Skip to comments.
Car's 'black box' leads to charges against owner
MLive.com ^
| September 03, 2005
| Tom Rademacher and John Agar
Posted on 09/03/2005 1:46:51 PM PDT by elkfersupper
GRAND RAPIDS -- An automotive "black box" showed that a Jenison woman was speeding when her car hit and seriously injured a Kent County Road Commission worker patching a highway, Kent County prosecutors said Friday.
Prosecutors charged Joanne Schaap, 48, with speeding in a construction zone, causing an accident. She faces up to one year in jail and up to a $1,000 fine if convicted, along with three points on her driving record, authorities said.
Brooks Hollemans, 27, of Rockford, suffered near-fatal head injuries in the May 24 crash on Int. 196 near Fuller Avenue NE, where he was filling a pothole. Early on, he was not expected to survive. His family considered organ donations and funeral homes before he awoke after nearly three weeks in a coma. He will need months of rehabilitation.
Advertisement
Three months after the crash, Assistant Prosecutor Jamie Frain on Friday signed a misdemeanor warrant accusing Schaap of a moving violation -- speeding, causing injury to a construction worker.
"What we've been waiting for is the crash data recorder to tell us how fast she was going at impact," Prosecutor William Forsyth said. "People try to guesstimate, and they're all over the ballpark."
Event Date Recorder technology is included in 40 million vehicles across the country, said Thomas Kowalick, a North Carolina professor who has written on the subject, including "Fatal Exit: The Automotive Black Box Debate."
He also was chairman of a committee to develop global standards for automotive black boxes, which can provide investigators the vehicle's circumstances at the moment of impact. He thinks the data compiled from the technology will make travel safer in coming years by providing crash information to make safety improvements.
The technology is increasingly available, with computers playing major roles in automobiles, but it is not without debates about privacy.
Kowalick said the technology captures only the moment of impact -- it isn't a monitor of driving behavior or routes.
"The technology speaks for the victims," he said.
State police used it to determine the speed of the car that hit Hollemans ranged from 65 mph to 79 mph upon impact. The posted speed limit was 45 mph where Hollemans was working, Forsyth said.
"From our review of the data, we're of the opinion it's closer to the 79 figure than it is the 65," Forsyth said. "In any case, either speed is too fast."
Schaap had previously been ticketed for going 40 mph in a 30-mph zone in Wyoming in 1998, secretary of state records showed. She could not be reached for comment.
While signs threaten motorists with prison and significant fines for injuring or killing a construction worker, prosecutors' facts of the case fit elements of the misdemeanor charge.
Schaap's alleged traffic violation would have had to be more serious than speeding.
William Mills, a Grand Rapids attorney representing Hollemans, said Friday the victim and his family is pleased something is being done to call attention for driver safety in work zones.
Mills said the family was pursuing a civil suit "regardless" of whether criminal charges were to be filed.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: bigbrother; nannystate; righttodrive
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141 next last
I don't know where to start.
I guess I'll start by starting my 1984 Landcruiser. No spies on board.
To: elkfersupper
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm glad the idiot driver got nailed, but the invasive nature of the technology used is abhorrent. England's slide into Big Brother socialism began with this sort of nonsense.
2
posted on
09/03/2005 1:49:50 PM PDT
by
Prime Choice
(E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
To: Prime Choice
I'm with you on the idiot driver part.
I'm wondering how you cross-examine the "witness", however.
We already have traffic violations and crimes where people cannot know how to comply with the law, for which there is no defense, and in which there are no victims.
I'm just wondering how far we're willing to go.
To: elkfersupper
I guess, but I have to say this woman has no regard for safety. Whats the difference if they use scene indicators or the black box in your car? If you are pulled over for DUI and they use your own breath to convict you that is about as "invasion of privacy" as it gets. Next time when she plans a trip maybe she will plan to be there early.
4
posted on
09/03/2005 1:54:37 PM PDT
by
pennyfarmer
(Shiite Muslim named Bob.)
To: elkfersupper
Ain't technology wonderful?
Not sure whether to put the sarcasm tag on or off
5
posted on
09/03/2005 1:54:53 PM PDT
by
Responsibility1st
(Figure out what you would die for...then live for it. -Anne Rivers Siddons)
To: Prime Choice
,,, England's slide into Big Brother socialism began with this sort of nonsense. I think their slide started long before technology this sophisticated was available; maybe it accelerated it, though.
