NHTSA creating universal standard for automotive 'black box'
Though you may not realize it, your car is probably equipped with an automotive 'black box'. Also known as Event Data Recorders, these devices record information from a vehicle's various sensors during a crash – everything from airbag performance to the angle of the steering wheel to the speed of the vehicle is retained. Though an estimated 90 percent of new vehicles are shipped with the devices, each manufacturer uses their own hardware, software and file formats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will rule on a universal format for Event Data Recorders in the next 30 days, according to Automotive News. While not going so far as to make EDRs mandatory in every new vehicle, the ruling will create a standard format for data collected by EDRs across many different vehicles. The Society of Automotive Engineers has been given the task to come up with the universal format.
The new ruling will only cost automakers about $8 million, which isn't much in the grand scheme of things. To date these black boxes have aided in voluntary recalls and accident investigations, and automakers claim they're used to make vehicles safer. Of course, the real debate is whether information recorded by an EDR can be submitted as evidence against a driver in court. In that case, Big Brother may now be riding shot gun.
[Source: Automotive News – sub. required]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dan 5:05PM (8/07/2006)
Great now big brother can moniter our every move while driving. Could you get those removed?
Reply
JW 5:09PM (8/07/2006)
I will make sure I remove mine before I drive.
Reply
Dan 5:12PM (8/07/2006)
Where would this device be located at?
Reply
doglet 5:16PM (8/07/2006)
If its not mandatory then who is going to put this in their car? have they even heard the term no value added? I will never own a vehicle with a black box in it.
Reply
doglet 5:17PM (8/07/2006)
as far as the consumer is concerned there is 'no value added'
if it isnt mandatory who is going to want this in their car?
Reply
N Z K 5:26PM (8/07/2006)
There has also been talk of using these devices with a small radio transmitter that would, in effect, serve as an e-policeman to give you a speeding ticket every time you go over the limit. The ifrastructure to support this sort of thing is already in place, in some areas; radio toll tags are used in some parts of the country for analyzing traffic flow patterns.
While this sort of information can be useful in resolving post-accident insurance disputes, I'm concerned about the possibility of exploitation by a Big Brother-style government. Then again, if the remote shotguns described in the previous post ever see wide use, we may all be grateful for it (/sarcasm).
Reply
Ryan 5:31PM (8/07/2006)
These black boxes are necessary, that is of course, you support the war on terrorism. :-)
Reply
laserwizard 5:33PM (8/07/2006)
The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to administer or to require such devices; the slippery slope that bleeding hearts have created with regard to allowing regulation ad nauseum is now coming to home to roost. The time is now folks to tell Uncle Sam, your congressman and your senators that you will not stand for more invasion of our private lives. Standardization of black boxes is not in any power granted by the founding fathers to the Feds and it is about time we start pushing back lest they start mandating you also pay your tolls, taxes, and pay user fees through this box. Don't think it will happen - 50 State Houses are looking at this black box mandate with keen interest so that they can charge you buy the mile. It will happen. Mark my word!
Reply
gbh 5:36PM (8/07/2006)
These have already been (pretty much) accepted by the courts - in the cases I have heard anything about anyway. Datalogging of this ilk has been going on for years, but with a standard, it's only a matter of time before it goes as it always does.
Big Brother is already here. The sad part is that most people are calling his name and welcoming him with open arms.
Highly unlikely that they will be thrown out as evidence by any appeals circuit within 1500 miles of DC.
Reply
anahit 5:48PM (8/07/2006)
I'm not sure how there's a real debate on whether the black box info could be admitted as evidence. Without going into legal details, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, this would be admissible. States are free to adopt their own rules of evidence but most adhere pretty closely to federal ones.
People in lawsuits are generally required to give the other side evidence that "relates to a claim or defense". That's terribly broad language and would include black box info.
The black box by itself isn't fundamentally different than what we already have. We have laws that compel you to have and use certain equipment when driving and information about that use is admissible in court.
For instance, you're required to wear your seatbelt when driving. A witness who sees you wearing it or not wearing it can testify about it. That witness can be compelled to testify just like the other side can compel you to hand over the black box info.
The major difference is that the black box will make many fewer testimoial mistakes than a person about what really happened.
I'm not saying it's good or bad to have the black box requirement. I'm merely saying it's not much of an extension of what we've already got. The camel's nose and all that.
The RFID stuff is nuts though. While it may or may not come to cars, it's coming to your US passport starting this fall. The feds will then have the ability to know where your passport is at all times if they want to track your RFID signal.
