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.
I do expect the technology to get better, but these black boxes are not yet able to navigate your automobile to the nearest police facility after you break the law. This will require increases in AI or centralized monitoring that do not yet exist.
Little bastard should be barred from having a license to operate any vehicle, for life.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
This is disturbing. Maybe the box in my car is broken and 'stuck at 98'.
They forget to mention that if you are accused of breaking the law you can use the black-box to prove you weren't.
It's just an instrument measuring the state of the car. People don't call Odometers a "privacy issue".
While this may well be the beginning of a horrible slippery slope, it's hard to feel for the driver in this case. Three times the speed limit? Fuckin' hang him.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
I just can't get angry at this. Most modern cars already have data recorders that monitor what was happening when the "Check Engine" light goes on.
If black boxes mean I have an objective witness when some a-hole hits me at 98mph, I say bring on the black boxes.
Floored accelerator while doing 157 km/h through an intersection in a 50 zone, and not braking before collecting another car. Maybe big brother got it right for once?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
These black boxes have far more benefits that outweigh any concerns about privacy. The use of them can serve as neutral observers to determine what really happened in an accident, and can help automobile manufacturers improve safety with the use of this data.
So no, the black box didn't send him to jail. Killing a guy with his car did.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
Automobile Black Box Sends Driver to Jail
Um, no. Actually driving like a criminal, and using one's car as a weapon is what sent this scum bag to jail. The "black box" just helped make sure this freak is off the streets.
sad robot making broken music
I have to bring the privacy issue up. While there are some obvious good things about having this black box in one's car, one must ask though what exactally is this car monitoring, and what are the laws/regulations on gleeming information out. Also, what is the integrity of this box. If it is eaisly tweakable or corruptable--then can it really be trusted. If something like the patriot act( Yes I know this was not in America) can be applied to this kind of device, then perhaps more people should consider using a bike. Also, will it become law for these devices to exist, or would said driver be allowed to remove the device.
18 months in jail for KILLING someone. (And don't even bother arguing that he is somehow indemnified by the fact that he was speeding. That's bollocks.)
Thank you for posting this, eds, right after we heard about someone getting 2/3 of that time for UNAUTHORISED RECORDING OF A MOVIE.
Why bother burning a copy of a "My Life and Times with the Thrill Kill Kult" album, when you can apparently live it for yourself at only marginally greater cost.
18 months is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. 5 years sounds good to be..
I'm one for putting speed restrictors on cars, seen a couple of nasty accidents in my time. Would make black box redundant
I'm sure a lot of people here on slashdot will think that this is just terrible and a travesty, But why? This is a win for society. This guy eas driving 100 in a 30mph zone. Is that really somebody you want on the roads? I don't.
But what about the privacy implications, you ask? Which ones. No data is stored unless you're in a collision, and in that case information is in the best interest of all parties.
I drive a car. I speed. I own aa radar detector. But this doesn't botehr me, because I'm a catious driver. I don't drive at highway speeds in a downtown area. I don't run people over. So unless you do, this isn't a problem.
Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4
Now my car is probably a little older then anything that contains these, it's a 91, but I'm wondering if you could legally remove this if you wanted to?
I'm in the process of stripping my car down to it's bare essentials for autoX use however it needs to be street legal to get to the track.
I know that the aftermarket ECU I've installed is illegal because it can be tuned by the user and therefore fails the local smog rules. However when I had the car tested the inspectors didn't find the ECU and the results still came out clean enough so I don't care.
In my mind the most likely place to have this tracking hardware is in the ECU. It already knows all of the information he was convicted on. The new ECU has the capability of logging the same info, but I can turn it on or off.
I'd hate for something stupid like that to be the thing that gets my car pulled off the road.
I read that as:
The Montreal motorist betrayed by the truth has been sent to a facility which offers the possibility of those lacking responsibility to rethink their stance on this moral predicament.
If the tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? For those to dense ... if information exists that is not made aware, does it hold any importance?
Ah yes, it then becomes a matter to how much truth we are entitled to maintain to ourselves. Or in another word, privacy. Corruption will remain all the while truth is suppressed. I don't like this fact, but I find it doubtful we'll get there because we are brothers (sisters -- does it even matter?)
(Note I just got done watching Dogma ;)
I'm not sure this is a privacy issue either.
I know that this happened in Canada, but in the States it could be construed as a 5th amendment issue. Can a persons property be compelled to testify against him?
-Peter
Dead right, man.
