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?"
Use it for serious cases, fine. But don't ticket me!
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
The thought of data from EDR's being used against the vehicle owners scares me. EDR's record data from a number of the vehicle's sensors...but what about modifications done to the vehicle?
Take for example if someone changes tires on a big truck...going from the stock size up to 44" of rolling rubber. The speed reading recorded by the EDR will be grossly inaccurate in relation to the true speed, unless everything is recalibrated to reflect the modifications. How about engine modifications? If a stock turbocharger on a car is modified to run at 30-50% more boost, then the EDR will record that the car is operating out of normal paramaters.
As long as these factors are accounted for when the data from the EDR is being analyzed, then it's (somewhat) safe...but if just the numbers from the device are presented without their real-world correlation, that could cause some trouble IMHO.
Mike
Where the fuck does the poster get his info from? Here's what the article said: "Starting with the 1999 model year, all GM vehicles had EDRs..." Somehow, that translates into "All cars with airbags"!
Geez, I hate to say it but I think this had his right to protection of privacy taken away when he drove through a neighborhood (even at 60mph!) and ran others over.
I'd consider these circumstances as extenuating enough that the data in the recorder *should* be used.
"I turn away with fright and horror from the lamentable evil of functions which do not have derivatives."
Stupidity is doing 114mph in a neighborhood. As long as necessary information only is kept in the EDR then there aren't any problems. Look at this situation. You're driving the speed limit on a two lane road, which is 55mph. Its rainy, but the road is fairly straight. Another car loses control because they were going 100mph and hits you head on. You spend a few days in the hospital because you were lucky. The other driver dies. No one witnessed the wreck. You've just been blamed for his death. However, upon checking the opposing vehicle's EDR, your name is cleared, your insurance rates don't skyrocket, and you've got a new car and are back on track in a few weeks. And of course this was posted under a privacy heading. If you were speeding and wreck because of it, you deserve to be blamed for said wreck. The EDR is just a bit of hardware to help in an already-confusing process of determining driver fault. I could have been cleared of fault on my last wreck if my 98 Cavalier had been checked for its EDR. Opposing party said I stopped at an intersection in heavy rain and turned my lights off. EDR could have said I was moving at around 20mph through the intersection when the van with no lights t-boned me doing 80. Fun stuff.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I am a big privacy advocate, but I hardly see this as any invasion of privacy. Recording your speed, that isn't obtainable in real time, can hardly violate your privacy. I mean...an odometer records your mileage and noone complains about that. GPS tracking is privacy violation, lowjack makes me uncomfortable, but this sounds like a usefull tool, just as long as it is legal to remove it.
"Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
There's talk in the article of insurance companies requiring EDRs, and of course insurance is required by law most places. So the government even has a nice loophole to plant bugs in every car in the nation without actually legally requiring them. (isn't it nice to have big corporations to do your dirty work)
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
While I can see the benefits of this technology, I also see serious risks in how it can be used.
The accident investigator was able to calculate that he was driving 98 mph using skid marks and the condition of the vehicles, and they didn't have to utilize a black box that could easily be fooled.
The police can piece back together accident scenes with very little eye witness testimony, I only see these new EDR's as an erosion of privacy. How long will it be before the police can scan my vehicle to see if I'm wearing my seatbelt, or ticket me remotely (think red light cameras only for speeding?)
The argument that insurance companies will eventually require these is even more likely.
EDRs are not found in all cars with airbags. Since all new cars have airbags, wouldn't this mean there's an EDR in every new car? I don't know where you got that idea. For now, GM is pretty much the only company installing them.
First of all he LIED by saying he was doing 60MPH. Next, he was doing 114 (there is not a place in the US that allows that and in residential it's 25MPH). I'm sure the accident investigators would have been able to notice that he was well above 60MPH but even so, he lied and the black box said otherwise. If it was my children or loved one that was killed, I'd feel glad that he was put behind bars for reckless driving. There's no excuse. Privacty implication or not, I don't think the black-box thing is being abused in this case.
