Slashdot Mirror
Mandatory Automotive Black Boxes May Be On the Way
Attila Dimedici writes "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to announce a new regulation requiring all vehicles to contain a 'black box.' Not only that, but the devices would be designed to make it difficult (possibly illegal) to modify what information these devices collect or to disable them even though the courts have ruled that the owner of the vehicle owns the data. The courts have also ruled that authorities may access that data (to what degree and whether a warrant is necessary depends on the state)."
it's for the children.
As long as the use is limited to investigate accidents ONLY, and they retain only about 15-30 minutes of data, it would be OK.
They shouldnt be used for general law enforcement like speeding,etc..
No need to store 1h if it is for accidents. 10 min before and 5 min after a shock should be more than enough.
Here in the Netherlands, they've already been planning for something like this for some time. Not sure what the current status is on that though.
Anyway, the idea is that all cars will be equipped with some kind of GPS enabled device that records the movements of the car and reports this to big brother...err, I mean the tax administration. Based on how much you've driven your car and on what kind of roads and on what times your taxes are calculated. They say this system is a lot fairer than the current 'one tax level for all car owners' system. The idea is also to make the car owner responsible for the condition of the device and driving around with a disabled, modified or broken device is punishable with a fine. It's the govt's form of automated road pricing. I think it's a really, really bad idea.
This will be used to track your mileage so you can be taxed that way. At least that is the ultimate goal. Masking it in safety will get it started, and I see a few sheep have already bitten that hook.
Looks like it's time to store away my red barchetta up at my brothers farm. Maybe someday my son will get to drive it.
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
Simple.. because if you don't have one during an accident, you're guilt by default!
Isn't choice wonderful?
Don't you know computers don't make mistakes? Putting black boxes in cars will ensure that noone is ever found at fault when they shouldn't be, and that you're never wrongfully ticketed. This is the way things are going, it's like the cameras they use to catch speeders and red light runners, and those things have never made a mistake, certainly never been shown to consistently make mistakes... Seriously though, I like the idea of a black box system that will reliably determine who is at fault in an accident, but just like everything else, this bit of information will be misused. Anyone else remember when those plate-scanning cameras weren't going to be used to bust people with expired registrations and lapsed insurance?
Simply because you do not own the roads, you do not clean up the mess and you don't have to pay for all the costs of hospitalisation, rehabilitation and permanent disability.
It's called vehicle registrations and drivers licence, don't like it, walk or take public transport.
Back to reality, the thing that needs to be locked at is the ramifications of being 1km over the speed 500 metres before the accident. Insurance companies being the scum of the earth that they are, will be looking to exclude payment for the slightest infraction or demanding contributory payment well beyond reasonable levels. The vehicle accident blackbox information should only be used if data indicated the drivers behaviour substantively contributed to the accident.
Driving record audits tied to GPS could be quite the hassle. Get a speeding ticket and based upon that get audited and get a whole bunch more.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Who wants to start a new religion proclaiming that our cars are part of our free-spirited self, and that tampering with them like this would be a direct violation of our commandments given to us by the Great Mechanic?
as a EE who's pretty involved with both CAN communications and OBD systems, i'd love to hear your story about your car recording the wrong info from your accelerator.
(seriously, not trolling!)
I seriously doubt that it will be more than a year or two before some state allows you to be pulled over and the data pulled from this to write speeding tickets. And the amount of data they will contain will only increase, before long they'll be able to cite you for infractions from weeks ago. Soon it will be argued that GPS data will be needed too, so 1 MPH through a stop sign can be ticketed, too. They'll probably "need" to check it when you register or emission test your car.
Illegal to modify or remove? Why? Who would that harm, other than the police ability to fine you? It's a money grab, nothing else.
Why did we bail out the auto industry if we're going to kill new car sales a couple years down the line when new cars can convict you of speeding without an officer having to observe it?
This sentence no verb.
Erm, if the fact of increasing payments towards fixing you car because you were over the speed limit reduces the cost of insurance, then that is a benefit to the careful driver.
What it is more likely do is improve lawyers income with people arguing with insurance companies over the fact that just because I was speeding earlier, at the point of the accident I was driving within the parameters of the law...
