Remember this guy’s name — Scott Weires — because I think he’s a new American hero.
Mr. Weires, an attorney who lives in Florida, is apparently something of a car nut and, like most of his peers, he fell in love with the new 2009 Nissan GT-R. Enough in love that he ordered one.
In case you haven’t heard about the GT-R, it is basically an ICBM tipped over on its side. It’s just an absolute screamer of a car — 480 HP, 0-60 in a reported 3.2 seconds — and even at the $82,000 Weires paid for his Super Silver version (Nissan just bumped up the price by seven grand), it is still one of the world’s best automobile performance buys.
So you can understand why Scott Weires wanted one of these Ultimate Rice Rockets and plunked down the money in advance.
And then something amazing happened: Suddenly, after years of dreaming about the car after he first saw the concept design, and after months of waiting in line, Weires suddenly cancelled his order.
Why? Because he found out that the GT-R is going to have tucked away deep inside and attached to its chassis a “Black Box” similar to the ones we always hear about after airplane crashes. Yeah, that’s right: an electronic data recorder (EDR) that keeps track of everything from airbag sensors to throttle controls to engine performance gauges.
Worse, at least to Weires, was that GT-R contained an even more sophisticated version of EDR called a “Vehicle Status Data Recorder” (VSDR) — this little baby not only activates when a crash is imminent, but runs all the time.
Think about that for a moment, and then think about your driving history.
Dude, I live in Silicon Valley, the land of the California Rolling Stop, the ignored speed limit signs and the place where the Rice Rocket was invented. And, in this land of automotive scofflaws, I am the guy who a friend once described as “driving like I just robbed a bank.”
I have done things with cars that make me burst into sweat just recalling them. And if you are a red-blooded American male — or, from what I’ve seen lately, an American teenaged girl — your driving history is probably very similar to mine. And you can understand why a sports car enthusiast and lawyer like Scott Weires might object to having a driving behavior monitor strapped beneath his seat.
The automobiles tell us not to worry, that these devices are only there to identify design weaknesses in the car so that those problems can be improved in future models. According to AutoWeek magazine, Nissan says that the VSDR in the GT-R does not record sounds or images but “always records and stores vehicle-operating data between periodic inspections, which can assist and be used for servicing, diagnosing and performing warranty repairs.”
It was that last part that made Weires jumpy — and understandably so, once you picture the scenario where the Nissan dealership refuses to honor the warranty on your engine because you over-revved it twice last Thursday.
But I think there’s a lot more to worry about. Right now, car makers also see EDRs and VSDRs as a way to protect themselves in product safety lawsuits. And law enforcement folks understandably like the idea of showing up at an accident scene, plugging in their laptop and downloading information on the final moments before the crash: Did the driver brake? Veer? Why did the side airbags not open? Etc.
It also sounds pretty benign, even useful. But unlike Scott Weires, I’m a technology guy — and I have a very acute sense of how seemingly harmless new technologies have a tendency to metastasize into something far nastier and, usually, end up invading our privacy or diminishing our freedoms. And, perhaps due to my own driving history, the story of Weires and his Black Box had sirens going off in my head.
Think of the worst possible scenarios, and whatever you come up with has a good chance of happening. For example, you know those random checkpoint stops that the police set up every year around the holidays to catch drunks. I’ve never been a big fan of them, mostly for civil liberties reasons, but like most people I endure this little inconvenience for the perceived larger good.
But what about a checkpoint where the cop walks up, plugs his laptop into your car and then tickets you for going over the speed limit three times last week? Put up some “smart” speed signs that send out signals to your car’s Black Box and it would be simple to make the comparison. Like that one?
How about this — because the Black Box also records the forces, such as yaw, on the car, the cop could also check the number of times you overstressed the car’s suspension and arrest you reckless driving. Oh, did I mention that there is nothing to keep the Black Box from recording your conversations in the car, your movements, the places you visited, etc., etc. Drive into the wrong neighborhood and you may void your car insurance — and do so in real-time when your Black Box gains a wireless “voice.”
