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

You're asking the wrong crowd

[Rylfaeth]

"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

Re:You're asking the wrong crowd

[domninus.DDR]

there are many websites where you can buy $20 covers for your license plates so that they cant be seen at more than ~20Â above horizontal, or something like that. so that cameras on top of poles cant see them, but cops can.

Re:You're asking the wrong crowd

[TGK]

But those methods are consistantly struck down by the Courts as being insufficient grounds.

First off, if there's not a clear shot of the person's face, there's no way of knowing WHO was driving the car. Even if there was a clear shot, if the police department is using some sort of automated system to mail the tickets it's likely to get enough falty tickets (since it would mail to the person the plates are registered to) to be removed as a legitmate method of distributing tickets etc in the first place.

This kind of technology, especialy given that it is currently only accessable after a crash, is a great way to determine who is actualy at fault. Now, you might argue that there is the danger that this technology will be used out of its intended context, providing data on drivers who have not yet injured someone or their property with their car. But to do that these recorders would have to be equiped with a LOT of new equipment. First among them is GPS and a navigational map of every area the car can reach. Of course all of that data would have to be provided wirelessly, as speed limits change, traffic patterns evolve (or devolve as the case may be) and the timing on stoplights changes.

No, I'm not worried about these invading my privacy. The infrastructure requirements to do this would so far outstrip the possible income to the States and the police departments as to make this a giant hole into which to throw money.

Re:You're asking the wrong crowd

[Ioldanach]

try
Claim you weren't speeding, eh? Lets take a look at the data. Yup, 58, and you were in a 55. Look, we know our radar said 58, its recorded right here.

1. May I please see the calibration records for that device, and the most recent copy of your certification on that device.
2. My speedometer must've been a little out of whack, I could've sworn it said 55. Maybe I should have its calibration checked.
3. You're sure the weather wasn't interfering with the radar's reception?

All defenses which have been used, and occasionally work, depending on the circumstances. If its recorded as X then your speedometer almost certainly showed it as X.

Yes, I'll admit, I dislike speed laws. Anything more than a regulation against unsafe speeds is merely a tax on people who want to get there sooner. It is only in cases like these, where someone was travelling at an extroardinary rate of speed, that I think speeding is really a problem.

Besides which, I don't care if he was doing 60, 160, or even 260. He created a dangerous situation with his speed, and he should be responsible for the result. The only time I don't feel that's the case is where someone obviously takes care to drive at an appropriate speed, but road conditions consipire against them. That is to say, there are times, at least here up north, where you can suddenly hit black ice and lose all control over a vehicle. The vehicle could be moving at 6mph down a hill and even that isn't enough to retain control in an unexpected patch of black ice.

Let him fry...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am generally against any infringements on our personal liberties, but in this case, over 100 mph in a residential neighborhood.

Let him fry.

Re:Let him fry...

[stephens_domain]

I don't see the problem with this. If a person kills a bunch of people and keeps evidence of the murders in their house, and if there is just cause to suspect him of the murders, a search warrant is issued and that information is used against him. This is the same thing. I don't want the police scanning a data recorder at check points and writing me tickets for each time I broke a minor traffic law, but if there is sufficient evidence that I committed a crime, with the proper procedures, this is perfectly OK.

I do not see how the fact that the information is digital or in a car has any bearing...

Re:Let him fry...

[Slack3r78]

The problem is, these boxes report only raw data, and I hate to tell you, but raw data is a poor measure of a driver's actual ability. The best example would be a comparison of me and a good friend of mine. I have an admitted tendency towards speeding, ~10 miles an hour over the posted limit in town and cruising at 80 on the interstate are the norm for me. My friend on the other hand, is always very careful to obey the speed limit, and actually asked me "is the speed limit still 55 through here?" coming through metro Atlanta at 1:30am after a concert. (If you've never been to ATL, let's just say that anything LESS than 75-80mph is a sure way to have someone run up your rear bumper).

