Slashdot Mirror


Car Owners to be Notified of Blackboxes in Vehicle

smooth wombat writes "As a follow-up to this long ago posting, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has passed a resolution requiring car manufacturers to inform buyers if their cars are equipped with Event Data Recorders (EDRs). The new regulation also standardizes what information is to be collected. Car manufacturers must comply with the new regulation beginning in the 2011 model year."

46 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. I like it. by yagu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One thing I've always feared: some huge speed bump because after some driving incident/accident I'm embroiled in an "I said/you said" recount of the event. I try to be as safe a driver as possible and have managed 30+ accident-free years. But almost every trip is an adventure with crazies on the road every day. This black box technology could hedge my (and others) bets on accurately describing what "went down".

    I don't like the thought someone would be watching me all the time like Big Brother, but on the other hand if I get t-boned, and the other party claims I ran a red light or some other nonsense I like the thought there could be an electronic record showing the other party was traveling way over the speed limit, weaving, slamming brakes, etc. right up to the event.

    It could be a great equalizer for insurance rates. It could even spur better driving in on whole by the general populace (some drivers of course and their negligence is intractable).

    And, as for the breach in privacy, I don't see much demand and/or interest in the type of data described in the article in contexts other than accidents. If you're accident free, why would the data be interesting?

    (Aside: I actually installed a "Car Chip" in my car for personal monitoring. Most notably I was surprised at the frequency of "hard accelerations" -- far more than I'd have guessed. The data was charted against distance, and I was able to "see" where I was "hard accelerating". Interestingly after knowing this, and paying more attention to accelerating I self-modified my habits and the mileage for my car (Civic) increased almost 6%.)

    (NOTE: this doesn't address and/or discuss the notion of tracking movement and travel via mechanisms such as GPS... a whole other ball of wax in privacy discussions.)

    1. Re:I like it. by rkcallaghan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This black box technology could hedge my (and others) bets on accurately describing what "went down".

      No, not really. You see, the black box can tell your insurance company that you were going 5 over the limit to pass someone, which could invalidate your claim (you were speeding). It has no idea that the other party was a 30-something on their cell phone with their laptop open, swerving to avoid the teenagers joyriding in the wrong lane with their lights off.

      ~Rebecca

    2. Re:I like it. by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 2

      No, you missed the GP post's point...
      The blackbox in the idiot's car would indicate his reckless driving.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    3. Re:I like it. by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could be a great equalizer for insurance rates. It could even spur better driving in on whole by the general populace (some drivers of course and their negligence is intractable).

      On a purely selfish reason, I'd like to agree with you. I've mused many times about getting a camera for my car, like police cars, to catch some of these idiots doing some wonderfully graceful moves. I go 65-70 tops on the freeway, and pretty much everyone passes me... going 80...90...100... dodging, swerving, 4-lane changes at once... And if the boxes radioed back, compared to my pithy 5, I'll be on the low end of the graph and laugh as THEY get slammed with suddenly exponentially larger premiums.

      But, as much as I'd like this to work the way I want it to, I've learned that there's no idea so good, so flawless, so deliciously perfect, that can't be twisted, mangled and misinterpreted with a little corporate and government fingering. So rather than a bait and switch, I'll stay against it and just hope that the CHP would get a bigger presence and start ticketing more.

    4. Re:I like it. by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, you missed the GP post's point.

      And you missed the counter-argument's point.

      The blackbox in the idiot's car would indicate his reckless driving.

      What if it turns out HIS blackbox shows him driving straight and normal at the speedlimit. (sure he still ran a red light and t-boned you... but the blackbox shows nothing strange)... and YOUR blackbox shows you driving 2km over the limit with a recent swerves when you dodged a few pieces of debris on the road.

      Sure he ran the red light, but your own blackbox paints an unflattering picture of your driving.

      Its a knife that cuts both ways. Some times it will cut both ways at once; sure it might identify the other driver as a weaving/hard braking idiot -- but what if it also shows you were going slightly over the speed limit or had done some recent swerving around? Your insurance company might still nail you with higher rates or reduce their coverage.

    5. Re:I like it. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ultimately, it comes down to who has control of the data. If the police can routinely interrogate these devices without the vehicle owner's permission (much less a warrant) then they are of little value to the consumer. The preliminary OBDIII (On Board Diagnostics III) specifications that I've looked at include the ability for cops (or anyone with the proper equipment) to retrieve information from these things wirelessly and without notifying the driver. I really don't think I like that.

