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.

Comments

That's hardly a privacy issue

[mindless4210]

But the groundbreaking case is also raising questions about the privacy of Canada's drivers, millions of whom have no idea that their cars may be equipped with devices that record data that might later be used in court against them.

Well I think they all just need to check their manuals and see if there's one in their car. Either way, who cares; you shouldn't be going insanely out of control in the car anyway, and if you cause an accident, take some responisibility for it.

...less than a week before the third anniversary of his smashing into another vehicle at more than three times the speed limit.

How did it take them three years to figure that out? Wasn't the data right there in their hands?

Re:That's hardly a privacy issue

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:That's hardly a privacy issue

[Ravensfire]

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

Re:That's hardly a privacy issue

[Chiasmus_]

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.

Before attempting to remove...

[pr0c]

I read once somewhere that these 'blackboxes' may be vital in making your airbag and other critical operations work. Removing them based off of privacy concerns (AKA fear of getting caught) may be foolish. I know removal may be suggested multiple times.

Re:Before attempting to remove...

[Kombat]

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?

Re:Before attempting to remove...

[frinkster]

The black boxes were originally intented to be used to determine if the airbags and other safety systems functioned properly in the crash. GM (rightly) does not want to be sued by someone claiming that their spouse or child or whatever died because the safety systems did not work as intended. The real world can not be completely modelled in the lab, thus data from real-world crashes is needed to perfect the safety systems.

Of course that data needs to be there when GM buys the crashed car from the junkyard, so GM built a black box that records the last 5 seconds before an airbag deployment.

There is no conspiracy. GM wants to make sure their safety systems work.

Re:The guy that got hit deserved it.

[neoform]

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.

Bloack Boxes are certified by whom?

[nonregistered]

This is disturbing. Maybe the box in my car is broken and 'stuck at 98'.

Re:Bloack Boxes are certified by whom?

[LostCluster]

The black box speed can be compared against the accident damage. Based on where the cars land at the end, the math can be done to get back to the original speeds. The black box would just be a checksum at that point.

Really, this thing is better at ruling out theories that didn't happen than proving ones that did. This guy was caught dead to rights already, the black box just supported a case that was already made.

Re:Bloack Boxes are certified by whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

The man was not found guilty based solely on the black box's evidence. The black box's data was just one part of the evidence that led to the man's conviction. If the black box showed one thing and all other evidence contradicted it, then the black box data would be suspect and taken less seriously, or dismissed outright.

How is this a privacy issue?

[kognate]

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".

This is a non-story

[TrentL]

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.

Re:This is a non-story

[alan_dershowitz]

It only records 5 seconds worth of data, and stops when you hit something. I'd be more worried if it recorded 24 hours and had GPS in it. I am worried if it has no tamper protection though.

Re:This is a non-story

[DrFrob]

I can get angry at this:

He is also barred from driving for the next three years.

WTF? He's had two accidents within the last three years due to wreckless driving, one of which kills someone, and they're only going to take away his license for three years!

Once you kill someone due to wreckless driving you should loose your driving privilages permanently. Assholes like this and the courts that fail to appropriately punish them are the reason why my insurance bills are so rediculous.

Re:This is a non-story

[Planesdragon]

That's where this is headed, and I don't like it.

Are you familiar with the logical fallicy called "Slippery Slope?"

The argument about whether or not these can be used against you is lost (or won, depending on your POV). The next argument will be either "should these be required on all new cars" or "should taking these be standard procedure", and after both of those, mabye, we'll argue about retrofitting old cars.

But you're not required to install an airbag on your 1960s muscle car, so don't expect to be forced to install a black box, either.

Re:This is a non-story

[Kombat]

Nor do I like the assumption that the government has the right to know what I'm doing and how I'm driving

Curious comment, considering the government already has this "right," by virtue of the fact that your driving license is a privilege, and not a right. Ergo, you posess the license at their discretion.

As for them monitoring your driving, are you not aware of the hundreds of thousands of speed traps, and automated red-light/photoradar camera installations that populate the continent? They do have a right to know how you're driving, and they are exercising that right vigorously, daily.