Thanks,
Leabre
What speed would he have to go in a 30 mph zone in order for the tires to leave the road?
My issue with this technology used in court isn't so much an issue of privacy, it's an issue of how accurate electronics are.
For example, my speedo can read really high speeds on ice but that doesn't mean i'm going anywhere.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
This seems awfully big brother-esque material... it's scary to think that I could be "autofined" in the future for whatever offense--running a stop sign etc... using technology available today.
Makes me want to keep my 1987 Dodge Colt
paul
The bottom line is that this guy was a fuckhead. Period. He shouldn't have been going 114MPH in a residential zone.
Now, irregardless if the EDR was used or not, his speed at impact can be easily determined from the physical evidence. The EDR merely shows the level of intent by the driver. They can determine if he attempted to slow down, or hit them at WOT and continued to floor it.
They stated he was going 98MPH at impact. The fact of the matter is that if you take the mass of the struck car, the type of tire and it's coefficient of friction, and the mass of the car which struck it, you can determine speed. When the moving car strikes the one backing out of the driveway, it transfers energy into the slow one. How far the slow car is moved from it's original position and the COF of the tires will tell them how much energy transfer took place. You can determine the velocity of the striking car by dividing the energy by the mass of the vehicle.
Again, this guy got what he deserved, EDR or none. I don't like the concept of EDRs for this purpose; I have no intention of purchasing a car with one.
That's the way I see it.
... using vehicular damage as evidence? I don't like it but I can not logicaly differntiate the two. Maybe some ele can.
5 seconds of recorded data seems fair and reasonable.
I have a problem with where they draw the line though. Since it's currently somewhere reasonable, I guess this makes me a privacy-freak.
It doesn't seem like it would be hard to pass a "Car Consumer Saftey Protection Act" (with riders for new child restraints or something equally popular) to mandate that it also store the top speed in the last 15 minutes. If that act also mandated a standard interface, little greedy municipalitities all over the country would be issuing their officers the readers and making it legal for them to be able to interface with any car they pull over.
Odds are no Congress person will spend any "juice" putting a law on the books that keeps this to a reasonable 5 seconds.
So I agree it's not a problem today, but is it not just a matter of time?
You know, there's no legitimate reason for that claim, and I have yet to hear a 'privacy pundit' explain WHY it's an invasion of privacy. I'm very pro-personal-privacy, and I didn't like the idea when I heard about it- but I've long since realized that there really wasn't any basis for those feelings- that it was just a knee-jerk reaction.
I realized that the data would only help me if I was not at fault, since it would be more accurate than 'accident' reconstruction. It could help me even if I was at fault. In either case, maybe a witness claims I was doing "at least 60", and the black box shows them to be dead wrong(I won't say lie- people are very bad at speed estimation as a rule, and that's under excellent circumstances). The box shows I was doing 40. A 60-in-a-35 now turns into a 40-in-a-35; still speeding, but a whole other picture.
Suddenly the "speed freak murderer who couldn't avoid that kid in the road because of his speed" turns into "that driver couldn't avoid that kid who ran out into the road without looking."
However, the 5 seconds leading up to a crash can provide important data for the manufacturers and accident investagators...particularly if the driver of the car is killed in the crash.
...or if the driver simply doesn't remember, as often happens to people involved in collisions. Someone I know was rear-ended by an SUV-driving-moron doing about 80. One second, the other driver was doing 25 in the right lane(slowed traffic), minding his own business. The next thing he remembered was lying in the grass with an EMT leaning over him saying, "hey, you okay buddy?" He remembers nothing about getting rear-ended by the SUV driver.
Please help metamoderate.
Who says black boxes can't be tampered with?
This is what I hate about searching for the "truth" - it's subvertible to the point where if you think about all the possible ways you could be decieved, you'll go nuts. It's not conspiratorial to say someone could set you up; the more technology we have, the more likely I think it will become.
And some wonder why people like being ignorant...
