[Ben Mugged]

Good thing or bad thing? I know this article is dated 3 Oct but it doesn't appear to have been discussed.

[dila813]

Right to privacy dictate the removal of these devices from cars.

These devices are designed to prosecute the owner, not to defend. They don't tell you what was going on around the vehicle, only the reactions by the driver.

[Snickersnee]

At common law, a man's servant could not testify against him since the servant was considered to be an "extension" of the man. (Part of this survives in the prohibition against spouses testifying against each other.) An argument against this will begin from Fifth Amendment grounds. Who knows where it will end....

[CBart95]

What? Are you asking if material evidence is good or bad?
Maybe it depends on whether you have something to hide or not.
Your'e not one of those creepy suspicious types who think Big Brother is nosing around in your garbage so as to imprison you for life? Are you?
Or perhaps you think "freedom" is a license to steal and kill?
What do you think? Since you asked.

[oceanview]

18MPH over the limit gets you a reckless homicide conviction and 2 years? that is crazy. most speed limits are set artificially low to encourage ticket revenue.

[newzjunkey]

It's disturbing in a sense given that you cannot cross examine the data recorder and one should have to prove the recorder was functioning to specs and all code must be available for inspection. This is almost self-incrimination but driving is a privilege *not* a right, cars are regulated and licensed for emissions, safety. Drivers are licensed. So when considering the narrow scope of autos, I do not have a problem with this device being used in a court of law as a portion of evidence. I'd be more concerned and suspicious if it were the only evidence.

ALL drivers should be made aware of these devices at time of purchase and be required to initial their having been told about the device, its purposes and possible consequences.

[Jeff Gordon]

Good thing.

Most people obey the law when they know they are being watched. Now, more drivers will know they are being watched.

The one thing that would be more effective is for all drivers to be armed. An armed society is a polite society.

[Texas Eagle]

Aren't there laws preventing self-incrimination?

[newzjunkey]

It appears these "black boxes" are required for sold, rented or leased vehicles by law in California as signed by Grey Davis in Sept 2003. California Vehicle Code Section 9951

The IEEE approved an initial EDR standard at the end of 2004.

[Fierce Allegiance]

I think it's a pure big-brother situation. Does anyone really deserve to live with a camera on them all the time? More government control is not a good thing.

[mc6809e]

Despite what some of the almost criminally irresponsible "I didn't do it and you can't prove anything!" Republicans here say, this is a good thing.

The more facts you have in an accident, especially one involving death, the more likely you are to have justice done. And justice is more important than privacy.

Far from being used to always convict drivers, I believe black box evidence will also exonerate the innocent in the same way that DNA evidence does (also objected to by some privacy advocates).

[BlueStateDepression]

I like the boxes. If going 58 in a 40 zone I think it shows the problem quite well. I would add that it would show going 40 in a 50 zone just the same and thus work both ways, to provide Truth about what the vehicle was doing.

We look to black boxes( which are actually orange) in airplanes to tell us what happened I think it is a great idea for vehicles as well.

As for the privacy detractors, I would offer that there is no right to privacy to break the law. 58 in a 40 is clearly doing so. Claiming privacy in this context is actually backing the hiding of truth.

The truth shall set you free.......if you are innocent.

[Figment]

I don't believe this is a factual story. First of all GM's black boxes are known as SDM's not ERD's and this is a source not known to many. Auto body repair news? I'd like to see some corroboration on this story

[G Larry]

Make sure you know whether your car has one.
Then you can be prepared to instruct your attorney, in any event.

[Tench_Coxe]

I'm sure you'll get the " driving is a priviledge, not a right " folks to defend this.

[mc6809e]

This person was going 18 mph over the speed limit on ice.

That made her twice as likely to have a crash. This black box helped put the responsibility on the person at fault. That's a good thing.

[Still Thinking]

Bad thing. The owner of the vehicle owns the data. This data should only be used when it benefits the owner of the data.

[DJ MacWoW]

"Don't buy me a new car" ping

[nightdriver]

Another reason why I prefer to keep my old beaters.

I drove a GM rental car a while back that even had the tell-tale sign of the computer controlling the starter. It means that the government, through that "NorthStar" system can disable your car for whatever reason they dream up.

[Smokin' Joe]

...or black box, in her GMC Yukon reported that Zimmerman was driving 58 mph in a 40 mph zone—on an icy road,...

Time to reassess this. If you are going uphill on ice, your indicated speed (speedometer) may be less than the actual vehicle speed if there is a loss of traction.

Going down hill on an icy road, the one way to guarantee loss of control is to hit the brakes. You are often better off to let engine compression slow you as well as it will and stay off the binders.

If the tattle tale isn't telling the whole story (terrain, etc.) then it bears false witness.

[Old Professer]

2200RPM using a 30" diameter tire, a 3.08 differential gear ratio and a .70 overdrive works out to about 39MPH; on ice, the driver should have switched to a lower gear and not applied the brakes.

The best way to view this case is as an appellate test stand for future court cases.

All that said, anything about 5-15MPH is too fast most times.