Slashdot Mirror
'Black Box' Readings Help Convict Montreal Driver
the man writes "From CBC News, Here's one that is going to get a lot of attention in the coming years. Quebec police won a dangerous-driving conviction Friday using evidence from the 'black box' in the car, a first in the province. Turns out that not many people know of these things. Time to start working on the mod for my Toyota."
How about just driving responsibly instead of trying to mod your box so you can continue driving irresponsibly? If you've gotten in an accident AND the box happens to show you were driving like a fool, then in order for it to be a conspiracy someone would have intentionally had to get you in an accident while your box was malfunctioning.
Right. I believe you.
Dangerous-driving conviction? And that's bad exactly how?
The owls are not what they seem
It records a few simple data for a short period... like the events leading up to a crash. Unless you plan on using your car as a murder weapon, I wouldn't worry much about it.
OTOH, when it starts recording everything and sending it to the police every night at 2am, I will be among the first in the driveway with a soldering iron.
Why do planes have black boxes in the first place? I'm guessing the pilots of the plane have a responsibility to their passengers. In the event of a crash, grieving families might want to know what exactly went wrong before a crash. Is a car any different?
If I'm a passenger driving with a friend, that friend has a responsibility to get me from A to B safely. The same rules apply to me as a driver. I know that if a friend of mine was killed in a crash that I'd like to know if it happened to be someone else's fault or ultimately the car that was driving my friend's fault.
If you can prove these things inaccurate in crash conditions then maybe we should be second-guessing whether to use them to prosecute people. Until then, I don't see why it's harmful to use them as a tool to reconstruct fault.
Guns dont keep a record of everything done with them though. Serial numbers are more like license plates.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
So you can drive like an asshole and get away with your actions when you lose control and kill some innocent bystander?
Where's the 'right to drive', let alone the 'right to drive like an asshole and not answer for your actions' in the Constitution?
Private pilots are tracked by ATC radar, etc. If they fly too low or where they aren't supposed to fly they get busted and aren't allowed to fly anymore.
Assholes in cars kill at least 5x the number of innocent people a year that assholes with guns manage to kill.
'Privacy at all costs and in all situations' is the mantra of the selfish and unrealistic. The road isn't yours. You share it with people - all of whom have no right to privacy when it comes to their driving habits and should be held accountable for what they do - not what they are caught doing.
Black boxes in vehicles should be common knowledge, easily retrievable in a court case (preferably fitting a common standard), and tamperproof.
The fault I find with them right now is that because most people don't know they're there it's more likely black box information would be used in cases against the owner rather than by the owner as concurring evidence to an accident report.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Tire marks. The amount of energy required to cause so much metal deformation. Distances airborne. Inertial effects. Witnesses. And I am sure there are many I did not think of.
The black box evidence is just one of many. It will either confirm the other evidence, in which case you have some explaining to do, or it may exonerate you. ( i.e. you WERE driving a safe legal speed and the other party did in fact do a real lulu in front of you. ).
My own take - its a non-issue. Every observable event will leave evidence. This is just one more of many trails left after an automotive accident event. You can really prejudice yourself by trying to tamper with the evidence.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
"Time to start working on the mod for my Toyota."
Yes, let's disable these hideous things that invade our privacy! It isn't the police's right to know that you had the gas to the floor when you rear-ended the woman in front of you, killing her and her two kids. Let her insurance company try to put that theory forth, give you a chance!
Please. These things record data that can be very useful in collision investigations, give the investigators an idea of what happened by letting them know what each car was doing at the time of impact. Seems like this could certainly help to reduce insurance costs if it helps show that you weren't at fault. Presumably, if collision data can be collected and recorded in a central repository it could help auto designers work on the safety systems of their cars as well. I mean, doing your own controlled crash tests are fine and well, but it would seem to me they'd cost a lot of money. Add in some real-world collisions to the mix and you can get a more useful picture.
