View Poll Results: Regarding the requirement to install "black boxes" in all new cars and light trucks:
It violates my right to privacy. What I do in my car is my OWN responsibility.
17
62.96%
It's OK, I have nothing to hide. Might save on insurance premiums.
10
37.04%
It's the first step toward "1984", where government knows all.
5
18.52%
Automakers may face new liabilities if failures are recorded.
3
11.11%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll
NHTSA to Require Black Box in Your New Car
12-08-12, 04:14 AM
#17
This black box idea is nothing new and has been around since the 90's when GM started putting them in their cars. Ford, Lexus and Toyota started putting them in cars in the early 2000's.
Here's a list I found for those interested Black Box List
Here's a list I found for those interested Black Box List
12-08-12, 09:33 AM
#18
Out of Warranty
Thread Starter
I'm not a fan of Big Brotherism in general. Having some agency looking over my shoulder is not my idea of freedom - especially when my driving is going to be reviewed by a panel of pencil-necked geeks who get their automotive thrills vicariously by crunching numbers.
BUT . . .
I also understand the fairness of assessing rates based on driving behavior. Those who drive recklessly at high speeds and heavy g-loads are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident, therefore should bear their fair share of insurance coverage. In this case, a very few drivers would pay for their choices - much as they do by their selection of car, age, claim history, and driving record today. The input from a data storage device might be only ONE factor in determining a driver's premium - or insurability by predicting a motorists behavior. Bureau of Precrime anyone?
But what we are discussing here is an event recorder that preserves only about five or ten seconds of data in a continuous loop until stopped by a crash or airbag deployment. At that point, investigators can recover the "black box" and look at the speed, steering, brake, and throttle inputs, etc. in the last few seconds before impact, not the past week or two. Ten seconds isn't necessarily indicative of a driver's overall performance, but it will provide a snapshot of the conditions at the time of the accident. This could be valuable for several reasons:
- It will serve as an independent and impartial witness to the accident.
- It will provide data to support either defense or prosecution in criminal or civil proceedings.
- It will corroborate other evidence of mechanical difficulties with the vehicle that may have been contributory to the event, such as brake failure or a secondary collision.
- It will provide investigators with collision data unrecoverable by other means, possibly resulting in recall or redesign of critical systems.
As useful as these data might be, we eventually get back to the "Jurassic Park" argument, "Just because we have the technology, should we use it?"
12-08-12, 10:55 AM
#19
Well, Progressive Insurance has been making little data recorders available to monitor a driver's habits over a period of time in order to offer discounted rates to "good" drivers who drive "safely". There is no word as to whether plugging one of these into your car for a few days or weeks could also RAISE your rates if you engaged in non-approved behaviors.
I'm not a fan of Big Brotherism in general. Having some agency looking over my shoulder is not my idea of freedom - especially when my driving is going to be reviewed by a panel of pencil-necked geeks who get their automotive thrills vicariously by crunching numbers.
I also understand the fairness of assessing rates based on driving behavior. Those who drive recklessly at high speeds and heavy g-loads are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident, therefore should bear their fair share of insurance coverage. In this case, a very few drivers would pay for their choices - much as they do by their selection of car, age, claim history, and driving record today. The input from a data storage device might be only ONE factor in determining a driver's premium - or insurability by predicting a motorists behavior. Bureau of Precrime anyone?
But what we are discussing here is an event recorder that preserves only about five or ten seconds of data in a continuous loop until stopped by a crash or airbag deployment. At that point, investigators can recover the "black box" and look at the speed, steering, brake, and throttle inputs, etc. in the last few seconds before impact, not the past week or two. Ten seconds isn't necessarily indicative of a driver's overall performance, but it will provide a snapshot of the conditions at the time of the accident. This could be valuable for several reasons:
As useful as these data might be, we eventually get back to the "Jurassic Park" argument, "Just because we have the technology, should we use it?"
I'm not a fan of Big Brotherism in general. Having some agency looking over my shoulder is not my idea of freedom - especially when my driving is going to be reviewed by a panel of pencil-necked geeks who get their automotive thrills vicariously by crunching numbers.