6
posted on
09/03/2005 1:55:18 PM PDT
by
doc11355
To: elkfersupper
[...automotive black boxes, which can provide investigators the vehicle's circumstances at the moment of impact. He thinks the data compiled from the technology will make travel safer in coming years by providing crash information to make safety improvements. The technology is increasingly available, with computers playing major roles in automobiles, but it is not without debates about privacy.]
As long as these types of devices remain an option of the person buying the car, I see no problem with it. I can choose to have it on board in the hope that it will vindicate me if I'm involved in an accident that is not my fault at the risk of the opposite outcome.
But there is always the risk that the supporters of "Big Brother" will eventually get their way and mandate this to all vehicles.
7
posted on
09/03/2005 1:58:08 PM PDT
by
spinestein
(The facts fairly and honestly presented, truth will take care of itself.)
To: Eaker; Flyer
You can install On-Star Big Brother when you buy my truck from me.
Until then, sod off you wankers.
(It's a Brit article.)
8
posted on
09/03/2005 1:58:56 PM PDT
by
humblegunner
(If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.)
To: doc11355
I think their slide started long before technology this sophisticated was available; maybe it accelerated it, though. Agreed and amended.
9
posted on
09/03/2005 1:59:33 PM PDT
by
Prime Choice
(E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
To: Prime Choice
If you're not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to worry about.
< /sarcasm> (<---And it's pretty sad this tag is even needed for such a statement here on Free Republic)
10
posted on
09/03/2005 2:00:12 PM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: spinestein
The facts fairly and honestly presented, truth will take care of itself.You're confusing facts with evidence...
11
posted on
09/03/2005 2:00:26 PM PDT
by
null and void
(It's all like watching a train wreck, in slow motion, from the front of the train.)
To: humblegunner
(It's a Brit article.) I dunno about that. I'm pretty sure Grand Rapids is in Michigan, U.S.A.
12
posted on
09/03/2005 2:01:26 PM PDT
by
Prime Choice
(E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
To: inquest
Heh. My response to that is, "If you're not a voyeur, you shouldn't need to watch."
Pisses 'em off.
13
posted on
09/03/2005 2:02:19 PM PDT
by
Prime Choice
(E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
To: elkfersupper
If it would have happened in Illinois, she'd be spending 14 years in jail and a mega fine ....
14
posted on
09/03/2005 2:02:51 PM PDT
by
SkyDancer
("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad - Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
To: pennyfarmer
Whats the difference if they use scene indicators or the black box in your car? If you are pulled over for DUI and they use your own breath to convict you that is about as "invasion of privacy" as it gets.My point exactly. How do you cross-examine a machine?
By the way, all of this, including the DUI breath test, constitutes gathering evidence without a warrant.
"Implied Consent" and all that.
To: elkfersupper
Black Box, BB, Big Brother, BB
Hmm?
16
posted on
09/03/2005 2:03:54 PM PDT
by
TheOtherOne
(I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
To: Prime Choice
"If you're not a voyeur, you shouldn't need to watch."Filed for future reference.
LOL!
To: TheOtherOne
Enjoy driving while it lasts. Within 30 years, your car will drive you - courtesy of the gov't.
18
posted on
09/03/2005 2:08:54 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(Don't Tread on Me; Live Free or Die)
To: Responsibility1st
Ain't technology wonderful? Not sure whether to put the sarcasm tag on or offI don't blame you. There's one more "technological" advance I'm hoping will come along before too long: The ability to say when. Because at some point, it's going to pass the point where we'll really regret it, and turning back won't be so easy.
19
posted on
09/03/2005 2:09:03 PM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: pennyfarmer
[If you are pulled over for DUI and they use your own breath to convict you that is about as "invasion of privacy" as it gets.]
Not if constitutionally valid procedure is followed.
In order to pull over a motorist, there needs to be a "probable cause" recognizable to the officer, such as speeding, weaving, or running a stop sign. This is why random "roadside safety checks" should be unconstitutional as there is no "probable cause".
In order to administer a DUI test, the officer must have reason to suspect drinking and driving, such as slurred speech, or odor of alcoholic beverages, or open alcohol containers visible in the vehicle.
Finally, any DUI test, including a breathalyser test, is subject to refusal by the suspect, although the law provides consequences to refusal of consent.
20
posted on
09/03/2005 2:10:10 PM PDT
by
spinestein
(The facts fairly and honestly presented, truth will take care of itself.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson