cars are watching you

Associate
Joined
15 Jun 2006
Posts
2,178
Location
Amsterdam
I know this is the us, but it seems mister blair must copy everything that the americans are doing atm

(TIME.COM)

It was nearly 11 on a balmy June night in Muttontown, a New York City suburb. Two teenagers raced fast cars down a tree-lined thoroughfare. The 19-year-old, home from freshman year at Tulane University, steered a new Mercedes with a license plate that read 4MRNICE. The 17-year-old, a high school junior, accelerated a two-year-old Corvette. At an intersection, within a second of each other, both cars smashed into a red Jeep, killing a nurse and her fiancé. At the hospital, one of the youths told a detective they were driving 50 m.p.h. to 55 m.p.h.

But unbeknownst to the teens and their families, there was a hidden witness to the race. A palm-size microcomputer, embedded in the Corvette's air-bag system, revealed that the car was traveling 139 m.p.h. The data, downloaded by police after the vehicle was impounded, convinced a grand jury to indict the youths on murder charges, based on "depraved indifference to human life." In the end, they pleaded guilty to manslaughter and assault, and are now serving a three-year prison term. "The minute the prosecutors had the speed from the 'black box,' they upped the charges to murder," says Richard Slade, whose son Blake was driving the Mercedes. "They had what they needed to force a plea down our throats."

Few Americans realize that their cars can tattle on them. But among those in the know--civil libertarians, law enforcement agents and consumer advocates--a debate is surging over the black boxes technically called event-data recorders (EDRs). While some welcome them as a safety measure, others fear them as an Orwellian intrusion. Nearly one-third of vehicles on the road today--and 64% of this year's models--contain the little-noticed chips and sensors. Unlike flight recorders on airplanes, these microcomputers don't capture voices, but they can retain up to 20 seconds of data on speed, braking and acceleration in the lead-up to a crash. For virtually all Ford and General Motors cars, and for a few models from other automakers, accident investigators can buy a modem-like device to plug laptops into EDRs and download the information.

This week, the Federal Government is expected to issue rules requiring automakers to standardize the recorders and make the information uniformly downloadable with commercial software. Thus, some manufacturers who have guarded black-box data as proprietary will have to make it accessible. In a nod to critics, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would also mandate that the devices be disclosed to car buyers.

The new regulations are likely to make the black boxes better known and therefore even more controversial. Some consumer advocates, such as Public Citizen's Joan Claybrook, want tougher rules compelling automakers to install EDRs in every car because objective crash data will lead to the design of safer cars and highways. Privacy activists want the government to prevent police and insurance companies from checking drivers' black boxes without permission. "We have a surveillance monster growing in our midst," says Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union. "These black boxes are going to get more sophisticated and take on new capabilities."

Such fears have prompted 10 states, beginning with California in 2004, to pass laws obliging automakers to tell buyers if their vehicles have recorders; the laws also restrict the downloading of data without car owners' consent. Eleven other states are considering similar legislation.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Representatives Mary Bono, a Republican from California, and Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano are sponsoring a House bill that would allow people to turn off their recorders--a provision that would require a complex redesign of air-bag systems. If EDRs are eventually installed in cars that can retain more than several seconds of data, says Bono, "information could be collected about our driving habits, and we might not even know it is happening."

Actually, such electronic snooping is already occurring in a limited way. Some transport companies equip their trucks with black boxes that can continuously record the hours and driving patterns of employees. Similar monitors are used by fleet owners for company cars. And parents can purchase devices for their teenagers' cars that capture up to 300 hours of data, downloadable onto a personal computer. Even more intrusively, the software can trigger alarms when the teenager exceeds a certain speed. But automakers would find it too expensive and unpopular to routinely install long-term recorders, insists W.R. Haight, an EDR expert and the director of San Diego's Collision Safety Institute: "Only paranoid alarmist pinheads suggest this technology could be expanded to spy on our everyday driving."

Nonetheless, privacy advocates are concerned that black boxes combined with global positioning systems, which will soon be common in automobiles, could lead to real-time surveillance, with police issuing speeding tickets for infractions never witnessed in person and insurance companies raising rates based on electronically supervised driving patterns. In what some see as a slippery slope, Ohio-based Progressive Insurance has offered 3.6 million customers the possibility of a $100 annual rebate if they install black boxes that gather six months of data and share that information. The theory: drivers proven safe should pay lower premiums.