The car companies and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration assure us that even if they were to gather this information, they would never, ever use it for the wrong reasons. Sure, just like Google promises to never look up your identity and to throw out all search records every six months. Just trust them — even though, by their very behavior in all of this, the auto makers and the NHTSA have already shown that they don’t trust you. Oh, did I mention the small print in the owner’s manual that says all of your car’s Black Box info belongs to you … except when request by a court order? I’ll be that makes you feel all safe and warm inside.
So, the solution is to just not buy a Nissan — right? Well, no. In fact, most U.S. car makers have already, or are about to, install EDRs. If you’ve got On-Star in your car, you certainly already have it. And if a car has an EDR, a new federal mandate requires that it monitor 30 different data points by 2012. Take a Ball-peen hammer or a jumper cable to your car’s Black Box and you will be breaking the law.
The good news is that some carmakers have no plans to install EDRs. For some, such as Kia, it’s a cost consideration on their low-priced cars. More interesting is at the other end of the spectrum, where Mercedes and other German cars don’t carry Black Boxes because they are deemed to violate privacy laws.
Shouldn’t that be some kind of clue? When the Germans — who, after the Gestapo and the Stasi, know a little something about surveillance and the loss of privacy — ban these devices, why should we let them into our daily lives?
I’m predicting a run on old cars very soon. Maybe it’s finally time to buy that ‘67 GTO and laugh as I pass all those suckers whose powerful new cars refuse to let them exceed the speed limit.
Link to ABC News Here
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
45 Comments
1. Idler:Excellent piece. Regarding motorists “big brother” concerns: so far insurance policies that base their premiums on information provided by a “black box” (developed by Progressive Insurance) haven’t sold in the U.S. because of privacy concerns. In the U.K., the problem seems to have been the cost of the black box itself.
Now Progressive Insurance is writing a policy (the “MyRate” program) based on the use of a small, portable device that doesn’t record location but does record braking and accelerating, etc. It reports the information via automatic wireless transmission. Progressive claims that the policies are selling well in the states where they’re available.
Here’s a brief blog post on the subject.
Sep 29, 2008 - 6:51 am 2. Doug:Learn to drive like an adult and not a drunk high school senior and then you won’t have to worry about what is being recorded.
Sep 29, 2008 - 6:55 am 3. Matt Groom:This kind of technology will create an entirely new segment of the black market for “Destroyed in Flood” black boxes. You’ll be able to buy them on the internet and have them installed in a half an hour. There will be some kind of weakness in these devices that will be easily exploited by anyone who has ever considered the speed limit a suggestion, which is everyone with half a brain and a little bit of guts.
Sep 29, 2008 - 6:57 am 4. A.W.:I can’t see law enforcement trying to stop the sale and installation of defective black boxes either. How are they going to get any funding if NOBODY speeds or drives with reckless abandon… ever? You’d have to lay off half of the cops in the US. Not to mention, with fraudulently programed black boxes, wouldn’t you be able to use that in court to prove that you “weren’t speeding”? How the hell is a Highway patrolman’s radar gun going to compete with falsified data on a federally regulated black box?
Also, who the hell would buy a new sports car if they could literally NEVER go more than 4 miles an hour over the limit? Poor fuel economy and you can’t even pass a Prius on the open highway? I can definitely see the auto companies changing their minds on this when VW, BMW, and Mercedes post record sales numbers and everybody else with a black box sports car loses their shirt. This technology is doomed to fail because its promises to do exactly what it says and nobody wants that.
Let’s tear this little bit of paranoia apart…
> Put up some “smart” speed signs that send out signals to your car’s Black Box and it would be simple to make the comparison. Like that one?
So the government will spend millions to put up the infrastructure to do that?
And how is it that other devices don’t do the same thing? I mean it is far easier to use a GPS to do this than, say, the black box. No infrastructure necessary, just a rule requiring them to transmit location constantly, and speed can be extrapolated accordingly.
And you say all this would be done at a checkpoint. Why bother? Why not instead just get a year’s worth of data when you get your car inspected? So contra your silliness, there is no need of a special checkpoint. At most maybe when people are being checked for drunk driving they might check that too.
And finally, there is the little problem of proving you did anything. Sure, someone driving your car did, but not everyone exclusively drives their car.
