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?"

Comments

please let it's use be limited

[Capt'n Hector]

It's great for cases such as manslaughter, but coupled with GPS, it could be used to enforce speed limits. Remember that movie... the crappy one that takes place in a futuristic L.A. where human contact is not allowed? They have a thing just like that, where you're fined for swearing in public, speeding, stuff like that.

Use it for serious cases, fine. But don't ticket me!

Re:please let it's use be limited

[jared_hanson]

I couldn't agree with you more. If you kill someone, you should be held accountable. If you were travelling the speed limit, and it was just an accident, then let the facts show that. If your a lieing asshole on top of the fact that your that you dont realize you should travel 114 in a residential area, then you should get the book thrown at you.

I have no problem at all with these devices being in my car. I pay the occasional speeding ticket, but I've yet to have these devices influence that. In fact, I feel better knowing that they can help convict people who need to be put away.

Re:please let it's use be limited

[spoco2]

So exactly where do you draw the line? Why bother having a speed limit if you're going to say... well, it's kinda fuzzy really... up until about 20 over it doesn't matter...

Why not just change the speed limit to the higher limit then, and make that the hard limit, 1 mile over is heavily penalised?

The whole point of having the speed limit is to set the MAXIMUM speed you can go... you can't arbitarily decide that you know better and really 70 is just as safe as 60 on this piece of road.

Re:please let it's use be limited

[Anonymous Coward]

One problem with that is that people don't seem to have the slightest clue what "safe" is.

You know how an SUV or a full-sized van handles at > 65mph? How about a U-Haul? They don't. They go straight. They can't maneuver, because they're not designed for high-speed handling. (High CG) They can't stop because they're too heavy. An SUV is great if you're 4 wheeling. A van is nice if you want to carry a lot of stuff. But they have to be driven within their limits.

Now get on the freeway. Look at that big vehicle doing 85. Know what happens when he blows a tire? Ask Firestone. Know what happens when the car in front of him blows a tire, or has an engine failure, or otherwise has to stop suddenly? (Of course, this same SUV is usually tailgating.)

In motorcycle training they'll tell you that 80% of motorcycle accidents are head-on. And in the majority of those, the cyclist does _nothing_ to avoid the accident. They never learned how to avoid something. People just jump in a vehicle and assume they're God's gift to driving. They don't realize that you have to slow down in areas with pedestrian traffic, or poor visibility, or poor traction. Until they hit something, they won't.

The point of this rambling is that you can't use the speed of traffic as a good baseline when the majority of drivers aren't being realistic about what they're cabable of handling.

'Privacy' and 'Stupidity'

[Renraku]

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.

Re:'Privacy' and 'Stupidity'

[cyt0plas]

Ok, you're driving the speed limit on a two lane road, which is 55 mph. You're being stupid driving that fast while it's raining, but you feel like you can handle it. You start to hydroplane, and run into a car going 100mph, and hit them head on. You spend a few days in the hospital. When you get out, you get 20 to life for vehicular homicide because his car didn't have a black box and yours did. It's just too bad that although your _wheels_ were going 95mph, you were only doing 55. When the ADR is read, it looks like you were doing 95, and he was doing 60. Fun stuff.

Bah..

[PS-SCUD]

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.

I think my signature says it all

[RalphBNumbers]

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)

Re:Let him fry...

[jeffkjo1]

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.

Re:EDR Inaccuracy potential

[Judg3]

Take for example if someone changes tires on a big truck...going from the stock size up to 44" of rolling rubber.

Surley if the data were used in something like a court case, or for any important reason, tiresize and other factors would be considered? Any alyer woorth his/er salt would be on top of this.


Not only that, but I'm sure most people would spend the 50$ or so to reprogram the vehicles computer, since putting wrong size tires on your vehicle and NOT doing this will lead to horrible fuel mileage, acceleration, etc on any modern vehicle that relies on accurate info to forecast what will happen next

Re:EDR Inaccuracy potential

[randyest]

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.

Yeah, that's when your lawyer comes in handy. Newsflash: lots of useful things give misleading or even downright incorrect info -- for example: all media :). Seriously, human interpretation is always and over-riding factor in the case of automated reporting or monitoring: the security guard verifies what set off the motion detector, the pilot trusts his view of ground outside over a broken altimeter, etc.

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.

Well, of course these factors would be considered. Otherwise your lawyer is not doing his or her job. This is no different than any other soft of evidence -- it's introduced by a side who thinks it will help them, then it is analyzed and dissected and peppered thoroughly with interpretation by judge and jury.

Nothing to see here, move along . . .

Did it to himself

[leabre]

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

Re:An even more likely cause of the "speed" readin

[baywulf]

What speed would he have to go in a 30 mph zone in order for the tires to leave the road?