So according to the box, my friend's the safer driver, right? Wrong. He routinely makes poor decisions on the timing of lane changes, has turned the wrong way down a one way street (with the sign in completely plain view) and literally put me 6 inches from death when he thought a flashing red light meant "4 way stop" and pulled a stop and go - T-Bone collisions suck. On the other hand, my penchant for speeding comes from the fact that I know that I know what I'm doing - I've spent a good amount of time off the road and on the track learning how to drive at speeds much higher than I'd ever go on a public street. The bottom line is, even if I got myself into trouble (as I have a couple of times), I can recover from it without hurting myself, my car, or anyone else. For my friend, that's an accomplishment even at the speed limit.

My point? Raw data is a crappy measure of a driver's hazard level to those around them.

Re:Let him fry...

[D.A. Zollinger]

Yes, you are right. Raw data with no other point of reference is a very crappy measure of a driver's hazard level. How do you know if the 70 miles per hour recorded as a max speed was on the interstate where that was the speed limit, or in a residential area where they were speeding through a school zone? Was the jack rabbit start because they were involved in a street race, or because they lost traction in the ice and snow? Was the emergency brake because someone cut them off, or they weren't watching where they were going and almost rear ended a police car?

However, raw data like that can be compared with other statistical information about the individual to help determine their risk as a driver. Your risk as a driver is what the insurance company bases your rate on. If devices like this can indicate you are a better driver than you are currently classified in, you may demand a better rate for your current insurance company, or try to get an offer from one of their many many competitors.

Driving safer puts less wear and tear on your vehicle, uses less gasoline, gives you more time to make decisions in dangerous situations, makes the road safer for other drivers around you, makes your bed in the morning, washes your dishes, cooks your food, and cleans your clothes. Oh wait...I had a point in there somewhere. Oh yea! Driving safer generally makes you less of a risk to insure, and when you are a low risk driver, you enjoy better rates.

Beyond that, all I can say is that I am all for safer roads. The mentality in the U.S. is that of driving being a right, and it is not. Driving is a very serious responsibility, and too many Americans take it far too lightly. Ride along in a police cruiser, or with an EMT for a busy evening, and you will understand exactly why we need to make people aware just how serious the situation is, and why we cannot stress enough just how dangerous our roads are when people abuse their privilige.

5 seconds of recorded data.

[Agent Green]

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

It's interesting that it has the top speed recorded, which is kinda the death blow in this case. In most speed-related auto collisions, law enforcement goes by road conditions and skid marks to determine the speed of the vehicle at impact. Imagine the mess if that were a child running after a ball...

Personally, I'm glad this guy is going to prison. There is no excuse for excessive speed in a residential neighborhood...especially when that exceeded by a factor of four. That's what they built highways for! ;)

Accidently . . .

[OverlordQ]

Cross a few wires oops, no more EDS. ;)

An even more likely cause of the "speed" reading..

[Black Art]

One of the other things they don't want you to know about the EDR. If the wheels leave the ground for any reason, like hitting a bump or going off a cliff, the wheels can spin freely. There is nothing in the sensors that tell if the tires are on the ground. If they are spinning off the ground, they will record a very high speed that has nothing to do with actual forward motion.

I wonder if there was any other evidence that showed that he was going 114mph? I doubt if they felt it was not needed. Computers never make mistakes, do they?

5 seconds vs. lifetime surveillance

[MisterMook]

I'm glad he's off the streets as well, but I'm appalled at the technology being used this way. As for the manufacturers and accident investigators with some sort of interest in this sort of data...well screw 'em. There's nothing in the constitution that says it's my job to make another guy's job easier, even if I'm dead. I hate to use the term slippery slope because we all throw it around all the time here on Slashdot, but I don't see how this is any different from the TIA initiatives. Sure they can be used for good uses, but that doesn't mean that acquiring data on citizens is a good thing. If I want to find out if my kids are running around the house I try to catch them in the act, I don't place electronics in their pants to tattle on them - even if it might prevent accidents or make it easier to muddle through sequences of events when something gets broken.