Matt Fahrenbacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
When I was 19, I came across some money, and went out and bought some exteremely fast cars. One of them (not the fastest, but my favorite) was a 1999 Mustang Cobra convertible. Just over 150MPH top speed.
Speeding became my life. I'd fly along the freeways by day, but at night it was a fucking free for all. Top speed down highway 85, racing through the santa cruz mountains, tearing up hwy 101, you name it.
There were a dozen times I pushed it to the edge and came out okay, but there was one that changed my speeding career forever. I was coming home from a ski trip, just entering the Si valley and getting pissed as hell about all the traffic. I was going about 130MPH up hwy 280, and all of a sudden the fast lane came to a stop. I swerved to the right just as the Lawrence expwy exit was coming up, and holy shit there were 50 cars at a standstill in the slow lane. I stood on the ABS - the car started to fishtail and I went flying down the emergency lane kicking up dust with 4" on the right between me and the guard rail. Finally I came to a stop just before the exit, and figured the quickest way out of there was to get my ass back on the freeway and head home, do I did. 100 horns honking.
I will never forget that. 10ms later on the brakes, and I'd have killed myself and at least the occupants of a couple other cars. I quit speeding right after that and sold the 'stang.
Not sure what the moral of this story is - speeding will kill you, everyone knows that. But if you're really into speed, I don't think anything but a near death (or death) experience will change your ways.
"Computers never make mistakes, do they?"
Not nearly as often as humans.
But a human will never make the same mistake 50,000 times in a row in under 2.5 seconds wiping out an entire database.
To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Until there's some kind of requirement to have these devices in every car and then subsequently the authorities start pulling data on a routine basis off without a search warrant, IMO there's nothing consitutionally interesting here. This isn't about "acquiring data on citizens" in some sort of sinister context - it's acquiring data regarding the conditions of a fatal car accident.
Lawyers aren't stupid. If your car was going 40kph and suddenly peaked at 100kph, anyone could see that something must have happened to cause that spike. If you had a halfway decent lawyer, he would argue that your car couldn't have accelerated that quickly.
Eventually, we will see a better system for data aquisition. Imagine being able to get statistics on weight shifts to specific wheels during acceleration or breaking. Imagine being able to see the effect on gas mileage from all those Mountian Dew (God's own caffene source!) cans in your floorboard.
As a geek, I love charts and graphs and numbers. I'd love to be able to do "snmpwalk" on my car and get detailed statistics from my trips. Yes, it could be used agianst me, it could also be used to show that I am a good driver. If a kid runs in front of you and you hit him, the proper numbers could show that there was no way you were violating the law and you couldn't stop in time.
Numbers could be used both ways. Do you really want to hide numbers that could be used to prove your innocence? Do you want to hide numbers that could prove my guilt?
What makes you think that what you do on a public road should be private?
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
If the EDR in question took audio and video, plus your speed, plus the status of your seatbelts, etc. and transmitted all that in real-time to some central authority, you might have something. Since it doesn't, you're in Hyperboleville (population growing every day).
Not necessarily. So perhaps the 114 MPH was when he was peeling out from a stop sign.
But still, he should and will be nailed to the wall for this. The idiots make driving conditions worse for all of us, and their lack of judgement is deadly. A residential neighborhood is where I drive the exact speed limit and keep my eyes peeled. There have been so many times something bad would have happened if I didn't have those extra couple seconds to react.
...
Hey, how bout you just not be an asshole and not drive when you're over the limit? Intoxicated is intoxicated, I don't care how confident you are of your driving abilities while you're over the limit, you deserve to get seriously fucked if you are over the limit. Eat a dick.
This information has been available for years (among other "hidden" information). The public is only now becoming more aware of it. Pretty much if your car has airbags (and I personally wouldn't purchase a car w/o them, even though it is a "supplemental" restraint) you can count on this information being available, though hard to retrieve. The more recent the model year, the more relevant information stored.