What gets me is if they can put these blackboxes in, and my gps does this anyway, why can't they regulate the speeds of the vehicle on the roads. If you are on the limit, the accelerator doesn't allow further acceleration, except in short bursts (which is needed for accident avoidance in certain situations). Oh wait...the police department won't be able to fine any more.
This is merely a revenue generation type black box. If you're going to do it on the premise of saving lives, go the whole way or don't do it at all...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that.
But on a more serious note. What if the devices function was central to the motors operation. You know a lot of your motor is computer controlled these days.
Additionally, if they become ubiquitous and are seen as a "flawless device which is on the whole tamper proof", regardless of the reality, if your device is faulty, that may be entered into evidence in a trial against you, as evidence of your guilt. This might satisfy mens rea, instantly, and might even be secondary evidence (forget the proper name) of actus rea. Though, traffic violations in many countries already immediately satisfies mens rea, and so it wouldn't help much there.
I don't like where it's going. Especially with regards to Tom Tom, iPhone GPS, and similar data, also being used, while shows like CSI lead people to believe that this data is perfect evidence which can't be faked.
This is not good news. Though, it would make a nice black market for older cars, which don't or couldn't have them installed.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
but make sure to switch off your camera when pulled overm recording the actions of the police is a crime, citizen
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
this is something the judges in the court have long asked for. After an accident its difficult to establish howfar the accident was caused by the behavior of driver or circumstances - e.g. - did the driver go 150km/h for 6h without a break or did he feel compelled by somebody driving 1m to his rear end to go faster just at the location of the accident? I also think its ok to confiscate the record if the driver was caught speeding or stopped in a control because its suspected that he drove to long (a mechanical recorder to prevent speeding/going without a break is mandatory for trucks in Germany, and in general the experiences seem to be quite good).
What would *not* be ok would be any function where the police can ask "list all drivers who did this or that". There is no way to prevent this from being used to track people, e.g. by setting up a 50cm long speed regulated zone in the database to get all driver passing this point.
The mandatory things would be:
*encryption, where the keys are stored in a way that they can be only recomposed either from the owners/driver (the driver can e.g. insert an electronic license) keyring (to defend himself), or from several institutions agreeing and providing the key for a specific case.
*a legal framework which highly discourages institutions from even trying to abuse this data
*no network connection of the device. The memory should be a removable part, which is secured by a normal lock/seal. Implementations which do not contain the data only in this removable part should be forbidden.
*the only normally accessible interface should be a port used to set the currently used license (this is, downloading a public key from it).
Damn, you're an idiot. I don't claim to be a perfect driver but the fact there are people on the roads like you worries me.
And in some countries, the official advice if someone is too close to your backside for you to have an adequate braking distance is to brake in order to recoup that distance from the front instead. I'd be very surprised if "slower yields to faster" is actually written ANYWHERE in the US Highway Code.
If someone's doing the speed limit it is legally *CORRECT* (but not necessarily the safest possible thing for that particular driver) to not go any faster. To "get out of your way" is up to the lane rules, which say that so long as THEY are overtaking, it's fine to be in the second overtaking lane (or third, if you have a four-lane motorway). Yes, they are called overtaking lanes (all except one). "Fast lane" is a term you won't find on any legal document or driving course.
The most dangerous thing on a road is tailgaters like yourself, especially high-speed tailgaters. If someone's doing the speed limit, sit behind them. They just might save your life one day.
That said, I'm far from a goodie-two-shoes and if you try that shite with someone who just-doesn't-care about your urgent appointment, or their clapped-out-old-motor, they might just choose to slam their brakes on. Guess who'll pay for having insufficient braking distance and travelling too fast? Guess whose car will be ruined beyond repair and whose car will just have the boot pushed out a bit, a new exhaust and be back on the road? Not the guy in front. "I was doing 70, officer, and saw a flash out of the corner of my eye - my instinct was to brake to avoid a collision and in doing so the idiot behind ran straight into me because he had insufficient braking distance between himself and the car in front".
YOU are the reason that speed cameras even exist - if you drove reasonably at those speeds, it wouldn't be a problem. Expecting the world and his brother to get out of your way is a good way to end up in the rear of a truck that just doesn't care, or didn't even see you (and didn't really need to if you were behind him).
Go for a drive on an Autobahn - I went there once and it was fabulous. Not the speed, the sheer courtesy of other drivers and the fact that ALL of them stick to the rules all the time. I nearly got arrested for turning in an empty two-way street, for God's sake! It's the least stressful driving experience I've ever had - 10 minutes in my home town had me cursing at people and braking to avoid the local nutters in their souped-up cars tearing across lanes without looking.
Too further your point one does not know why the person behind you is speeding. Maybe there's a medical emergency that this person or passenger needs to get to the hospital fast. Maybe their kid is in a bad spot. Never assume that just because someone is speeding they are a jerk.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
Why don't they just shove a tracker up everyone's ass and call it a day?
Simply because you do not own the roads, you do not clean up the mess and you don't have to pay for all the costs of hospitalisation, rehabilitation and permanent disability.
It's called vehicle registrations and drivers licence, don't like it, walk or take public transport.
Unlike keeping the car in working order, with legal power-ratings, and having the appropriate lighting (all required by registration and inspection) how does the black box clean up the mess and pay for the hospitalization / rehab / etc?
Your explanation is: it should be part of the registration / inspection process because the registration / inspection process does good things and is required to continue driving. It says nothing about why this specific issue should be enforced other than "because they say so." So you might as well be applying it to "drivers must carry a hand-held air horn with them at all times." Why?
At best, it can help determine which driver was at fault... thus determining whose Insurance should pay and perhaps who should have to face criminal/civil repercussions.
At worst it can record something incorrectly, they'll take it as hard-fact/truth and screw over someone that didn't do anything wrong.
As mentioned, I've already been in the situation where the onboard computer on a 2006+ car was reporting faulty data to the point that it was doing screwy things to car as I drove. I'd hate to see what a black box recorded from it if I got into an accident.
Meanwhile, the difference between something like a radar gun and something inside your car... in court cases it has to be proven (or provable) that a device was officially calibrated correctly following a schedule. The black boxes they already have, the only times they're ever touched is during install and during an accident.
So then you have to worry about people taking "the black box as infallible" standpoint. I've heard of a couple of court cases where they kept treating the black box as "truth" when it shouldn't have.
Just like in an airplane, I think a black box device is a great idea. Far to many accidents occur with no witnesses that this will give an opportunity to work out what went wrong (why were there no skids, how fast were they going, where the bulbs in the headlights working).
For people who are safe drivers, again there is no problem. Yes, we all drive a bit over the speed limit all the time - part of the whole 'keeping your eyes on the road' thing we are expected to do means we can't drive permanently looking at the speedometer to ensure we don't just sneak over the limit. But many accidents are caused by drivers driving excessively over the limit, and if I'm involved in an accident with someone like that, I like the idea that I can point to my black box data and say 'see, I was 2km/h over the limit, whereas they were 45km/h over the limit'. It'll protect me and put the blame on those who were actually responsible.
Which means that they have to be tamper-proof or the just can't be admissible.
So, so long as they are used only in the purpose of an accident and proving fault, I have no problem with them.
In the case of a Big Brother type situation, there I _do_ have a problem.
But I'm try to remain optimistic that the Big Brother element won't be present.
Oh, also, I want to be able to read the data myself at any time! It would be a great way to learn about your own driving habits, what causes fuel use to go up, am I subconsciously sitting at a red light with my foot depressing the throttle, etc. With GPS, I can track everywhere I've been (but this does tend to imply Big Brother stuff, so no GPS please).
Store everything on the box, but only store a certain amount. If it's to be use for crash analysis, how much data is needed? An hour? A day? A week? more data allows an investigator to analyse driving patterns and behaviour ("this guy always speeds", or "this guy has no habit of speeding - did his foot slip?")
What gets me is if they can put these blackboxes in, and my gps does this anyway, why can't they regulate the speeds of the vehicle on the roads. If you are on the limit, the accelerator doesn't allow further acceleration, except in short bursts (which is needed for accident avoidance in certain situations). Oh wait...the police department won't be able to fine any more.
That would require really careful, defensive programming to avoid situations where 'suddenly' the system thinks you're in a residential road when you're in fact on the highway.