I agree. I'll be one of the first people to jump up at privacy violations, but I think both that the privacy issues with this are minimal and that the benefits are enormous. I would pay to have one of these installed so in the event of a crash if there's a dispute over who is at fault or if insurance should cover, I can pull the information and say "look, not my fault." Of course, if these start phoning home and reporting violations, then we have a major problem. They should be accessable only with a warrant or by the owner (or people s/he hires).
Current technology is fairly harmless, but as the data capture amount increases in both number of sensors and duration of saving, and all cars are mandated to have GPS/communication devices ( like on-star ) then the data will be used for other purposes.
Such as tracking where you go.. and when you go there... Bye Bye to one of the last remaining avenues of privacy ( a drive in the country )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
My speedometer is off by about 5mph. My gas guage is off by about 1/8 tank. What if the "black box" is out of wack too, and by more? Will I be convicted of driving 100 in a 65 zone when I was really only going 63? A machine makes a poor witness in many cases....
Moreover, you have not argued in any way why this is actually a rather good idea, nor specified what "this" is -- is it the box, or its admission as evidence, or something else?
Further, you tread rather dangerously close to what I call the technicalist fallacy, which is the belief that technology will solve the problems of human behaviour. The box will not stop speeding, but rather increase the amount of information the police have at their disposal. This fallacy is constantly invoke to intrude on daily life. And the more we crave our convenience, the more it will take away our privacy. And don't tell me the roads are not private, for this is not the issue. The issue is making any given citizen culpable for every minute of his/her life.
cheers, potor (like you, I do not own a car, and nor do I ever plan to buy one.)
"After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers."
Actually a car is a TOOL which is used for TRANSPORTATION and occasionally has SIDE-EFFECTS which may be harmful, but usually just have the intended effect.
Guns, by contrast, are TOOLS which are used for KILLING and commonly have the intended effect.
By your logic, a whole damn lot of things are lethal weapons just because they cause death. Your mistake is in calling a car a weapon. Weapons are DESIGNED to cause harm. Cars are designed to MOVE.
Now, if you rig a car up with scythed wheels like a good ol' fashioned war chariot, that'll qualify as a weapon.
Furthermore, I don't see why every single vehicle should not be manufactured with this feature. After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers.
I think most of them are now. The collected data is used to improve airbag designs. Since airbags are dangerous (though, admittedly less dangerous than hitting your steering column and dashboard when you're brought to an abrupt halt from 131km/h in Montreal traffic), manufacturers have a tremendous liability if airbags are killing people in accidents. I know for sure that GM, DaimlerChrysler and most of the Japanese companies are using this.
131km/h is 81.4 MPH. Speaking as one who has lived in Montreal and driven on Montreal's old freeways (built before there was a real understanding of freeway design), this is too fast for the freeways of the area, let alone the city streets. Much of downtown Montreal has narrow winding streets with loads of pedestrian and cyclist traffic. Doing 81.4 MPH in those conditions is criminal irresponsibility, and an individual capable of doing something like that clearly has such a gross lack of understanding of cars and their capabilities that they probably thought 2 Fast 2 Furious was a good movie.
Never been to Montreal? Would you drive 80MPH through the streets of Lower Manhattan? Downtown Chicago?
Christ, parts of downtown Montreal have cobblestoned streets. Wet cobblestones are insanely slippery, and you still can stand at an intersection and watch some idiot who thinks his MacPherson-strut equipped front-wheel-drive Acura Integra with tinted windows can take him around any corner safely at twice - let alone four times - the posted speed limit.
This should have been a criminal conviction, especially with the supporting evidence from the black box.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Yes, if you want to have this box in your car, by all means opt in. If you dont want it, you shouldn't have to have it. You'll pay higher insurance premiums, but thats fair.
No privacy violation -- it doesn't track where you've been, since these things only record a few seconds of data, it doesn't transmit to anyone, and it isn't easily accessable.
Further, the box has an equal ability to prove that someone is not at fault. It is there as a neutral observer.
I would assume that the black box data was only one link in the chain of evidence. The article did not make that clear.
