Slashdot Mirror
Automobile Black Box Sends Driver to Jail
myzor writes "This article from the Montreal Gazette reports that a driver got 18 months in jail for speeding that killed a man, after the black box in his car revealed he was going 157 km/h (98 mph) in a 50 km/h zone in downtown Montreal. The recording device, which stores data on how a car is driven in the last five seconds before a collision, showed that four seconds before impact, the driver had the gas pedal to the floor and didn't brake before impact." Reader ergo98 writes "Setting a precedent for the Canadian legal system, a Quebec man was convicted based upon the incriminating evidence found in his own car's black box." The Star also has another article looking at the issues surrounding the data recorder.
Another dupe. Yawn. This story was originally posted last October when he was convicted.
Other important factors are
He lied, he said he was going only slightly over the speed limit.
There was a huge amount of damage, that was not representative of his claimed speed.
There were no skid marks (Although ABS may limit them)
The investigators got a court order to look at the black box. They already had evidence that he was going faster then he claimed. And that he didn't try to prevent or reduce the accident.
The only thing the black box did was confirm evidence they already had, and make it more precise (exact speed, and that he didn't hit the brakes.)
Who has read access to the data? It's my data, so I should be able to plug the car into my USB port and see it for myself (as should my attorney).
s/USB/ODB\ II
try autoxray
but that might not be enough, in which case you'll have to buy a $3k scan tool. Nothing is stopping you from doing this now. Just because your car doesn't have a USB interface doesn't mean you can't get to it.
In all fairness, the other story posted talks about someone who hasn't yet been convicted, and the 12 month jail term is a *maximum* sentence.
Mind you, 18 months is insignificant for taking a life, and 12 months is outrageous for taking nothing at all (he didn't walk out with the movie reels under one arm after all).
Just, yea, this isn't apples-to-apples.
You will not be convicted of anything based on ONLY the black box data. During an accident investigation a huge array of other evidence is naturally collected. If the accident inolves a fatality they will typically look at things down to the state of the filament in the lightbulb (turn signal bulbs, brake light bulbs, etc.) Using information like that they can tell if the bulb was lit when the impact ocurred. A deformed filament means it was heated so it was either on or on very recently. A clean break indicates a cold bulb not recently on. The fact that this a-hole was going 98 does not only come from the black box. Measurements of deformations of the vehicle, what it hit, etc. would allow calculations to determine at least a rough speed. If the calculations all show 20 mph and the black box shows 98 then the black box data will be thrown out the window. If physics calculations show 90 and the black box shows 98 then we're in the realm of statistical error. In short, I believe this is a case where if you're not doing something incredibly stupid you shouldn't be worried, the box will be your friend if you get in an accident. If you are doing something incredibly stupid then STOP IT or expect the box to bite you in the ass!
If he had been doing 5mph, then he wouldn't be going to jail at all, because he wasn't doing anything wrong. The reason that he is going to jail is because he was doing some illegal (i.e. driving recklessly over the speed limit) and it resulted in someones death.
It is all about intention, not the tool. If you kill a man with a cuddly toy, but you were trying to kill him, then it is murder. If you hit someone in a car doing 5 mph, it is an accident. If you were doing something illegal that caused the accident, then it is manslaughter.
Source story from where the link comes.
Indeed among my social circle it's common to leave clubs a half hour before last call (3am) or plan on hanging out in a late night coffee shop or restaurant for 'til at least 4am before braving the downtown streets. Even then many of us intentionally take indirect routes to avoid the drunks.
Its also useful to know that by US terms Montreal isn't a violent city. Indeed when I moved here I was appalled at all of the car crashes that lead the evening news. At least, I was appalled until I realized it was simply the maxim if it bleeds it leads in action and where US cities would have killings and gunfire in Montreal the news was having to settle (!) for mostly car accidents.