Re:5 seconds vs. lifetime surveillance

[Babbster]

So disconnect the thing. There's no law on the books compelling you to have one of these EDR devices in your car.

Of course, I disagree with you mainly because you're making a false assumption. Specifically, you mentioned that if police wiretap you without a warrant that would be wrong. Good, great. By the same token, though, aren't they going to have to get a warrant to inspect your EDR (or anything else in your car, for that matter)? True, if a law is put on the books that states the police can take the data from your EDR anytime they want, that would be wrong. But this story shows no evidence of that. In this case, the car was involved in a fatal accident - that means that automatically the entire car is potentially evidence of a crime and that everything in it (by virtue of "probable cause") is subject to search.

I think that any outry over privacy springing from this is an over-reaction.

Re:Privacy of speed?

[miu]

I'm sorry, but if you're pulling 114 in a neighborhood

You are presuming guilt. "This guy is a sleazebag and it was okay to violate his privacy".

The use of these things for determining the facts in an accident is valid, but thinking that tools like these are okay simply because they are only used on bad people is dangerous.

Nothing to do with self-incrimination or privacy

[hubbah]

I'm glad they caught this guy based on the black-box evidence.

It's important not to confuse protections agains self-incriminating testimony with protections against evidence that may implicate you.

The reason we have safeguards against compelled confessions is because they can often be false. Interrogation can greatly reduce the veracity of the obtained information. Protection against self-incrimation is actually protection against abusive interrogation, not a protection against aiding in your own conviction.

Obviously, a black box preseents no such interrogation difficulties. So if it helps convict someone, great. As long as the information is correct.

Privacy is not really an issue, either -- since a black-box is non-intrusive, until an actual accident or crime occurs.

Hubbah

Blackbox=NOTHING! What about RFID transmitter!

[Anonymous Coward]

EDR seeprom âoeflight recordersâ in cars were installed because of early 1980s accusations by female drivers of audiâ(TM)s, that their Audiâ(TM)s suddenly lurched forwared into traffica nd carages. (Male drivers somehow were not affected by the mysterious haunted-audi accelerator pedal mystery). So EDRs were added not only for airbag, but for all drive-train issues involving litigation against us car mfrs.

You canâ(TM)t disable them and still have a valid warrantee and the use feds want to call it a SAFETY violation to destroy them (car accident companies and paramedics tap them for their own purposes AGAINST you.

But worse things are in cars :

TOP SECRET FACT:Most modern cars have tracking transponders!

Spy transmission chips embedded in tires that can be read REMOTELY while driving.

A secret initiative exists to track all funnel-points on interstates and US borders for car tire ID transponders (RFid chips embedded in the tire).

Yup. My brother works on them.

Your tires have a passive coil with 64 to 128 bit serial number emitter in them! (AIAG B-11 ADC v3.0) . A particular frequency energizes it enough so that a receiver can read its little ROM. A ROM which in essence is your GUID for your TIRE. Multiple tires do not confuse the readers. Its almost identical to all âoeFastPassâ âoeSpeedPassâ technologies you see on gasoline keychain dongles and commuter windshield sticker-chips. The US gov has secretly started using these chips to track people.

Its kind of like FBI âoeTaggantsâ in fertilizer and âoeTaggantsâ in Gasoline and Bullets, and Blackpowder. But these car tire transponder Ids are meant to actively track and trace movement of your car.

I am not making this up. Melt down a high end Firestone, or Bridgestone tire and go through the bits near the rim (sometimes at base of tread) and you will locate the transmitter (similar to âgrain of riceâ(TM) pet ids and Mobile SpeedPass, but not as high tech as the tollbooth based units). Sokymat LOGI 160, and Sokymat LOGI 120 transponder buttons are just SOME of the transponders found in modern high end car tires. The AIAG B-11 Tire tracking standard is now implemented for all 3rd party transponder manufactures [covered below].