Indeed, speeding is not always illegal. Most state laws allow for a complete defense of the flow of traffic. Indeed, I have known people who were pulled over for not speeding in an area where everyone sped (that struck me as ridiculous, but oh well). The point is, the law recognizes that speeding is not inherently bad.
> How about this — because the Black Box also records the forces, such as yaw, on the car, the cop could also check the number of times you overstressed the car’s suspension and arrest you reckless driving.
Except there is that whole issue of proof again. The fact you swerved or broke suddenly, doesn’t mean you were driving recklessly. Maybe someone else did and you had to react?
And again, there is that problem of proving you were driving at the time?
> Oh, did I mention that there is nothing to keep the Black Box from recording your conversations in the car, your movements, the places you visited, etc.,
Re: conversations, yes there is nothing to stop them… except for numerous state and federal laws preventing that sort of thing.
> Drive into the wrong neighborhood and you may void your car insurance — and do so in real-time when your Black Box gains a wireless “voice.”
One, um, then don’t let it. And don’t say it will be against the law. The law only says it has to measure certain things. So take out the one that measures too much and put in one that measures less.
Second, exactly who has a car insurance policy that says you can’t drive into certain neighborhoods?
> Oh, did I mention the small print in the owner’s manual that says all of your car’s Black Box info belongs to you … except when request by a court order?
So you want the car company to throw down and say, “no, courts, you can’t have this?”
Sorry, if you feel the courts have no right to it, then challenge it. but don’t expect the car company to join you. They might, but don’t count on it.
> When the Germans — who, after the Gestapo and the Stasi, know a little something about surveillance and the loss of privacy — ban these devices, why should we let them into our daily lives?
The Germans will not execute any criminal for any reason, including for having been in the Gestapo (by comparison, Israel made an exception to its “no execution” rule when it got its hands on a Nazi), nor will they even put that person away for life. I would say they have gone soft, and others might say I have too hard an attitude, and we can agree to disagree on that point. But to pretend that the Germans of today are just like the Germans of yesterday borders on bigotry.
> Maybe it’s finally time to buy that ‘67 GTO and laugh as I pass all those suckers whose powerful new cars refuse to let them exceed the speed limit.
And that is what it is all about—you want to break the law and get away with it.
But if you find the law unwise, why not work to change it instead, instead of just doing whatever you want?
Sep 29, 2008 - 7:10 am 5. Hucbald:Well, the current age ends at the moment of solstice on 12/21/12 anyway, so I’m not going to sweat it. Besides, I drive a full sized pickup like an old lady: Right lane, cruise control, 3-5 MPH below the limit. I’ll probably get some sort of “Good Comrade” award.
Oh, and I’ll be listening to Rush 2112 at the end, of course.
Sep 29, 2008 - 7:13 am 6. Sammy:Democrats will applaud it.
Passive American citizenry will accept it.
Sep 29, 2008 - 7:16 am 7. mrkwong:You’re only about ten years too late on this.
EDRs have been common for a while, and courts have I think pretty routinely allowed the data to be used in various ways injurious to the vehicle operator.
The British, whose Labour government has pretty much led the way in things anti-car, has a stated goal of being able to track every car everywhere it goes, through license-plate recognition cameras.
And, of course, here in California we have the smog Gestapo to deal with, and every legislative session some pox-ridden state Senator pops up and puts forward a bill to make smog tests annual again.
So far the exemption for 1975-and-earlier cars has remained intact, so if you don’t mind giving up airbags and modern structures and all that building a nice ‘72 Nova with a new LS2 in it is still a worthy idea if you’ve got the bucks, but of course the state funds their crush-old-cars program out of fees collected for the privilege of having your new car exempted from smog checks for six years…
Sep 29, 2008 - 7:31 am 8. Greg:Doug,
I’m just going to install this video/audio recording device in your house, in case someone breaks in. Don’t worry, I won’t use it for anything else. Besides, if you don’t do anything wrong, you shouldn’t mind it, right?
Sep 29, 2008 - 7:33 am 9. John:Face it, we’re all doomed. Congress knows that it can steal more of our money by simply taxing us for the number of miles we drive, if we drive in congested areas, how fast we’re going, etc.