There is a propietary code in a certain manufacture's SRS that basically says "crash event occured." Certainly there must be useful information stored in the module once that code is set. I can even think of one event where an SRS module was removed and sent back to the manufacture for a lawsuit.
Is it a intrusion on privacy? Hard to say. Driving is a privilidge, not a right. At the same time, manufactures use this information to design better (translated "safer") cars. Used for law enforcement purposes? I won't even go into what is already available in a vehicle's PCM but hidden to the average user. Shoot, I would presume there is stuff that is hidden to even me, the technician who makes those little lights on the dash prove out. Does this make me nervous? Sure, but what shall I do about it? As a part-time admin, I can understand them leaving backdoors and "honeypots" in the vehicle to gather information that would be useful, if not incriminating. Where shall the line be drawn? Call/write your Congressman to make a law that would prevent this type of information from being used in a court of law if you are that worried.
But the law's punishments are purposed for those who break them. He was going 60MPH in a residential neighborhood. The SRS module said 114MPH. I agree with an earilier post - it was still too fast anyway.
Don't like it that your car can be used against you - don't drive or do anything stupid. Real easy.
But what do I know? I only work as a technician for a dealership.
Try inserting, say, skin color into that statement- and see how ignorant you sound. Nothing like good old stereotyping.
Typically on normally aspirated cars, computer mods yield a few HP tops or a little more torque...and usually they mostly shift the torque and HP characteristics across the rev range. On turbocharged cars, it's a whole other matter. In both cases, however, HORSEPOWER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW SAFE A DRIVER YOU ARE. If I've got 280hp, and you've got 160- I'm gonna get to 65 coming off that on-ramp faster than you are. That's all. Just because you like to get going fast doesn't mean you like to speed.
There are a variety of reasons for changing rim and tire sizes. Asthetics. Performance. Ride characteristics.
Yes, I said 'performance'. Performance as in, maybe you want to fit larger brakes under the wheels. Maybe you want less sidewall flex under cornering. Maybe you want a wider tire(and wider tires are easier to find in larger diameters). Most of those reasons actually make your vehicle perform better in an emergency situation- especially upgraded brakes, or better tires. In fact, those who modify their cars are often far safer on the road not just because of their upgrades, but because they care about driving, they value their car(and take good care of it)...the list goes on and on. The soccer mom putting on her lipstick while ordering pizza via on-star in her Suburban is far more of a danger to the motoring public than me and my 'hot rod'...
Please help metamoderate.
For all of you who cringe at the thought of being monitored while driving, consider this: The moment you choose to edge your vehicle beyond the posted speed limit (i.e. excessive speed), you have forfeited your rights to privacy. What most people forget is that with great freedom comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, a great many people will immediately raise their voices the second they perceive their 'rights' to privacy being violated, but think nothing of buying the biggest SUV on the lot with a steel reinforced front end (in other words, a rolling, suburbanized, death dealing street legal tank). It's called intelligent decision making here, folks. If you don't want to get caught speeding, don't speed. I don't think it says anywhere in the Constitution that you can choose to place other people's lives in jeopardy and still have rights. Your rights end where others begin, plain and simple.
End of Line.
Well, I second the sentiment that it should not be illegal to remove them; my car, I can modify it if I want, right? I should not be legally obligated to allow my vehicle to record potentially incriminating info about me; this, I think, would violate (in intent, at least) my constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
;)
However, if I do allow my car to do so, why should it be any different from any other search? I think a warrant should be necessary, just as it would be if they wanted to search my laptop (at least it is in theory
How quickly a court will accept readings from a persons own car that might not have been serviced for 6 months is a big if.
I can't see local cops being able to use the 15min data without some serious adjustments to the law.
Why not? I mean, it's a deterrant isn't it? Automotive safety is a matter of everyone's safety. If clamping down on crazy drivers doing 2x the speed limit, then why not? It's not like we're talking automatic face recognition. We're talking about stopping people who are driving half to one and a half ton potential killing machines.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I am all in favor of cop cameras, so as long as cop cars have these tattle tales also, it's wonderful. How many times have you followed cops around who don't come to full stops, who speed without lights or siren, who generally get away with bad driving even when just cruising? Remember about two edged swords.