It is for QA and to prevent fraud and âoecar theftâ, but the US Customs service uses it in Canada to detect people who swap license plates on cars when doing a transport of contraband on a mule vehicle that normally has not logged enough hours across the border. The customs service and FBI do not yet talk about this, and are starting using it soon.

Photos of chips before molded into tires:

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:TAQIKjBI01g C: www.sokymat.com/sp/applications/tireid.html

(slashdot ruins links, so you will have to remove the ASCII space it insertess usually into the url above to get to the shocking info and photos on the enbedded LOGI 160 chips that the us gov scans when you cross mexican and canadian borders.)

You never heard of it either because nobody moderates on slashdot anymore and this is probably +0 still. It has also never appeared in print before and is very secret.

Californias Fastpass is being upgraded to scan ALL responding car tires in future years upcoming. I-75 may get them next in rural funnel points in Ohio.

http://www.tadiran-telematics.com/products6.html

but the fact is... YOU PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE A RADIO TRANSPONDER not counting your digital cell phone which is routinely silently pulsed in CA bay area each rush hour morning unless turned off (consult Wired Magazine Expose article). Those data point pulses are used by NSA on occasions.

The us FBI with NRO/NSA blessings, has requested us gov make this tire scanning information as secret as the information regarding all us inkjet printers sold in usa in the last 3 years using "yellow" GUID bar

Re:Contest a Speeding Ticket with EDR data?

[zokrath]

I doubt that the EDS has the memory for long-term storage of data. It is designed to collect data from the past x amount of time, overwriting old data, unless the airbag is deployed, in which case it will start saving data. It probably has a reserved section for data to be stored in after the airbag is deployed.

Regardless of the specifics, you would have to stop your car immediately after getting a ticket, have it towed someplace, and then let it sit there until your court day, because the data pertaining to your actual alleged offense would get overwritten.

Now, a car containing an EDS with expanded capabilities, like a button on the dash to backup the current data when you get pulled over, would be interesting, but the more user friendly black boxes become, the more hacker friendly they become as well. I doubt a court would allow a black box as evidence if the driver has any input to it, even if it is simply a hardwired 'save' command.

Accident investigators said 98 MPH

[StarTux]

Typical ./ crowd failing to read the article:

This is especially important section:

"Defense lawyer Robert Stanziale said Matos was going about 60 mph. Assistant State Prosecutor Michael Horowitz said that his accident investigator calculated Matos was traveling about 98 mph. The electronic data recorder in Matos' car showed his peak speed was 114 mph in the seconds before the crash."

The driver says a much slower speed, an accident investigator says 98 MPH, the EDR says it peaked at 114, whichever way you look at it this guy was going to jail, the EDR most likely provided the icing on the cake. Two young girls died innocently in this, don't forget that.

As for privacy...Not really, there is plenty more things that could cause privacy to be invaded. Oh and for those who were worried about mis-readings; This is up to the defense lawyer to question, if in an accident the car became airborne for 5 seconds the lawyer can ask what affect this would have on the EDR, or if the car had a different set of wheels, this is also something the lawyer could have bought up. But, in the case mentioned who was going to go to jail, defense saying 60 MPH is still over the limit in a 30 mile an hour zone. One less idiot on teh road, just a shame two young girls had to die from this idiot.

Re:Groundless fears

[MisterMook]

If I install a device on my vehicle, ask to have it put on my vehicle, and it is clearly spelled out that this may be used as a tool for law enforcement then it is one thing. If there is a little chip that might one day be used by traffic cops to query my car to see how fast I was going and I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS IN THERE, then it is a problem. I'd have the same "kneejerk" reaction if someone installed bomb sniffing hardware in my new suitcases, even while it is well meaning it's a violation of my expectations of privacy. Raise your hands, how many people are sure they don't have this little device in their cars? Now that it has been used in this one case successfully, who doesn't think that it has the potential to be used in many more? Speeding? Stop signs?