The result is for the press, especially the extensive tabloid press, accidents and incidents like this are big news. Every media outlet in Montreal is talking about this today, and I'm sure tonight many partiers will be reconsidering their travel strategies.
Finally, Ste. Catherine is the east-west "Main Street" through Montreal. Its a heavily built up with large and small stores, theaters, restaurants, and yes being Montreal, stripper clubs mixed in too. Even at 1am it is always heavily trafficked, both with vehicles and people coming and going through downtown.
Frankly at Ste. Catherine & Foy there's no way one could reach the speeds this yoyo was going unless one floored the gas and held it (as his blackbox read.) It's not like cruising down main street in some small plains town where the signs at 1am are a formality and there's not a soul to be seen, this is a light every block with folks on the sidewalks everywhere and steady traffic throughout.
So yeah, it looks like Quebec courts are gonna start using the 'expert testimony' of black boxes. Frankly I'm not concerned as the courts here do pretty much bend over backwards to find reasonable doubt and I've heard of cases dropped and evidence suppressed on some exceedingly conservative grounds.
Compared to eyewitness testimony from traumatized folks, measuring skid marks and vehicle deformation, debris fields patterns, etc. these numbers are probably going to be useful, especially at confirming or contradicting all of the other evidence. in my book that's a good thing and you're vehicle is right is right in being mined for information, be it a crushed windshield, blood on the bumper, or data in it's black box.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
airbags also have their own backup power supply.
Are you sure about that? I've never heard that before. When my wife was in a rear-ending in which her car was shoved under a school bus, her airbag went off, but the fire department wouldn't let anyone inside the car (i.e., to collect our belongings) until they'd cut the cable to the battery. The reason they gave was that the airbags might still go off. The corrolary being, once they'd cut the battery, there was no longer a fear of the airbags deploying.
Got a reference to back up the claim that airbags have their own power source?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
My car doesn't have a black box. Should I be forced to install one, presumably at my own expense, just because I don't want to buy a new car?
Lets see, how many cars made before the smog requirements got so strict were forced to have smog equipment installed at the owners expense?
You still don't have to wear a seatbelt in your car if it was made with no seatbelt.
All of this and I live in California - the most anal of them all. Looking at the past it is not very likely that they would ever require all cars without a black box to have them installed.
/* Insert some overused slashdot quote here */
As far as I have been able to determine, there have been no USSC cases that, by abridging the right to drive, relegate it to "priviledge" status.
How about the fact that no appeal of somebody who has lost their privledge to hold a driver's license has ever made it to the USSC?
Certain parts don't have a speed limit, however, your insurance coverage decreases in relation to speed over a fixed point, so if you're doing 200 km/h on the autobahn, you're personally liable for every little bit of damage you do when your tire blows.
Desperation is a stinky cologne
The Constitution guarantees all free citizens (i.e., those who have not had their freedoms curtailed by legal process--e.g., convicted felons) the right to travel. It does not guarantee you the right to travel on anything other than your own two legs. Cities can regulate whether they allow horses on their roads, since your right to travel freely on a horse has to be weighed against the right of your fellow citizens not to have horseshit littering the sidewalk. The government can regulate whether you're allowed to fly a 747, because your right to travel freely by a plane you're piloting has to be weighed against the right of your fellow citizens not to have a Boeing crash in their back yard.
The right to travel is strong and sacrosanct in the United States. Travel by any method you choose is not, and has never been, a right.
Check Westlaw for caselaw. There's a staggering lot of it. In pretty much every single Federal district in the United States, someone's had the bright idea of contesting their license suspension by walking into a Federal court and claiming their Constitutional right to travel is being abridged. These things get dismissed on summary judgment, since the facts are not in dispute and the law is unambiguously clear.
The black box just showed he was lying his ass off.
18 months in jail for KILLING someone.
The law recognizes, as I think it should, a distinction between KILLING someone, and doing something negligent that causes someone else to die.
