Canon Puts Efficiency On Press
When it comes to keeping their teen drivers safe, even privacy-wary parents may be willing to entertain the idea of a black box.
Some moms and dads are turning to Road Safety International, a Thousand Oaks, Calif., maker of onboard computer systems for vehicles such as ambulances. The company has developed a special black box aimed at making newly minted young drivers safer on the road.
"It's about real-time feedback in the vehicle when they drive outside of the safe operating envelope," Larry Selditz, Road Safety's CEO, said.
Road Safety's RS-1000, a black box that sells for $280, connects to a car's onboard electronic system and measures the car's speed, as well as its cornering and braking forces. The box emits a Geiger-counter-like tone if the driver exceeds a certain level of speed, cornering or braking. After sounding the first tone, the box emits a loud, steady alarm until the activity ceases. The box also records details such as a car's speed and delivers them in reports that can be downloaded to a PC for review by parents.
The tones sounded by the box function like an electronic driving instructor, helping to guide young drivers on the road, said Selditz, who came up with the idea when his son first started driving.
As adults, "I think we're safe drivers because of a whole bunch of near misses," Selditz said. "I feel that our job is to put (teen drivers) in a conservative space so that they have time and distance...to react."
Measures such as graduated licensing systems, which start teens off with a learner's permit, have helped reduce death rates among the youngest drivers--the number of 16-year-olds involved in fatal crashes fell by 26 percent between 1993 and 2003, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. But teenage drivers are still about four times more likely than older drivers to be involved in crashes, the IIHS says.
Still, privacy advocates, lawmakers and many parents tend to be wary of some types of black boxes. There are few regulations on how the data the boxes record can be utilized, and the information has been used against drivers in court.
Following a series of crashes in Donna Gompert's town in which teens were killed, the Southern California resident and mother of four decided to invest in an RS-1000 from Road Safety. After a short time, the box revealed that her daughter, a newly licensed 16-year-old at the time, had driven 83 mph.
"I think that was the real turning point for us," Gompert said. "It made us true believers."
Gompert has since used the RS-1000 to help her other daughters. "It will change anyone's behavior," she asserted.
Although she is aware of privacy groups' concerns about factory-installed black boxes, Gompert said safety took precedence over her privacy concerns.
"I do have mixed emotions about that--as far as an agency being able to use data without my consent--but I made an informed decision," she said.
Selditz declined to discuss the number of RS-1000s that Road Safety has sold so far. But he says the company continues to develop the device. Later this year, he added, it will come out with add-ons that can locate a vehicle.
--John G. Spooner
NHTSA's event data recorder page
NHTSA's rules proposal for event data recorders
Vetronix crash data retrieval system page
Web site of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Accident Reconstruction Network's EDR page
Insurance companies try out auto black boxes
Pay-as-you-drive car insurance
Automobile black box sends driver to jail
A black box for human health
Copy editors: Steven Musil, Yvonne Guzman
Design: Ellen Ng
Production: Patrick Rondeau
By John G. Spooner
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
March 9, 2005 4:00 AM PST
As James Fitzgerald wheeled his tractor-trailer down Interstate 40 near the Nashville International Airport last summer, little did he know that a small black box aboard the truck might later help clear him of homicide charges.
His truck collided with a police car, killing an officer who had stopped to assist a disabled vehicle. Police alleged that Fitzgerald was traveling at least 80 mph at the time of the crash, and he was jailed on charges of vehicular homicide and aggravated assault.
But the 25-year-old trucker pleaded not guilty, and when his trial begins this summer, the black box will be his star witness. According to Fitzgerald's lawyer, Patrick McNally, data from the device shows that the truck was traveling at the legal limit of 70 mph.
"I think juries are much more inclined to rely upon electronic devices that measure speed than personal opinions of speed," McNally said in an interview with CNET News.com. "We live in an electronic age, and we've all learned to rely on electronic devices."
The case represents an unusual twist in the controversial use of digital information in cars. Although Fitzgerald views his truck's electronic data as a benefit, others say such technologies contribute to an increasingly Orwellian society where individuals' every move is monitored. Many are particularly galled by the notion of applying these technologies to the automobile on the open road, a symbol of American freedom that often represents a rite of passage from adolescence to adulthood.
The debate has intensified as manufacturers increasingly turn to high technology to differentiate their products in the hypercompetitive auto market. This tech trend has produced many features that have been credited with improving safety, including airbags, antilock brakes and stability control systems.