But what if companies eventually demand access to EDR data before insuring your car? Last year North Dakota and Arkansas passed laws barring the use of black boxes to set rates or settle claims. What's important is to have a choice of whether to be monitored, says Robert Talley of the National Motorists Association. "Sometimes you just like the idea of being free in a free country."

But while politicians debate exactly how to deploy the devices, police and prosecutors are embracing them as a revolutionary tool. And in at least 19 states, judges have admitted the data as evidence in criminal trials. In Arizona, a Roman Catholic bishop was convicted in a hit-and-run accident after his car's black box showed that he had braked before impact, indicating that he had seen the pedestrian. A Massachusetts woman was sentenced to two years in prison after her SUV skidded on ice and hit a tree, killing her passenger. The car's recorder proved she was traveling 58 m.p.h. in a 40 m.p.h. zone. In Georgia, after a train hit a car, the lone auto survivor sued the railroad for $12 million. But a jury threw out the case when the car's EDR revealed it had halted on the tracks before the crash.

Black boxes exonerate drivers too: a Fort Myers, Fla., man was acquitted of reckless speeding, despite a witness's testimony that he was traveling over 90 m.p.h., because his truck's black box registered only 60 m.p.h.

In a Nassau County, N.Y., courtroom last year, almost everyone wept when Blake Slade and Kyle Soukup were sentenced to three years in prison. The youths cried as they apologized. The families of the betrothed who died in the Muttontown crash spoke of justice and forgiveness. Even the judge dabbed his eyes and choked up.

But the prosecution and the defense remain bitterly divided over the role of the black box. Slade's father Richard calls it "a violation of civil rights," while the assistant district attorney, Michael Walsh, praises it as "the strongest piece of evidence in the case." Neither had heard of EDRs before the crash, but today both agree on one point: motorists should be aware that their cars have recorders, and it's to be hoped that the knowledge will encourage them to drive safely. "Otherwise," Slade warns, "the black box can come back to haunt you."
__________________
 
Permabanned
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Posts
25,896
Location
Wigan
Thats a great idea, I for one dont drive at stupid speeds and I would glady have a chip or recorded in my car and every car.

These kids in America cant drink so they have all this money, so why dont they save it for the track, get everybody together and go to a track and enjoy driving sage.
 
Permabanned
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Posts
25,896
Location
Wigan
But the prosecution and the defense remain bitterly divided over the role of the black box. Slade's father Richard calls it "a violation of civil rights," while the assistant district attorney, Michael Walsh, praises it as "the strongest piece of evidence in the case." Neither had heard of EDRs before the crash, but today both agree on one point: motorists should be aware that their cars have recorders, and it's to be hoped that the knowledge will encourage them to drive safely. "Otherwise," Slade warns, "the black box can come back to haunt you."

Oh thats good.

If my son had killed someone in a car doing 139mph in a street, I'd love him but he would deserve prision, speeding like that on a street is somthing you just dont do.

Do people not understand when you get in a fast car, drive very fast on a street with poor road surface. do they think they wont crash or someone wont be driving and just pull out, heck people crash at 30mph on quiet streets.

139mph ignorant *****

dafloppyone said:
however I will say that its just something the insurance companies will find a way to exploit

Exploit? who the bad drivers or the good drivers.

If an insurance company wanted to review my yearly record of driving Id let them. Only people who speed and drive like chavs will suffer, compaines will look at the record and say £300 a month please.

It would make people to drive safer to lower there insurance cost.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
4 Nov 2002
Posts
15,508
Location
West Berkshire
dafloppyone said:
heh I dont drive ;) and tend to avoid giving an opinion. Just posting for others ;)
You'd do far better if you posted that opinion. Just copy/pasting stuff from elsewhere doesn't really contribute much.

Anyway, my personal opinion - not that I drive. I'm all for them, but drivers should be made aware that they are installed. Maybe, just maybe, that might be a little more incentive for them to take care on the roads.
 
Permabanned
Joined
18 Jan 2005
Posts
1,108
cheets64 said:
Oh thats good.

