'Black box' reveals all about how you drive

Tacoma News Tribune ^ | June 29th, 2003 | MATTHEW FORDAHL

[nicollo]

The incidents cited here whereby the computer monitoring revealed substantial guilt are very limited in the real world.

The problem is that black boxes give only a snapshot of a circumstance. It can say nothing, for example, of the actions of the other car in an accident. Say that you're doing 10-over, and some idiot cuts in front of you. (And said idiot was driving an uninsured '78 Corolla.) Your word against the idiot's, until the idiot's lawyer gets ahold of your black box. Suddenly, it's all your fault for speeding.

Juries will be mightily susceptible to this information at the expense of greater realities.

[c-b 1]

They don't have that stuff on old cars, do they? I'm driving an 89 New Yorker.

No they don't, I drive an 86 Town Car.

[discostu]

Not at all, I've actually been involved in one of those suits, luckily the person in question (who was in the back seat of my car when we got in a rear-ender) took it too far and tried to claim we had no rear seatbelt at all, a couple of photos took care of that in short order. Remember seatbelt failure was the initial target for blame in the death of Dale Earnhardt, it's a pretty common charge.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

You were incorrect in post #108 stating that "The device is not recording anything that is done inside of your vehicle" and your public information justification argument is undermined.

[B Knotts]

It also records actions on private roads.

[B Knotts]

Those boxes must be psychic if they know to begin recording 5 seconds before impact :)

Pither: That tomato just ejected itself.
Gulliver: Really?
Pither: Yes.
Gulliver (embracing Pither): It works! It works!
(Crash)

[plusone]

Good Lord, I had forgotten about that skit! It was one of their best. He was in a prison cell, about to be executed, when his mother comes in with some tea and cookies. He relaxes, and says, 'oh, this was just a dream'. 'No' his mother corrects, 'this is the dream, you are in a prison cell about to be executed!'

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Yeah my sick world where the government isn't actually spying on you 24/ 7, where chips that provide the exact same information an accident investigator can aren't the nefarious nose of Big Brother, and where I don't have to lay doubt at every statement of corporate America. Sure is a sick world, filled with freedom and trust.

And I'll bet that you are one of those privacy whiners complaining that the government should get out of your bedroom! You hypocrite!!!

[thegreatbeast]

There isn't any means for these blackboxes to report anything to anybody without the box being directly accessed. The public won't stand still for these things to broadcast offenses to "authorities."

[PMCarey]

You were incorrect in post #108 stating that "The device is not recording anything that is done inside of your vehicle" and your public information justification argument is undermined.

Undermined? Sure. But not fatally so. Is wearing a seat belt a private issue? Personally I believe it is, but if you are pulled over and you are not wearing a seat belt, you can get fined. So the law allows for the officer to note whether or not a seat belt is in use.

Remember, I'm not arguing for this black box to be used in any other case besides a traffic collision. In those cases, whether or not a person was wearing a seat belt could be an important factor in determining cause and liability. And as someone else pointed out, the manufacturer has an interest in protecting themselves from lawsuits in which the driver claims that the seatbelt failed.

Aside from the seatbelt, which I think is marginal anyway, are they any other private acts that the black box records?

[Enough is ENOUGH]

I saw an interview on FOX News that explained it only tapes the last 5 seconds before an impact showing speed and whether the brakes were applied. It could exonerate a driver involved in an accident.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Undermined? Sure. But not fatally so. Is wearing a seat belt a private issue? Personally I believe it is, but if you are pulled over and you are not wearing a seat belt, you can get fined. So the law allows for the officer to note whether or not a seat belt is in use.

Although I did not say that your argument was fatally flawed by this error, your argument is predicated on the collected information being public in nature. This isn't the case and draws your argument into the area of otherwise private information.

Remember, I'm not arguing for this black box to be used in any other case besides a traffic collision. In those cases, whether or not a person was wearing a seat belt could be an important factor in determining cause and liability.

Seatbelt use is not a factor in accident cause or crash liability, only in post-accident survival and post accident citations.

And as someone else pointed out, the manufacturer has an interest in protecting themselves from lawsuits in which the driver claims that the seatbelt failed.

But you just reminded us that you are not in favor of "this black box to be used in any other case besides a traffic collision". Although the liability for seatbelt failure could be one particular instance related to a collision, this would be a mechanical liability and there should be ample physical proof after the accident. If the seatbelt didn't latch properly, chances are that the seatbelt usage sensor wasn't activated either. This seatbelt reading could just as easily be used by insurance companies to invalidate a life insurance policy. I would hate for a sensor failure to cause your family to be left completely unsupported in the midst of their loss of you.

Aside from the seatbelt, which I think is marginal anyway, are they any other private acts that the black box records?

My Ford service manual I quoted in post #52 is deliberately vague and open ended in what data may be included. The danger is that other information that you and I may consider private (long term driving history, radio station, voice records) may also eventually be included and used in situations other than immediately after a collision.

Back to your original argument, if all the information that these modules collects is (or should be) public information that a crash scene investigator can easily collect from other indicators, why not make the use of these devices optional for the vehicle owner?

[Truth29]

"There isn't any means for these blackboxes to report anything to anybody without being directly accessed."

What about hybrid technologies already emerging like OnStar. OnStar wirelessly reports certain data, like air bag deployment, to a central station in the event of an accident. How much more can be reported and how easily could this technology be expanded to routine monitoring? It could even be voluntary, to begin with. Insurance companies could offer a discount for consenting to such monitoring, for instance. Later, such real-time reporting could be made a requirement for granting automobile insurance.

These ideas have already been discussed and will neutralize the "people won't stand" argument. Once the technology exists, it will be used IMHO.

[discostu]

What's hypocritical about that? What's more hypocritical is to freak out because the government MIGHT use this chip for their advantage but to see no problem with them regulating how consenting adults entertain each other in the bedroom.

[thegreatbeast]

No one is talking about that yet. And I don't think the public would stand still for it.