In fact, there are at least four criminal categories of homicide:
First degree murder: A person forms a specific intent to kill someone, plans the killing, and kills the victim or has them killed. (e.g. the Thrill Kill Kult)
Second degree murder: A person who did not previously have a specific intent to kill someone flies into a rage and forms the intent to kill the victim at almost exactly the same time he does the killing.
Voluntary manslaughter: A voluntary manslaughter is similar to a second degree murder, but it can be shown that the victim adequately provoked the killer into killing him (e.g., "imperfect self defense" and arguably, the last scene in the movie Se7en).
Involuntary manslaughter: A person does not form the specific intent to kill, but does something either criminal or criminally negligent which leads to someone else's death.
Now, there are special laws which allow (generally upward) adjustments so that someone who would ordinarily fall into one category is placed in another. For example, a drunk driver who kills someone can often be convicted of a murder.
However, a sober speeder cannot; our courts almost universally recognize that as an involuntary manslaughter.
Tangent: back in the days that I worked variable shifts, I'd often be driving home on about two hours of sleep in three days, weaving all over the highway, thinking that I could drive at least twice as well if I were well-rested but a little bit drunk. But special interest pressures have made drunk driving a felony, and extremely fatigued driving, which is equally dangerous, barely a crime at all.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
what if you become airborne with your foot still on the pedal?
.1 seconds. Seeing as the car weighs 1500lbs, that means his engine was producing over 1000 horsepower."
A non-issue.
The tire speed will quickly accelerate and could be reporting false numbers before the sensor detects the crash.
No, one of two things would happen.
#1: speed is measured at the rear wheels (for a front-wheel drive). Ever floor your car in mud? The wheels spin, but the speedo doesn't say you're doing 200Mph
#2: Even if speed is measured at the drive wheels, the acceleration reported would be so high as to be impossible. "Hey - he accelerated to 200Mph in
Either one would make someone investigating the case realize what had happened - and if prosecution attempted to present it at trial anyway, the defense could get the whole thing thrown out by simply showing common sense.
However, with a warrant the police are free to inspect items owned by a suspect, even if they may be incriminating. I'm quite certain that the fact that an automobile accident occurred would constitute probably cause for police to recover black boxes from any vehicles involved.
Besides, it's equally easy for the black box to support your innocence. If the other guy says I ran a red light in front of him, but my black box says my car was stationary for the preceding five seconds--I'm cleared; my insurance doesn't take a big hit; I don't have to go to court, except as a witness against the other guy.
Beyond that, there's always basic questions to be answered like how do we know that the BBI in the Canadian case wasn't a recording of a 5-second interval where the (front ?) tires (or just one of the tires?) weren't in contact with the road?
These recorders usually track things like throttle and brake positions as well as speed. If the black box says he had the pedal to the floor for the entire five seconds, then the speed reading makes sense.
Also, if he wasn't doing something he shouldn't, how would he keep the front tire off the ground for five seconds before his airbag went off? (Airbag inflation is the cue for these devices to stop recording.)
~Idarubicin
Slippery slope arguments are not always (if, technically, ever) logical fallicies. UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh recently published a great law review article on the subject: The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope, 116 Harvard Law Review 1026 (2003). (See also PDF Version.)
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
I guess rental cars have all of that.
I have heard of people getting billed for taking a vehicle out of state, because the car knows when they crossed the state line. I guess people that live close to the state line don't think about it until they get charged for it.
Open-and-shut in this case, I'm afraid... the defendant claimed he was going just a little over the 50 Km/h limit, but there was excessive damage to both cars. Also, the defendant's spedometer was frozen by the crash at 125Km/h (the video was on the CBC last night). Put that all together, and you have probable cause that he was excessively breaking the speed limit, giving you the legal handle required to sieze the data.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
The airbag control unit has two "slots" in EEPROM for stored events, the "Deployment Event" and "Near Deployment Event" slot. The "Deployment Event" slot stores the last five seconds of data when the control unit fires the airbag. This is a one-time event - once this has happened, the airbag control unit cannot be used again. (It's replaced with the airbag, if the car is repairable.) "Near Deployment Events" represent situations where the airbag unit started the "fire the air bag decision" process, but decided not to fire the bag. Two successive accelerometer samples of 2G or greater wake up the air bag control algorithm. The biggest delta-V near-deployment event is stored; a bigger one replaces the old one. After 250 engine starts (at least in GM vehicles) the "near deployment event" is erased.