Reply
Shadyman 6:14PM (8/07/2006)
The thing about these black boxes (You can find out the location on google) is that you need a warrant to access the information. Even from your own car. (Though, I'd doubt you'd call the police because someone (read: you) was invading your black box)
Reply
anahit 8:20PM (8/07/2006)
Hmm, I posted about this a couple hours ago but it's apparently not up yet.
Laserwizard, save your Montana Militia nonsense and look up the Commerce Clause.
Shadyman, do you have a cite for your assertion that I need a "warrant" to access my own black box? I'd be interested in reading it.
Reply
x23 11:07PM (8/07/2006)
"The feds will then have the ability to know where your passport is at all times if they want to track your RFID signal."
really? i always thought the range on RFID was like 4 meters. tops. and that the RFID portion of the passport is actually shielded until opened. to prevent casual 3rd party reading.
yet... you are telling me... in fact... it has a range of like 15000 miles. and they can use it to actively track me.
where did you get this startling new information? from a secret contact deep within the reptilian / hollow-earth NWO conspiracy ... right? i suppose thermite charges brought down the WTC and JFK is currently living on a secret moon base too?
Reply
Steve B 11:38PM (8/07/2006)
Using a black box to monitor your movements would likely be struck down under right to privacy laws (you know, conservalibanis... the law that protects abortion rights?), in collisions there would be reason for a warrant (those things that the ACLU keeps trying to remind us are necessary) to access the data as evidence.
Given how often people go out of their way to avoid responsibility in a wreck, even when they KNOW that they committed the error leading to the crash, I would love to be able to subpoena the asshats box. In fact, I would consider willful damage to the box or its capabilities to be willful destruction of evidence in anticipation of wreckless driving.
Reply
anahit 1:57AM (8/08/2006)
x23, you're making an unwarranted extrapolation from my statement. I said no such thing about 15k miles. Indeed, that would counter what I said because then they wouldn't have to "want to track [the] RFID" as it would take essentially no effort.
The State Dept. claimed it was readable only within 10cm. Tests showed it was more like 30 ft. And that's using last year's technology, which is already old. Nobody knows how the future will advance readable distance.
So while it would take footwork to track a passport it can certainly be done.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67333,00.html
The shield was only added after an outcry. Apparently the feds didn't see the problem with a signal constantly emitting the passport holder's private information to whomever was able to read it.
I'm unaware of the shield's efficacy but I don't exactly trust the State Dept.'s assertions on technology. Perhaps you could enlighten me with proof the shield will absolutely prohibit signal emission.
And thanks for lumping me with conspiracists. It's always good rhetoric to paint someone you disagree with as a loon. That way you marginalize their argument, albeit at the expense of civilized dialogue.
Please feel free to respond but I won't comment further. This site is supposed to be about cars.
Reply
x23 7:44AM (8/08/2006)
"Please feel free to respond but I won't comment further. This site is supposed to be about cars.
Posted at 1:57AM on Aug 8th 2006 by anahit "
agreed. that's why making a ridiculous comment about an RFID passports "signal" being able to be tracked around the world by some presumably nefarious government was sort of out of line in the first place.
it'not really rhetoric pointing out that :
"The feds will then have the ability to know where your passport is at all times if they want to track your RFID signal."
...has a lot of George Noorey keywords in it. people won't lump you in with "the loons" if you don't say looney things. just FYI.
Reply
Corey W. 2:56PM (8/08/2006)
"the slippery slope that bleeding hearts have created with regard to allowing regulation ad nauseum is now coming to home to roost..."
Dude...you are so backwards!! Your bleeding hearts will probably make the biggest noise against this.
BTW: Most cars already have a version of this technology. If you google the topic, you'll come across several sites that show you how to disable some.
Reply
Rusty Haight 2:14AM (8/09/2006)
OK, time for a deep breath and a reality check. First off, let's get rid of the mindless hysteria, there is no tattletale, big brother "black box" in your car - ANY car - recording any "history" of where you go or what you're doing from one minute to the next on a routine basis. There is not now and there WILL NOT be in the future.
Currently, there is physically and practially no way no way to expand this technology to capture more than it does. In GM modules, the amount of available storage space not to mention RAM is limited since the "Event Data Recorder" function is secondary to the need to use this processor space and RAM to make sure the airbags work when they're supposed to. The paranoid alarmist pinheads who suggest this technology "could" be expanded to spy on our everyday driving loose sight of the simple realities of the infrastructure and cost involved in expanding the technology to be capable of doing that. THEN they loose sight of who would - or, better who would NOT - fund that effort and to what realistic, practical end? Sure, we "can" do nearly anything but, from a realistic, rational, clear headed analysis of (a) what it takes, (b) who would want it (c) who would pay for it and (d) who would use it...it's not somewhere now or in the future this society is prepared to go despite the hysteria mongers.