So, in the name of saving the planet, you can count on Big Brother monitoring your every move in an automobile. Thank you, Global Warmers.
Sep 29, 2008 - 7:36 am 10. rateoforange:Agree with Doug. Being a ‘red blooded american male’ doesn’t mean you have a constitutional right speed, roll through traffic lights, cut corners, etc. I meet people like the author on the road every day, and I would love to see their licenses revoked after a policeman plugs into their EDR.
Sep 29, 2008 - 7:39 am 11. zipity:Right-o Doug, and by the by, can we have a monthly urine sample from you for testing? And a bi-monthyly search of your home too? Shouldn’t be a problem for you, unless you’ve done something wrong of course, but you are innocent, so it should be no big deal, right?
Sep 29, 2008 - 7:44 am 12. BB:Welcome to my world.
Sep 29, 2008 - 7:48 am 13. Steve:A truck driver in Phoenix was found guilty of manslaughter and is in jail right now when a drunk driver ran a red light and hit his truck.
Why?
The engine computer in his truck (which holds MONTHS of data)showed that he was 15 minutes past his allowed driving time for that day.
Not supposed to be driving = truck shouldn’t have been there = 80,000 weapon. Manslaughter.
I have little respect for most traffic controls. Speed limits are largely arbitrary, as are “no turn on red” signs and other devices that serve to “calm traffic”. Most traffic regulation nowadays is done for either revenue enhancement or just because the city has a “Department of Traffic Signs and Lights” that must justify its existence. In the last 6 months there have been new traffic lights and signs popping up all over my neighborhood. Were there actually unsafe conditions at the locations of these new lights and signs? Not really, certainly no more so than at others that do not yet have traffic controls. But if the bureaucrats don’t justify their budget allotments this year, they know that they will get less money next year.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:00 am 14. James Felix:“I have done things with cars that make me burst into sweat just recalling them.”
This device represents, in my opinion, an unacceptable intrusion into our private lives.
Still, it’s dickheads like you who cause accidents that cripple and kill innocent people who understand that a car is a vehicle, not a toy. Grow the hell up.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:00 am 15. Rick:Driving is not a video game. Teenage drivers scare me with their foolishness. Middle aged guys who want to ge 0 to 60 in 3 seconds on public streets - they just make me real mad.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:14 am 16. J:“Not supposed to be driving = truck shouldn’t have been there = 80,000 weapon. Manslaughter”
I actually like that logic, but I’m curious why it doesn’t apply to the (exponentially more dangerous) drunk driver. Maybe that’s grounds for appeal. Having lost a vehicle in a wreck with an uninsured motorist, I’d love to see the law say if your very presence violates the law, you’re at fault in the accident regardless of circumstances. Looks like PHX needs to work on the “hierarchy of fault” when both drivers’ presence violates the law.
In aircraft, CVR data and information derived from it is inadmissible in any legal or disciplinary proceeding. Maybe we need to do the same thing here.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:14 am 17. PunditJoe:I don’t have a problem with such devices as long as they can be disabled. Personally, I would leave it running, but I can understand why others would not.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:30 am 18. jtb-in-texas:I’m with those against this device–and not out of some neo-Luddite mentality. I love high-tech!
I simply believe it is a waste of scarce resources to manufacture, install, and maintain these devices and those that read them. I think the resources required to clean up after these devices are wasted. They simply are not going to make life for people. Nor are they going to aid in reducing greenhouse emissions.
The anti-Big Brother arguments are also correct. Since when have any governments given back any privacy to citizens? They just keep picking away at us. And while it will never stop, I’ll be darned if I’m going to pay for them to stick recording devices in my personal vehicle. Well, not until they’re required by statute, anyway.
It’s just not appropriate. Shame on Nissan.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:31 am 19. PunditJoe:I forgot to mention - Wanting to be able to break the law is not a good argument against these devices. That will win you no arguments.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:36 am 20. JMH:“Put up some “smart” speed signs that send out signals to your car’s Black Box and it would be simple to make the comparison. Like that one?”
So the government will spend millions to put up the infrastructure to do that?
No, they’ll do it just like Red Light Cameras. They’ll award a contract to a private company that will pay to install the infrastructure and split the profits, er I mean fines, with the local governments and police agencies.