Re:Let me tell you a little something about speedi

[Sciamachy]

There was a sign on a road near London, UK which said "14% of road accidents in this county were caused by speeding" - as a n attempt to justify the massive spread of GATSO speed cameras in the area. However, if 14% were caused by speeding, 86% were caused by other things such as the driver not paying due attention (yet still keeping to the speed limit) or driving with a car that's in an unsafe condition (defective brakes, steering, suspension, tyres etc).

This particular case is somewhat extreme - given that the limit was 25mph, and he says he was doing 60, he should go to prison anyway - he *says* he was doing more than twice the limit! But what I'd like to know is, why the cops spend so much time and effort catching people who are speeding when most crashes are caused not by excessive speed but by defective cars and inattentive or intoxicated drivers? The answer is basically money - the cops make a lot of money from speed tickets, it's easy to prove in court with the right equipment, and you don't even have to stop the speeding car - just send the ticket to the registered address for the car's owner.

Re:please let it's use be limited

[Nogami_Saeko]

[begin scarcasm]

No, these devices should be illegal and outlawed because, dammit, all drivers and their lawyers SHOULD have the right to try lie their way out of a court case where they killed a couple of teenagers!

[end scarcasm]

Of course, that's the most extreme case - I wouldn't want a cop being able to pull up behind me at a traffic light and see the maximum speed during my travels for the day/month/year, etc.

That said, if there is an accident, especially if there are serious injuries/fatalities, I think I'd be happy to see something like this able to be used in court.

Might also help stop the insurance companies from trying to weasle out paying the rightful victim to have their car repaired/replaced, and any medical expenses paid without the victim getting screwed.

I think stronger enforcement would be a good idea too...

I like the idea in some European countries where if you get caught DWI, you lose your license - forever. Never drive a car again in your life. Done. Etc.

Maybe if that happened more here there would be less problems with it. And if they catch you without a valid license, your car is immediately siezed and either crushed or resold, no courts involved.

How ould this have turned out?

[StarTux]

Change some of the facts...

Defendant says he was going 30 MPH

Accident investigator says 29 MPH

EDR says 35 MPH

What would the judge decided then?

Already admitted to 60 MPH is already too fast, to me that seems he was admitting guilt.

Re:EDR Inaccuracy potential

[Stephen Samuel]

Newsflash: lots of useful things give misleading or even downright incorrect info -- for example: all media :).

Having been on the inside of a number of reasonably high-profile news stories, I'd wipe that smiley off of that post if I were you.

I woouldn't say that all media is misleading/wrong all the time, but I would definitely not stake my life on the accuracy of a media report without independent verification.

Interstate Commerce and Insurance Ramifications

[Knight2K]

Strangely, I was just chatting about this with my father (Happy Father's Day to all) and a couple of points came up that I thought were interesting.

The first was:
Blackboxes can be mandated on U.S. airplanes (which are privately owned) because the U.S. government can regulate interstate commerce and the airspace above the U.S. belongs to the citizens of the U.S. and are administrated by the government on our behalf.

Similarly, the interstate highway system is basically under the jurisdiction of the federal government and regulated by them (cars must meet federal safety guidelines, etc.) so it seems fairly straightforward to me that requiring black boxes in cars is well within the purvue of what we have allowed the government to handle in the past , especially since more people die in car accidents in the U.S. each year than in airplace crashes.
There is also precident for the concept that you can't just do anything to your own property (e.g. building permits, zoning regulations, child abuse laws..sorta). So this doesn't bother me too much as long as we are vigilent about misuse.

Which leads to the second point we discussed: the big problem is with the insurance companies. Their interest as a business is not really to protect you from harm, but to avoid paying claims since this costs them money. Often times this manifests itself in positive ways (credits for joining a health club, driver safety programs), but can also be rife for abuse. Everyone I know seems to have a story about recalcitrant insurance companies dragging their feet on legitimate claims. Personal injury lawyers prey on those fears all the time.

