"Black Boxes" on Autos

Good post.

Here's one view.

Here's another.

Such boxes could help keep manufacturers from lying about the causes of crashes. They could help keep drivers from lying about the causes. Most importantly (maybe) they record crash data that could otherwise be lost, helping to allow manufactures and regulatory agencies to rationalize where it makes sense to spend money on safety devices. Volvo has always done a great deal of crash investigation, and those investigation have contributed to the implementation of useful safety devices.

Given that the data is objective and of a type that is otherwise available through legally permitted surveillance, (speed checking by police, observations of erratic driving by police) I think that the benefits could outweigh the drawbacks.

I can't think of a case, in my own 60 years, in which having such data available would have proven problematic. However, I can think of several cases in which having such data would have helped. For example, I had a Saturn in which the electric power steering periodically failed, and I would like to know if that was an issue in my son's accident with the car. The PS seemed to fail most when exercised more than normally, such as in maneuvering for parking. He was on a narrow, twisty mountain road, and went wide on a turn. Perhaps driving too fast for conditions, but a reading from a black box might have shown that the steering failed. Such data could have prompted GM to fix the steering on these cars.

Given that a car is our most common lethal weapon, knowing what was going on to lead to an accident could have more societal benefit that the minimal privacy invasion. Certainly, the precedent already exists, with aircraft black boxes, and they have been extremely helpful in improving flight safety.

What would be a likely scenario in which such data offensively invades privacy, assuming that the data can only be use in the case of an accident?

it's my understanding that manufacturers are reluctent to issue the decoders that are necessary in order to retrieve the information, for obvious reasons.

as far as car defects go, i'm all for it, but i believe this infomation should remain anonymous

the right to privacy is a constitutional right, and should take priority.

sorry sir, i mis-understood your reply. i fully agree.

i'm sure that you would want to read the article that appeared in the los angeles times on jan. 16. under the title "unlikely duo unites in fight for black.

Oh, knock off the paranoia. Government at all levels is financially broke and has no resources to be snooping on upstanding citizens to find out how to put them in jail. They can't even afford to keep real criminals in jail.

Fines for raising revenue is another issue, however. There is a good way to kill that for once and for all. And find a way to put the black boxes to a real good use. Here's the formula:

1. Your insurance company gets to continuously monitor the black box. They can then decide how much of a risk you are and charge you accordingly. Just let the free marketplace rule here. The proviso is that if you are so insured and monitored you cannot be fined for any moving violation that is an infraction. This would not include misdemeanor violations like DWI's, reckless driving, etc. Nor would it include non-moving violations like parking tickets, unregistered vehicle, etc. You'd still get fined for that stuff since it doesn't relate directly to how much of a risk you are to your insurer. An example of a problem here is at what level does an equipment violation rise to the level where it needs to be put into the category of being used by your insurance company to determine risk.

2. You wouldn't get fined for infraction level moving violations if you have insurance. But you'd be hit pretty hard by increases in your insurance rates. Maybe more. But maybe less as the insurance companies developed the actuarial database to show which moving "violations" were worthy of enforcement and punishment and which were not. It may turn out to be a great tool for keeping people from driving beyond their skill level especially if the computers collect GPS and accelerometer data. And perhaps enabling truly skilled and competent drivers to make the best use of their vehicles. The beauty here is that the free market does the job rather than the government.

3. Don't have insurance? Then the old rules and fines apply.

4. Fines could no longer be collected by municipalities and court and admin fees would be restricted. Apportioning that is one problem with my approach. But it is a second order issue.

5. Probably the biggest problem with this approach is figuring out a way to keep auto insurance companies from gouging or improper discrimination. This could get to be a red-blue ideology thing. But it need not be.

6. I'd also suggest here that all fines and a percentage of violation fees paid by uninsured drivers would go into the uninsured motorist insurance pool.

Ed Weldon

homeland sercurity has over 200,000 employes and a budged over 16 billion dollars annually. they have doled out more than 31 billion dollars in grants to other government agencies. what can they possible do with this amount of money beside misappropiate it.

i may be paranoid, but according to my psychiatrist, i'm only delusional.