The machines are always right, yep!

[zakezuke]

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.

Re:You're asking the wrong crowd

[Floydian123]

"Could this be the forerunner of many such cases in the future, where our cars tell the unadulterated facts, rather than subjective personal accounts?"

Yeah, for about 3 weeks before an EDR modchip hits the market that reports whatever you want it to report.
-Rylfaeth

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 :D

The bottom line

[Y2K is bogus]

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.

How is this any different then ...

[Mooncaller]

... using vehicular damage as evidence? I don't like it but I can not logicaly differntiate the two. Maybe some ele can.

Re:5 seconds of recorded data.

[OwnerOfWhinyCat]

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?

Groundless fears

[SuperBanana]

I understand some of the privacy pundits bitching all around about how this is an "invasion of privacy."

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.

Let me tell you a little something about speeding

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:An even more likely cause of the "speed" readin

[Alsee]

"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

-

Re:5 seconds vs. lifetime surveillance

[Babbster]

Do you then think that they shouldn't have the right to inspect the rest of the car after the accident? After all, it's YOUR front bumper, so why should they be able to use it to "make [their] job easier" in convicting you?

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.

Re:An even more likely cause of the "speed" readin

[Bios_Hakr]

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?

Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Inaccuracy my ass..

[SuperBanana]

The big tires and the modifications to the engine's software just show that he had the complete intention of speeding.

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'...

Warrants?

[Breakerofthings]

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 ;)

Re:5 seconds of recorded data.

[cyril3]

In Australia the speed guns need to be calibrated and signed off by a tech regularly or the readings are invalid. Thats the first thing you ask a cop if you really think they got the speed wrong. "Can I see the calibration certificate" People have won cases on this.

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.

Re:You're asking the wrong crowd

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

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.

Works both ways

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

How different is an aircraft flight recorder.

[cyril3]

Is that an invasion of privacy of the pilot.

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"

Black Boxes, GPS and Gradiated Speed limits...

[Elfboy]

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.

Re:EDR Inaccuracy potential

[arivanov]

Yes it does.

Had that by changing the tires on my dad's 15 year old GSA from medium profile 15" WS (bought with these) to high profile 15" D (only ones I could find of the 15" that did not cost more then the car at the time).

As a result the speedo went off by about 7% which exceeds the legally allowed error and had to be retuned for the car to pass the yearly safety check. Thank's god that all it took was to adjust two screws (after spending 2 hours to get to them).

Not even remotely comparable

[0x0d0a]

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.

Re:You're asking the wrong crowd

[Zebbers]

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.

Breaking the law!

[pguerra1]

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.

Speed limiters == bad

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Why don't we just have governers in cars that limit them to the speed limits of the area? that way nobody can go faster than the speed limit. What if you have to to avoid an accident? Collateral damage, you'd be breaking the law anyways!

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.

Re:Zappers

[confused one]

Not if you want to drive it...

Look, this nut was doing 100+ in a residential neighborhood. He got what he deserved.

I prefer to think of them as guided missles

[purduephotog]

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.

Re:I like the idea...a lot

[Enfors]

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.

Police cruisers

[chihowa]

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.

Re:Zappers

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if traffic in the direction where I was planning to go is awful...I take another route. Think Always.

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.

Re:You're asking the wrong crowd

[Ioldanach]

Why not? I mean, it's a deterrant isn't it?

Ok, only one quote comes to mind...

Strangelove: Yes, but the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?

Seriously, how many people other than us geeks are aware of these? Personally, I've seen references to them on slashdot over the past few years but that's it. These references have caused me to do research to find out more about them, but how many people who read this article had any idea EDR's or CDR's even existed?

Personally, I think every car with an EDR/CDR should have a warning label "This car records data that will be used to testify against you." Unless you're warned that such a device exists and can be used against you, I think it should be considered much the same as electronic eavesdropping without consent.

As much as I dislike people who break the law, and even kill others in the process, I find use of this data to be tantamount to self-incrimination, a concept which is completely unconstitutional. Of course, by presenting only this sort of worst-case scenario to the general public, law enforcement and the insurance companies will get the go-ahead from the general public. From there, it should get easy for the EDR's data to be subpoenaed for everything from major accidents down to traffic violations. "Claim you weren't speeding, eh? Lets take a look at the data. Yup, 58, and you were in a 55. Look, we know your speedometer said 58, its recorded right here."

I'm usually not prone to paranoia, but this is one of the few subjects that strikes a chord.

Re:Zappers

[FlyGirl]

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.

Re:Zappers

[confused one]

Was it done without his permission? Was it done without a warrant?

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!

a thought

[sootman]

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. :-)