Slashdot Mirror


EU Parliament Adopts eCall Resolution

arisvega writes with news that the European Parliament has pass a resolution in support of eCall, an initiative to install devices in vehicles that automatically contact emergency services in the event of a crash. The resolution calls on the European Condition to make it mandatory for all new cars starting in 2015. "The in-vehicle eCall system uses 112 emergency call technology to alert the emergency services automatically to the location of serious road accidents. This should save lives and reduce the severity of injuries by enabling qualified and equipped paramedics to get to the scene within the first “golden hour” of the accident, says the resolution. The eCall system could save up to 2,500 lives a year and reduce injury severity by 10 to 15%, it adds."

17 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like a great idea. by gfm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering all of the crazy technology we have in even the cheapest modern cars, it is amazing something like this isn't commonplace outside of high end systems like OnStar by now. Would love to see this in the US too.

  2. Re:STUPID by gfm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every accident that happens in the middle of the day on the freeway results in 20 emergency calls (and the response system is more than adequate to deal with this fact). Accidents that happen on a dark windy road in the dead of night? Not so much.

  3. OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They can silently listen in on you. Court filings have shown that this is in fact being done. Merely having the hardware provides this ability; you need not be a subscriber. (thus I refuse to buy a vehicle with OnStar)

    1. Re:OnStar is a bug by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Translation: I don't want everyone to know that I frequent conspiracy theorist sites.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:OnStar is a bug by jamesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "citation needed."

      Look it up yourself you lazy cunt.

      I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to spend 10 seconds on Google.

      Hell no. If I had to go and google every crackpot theory every retard on the internet cites as fact I'd never get anything done. Why don't you spend 10 seconds pasting a link and save everyone else the time. This has the added bonus that when we see that your citation is theonion.com we can laugh at you instead of wasting time reading it.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and potty mouth retorts don't count as evidence, no matter how many expletives you might use).

      I should add that I am fully prepared to believe that your claims might be true, they certainly sound plausible, but i'm not going to waste time listening to the ramblings of some AC that was too lazy to provide evidence and too gutless to put their name to them.

    3. Re:OnStar is a bug by MachDelta · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar#Use_as_surveillance_device
      Short version: It's possible in theory, but the design is supposed to guarantee several forms of notification (both visible and audible) if someone is listening in. If you had physical access to the vehicle, you could disable the notifications though. So in crack-pot theory land, it's doable; in reality, it probably hasn't and won't ever happen.

      IAAFM (former mechanic), and yes I had heard of this when OnStar was introduced. Now you two play nice :)

    4. Re:OnStar is a bug by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      OnStar says it can't be done, yet the FBI was granted a warrant to do exactly that. On appeal the 9th circuit determined that issuing the warrant was improper. So, who do I believe, the FBI (for whom the information is adverse) and the courts, or OnStar who would obviously like to tell us it isn't possible?

      Weighing those sources, I'm more inclined to believe it can be done.

      OnStar does admit that they get tracking data even when the call button isn't pressed and that they can do so even if you cancel the service. Bottom line, if you want privacy in your vehicle, remove the OnStar system.

      I am also a former mechanic though I stuck to small engines and commercial trucks..

    5. Re:OnStar is a bug by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can totally understand your sentiment, but at the same time, I can understand being frustrated by the pedantic "citation needed" bullshit, it's just more of of that deliberately obtuse affectation that makes it so hard to have a productive conversation these days. That guy didn't want any citations so he could learn something, he wanted a citation so he could find some reason, ANY reason, to refute it. This is how all controversial posts are here on slashdot anymore. Hell, that's how controversial subjects are ANYWHERE these days, not just here. So many people don't ask for citations for proof anymore, they ask for citations so they can attack them and reinforce their own presuppositions. From the start, that guy was antagonistic towards the idea that OnStar could be being used illegitimately, something that has been in the news many times over the last few years. I doubt a citation from the goddamned FBI themselves saying they do exactly what is being claimed here would have been accepted as fact.

  4. Re:I've got an idea by kdemetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actyally : less cars wouldn't be a bad idea to reduce the amount of accidents ( a lot of accidents happen due to traffic jams ).
    But it doesn't need to be forced : ensure good public transportation, and people will use that instead of their cars.

  5. Re:STUPID by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Try to remember this post when you're upside-down in a ditch with two broken arms at 3 AM on a country road.

