, car strikes another car in oncoming lane (no serious injuries but lots' of autos (yes "s"!!) damaged.
true accidents (I'm also an EMT)
--low speed (5mph) side impact that tossed the driver to the right
--low (20mph) speed rear impact, driver pushed back into seat and then forward by the impact, out of position to control the car (the breaks or steering wheel) run into car crossing intersection.
True, neither driver was really "at fault" but both would have avoided off loading their hardship onto other people if they had just been in position to control their cars.
And to address your second part, your personal choice to wear or not wear your seatbelt is tired to your insurance company's responsibility to have to pay your claim. Many insurance companies tie their rates to a promise to wear your seatbelt (I do... as does everyone I know in the public safety business). If you check a box that says that you refuse to use your seatbelt (remember, it's your personal choice) then they can change you a higher rate because, odds are, you are going to cost more to treat after your accident.
The people on Slashdot should be good enough at physics to know that only a freaking idiot doens't wear a seatbelt because it's a personal choice....it's about as smart a choice as walking at night with sunglasses on. There just isn't a reason.
-- What? Another