      Frankly, there's a good chance that any such black box that is installed in any car I purchase will suffer the effects of a nearby lightning strike. Or maybe a transient short in the ignition system will take care of the problem. Unfortunately, odds are that this will not be a separate device but simply more memory and firmware in the existing vehicle computer.

      Still ... firmware can be replaced.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:I like it. by DJCacophony · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If you're accident free, why would the data be interesting?"

      "If you're terrorist free, why would recordings of all your telephone conversations be interesting?"
      "If you're treason free, why would a log of all your internet activity be interesting?"
      "If you're not searching for child porn, why would a database of all your searches/web browsing being released to the general public be interesting?"

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    7. Re:I like it. by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not that I'm defending this practice, but speeding does not automatically result in an insurance claim being denied. Driving 2 MPH over the limit would never be seen as a reason to assign fault for an accident or deny a claim.

    8. Re:I like it. by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reminds me of a joke I heard in a bar a while back- that the NHTSA was to require voice recorders in all trucks. In most of the country, right before a fatal wreck, the most commonly uttered phrase was "Oh shit!", but in Montana the most commonly uttered phrase was "Hold my beer, watch this!"

      --
      Sig cannot be found.
    9. Re:I like it. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you're speeding then don't say you weren't, and the black box won't be used against you.

      Gotcha... tell them you were speeding up front so they don't even have to look at the black box before assigning you some fault. (And perhaps writing you a speeding ticket; after all you confessed.)

      The parent clearly said he was a safe driver.

      What exactly does that mean? He never speeds?

      What's safer: driving 5mph above the speed limit with traffic, or driving 5mph below* the speed limit (and thus 12+mph below the average speed of traffic)?

      Hint: driving with traffic, unless it is driving inappropriately fast is safer.

      * you'd have to drive around 5mph below to ensure that you never speed. If you tried to drive right at the speed limit you would still vary 2 or 3 mph due to grades, turns, traffic, etc. So to ensure you "never speed" you actually have to set your target a few mph below the limit. And doing 52-58 in a 60 when traffic is running at 65-70 *is* hazardous.

    10. Re:I like it. by Ashtead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Faraday cages work both ways. Reciprocity, as it is called; the equations describing how it works give the same solution for waves going in either direction. Same thing as an antenna being equally able to transmit and receive.

      However, the degree of shielding will depend on the sizes of the openings in the cage, and the wavelength of the signal. If the openings are larger than about 1/10 the wavelength, they will let some of the energy or signal through, and the larger the opening is the more energy or signal will make it through.

      I don't know exactly which frequency these will work at, but I'd imagine that even if they used one of the unlicensed ones near 430 MHz, the wavelength is about 70 cm, and so any opening larger than 7 cm (or about 3 inches) could let some of the signal through. The window openings in any car are larger than this, so there is not much in the car stopping the signal from any internal transmitter at this frequency from being received outside it.

      --
      SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
  2. Good move... by ral315 · · Score: 2, Informative

    But what happens when all cars have black boxes, and there's no way to avoid buying a new car with one in it?

  3. A Better System by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What also needs to happen, in addition to informing the buyer of the existence of such a recording device in a car, is to have the buyer decide whether or not such a device should be disabled/removed before purchase at no extra cost or liability to the buyer.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  4. Changes nothing ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This changes nothing. Try to get car insurance without agreeing to give your insurance company access on demand.

  5. another new law by Balthisar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do we ALSO need a law to indicate that it's illegal to remove my own property from the car and then destroy that property if I'm in an accident? Imagining that it's my fault, that is. It's not evidence of a crime, unless I intentionally caused the accident.

    Are police just entitled to come along and remove it from my car without my permission now? Do they have to ask?

    --
    --Jim (me)
    1. Re:another new law by abscondment · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the data in your black box are important, the police will obtain them without your permission in the same way they would obtain the car itself: a search warrant.

      Just because it's "yours" doesn't preclude their obtaining access to it. The data may considered evidence relating to a crime; an accident will involve some form of citation for breaking an obscure traffic law, even if fault is not readily apparent. The data in your box could be considered pertinent, even though the argument for their pertinence appears weak. If you're under investigation for something like vehicular homicide, the police will obtain access to your car and its contents, including the box in question.

      You're always safer if no record is made than if the record exists but is "protected".