What IS in your car and what CANNOT be disabled without effecting your safety, your warranty and your legal rights in some cases is an airbag control module which has a FUNCTIONAL secondary CAPABILITY to record certain crash related bits of information (a) when there's a crash and (b) when the module is still powered shortly after the crash to store that data. It is not "always on" watching your every move. None of us, not one of us here are so interesting that the black helicopters are following us (you) around watching your every move.
OEMs get the airbag control module from the supplier and that airbag control module is capable of analyzing crash data to make a decision whether or not to deploy an airbag THEN, that control module may be capable of capturing crash data. The modules only store crash data when there's a crash event of some sort, when there's something that causes the module to evaluate data and decide whether or not to deploy an air bag. It does NOT store data when the car's simple being driven down the road so, no a policeman can's walk up to a car he's stopped and get data unless there's been some manner of crash.
Assume then that a car gets in a crash, lets say the air bags deploy. After that safety function is completed THEN, the module takes crash severity information, belt use status and other system information as well as - for SOME modules - "pre crash data" which, for GM, means (1) vehicle speed, (2) engine RPMs, (3) throttle application and (4) brakes ON or OFF (not a percentage of braking) ) and stores that for later retrieval. There is no steering, no swerving, no communication with outside communications center(s), no history of where the car goes, no identification of the driver, no indication of its direction of travel...none of that.
As to the misguided discussion of privacy here. Privacy "rights" do NOT apply to this technology (there's already case law on this). Privacy is something extended to the individual. For someone to suggest that these systems intrude on an individual's privacy is intellectual dishonesty. There's no name, date of birth, social security number, driver license number which are part of the crash data report: read: NO personal, private information. Notably, all of those bits of information ARE already part of the normal police report when there's a crash anyway...so what would it hurt if they were part of this report...but they're not. You cannot assert privacy rights when there is no individual identified, in this case, by the data. Moreover, what activity IS recorded is that which is conducted in PLAIN VIEW in a PUBLIC PLACE where there is (important legal term) no "expectation of privacy." If you think there is, try keeping the testimony of an bystander eyewitness to your diving out of court.
Lastly, will this data be admitted in trial: yes. It has in more than 9 states thus far and there are more to come. Is it always used "against you?' No, and to believe that is nothing more than simple ignorance. Thin of it this way: you're driving responsibly and "the other guy does something wrong" and you crash. Do you want to rely solely on a human being (the investigating police officer) to get the calculations to find your speed and that of the other guy right or would you rather he get some additional help in the way of crash data from "the other guy's car?" By definition it will be used "against" you 50% of the time and for you 50% of the time.
As to whether of not there is a value to the consumer: of course there is. Using this data there have already been recalls and, of course, 50% of the drivers involved in crashes have benefited from evidence that cleared them or further demonstrated their responsible driver behavior.
Reply
william mcgurk 8:04AM (8/11/2006)
what next,make sure you wipe from front to back?
Reply
Accident Analyst ( 11:54AM (8/11/2006)
Rusty wrote: "there is no tattletale, big brother "black box" in your car - ANY car - recording any "history" of where you go or what you're doing from one minute to the next on a routine basis. There is not now and there WILL NOT be in the future. "
WRONG! Can you spell ONSTAR??? It's been used for just that purpose and more, for example when a carjacker takes off with a baby in the back. Police have even monitored the sounds inside the car through the installed cell phone microphone without alerting the carjacker (by connecting to the cell phone without ringing it) to make sure the baby is OK. Google it, tons of info on this, including successful baby rescues... It takes a warant or an emergency to get ONSTAR to feed this data to the police, but the capability IS there and HAS been used.
Rusty also wrote: "What IS in your car is an airbag control module which has a CAPABILITY to record certain crash related bits of information (a) when there's a crash and (b) when the module is still powered shortly after the crash to store that data. It is not "always on" watching your every move. It does NOT store data when the car's simple being driven down the road" "pre crash data" which, for GM, means (1) vehicle speed, (2) engine RPMs, (3) throttle application and (4) brakes ON or OFF (not a percentage of braking) ) and stores that for later retrieval."
WRONG! Think about this and use common sense... Unless it has a time machine inside it, it HAS to be recording this information BEFORE the crash, because these conditions no longer exist AFTER the initial crash events. The modules write this info on a periodic basis (a few times a second), overwriting older data, and if a crash happens the last set of info is not overwritten because the next write cycle has been stopped by the crash sensors. Loss of power in the crash just helps ensure the last data set (pre-crash) is not overwritten. The memory buffers typically hold three or four sets of data on a rotation in case one set is being written as the crash happens, which can corrupt the data.
Reply