And finally, there is the little problem of proving you did anything. Sure, someone driving your car did, but not everyone exclusively drives their car.
Again, just like the Red Light cameras, they’ll send all these to some administrative traffic court, where you’re assumed guilty, and give you an incentive (e.g. no loss of license) to just pay and not insist on a real hearing with a real court that has real evidentiary requirments.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:36 am 21. JOhn B:I recently went for a drive in a GT-R (holy crap that thing is fast) with someone who works for Nissan. We discussed the black box and one of its purposes was just as the author stated - to finger morons who routinely use the launch control to impress their friends or to wring the car out at track days then expect warranty work courtesy of Nissan when things break. Yeah, so what else do you expect Nissan to do but protect themselves from juvenile idiots.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:39 am 22. CR:Wow - the author is way behind the times. This has been a hot topic in my car club for several years.
Here’s an article from 2005:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364095740
Cars have had so-called “black boxes” for at least 15 years. Any car with an OBD interface records data and saves some of it until you flash it or new data overwrites it. I’ve been using an AutoTap and a laptop to read my car’s data for tuning purposes for 5 years. Cops would do the same if it were lawful. Some cars record more data than others and it’s up to the consumer to check out what they’re buying.
There have been rumors about a proposed new OBD standard that would allow cops to read certain data about your driving habits via remote. Simply drive by a cop and he could see if you had been speeding in the last 30 days. If that ever happens, I’ll simply wrap my car’s computer in a Faraday cage to block the remote reading. I can currently re-program or flash my car’s computer for performance purposes, and I could modify the data it records. For example, my car came with a built-in speed limiter (governor) for 126mph but I got rid of that. The government could make it unlawful to tamper with those computers but I wouldn’t obey that law. It’s my property and I’ll do what I like with it.
There are some problems with any laws about reading those computers. Say I go to my local quarter-mile track and speed all day long in a lawful way. I do that on occasion along with many others so the logic is valid. Some cop reads my computer and sees that I’ve been speeding, and gives me a ticket. What then? I did not break the law in any way but I’ve been presumed guilty and I would have to prove my innocence with track receipts and video. That’s not going to work, people. There are many ways to speed and enjoy a car without breaking any laws.
I’ve never received a ticket for running red lights or stop signs and I’ve never caused an accident. I do get a rare speeding ticket on highways only, never on surface streets. I refuse to be punished for the actions of a relatively few irresponsible drivers. The vast majority of speeders and unsafe drivers I see are in cheap imports that just weren’t made to be driven at speed. They lose control, cause a big accident and wonder, “gee, what happened?”. Let’s punish those idiots and leave everyone else alone. I once dated a girl who did exactly that - she was going 80mph in a Hyundai when she lost control and hit another car, killing both occupants. She was given a ticket for reckless driving, and that was it. She never understood how her flimsy little car with tiny wheels suddenly lost control. I don’t believe any amount of government regulation would have prevented her from speeding that day - she was in a hurry to get somewhere.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:40 am 23. Robert Speirs:Oh, absolutely. It won’t reduce greenhouse gases. That’s the tipping point for me. Now if this recorder did do something that some politician/failed divinity student said would fight the postulated increase in the temperature by a few degrees worldwide in a hundred years or so, then sure, who could object? The science is settled, after all. And what’s privacy compared to dead polar bears?
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:43 am 24. Paul From Hamburg:A.W.:
“And finally, there is the little problem of proving you did anything. Sure, someone driving your car did, but not everyone exclusively drives their car.” This is no defense. There are already way too many automated tickets issued by red-light cameras and radar booths. If your car speeds or runs a red light, you get a ticket. It doesn’t matter if someone else was driving your car, it is still your ticket.
It is not paranoid to think that automakers, insurance companies and police companies will try to use these devices to make themselves money.
You don’t have to be habitually careless or reckless to be victimized by these devices. All you have to be less than perfect.
Sep 29, 2008 - 8:58 am 25. Nihimon:Did it ever occur to you that the very aggressive (certainly not “passive”) American citizenry might actually get some of the ridiculous laws off the books if it becomes commonplace to have near 100% enforcement?