  6. I understand why regs take so long, usually. by Vengeance · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After all, the life cycle of a car, beginning with design, is just plain long. They can't just mandate that beginning tomorrow, every car made will have 'future technology 1' embedded. Fine, that makes sense.

    But if this is just about notifying buyers, it should be immediate. There's no need to give GM five years to get out a dealer bulletin and some stickers for the owners manuals.

    --
    It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
  7. Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    5 years of collecting any kind of data we want, without telling anyone!

    If the data is a loop of recent events and data is not leaving your car how are they watching you?

    1. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because in the event of an accident the police can easily download the events off the black box and use it against you in court. It's happened several times already.

    2. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ""5 years of collecting any kind of data we want, without telling anyone!""

      "If the data is a loop of recent events and data is not leaving your car how are they watching you?"

      Because in the event of an accident the police can easily download the events off the black box and use it against you in court. It's happened several times already.


      That's not the collecting 5 years of data. the statement that I questioned. Secondly, I bet you are being told if the police are touching your vehicle. Alternatively your insurance company may have right to the data and they may turn it over, but you had agreed to that, so you were told. My question stands.

    3. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Technically once the vehicle is totaled it becomes property of the insurance company and they need no such authorization from the owner. Your permission is NOT needed for them to collect the data.

    4. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by z0I!) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't mean 5 years worth of data, but rather that there is a period of 5 years during which car companies can record any kind of data about the car/driver that they want, and they don't have to tell you about it. Although the article suggest only a few seconds (minutes?) before a crash a recorded, this isn't absolutely clear. And since there are no regulations now, there is nothing stopping companies from performing more invasive logging. As other posts mention, a car mechanic could potentially access this data and give it to anyone. Whether this is good or bad can be left up to our imaginations.

    5. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The data is my intellectual property. Their copying it violates my copyright. Even the insurance companies are scared of the DMCA.

    6. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by JonWan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not until I agree to the insurance payoff and sign it over, it's mine until then.

      Been there and done that one.

    7. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by Loconut1389 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      while totally irrelevant, it lead to an interesting thought... the data in the recorder is a unique pattern generated by the drivers purposeful actions- eg the data was explicitly designed by the driver and therefore is automatically copyrighted on their behalf..

      now perhaps that wouldn't fly in court, but it's an interesting thought.

    8. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by sbaker · · Score: 2, Informative

      The MINI Cooper (for example - probably all BMW's are the same) has this data recorded in the engine management computer. It records a couple of minutes of typical 'black box' stuff - control inputs, wheel speed sensor outputs, etc - in a loop. Recording stops and the data is locked into non-erasable memory when the airbags deploy. The computer has only enough of this special memory for (I believe) three sets of data - so if you have three accidents that result in the airbags deploying, you have to replace the engine management computer.

      Since the data is there - and not easily erased - one presumes it could be subpoened in a court case if someone believed you lied about (for example) whether you were braking hard or accellerating hard immediately before the impact. They can trivially determine your speed and whether you were steering straight. Many cars contain accellerometers - you would imagine that would be recorded too. Still - it can't tell whether you were using your cellphone at the time...which is a shame really.

      The only way to prevent this stuff from being recorded would be to replace the engine management computer with something else - but in a modern car that's pretty much impossible - every aspect of the vehicle being tied together these days. (eg The radio in my MINI adjusts it's volume automatically depending on your speed and whether the windows and/or sunroof are open - so expect that if you swap out the computer, your radio and windows won't work anymore even if you somehow manage to get the engine running again).

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    9. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and competition and market forces have prevented computer software from phoning home. The one thing you should never do is underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of the American people.

      True, your post proves that. Unlike computer software packages, auto insurance companies are essentially interchangable and there is essentially no switching cost to the consumer. So they compete on service and perception, market forces work well under such circumstances.

    10. Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Interesting

      i don't think that argument would fly, but if it's a unique expression of the owner would it not also be self-incrimination?

      I would argue that any unpublished recording or document should be considered equivilent to the memory of the person who made it; just as one cannot be forced to testify against oneself (divulge one's memories as evidence against oneself), one should not be forced to divulge private (audio, video, data) recordings that one has made. Such will undoubtably become even more important as we begin to develop ever more effective electronic (and possibly cybernetic) aids to memory, and as our technology for decoding the neural patterns in the human mind improves.