His lawyer is apparently whining "we'll have to appeal this very, very harsh sentence". Harsh?! 18 month sentence (and let's be honest, that only really amounts to 12 months inside) for killing someone?! Shit, the kid should be thanking his lucky stars *I* wasn't handing down that sentence...
Hitting someone when you're doing 157km/h in a built-up area is not an accident - it's like standing on a crowded subway, pulling out a pistol, closing your eyes and pulling the trigger. Maybe you won't hit anyone, but that's only by luck. That speed on the freeway, fair enough if you can handle it. But in a built-up area, no way.
Grab.
Is people will learn to drive around another 20 or 30 seconds before calling 911.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I have no problems with the way this happened. I still have some faith in the legal process in Canada. The prosecutor petitioned the judge for the right to use the black-box as evidence, and won that right only after they had presented severe inconsistencies in testimony and evidence.
He was supposedly going just over the speed limit, but the excessive damage to the cars didn't support this. There were no skidmarks to suggest that he had tried to stop. He said the other car was running a red light. There were just a lot of things that didn't add up.
So, rather than just making a guess at who was right and who was lying, they brought in more evidence to make sure. That makes me feel more confident, not less. I'd rather have justice properly served, than not introduce that evidence for some silly reasons.
I'm a huge privacy advocate, but I don't oppose things like properly-granted search warrants, nor do I oppose this. If it gets abused in the future, then something should be done to prevent that abuse. But in this case, everything was done correctly, and what do you know, the system works.
Random and weird software I've written.
I used to live out that way (few blocks west)... Going fast on the road say 80ish wasn't that out of the norm, but nearly twice that, knowing that pedestrians/cars can suddenly come out of some blind alleys or out of the parking garages, serves him right to get in an accident, shame though he is only losing his license for 3 years, considering at least half of that will be time spent in jail...
Well, I have some karma to burn, so here we go.
157 km/h, in downtown Montreal.... what the fuck are you thinking?
This guy deserves it. How is this any different from an outside CCTV camera catching the whole incident? This makes everyone accountable.
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.
+1 for perfectly reasonable uses of monitoring technology. Note how (a) it only recorded because there WAS an accident (post facto) and (b) the evidence was used only because someone was killed.
Let the leadfoot rot.
Blah, blah, blah.
Okay, time for some education. This person was SENTENCED to jail for 18 months. For killing someone - that's light to me. Especially since they couldn't be bothered to hit the brakes.
The kid filming the movie was ARRESTED. The statute he's charged under allows for jail time up to 1 year, if convicted, and/or up to a $2,500 fine.
See those key words - up to. Yeah, he might, MIGHT get that for the first offense. Unlikely. Probably a fine and probation. Get busted a couple of times, that's when more severe penalties get applied.
To tie this back to this discussion, the driver was probably facing up to a couple of years. His lawyer considers this a "very, very severe" sentence. Yeah - 18 months for killing a kid while travelling 3 times the speed limit and not hitting the brakes and having the car floored is light.
-- Ravensfire
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
This is an emotionally charged case where the individual was clearly at fault. As a test case, is this sufficiently compelling to allow it to stand as a precedent? After all, if you have nothing to hide, why should you be concerned that your driving behavior is being monitored?
One might even extend this surveillance to gather even more data. Perhaps there should be continual video surveillance of the inside of your car to monitor for unsafe behavior. Even better, perhaps the police should even be allowed to search your vehicle anytime they wish to ensure that you are not carrying any stolen goods or contraband. If you have nothing to hide, why should you care?
Take it a step further. Perhaps there should be continual video surveillance of the inside of your home to ensure your safety, monitor for unsafe behavior and check for stolen goods.
It is exactly this attitude on the part of the British that stimulated the Revolutionary War. There are many good reasons to allow the redcoats to trample on an individual's private life, much like the example in the article. But are these good enough reasons to turn loose of these rights?
A automobile black box is a great thing as it allows the police to prove the guilt of an individual who killed someone with a car while speeding. It would also allow someone to prove they WEREN'T speeding when they hit someone that stepped out from between two parked cars instead of using the crosswalk.
The only thing a blackbox records is what the car was doing, not what you were doing. The police still have to prove YOU were the person behind the wheel.
If they were to start equipping cars with interior video cameras to record the occupants, then I'd be worried about my privacy!
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Sure the "black-box" provided some evidence but it probably just corroborated other evidence making the case somewhat stronger.
I don't know all the evidence the police have but it probably includes: severity of damage, lack of skid-marks, testimony of the passenger in the vehicle, and distance that objects in the collision were thrown.