Police have crash specialists that analyse crash sitations. All that expertise will not disappear simply because newer model cars are equipped with data collection devices. No credible professional investigator would rely completely on the black box data when recreating the crash scene. Any competent defense counsel would have a field day if a crash investigator relied soley on black box data if the physical evidence contradicted the data analysis alone.
"Well regulated" translates to "well trained" in the language of the time. ( of the writing )
It wasnt important to include, in the context of a signature.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There's a big difference between continuous monitoring of speed and knowing the speed when a crash happens.
For some reason, the privacy advocate in me seems to feel okay about the latter. An crash has happened, and all data should be used to determinethe cause.
But, I severely chafe against the idea of a system that continuously monitors speed and reports my driving habits to some authority.
Well, in my country there is a fifth amendment to our constitution that prevents the government from compelling us to incriminate ourselves in criminal court. This is a direct violation of that amendment. The biggest argument against this, though, is that there is no third-party validation. The local cops have to calibrate their radar guns, on a regular basis, with some known standard. The black box on the other hand, is configured however GM wants it to be configured, and is held to no external standard. In fact, they could alter the data to protect themselves in certain error conditions and no one could do anything about it because they're accountable to no one. Other factors such as damage to the device, and more likely, damage to sensors, could alter the readings recorded by the device, and the poor driver would be convicted with almost no recourse - the car company probably couldn't even be forced to provide the source to the box code since its a trade secret. This is one of the worst ideas ever. At least word is out now, soon there will be a pissed off engineer who will figure out how to bypass it....
When you drive your car on a public road your actions are public, not private. The police, courts, and public have every right to see the contents of your black box when driving on a public road.
Anarchists never rule
There's a big difference between continuous monitoring of speed and knowing the speed when a crash happens.
I agree, but according to the article (however technically correct it may be), the device only has enough memory to store a few seconds worth of data; thus, after an accident there will be data on the last few seconds. Beyond that, any obnoxious driving will be overwritten within a few seconds.
I personally think it's a good idea, provided it doesn't go any further (long-term storage, reporting in any way, etc). Regardless of the purpose for the stored data (to help improve air-bags, in this case), if the data is there and can prove someone was being truly negligent, with relative accuracy -- I say use it.
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
I don't see why this is such a difficult concept for the pro-gun crowd to accept.
Guns are machines that are designed to propel bullets at a rate of speed that's intended to be damaging to the target. That is they are designed to do.
Cars are machines that are designed to transport people and goods.
Crowbars are designed to pry things apart.
Yes, all three can be used to do damage. But guns are the only machine whose primary function is to do damage to a target. Yes, virtually anything can become a weapon if the user wants it to be. But guns are special in that their primary functionality as a machine is as a weapon.
Everyone is missing the point. The point is not that the data retrieved was legitimate. Any physicist could have provided the same information. (My high school physics teacher used to testify in court doing accident reconstruction.) The problem is not that they got this data on the perpetrator. The problem is that they did it using a recording device in the person's car. This is a slipperly slope! How much information is this device allowed to record? How much of that information is the court allowed to admit as evidence? These are the critical issues. Don't get blinded by the details of this particular example! This is a much larger issue, and it has nothing to do with convicting bad drivers!!
You have not given an argument for why you think it is a good idea that something I own can then spy on me, why the existence of this device should be hidden from me, and why it should be illegal for me to remove or tamper with it.
I'm not the person you are replying to, but... a couple of points:
1) The device isn't intended to "spy" on you. It is intended to assist the manufacturer in improving airbags (in this particular case).
2) I don't think the existance is "hidden" from you. If you were to inquire for technical details I'm sure it's existance would be revealed (possibly published in a Haynes manual).
3) I haven't read anywhere yet that it's illegal to tamper with, though I do see it as being one of those types of things where one would have absolutely no reason to tamper with it...
The box will not stop speeding, but rather increase the amount of information the police have at their disposal.