I could easily see a world where insurance companies look for any scrap of evidence they can to avoid paying your claim... these black boxes can supply it in spades: you were going 5 mph over the limit, zagged left instead of right, etc... until basically there would come a point where it would be difficult or impossible to get the insurance company to perform the service that you pay them for: to help you absorb some of the cost of a tragedy, self-inflicted or otherwise, in your life.

I wonder how many people would start dropping their car insurance because it really provides them with no value since there could always be some momentary fault found with their driving that the insurance company could point to. Perhaps we need to think about how absolutely some of this data should be interpreted; maybe the splitting of blame between parties in an accident handles this already. Should no-fault insurance become mandatory? Or should the adoption of this technology herald the beginning of individualized mass transit (that makes my head hurt typing it, I mean basically smart highways)?

Re:please let it's use be limited

[scotartt]

There's an ad running on NSW television currently that shows a two cars, one at 60km/h and one at 65km/h, brake at same time, but faster car hits obstruction at nearly 30km/h whereas slower car hits obtruction at 5 km/h. it says 50% of car speed is lost in the last 5 metres, so that 5km/h difference when brake is applied makes a 30km/h difference at collision point. in other words, the 5km/h -- which most people would say is a piddling amount not worthy of argument over -- can easily be the difference between life and death.

Careful now....

[xA40D]

A while back I was involved in head-on collision with another car on a blind bend.

The other driver claimed I was going too fast, whereas they were doing about 20MPH. My insurance company looked at the damage on both cars and determined the speed of impact was in excess of 55MPH. For a while my insurance company believed this other driver's statement, and was blaming me for the accident.

It started to get really hairy when the other driver decided to sue me for causing personal injury.

Then - at my behest - the garage took a look at the black box in my car to determine why the airbag didn't deploy. To discover my speed at the time of impact was 10MPH. When my insurance company was informed they apologised to me, and rang the Police, who threw the book at the other driver.

Scream all you want about privacy, but sometimes big-brother technology has a tangiable benefit.

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

[Fallen_Knight]

it only records the top speed so theres no way to know for sure

We need better tech, not better laws

[xtrucial]

It's amazing that we're now in the early 21st century with incredibly advanced technology, but our transportation system is thoroughly in the early 20th century. Surely it's possible to install collision-avoidance systems in cars now, so that cars will react to each other, rather than drivers reacting. Humans are notoriously unreliable. Computers are perfectly reliable, but they're a hell of a lot better. Let's see GPS for quicker trips; automatic acceleration at safe speeds, with "buffer zones" between cars; let's see weather and other hazard detection. PLEASE allow our transportation technology catch up with the rest of the technology world.

Re:Black Boxes, GPS and Gradiated Speed limits...

[Motherfucking Shit]

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...).

You aren't the only one who's been dreaming of this.

Been driving for 5 years, accident-free? I think you should be allowed to go +5 on the interstate without the cops bugging - not that they generally do anyway for 5 miles over the limit - but this could give younger drivers a bit of leeway. You'd earn an additional +5mph per 5 years, until you hit 30; at which time your bonus caps at +15. Speed limit's 65? If you're 30 and you've been driving for 15 years wreck-free, you should be able to do 80 without being pulled over. Again, this is only the interstate I'm thinking of, the bonus would only apply there.

When you hit 30, assuming you remained accident-free, you'd get 10 years worth of +15mph driving. As soon as you hit 40, the bonus starts dropping by 5mph every 5 years, to compensate for the facts that a) aging drivers generally have slower response times and b) older drivers are generally more likely to have health or vision issues.

In short, assuming a healthy and wreck-free driver all the way:

15 years old: +0
20 years old: +5
25 years old: +10
30 years old: +15
35 years old: +15
40 years old: +15
45 years old: +10
50 years old: +5
55 years old: +0

If at any time you had a wreck, developed a vision problem, or had any other physical issue which impaired your driving, you'd lose your bonus forever. States differ on the number of years before a drivers' license renewal is necessary (here it's 4 years) so they'd have to all settle on a 5 year interval. Not a bad thing IMO.