I'll bet they have a pretty good idea of the speed involved without the black-box. Maybe not that he was doing 3.14 times the limit but, say, 2-3 times the limit. Two decimal accuracy isn't important. The fact that he was way, way over the limit combined with his driving history is what sealed his fate.
A better question is why, given his track record, was he allowed to drive and why is his punishment for wildly reckless driving resulting in the death of a human being a mere 18 months and why is he banned from driving for a mere 3 years? He obviously didn't learn his lesson after the previous triple-the-speed-limit crash.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
the guy knowingly broke the law and commited involatary manslaghter ...i say 5 to 10 without a drivers licence for the rest of his life to discouradge other from doing such stupid shit and posing a risk to others in the proccess...the guy is an idiot...
If having black boxes in cars will make people more responsible for their actions, I am all for it. If they mean less people will die or be injured as a result of a driver breaking the law, it is a positive thing. I support black boxes because I believe in personal responsibility and accountability.
I do think this would make the world a better place.
-Brent
If you already wear a seatbelt, the airbag only provides a little additional protection and only in a front crash. Crashing in a new car with seatbelts and no airbag is still safer than in an old car. You'd have to go back to 60s or 70s vintage to find cars with no computers.
PRIVILEGE: "A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."
RIGHT: "Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."
According to several US Supreme Court decisions (see U.S. v Guest, Shapiro v Thomson, et. al.), the right to travel freely is enjoyed by all citizens. As the primary purpose of driving is to travel from one point to another, it must therefore be a right. 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.
If you come up with a USSC case to the contrary, please post it.
Yeah, right.
Presumably some kind of Grandfather clause could be written for older vehicles.
As for calibration, yes, there are issues there. But now we are talking about fraud. The government already knows how many miles you've driven your car. There are severe penalities for altering odometer readings. I don't see how altering a black box would be much different.
Once you are driving without that permit or license, make certain you get pulled over and make certain that you tell the police officer right away that you are driving illegally. See how long you stay out of jail for.
You are right, the government cannot take away your fundamental right to travel freely across this nation. You can walk, you can pedal yourself around with a bicycle, heck you can even drag yourself on your belly if you so desire.
You have no inherent right to drive an automobile, it is written nowhere that at birth you have the fundamental right to drive.
Nobody here needs to put up a single US Supreme Court decision. That is covered by the State Law and there is no single Lawyer that I am aware of that would ever claim and attempt to take to the Supreme Court your 'Fundamental Right' to drive if you have a Suspended License or revoked Operator's Permit.
You want proof? Walk, bike or drive yourself down to your local circuit court and look at the day's docket. You will see more then a few people with reckless driving cases up before the court.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
The government does not need a warrant to inspect a vehicle after a crash. The NTSB can inspect any vehicle at any time for safety issues. Inspecting a black box for mechanical failures would just be a matter of course.
And if the vehicle is involved in an accident, then anything that has to do with that accident is under investigation.. including the vehicle involved.
However, if they go into the trunk and find a bale of pot, they have to have a reason to have been in the trunk. But they certainly don't need a warrant to inspect your brakes if there was an accident.
"I drank what?" - Socrates
I acknowledge and engage in pure logical debate, but this ends when we are talking about what actually happens. Hence, I acknowledge slippery slope as a valid concern (if not a logical debate point).
Is it legal to have your own fingerprint testify against you? Your own freezer full of severed heads? The rifling of the barrel of your own pistol? In the U.S., at least, the 5th Amd only protects you from SELF incrimination. Neither your car's black box nor the bloody knife you dropped at the murder scene can be considered part of your SELF. Besides, the only thing you're protected against is compulsory self incrimination, e.g. verbal testimony.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
At what point do you reach a "punishment saturation", and from then on, just start ruining their lives?
I dunno. But why don't we ask the dead guy how his life is going at this point? Or any family members?
This isn't the first time the perpetrator was caught exceeding the speed limit either. The prior incident just destroyed a couple cars -- expensive, but no big deal. Destroying someone else's life is another matter.
Don't get me started about revenge, it's among the most primitive and WRONG emotions a human being can have.
Agreed, but what if it's not about revenge? What if it's about protecting society from someone who is (apparantly) incapable of controlling themselves and/or understanding the consequences of their actions? It's not called "reckless driving" for no reason.
Sorry, seen too many idiots who don't realize that a misused vehicle is just as much a deadly weapon as a gun. Either, when used correctly and appropriately, is fine by me. But this guy didn't use it correctly.
