Planes, Trains and now Automobiles...

[dd74]

Black boxes - a driving reality?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/08/03/vehicle.black.boxes.ap/index.html

[widebody911]

We're on the cusp of a whole big can 'o worms here. Our frogs are getting boiled, and we're being put in the pot in the name of safety.

With the dropping price points of various techologies, the capability exists to collect, store, and transmit various 'metrics' The questions are 'should we?' and more importantly 'what happens to the data'. Even more sinister: 'do people know they're being tracked?'

Right now, these black boxes can only store the very last few seconds of a trip, right up to the crash. The technology exists right now to store the last several hours of data, from whatever sensors they choose to install. It's entirely possible to store GPS coordinates, brake and drivetrain data. You could reconstruct someone's trip quite easily.

So who gets to see the data? There are already precedents where it's been used in court cases. Then there was the case where a car rental company used GPS data to issue "speeding tickets" to it's customers. The same technology would render traffic radar obsolete - the car would confess every time you sped.

If you're going through the effort, why not just set up transponders on the side of the road that broadcast the speed, and the receiver in the car would pick it up and limit your speed accordingly.

Oh yeah, the revenue - forgot about that

[dd74]

My question is how much higher will these black boxes jack the price of cars? Yet one more consumer cost?

I look at it this way: there should be special requirements for people over 65. Special tests, better screening, etc. I remember a big insurance campaign several years ago that stated elderly drivers were the lowest risks behind the wheel. Not in L.A. They far surpass teenagers as road risks, and are neck-in-neck with people on cell phones - at least that's what I've noticed.

Black boxes don't prevent accidents. An eighty-year-old knowing the gas from the brake pedal when in a panic prevents accidents.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by dd74
My question is how much higher will these black boxes jack the price of cars?

One reason they're not in common usage, although I'll bet the cost will come down to less than that of the POS radio in new cars. Unless, of course, the marketing department can sex them up, like they did DRL's...

I look at it this way: there should be special requirements for people over 65.

It wouldn't fly, politically. Teeny boppers are a much easier socio/political/economic target than gramps.

Black boxes don't prevent accidents.

Nope, but they'll sure make lawyers' jobs easier!

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Look up "smart dust" and be prepared to get really scared. I know folks working on this ***** and their ignorance of (or apathy to) the privacy implications of such a technology are astounding.

[Moneyguy1]

Hey....

Watch the "Gramps" stuff..Ain't that far away myself....

[mikester]

They are already widely used in cars to track engine performance. Recently my boss couldn't get his car smogged because it was failing the "previous data collection available" test. There wasn't enough data in the computer for him to pass the test (he'd had the battery dead and disco'd for a couple of weeks). He drove it around for a week and it was able to pass finally.

Also, as far as GPS is concerned I believe that lowjack and On-Star both use that technology so you could already be being tracked unless there is a privacy disclaimer stating they WON'T track you. I'll never by a car with that in there unless there is some safeguard to that information that prevents it from being used against me or to track me. Then again, I think I should be able to buy and airline ticket without ever showing an ID if I pay cash. It doesn't matter WHO I am as long as I don't have anything that I shouldn't have on the plane right?

[djmcmath]

I'd love to provide a dissenting opinion, but I'm all in agreement on this one. Privacy violations have gone too far. The insurance company should have to work to figure out if I was speeding. Given the questionable tie between speed enforcement and traffic safety (and the much stronger tie between speed enforcement and revenue for insurance co's and police depts), stuff like this scares the living daylights out of me.

On the bright side, if I'm ever unfortunate enough to own a car with black box tracking, I'll wager that the folks over at Slashdot will figure out a way to "repair" it so it operates like I'd prefer, rather than like Big Brother would prefer. It'd be a lot better to nip this sort of nonsense in the bud, before it ever makes it to that point, however.

On a related note, rumor has it that the UK is pushing for every inch of pulbic roadway being carpeted by radar cameras. (Validation from any UK Pelicans?) Same effect as having continual trackers in your car, quite frankly. Promotes an environment where drivers are more closely focused on the speedo than on the road around them, which I find personally more dangerous.

Aargh.

