Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Automobile Black Box Sends Driver to Jail

Posted by michael on from the watching-us-watching-them dept.

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.

3 of 825 comments (clear)

  1. Other Important factors by nuggz · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.)

  2. Re:Not so fast, bub by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  3. Not so fast yourself. by rjh · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    Nor will you find SCOTUS cases declaring driving to be a privilege as opposed to a right. It has nothing to do with driving being a "right", though: it has to do with the fact that driving regulations are a State matter and are handled in State courts, and to the extent these matters have been brought in Federal courts, they've been dismissed on summary judgment.

    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.