The box isn't designed specifically for this, but then, neither is the home camera that might happen to catch the incident. Certainly a home video (or security tape, etc) would be submissible as evidence?
The issue is making any given citizen culpable for every minute of his/her life.
According to the article, the device only has enough memory to store a few seconds worth of data. Technically yes, every minute is being recorded, but at the same time it's constantly overwriting all but the last few seconds.
If the device was recording long-term, or transmitting data to anyone, I would agree with you and protest the device's existance.
In this case, however, the driver was being an idiot. This idiotic activity caused a fatality. There exists a device on the idiot's car that knows certain information about what happened.
When one is accused of a crime, the court can order a search of your home or vehicle, and even order people to testify what they know about an incident. Why is retrieving information from a device in your car -- one that happens to know certain important details -- any different?
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Actually, my left-wing friend, any tool can become a weapon...Guns are tools which are used for deterrence, among other things. They are not used for killing unless I point it at you and shoot you with it.
Er, and how is a gun a deterrence to me unless I think you are a violent wacko who is going to shoot me with it? I've never understood why disliking guns was a left-wing concept. Plenty of wacko left-wing groups like the Red Flag Army loved guns just as much as wacko right-wing groups like the Branch Davidians. I dislike guns because I'm not into wacko violent groups of any stripe.
Further, the box has an equal ability to prove that someone is not at fault. It is there as a neutral observer.
Most people don't know their car has such a box. I don't know if my does, but being that it's over 10 years old I'm blessing the merits of not having the latest technology for once.
Now, it's fine to say that "Joe Average could use this to prove his innocence," but it seems in most cases "Joe Average" doesn't even know the thing is there, or what it does, and thus it would only likely be used against him.
Look. It all very very simple.
I own the vehicle.
I do not want the EDR.
I should be allowed to remove/disable it.
End of Story.
There are a lot of people here saying that 'this is no problem if you are within the law, just drive slower'.
This logic is damn scary.
It ASSUMES that the law is sensible, realistic and actually suitable for the situation. In fact, laws are only RARELY ANY OF THESE. It assumes that police and prosecutors will never bend the situation in their favor to further their careers at the expense of the accused. Perhaps we should discuss a bridge I have for sale...
The laws do not consider any variations in levels of skill or preparation of the car. There are many of situations where an unskilled driver in a rattletrap car is unsafe at 30mph, a skilled driver in a good car and tyres is safe at 60, and a qualified racer in a prepared street car (to say nothing of formula cars) would be *slow* at 90.
Does the law consider any of this? NO. Would the prosecutors consider any of this? NO.
Sure, in this case, the offence seems particularly egregious, and the device only records a few seconds. But this is where it all starts down the slippery slope. Pretty soon, it is minor accidents, or generic offences, then the devices are used to record more, and report.
Note that this is just the airbag sensor, there are already much more sophisticated sensors and recording being installed in the engine management and other systems (check out OBD-II and OBD-III).
What is most scary about this is that this is a forum for the supposedly technologically sophisticated. These are exactly the people who should be most inclined to consider the ASSUMPTIONS. Yet many posts just assume the law and procecutors would be fine.
Scary by itself. Worse yet, what does it say about the code and products these people build?
Cheers.
The box will not stop speeding, but rather increase the amount of information the police have at their disposal. This fallacy is constantly invoke to intrude on daily life. And the more we crave our convenience, the more it will take away our privacy. And don't tell me the roads are not private, for this is not the issue. The issue is making any given citizen culpable for every minute of his/her life.
And there you have it. I could care less how fast you go, but if you fuck up, you damn well better be culpable.
I say these boxes are fine, and I think the California legislation mentioned in the background link is perfect. The box is there, recording everything. The police can't touch it without either the owner's consent or a court order. The correct checks are in place. If you argue that the courts may be corrupted, it's a problem with the courts, and not the black boxes or the legislation. No intrusion into daily life is going on, unless you want to consider fatal auto accidents "daily life". (I certainly don't.)