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?"
Does this mean that I have to microwave my car now???
"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
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
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!
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
Cross a few wires oops, no more EDS. ;)
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Well, a number of manufacturers would love to be able to get these kinds of data for the purposes of designing better cars and some companies (namely Volvo) have had accident investigation teams for years that actually go out to the accident scene to investigate. However, like any data that is accumulated there is the potential for abuse particularly in these times of Total Information Awareness......Oh, excuse me Terrorist Information Awareness. Seriously though, forensic investigation depends upon data and if it is available, it will be examined.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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."
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?
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
he gets it from this paragraph in the article
"While all vehicles with air bags use EDRs, other automakers have not been as quick to increase the amount of information recorded. Some are worried that consumers may resent having such personal information collected and they're waiting to see what happens to GM, Haseltine said."
emphasis added...
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
After all, it's your God-given right to lie after running down a couple of innocent people when doing 100+ MPH in a residential neighbourhood. I'm sure this is exactly why the founding father's wanted to protect civil liberties.
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.
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.
Assuming that you're pulling some Dukes of Hazzard style bridge jumping, this might be a problem, but the acceleration of your tires when not on the ground will be substantially higher than that of your tires on the ground. Thus, it can easily be ascertained whether your car was in contact with the road, by actually analyzing the data.
They don't have robots figuring this stuff out, they have forensic experts.
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...
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.
... using vehicular damage as evidence? I don't like it but I can not logicaly differntiate the two. Maybe some ele can.
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.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
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
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.
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).
Information is stored at 1 second intervals, and the last five seconds before airbag deployment or near-deployment are saved in non-volatile memory. The information saved typically includes:
There's also post-crash data, which is useful for deciding whether airbag deployment should have occured. (That's actually why the data is recorded and why the NTSB analyzes it for collisions where airbag deployment was unnecessary.)
When you see this data graphed over time, it tells you quite a bit about the accident. There's more than speed information. Seeing throttle and brake inputs for five seconds before the collision gives a good indication of what the driver was doing. In this case, press reports say "Court records show the recorder in Matos' 2002 Pontiac Trans Am measured his speed at 114 mph five seconds before the crash in Pembroke Pines. The device detected he was pressing the gas pedal at 99 percent of its maximum capacity. A second before the crash, he was still doing 103 mph." Any questions?
But this is primitive compared to the Eaton VORAD radar system on some heavy trucks. That collects enough information to show what the other vehicles were doing.
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.
A couple views (Score:5, Interesting)
by CrudPuppy (33870) on Saturday May 17, @03:57AM (#5979217)
I guess I am torn on this issue.
On one hand, if black box data is used against you, you could claim discrimination since not all cars have the boxes and therefore you are being punished to a greater extent as a direct result of the car you chose to purchase.
On the other hand, I think it would be a good idea (Big Brother paranoia aside) for the industry to create a standard for what kind of dasta is collected and mandate the use of these devices on all new cars. Unbiased witnesses in courtrooms is badly needed these days due to blatant disregard for truth and justice.
Now how do you stop Big Brother from tapping this info? You KNOW they're gonna wanna give this thing an IP address that maps to your Social Security Number and is able to broadcast on wireless networks...
--
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
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
This is a good post. My roommate is a speeder/racer and has been in at least 15 accidents that he has told me about (he's 21). On the other hand, I am a decent driver (one that generally rides 5 over the speed limit and attempts to stay with the flow of traffic) and have never been in an accident when I was the driver. I am also fairly perceptive and actually slow my vehicle when I sense a bad driving which could lead to an accident. For some reason most of the people that I ride with don't seem to notice possible accidents. It kind of freaks me out. Anyway, I don't understand why so many out there seem to think that they have to race to get from point A to point B all the time. Why not drive safer so you can travel tomorrow?
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
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.
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.
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.
Agreed Not everything is recorded including software hardware glitches /begin true story /end true story
While driving in my own residential street my car decided to rev >7000 rpm lift foot off the accelerator and brake - no effect - drop into neutral the electronically controlled automatic gearbox refuses and the brakes are working against the engine so i turn the engine off. Come to a stop call mechanic and he finds nothing turn the car back on and everything is normal except the burning smell from the transmission - 3 weeks later the same thing only while in neutral and stopped, this time it stops on its own after 15 seconds or so and the cause was the secondary fuel pump
The point here is the only sensor on the pump said it was working not that it had a glitch and when it stopped working the computers still said it was working so can you trust all the equipment in your car ??
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
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.
Let's examine the facts:
A teenage girl pulled out into traffic and was hit
If the speeding car had been going 30 mph, they most likely would have still collided. Would it have killed both occupants? Perhaps severly injured or killed one of them if they were unlucky. Either way, the girl was AT FAULT for pulling into moving traffic.
The article headline could very well be "Black Box In Red-Light Jumper's Car Proves She Pulled Out Into Traffic". Would have been a different spin, no?
114 mph in a residentual zone
This guy's an asshat. What the hell was he thinking? The only time he should be going that fast is on a track, after he's signed the right paperwork. He's AT FAULT. I'm also impressed his car saved his life in a 100+mph head-on collision.
Conclusion:
All things being equal, the only thing the black box proves is that the speeder should share the blame 50%, instead of the girl being 100% at fault.