There's local power storage in the airbag unit, so that even if battery power is lost, the airbag can still fire. So the data usually gets stored, too.
The real purpose of this unit is to fine-tune the "fire the air bag decision" algorithm. Early airbags were going off in accident situations that didn't really require airbag deployment. The current generation is doing better. The NTSB collects this data. This found at least one defect. A few false deployments had occured on gravel roads when a big rock happened to hit the sensing unit. That's been fixed in current models.
to a search warrant and and a tap. Unless you live in Michigan, the first state to abolish search warrants. Don't even need a judge any more.
OnStar does monitor 24/7 upon police request. A judge ruled only that OnStar must be able to deliver the services the consumer paid for while the tap is in place.
Inspect they can (maybe), but can the black box be introduced into a court room with out a warrent? This is upto judges and lawyers.
Well, let's see. To get a warrant they must have some sort of idea that you've committed a criminal offense. So if they've determined the other guy was at fault, they can't get a warrant to search your car and get the black box.
Instead, they subpoena it for the court case, and you still have to comply. Requirements on a subpoena are much looser because a subpoena is just a requirement for information, not a search for criminal evidence to be used against you. It's information to be used against someone else, and you're really expected to just give it up on request. If not, subpoena. They get it anyway. If you don't give it up, then it's a criminal offense, I understand.
No, I'm not a lawyer either. But I don't burn my brain cells watching TV, either.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Every should assume their new cars can record their driving habits, but the justice system should be required to get a search warrent to get access to that black box. This means the need to show probable cause that says the need to get access to the box. And just being in an accident is not probable cause. They should need to show evidence that you were in fact in violation of some law and that the black box could provide the proof of that violation.
I'm not sure if it's this specific case (probably is) but the driver essentially got an insurance claim out of the accident. Naturally, going that fast the car was a total write-off. Now in exchange for the insurance money, the posession of the car was turned over to the insurance company. Because the vehicle is now the property of the insurance company, no warrants are needed and they can legally search over every square millimeter to find any evidence they want.
Had the driver refused an insurance payout and claimed that the car, or what was left of it, was his property and he would not be releasing it nor accepting any insurance money, likely this would never have resulted in a conviction (barring an application to the courts for a warrant to search his car for the evidence).
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Failure to yield is usually what people get.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Seems to me that I have even seen handhelds on ebay that will get that info for you.
1. The box is bought with a car by a person who owns a car. Was the person given a choice to disable the box, or configure the recording function? If the person did not have a choice, it may amount to being forced to testify against himself by keeping records in a box available to the law enforcement and judges (remember, the box is his property, and the record produced by it is also his, even though it becomes available when the car is examined as evidence). A person may choose to not keep records that may incriminate him later, so taking away this choice amounts to forcing him to incriminating himself.
2. Was the existence and purpose of the box even announced to the buyer when the car was sold? If the box was recording the speed secretly, it may amount to an unauthorized search -- same as if, say, a phone was tapped, or a sound/video recorder was installed in someone's car without a warrant. If police demanded that car dealers sell cars with built in sound tape recorders, constantly on and recording loops, and then used those tapes to convict criminals that were talking in those cars, police would never need a warrant for installing such a device, so that would be illegal under any sane (or moderately insane) legal system. The data recorder isn't that much different, it performs the same function, and serves no other purpose but provide information that is likely to be used against the car's (and in this case, a device itself) owner.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.