View Poll Results: Regarding the requirement to install "black boxes" in all new cars and light trucks:
It violates my right to privacy. What I do in my car is my OWN responsibility.
17
62.96%
It's OK, I have nothing to hide. Might save on insurance premiums.
10
37.04%
It's the first step toward "1984", where government knows all.
5
18.52%
Automakers may face new liabilities if failures are recorded.
3
11.11%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll
NHTSA to Require Black Box in Your New Car
12-07-12, 10:02 AM
#1
Out of Warranty
Thread Starter
NHTSA to Require Black Box in Your New Car
Whatever you think of "Big Brother", the Associated Press is reporting this morning that new rules from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will be promulgated in the next week requiring the installation of "event data recording systems" on all new cars and light trucks. This isn't the OBD system we've grown accustomed to, but a separate recording of five to ten seconds of data prior to a crash or airbag deployment that indicates vehicle speed, steering and braking inputs, and seat belt usage. It's been quietly installed in several brands of new cars for several years, and has been used in evidence in high-profile criminal cases.
Its presence, particularly in state-owned fleet vehicles, has been embarrassing to a number of our public officials, says the AP:
If you recall, in these cases, state officials claimed they were "hurrying to make an appointment", but 30-40 mph over the limit would seem to be a bit more than "hurrying". If you or I were caught at this egregious speed, we'd be dining on oatmeal and bologna sandwiches for several months while staring at the world through a chain link fence and razor wire with our new best friends.
What do you think? Does putting a black box in your car interfere with your right to privacy, or is it a tool to provide the courts and insurance companies with indisputable data recorded in the seconds before a crash? Remember this data could be used in your prosecution OR defense. If this requirement becomes law, will a breathalyzer test soon be required to start your car? It's a judicial option now in many states in cases involving DUI arrests - but it's seldom used.
Its presence, particularly in state-owned fleet vehicles, has been embarrassing to a number of our public officials, says the AP:
- Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray initially said that he wasn't speeding and that he was wearing his seat belt when he crashed a government-owned car last year. But the Ford Crown Victoria's data recorder told a different story: It showed the car was traveling more than 100 mph and Murray wasn't belted in.
- In 2007, then-New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was seriously injured in the crash of an SUV driven by a state trooper. Corzine was a passenger. The SUV's recorder showed the vehicle was traveling 91 mph on a parkway where the speed limit was 65 mph, and Corzine didn't have his seat belt on.
What do you think? Does putting a black box in your car interfere with your right to privacy, or is it a tool to provide the courts and insurance companies with indisputable data recorded in the seconds before a crash? Remember this data could be used in your prosecution OR defense. If this requirement becomes law, will a breathalyzer test soon be required to start your car? It's a judicial option now in many states in cases involving DUI arrests - but it's seldom used.
Last edited by Lil4X; 12-07-12 at 10:11 AM.
12-07-12, 10:32 AM
#2
Lexus Fanatic
What do you think? Does putting a black box in your car interfere with your right to privacy, or is it a tool to provide the courts and insurance companies with indisputable data recorded in the seconds before a crash? Remember this data could be used in your prosecution OR defense. If this requirement becomes law, will a breathalyzer test soon be required to start your car? It's a judicial option now in many states in cases involving DUI arrests - but it's seldom used.
The devices can also help parents monitor where their kids go with the family car, and whether agreed-upon rules are being kept.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-07-12 at 10:36 AM.
Trending Topics
12-07-12, 05:11 PM
#9
Lexus Test Driver
Privacy? These data recorders do not contain personally identifiable information, they would contain technical data of the vehicle's parameters. Granted that some other parameters are under driver control, they are just that, technical.
As was said, driving is a privilege not a right, and technical data doesn't have a reason to "lie" about what was happening before a crash. If one doesn't have anything to hide, there should be no concerns.
As was said, driving is a privilege not a right, and technical data doesn't have a reason to "lie" about what was happening before a crash. If one doesn't have anything to hide, there should be no concerns.
12-07-12, 05:27 PM
#10
well thats tricky road to take... i can imagine that within few years, insurance companies could be able to get your black box data to see if they should pay your claim or not... then every single little mistake you might have made will be turned against you.
12-07-12, 05:42 PM
#11
Lexus Test Driver
They are talking about 5 - 10 seconds of data before a crash or air bag deployment. It is fair game for insurance coverage and liability purposes.