Dilbert RSS feed
Well 2 of the 3 of my vehicles are old enough were they don't have data recorders, all though one of them isn't currently drivable as it is undergoing a full restoration. The article mentions vehicles from the early 90's as having data recorders which doesn't surprise me as that was when OBD I was really becoming standard and being used to its fullest. In 96 there was the switch to OBD II which further expanded the electronic diagnostics on vehicles. If the government goes ahead with this plan eventually I could see them making it illegal to transfer ownership of a vehicle that doesn't have these data recorders, or insurance companies making insuring vehicles without them extremely expensive.
Time to offend someone
You're a dumbass, you're not supposed to drive in the left lane, it's for passing. If someone wants to pass, you let them. Forcing them to pass on the right is dangerous, and you're creating unsafe driving conditions.
You need to get off your high horse where you think you're better than everybody else and think everybody should drive slower than you. I usually drive in the left lane, and faster than most other people on the road. You know what happens when I see some guy whipping down the road at breakneck speeds? I move the fuck out of the way and give him right-of-way. I don't want that jerkwad driver tailgating me.
Thanks for your anecdotal evidence.
Here's mine:
I've been driving for over 10 years, have had no at-fault accidents, and only 1 accident where I was a passenger. I do a mix of city driving and long range highway driving. I spend a majority of the time driving in the right lane (I live in a country where we drive on the left) and I'm often over the speed limit. On the freeway I'm way over the speed limit, if circumstances permit.
I can assure you that I ALWAYS encounter people in the "fast lane" going beneath the speed limit, due to congestion, impatience, underpowered cars, nervous uncertain drivers, old people, and similar.
It's a regular occourence for me, to come across a truck, over taking another truck, whom is sometimes also being overtaken by another truck, blocking all 3 lanes, up a steep hill, where the one in the left hand lane is 40kmph under the speed limit, the one in the middle is 35kmph under, and the one on the right is 30kmph under. Effectively creating a giant rolling road block for the next x kmph, that it takes for all of them to overtake each other.
What I can tell you, however, is that no matter how "fast" I am going in the "fast lane" (60mph, 70mph, 80mph, even 90mph at times)--there is always at least *someone* that wants to go faster, this is why I'm a good drive, and ensure I stick left (in your country, stick right), as to not impede other drivers, force errors, and generally annoy people.
So the GP's claims of "people going 1 under" in the "fast" lane are well founded, and you are actually an idiot, who likely doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, or speaking in overly simple generalities, as if his experiences, no matter how accurate, somehow can be correlated to the experiences of everyone.
Oh also, just to show how much fucking bullshit you're spewing, here's a video, of people, in your country, on one of your highways creating a dangerous situation, and effectively a rolling road block by... GOING THE SPEED LIMIT.
55: A Meditation on the Speed Limit (Extended Cut)
So, effectively every car behind them, especially the ones trying to get around them, would be going over the speed limit, meaning anyone going under would be a law abider, but dangerous as they haven't grasped the social norms. Especially if they're an arrogant arsehole like you, and are sitting in the "fast lane" because "I live in a state where we don't have a keep right law".
Here's a tip for you: shut the fuck up.
Wow, I really escalated this by the end. Seriously started writing and replying line by line to yours, was fine, calm headed, but by the end of yours and the end of writing this, I just wanted to stab you in the heart with a trident.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I predicted that most INSURANCE companies should or would have these to help get a better understanding of their customers driving habits 15 years ago, as I worked for an insurance company where i pitched my idea to the president. He looked at me with a puzzled look on his face as i began to explain that we could offer better rates to our clients with the gps driven blackboxes telling us all driving info such as on 50km streets, our client was seen attaining speeds of 70 km, so for prevention reasons would tell us we should consider giving him higher rates as he is taking risks, where as the younger yet safer driver who always stays within the speeding limits, would not get high rates as per usual with younger drivers, because we would see his driving habits much quicker, so we could offer him better rates quicker....but it fell on deaf ears....
15 years later, we now see this story here where the government ( good move!) might make it obligatory to have these installed, which I agree for same reasons as 9/11, a vehicle can be used as a means of heavy destruction, so why not log all data on each....