You’re arguing that X shouldn’t be done because it will make it too easy to enforce law Y. Well, if you have a problem with law Y, why not just change law Y?
I’m pleased to see I’m not the only one who feels this way.
I, for one, welcome our new black-box overlords… I welcome the reduced insurance premium I’ll pay. I welcome the certainty that I won’t be falsely accused of doing something I didn’t do (this goes for Greg’s point too.) I welcome the change in behavior it will have on the driving populace. And I welcome the change in the laws that will result from a sea-change in attitude.
Sep 29, 2008 - 9:00 am 26. Joe:The long term problem isn’t getting caught after-the-fact for doing something wrong, but that with the presence of these devices, government will create new laws entirely based on information from the box. For example, why not fine people if they idle too long? Or overrev? How about if they have too many hard braking incidents in a month?
On the other hand, I really like the idea of recording the last, say, ten minutes of driving for use in accidents. Having information on how to improve your cars performance is also valuable.
Note: For commercial vehicles, my view is profoundly the opposite and not just because I write software for a device which can act as a black box for the trucking industry. In this case, you are working for someone. You are driving very heavy machinery that can cause fatalities quite easily. You already are working under much stricter legal conditions. And, the information we get can genuinely help drivers improve performance in several areas.
Sep 29, 2008 - 9:02 am 27. plutosdad:I think they’d be very useful, but first we need laws to protect our privacy. Laws that expressly forbid some of the behavior mentioned by law enforcement, or by insurance companies, etc. Our privacy laws must catch up to technology.
Sep 29, 2008 - 9:02 am 28. CB:Airbags require service every 3 to 5 years at a cost of $500 to $1000. How many people do you think actually have this service done?
How about this scenario?
Sep 29, 2008 - 9:15 am 29. buzz:You get in an accident, insurance company pulls your car’s data, sees that required service wasn’t preformed and refuses to pay for your injuries.
OR
Forget to do your 3000 mile oil change, have an engine problem and the car manufacture voids your warranty.
“Still, it’s dickheads like you who cause accidents that cripple and kill innocent people who understand that a car is a vehicle, not a toy. Grow the hell up.”
Perhaps you can point out to me where he said he drove like that in populated areas or on residential streets. Anyone who has ever driven West of the Mississippi has exceeded the speed limit and enjoyed exploring the ranges of their car. It’s dickheads like you who just hate the idea someone, somewhere is enjoying something.
Sep 29, 2008 - 9:28 am 30. Toad:Back to the trucking problems. One of the reasons for the large turnover in drivers in the industry is the increasing enforcement bullshit.
Also one company can shut the truck down with the black box if the driver is over hours.
One driver got in an accident went to court and proved it wasn’t his fault but his company fired him anyway. He got a lawyer and got reinstated. He didn’t drop his lawsuit for damages and they fired again. He filed another wrongful dismissa lawsuit and it looks like he may end up owning the company.
You won’t have to worry about having DOT or law officers hooking lap tops to your onboard computer they are already testing remote on demand devices. Just wave a wand at a truck an it dumps the onboard data to the LEO.
If they can do it to truckers they can do it to everyone else. Look for insurance companies to base their rates on wether you have a black box or not.
Sep 29, 2008 - 9:37 am 31. Mark:Reminds me of my favorite Rush song, Red Barchetta.
Sep 29, 2008 - 10:19 am 32. DonK:This is nothing new, though likely more developed.
I worked for a technology magazine during the boom, and was at a convention in September 1999 when a tech exec from GM startled everyone by telling me that there were already cars with black boxes in them. The tech-savvy audience was startled into silence.
Sep 29, 2008 - 10:28 am 33. W::Its like wearing an ankle monitoring bracelet, but its for “my own good.”
Plus, the opportunities for unauthorized access are horrendous: it happens all the time now: data intrusions into celebrity patient records at hospitals. Police accessing data for friends and for money (Pellicano in LA), etc. The cop back east who ran a vehicle ID search for friends who were under FBI surveliance.
Sep 29, 2008 - 10:37 am 34. Dee:First they came for the Republicans….
Sep 29, 2008 - 10:38 am 35. Thomass:“Maybe it’s finally time to buy that ‘67 GTO and laugh as I pass all those suckers whose powerful new cars refuse to let them exceed the speed limit.”