Infuriate left and right
I think that their use in cars for accident investigation might have some benefits but even flight recorders don't help 100% of the time and they have a lot more stuff recorded and teams of engineers going over the data.
If all you get from the car recorders is speed then you still rely on the two drivers about when the light turned red and who wasn't looking at the road.
As for privacy and self incrimination, if ask truck drivers to log their time behind the wheel so we don't have as many cranked up hallucinating maniacs behind the wheel of 50 ton trucks bearing down on us then using car data to see what happened in an accident is OK by me.
Whats next, No you can't look at the accident scene, those are my private skid marks which may tend to incrimate me"
Okay, people have been concerned about invasions of privacy, police/lawmakers making the boxes WiFi etc. Alas this is probably the way of things to come. Since it is coming, lets direct it in the way we want.
Right now we have to live with the lowest common denominator of driving skills (of which the star of the article was one). This means an SUV driving soccer mom with 5 brats is held to the same standards as a dedicated* rider on a GXR1000 motorcycle. Vehicle differences aside (braking, handling etc...) the people behind the wheel are completely different as well.
Since realtime reporting of all vehicle activity stresses the current regulations to the point of ridiculousness*2, start keying it into drivers as well.
For example I really wish there was some way to do gradiated speed limits. Some sort of transponder (similar to the tolls) or a broadcasting black box that lets the police know you are qualified to go that speed (so one doesn't get stopped without cause/waste police time etc...).
Add in a fee for qualification testing and usage to make up for lost revenue in tickets (are they really about anything else?). I'm sure people would jump at the chance despite any costs the state imposes.
Yes there are plenty of details to work out in the system, but hey, it's a slashdot post.
*This does not include the teenager riding around at 90+ in sandals, shorts, sunglasses and a helmet if the law requires it.
*2 If you honestly believe that you have never broken a vehicular law, you've probably just not read the laws close enough.
* We dance where angels fear to tread *
Making people drive cars safely has little detriment, and a tremendous benefit -- a huge number of people are killed in auto accidents each year. I'm all for government keeping out of private lives unless there's a darn good reason, but auto safety qualifies.
May we never see th
will yield pretty much the same result. It just costs more. I have an acquaintence who reconstructs accidents on computer using a suite of data sources including road roughness and tire traction. Combined with measurements of how much a vehicle's body and frame resists deformation, how much objects struck were displaced and similar data he can produce very telling results. He might be able to identifiy the speed as 114 miles per hour, bu he could in all likelihood place this fellow's speed as between 110 and 120 miles per hour based on physical data. EDR is simply quicker.
its not stopping people
its used after the fact
i highly doubt youll find people saying 'hmmm, im not gon do 115mph, cause i know i have a blackbox and might crash"
they dont think theyll crash
it starts with 2x speed limit. then they get greedy. look at the state of speeding tickets right now....its sick. cameras, autotickets- etc, etc. there are other fabolous ways to find crash speeds. a data recorder shouldnt be one of them.
He wasn't going 2x the speed limit.
actually peaked at 114 mph (in a residential neighborhood) just seconds before the collision
The speed limit in residential neighborhoods is typically 25 mph. This means that the guy was going 4.56 times the the speed limit.
I personally don't mind going 5 mph faster than the posted speed limit on the interstate, because all the traffic is going the same direction at roughtly the same speed. The most likely thing that you might hit that isn't going that speed is bugs (which splat on the windshield), or deer.In a residential area all sorts of things can happen, that you can't avoid, like car doors opening, dogs or children runnig into the street, people coming out of hidden driveways. This list keeps going on and on...