      Perhaps one day we might discover a way to read a person's memory directly; will this technology be used to circumvent our laws against self-incrimination? What if the memories are encoded, not in human neural tissue, but rather in an electronic implant? Why should there be any difference? And if reading an electronic implant is considered self-recrimination, then why would an external memory device be any different? On the other hand, if one can subpoena the blackbox in the defendent's car, or the contents of the defendent's PDA or laptop, then what makes the defendent's biological memories special? Had we the technology, would it be right to submit the defendent's own memories as evidence? That would make a mockery of our laws against self-recrimination -- and yet we do the same today by seizing and entering into evidence the private documents and recordings of the defendant.

      No offence is truly committed when the defendant is demonstrated guilty, provided that the infringement of the defendant's rights does not exceed the crime itself. However, should the defendant not be demonstrated guilty, then the infringement is entirely unjustified, and those responsible should be open to countersuit by the (presumably innocent) former defendant. This would go a long way toward curbing abuse of power in carrying out justice -- as would the addition of a requirement that the prosecutor be the victim of the crime (or the victim's appointed representative, but not the government), with clear (though not necessarily precisely measurable) damage as the basis for restitution (and possibly retribution; this is rather more controversial).

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  8. Attorneys everywhere rejoice!! by JonTurner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was telling an attorney friend about EDR's and his response was "really? I suppose that means I can subpoena that information and admit it for evidence. Unless it's ruled self-incrimination..." We spent about an hour discussing and it brought up a whole bunch of interesting questions: Is the information on this machine considered part of a persons "papers or effects" or is all information now property of the government court to be surrendered on demand? Is destroying this device considered tampering with evidence... do I have a right to smash up my own car (computer, books, diary, etc.)? If not, I think this intrudes on my property rights. Where does the court's right to information about me end and my rights to my own property and information begin? Is it safe to say "none of your damned business" any more?

    1. Re:Attorneys everywhere rejoice!! by amliebsch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm curioust what your attorney friend thought. Here's my take:

      Is the information on this machine considered part of a persons "papers or effects"

      Yes, just the same as, say, a bundle of files in your back seat. Subject to the warrant requirement.

      is all information now property of the government court to be surrendered on demand?

      Of course not.

      Is destroying this device considered tampering with evidence...

      It could be, if you have reason to know that it is probably evidence.

      do I have a right to smash up my own car (computer, books, diary, etc.)?

      Yes, unless of course you are doing it deliberately to destroy evidence. Much in the same way that you can shred all your personal files every day, until you are notified that you are being sued and those documents will be discoverable.

      Where does the court's right to information about me end and my rights to my own property and information begin?

      It begins and ends with probable cause, and almost always, a warrant.

      Is it safe to say "none of your damned business" any more?

      Yes, unless there is a warrant or a subpoena for that information. You may want to be more polite about it, though.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    2. Re:Attorneys everywhere rejoice!! by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution prohibits a government actor from compelling a person to make self-incriminating statements. Papers and other writings previously authored by a criminal defendant do not constitute such a statement, though it may be self-incriminating. In a recent case, the NY Court of Appeals ruled that tattoos of a criminal defendant can be admitted against him over his objection to prove he subscribed to white supremacist beliefs because such evidence was not a protected statement.

      To answer the second question, namely, whether destroying the device violates the law. In short, it depends. Destruction motivated by a desire to hinder justice is illegal. If the car was involved in an accident, or there was another reason to believe that the device in the car would be important in a civil matter, destruction of that device would lead to sanctions. Civil liberties sell great here on Slashdot, but imagine if your child or family member was hit and injured by a guy who was street racing. The prosecution needs to prove speeding or reckless driving to convict the defendant on the most serious charges. Would you say that getting data from a device in that case would be wrong? In this particular case, the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" flies pretty well because the information on the device could exculpate the defendant as well.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:Attorneys everywhere rejoice!! by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful
      In this particular case, the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" flies pretty well because the information on the device could exculpate the defendant as well.
      That argument NEVER flies very well.

      If the law says I have a right to hide something, then fuck off.
      If the law doesn't, then there is no reason to pull out that asinine argument.

      P.S. "your child or family member" is a great appeal to emotion.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  9. Re:Renters? by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone know if this information will be required to be disclosed to vehicle renters?

    The presence of the recorder will be disclosed in the fine print you don't read. Duh. :-)

    The "telemetry" of your drive will be disclosed to the rental car company (the car's owner - seems fair) in preparation for computing you bill.

