Export thread

New Federal bill (all but) signed into Law: Starting in 2015, all new cars must come with "black box" data recorders.

I predict that used cars manufactured in 2014 and earlier will command a premium as a result. Who would want to buy a car that could potentially roll over and blab your speed, location, driving habits, G-forces, driver identity (they'll be able to tell which key is being used, after all), or other info to anyone within BlueTooth range? Sure, there are legitimate, even desirable uses for this technology, but I doubt consumers will really enjoy the thought having their car narc on them at every traffic stop.

--Patrick

Used car prices will be going up anyways, because the costs of meeting new lower EPA mileage standards will be going up. Pretty soon, the average American won't be able to afford a new car - black box or no.

And all of you laughed at GasBandit and the Libertarian Party (awesome band name).

What possible benefits does this so called black box even bring to the table other than massive privacy concerns and increased price?

Stupid.

I hope this bunk doesn't come to Canada as quickly...

And we just destroyed thousands of perfectly viable used cars in the ill-conceived "cash for clunkers" program, which required the trade-ins to have their engines destroyed, thus ruining the used car market. You used to be able to reliably find a working car for $500... not any more.

You left out the part about how a lot of older cars had their "official" MPG ratings adjusted just before that program went into effect...just enough and just in time for them not to qualify. (mine was one)

--Patrick

GasBandit said:

And we just destroyed thousands of perfectly viable used cars in the ill-conceived "cash for clunkers" program, which required the trade-ins to have their engines destroyed, thus ruining the used car market. You used to be able to reliably find a working car for $500... not any more.

Click to expand...

WTH? Had to have their engines destroyed? That's crap.

You know really pisses me off about all this? My project car which is a 2001 supercharged Honda Prelude gets better gas mileage now after I did a full tune of the whole air/fuel map than it did stock. This is with the extra weight and parasitic effects of a roots supercharger. Old cars and engines can get excellent gas mileage with a little knowledge and sweat.

I bet if I put the same engine management system in my 2000 civic I could probably get about 6L/100km (about 39mpg) out of that little car easy with some tuning. Plus I wouldn't have to deal with all this new bullshit being added to cars that just causes problems down the road (making everything electronic isn't necessarily an improvement).

Good, I'll keep babying my car and I should get top dollar for it by 2015.

There were a ton of misunderstandings on the cash for clunkers program. Like people thinking it applied to any old car. It didn't. It was actually remarkably selective.

They took my '99 Mercury Grand Marquis (de Sade) and gave me $3000 more than it was worth as a trade in, for $5k total. Then they sold the car for $5,200 and had to split the profit with me, so 2 weeks later they gave me a check for $100.

Since my car was worth more on the used car market than the cash for clunkers money it did not have to be crushed.

My mom's idea was to let people with real POS cars, trade even for the nice cars that were turned in. That way the really dirty cars were off the market. And folks that could not afford a new or used car could pick up something decent.

...so it's like mandatory OnStar? That's great. [/sarcasm]

My 97 camry, and a lot of other decent used cars out there, did not qualify for CfC. Which is kind of the point. The good used cars are still there. It's the pieces of junk (like an old Grand Marquis or a Jeep Cherokee) that did.

Azurephoenix said:

What possible benefits does this so called black box even bring to the table other than massive privacy concerns and increased price?

Click to expand...

Well, the data could be used to establish an alibi (or lack of one), it could finally put to rest that whole "sudden acceleration" controversy, it could be used to show that a person deliberately accelerated and aimed for a cyclist to establish premeditation, telemetry could be mined for potential upcoming mechanical problems, and on the grander scale it could have mechanical, engineering benefits such as showing the preferred RPM range where people drive, whether maintenance intervals need to be adjusted based on actual field failure rates, under what circumstances people have the best/worst fuel economy, or even bigger pictures such as global average miles per trip/gallons burned/pollutants emitted.

These are all amazingly useful applications, but unfortunately I'm sure the most common use will just be, "Ah, my scan shows you really were traveling at/under the speed limit, but it also shows you went over the speed limit for 10 minutes a week and a half ago, so I'm still going to have to give you a ticket."

--Patrick

The law is coming, but the implementation specs haven't yet been formalized, so I'm hoping it ends up being something like the current OBD system, where you usually can't get the info without physically connecting a tether to the automobile, but I am not putting it past them to make it some sort of wireless system in the name of "convenience." Many cars already support BT for diagnostics, so I'm sure the idea will occur to someone.

--Patrick

Necronic said:

My 97 camry, and a lot of other decent used cars out there, did not qualify for CfC. Which is kind of the point. The good used cars are still there. It's the pieces of junk (like an old Grand Marquis or a Jeep Cherokee) that did.

Click to expand...

I read stories that go the other way. Perfectly good cars and trucks traded in and their engines destroyed. And it caused an immediate spike in the price of used cars due to reduced supply, ultimately hurting the lowest income bracket americans worst. This tattlebox program, as noted, will cause it to spike again. A bad idea, misguidedly conceived and no doubt to be poorly executed, with predictably horrible results.