I always envisioned such a system using specially-hued license plates, but in this day and age a transponder might not be such a bad idea. Though I imagine both the specially-hued tags _and_ the transponders would be popular on the black market.

Similar to Blood Alcohol Level

[Ashtead]

1. A forensics-style device like this seems to me to be very similar to the practice of measuring blood alcohol levels of drivers in accidents. It is one more item of information about what happened at the time, and may indicate culpability or innocence, as others here have said. As long as this information is only obtained after an accident and indicates the conditions at that point, it is OK.

2. In this case, the evidence from the black box did not by itself decide the case. The speed limit was 30 MPH, he said he was going 60 MPH, the investigator estimated 98 MPH and the EDR indicated 114 MPH. Now, 60, 98, or 114 in a residential 30 zone is reckless driving anyways. All this proved was that he was lying,

3. There was no problems with unreasonable search, in as much as the judge had issued a search warrant for this information.

4. The problem is with automated prosecution, which is what traffic-cameras are, and some say this could be turned into. Combined with GPS and tables of speed limits and such.... Seems this enormous focus on speed to the detriment of other dangerous behavior is caused because speed is easy to measure. I do not for a second believe that we will be any safer with people going 30 MPH, behaving like zombies. Just because the speed limit is 30.

Re:Zappers

[Anonymous Coward]

He got what he deserved.

It's unfortunate that people have to die for others to realize what they are doing is stupid. This is offtopic but yesterday during rush hour, I was on a road with two left turning lanes, one straight-through lane, and one right turning lane. This girl in the far left turning lane, was trying to make a right turn. I can understand getting in the wrong lane and wanting to just get out, but under those conditions, just do a @#$!@ u-turn, she almost hit two cars before finally deciding she needed to turn left.

Driver's licenses should be issued like college degrees, you should have to earn them.

Limits are too low

[pnutjam]

I think the speed limit should be high enough that there is no reason to break it, say 95-100mph on most interstates 75-80mph around cities. It should also be vigerously enforced. I'm talking Cars impounded and sold if speeding.

Laws that are regularly broken by 80+% of the people are ridiculous and just make people have contempt for our government and legal system.

the other day

[Ender Ryan]

The other day I was driving about 8 mph over the speed limit in the left lane. A car approached from behind me going about 20 mph faster than me, and slowed to match my speed at about 3 feet from my bumper, and continued to follow roughly 5 - 8 feet behind me. The right lane was crowded, so I had to accelerate to about 15 mph over the speed limit so I could safely get into the right lane and allow the maniac behind me to pass.

After shifting to the right lane, the cop accelerated and passed me at about 35 mph over the limit.

This particular cop did not make me feel safer on the highway.

Re:Police cruisers

[SEWilco]

There are exceptions to every rule.

I was driving across Iowa at 2 AM a couple of years ago when I noticed the car behind me was approaching amazingly quickly. He roared past, and then I could see the light bar on top. Three miles ahead, he turned on his light bar and pulled over the speeder that he had been catching up with. Wide open freeway, two lanes in each direction, about one mile between cars.

It's just fine with me for a trained officer to be speeding in sparse traffic, on land where he can put himself in the median if he has to, so he doesn't encourage idiots to try to run away when they see red lights five miles behind them -- and so innocent drivers aren't put at risk by pulling over to the side of the road at 2 AM (as they are required to do when flashing red/blue lights with siren approach them), and even merely so innocent drivers at 65 MPH aren't blinded by flashing lights at night.

Re:Speed limiters == bad

[x-empt]

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.

Ironically, this is what most women do when they actually cause accidents. Women tend to panic and over-react quite easily when behind the driver's seat. Instead of slowing down... women panic and floor the gas peddle! Although they generally avoid the accident or possible incident they are trying to... they usually end up causing a far worse one.