The annual death toll from car accidents fell from 43,005 in 2002 to 42,643 in 2003, according to data from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, or NHTSA. Injuries from accidents also declined. The agency attributes the changes to more-crashworthy cars and increases in safety belt use.
Despite these operational benefits, however, critics see a dark side to the use of information about motorists derived from devices such as black boxes. Noting that many drivers are unaware that their actions are being recorded, they say rights to privacy could be violated in the absence of regulations governing how the data can be used and interpreted.
"If you were squealing your tires or not wearing your seat belt, they'll say, 'We're going to start sticking you with fines so that you won't do that anymore,'" said Eric Skrum, a spokesman for the National Motorists Association, a group that describes itself as dedicated to protecting the rights and interests of motorists.
Skrum's group, along with the Consumers Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, are among those calling for the establishment of rules ensuring the protection of privacy in the use of black-box data. The Consumers Union and EPIC have raised their concerns in filings to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
In a June 2004 announcement, the NHTSA proposed requiring manufacturers to include information about black boxes in owners' manuals for cars equipped with the technology. Although the federal traffic agency continues to gather feedback on its latest set of black-box recommendations, it's too early to say how the input will shape the agency's final ruling, a representative said. For now, the NHTSA has left it up to the courts to decide whether to admit the data as evidence.
According to the New York Law Journal, for example, a judge allowed information from a black box to be used at the trial of two New York men charged in a collision that left two people dead. The device installed in the men's car, a 2002 Chevrolet Corvette, indicates that it was traveling at 130 mph immediately before the crash.
A few states are joining the debate. A California law that went into effect in July 2004 requires manufacturers to provide customers with information on black boxes in cars and states that the data cannot be obtained without a court order or the owner's permission.
In North Dakota, Republican state Sen. Ray Holmberg has submitted a bill that would require automakers to disclose the presence of the boxes in new cars' owners' manuals and require dealers to disclose information about them in purchase contracts. The bill would give control of data collected by black boxes to vehicle owners, stating that the data can be downloaded by someone other than the vehicle owner only if it's being used for safety research or diagnosing problems, or if it's court-ordered or needed for crash reconstructions or investigations by law enforcement. The bill would also prevent black-box data from being used in court, unless ordered by the court or allowed by participants in the proceedings.
Holmberg says he believes other state legislators will follow California and North Dakota and begin regulating how black-box data can be used.
"Once it's accepted as something under your seat, it's very easy for, I would say, do-gooders, to say, 'We want to gather more information,'" Holmberg told News.com. However, he said, "I want to make it clear that they do have legitimate purposes for safety and gathering data regarding how a car handles in an accident. I don't have any problem with that."
Various estimates show that 15 percent of the 270 million cars on the road in the United States today contain some type of data-recording device. Roughly 65 percent of the 16.7 million new cars sold in the United States during 2004 were equipped with them, said Kevin Mixer, an analyst with Boston-based market research company AMR Research.
That means the number of black boxes on U.S. roads will rise significantly as newer models are sold. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in its announcement last June recommended that manufacturers install the devices in all vehicles beginning in September 2008, though automakers are not required to do so.
General Motors has installed the most black boxes to date, although Ford has also used data recorders widely in its lines. BMW, Chrysler, Honda, Isuzu and Toyota install boxes in some models, Mixer said.
Proponents of the boxes argue that concerns over privacy are overblown. Manufacturers might want to use the data to understand how their vehicles are performing, Mixer said, but "they're not interested in the fact that Kevin has a lead foot."
Others aren't so sure. "If they were being honest about this and it was for research, they could do this through a volunteer process," said Skrum of the National Motorists Association.
From a legal perspective, McNally views black-box data as he does other evidence obtained through a search warrant or wiretap. Courts must balance the competing interests of a vehicle owner's right to privacy against an outside party's interest in knowing specific information.
"When you distill it out to its bare element," McNally said, "a person who's driven a car in a proper manner generally has no problem with someone checking the event data recorder." 
worth of driving data in the black box. Anything else is designed
to invade your privacy.
Arguments of "You won't object if you have nothing to hide"
smacks in the fact of innocent until PROVEN guilty. Oh, and you
are required, by law, to provide that proof -- and pay for it.
would prove you either a safe driver or unsafe, period.
I'm for this as everyday I see drivers cause accidents, break the
law (besides speeding) and this would help the innocent in
defense.
How many ambulance chasers would be disqualified for their
defense of someone that made an illegal lane change, at high
speed, resulting in an accident, and this box recorded it all.
There should also be severe punishment for anyone tampering
with it.