12-07-12, 06:00 PM
#12
12-07-12, 07:35 PM
#13
Lexus Champion
Until such time that driving a car on our streets and highways is a completely predictable and deterministic activity, so that every abnormal driving behaviour can only result in breaking the law, event data recorders are just another invasive nanny. Right now, using the data in event recorders against the driver goes against the democratic state's philosophy of presuming innocence until proven guilty. I am afraid that being caught speeding or driving "wildly" (e.g. swerving) by the car's black box can and will be used against the driver without first determining why the driver was breaking the law.
Why was the driver speeding and swerving? The black box cannot measure and record that because one car's black box can only measure events in isolation from other related events. Was the driver trying to avoid some oncoming driver who was distracted (or just not paying attention) and was perhaps hit by that distracted driver or hit something else while trying to avoid the otherwise imminent collision? If the parameters measured in the car driven by the distracted driver were within "normal" limits who do you think gets shafted? Even if the police do NOT charge the speeding driver, I have no doubt that the speeding driver's insurance company is going to (greatly) increase his rates.
I am afraid of the idea that you "cannot question technology", that if it is recorded there in the computer, that is right and you are wrong. Is it not possible that something outside my control is wrong even if it is not and could not be recorded as wrong?
And you cannot compare a car's event data recorder with surveillance cameras. The car's black box can only measure and record a very small number of events in isolation from other related events in the surrounding environment, but because of the location and independent nature of the surveillance camera, it measures and records the larger environment. The car's black box may record that the car hit something but only the larger, all-seeing eye of the surveillance camera can see that the car hit something because the driver was trying to avoid another bad driver.
Why was the driver speeding and swerving? The black box cannot measure and record that because one car's black box can only measure events in isolation from other related events. Was the driver trying to avoid some oncoming driver who was distracted (or just not paying attention) and was perhaps hit by that distracted driver or hit something else while trying to avoid the otherwise imminent collision? If the parameters measured in the car driven by the distracted driver were within "normal" limits who do you think gets shafted? Even if the police do NOT charge the speeding driver, I have no doubt that the speeding driver's insurance company is going to (greatly) increase his rates.
I am afraid of the idea that you "cannot question technology", that if it is recorded there in the computer, that is right and you are wrong. Is it not possible that something outside my control is wrong even if it is not and could not be recorded as wrong?
And you cannot compare a car's event data recorder with surveillance cameras. The car's black box can only measure and record a very small number of events in isolation from other related events in the surrounding environment, but because of the location and independent nature of the surveillance camera, it measures and records the larger environment. The car's black box may record that the car hit something but only the larger, all-seeing eye of the surveillance camera can see that the car hit something because the driver was trying to avoid another bad driver.
12-07-12, 10:57 PM
#14
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White House wants black boxes in all future cars
The White House has given its OK to a plan that would require all future cars and trucks be equipped with event data records – most commonly referred to as “black boxes.”
The majority of vehicles produced today already have such devices onboard and they have aided in recent investigations into such safety issues as the so-called unintended acceleration scare at Toyota. But the use of the technology has also raised some concerns with privacy advocates.
Congress failed to pass legislation that would have required the use of event data recorders, or EDRs, in 2010. That prompted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to consider its own mandate. A review was completed this week by the White House Office of Management and Budget and final regulations will likely follow early next year.
Italian Investors Snap up a Stake in Floundering Aston Martin
The proposal was originally expected by late 2011 but the process was delayed without explanation. Nonetheless, NHTSA has listed the use of black boxes as a “priority,” a spokesperson insisting such devices are critical to “continued improvements in vehicle safety.”
Automotive EDRs are similar, though not nearly as sophisticated, as the black boxes used in commercial airliners – and which are routinely used to provide critical information about crashes and other aircraft incidents. They are already installed in nearly 92% of today’s vehicles, according to industry officials, and also provide important information for industry engineers and, under some circumstances, law enforcement authorities.
Ford Recalling New Fusion for Faulty Headlamps
During several investigations looking into claims that Toyota products would unexpectedly begin to accelerate without driver input, researchers used such recorders to see what actually happened, often discovering the issue was, in fact, the result of driver error, such as the application of the throttle rather than the brake.
The industry trade group, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, or AIM, has endorsed the use of black boxes – but has also warned that any new rules must consider privacy issues.
“We need to make sure we preserve privacy,” spokesperson Gloria Bergquist told the Detroit News. “Automakers do not access EDR data without consumer permission, and any government requirements to install EDRs on all vehicles must include steps to protect consumer privacy.”
One concern is that new mandates for such devices might make it easy for authorities to see if a motorist were speeding or otherwise violating the law.