As for calibration errors, I think it's a non-issue. If you're involved in a collision in which your bumper is crushed, but the rest of the car is intact, and the black box claims you were impacted the tree at 182 MPH, I'm pretty sure common-sense would prevail and the data would be discarded.

Re:This is a non-story

[sphealey]

He's had two accidents within the last three years due to wreckless driving, one of which kills someone,

Normally I think spelling flames are pointless, but the difference between reckless and wreckless was too good to let go by!

sPh

Re:This is a non-story

[Pig Hogger]

I can get angry about it when people start suggesting that black boxes shoulld be mandatory, and that's the next logical step in this case.

Of course they should be. No one blinks at the mention of having event recorders installed on trains and planes; why should'nt they be installed on automobiles?

Driving a car is not a right, but a privilege exerced in public view. Why should you then have any expectation of privacy whilst driving a car? To hide the fact that you are driving in a way that endangers public safety?

You can be pulled over anytime by a cop whenever he sees you driving like a dumbfuck, so what's the difference if it is a blackbox that nails you? Because you can't get away with it anymore?

What DO YOU have so special as to be able to break the law and endanger other people???

Besides, blackboxes are coming anyways. Some years back, in a computer project management class, we had to pick a law-enforcement theme computer project (the teacher has a day job with the $FEDERAL_POLICE_AGENCY).

Bad driving being my major pet peeve, I naturally proposed a computerized driving monitor that would automatically ticket drivers whenever they break traffic laws, thus freeing police for more useful work such as cracking down on criminal spammers.

Well, lo and behold, when he saw the proposal, he curtly refused it with "this is coming anyways"...

So, it's only a matter of time before Big Brother will be your co-pilot...

Re:This is a non-story

[medscaper]

If you're involved in a collision in which your bumper is crushed, but the rest of the car is intact, and the black box claims you were impacted the tree at 182 MPH

When I was a kid, and you hit a tree at 182 MPH, you knew it, by God.

Re:This is a non-story

[Anonymous Coward]

As for calibration errors, I think it's a non-issue. If you're involved in a collision in which your bumper is crushed, but the rest of the car is intact, and the black box claims you were impacted the tree at 182 MPH, I'm pretty sure common-sense would prevail and the data would be discarded.

Your example is completely loaded. A more likely example is one where there is an accident without clear fault and the black box records one car at 56 (in a 55) and the other at 54 (in a 55). The calibration of one box by 1 MPH could mean the difference between fault and no-fault for some people. Additionally, some speedometers are inaccurate too, so if the black box is measuring speed from something like a speedometer this might still be an issue. This is especially true on older cars where the cars' settings aren't as tight as they were when it left the factory.

Your circular reasoning in regards to the government's supposed right to monitor our driving habits is blatant. Just because the government has the ability to monitor us, and just because it does monitor us, does not mean the government has the right to monitor us!

The government is constantly testing its powers and hopefully some court cases will come up challenging the government's most recent driver monitoring techniques.

Furthermore, speed traps are not a very good example of this kind of monitoring because they are done by humans for public safety. Contrast that with the machine operated red light cameras and black boxes, and I think you'll see there is a clear difference. The ethical distinction here is, in my mind, the difference between humans being held responsible by machines v. humans being held responsible by other humans. IMHO a cop sitting at a stop light giving red light tickets is justified while privately owned and operated red light cameras giving out tickets is not.

Re:This is a non-story

[sootman]

Something else the tinfoil-hat-crowd keeps forgetting is that driving is, almost by definition, done *in public*. *Anyone* has the right to observe you by whatever means they wish. This is *not* "two-consenting-adults-in-their-own-bedroom" stuff we're talking about here.

Wow.

[BiggerIsBetter]

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?

Excellent

[USAPatriot]

Isn't this what slashdot should be cheering for, the use of technology that saves lives? What kind of privacy do you expect when you're in a 3000 lb vehicle going 90+ mph on a public road?

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.

Re:Excellent

[strike2867]

I blame the guy that got killed. He went outside of his bomb shelter knowing full well that there could be someone out there that could kill him. The government should have at least put a bubble around him. It is the governments responsibility to keep us from getting injured. I will praise any Senator that proposes we outlaw knifes, forks, chopsticks. Who know what we can do to ourselves with them.