Wait till you lose someone to vehicluar homicide, then you'll
wish otherwise.
Until we have clean, widespread, convenient, mass transit in the
US, the car will be the means of transport. And proving that the
other driver was at fault will be up to a black box (can't wait for
the NAACP to object to that name!...).
to invade your privacy.>>
Tell that to F1 engine designers.
Tell that to GE turbine manufacturers.
Tell that to motorcycle engine tuners.
Tell that to any person with an interest in monitoring their engine for any reason they can come up with. Like me. I installed my own "black box."
Sorry, but this technology has been used by many people for many years. And all of them used it for purposes other than invading personal privacy. You are quite simply... wrong.
This black box? It's here to stay. It'll never go away, and soon it'll be ilegal to drive without one. Eventually, it'll be monitored on a yearly or monthly basis and you'll be fined, or your insurance will go up, based on the data in the car.
American Freedom? What a joke! The leash grows tighter every year.
But don't worry. As long as you don't do any wrong, you have nothing to fear. Just remember, that *you* don't define right and wrong. Big brother does that.
Wow... look at that. Speculation! FUD! Future predictions with no evidence! A black box by itself does not violate privacy in any way. The LAWS you speculate on DO. See the difference?
Now, where is your supporting evidence suggesting that the laws WILL be created? No speculative evidence, please. No conspiracy theories, please. How about the names of congressmen trying to introduce bills that we can examine?
What? There are none? hmmmmm.......
PS:
Spoon Jabber isn't my real name. ;)
Copyright Law. DMCA.
Then, why don't you do a quick look at what the gun laws have been changed to. If that's still not enough, then tak a look at what the RIAA and the MPAA are doing with the laws that they helped create.
Brave New World : Aldous Huxley
1984 : Shaw
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Movie : Blade Runner): Philip K. Dick
Minority Report : Philip K. Dick
Butterfly Revolution : (can not remember the author)
Roller Ball (Movie of the same Title) : Don't remember the author
Dune : Frank Herbert
These are all books based on technology run amuck, do not get me wrong I believe in technology at a controlled pace. I've been into computational devices since the age of 12 (analog computational devices), I am 54 now. Just that all information does not have to collected or if collected used.
Americans must defend their civil liberties and demand that these devices are opt-in only. Praise to the story author for calling greater attention to this trend. I'd love to see privacy advocates take it up as one of their next big issues going forward.
Okay. I'll go along with that even though there are arguments to the contrary. But a black-box does not violate this right. In any way. Turn it off. Pull it out. Erase the memory. Fudge the data. As of RIGHT NOW, any data collected by a vehicle's black box is your property.
Until legislation controls how the data is collected and used, the black-box is incapable of violating your rights. Anything else is pure speculation at this point.
they cannot be disabled nor can they be removed and ford even told me that if i was able to find a way to bypass or remove it, the warranty on my f250 would be void.
Illegal? That doesn't slow down the satellite decoder guys and in this case is justified to thwart the DOJ from pounding one more nail in our coffins.
I agree that there's a very fine line between gathering information to build safer cars and encroaching on personal privacy. Rather than focusing on IF these devices encroach (they do, and it will get more common, not less) let's focus on setting reasonable guidelines and standards so that consumers know what to expect. This isn't unique - how long until microwave ovens sense an RFID tag and note that the last time that item was purchased, 3 minutes was too long to cook...so it automatically reduces to 2:30.? Is this an invasion of my privacy? Where is the line?
the black box turned off?
First - I don't own the plane. I own my car.
Second - you are already treated as a criminal for flying (and
thusly tracked). Don't think so? Somehow believe being asked to
strip down, provide all your belongings for inspection doesn't
demean you as a human being because it's for your safety?
Finally -- you have to draw the line. If you do not, then the
government will draw it for you, and it'll determine is that the
line is behind you (so you can't even see it). Mind you, our
government has done some very horrible things to its citizens in
the past, all with "good reason". If you believe you can trust the
government to "do the right thing", you are just plain naive.
expectation of privacy. I do have that expectation, in my
personal auto.
America is no more a melting pot. More of a cesspool run and controlled by those who have fame and fortune. Not by the guy who builds your home, or the guy that cleans your drains or builds your roads.
We're heading for a time of trouble. Be prepared for the $20,000.00 Y2025 package that includes oatmeal, blankets, and cyanide pills for the whole family.
For example to be used in any type of court case it has to be by court order and only for accidents. The federal government or federal courts can't touch it and when state courts use it the information can only be kept until the case is over. We don't need a national database of car black box data.