Choose your level of privacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading through some posts and seeing the arguments against the use of this sort of tech on the grounds of 'invasion of privacy', etc. Wouldn't a better way to implement something like this be to simply offer insurance reductions for those owners willing to install the box? I dunno, if installing one of these boxes were to lower my insurance rates by a moderate amount, I wouldn't hesitate.

I know the prosecutor

[LouSir]

I was at dinner the other nite talking to the prosecutor on this case, Mr. Horowitz. He's a good guy. I don't see this as very big brother'ish. It's not much different then a radar gun. I don't think you have an expectation of privacy as to the speed of your vehicle. Anyone doing the speed limit would know your going to fast. LouSir

Re:Not even remotely comparable

[jafiwam]

Wearing a seatbelt is a matter of personal safety, but also the safety of of the other people in the car, and other people around the driver on the road.

A seatbelt not only prevents damage to the body in a crash, but also holds the driver in the seat; allowing additional control of the car after hitting something. Try ramming your car into a passenger side guardrail at a 45 degree angle at 90 KPH sometime, with a seatbelt on you'll stay in the seat and be able to control the car (somewhat). Without it, you are not in front of the steering wheel anymore and have NO chance to control the car anymore. That can (and does) mean the difference between a damaged car and a head on with a semi on the other side of the divided highway.

Seatbelts are therefore also a thing that should be worn out of responsability of other drivers, not just the wearer themselves.

Also, insurance companies do not pay, the governement does not pay when you do not wear a belt. *I* pay, along with anybody else that has ever had insurance or who has ever paid taxes. Insurance premiums are used to pay for payouts due to accidents, where do you think the money comes from? Trees?

Your selfish attitude is as disgusting as those people that insist that smoking in a closed room with other people is their "right".

Re:They can speed all they want

[Ravensfire]

Riskable is correct about reporting them.

My Grandmother was hit by a cop several years ago. He turned left onto a busy street without looking, and broadsided my Grandmother's car. After some investigation, it was determined that he had a rather poor driving record. Result - he is no longer a police office in St. Louis.

Re:Not even remotely comparable

[Richy_T]

Easy, trivial solution. When you purchase your insurance, they ask whether you wear a seatbelt. Say yes, get a lower premium. Say yes and don't wear your seatbelt, you're not insured.

Rich

Re:Speed limiters == bad

[Thing 1]

About 8 years ago I turned what could have been a serious accident into a minor bumper hit by accelerating. The lady was coming from the left, turning to merge with traffic, and didn't see me. I hit the horn for a good 5 seconds, and got no reaction. So I floored it, and she clipped me on the rear bumper.

Had I not accelerated, she would have hit me in the driver's door.

Had I braked, I would have hit her in the passenger door (since I didn't have enough stopping distance).

So sometimes accelerating is the proper response. Now if only the boat-of-car had had more power, I could have avoided the accident entirely. At least I got a couple grand out of it...

Great Idea! Driving is a Privilege not a Right

[Anonymous Coward]

In my short life I have seen my fair share of idiots who destroy lives due to negligent driving while either intoxicated or just for possessing low IQs. Personally I think we are not strict enough when it comes to enforcing traffic laws and punishing dangerous driving. People forget driving is not an entitled right.

Now with the release of the 2F2F we have had 2 major racing accidents within the week in Miami. I think these EDRs should be uplinked to the police department if you exceed a certain speed your info is wired and the Cops are notified.

Re:Not even remotely comparable

[Grishnakh]

Um, maybe I'm a little naive, but how exactly does the company stay in business if they're paying out more than they receive?

Or is this a case of one state's drivers being subsidized by drivers in other states? Seems like a good reason for the company to pull out of that state if you ask me.

Personally, I like my insurance company (USAA). When the year's over and they find out they didn't pay out as much as they expected in claims, they send me money back. I've never heard of any other companies doing that.