Wrong

[blinder]

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.

Only 18 months?

[alptraum]

He only got 18 months for killing a man? For the speed he was going I would really expect a longer sentance.

Re:Only 18 months?

[Grab]

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.

Remove tinfoil hat: real issues

[RobertB-DC]

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.

Or worse!

[mekkab]

My black boxes is stuck at "doesn't signal while changing lanes" and "sings along to the Backstreet boys at top volume!"

They day I get pulled over and ticketed because my box says I'm "stuck at nerd" is the day that the terrorists win.

Clarifying for lack of a better title

[register_ax]

The Montreal motorist betrayed by his car's black box has been sent to jail for dangerous driving causing death.

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 ;)

Other Important factors

[nuggz]

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.)

Privacy issue?

[Jin Wicked]

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.

The behavior that will really change

[HangingChad]

Is people will learn to drive around another 20 or 30 seconds before calling 911.

Everything here was done the way it should be

[Cecil]

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.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[heyitsme]

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.

It is a balance, privacy should not be used to lie

[scorp1us]

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.

An exceptional case?

[dfinney]

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?

that's nothing

[univeralifepadre]

driver got 18 months in jail for speeding that killed man

the guy in the movie theater got a year and all he had to do was take out his videocam.

Privacy concerns?

[thewiz]

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!

Re:Slippery Slope?

[EisPick]

In addition to that, the data from the black box was available because the driver caused an accident.

If it's a slippery slope, random trawling for speeders is a long way down the slope from collecting all available data at the scene of an accident.

Why not draw the line at probable cause, just like we do with other sorts of data collection? If you cause an accident, I don't see any reason why the police should limit the kinds of evidence they collect about the cause of that accident. I don't see that as a slippery slope to anything, other than locking up more homocidal maniacs.

Re:YASD (Yet Another Slashdot Dupe)

[Malc]

It's really a continuation of that previous story. Yesterday was the sentencing for the conviction mentioned in the first story.

It's just one piece of evidence

[linuxwrangler]

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.

This *IS* a non-story

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I can get angry about it when people start suggesting that black boxes shoulld be mandatory, and that's the next logical step in this case.

Yeh, who knows! Today they want to use these things to pop people who run down and kill other people, tomorrow they'll want to plant the damn things IN OUR HEADS!

Search Warrent

[thejuggler]

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.

Re:Search Warrent

[nacturation]

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).

Law Isn't Philosophy

[cribcage]

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

Re:Not so fast, bub

[LostCluster]

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?

Re:Slippery Slope?

[rjelks]

I'm one of the tinfoil-hat-wearing, privacy-concerned people here, and this blackbox doesn't bother me in the least. I'm concerned about devices that monitor/collect information all of the time. GPS speeding tickets anyone? The way I see this is, you've got just as much chance of this saving your butt if your not at fault. These devices work both ways. If an accident is questionable, this could prove you were not at fault. Call me when they start adding speed governers to cars or mailing speeding tickets from GPS readouts.

Re:Not so fast, bub

[ibsteveog]

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).

Re:Not so fast, bub

[_Lint_]

While the right to travel freely is a right, specific methods of travel are privileges. Specifically, the right to drive a car on a public road is a privilege.

And it hasn't made it to the USSC because it's pretty damn self-evident. People are denied driver's liscences all the time, and liscences being revoked by the DMV or the courts is a pretty common occurance.

Denying someone the ability to drive themselves on a public road does not deny them the ability to travel.

Try driving...

[cnelzie]

...with a suspended or otherwise revoked Driver's License or Operator's Permit (It is named either one depending upon the state you reside in.)

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.

Not so fast yourself.

[rjh]

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.

Actually him KILLING a man is why he is in prsion

[SensitiveMale]

The black box just showed he was lying his ass off.

Re:Legal?

[Dun Malg]

Is it legal to have your own car testify against you?

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.

Slippery Slope Arguments.

[David Hume]

That's where this is headed, and I don't like it.

Are you familiar with the logical fallicy called "Slippery Slope?"

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.)