If my son had killed someone in a car doing 139mph in a street, I'd love him but he would deserve prision, speeding like that on a street is somthing you just dont do.

Do people not understand when you get in a fast car, drive very fast on a street with poor road surface. do they think they wont crash or someone wont be driving and just pull out, heck people crash at 30mph on quiet streets.

139mph ignorant *****

Have you ever driven at 139mph?
 

233

233

Soldato
Joined
21 Nov 2004
Posts
13,500
Location
Wishaw
i've regularly driven at speeds in excess of 139mph but doing so in that kind of environment deserves a custodial sentence whether you hit anyone or not

bloody idiots deserve everything they get and more,


theres a time and a place for that sort of behaviour its called strips and tracks


as for trackers hell i'm all for it :)

do they record time spent on the back of rac trucks too :) if so the insurance company would end up paying me for the 205 :)
 
Soldato
Joined
22 May 2003
Posts
10,855
Location
Wigan
139mph is not safe on the majority of roads, except perhaps some sections of motorway at certain times and even then, it has a greatly increased risk compared to say 70 or 100mph.

Mainly due to reaction time i would say, because the distance traveled is going to be so much greater due to the higher speed, new sports cars and high end saloons are easily capable of traveling at such a speed however.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,678
Location
Castle Anthrax
Some of you put far too much faith in insurance companies. They already use every trick in the book to try and get out of paying a claim and this will just make things worse.

insurance man said:
The terms of your policy say that your cover is void if you do not drive within the laws of the road. Your tracker says that you accelerated to 73mph whilst joining a motorway 6 weeks ago, as a result we'll not be paying out for your completely unrelated accident 3 weeks later.

The day these things become compulsory is the day I hand over my driving licence.
 
Associate
Joined
17 Nov 2005
Posts
931
This would be a damn good thing for all cars, provided as said it can only be used to support related incidents, which a 20 second tracker would do just fine. If your driving around like a pillock then you should face the music, when you make things go **** up.
 
Associate
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
1,072
Location
Welwyn Garden City
Morba said:
i see nothing wrong here, providing the only information that is used is relevent to the exact time (give or take a few minutes) of the incident.

Yup, if the case that you could only access the information from the source if an accident justified it then there is nothing to lose.
 
Permabanned
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Posts
25,896
Location
Wigan
Berger said:
139mph is not safe on the majority of roads, except perhaps some sections of motorway at certain times and even then, it has a greatly increased risk compared to say 70 or 100mph.

Mainly due to reaction time i would say, because the distance traveled is going to be so much greater due to the higher speed, new sports cars and high end saloons are easily capable of traveling at such a speed however.

But anything could happen, an animal could run out infront of you, you could have a blow out, There is no space on a motorway for an accident to happen at 139mph, I wouldnt like to hit the central resveration at 139mph.

I dont think I would be confortable at those speeds on a motorway but I am not slating anybody for doing it.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
very bad news.. :(...
Start recording that, what will they do next. Start monitoring everything you do on a PC which then uploads any illegal data.

It starts of sounding like a good idea, But when it gets more complex then it qwickly turns into a bad idea.

It measures speed at the moment, but how long before it measures everything(break, emmisons, bascily anything with a sensor, could esily be linked up to your stereo.) . Then how long will it take to record all your driving and not just 20seconds. ect ect.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Mar 2004
Posts
475
Location
Portsmouth
No mention of motorcycles. Anyone know if the latest models are fitted with similar devices ? Reason I ask is most of the time motorcyclists don't survive the higher speed accidents, I guess it could be beneficial to identify whether they caused the accidents which led to their deaths.
 
Associate
Joined
23 Nov 2003
Posts
755
I would feel uncomfortable knowing that there was a little black box recording everything I did in my car. These things always sound like a great idea, but its just the usual sacrifice of privacy (which I find hilarious how easily people will give it up) in the name of making things safer for us all. Of course it will just end up in automatic fines, fees for using the roads and so on.

Also, do they really need a black box to tell them what speed they were traveling? surely a collision at 130mph+ is easy to tell from one at 50mph :/
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,772
they killed 2 people, got 3 years in prison and then complain :mad: (thought the states was tougher than here?)

They should get a absolute minimum of 5 years imho
 
Back
Top Bottom