  10. There is always a cost.... by tempest69 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The rub is this... Insurance. If they feel that having the real information lets them know the actual cause of an accident, and you dont bother to have one running. your rates are going to be going up. If your not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear.. So the process simply adds cost on the insurance side of things.

    I'm not a big fan of this level of privacy invasion but their is too much precident for privacy crushing actions that this will likley be mandatory in the near future(7-21 years out), as the added price will be negligible.

    Storm

    1. Re:There is always a cost.... by imemyself · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should anyone ever have to prove their innocence?

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    2. Re:There is always a cost.... by pete6677 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you ever challenged a traffic ticket in court? Did they require the state to prove their case? How else would you get out of the ticket?

    3. Re:There is always a cost.... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative
      Have you ever challenged a traffic ticket in court? Did they require the state to prove their case? How else would you get out of the ticket?
      Actually... yes, they require the state to prove their case.

      If you can poke a hole in the police version of events, you're home free. Hell, if the Police wrote down the wrong information on the ticket, pleading not guilty = case dismissed.

      All you have to do is show that the facts, as presented by the police, are incorrect, even if it is something as simple as a wrong date on the traffic citation. Knowledge of the law helps in those not-so-simple cases.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:There is always a cost.... by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most judges won't dismiss based on something as minor as the wrong date. In some jurisdictions (Virginia, for example), even something like the cop not showing up won't automatically get you off (despite the fact that he's the only witness, therefore you're losing the crucial right to cross-examination).

      If you've been tagged with radar/laser, the best solution for most people, especially those with a clean record, is just to plead guilty (IN COURT -- don't pay in advance), apologize, and ask for the mercy of the court. Emphasize your record, and that you really want to keep it spot free and promise that this was a one-time thing. If your case has anything unusual about it, then it might be beneficial to argue, but in most cases it's not and will only convince the judge that you're not remorseful and therefore deserve the full punishment.

      Speeding tickets are income; it's as simple as that. There's no incentive for the courts to take the cases seriously because there's a ton of cases and, for most people, the penalties are minor enough that they won't do anything beyond complaining to their friends. Hiring a lawyer usually means the case will just last longer, which will likely irritate the judge -- not what you want to do. The reality is that speeding in and of itself is not reckless or dangerous. If passing someone going 20MPH faster on a freeway is reckless, then by that logic, passing someone coming the opposite direction on a two lane road at 45MPH (closing speed of 90) must be downright suicidal, yet somehow most of the country manages such feats without much of a problem. Dodging, weaving, driving erratically, unpredictibly, and/or inattentively is what's really dangerous. The fact that speeding often accompanies those behaviors, and the fact that it's easier to spot speeders than inattentive drivers has villianized speeding. The fact that some people get mad seeing others "break the law" while they're working hard to obey it doesn't help either. These people don't question the rules; they just want everyone to follow them because they feel obliged to. They're free feel that way, of course, but it just perpetuates the situation.

      At any rate, speeding tickets aren't much of a problem for most people, because they're statistically unlikely to get more than an occasional ticket. Unfortunately -- by virtue of random distribution -- some people accumulate a lot of tickets and suffer serious, life-altering consequences such as losing their license indefinately. The "simple" solution is, of course, driving the speed limit, but in most places that's tough to do. "Peer pressure" to go with the flow of traffic can be overwhelming, especially for new drivers/young people, and the flow is rarely at or below the speed limit. Nobody wants to be "that guy" with 20 cars stuck behind him. Furthermore there's no such thing as a perfect driver, since we're all human. It's just a matter of chance as to whether there's a cop around to see you screw up, and whether or not he wants to write tickets.

  11. Just one more piece of paper to sign by John+Jorsett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Notification laws aren't that useful. California has one that requires businesses to post warnings of "hazardous substances". Problem is, damned near everything is a hazardous substance under this law. Consequently, every business has one of these placards and nobody pays any attention because if we did, we'd never be able to buy anything. This notification will just end up as another piece of paper in the mound that nobody ever reads and that we sign whenever we buy a car. I suppose it will have the benefit of letting the seller say, "We told you about this" when some dope comes back a few years later, upset that his black box recording ratted him out as going 100 mph just before the crash.