BUT . . .
I also understand the fairness of assessing rates based on driving behavior. Those who drive recklessly at high speeds and heavy g-loads are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident, therefore should bear their fair share of insurance coverage. In this case, a very few drivers would pay for their choices - much as they do by their selection of car, age, claim history, and driving record today. The input from a data storage device might be only ONE factor in determining a driver's premium - or insurability by predicting a motorists behavior. Bureau of Precrime anyone?
But what we are discussing here is an event recorder that preserves only about five or ten seconds of data in a continuous loop until stopped by a crash or airbag deployment. At that point, investigators can recover the "black box" and look at the speed, steering, brake, and throttle inputs, etc. in the last few seconds before impact, not the past week or two. Ten seconds isn't necessarily indicative of a driver's overall performance, but it will provide a snapshot of the conditions at the time of the accident. This could be valuable for several reasons:
- It will serve as an independent and impartial witness to the accident.
- It will provide data to support either defense or prosecution in criminal or civil proceedings.
- It will corroborate other evidence of mechanical difficulties with the vehicle that may have been contributory to the event, such as brake failure or a secondary collision.
- It will provide investigators with collision data unrecoverable by other means, possibly resulting in recall or redesign of critical systems.
As useful as these data might be, we eventually get back to the "Jurassic Park" argument, "Just because we have the technology, should we use it?"
its all good and dandy until something happens and they have to pay you out.
12-08-12, 11:42 AM
#20
Well, Progressive Insurance has been making little data recorders available to monitor a driver's habits over a period of time in order to offer discounted rates to "good" drivers who drive "safely". There is no word as to whether plugging one of these into your car for a few days or weeks could also RAISE your rates if you engaged in non-approved behaviors.
I actually ran that program, known as the snapshot discount. Originally my rates were X dollars. This included an initial discount (not mentioned to us that it was a one time deal). After 6 months had passed and my discount had been calculated (30% max, I got 12%......), they happened to INCREASE our rates, no accidents, nothing, and said it's because their statistics show in Florida they have higher rates of accidents so they raise everyones rates.......I call BS on that one. Basically after they applied the 12% discount, and removed the original discount and added the increase in premium....my overall 6 month total was MORE than the original one.
I feel cheated that they had the gall to just up and raise the rates by $200+ on a family plan of 3 cars. Anyone else see foul play in this?
12-08-12, 11:56 AM
#21
Lexus Test Driver
Well, Progressive Insurance has been making little data recorders available to monitor a driver's habits over a period of time in order to offer discounted rates to "good" drivers who drive "safely". There is no word as to whether plugging one of these into your car for a few days or weeks could also RAISE your rates if you engaged in non-approved behaviors.
I'm not a fan of Big Brotherism in general. Having some agency looking over my shoulder is not my idea of freedom - especially when my driving is going to be reviewed by a panel of pencil-necked geeks who get their automotive thrills vicariously by crunching numbers.
I also understand the fairness of assessing rates based on driving behavior. Those who drive recklessly at high speeds and heavy g-loads are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident, therefore should bear their fair share of insurance coverage. In this case, a very few drivers would pay for their choices - much as they do by their selection of car, age, claim history, and driving record today. The input from a data storage device might be only ONE factor in determining a driver's premium - or insurability by predicting a motorists behavior. Bureau of Precrime anyone?
But what we are discussing here is an event recorder that preserves only about five or ten seconds of data in a continuous loop until stopped by a crash or airbag deployment. At that point, investigators can recover the "black box" and look at the speed, steering, brake, and throttle inputs, etc. in the last few seconds before impact, not the past week or two. Ten seconds isn't necessarily indicative of a driver's overall performance, but it will provide a snapshot of the conditions at the time of the accident. This could be valuable for several reasons:
As useful as these data might be, we eventually get back to the "Jurassic Park" argument, "Just because we have the technology, should we use it?"
I'm not a fan of Big Brotherism in general. Having some agency looking over my shoulder is not my idea of freedom - especially when my driving is going to be reviewed by a panel of pencil-necked geeks who get their automotive thrills vicariously by crunching numbers.