I don't like the idea of being monitored by a black box any more than the rest of you. Just remember that driving is a privilege, while I have the right to walk around my neighboorhood with a reasonable expectation of saftey. People speeding around in 2 ton vehicles at 100+mph does not fall into that category. If this starts becoming an increasing problem, then one of two things are going to happen: black boxes are going to be mandated, or the requirements for obtaining and keeping a driver's license are going to be raised. Neither may be a great answer, but considering the number of poeple that die every year from car accidents, something has to be done.
This is unbelievable. The instant you break the law, say by travelling 114 MPH in a 30 MPH residential area and killing 2 people, you no longer have any rights to this type of "privacy." For example, a murder suspect cannot prevent police from getting a search warrant to search their house, car, workplace, etc. on privacy grounds. Police are allowed to gather the necessary evidence to prosecute you, given that there is enough evidence to warrant more collection. Same situation here. Although I do believe the collection of the data should be regulated, I don't think it should prevent the data itself from being used when you use your car as a weapon to threaten or harm.
"And I for one welcome our new insect overlords."
Huh?! So you'd rather I had a crash with a driver behind me who was half asleep, or knocked a child off her bike as she rode into the road by mistake, than speed for a moment to avoid the hazard? These are two real examples where I broke the speed limit to avoid an accident this week. In each case, I judged that accelerating was less dangerous than braking sharply under the conditions at the time. It's not usual to have two incidents like that in a week, but I've acted similarly on numerous occasions during my decade or so of driving.
I have also broken the speed limit significantly, though always safely, in order to transport an injured patient to hospital as fast as possible. I have also broken the speed limit significantly, though always safely, on my way home to my girlfriend, who was alone in the house an hour after it had been broken into.
In each of these cases, although breaking the speed limit was illegal (possibly excepting the case of transporting the patient to hospital, when I'd have a good defence where I live) I think it was better than the alternative. Yet introducing a mandatory speed limiter would prevent me from doing this.
As one final example, consider that HGVs are routinely speed limited in this way, at least within the UK. As one former HGV driver pointed out to me, they used to vary their speed slightly between say 58 and 62mph on long journeys, to break the monotony and keep the attention focussed. Now everyone has to drive at 60mph to make their deliveries on time, and look what happened to the accident rate. :-(
There is a good argument for adding some sort of recording device to cars, so people who break the law seriously and without good reason can be held accountable for their actions. Perhaps then we could stop putting up highly expensive speed cameras that scare honest drivers who might slip up just over the limit while going past them (yes, I know the ACPO guidelines for prosecution in the UK but most drivers don't) and worry about the people who are really significantly reducing road safety by speeding. Who knows, we might even get speed limits based on safety and not profit. OK, who am I kidding? But it's a nice thought.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Look, this nut was doing 100+ in a residential neighborhood. He got what he deserved.
Lets face it.... 1.5 tons @ 98 mph is an extremely effective demolition tool.
I speak tongue-in-cheek because my best friend and his gf were killed by a driver moving at 90 mph thru a red light....by a truck vs a small compact car.
If it helps put the bastards away for life for murder, which is what I felt it was... then all the better. I'll give up that little bit of safety so that no one else will ever have to experience that phone call.
Sometimes I'm behind the wheel when I would most likely fail a breathalyzer. However, I am much more careful and much better of a driver than many
No you're not. You're by definition a horrible driver if you drive under the influence from time to time, because that proves you have no judgement, which is critical to be considered a good and careful driver.
-Enfors-
Police officers not obeying the laws are so bad in some places (like where I live), that I've come up with a nice idea! I say that there should be governors on the cruiser that doesn't allow the car to operate above a certain set speed unless the siren/lights are on. If it could be tailored to fit the speed limit of the street, that would be even better.
Police are supposed to be setting the example, not casually breaking the law as if they were above it. There's absolutely no reason why anybody should be speeding, right? Why shouldn't that also apply to police in non emergency situations? I'd assume that tampering with a police cruiser would be a pretty serious offense, too.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
During the class, we had to prepare a law-enforcement project schedule, and then present it to police top-brass (in our case, it was the third in command) at the federal police academy.