..and the information can be used against you for insurance purposes.

GasBandit said:

A bad idea, misguidedly conceived and no doubt to be poorly executed, with predictably horrible results.

Click to expand...

This was already brought up in the OP

OP said:

New Federal bill

Click to expand...

Covar said:

This was already brought up in the OP

Click to expand...

You know GB likes hearing himself type.

SpecialKO said:

You know GB likes hearing himself type.

Click to expand...

I hope he does not have quiet keys.

I have little sympathy for this tbqh. People need to understand that an automobile is a piece of heavy machinery, and probably the single most dangerous item that your average american is allowed access to.

To put things in perspective Automotive accidents kill almost 40k Americans each year, w/ another 80k as lost time casualties. They are the leading killer of people between the age of 1-34. And they create almost 200 BILLION dollars in costs each year (that's ~700$ per every man, woman, and child in the US every year.)

Sorry. These need to be closely monitored.

Necronic said:

I have little sympathy for this tbqh. People need to understand that an automobile is a piece of heavy machinery, and probably the single most dangerous item that your average american is allowed access to.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you know... aside from guns.

Cars are far more dangerous to Americans than Guns.

40k vehicle deaths per year vs. 14k murders a year. Not all those murders involved guns.

sixpackshaker said:

Cars are far more dangerous to Americans than Guns.

40k vehicle deaths per year vs. 14k murders a year. Not all those murders involved guns.

Click to expand...

Jeez... you forget one winky smiley face and you get this...

I agree with you guys with cars being dangerous... very dangerous in fact... but guess what?

Monitoring this kind of telemetry will NOT make things safer. You want to make things safer with cars? Teach people better driving skills and habits.

If the driver is aware that every time he hits the gas pedal, his insurance company will increase his rates for being a bad driver... then it "could" help with safety. I am completely against it, because we have traffic control in the form of police, constables, sheriffs, and state troopers. If you get caught speeding in a place that is basically safe for that speed, a cop can let you go.

I just flip my ball out when I see the Progressive Flo Ad with people holding the GPS/telemetry tracker, talking about how cool it is...

You hit the nail on the head... I don't want some souless insurance company getting the particulars on my exact driving habits (and for the record... I am a very safe driver according to my insurance company). Like I said earlier... I have a lot less of a problem with law enforcement being able to access driving telemetry (with an actual physical connection... not some bullshit wireless broadcast that any script kiddie can hack) than a bunch of bean counters at an insurance company.

I shudder to think what would happen when I take my car to the race track and log a good 10 laps at the edge of the car's performance...

Azurephoenix said:

Monitoring this kind of telemetry will NOT make things safer.

Click to expand...

A century's worth of safety analysts would disagree with you on that one.

Also did anyone else notice that this article sources Infowars? Yeah.....that's....that's does not indicate good journalism.

Edit: Also, just so this is clear (people seem to not understand this so much), these items already exist in most cars. For all of you that are so concerned abou this, do you even know if your current car has one? It probably does.

Edit2: I don't even know where all this nonsense about GPS and whatnot comes into this. I'm assuming that was lifted from the Infowars article. Yeah, let's take Alex Jones at face value, that's GOOD REPORTING

Necronic said:

I have little sympathy for this tbqh. People need to understand that an automobile is a piece of heavy machinery, and probably the single most dangerous item that your average american is allowed access to.

To put things in perspective Automotive accidents kill almost 40k Americans each year, w/ another 80k as lost time casualties. They are the leading killer of people between the age of 1-34. And they create almost 200 BILLION dollars in costs each year (that's ~700$ per every man, woman, and child in the US every year.)

Sorry. These need to be closely monitored.

Click to expand...

I disagree. This is the very soul of security vs liberty, and liberty trumps every time.

Now you just have a system that will save something like the last 30 seconds before the airbag deploys.

Necronic said:

A century's worth of safety analysts would disagree with you on that one.

Click to expand...

*shrug*

I see ever more sophisticated saftey improvements being developed for vehicles but you know what else I see on the rise? Driver apathy. I see people texting away while driving. I see people eating, applying makeup, reaching into the back seats. Hell I see people with three cats fighting over who can sit on the damn steering wheel while driving. I also see more and more people who plainly just don't understand the rules of the road and are completely oblivious of everything going on around them (extremely poor situational awareness).

People just aren't paying attention anymore. It doesn't matter if your car has the most advanced anti lock brakes and best tires if you aren't watching what the hell is going on in front of you. Careless driving is on the rise and fancy pants active braking systems, whizzy radar controlled cruise control and tattle tale telemetry WILL NOT WORK if people aren't putting in the basic effort to stay aware of what's going on around them (until computers can drive the damn cars themselves).