Dan

[singpilot]

Got news for you guys. You rent a car lately? It has a reporting GPS tracker. They want to know if you really did not stay in the state (as you promised) or did not speed (as you promised). Your cell phone, if newer than a year or so, has GPRS in it. Ostensibly to make finding you when you dial 911 easier.

Have you ever wondered why they know you have been on an airplane and used your cellphone? And got that letter? Used to be you'd light up 200 cells at once, instead of only 3 or 4, and the triangular antenna choosing algorithum said speed was 300 MPH+.

Now they know what route, altitude and speed you flew.

Those 'days' are already here.

Now where did I put my tinfoil hat?

[dd74]

The average world citizen should get paid residuals for all this GPS tracking crap that will play their life across these infinite monitoring systems.

Hmmm...time to start hounding the agents.

[greglepore]

As much as I'd like to dissent on this as well, I know of a case where a drunk "rich" dude on his way home from a cc rearended an elderly couple in their Escort (the offender was in a late 90's Vette). They did legal battle w/ GM over getting the data downloaded but it turned out he was doing over 120 in a 45 before braking for the poor couple who were STOPPED AT A RED SIGNAL. Without the bb data, it woulda been a normal case, with, the deserving bastard went to prison for a loong time.

Look, I'm prone to moments of indescretion behind the wheel as well,but the bb data becomes important when the crap hits the fan, in theory either way. YMMV.

[john70t]

When I think about it, I stop and consider for a second:

If every car had a transponder and every position was recorded at every second and the insurance rates were judged accordingly....
I would get bonus-points for:
-the even speed I maintained in stop-n-go traffic(even with big SUV tailgating)
-for leaving people stuck behind slow semis an out, for slowing for merging traffic
-and for driving faster than the limit only in safe areas.
-dodging cars on more than three occasions that should have skidded into me and hard braking on more than one occasion for late lane changers..
Then my risk factor and payment would be close to nothing and I would pay little to nothing for insurance.

Even with modern micro-managment, data can be convieniently lost.
[edit:the above was made in cynicism.]

[djmcmath]

If every car had a transponder that recorded all of that data, you'd lose cool points every time your speed went over the limit. If you think that any insurance company would spend millions of dollars on a tracking and analysis program that might save their insurees (I made that word up) money and thus cost the insurance company money, you have a far more favorable opinion of insurance racketeers than I do.

[singpilot]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
Look up "smart dust" and be prepared to get really scared. I know folks working on this ***** and their ignorance of (or apathy to) the privacy implications of such a technology are astounding.

I heard about that stuff being outside just about every unfriendly embassy and consular mission in the cold war days.

BTW, I was trying to figure out who the 'new guy' was!!

Where's Martha?

[MFAFF]

This government is using thier spin on accident and death on the road statistics to justify the increase in the number of fixed location radars.

Naturally other promotoring groups are using the same figures to agrue the fixed location camers are not doing any other than generate revenue.

The truth lies somewhere between the two and statisitcs lie at the heart of it.

What is true is that fixed location cameras in certain places can and does reduce drivers' spedds allowing them more time to avoid a dangerous situation etc. But they are also the cuase of accidents as sppeding drivers slow down rapidly to get below the limit, keeping an eye on the speedo and not on the mirror.

There are also SPECS cameras which derive your speed over a section of road, say a couple of miles. This works very welll because if you enter the zone at a stop light or intersection you are already going lsowly, so no braking risk and you continue within the speed limt unitl you reach the end of the section, beyond the percieved danger. This is used on several very dangerous roads in the UK and has been very successful at reducing the number of incidents. But they demand far more intelligence to use and site correctly than a dumb camera.

Recently Top Gear did an entertaining little game. They drove a car on their test track past a camera. One driver was drunk as a skunk, the other was driving without insurance or license or an MOT and one was driving normally but 5mph above the limit.

Guess who got caught? The speeder when all three were breaking the law....Cameras are a crude system and very very limited in their use, but becuase they are easy and cheap they are favoured. Afterall which cop finance office would not want such a cheap, risk free way of increasing revenue, increasing the crime solution rate etc on his patch.