BUT . . .
I also understand the fairness of assessing rates based on driving behavior. Those who drive recklessly at high speeds and heavy g-loads are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident, therefore should bear their fair share of insurance coverage. In this case, a very few drivers would pay for their choices - much as they do by their selection of car, age, claim history, and driving record today. The input from a data storage device might be only ONE factor in determining a driver's premium - or insurability by predicting a motorists behavior. Bureau of Precrime anyone?
But what we are discussing here is an event recorder that preserves only about five or ten seconds of data in a continuous loop until stopped by a crash or airbag deployment. At that point, investigators can recover the "black box" and look at the speed, steering, brake, and throttle inputs, etc. in the last few seconds before impact, not the past week or two. Ten seconds isn't necessarily indicative of a driver's overall performance, but it will provide a snapshot of the conditions at the time of the accident. This could be valuable for several reasons:
- It will serve as an independent and impartial witness to the accident.
- It will provide data to support either defense or prosecution in criminal or civil proceedings.
- It will corroborate other evidence of mechanical difficulties with the vehicle that may have been contributory to the event, such as brake failure or a secondary collision.
- It will provide investigators with collision data unrecoverable by other means, possibly resulting in recall or redesign of critical systems.
As useful as these data might be, we eventually get back to the "Jurassic Park" argument, "Just because we have the technology, should we use it?"
12-08-12, 05:23 PM
#22
Lexus Fanatic
If you're guilty, you're guilty within an accident. You should fess up and take your punishment. However if you're guilty and try to weasel out of it and blame it on the other person, then that box can be the victims lifesaver.
However as someone pointed out with insurance purposes.......this will lead a host of issues with them. They're gonna use EVERYTHING that box can give them to deny you your claim.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-08-12 at 05:27 PM.
12-09-12, 06:08 AM
#23
Out of Warranty
Thread Starter
Before we blame insurance companies for being greedy, remember that to be successful, they also must be competitive. In a free market it is in their best interest to assess premiums that are most reflective of the risk their individual customers present. If I can secure a lower rate at "X" rather than "Y", (given the same coverage and services) I'll go with the low cost option. That free market "balance" ensures fairness for all.
That may not apply to drivers who are under 25, drive a high-performance automobile, or one that may be expensive to repair, or if they have a record that includes a couple of moving violations in the past five years. They will want to hunker down amid the camouflage of other, less risky drivers who populate the insurance rolls. By sharing their high risk with lower risk consumers, their risk is going to be spread over the larger group resulting in a disproportionately low rate for the driver who presents a high individual risk. This isn't quite fair because average to low-risk drivers in the pool will be paying somewhat higher premiums just to cover the misadventures of that one "bad" driver. Many of them will eventually abandon that insurance carrier for one that offers a lower rate - one more representative of the actual risk they pose.
The same applies to denying a claim following an accident. IF the policy carefully spells out the circumstances under which a claim may be denied, and it can be proven that one or more of these restrictions was broken, some, if not all of the coverage may not be available. This is a sticky process because there is the assumption of some shared liability here, primarily regarding the good faith effort made by the insurance carrier to properly assess the risk and assigning the coverage to the proper pool and live up to its obligation to the customer who paid what was asked for coverage.
Now, if egregious behavior can be proved, such as in an accident involving street racing or contributory negligence, for example, leaving your car on the street with the keys in it, some or all coverage may legitimately be denied. Alternatively, although the company might pay the claim, the customer is probably going to be moved into a higher-risk pool, and his premiums will escalate accordingly. Naturally, this kind of derogatory information is available to all carriers, so moving your coverage from one company to another may not save a significant amount of money.
That may not apply to drivers who are under 25, drive a high-performance automobile, or one that may be expensive to repair, or if they have a record that includes a couple of moving violations in the past five years. They will want to hunker down amid the camouflage of other, less risky drivers who populate the insurance rolls. By sharing their high risk with lower risk consumers, their risk is going to be spread over the larger group resulting in a disproportionately low rate for the driver who presents a high individual risk. This isn't quite fair because average to low-risk drivers in the pool will be paying somewhat higher premiums just to cover the misadventures of that one "bad" driver. Many of them will eventually abandon that insurance carrier for one that offers a lower rate - one more representative of the actual risk they pose.