And yeah, I used to be a dipshit driver too... I never did anything close to this (3x the speed limit), but I know I did some stupid stuff. And if I had ever killed someone in the proces I would expect to have been sent to prison for a long, long time.
It's called being an adult and taking responsibility for your own actions. If you're not willing to do so, then I'd suggest giving up the other trappings of adult life -- because you don't deserve them.
You seem to be operating under a critical misunderstanding of how this country works. I don't need to cite the Constitution to show that I have a right; you have to be able to cite the Constitution to show that Congress has a certain power! (Article I, Sec. 8, Clauses 1-18 are an exhaustive listing of the sorts and categories of national laws Congress may enact. You may want to look there first.)
"Regulating travel among the several States" is not listed anywhere in the Constitution under the powers reserved to the government. As such, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, that right explicitly falls to the State and the individual. This has been upheld in Crandell v Nevada and Edwards v California, both of which were attempts to enforce direct restrictions on travel. Both were savagely smacked down by the courts.
Please learn the Constitution before you attempt to argue it.
Incidentally, I like any flavor of jelly bean except coconut. Where should I pick up my five?
I don't have any objection to these boxes. I'm a bit of a privacy nut, but I'm also a law-abiding citizen.
;-)
No you are not. You often exceed the posted limit by a few miles per hour. You occasionally go through a stop sign or make a right turn on red without coming to a full and complete stop. Every now and then, you change lanes or make turns without signalling (which, in the insane state of Virginia is a Class 1 Misdemeanor for which you can get up to a year in jail, $2500 fine, and a six month license suspension).
If we're talking about legislation that begins issuing citations to speeders every time their black box is scanned during an oil change, then I'll certainly join the naysayers.
Why? I thought that you were a law-abiding citizen. Or did you mean that you obey the laws which you consider to be reasonable?
Having said that: I don't know what they told you in Philosophy 101, but "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy in a courtroom. It's a valid argument, and oftentimes a compelling one.
There are actually two kinds of slippery slope arguments. The fallacious one is where you say that "event X has happened, therefore event Y will inevitably happen." An example of this is "if the government makes us register our guns, they will come to take the guns away." The other kind of slippery slope argument is valid. That's where one argues against setting a legal precedent for fear of how it could be used.
Let's say you OWN a car, it's YOURS. YOU CAN PROVE IT BY SHOWING THE CORRECT PAPERWORK.
You have the RIGHT to do with it as you will.
Your right to do as you please with your belongings ends where other people's belongings (including their bodies) begin. Should you be allowed to park your car sideways in the middle a street, blocking two driving lanes, for example? Nobody got hurt by you doing this. Nobody got damaged by it. It's just that you ruined the usefuleness of everyone else's cars when you did so.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
#1. It wasn't a pedestrian stupid. He hit another car... who probably had the right of way.
:-( boohoo. What they don't think about is that it exonerates the innocent... justice and civil liberty are supposed to compliment each other, not vice versa. We now live in a world where justice is proclaimed evil and the criminal's civil liberties outweigh those of the innocent thus depriving the them of justice.
#2. Darwin was ROBBED! The idiot should have killed his own damn self running into a telephone pole or something. I don't think 18 months is enough for him.
#3. I think these black boxes are great! Those civil liberty freaks can shove it... they probably think it shouldnt be allowed because it incriminates people
Last. What kind of inconsiderate jerk are you to say such a terrible thing. How would you feel if this was a close relative of yours or your best friend... would they still be a dipshit?
There are actually two kinds of slippery slope arguments. The fallacious one is where you say that "event X has happened, therefore event Y will inevitably happen." An example of this is "if the government makes us register our guns, they will come to take the guns away."
Not the best example, because there are plenty of examples from real life where first the government required registration, and then the government came and took the guns away. It's hardly unreasonable to worry about something that has actually happened many times.
A better example would be "Since it is possible to put an RFID chip in cats and dogs now, it's possible to put one in people now, and therefore the government is going to require RFID chips implanted in all people. Therefore RFID chips in cats and dogs will lead to tyranny."
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Okay let's go back to pre-capitalist law enforcement. You don't want me to drive above the speed limit ? Then make a car that doesn't go above the speed limit.
Making a car that goes to 200km/h, then putting in a chip that tells the cops when you go over 50, is ENTRAPMENT. Make a car that stops accelerating at 50 instead. It's already nasty enough that speed limits are being calculated according to income possibilities, not safety. I would be quite happy to drive the black box up the designer's ass at 200km/h.
-Billco, Fnarg.com