When our team was selecting a project (we all did it with the teacher's assistance - so he could weed-out lame projects early), I proposed an event recorder for cars which could be downloaded by police so they could ticket drivers more accurately (or even if they weren't there to watch).
The teacher became livid and said that we should do something else because "that was coming to be eventually"...
GET USED TO IT, folks. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. And the State has the DUTY to enforce laws as fairly as it can. And what can you find a better cop than an electronic one who follows all your moves?
This is only "unfair" to those criminals who run red lights or speed or drive dangerously, and threaten the lives of innocent bystanders.
Now I don't care if someone wants to endanger themselves by not wearing seatbelts or helmets. But nor should anyone else pay their increased medical expenses via insurance rates or taxes.
One reason for seatbelt and helmet laws (even if unenforced) is lower insurance rates by establishing "contributory negligence".
If the line for the left turn is too long, I go straight and at the next corner turn right three times.
If traffic is awful on the street where I was going to drive, I go find a parallel street.
If I'm going less than 30 miles, during rush hour I don't trap myself on the freeway.
If traffic on the freeway is moving slower than 30 MPH, I take the next exit and take another route. If I miss my exit on the freeway, I take the next exit. Even if it means driving another 45 miles -- that's what "limited access" and "think ahead" mean.
Well, all I can say is, I hope they throw the book at this moron. Going 114mph in a 30??? Now, I am all for a little "spirited" driving, but only when completely safe (on an interstate with little traffic), and have engaged in it myself from time to time in my '02 p-car (986)... but having a car capable of traveling at 180mph doesn't mean one should "test" that capability.
I belong to the PCA (Porsche Club of America) -- and if there is one thing that is stressed, is safety and probably more importantly, awareness of one's car and its capabilities and technology. The PCA and its regional and local chapters, host driving schools, mostly for the goal of "tracking" your car (running on a race track) but the lessons one learns in these classes (which comprise of classroom time and "track" time) teach important lessons of breaking, shifting and handling, and *speed* control.
It just stupifies me when I hear about these lunatic freaks burning down the road at many multiples over the posted speed limit, then completely shocked when their intense stupidity kills someone, and they are held accountable. When I'm baited at stop lights by some dope in a pimped-out honda with an aircraft wing welded to the trunk, I just smile, wave and let the child peel out and "smoke me" so he can then post his "kill" story on some message board how he just "smoked" a porsche.
sad robot making broken music
I won't jump on the tin hat bandwagon straight off, but this bugs me like similar sneaky shit that gets coded into my computer gear. It's the dishonesty that bugs me more than the invasion of privacy. At least with the computer crap there is some mention in the EULA that you agree to whether you read it or not. At least you know that you click "AGREE" at your own risk if you don't read the EULA, and you shouldn't be surprised to find spyware if you do. Especially on stuff that's free. I mean hey - if you aren't paying cash you should at least expect the software publisher to harvest some information in exchange for the freebie. Usually this isn't the case on a new car.
Most of the time these things really are innocuous. In the linked article, the bad guy was already clearly in the wrong and the data collected just firmed up the case. It's not like the cops were walking around a parking lot with a wireless device looking for trouble. But the technology for that exists and you'd never know it if they were.
Surely there is a great deal to be learned by collecting crash data like that. On the other hand, when I buy a new car, I'd like to at least know about any data collection like that. Better yet, have an opt-out option. Seems like if GM values that data from my new pickup, they ought to give me some money, maybe a nice fat rebate on a replacement (presuming it was crashed bad enough for them to want the data), in exchange for me letting them access the data. If it truly is my data then I should have the ability to erase it or not collect it in the first place.
it means that cars now come equipped with a device which will incriminate you and you cannot remove it.
removal of the device renders the car useless.
i have one of those in my 2003 f150 and i have asked the dealer and ford to remove it and both have said no.
they cannot remove it because if it is removed, it means that they will no longer be able to diagnose the truck's problems because the black box is actually part of the computer system of the vehicle.
this is in clear violation of the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination.