The same applies to denying a claim following an accident. IF the policy carefully spells out the circumstances under which a claim may be denied, and it can be proven that one or more of these restrictions was broken, some, if not all of the coverage may not be available. This is a sticky process because there is the assumption of some shared liability here, primarily regarding the good faith effort made by the insurance carrier to properly assess the risk and assigning the coverage to the proper pool and live up to its obligation to the customer who paid what was asked for coverage.
Now, if egregious behavior can be proved, such as in an accident involving street racing or contributory negligence, for example, leaving your car on the street with the keys in it, some or all coverage may legitimately be denied. Alternatively, although the company might pay the claim, the customer is probably going to be moved into a higher-risk pool, and his premiums will escalate accordingly. Naturally, this kind of derogatory information is available to all carriers, so moving your coverage from one company to another may not save a significant amount of money.
12-09-12, 06:14 AM
#24
Out of Warranty
Thread Starter
12-10-12, 10:47 PM
#25
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Unplug it. Period. The FBI has no jurisdiction over traffic incidents unless they cross state lines. Airbags and EDRs capable of providing data without context are equally bad ideas. For instance, how do we measure speed? Rear wheel rpm. Do you think it might be possible to indicate a speed you are not traveling because your wheels are slipping? Maybe rain, snow, ice are affecting this? And the EDR knows this is the case how? Oh, that's right, IT CAN'T.
Sorry, I don't think EDRs are a good idea just like I don't think airbags are a good idea. You only need to see your loved one needlessly battered and bruised by an airbag one time to realize they're the greatest scam ever perpetrated on the driving public. EDRs are no different. If the manufacturers want crash data, they need to wreck some cars, not collect data from me. IMHO, if they want MY data, they need to compensate me for it.
Sorry, I don't think EDRs are a good idea just like I don't think airbags are a good idea. You only need to see your loved one needlessly battered and bruised by an airbag one time to realize they're the greatest scam ever perpetrated on the driving public. EDRs are no different. If the manufacturers want crash data, they need to wreck some cars, not collect data from me. IMHO, if they want MY data, they need to compensate me for it.
12-11-12, 07:12 AM
#26
Out of Warranty
Thread Starter
I'm not sure what the liabilities of tampering with a federally-required data recovery system might be (assuming the "suggestion" becomes a federal mandate), but like seatbelts and catalytic converters, there will probably be some penalty attached for disabling them. Of course there's that warning tag on your mattress too . . . 
I have serious problems with airbags too, particularly in their method of deployment. A dear old friend was in a rather modest collision in her ES 300 a few years back, and other than a bowed fender, there was no damage to the car aft of the radiator. Of course, the front clip was destroyed, but that's what it is designed to do in absorbing the energy from a collision. Her Lexus was totaled, in part due to the damage to the interior caused by the airbag deployment.
The damage to this spritely 80-something year old lady was far worse. She took a punch to the face from her airbag that would have done Mike Tyson proud, blacking both of her eyes and knocking her out cold. We didn't know it at the time, but the damage was far greater than we imagined . . . double vision, dissociated pain, bouts of depression, and occasional dizziness, later traced to brain damage, likely caused by the severe blow to her face.
Within a year she suffered a dizzy spell while home alone and collapsed, striking her head on the hearth of her fireplace. In and out of consciousness for a couple of weeks, she eventually died of ruptured blood vessels deep within her brain that were inaccessible to surgeons. Was the root cause the blow from that airbag? Probably.
In their haste to make high-speed collisions survivable, even for unbelted passengers, engineers overlooked the fact that often times the deployment of an airbag can deliver a much more severe blow than the collision itself ever could. The resulting severe injuries, especially to young children and our elder citizens too often has ended in death - even with the "controlled deployment" pyrotechnics that are used to provide a measure of safety in a low speed collision. While I'm sure airbags save lives, particularly of drunks running into trees at the roadside at a high rate of speed, they still kill a good number of people in otherwise survivable collisions. Acceptable "collateral damage"? I don't think so.
