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'm guessing you don't know what downtown montreal is like, driving 157kph is insanely fast given the size of the streets here, i've never seen anyone do more than 80 downtown.
also montreal drivers know that we're in the jay-walking capital of the world.
MABASPLOOM!
I have to take off my tinfoil hat for this one. While where I go and how fast I got there aren't anyone's business under normal circumstances, five seconds of data gathered right before I crash are fair game.
However, there are some issues to be careful about:
* Five seconds is probably not long enough to know what really happened. I could have mashed the brake to the floor at t-10s, then hit the gas to avoid being T-Bone'd at t-6s... in that case, it looks like I was rushing headlong into the wreck.
* But how long is enough? 30 seconds? Five minutes? A day or two? Pick a silly extreme, and someone is likely to attempt to legislate it.
* 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).
* Who has write access? Obviously, the car's sensors and nobody else. But are there safeguards (digital signature?) to ensure against tampering? And what if a hacker replaces the car's CPU?
* How about "erase"? IIRC, airline black boxes have a button that the pilot can hit on his way out of the cockpit to erase the voice recorder after a successful landing (defined: one you walk away from). Is this a Good Thing, or Considered Harmful?
* Is it fair if my car has the feature, but the other guy's doesn't? You can tell that I was speeding, but what if he was speeding more? Remember the "Malcolm in the Middle" episode, where the camera "saw" Mom pull out in front of someone, but another camera showed that the other car made a U-Turn right in front of her?
Lots of issues to be resolved. But I'll get one, if I can, *if* there's an insurance discount.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I concur with the other posters that there's not a privacy issue here, when you're on a public road driving a vehicle that not only affects you but the roads you drive on and everyone you encounter during that drive, the needs of public safety outweigh any "privacy" issues with the car recording speed or other engine statistics. It's not like the car is sitting there with a notebook writing down where you're going, either.
This guy's own stupidity got him in trouble, I for one hope that he gets his license revoked for life. They have good public transport up there. Let him take the bus.
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
I hold the notion that privacy does not exist when you are on a motor way. It is only a matter of witnesses vs black box. The black box is more stustworthy. If you disagree and think that this data should not be availible, then I ask you how many other ways do you think the cops have to estimate his speed? From the damage to the car, pedestrian, and eye witnesses (if any) they can estimate his speed at impact. Its simple forensics. The black box just makes it more certain.
How acturate are they? Very. There are two ways to control the fuel injector pulse in cars. ine is Mass Air Flow (MAF) and the ither is speed-density. Either way, the computer is accurate enought to mix fuel to milliseconds on the injector pulse. (And we know milliseconds are forever to a MHZ computer)
The if MAF, the fuel is calcualted by the reading from the MAF sensor which gives the amount of air flow into the engine (take sint oaccount temperature of air too). Add 1/14.7 of that, and you have proper mixture. The other way is speed density. You measure the temperature of the air, the volume (displacement) of the engine, and the RPM, and it knows how much fuel to use as well.
Now that engine is connected to a transmision of fixed ratios. Here, we need to make an assumption, 1) the clutch is not in or failing (slipping) and 2) his wheels aren;t spinning against the pavement. Then from the RPM alone (which we know is tracked) you can accurately calculate the speed.
I think these boxes are a good thing. They will expose negligence and fraud. Also I think they have a tendancy to coroberate your story in an accident and actually come to your defense - that you actively tried to aviod it. All this helps place the blame on the correct person so justice can be served fairly.
I myself have been in 2 accidents where my guilt was questionable, had these been availible I am sure I would not have been at fault.
If you're using privacy to hide the truth, then there's something wrong with what you are doing, and you know that.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
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 am not a lawyer, I just watch people that pretend to be lawyers on TV.
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. 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. But if it's being used exactly like fingerprints and DNA, to secure convictions for violent criminals, then I'll applaud the technological development. (Yes, I think vehicular manslaughter resulting from driving double the posted speed limit in a metropolitan area constitutes a violent offense.)
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.
crib
Please don't read my journal
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.
'Not so fast, bub...'
This is like saying that I have a right to eat, and since the primary purpose of throwing dynamite in a lake is so that I have something to eat, it must be my right...
Or... I have the right to be happy.. and the primary purpose of me shooting you is to make me happy, therefore shooting you must be my right. =)
In any case, just because you have a right to do something, and there is A method of accomplishing that something, doesn't mean that the METHOD is your right. There may be lots of other methods, and your failure to properly execute a method is valid grounds for making you use a different method (as is the case here with driving).