I already did. 66 Lincoln. They’re cheaper than a new car too. Even with repairs / parts it would be hard to spend $80k on a classic. You also can get them into the 400 hp range with some cheap upgrades. You can even do an engine swap to some huge diesel and get more. They have the room in there for engine swaps.
Sep 29, 2008 - 10:55 am 36. seguin:A lot of speed limits are bullshit anyway. I-45 in Texas is 75 mph. All freeways are designed for 100. There are NO towns, nothing on massive stretches of I-45. So why is the speed limit so low? Revenue, that’s why. So some tiny municipalities can float bigger paychecks, or cover up inefficient government. There are stretches of freeway in Dallas that are 60 mph, despite the fact that they’re elevated or blocked off from pedestrian access.
This is why I own nothing newer than 1994.
Sep 29, 2008 - 12:37 pm 37. RAH:This is out of date paranoia. Any car that has a computer and if you have fuel injection you have a computer, records data. That is how it sets error codes when ABS sensors go bad and air bag sensors goes bad. It diagnosis a bad O2 sensor. Your engine is running poorly, run the codes to help figure out what is wrong.
Now the ONSTAR has pro and cons. A car thief takes your car and with ONSTAR GPS and integrated system; the car can be turned off. You call even tell the driver that the police are coming to the location to screw with his head.
However that means you are also tracked. That can be good if you run off the road and hard to find in a snowstorm. It could save your life.
The con is that you can be tracked if you decide to go against the law and have an ONSTAR.
Personally I perfer no onstar and no GPS units in cars. But they are in your cell phone and if that is on you , you can be tracked.
This is paranoia that is 20 years too late. I have had the boxes read as an insurance adjuster when the driver lies about what destroyed his engine and wants another to pay. I have read the speed when the coolant blew out and the engine locked up. That helps when the driver is lieing what happened.
But regular accident resonstruction, this only happens 2-3 times in 10 years. Not worth it most times.It has to have a court order.
Sep 29, 2008 - 1:06 pm 38. K:But if you find the law unwise, why not work to change it instead, instead of just doing whatever you want?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good luck with that.
I love self righteous fools like this. In another time they’d be breaking in doors and laughing at the “lawbreakers” who forgot to tip their hat to the King or joined the wrong party and were frog marched away. Apparently some people just get off on that control stuff. Go shine your jack boots Binky.
Be aware that it is virtually impossible to follow the apx 200,000 laws to the strict letter that the citizenry of this country are subjected to. Anyone who claims they never violate a mess of those laws on a monthly basis is a liar. Making it easier to be routinely prosecuted for those violations is a clear path to tyranny.
You don’t wait for an enemy of liberty to camp in your front yard before you do something because then it’s too late. Machines that monitor your habits, your car, your TV cable box, your computer without privacy software are a temptation to the government and a threat to your and everybody else’s freedom. Think about that next time you get a ticket from a red light camera.
Sep 29, 2008 - 2:15 pm 39. Joe:I don’t understand the objection. In life there are few (if any) tools that cannot possibly be corrupted if put in the wrong hands for the wrong reasons, and auto black boxes are no exception. You just have to control it to make sure such corruptions don’t happen, such as requiring a court order to get the information. I’d love it if police could download data at a crash scene to know exactly what happened and who was at fault, instead of leaving it up to investigators to decode tire marks and such. Somebody’s going to get the blame, it may as well be the guilty party.
Sep 29, 2008 - 3:20 pm 40. CARNIVAL OF CARS; A Drive Around the Auto Blog Block for Monday, September 29, 2008 | GT Boy - Car Blog:[...] about how a vehicle is being operated. Edgelings.com has a very disturbing analysis on [...]
Sep 30, 2008 - 7:20 pm 41. EckerNet.Com » Blog Archive » Deep Thoughts With Kevin:[...] goodie, we’ll all monitoring devices in our vehicles by 2012. As if the absolute dearth of non-craptastic vehicles wasn’t enough of a reason to not buy a [...]
Oct 6, 2008 - 12:26 am 42. misanthropope:what’s the government’s catchy rejoinder to this sort of thing? something like “only criminals worry about their rights”.