As such, I'm in two minds about his punishment. It obviously wasn't premeditated murder, but the sentence of 22 to 30 years seems pointless punishment to ruin his life since he wasn't 100% at fault. He'd be in his 50's before he's out. If he was a sound, moral character, I'd be tempted to give him 5 years and never allow him to drive a motor vehicle again - ever. But he lied about his speed, which could mean he's a bit of a weasel. Hmm.. difficult problem.
I'm fine with having a black box in my GM car. I already try not to speed because I don't want my insurance premiums to go up and I'm happy to have a box monitoring me if it helps me to not take risks. What is the problem with that? It's a smart move by GM.
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)?
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
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
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.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
it only records the top speed so theres no way to know for sure
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.
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.
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
60mph sounds reasonable to most people because they drive that fast about every day. This guy was traveling almost twice as fast as he was willing to admit. That is 84mph over the speed limit. Look at it this way, whatever the stopping distance of his car is (was) at 30mph, he was traveling almost 4 times faster. His stopping distance isn't increased 4 times, it would be closer to 16 times as far as his 30-0 braking distance.
Check here and here for some braking distances up to 100mph. Note the measured 30-0 versus the 100-0 stopping distances. A 2002 Corvette Z06 takes 108feet (60 - 0 mph) and 312feet (100 - 0 mph), 114mph would take the vette over 400feet.
This equates to the two drivers having 1/16th of the time and distances to react and make corrections. He was traveling at
114*5280/60/60=167.2 feet per second. His car weighed over 3600lbs with him inside, convert weight to mass, 3600/32.17=111.91lb
(167.2^2)*111.91/2=1,564,269
He was wielding a kinetic energy of over 1.5 million ft/lb, more than enough to destroy a school bus or go through a house, etc.
In my opinion, he wasn't even close to being accountable by admitting to 60mph.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
The mistake you made was a common one, and is my explanation of why speeding kills.
You were speeding irresponsibly.
Yes folks, there is a way to speed responsibly and it can be accomplished by following some basic guidelines.
1) Know your speed. If you don't know your speed, how can you possibly know how long it will take you to stop the car?
2) Know your road. What may seem like a small and shallow pit in the road when you drive at 55mph can act as a ramp when you drive at 100mph and send you hurling in the air without any control over life or limbs. Can one expect animals to cross the road suddenly?
3) Know your car. Will it start to swerve at a certain speed? Are the brakes OK? How much pressure to the brake pedal will cause the tires to lock? Is the ABS in perfect working condition? What's the condition of the shock absorbers, the brakes, the tires? Will it hydroplane on small puddles of water? How long will it take for you to put the car at a complete stop at X mph on a wet road, dry road, concrete road, asphalt road, gravel road?
AND number 4 which really should be common sense (which by itself usually isn't all that common)
Never EVER drive faster than you can actually SEE the spot where you will come to a full stop, should it be necessary to hit the brakes NOW, preferably with some distance to spare.
There is also a number 5 which is also pretty basic. If you happen to pass a cop and the cop decides to engage in a pursuit. By all means, STOP. It's better to have just the reckless driving on your record than reckless driving + resisting arrest (which I believe is what you're doing if you decide not to pull over). Also remember that if you decide to make a run for it you're not going to be as focused on the driving with the cops behind you, as when you're just driving all by yourself. That lack of focus is likely to be the prime factor in accidents caused by reckless drivers.
Speeding by itself doesn't kill, it's the idiots who speed recklessly and irresponsibly that do.
This AC should be +5 Funny not +5 Interesting, moderators engage brains before moderating, tacking chips in fertiliser and gasoline!!!
p.s. AC you better watch out for those my^H^Hthose stealth tracking packets that are now winging there way to your PC now and will be tracked all the way by my^H^H those Sentinals^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H UN Stealth choppers.
Agent^H^H^H^H^H Fred Smith.
It is kinda funny that this story came up on /. today, just as I was reading a story in a swedish newspaper about the black box in SAAB cars and how the data can be used.
Based on this story, it seems that anyone can use the data from the black box in any way they see fit --- in the US.
In Sweden, this would break a law called PUL. For the Police and/or insurance companied to be able to use the data from the black box, the owner of the car must agree to the data being used. The owner of the car can simply refuse and say that no-one is allowed to use the data, in which case it shouldn't affect the owner in any way.
I guess the data can be useful, and it is good that it is there, but I do like the fact that I get to choose wether or not the data should be used.
As there is no law saying the box must be working, if I was in the US, I'd disconnect mine for sure!
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.
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
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.
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.
Just an FYI: A cop has no obligation to put on their sirens or emergency lights when doing the things you describe. It's merely an option for them--and they should use those tools whenever possible for their own safety.
In a sense, they are, "above the law" in regards to the rules of the road. The reasons for this are obvious: secretive persuit, getting to a crime scene without alerting the perpetrators, etc
However, they *CAN* get in trouble if they're just roaming around like a maniac without a good reason. Feel free to report any cop that does this (I've done it, though, I can't say that they were punished for it). One complaint probably won't do much, but it goes on their record for quite some time, so if that cop ever causes an accident or whatever, it could come up in court. Actually, now that I think about it, this probably varies from state to state or perhaps even county to county.
Unfortunately, the only way to complain is to write a written letter to the sherrif's dept. or state police dept. Make sure to include the time and his car number.
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
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.
Cheap storage VM.
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".
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.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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.
If( speed > 100 ) /* We're about to crash anyway */
{ airbag(deploy); }
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 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
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.