  12. Discount? by Alchemar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remeber when you could pay for cable so that you didn't have to watch all the comercials? Remeber when you could get a customer service card and get a discount, instead of needing one to pay just under market value instead of 10% over market value? They might give people a discount on insurance until it is adopted, and then they are going to check the records and everything on there will be another reason to raise your rates. Even if you are a perfect driver, there will be times when you need to accelerate or brake. The current system can't tell what the speed limit was, so all that "hard acceleration" is the type of behavior they will look at, or the time you go out of state and the speed limit is 5 miles over the maximum speed in your home state.
    I could see where you could use the information in a court case, but then why couldn't you submit your data. The other person may or may not consent to a search. If your data shows that you were driving correctly, now you have a reasonable cause to get a court order for the other guys data. At that point it would follow all the same laws as physically searching your vehicle

  13. Not "intent" but recklessness/negligence by BearRanger · · Score: 2, Informative

    To all of the /.ers who want to just remove the EDR. It's an integral part of the engine management computer. You can't remove it and have the car continue to function. I predict a future aftermarket business for replacement management computers without the data recording aspects.

    But the answer to your question is no. A new law isn't needed.

    The thing you have to realize is that there are very few "accidents" in traffic situations. There's a reason the police refer to them as "collisions" and not accidents--because usually someone has done/failed to do something that causes it. That usually involves recklessness or negligence on the part of the driver. Those actions ARE crimes, whether or not there was a specific intent to commit a crime. In my area the police are trained to immediately download the information from the EDR at the accident scene. No driver permission required, because it's part of the investigation of the cause of the collision. Police accident investigators have a handheld device that plugs into a port in the vehicle that downloads the data from the EDR for later analysis.

    By the way, vehicles that are equipped with GPS services such as OnStar automatically call authorities in the event of a collision. Do you really believe that they couldn't also upload the EDR contents at the same time? I'm not saying they *do* that, but it's not inconceivable.

  14. But wait by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay, I'm no expert, but I do know a little something about automotive control systems, and my understanding is that part of OBD-II is that vehicles record at least 30 seconds prior to and after any event that bears reporting; this is called snapshot data. In most systems, only one snapshot can be stored, and there are IIRC four levels of criticality; snapshot data is overwritten when a more critical message must be logged. At that point, the last 30 seconds of data is written from RAM and, if processing continues, the next 30 seconds are recorded. One of the things that can trigger this event is if the airbag computer indicates that the airbag has deployed.

    Mind you, this is on 1996 and newer vehicles - and some vehicles went OBD-II before the deadline. I believe (just as an example) that the 1995 Nissan 240SX is among them.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:But wait by Xanius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's about right. My computer forensics class had the head of one of the largest private forensics companies come in and give a presentation on these things last year. The chips don't store anything outside of ram for more than 30 seconds and when something happens, like the airbag deploying or some other sensor indicates that there's been a collision of some sort,it burns in on the chip so that it can't have anything happen to it short of the chip being destroyed.This gets overwritten later on if something else happens to cause it to burn in again. They hook it up to a computer and read the data,which usually includes speed,pressure on the breaks,if the headlights were on, which systems in the car had a warning light on(if any) prior to the accident,pretty much anything useful to find out what happened during the accident. Insurance companies or any other company for that matter, hardly use these because the guy that came in said that his company charges something like fifty thousand to get the information off of it, only in extreme cases will this be used. Extreme being the insurance company being close to handing out atleast double the amount it would cost, so that they can prove my customer wasn't liable and I don't have to pay.

  15. What Needs to be required by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What needs to be required here is that the black box data cannot be released without the owner's signed approval. And that retaliation cannot be taken against a car owner who refuses to release this data. Anything less is not enough.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  16. Is my Yugo safe? by sinij · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think I will install one of these into my Yugo!

  17. Arguing with engineers is like wrestling pigs by ishmaelflood · · Score: 2, Funny

    "You were on the marketing team? "

    No, I'm an engineer, suspensions on Mustang, engines on Corvette.

    "Your low profile tires comment makes absolutely no sense."

    Because you don't know what you are talking about.

    "They are indeed not designed for racing."

    Thank you, that was my point.

    " However, they are high" (ish) " performance vehicles (the Corvette more so) and they should be fully capable of being used in closed course events such as driver education (racetrack) and autocross.

    Of course they are. But that's not racing. If you want to race a Corvette you replace almost every single component and body panel. It's a whole new car.

    "It's hard to believe that the Corvette with its near supercar horsepower, handling, and braking is only being designed with slightly elevated durability targets."

    Well, try really hard. Or become an automotive engineer.