Did Ford Fudge Mileage Numbers?
Rules vary by state but in much of the country a law enforcement official – or a plaintiff in a legal case – must get court approval before a vehicle’s black box can today be accessed without the permission of the owner.
As with an airliner’s black box, the current technology records and stores only a limited amount of data – though that is considered enough to piece together a snapshot of what might have led up to a crash, such as whether the driver was applying the brakes or throttle, and if seatbelts were being used. Unlike the aerospace industry, the new regulations are not expected to require taping of conversations in a vehicle’s passenger compartment.
NHTSA already has stepped into the issue requiring that as of the start of the 2013 model-year all EDR data be commonized while simplifying access. The use of proprietary formats complicated the Toyota unintended acceleration investigations.
The majority of vehicles produced today already have such devices onboard and they have aided in recent investigations into such safety issues as the so-called unintended acceleration scare at Toyota. But the use of the technology has also raised some concerns with privacy advocates.
Congress failed to pass legislation that would have required the use of event data recorders, or EDRs, in 2010. That prompted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to consider its own mandate. A review was completed this week by the White House Office of Management and Budget and final regulations will likely follow early next year.
Italian Investors Snap up a Stake in Floundering Aston Martin
The proposal was originally expected by late 2011 but the process was delayed without explanation. Nonetheless, NHTSA has listed the use of black boxes as a “priority,” a spokesperson insisting such devices are critical to “continued improvements in vehicle safety.”
Automotive EDRs are similar, though not nearly as sophisticated, as the black boxes used in commercial airliners – and which are routinely used to provide critical information about crashes and other aircraft incidents. They are already installed in nearly 92% of today’s vehicles, according to industry officials, and also provide important information for industry engineers and, under some circumstances, law enforcement authorities.
Ford Recalling New Fusion for Faulty Headlamps
During several investigations looking into claims that Toyota products would unexpectedly begin to accelerate without driver input, researchers used such recorders to see what actually happened, often discovering the issue was, in fact, the result of driver error, such as the application of the throttle rather than the brake.
The industry trade group, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, or AIM, has endorsed the use of black boxes – but has also warned that any new rules must consider privacy issues.
“We need to make sure we preserve privacy,” spokesperson Gloria Bergquist told the Detroit News. “Automakers do not access EDR data without consumer permission, and any government requirements to install EDRs on all vehicles must include steps to protect consumer privacy.”
One concern is that new mandates for such devices might make it easy for authorities to see if a motorist were speeding or otherwise violating the law.
Did Ford Fudge Mileage Numbers?
Rules vary by state but in much of the country a law enforcement official – or a plaintiff in a legal case – must get court approval before a vehicle’s black box can today be accessed without the permission of the owner.
As with an airliner’s black box, the current technology records and stores only a limited amount of data – though that is considered enough to piece together a snapshot of what might have led up to a crash, such as whether the driver was applying the brakes or throttle, and if seatbelts were being used. Unlike the aerospace industry, the new regulations are not expected to require taping of conversations in a vehicle’s passenger compartment.
NHTSA already has stepped into the issue requiring that as of the start of the 2013 model-year all EDR data be commonized while simplifying access. The use of proprietary formats complicated the Toyota unintended acceleration investigations.
12-07-12, 11:45 PM
#15
This would spur the used car market BIGTIME I'd imagine. And modifying the boxes to 'not read' would be tricky. I'm sure folks would create dummy plugs which feed false information to a black box as well. There is a host of issues associated with this idea. I for one am on the fence on it.
If you're guilty, you're guilty within an accident. You should fess up and take your punishment. However if you're guilty and try to weasel out of it and blame it on the other person, then that box can be the victims lifesaver.
However as someone pointed out with insurance purposes.......this will lead a host of issues with them. They're gonna use EVERYTHING that box can give them to deny you your claim. Whether it be going too fast or too slow or not using your blinkers or not wearing your belt (the last one is stupid imo, and those who don't are just playing a game of roulette), the insurance company will pick and choose one of these or a host of others issues to deny the claim.
If you're guilty, you're guilty within an accident. You should fess up and take your punishment. However if you're guilty and try to weasel out of it and blame it on the other person, then that box can be the victims lifesaver.
However as someone pointed out with insurance purposes.......this will lead a host of issues with them. They're gonna use EVERYTHING that box can give them to deny you your claim. Whether it be going too fast or too slow or not using your blinkers or not wearing your belt (the last one is stupid imo, and those who don't are just playing a game of roulette), the insurance company will pick and choose one of these or a host of others issues to deny the claim.