The information can also be collected by the manufacturer of the car provided the owner agrees. By owner I mean whoever is on the title of the car (banks excluded unless they own the car for their own use. Not when people have financed through them). If two people are on the title then both have to agree. Once the owner(s) agree the information can only be used for performance analysis. They can only get statistical information and not information that links to data to a specific car (beyond model number) or owner.
The device used to collect the information from the black box must be physically attached to the black box (no wireless downloading) and for anyone other then the car manufacturer or law enforcement to own a black box downloading device it is an automatic $1 million dollar fine and 20 year federal prison term.
The black boxes need to be located inside the vehicle so that it is protected to by locked doors and security system (should the owner employ and use them).
Black box data can not be used to give speeding tickets unless the speeding caused a crash. It can't be used to give tickets for not having your seat belt on, etc. It can only be used to helf figure out who is at fault for a car crash involving other cars or pedestrians.
If all of this was done black boxes are fine with me.
Robert
government won't want more. Especially if they can somehow
benefit from it?
If you are to have black boxes, they should be physically
incapable of maintaining more than 1-2 minutes of data (plenty
to assess a crash).
Normally court protection would be sufficient, but courts have
strayed away from protecting citizens and granting more leeway
to police and FBI (especially when "Homeland Security" is thrown
around). Courts have already deemed in legal for the police to
attach a GPS device onto your car to track you in the state of
Washington -- without a court order. What makes you think they
would look after your privacy when they already all this
behavior?
once and for all. An aircraft with a black box recorder, is either
a commercially owned carrier, or military. If you are a private
aircraft owner, you're not required to have a recorder in your
plane. If you fly commercially, you have no expectation of
privacy. If you're military, you have no concept of privacy!
In my own car, where I go, or how I get there, is no one's
business as long as I'm obeying the traffic laws.
It's pretty much all "opt in" at this point. As you said, don't like it, don't buy it.
If we are indeed in a "New Age" in our society, then government better catch up with protecting our privacy before society awakens from its lethargical state of happiness.
I for one want my privacy and will fight for it. Society may appear happy and quiet, but eventually society will only take so much.
Homeland Security? Black boxes to ensure the "truth" is told. Sure, but not at my personal expense
Removing said black box may disable your airbags completely, not to mention other critical functions of the car, depending on what car you have. If it's a GM, good luck. Might as well put it on the scrapyard now. And, as another poster said, say goodbye to any warranty you have.
If you want a car with no black box, buy something built before 1990 and keep it in good repair.
The black box concept isn't dangerous in my eyes, not as long as it stays at the 1-2 minutes previous to an impact. A lot of good information can be stored there. If you were going to fast, then it's your fault. You just can't lie your way out of it.
Data tracking, however, is a different concept. I don't want someone to be able to track my every move without my consent. If I had a two-way GPS system on my vehicle, I would definitely turn it off. If I had an OnStar system, I would most likely disconnect the GPS recieve antenna from it first-thing.
The bad thing isn't the paranoia about it, it's not knowing when you should be paranoid or not.
Once again... for all the frightened people...
A Black Box is an unintelligent piece of machinery. It cannot violate your privacy. Only people can do that. And unless the contents of the black box are governed by law in an inappropriate way, or a person violates your existing rights by stealing your black box, there is no violation of privacy.
The Black Box is NOT the problem.
Speculation on future laws is what is scaring people. SPECULATION and ANTI-PRIVACY CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
Installing one yourself to get data about the engine is a far cry from requiring it in all cars and you know it. Our government has never balked at invading peoples privacy. They will not be able to control themselves once the ability to track and monitor everyones driving habits. Our current government is hell bent on dismantling the constitution, and this is the sort of BS they would do in the name of 'homeland security'. One of the many ideas and phrases borrowed from the USSR and Nazi Germany.
Make them 100% optional and user configurable, with no wireless tracking ability and write a loophole free law that does not permit government access without a court order that needs the highest standards to be met. Then perhaps black boxes will be ok.
Once the government uses your black box against you, you will probably change your tune. If you don't think the government will go all out, once they have access to black boxes in every car, you are a bigger fool then you show yourself to be.
I mean, really: if one expert can build it, another can hack it. Lawyers on both sides of these cases will have to have investigations of the equipment alongside their cases either prosecuting or defending someone on "black-box" charges.