    Me? I'll gladly pay $500 extra dollars per car even if only one in a hundred people ever go through that experience. I know a hundred people, and I don't think any of them should spend a minute more in that ditch than they have to.

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  6. Re:I've got an idea by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We really should do this, starting with the largest cities. Start with the largest vehicles and work your way down, adding in public transportation as cars are eliminated. I really love to drive, right until I get into some shitty city where you can't do it meaningfully anyway. And cities are fucking horrible really, but they would be wonderful without the cars. The "freedom" of driving is largely illusory. Your car can be taken away from you at the drop of a hat and even if you get it back without paying anything you're not going to get anything for the time you spent without it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Same thing but in the U.S... by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The in-vehicle eCall system uses 911 emergency call technology to alert the police automatically to the location of the smell of marijuana. This should aid in the war on drugs and reduce terrorism by enabling qualified and equipped homeland security agents to get to the scene within the "golden hour" of the first toke, says the resolution. The eCall system could save up to 2,500 politicians jobs a year and reduce corruption inquiries by 10 to 15%, it adds."

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  8. cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Allow me to sum up the first 5000 or so comments:

    • The sky is falling! They want to track us all! It's an evil government scheme for total surveilance! You are going to be monitored, it's Big Brother all over again. I thought it was 2012 and not 1984?
    • What for? Nobody ever gets into a car crash with nobody else around, especially in Europe. It's all a ploy by car manufacturers to sell something we don't need for a huge markup. Follow the money!
    • I don't want that in my car! The RF/EM/ESP/GPS/energy emissions will cause cancer! It's an evil alien ploy to... I don't know. Where's my tinfoil hat?

    Oh yeah, it's an evil conspiracy. Sure. "They" will monitor every car in the world through this, because... uh... no idea.

    Funny how geeks have become innovation-phobic. It used to be the other way around.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  9. Re:STUPID by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I know 100 people who need to spend some time in a ditch *smacks fist into hand*.

    You know this is just an excuse to install a GPS in every car. Then once they've done that, automatic speed enforcement! Bam!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  10. How will it determine if assistance is needed? by rcasha2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One problem is: How will it tell apart a serious accident in which people were hurt, and one in which the car was damaged but the people inside were unscathed. Once it gets installed in all cars, this could result in emergency services rushing to places where they are not needed, wasting time.

  11. Re:STUPID by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Your argument seems to be based around the idea that it's impossible for you to ever be aided by this service. Instead of castigating you for your unrecognized selfishness, I'll try to appeal to it. First though, we need to at least attempt to break through your self-deception, because a rational conversation isn't possible with it. If I fail, well, at least I tried.

    Have you ever encountered black ice? If you haven't, talk to someone who has, whose opinion you trust. If such a person exists, you'll find out that sometimes, it hits, and there is absolutely no way you could have avoided it short of never driving, ever. If it forms just right, you can't see it, period, not with three extra eyes and binoculars. If it forms on a turn, and you hit it, your car will slide, and there is no amount of driving skill that will prevent it, not even if you were the best driver that ever lived. Physics and all that jazz.

    And there's all those other idiots on the road, too. What if that hot shit drops his joint in his lap and jerks the wheel just as you're passing, running his car into your lane at the last possible instant causing a head-on collision and knocking you both out? I know you're a magnificent driver, but daddy's money bought little Mr. Hot-Shit a car that turns faster than yours, and the random jerking of the wheel happened to replicate a perfect turn that pushed that car to the limit of its lateral grip, so no matter how astounding your reflexes and command of the machine you pilot, the immutable laws of the universe are dictating a crash. Even though you're perfect, you can't react to something before it happens, provided you're a believer in free will.

    So now that we've established that even though you're perfect (and you are), it could still happen to you, what's the price you're willing to pay to drastically reduce the chance that you die, or perhaps just lose a leg? I know you've got a price, since you've made that your argument. I guess $500 isn't worth it to you. I'm curious. What is?

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  12. Not a fetish by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Modern wiring harnesses are designed to be (a) fast to assemble and disassemble) (b) reliable (c) as foolproof as possible, hence the different connectors. Those of us with long memories can recall when cars had hardly any wiring at all, yet it was always going wrong (cables frayed, bullet connectors pulled, contacts corroded, mechanics connected the wrong wire during a service and nobody noticed till the brakes started the indicators flashing).

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."