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)."

14 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. Next we will all be required to be chipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's for the children.

    1. Re:Next we will all be required to be chipped by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I agree. For crying out loud when will people realize that they are putting their lives and the lives of others in danger. After all, why do you *need* to drive your own car? Take a bus. Take a cab. Take the subway. Let a state licensed professional drive you around. I've never understood why people feel they have a right to choose to do something dangerous. With mandatory black boxes in vehicles the state will be able to show that the professionals are the ones who should be behind the wheel.

    2. Re:Next we will all be required to be chipped by zoloto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've lived in NYC for 10 years, drive often and drive within the laws. Your comment is a joke. There are bad eggs everywhere; sometimes they're the majority. _THEY_ are the ones making it unsafe.

    3. Re:Next we will all be required to be chipped by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But yelling fire in a cinema?

      At this point I'm tired of that damned example. These days it's used more and more as precedent to just keep eroding freedom of speech until its meaningless. A few years back someone in my state's legislature tried to outlaw PROFANITY citing that it has already been established that some speech is not protected (citing the "Fire!" bit).

      Fuck the fire in the theater example. If someone yells fire in a theater, calmly exit the building in an orderly fashion. Free speech should mean free speech with no asterisks beside it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  2. Motor Law by Lectoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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..."?
  3. Re:Not a fan by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:Taxes by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's wrong with taxing based on mileage? We already do it indirectly through gas taxes.

    Actually, nothing's wrong with it any more than any other tax scheme - as long as the gas tax goes away first. Double taxation isn't right.

    The other point is that there's already a "mileage tracking device" in the car called an "odometer". There's no need for a "black box" to collect a mileage tax.

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  5. This is the beginning of the end by Posting=!Working · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. I'm sorry Dave by definate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  7. *puke* by lennier1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don't they just shove a tracker up everyone's ass and call it a day?

  8. Re:I agree by PhrstBrn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Anecdotal Evidence by definate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:Limitation by SIR_Taco · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  11. Re:Not a fan by limaxray · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.