Sorry to be so cynical but the Police are relying far too much on these and failing to do their job in other respects of traffic.... Apologies to Cops here who feel criticised, its the Head Cops who either agree or advise the politicians who are not acting with enough vigour in this area.

Rant over, flame suit on, and pedal to metal....

[tabs]

I got an e-mail from a relative of mine who lives in the UK. He has been involved in the car/computer business since the early 1960's. He was part of the IBM team that installed the first computer automated automobile production line in the world back in 1962 for Chrysler. He then went to Japan an lectured the Japanese automobile manufacturers on how to do it. So you might say he is directly responsible for the rise of the Japanese Auto makers. Later he went to the USSR and helped install a computer system in their auto plants in the early 1970's.

Anyway I digress, his latest e-mail is about this exact discussion. He is currently a consultant for a UK company that is installing a Lo Jack type of system that would disable a car if it is stolen...So now when they catch you speeding they get to turn your car off as well as give you a ticket. LOL

[tabs]

BTW: In the UK the system is called Tracker....

[djmcmath]

MFAFF -- thanks for the UK perspective.

Begin Rant
FWIW, I'm right there with ya. I think safe driving is good, and roadway accidents are bad. I also think that a significant portion of our traffic safety programs -- worldwide, even -- are more geared towards $$$ than safety. The reason is just like TG's point -- it's really easy, almost trivial, in fact, to pick out speeders. OTOH, it's very difficult to tell if a driver's distracted, not paying attention, has bad brakes, etc.

Here's a scenario. Assume both cases are relatively low traffic density.
1 - Ford Explorer, one corner tire has been replaced with the balloon spare. The two right rear windows are covered over with cardboard. The right side brakes failed long ago, so the driver stops the car using only the left side brakes. The exhaust gasket has also failed, so the driver can't hear anything over the engine. He's also talking (yelling) on his cell phone and eating a cheeseburger. .... He's obviously unsafe, and an accident waiting to happen, but he's legal at 60 in a 60 zone.

2 - Shortly after the Ford follows a sports car. He's wearing 11's and 9's (rear and front), with the biggest Brembos he can fit inside the rims. The suspension is precisely tuned for the weight of the car, which is insignificant -- he's got it down to 2100lbs, fully loaded. He logs more track hours in a given week than most of the rest of us will get in our lifetimes. The car obviously contains no stereo, and his cell phone is in the trunk, so there's no concern for distractions. He's wearing his harness, has slept well, has no psychological or emotional distractions, and is utterly focused on driving. But he's doing 70 in the same 60 zone.

The first driver can go from 60-0 in, say, 300ft, with his bad brakes. The second driver can stop his car in perhaps 150ft, even from 70. The first driver is unlikely to spot any hazards or potential accidents until long after it's too late. The second driver is paying attention, and is likely to anticipate and correct for other driver's mistakes. The first driver, if involved in an accident in his 7000lb behemoth, will likely demolish the average 2700lb econo-box. The second driver, if involved in an accident, could probably only kill the other driver by beating him with the remants of his car, after the accident.

But the first driver is legal, at 60 in a 60 (or by our police definition, "safe") while the second driver, at 70 in a 60, is illegal (or by our police definition, "unsafe").

End rant.

FWIW, there are some good cops. My boss is married to a Fresno-based CHP who's excellent. He's the guy who pulls over people for dangerous lane changes, for raw driving rudeness, and for watching TV while driving. Seems like there's a couple of cops who frequent this board who also "get it." It's just so much _work_ to "get it," though.


Dan

[widebody911]

Even better - in California, you can drive a car with bald tires, cracked windshield, broken headlights,etc and nobody cares. But if you fail smog past a margin of x%, you might as well junk the car...

[widebody911]

Over the last five years the N.T.S.B. has been covertly funding a project with U.S. Auto makers whereby the auto makers have been installing "black boxes" in all four wheel drive pick up trucks they have manufactured. This was to determine, in fatal accidents, the circumstances in the last 15 seconds before the crash.They were surprised in 42 of the 50 states the last words of the drivers in 61.2% of the fatal crashes were, "OH ****!"

Only the states of Arkansas, West Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and Tennessee were different, where over 89.3% of the final words were, "Hold my beer and watch this."