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.
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
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!)
They shouldnt be used for general law enforcement like speeding,etc..
When first implemented they'll say they won't be used except for accident investigation. Then over time, the use will expanded far beyond anything reasonable.
Look at the seat belt laws. When first implemented, the story was that a seat belt violation alone wouldn't result in being pulled over. Now, they will pull you over in a heartbeat if they spot you not wearing one.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
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.
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.
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?
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.
The current EDRs (Event Data Recorders) only store the last few moments leading up to a crash (crash is judged by either rapid deceleration, or by air-bags being deployed). In their current state, they wouldn't retain information long enough to be able to be used for anything like you mention.
AFAIK, as an emergency first responder, these boxes have been present in most vehicles already for quite a few years (close to a decade). You may very well have one in your current vehicle but are unaware of it. The new part is making them mandatory.
Some items that it stores in the moments before and during a collision:
- Speed immediately before rapid deceleration
- RPMs
- Brake application or lack there of
- Force of impact
- Which airbags were deployed
- Whether the driver was wearing a seat-belt (other passengers too, if the vehicle is equipped to sense that)
Those are the fairly standard/common items. Other vehicles with steering-response and/or traction control etc. will also log those items.
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
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.