In the end, human judgement is still human judgement. We can turn technology into the same kind of "magical thinking" that once allowed early Americans to hang a person because she failed to drown, which proved she was a "witch" (the belief being that "normal" women could not swim) So after drowning the innocent and hanging the guilty, who is left?
It's nobodys business what I do, with whom, where and when. Those are all my business as long as I'm not harming anyone else.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The government should never get absolute power.
I for one don't think that a black box is gonna make any of us drive better. It's not going to tell us how to and when to brake or steer a car. It's not going to tell or prevent someone next to us is going to surve into us or that some pedestrian is gonna run out between parked cars right into your car's path. Or stop someone who has been drinking from driving.
If you want to stop speeding then why not just limit the cars to go up to speed limits for that state. Then no one will be speeding.
I definitely would not want to be forced to have anything that monitors me installed without my knowledge or permission.
After a few high profile, high monetary damage cases the auto and parts makers will wish they had never agreed to implant these things. So I say, bring it on suckers. You'll be $orry. Technology has a way of being used in unexpected, unforseen ways. Every technological solution creates a set of new problems.
Keith
www.techcando.com
This kinda technology is on the rise....
Invasion of privacy is on the rise....
How many of you remember "Demolition Man"?
Not only are we looking at the potential for being fined by any one of various devices (including our own cars) for crimes against the verbal morality statute, there is also a larger picture here. The automobile can not only be tracked, it can also be controlled. I'm talking about the next phase in logical progression. I read these posts here and see that some get it and some don't. Cellphones can be hacked for phone numbers and even be used as a middle man to hack into a cars' GPS system. Ok, so I don't do anything wrong to warrant trouble and have nothing to hide. lol.... By this logic, people should be legally able to decide to live their lives (even in public) naked. Now many people might accept such a thing, and many might actually like the idea....but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
You cannot legislate morality. Atleast not without turning into a fascist nation.
I am just waiting to read the story of a normal everyday man just driving to work one morning and he ends up in prison for running down the freeway killing people and destroying property when he has no way of proving that his car was hacked into by someone that just didn't like him taking control of the car leaving the driver incapable of doing anything but being a passanger along for the ride.
On another note:
There is a reason why certain areas of the human body are called "private". There is also a reason why placing cameras in public bathrooms are illegal. How many parents actually want the world to know the specifics about their daughters' first period.
It's not so much about having nothing to hide. It really is more about how easily this technology can be abused and used against the innocent. It should never be takin for granted that there are bad people in the world. These bad people (atleast until they're caught) have the same access as those good law abiding citizens.
I personally don't see what differance it makes to anything if the driver was going 70mph or 80mph. Ok, 80mph is faster than the legal limit. If the legal limit was 60mph, the cop still would still most likely be dead, even if the rig was going 60mph. It has been proven too many times that a vehicle can be used to kill traveling 10mph. Proving that the vehicle was travelling the legal limit really doesn't mean anything.
Our society is in the process of losing everything sacrid. A religous struggle has been brewing for some time now. It is no surprise to me that certain other countries view the US as evil. If we allow and accept these kinds of invasions (even on public property such as roadways), we are setting ourselves up for very bad things to happen.
A car is kind of a "necessity" such as a home. Having a "black box" in MY CAR doesn't make it any SAFER for ME or my family. It ain't gonna eliminate any accidents from happening. It can't control what the other drivers do in every situation. Does that mean sooner or later they will require me to install a "black box" in my home to monitor it too? Say to know which room people spend more time in so that they can conserve energy to the other rooms? Or to make me get more products and goods to how I spend time at home based on what they monitored? I don't know about anyone else but I for one would want control of what is in the things that I buy whether it is a car or home or ice cream sundae.
Without these choices we all gonna be fishs in a bowl.
The GM air bag systems have always recorded crash data. Even the very early 1974-1976 GM air bag systems recorded crash data.
Altough we are not directly involved, we are familiar with the Nashville semi truck accident. The truck did have a so called 'black box.' The police claim the truck was doing well over 80 mph when the accident occured and killed a Nashville police officer. Problem is...the black box data is showing 70 mph, which was the posted speed limit.
The crash data can be your best friend in these cases.
It seems law enforcement can and will use the crash data against you if it supports their version of events. If it does not support their events....it is considered junk science.
Any qestions about GM air bags and crash data please feel free to contact us.
Logan Diagnostic
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.airbagcrash.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.airbagcrash.com</a>
Sorry if this is highly 'non-tech' verbage.
I am assuming that to protect ourselves we should seek an independent assessment. We would like to cooperate but on the other hand....any words of wisdom please?
Sandi