Like airbags, EDRs may prove to be a two-edged sword, if relied upon as the sole arbiter of fact. Any system can fail - it's the reason the automakers (or government) want the data in the first place . . . but they don't consider what happens when the interpretation of the data fails.
I have serious problems with airbags too, particularly in their method of deployment. A dear old friend was in a rather modest collision in her ES 300 a few years back, and other than a bowed fender, there was no damage to the car aft of the radiator. Of course, the front clip was destroyed, but that's what it is designed to do in absorbing the energy from a collision. Her Lexus was totaled, in part due to the damage to the interior caused by the airbag deployment.
The damage to this spritely 80-something year old lady was far worse. She took a punch to the face from her airbag that would have done Mike Tyson proud, blacking both of her eyes and knocking her out cold. We didn't know it at the time, but the damage was far greater than we imagined . . . double vision, dissociated pain, bouts of depression, and occasional dizziness, later traced to brain damage, likely caused by the severe blow to her face.
Within a year she suffered a dizzy spell while home alone and collapsed, striking her head on the hearth of her fireplace. In and out of consciousness for a couple of weeks, she eventually died of ruptured blood vessels deep within her brain that were inaccessible to surgeons. Was the root cause the blow from that airbag? Probably.
In their haste to make high-speed collisions survivable, even for unbelted passengers, engineers overlooked the fact that often times the deployment of an airbag can deliver a much more severe blow than the collision itself ever could. The resulting severe injuries, especially to young children and our elder citizens too often has ended in death - even with the "controlled deployment" pyrotechnics that are used to provide a measure of safety in a low speed collision. While I'm sure airbags save lives, particularly of drunks running into trees at the roadside at a high rate of speed, they still kill a good number of people in otherwise survivable collisions. Acceptable "collateral damage"? I don't think so.
Like airbags, EDRs may prove to be a two-edged sword, if relied upon as the sole arbiter of fact. Any system can fail - it's the reason the automakers (or government) want the data in the first place . . . but they don't consider what happens when the interpretation of the data fails.
Last edited by Lil4X; 12-11-12 at 07:16 AM.
12-11-12, 07:28 AM
#27
i really feel bad for oil, insurance and banks... poor them, making only billions where they should be making trillions.
12-11-12, 09:48 AM
#29
Moderator: LFA, Clubhouse
Courts have generally held that people don't have an expectation of privacy while on public roads, but those decisions relate to positional tracking. It's a different issue when you're talking about collecting all kinds of data regarding what someone is doing inside a car.
I think a problem also occurs when entities try to use the data to push their own agendas. Is a person driving 38 in a 35 or 70 in a 65 in itself dangerous? It's important to ask how companies, the government, or other parties might try to start using this data in an attempt to further their own goals.
Also, I'm surprised no one has brought this up, but it's also just another thing that increases the cost of vehicles. More government regulation and interference at the cost of consumers or taxpayers.
Also, the notion that privacy should be disregarded because people shouldn't care if they have nothing to hide is among the worst arguments made in any public policy debate on any issue. It assumes that the only reason individuals desire privacy is to mask wrongdoing, and that's a totally wrong outlook to take.
He was talking about competition, which is generally viewed as good for consumers........?
I think a problem also occurs when entities try to use the data to push their own agendas. Is a person driving 38 in a 35 or 70 in a 65 in itself dangerous? It's important to ask how companies, the government, or other parties might try to start using this data in an attempt to further their own goals.
Also, I'm surprised no one has brought this up, but it's also just another thing that increases the cost of vehicles. More government regulation and interference at the cost of consumers or taxpayers.
Also, the notion that privacy should be disregarded because people shouldn't care if they have nothing to hide is among the worst arguments made in any public policy debate on any issue. It assumes that the only reason individuals desire privacy is to mask wrongdoing, and that's a totally wrong outlook to take.
He was talking about competition, which is generally viewed as good for consumers........?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