He got what he deserved
That may be true. But so would a murderer whose house was searched without his permission if that evidence were admitted.
Historically, our judicial system has been willing to allow guilty people to go free when their rights (especially privacy) have been violated as a mechanism to deter the law enforcement agencies from violating those rights.
And I, for one, happen to think that things should stay that way.
So, "he got what he deserved" is not the point... the ends do NOT always justify the means.
I believe Ford is correct, if this information started being used against drivers on a routine basis, there would be a massive backlash.
My gripe against automated cameras and such are that they can't actually spot dangerous drivers. Sure they can tell that you were going 70 in a 55, but they can't tell that the fellow who was going 55 was weaving drenkenly from lane to lane.
In our legal system, a search can be done without permission of the premises owner, provided a judge is shown there is probable cause; and, he agrees to issue a warrant.
In the case where the skid marks and level of damage clearly indicate he was doing in excess of the speed he claimed, I don't see a problem with any judge issuing a warrant to do further investigation, ie. checking the black box.
I don't have a problem with protecting individual rights, in general. The "He got what he deserved" comment comes from my gut impression where I'm imagining my 2 year old playing in the front yard while a car plows through doing 114mph. At that speed, my 2 year old is very dead!
Privacy? When you're driving, you're in *public*. These black boxes are just recording what witnesses would say if they were around to see. (Automatically and more accurately.) I don't think you have any expectation of privacy on a public road. Slippery slope and so on, but for now, just using them in case of accident, I have no problem at all. Do you think someone should get away with this kind of driving just because there were no witnesses and he was a good liar?
:-)
Note: IANAL, but I watch a *lot* of Law & Order.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Get a clue man and/or RTFA. EDR's don't give a damn what about your mp3/pr0n collection or if your a child molester. It's not about to phone home if if thinks your driving 60 in a 30 when maybe you're only doing 60 in a 75 zone. It just records the vehicle data it can at the time of an accident.
Everyone on here complaining about privacy issues need to get a grip and realize the privacy arguement just doesn't hold water. You were in an accident, everyone around can see that, it's obvious you just hit a car/tree/your own damned garage by the damage created. Things are worse for you if you left rubber on the ground. To me, using an EDR is probably hella easier than some guy spending a week recreating the crash and calculating the speed of a vehicle based on skid marks. But they can and I don't hear anyone bitching that their michelins leaving skid marks in the event of a crash is a privacy concern.
It was your decision to look at the black box. That's cool. Not an invasion of privacy at all. On the other hand, if you had forced the other person to turn over his black box, then that would be an invasion of privacy - whether it would be acceptable would be another matter.
As a practical matter (as you well know), physics tells us that if total speed is known and *a* car's speed is known, we can know the other car's speed.
Hence it only takes one car having a black box and a willing owner to produce the results you need, no violation of privacy is necessary.
That's not what concerns us "privacy nuts."
It's when you might be forced to turn over YOUR black box. I don't want that to happen to you. First off, because I don't think that's right (though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise).
Second off, as the above basic physics indicates, there is no reason for you to have to turn over your black box for any situation involving two cars if those cars fall within the 98% of those out on the road.
Soooooo...why would the law want to be able to yank your black box if they don't need it for a two-car accident like that? Doesn't sound quite right to me. Maybe they're just not thinking the logic through.
The "He got what he deserved" comment comes from my gut impression where I'm imagining my 2 year old playing in the front yard while a car plows through doing 114mph. At that speed, my 2 year old is very dead!
My daughter just turned two, so I think I can understand where you're coming from emotionally; I would die to protect my daughter, and given free rein, happily lock up (or cripple) any person on the planet who might, some day, be a danger to her. I also understand that laws can't be written from the perspective of a fiercely protective parent.
Now, I don't think that's at all what you were advocating; however, there are a lot of parents who want precisely that kind of litigation: ``I don't care whose rights it violates if it keeps my little girl safe.'' It's precisely that kind of fear that can lead to a police state.