Oct 31, 2008 - 8:14 pm 43. captainah:i agree, and for the amount of money they are charging for new cars these days you would be better off spending that same money on a classic american muscle car from the 50’s 60’s or 70’s and get much more for the money than an electronic p.o.s that will invade your privacy and limit your driving pleasure.cars have always been a passion for people that is why we buy what we like both visually and performance wise, but to take away the experience of driving your passion is to take the pleasure out of life itself.
Nov 7, 2008 - 3:02 pm 44. JT:wow. You guys are a bit paranoid. Thanks AW for writing a clear analysis of why this is a big deal about almost nothing.
Ask anyone well versed in how to argue logically(philosophy students, lawyers), and you will find the “slippery slope” argument will always prove to be illogical. So surmising what these things COULD do won’t get you anywhere.
Many districts have a hard time putting up red light and speeding cameras(see Maryland) because unmanned machinery cannot “prove” you committed a violation(and other privacy concerns). I do not think that a sensor in your car could be used either, but if that law actually comes about, then I will be there with the rest of you protesting. Just the same if they record private data (conversations, location info) I will protest that as well, but for now its benign.
If by TRIAL they want to know how I drive, then I guess they have the power to get that information. I’m not sure of the trial BB is talking about but I’m sure there are other circumstances beyond “you are guilty because you are out past curfew.” Show your evidence.
Now, for the part about this that sucks is the warranty service. I’m sure that today a service manager could deny your warranty claim due to some data recorded that seems like reckless driving. That isnt right because it cannot be proven that it was the drivers fault. I think that we could work on a class action lawsuit if a case of this appears.
Nov 11, 2008 - 8:40 am 45. Hemlock:I worked for years in the salvage industry. It was in the mid 90’s that I found out about the black boxes in cars.
Nov 12, 2008 - 8:55 amI watched a show on reconstructing big accidents in the central California Fog. They showed how they reconstructed the movements of over a 100 cars involved in one accident.
On a pc screen was displayed raw telemetry and sensor data. Plugged into a special adapter cord was… The airbag controller. They are usually black.
At least since the introduction of OBDII ECU’s and Airbags, there is more than one computer in a car that can contain flash data. Automatic transmissions have their own ECU even in most cars. Try to disable the things and your car doesnt run.
When the airbag is set off, the controller disables key functions like ignition, fuel pump, anything that could spark a fire-or allow you to leave the scene. Like a flight recorder, these were supposed to record only like the past 10sec of data continuously.
We also couldn’t sell controllers from cars with activated airbags. Not sure why.
There was a priest in PHX who was tried using data from his older car.
The technology is much older than most think. It was enough 15 years ago to reconstruct accidents in the fog.
Not sure if all OBDI ECU’s keep flash data. I know that some models without flash programmable chips did in fact have some.
Tell me again why we need more personal info beamed around or recorded? Will lives be saved when a black box snitches a man out for an accident after the fact?
Or..in the current big brother trend, will this info be used in a preemptive way based on statistical analysis of collected driver data?
ALL the data stored in a modern ECU alone is staggering considering the number of sensors and systems monitored and recorded. Yes, if you bring your car in, the mechanic CAN tell if someone sped in it. I know people who have busted teenage kids this way.
There is not just one data recording device in cars!
What if your nice big flat screen could see and hear everything you do everytime you used it? What if it knew whether or not what you are viewing on it was legally purchased? Or if you are lettin your kids watch rated R material. Or witnessed a crime? Or even catches you in a personal intimate moment?
I will not sacrifice FREEDOM for SECURITY!
There are enough laws already to account for real criminal acts perpetrated by sickos and dumb asses. No laws will ever stop those people from criminal activity. They will only educe the freedoms of everyone else.
Why doesnt anyone ask,: Why should I be punished for the actions of a relative few? The logic put forth is that it serves the greater good.
Now limited use on specific targets I can see, just as the interlock devices help deter ALREADY known violators. This could be applied to those who must drive yet for whatever reasons have established a history of neglect or disregard of law. That would be the only acceptable use I can see. Like house arrest and then only very specifically.
Just my $.02