Simply because you do not own the roads, you do not clean up the mess and you don't have to pay for all the costs of hospitalisation, rehabilitation and permanent disability. It's called vehicle registrations and drivers licence, don't like it, walk or take public transport.
Neither does the federal government. Roads are owned by state and local governments. The clean up is usually done by the local government. The insurance that I pay for pays for the expenses that result, and if I'm at fault, both my insurance company and myself are liable for damages.
Motor vehicle transportation, including licensing and registration, has always been a state issue - so why is it acceptable for a group of unelected federal bureaucrats to pass a decree that would greatly implicate the privacy for the majority of the population? Where do they derive their authority? Do you think something like this would actually go anywhere if they tried to enact it by legislation?
Furthermore, is there a real problem that this solves, or is it just a solution in search of a problem? Will this really provide that much more useful data that can't be determined through traditional means (aka measurements and physics)? I just see this being too susceptible to abuse - ie police scanning impounded cars as part of their 'inventory inspection' and writing additional summons for what they find.
At least in America, there has been a "computer" installed in every licensed vehicle for decades that has been illegal to modify or disable:
The Odometer
Yes, as far as computers go it is an analog computer (usually now... there are some electronic ones in automobiles at the moment) based on very simple principles, but it still is there and certainly is illegal. The precedent is already there for automobiles, so all you are talking about is splitting hairs in terms of how much additional information is also going to be stored besides just the distance that vehicle has traveled since it was built.
"Black box"? There certainly has been some considerable effort to make odometers tamper-resistant, and it is something of a joke mentioned in several movies like Matilda and Ferris Bueller's Day Off that had significant plot situations where attempts to tamper with this particular computer were explicitly made by the major characters in those fictional stories.
This isn't a new issue, just the extent of the information being recorded is the issue instead.
If someone's doing the speed limit it is legally *CORRECT* (but not necessarily the safest possible thing for that particular driver) to not go any faster.
However, it is not legally correct for them to do the speed limit in the passing lane if someone wants to go faster, in many places; in those cases both drivers are breaking the law.
Go for a drive on an Autobahn - I went there once and it was fabulous. Not the speed, the sheer courtesy of other drivers and the fact that ALL of them stick to the rules all the time.
That's because if you fuck up on the Autobahn they just take away your license. And if we pulled over and ticketed and perhaps deprived of their license the people who won't get out of the fucking passing lane here then there would be more courtesy and you would enjoy driving more.
Simple truth, getting out of the passing lane when you're not passing is a moral and often legal obligation. Let's meet it so that everyone can be happier.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
the black boxes exist in cars today. the story is about how the implementation of the black boxes are highly proprietary (and optional). the proposed standardization, besides the requirement to install them, is talking about how to standardize the boxes and provide some consistency to the design.
I'd be very surprised if "slower yields to faster" is actually written ANYWHERE in the US Highway Code.
Umm in many states it does say something similar.
Most states follow the Uniform Vehicle Code and require drivers to keep right if they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic (regardless of the speed limit; see below)
http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
Some states didn't allow left-lane lingering but didn't enforce the law. Now they are.
At the start of the summer, the Washington State Patrol began pulling people over for violating the state's left-lane law, which prohibits "impeding the flow of other traffic."
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/left-lane-slowpokes-drive-you-crazy.aspx
For shits and giggles I pulled a few states laws on the matter
Nebraska: http://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/2006/s60index/s6006131000.html
Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
Arizona: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00721.htm
B. On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
Virginia: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-804
1. Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions existing, shall be driven in the lane nearest the right edge or right curb of the highway when such lane is available for travel except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or where right lanes are reserved for slow-moving traffic as permitted in this section;
These three states all imply that you must move over if they are driving at less then the "normal speed of traffic". Of course other states have different laws, but a large number of them have laws with wording similar to these. The mit page says this at the bottom of it.
Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is going 65 MPH must move right. Contrast Alaska's rule, 13 AAC 002.50, allowing vehicles driving at the speed limit to use the left lane, and Colorado rev. stat. 42-4-1103, prohibiting blocking the "normal and reasonable" movement of traffic.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
"Fast lane" is a term you won't find on any legal document or driving course.
Then why do I see signs like this in Northern Virginia?
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=21034,filename=Keep-Right.jpg
"SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT"
With the first link, the chain is forged.