A little paranoia can be healthy. And if channeled properly could help with bullet 5. Pay a company to monitor the drivers and base their pay on the number or infractions or severity and you have a recipe for abuse. This has happened with traffic light cameras in some cities where the police turned the monitoring and ticketing was turned over to a company (I believe the company was also responsible for calibration and maintenance of the equipment) who got a % of the proceeds. Low and behold, people were being ticketed for what would normally not be considered an infraction (running a yellow light).

Also, who says the speed of the black box is correct? How often is it to be calibrated? What about other sensors the box is monitoring? The company I work for has a calibration lab which stores, manages and controls all of our test equipment (volt meters, accelerometers, oscilloscopes, power supplies, etc.). Most of the equipment is required to be calibrated once a year and every 6 months.

Just put one in every car, tell everyone they are there, and be done with it. It just might make everyone drive a little more cautiously.

It's not like having a camera in the bathroom or bedroom.

Bring them on (please) and the sooner the better.

The only time that you need fear what is in the black box is if you are abusing the product or breaking the law.

I am constantly FRUSTRATED by ridiculous speed limits that are the outcome of flawed data. Take this example.

Driver doing 120 kph on a 100 kph speed limit corner looses control and crashes on corner.

Response to police and insurance "I was only going 95. Honest."

After three such crashes, the authorities change speed limit for that section of road to 80 kph.

Another series of 3 idiots going 120 kph crash and each claims to have been obeying the law. ("I was only doing 75, honest.")

Authorities reduce speed limit to 70 kph ....... and so on.

Those of us that obey the rules are penalised as the result of those that don't want to face the consequences of their own decisions.

Why are you so worried about the black boxes?

(By the way, black boxes with the capabilities you describe were already being installed into US built cars in 2005. In my prior employment we were quoting on components to support those programs. They already have satelite tune capability and tracking for those vehicles, option to remotely unlock and start the car.)

i understand your point of veiw, but having uncle sam monitoring everything i do is a scary thought, whether your law abiding or not.

Black Boxes on aircraft are OK to decipher when an accident occurs because in most cases it 'only' involves one 'craft'...in the case of cars, i think this becomes more complex. It may be simple for one car accidents, but when multiple cars are involved, who will decipher the information? How long will it take? I'm sure that insurance companies would love this idea but in reality who will analyze the data? Aircraft investigations take months at minimum. Imagine a 3 or 4 car pile up? Your claim could take months to process.

More questions...Are the vehicle manufacturers really wanting this info? Isn't it the engineering teams responsibility to design? Or are vehicle manufactures wanting to go down the path of Micro$oft and let the people be their 'testers'?

It's one thing to put the boxes in - it's another to actually implement it on a 'realistic' scale - which I believe that that is the reason the darn things are not activated. A logistical nightmare.

In addition to the 'big-brother' subtopic - i think that these 'black-boxes' are going to be used to record your speed and do the job that police officers are meant to be doing. Imagine that there are transmitters from the posted speed sign and if you go over the speed, a fine will be awaiting you when you next log on to your inbox!

They can gather all the information they need about your speed without the black box.

It would be an interesting court case to see a speeding ticket with ONLY black box data...unlikely to hold up without backup data from another source...so why have a black box for that? Information about the vehicles performance and safety characteristics would be nice to have available to the owners, they could then have a source of information before they get to the "dealer" to get raped. The history of maintenance and problems would be nice to have when buying a used vehicle. (Carfax on-board?)

So why do they put black boxes on airplanes? Then they have to find it after a crash, and analyze it etc. Why don't they transmit all the pertinent flight data real-time to the FAA? (Don't tell me it's a technical issue - we transmit tons more data than they provide every day)

i think that flight recorders only saves the data for a few minutes before a crash

30 minutes, I think.

why don't the aircraft companies install a continuance recorder. that would make more sense. they could use it for maintainance schedulling, malfuntions, ect.

liability? powerful lobbiests?

Flight Data Recorder: "Most FDRs record approximately 17–25 hours worth of data in a continuous loop." Wikipedia

Cockpit Voice Recorder: "As of 2005 it is an FAA requirement that the recording duration is a minimum of thirty minutes, but the NTSB has long recommended that it should be at least two hours." Wikipedia

Thanks,

That makes sense.

