And surprise, surprise - guess who is in favor of this? Why its General Motors of course. I wonder what could be going on here?

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/01/g...x-legislation/

Isn't it nice the the goverment has an auto company all its own.

 

Uh..., If I may be political here? No disrespect intended. I think it would be the insurance companies bribing certain congressmen and senators to get the boxes installed so they can make more money by messing with drivers/consumers who are required to have insurance in order to drive.

I don't think our president wants to burden Americans with more corporate control and greed.

Honestly, I don't mean to disrespect your right to question. OTOH, I think it's more likely we're getting screwed more by Big Money Special Interests than respectable government officials trying doing their jobs with honesty and integrity.

 

Regardless of your or my political orientation, any time we vote for a 'progressive' (liberal) candidate we are saying we are willing to grant more regulation (and power) to our government. I have no idea where the line is, but anyone who supports regulating Banks or Wall Street or Insurance companies or airlines should not be shocked or upset when we get black boxes or mpg rules or, eventually, mandatory speed governors on our cars.

 

Well yes, the insurance companies may want it - but only if they can use the data to deny claims to people who were speeding. I'm not sure that will fly. Oh sure, someone doing 100 in a 55 will likely see their insurance company win their claim denial. But what about someone doing 65 in a 55? Do they lose their insurance coverage in an accident also? And what about when the data is used subjectively - like the example I gave, suppose your braking reaction time isn't as good as Michael Schumacher, and the ECU shows you braked late coming into that fatal accident - do you lose you insurance coverage for that? Do you go to jail for that? Who sets the "out of bounds" standards for the data pulled from your ECU? NHTSA?

The point about GM is - why are they so quick to sign onto legislation like this? Its because they are a government entity now, the corporate name (if you can call it that) is being used poltically to advance legislation. GM should be making cars, not trying to influence civil liberties legislation.

 

Canada has had data recorders in all cars sold here since 2000 with each model years box's becoming better able to store more data and record more functions. I'm sure it's this way in the US as well. Many officers of the courts have been able to prove careless/dangerous driving up here but the courts need a warrant (which they usually get) in order to download the data. As far as I recall - it is only used where there has been serious injury or death.

The *intent* of the data loggers was to create a database of accident information in order to feed it into mainframes to see if a common element occurred in head on and 90 degree accidents that could be used to design better vehicles to protect us. It did lead to improved and less powerful but still quicker deploying airbags.

But the rub came when the police found out that data such as brake application, speed, G forces could be read in stored memory. Then it was quick as a bunny to the judge in order to get a warrant claiming all sorts of probability causes and then to the wreckers to reach under the passenger seat to remove the box.

Now we all have a riding passenger who is all seeing and all knowing except for the fact that while someone going over the speed limit may contribute to a higher severity of damage - it doesn't mean that the driver was at fault if someone turns into his path or runs a stop sign. However the police and insurance companies seem to take the view that the highest speed gets the charge no matter what other circumstances were at play and your dear old black box becomes witness for the prosecution against you.

But wait - there's more: GM On Star already has the ability to upload data from your car and store it on GM databases and when I owned my CTS they could take 'snap shots' of all sorts of items that could be emailed to you on a monthly rate. I even had GM solving a braking issue as we drove down the road (ABS failed) one day and the On Star person CALLED US and told us to pull over while the on board system could be checked to see if we needed to have a tow truck or could still drive the car to a dealer. When they determined that the brakes were ok without the ABS - we were told to drive to our dealer ASAP and while we were doing that, data would be recorded for later viewing at the dealer. The 010 models can now store more then a a Gig of data I was told and there is the ability to 'upload' this data when the memory is full. Maximum speeds and braking G force would be very interesting to GM during warranty claims on CTS-V's and ZR-1's wouldn't you think...

It's not the box' we have to worry about now - it's that little sat system built into quite a few cars today. I'm told that even if you don't pay to have the On Star system turned on - police services can and have had the systems turned on in cars they are tailing (and tracking via GPS) and can listen in on the On Star phone mic without suspects knowing as long as they convince a judge. Short of pulling the cable to the antenna and a fuse to be sure - there can be dark side to high-tech. I'm not doing anything illgeal so I have no great fear of these systems - it's just that it's one more 'tool' that chips away at personal freedoms and some day we will wake up and find the Government controlling the speed we drive and where we can drive.

Big brother just keeps getting bigger.

 

There have been some court cases won by lawyers using data retrived from GM cars equiped with onstar. The cars onstar computer holds in memory the last few minutes of your driving, which can be retrived after an accident, and used for or against you in a court of law.

 

Precisely stated! Let's rethink the situation come November!

 

Welcome to your next-to-worst nightmare if you wreck your car by driving frisky!

Seriously, there's got to be DIY hack somewhere explaining how to defeat these sukkers.

 

More immediately black boxes will measure distance driven and your insurance premium will be directly related to the distance driven. No location data captured (though that is a possibility if the hardware added to the basic black box) and time of day is not noted or logged, just distance.

This is already a requirement in CA and other states I'm sure will follow suit.

Next many areas are looking into congestion charging for driving into areas at certain times of the day. A device that monitors among other things your location and with a RF connection will debit your account as you enter and spend time in a congested area.

Lastly for emissions compliance an I/M (inspection/monitoring) "black box" will be used to query your car's ECU for emissions compliance. No visiting a smog test station. Just plug in device, wait a minute, unplug and mail it to the CA DMV or CARB office.

Sincerely,

Macster.

 

I'm not worried about miles driven calculations - New York State already knows how many miles I drive because its recorded when the car is inspected each year. And there is no constititutional right to drive a car that is not emissions compliant.

The use of this data as part of court proceedings is a civil liberties issue.

 

Insurance companies want to get away from the car inspected and they want to get away from having to rely upon when the owner/driver tells them.

It doesn't bother me if an insurance company wants my mileage but what will happen is states will likely enforce a surcharge or levy extra registration fees at some point. Not only will you pay more taxes at the fuel pump when you buy fuel but there'll be an added tax.

I agree with your second point: I am a strict believer in keeping vehicles emissions compliant.

The last point cuts both ways. Sure, the evidence can be used against you. Not sure how much weight trip data from a day before during which which you were speeding some would have for an accident that happened today and you were not speeding. I'm sure a good attorney could deal with that.

(Speed is not a major factor in accidents. The NHSTA (or whatever the letters are) has gathered numbers and speeding down the list. Driving too fast for conditions different. Not paying attention (biggie, maybe #1 and with cell phones probably #1). DUI another biggie. Everyone likes to point at speed being the "killer" and it is not. Otherwise we'd all be dead. Drive the limit and watch how many cars do not and accidents are quite rare, actually. Sure, speed plays a role in the severity of the accident once it occurs but plays little role in causing it. The focus on speed driven by insurance companies seeking to find a way to charge more money for insurance and a speeding ticket with the points works very well, thank you. If only insurance companies would go after uninsured or underinsured motorists. One in 5 here in CA in this category. Oh wait, they're not uninsured. I pay uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage as part of my car insurance.)

Also, the data could clear you. Not everyone is going to jump out of a car that has run into your car, or has pulled in front of your car with no time for you to avoid hitting this other car and claiming responsibility. As a Porsche driver, you're looked up by some as "rich" and fair game for the lawsuit lottery.

We'll just have to see how it pans out.

Sincerely,

Macster.