Welcome, partner.

This discussion has some merit, so I'll throw in. Event Data Recorders (EDR) for automobiles are not the coming thing, they are here today. This is a link to the NHTSA FAQ page regarding EDRs. Although it is denied there, I believe it demonstrates the U.S. government has every intention of making this a mandatory reality in the very near future.

They may currently be installed in cars sold to rental fleets.

Would they have some way of telling if the driver was text-ing on their cell phone or putting on their makeup right before they rammed into you.

I have mixed feelings about these boxes. They could be used for good but could also be easily misused.

These sysems are currently installed on most cars. Best be careful

My son is a mechanic for a Dodge dealer and they have rejected warrenty claims based on recorded data that shows repeated abuse of the engine and drive train. Yes, the black boxes are here.

warranty issues would seem to be the original purpose. i'm sure that the infomation could be subpoenaed by the courts

Insurance companies are very interested in this data for obvious reasons.

Exactly my point. Get the insurance companies in the act and start to tighten the control loop on dangerous and incompetent drivers. There are entirely too many adult "children" ready to howl about their inalienable right to drive a car and their sacred privacy shielding their bad habits.

I see a future when we get some real control over vehicle operation on crowded highways and urban arterials. Perhaps we'll even achieve an enforceable system of driver training and graduated licensing that skilled drivers in the appropriate vehicles the rights to travel at high speeds under the right conditions.

Ed Weldon

I agree.

Given that we kill far more people with motor vehicles than with airplanes, it seems it would make sense to require more surveillance, more training, and more restrictive licensing for cars than is practiced in the airline industry. If the people who can't drive were killing only themselves, maybe I'd feel different... but even if they are only killing themselves off, it's the rest of us who pay for the EMT's, the hospital bills, etc.

(I am of the same opinion regarding motorcycle helmets. If the lack of use only affected the bozos who do not use them, then that would be a good thing -- Darwin effect. But someone else has to clean up the mess.)

Are we discussing "control" or "monitoring"?

If control, then I am a bit wary of that. I have a fine Chevy product that some engineer decided for me when I am spinning the wheels too fast. I got stuck in my own flat concrete driveway on a few inches of dry snow on an icy surface with studded winter tires, when a couple of wheels ended up in the lawn. I have pulled a 20 degree rise hill all winter so far, but got stuck on a flat surface. The engine cuts back to idle RPM when the wheels spin too much.

Ford has a system in the works that will automatically apply brakes if the sensors deem the vehicle is going into a corner too fast. Last thing I want is a brake coming on when I am headed into an icy corner.

The parallel parking systems on some cars now sound quite useful, but what happens when technology breaks down and a driver must now park the car himself and he hasn't done that in 10 years? For that matter, the corner braking system could lead to some spectacular crashes in a failure mode with drivers who no longer know the "feel" of their car in a corner.

Monitoring might not be bad if used to allow less lawsuits, or at least properly directed ones. There would definitely be some legitimate conflicts with this though. I drive to work on a single lane township road with a posted speed of 30mph. Absolutely no-one goes under 40 on this road. In 10 years I have never seen a wreck, beyond a slide off in a 90 degree corner, where all that was needed was a good 4 wheel drive to pull the car back onto the road. I can see a few of us getting increased insurance rates for speeding in an area where it isn't a problem. Those with monitors who would slow to 30 would probably be run over by someone in an older car with no monitoring system.

Let's avoid the discussion on what the government can do with this info, especially if misinterpreted. I can see FBI snoops around my property now because I had a tire go down in an area with a terrorist cell in it.

Although I personally think that, barring any specific incident, the idea the US gov't would be interested in my car's ('04 Acura) black box data to be silly, here are some thoughts on it.

A cars operating parameters - Throttle and steering inputs, brake inputs, Yaw-pitch-roll, O2 sensor output, coolant temperature, maybe fuel quantity and octane, etc - are useless data points without context. GPS systems provide context. Maybe the truly paranoid should avoid GPS systems and stick to paper maps. Of course, that also would include any GPS enabled phone like my B'Berry.

The last few seconds of data collected before the power was lost has already been used in a court case some time ago (I don't recall exactly when or where) to prove the driver was lying.