I don't know where you stand on cars but I'm a driving enthusiast. I like working on cars, tuning them and taking them to the track to push their limits (note... the TRACK... not the highway). I consider myself very aware of my surroundings when driving and I generally know the limits of the vehicle I'm driving because I regularly try to improve my driving and accident avoidance skills. I don't cause accidents and I don't drive like a jackass in normal traffic conditions (even if I'm driving a souped up car). My vitriol on this issue probably stems from the fact that I don't like being punished for other people not taking the dangers of driving an automobile seriously.

I believe better driver education will have more positive impact than high tech gizmos that promise safety at the expense of freedoms. Then again... I'm a dying breed... driving enthusiasts are on the way out.

(In response to Gas) I can't tell if you're joking, but you know that kind of absolutist ideological nonsense is meaningless, unpractical, unrealistic, and flat out dangerous right? Following your logic I woud get to the following conclusions:

-Airlines (or private planes) shouldn't have to submit flight plans to the FAA, and it's immoral to track them by radar
-Doctors do not have to show proof of having a medical license, or even an education in medicine. Ever.
-Anyone should be able to prescribe any drug they want (all drugs should be otc).
-Anyone should be able to purchase C4, TNT, RDX, or any other high explosive.

And honestly, like I said before, this ALREADY EXISTS in like 80% of all cars. And they DON'T record GPS data or anything like that, and the DON'T transmit data constantly. They record the state of the car directly before a crash (as defined by an airbag deployment, quick decelleration/acceleration, or other)

Edit: As for what kind of driver I am, I log roughly 400 miles a week. Every week. Sometimes quite a bit more. I put roughly 80k miles on my car in the 2 years I have owned it. And that's why I care. Because I spend almost 2 hours a day exposed to a very very hazardous environment. I have almost died multiple times on the highway. And I don't want to die.

I'm not disagreeing with your other point that distracted drivers and all the other things are an issue as well, but its NOT the only issue, and safety improvements are a holistic methodology. You don't just look at one issue.

Moreover, your point about changing driving culture implies that people have continued to forget that driving IS A PRIVELEDGE NOT A RIGHT, which, ironically, is the entire reason so many people have such an issue with this.

Necronic said:

(In response to Gas) I can't tell if you're joking, but you know that kind of absolutist ideological nonsense is meaningless, unpractical, unrealistic, and flat out dangerous right? Following your logic I woud get to the following conclusions:

-Airlines (or private planes) shouldn't have to submit flight plans to the FAA, and it's immoral to track them by radar
-Doctors do not have to show proof of having a medical license, or even an education in medicine. Ever.
-Anyone should be able to prescribe any drug they want (all drugs should be otc).
-Anyone should be able to purchase C4, TNT, RDX, or any other high explosive.

And honestly, like I said before, this ALREADY EXISTS in like 80% of all cars. And they DON'T record GPS data or anything like that, and the DON'T transmit data constantly. They record the state of the car directly before a crash (as defined by an airbag deployment, quick decelleration/acceleration, or other)

Click to expand...

Do the new items record more than the 30 seconds prior to the crash like the current ones?

Track cars by radar I could get on board with. I know my father's Cessna 182 doesn't have a tattlebox, and you don't need a flight plan for VFR if you're not going into superbusy airspace. There's already licensing for driving, so the equivalency is already taken care of for medical licenses (though if you want to make the argument for stricter standards for drivers licenses, I'm right there with you).

I don't believe the "new ones" are in any way different that the old ones. It's hard to find any real information on the bill. As far as I can tell it is only requiring that EDRs are installed on all cars, and the minimum standards for EDRs were outlined a while ago.

Ok, your point about licensing is right, driving requires a license as does flying/buying RDX. But what's the difference between licensing and monitoring? In fact, in the cases I mentioned, almost every one of those licenses is actively/intensively monitored, through either zealous inventory management/security screens or record maintenance.

Driving is more closely monitored than surgery. I normally see 2-3 cops a day on my 12 mile commute. I've pretty much given up on speeding. Even as little as I did before.

For the long term telemetry on a car... it needs to show the number of times: you have crossed a lane with out a turn signal, driven 10 miles under the speed limit in the passing lane, tail gated, short stopped, and the number of times you've been tail gated...

sixpackshaker said:

For the long term telemetry on a car... it needs to show the number of times: you have crossed a lane with out a turn signal, driven 10 miles under the speed limit in the passing lane, tail gated, short stopped, and the number of times you've been tail gated...

Click to expand...

A lot of this is situational and can't be reliably determined from raw data (not to mention the amount of extra sensors and such that would be necessary to facilitate such things).

Necronic said:

I don't believe the "new ones" are in any way different that the old ones. It's hard to find any real information on the bill. As far as I can tell it is only requiring that EDRs are installed on all cars, and the minimum standards for EDRs were outlined a while ago.

Ok, your point about licensing is right, driving requires a license as does flying/buying RDX. But what's the difference between licensing and monitoring? In fact, in the cases I mentioned, almost every one of those licenses is actively/intensively monitored, through either zealous inventory management/security screens or record maintenance.

Click to expand...

So is driving etc. You've got a driving record, it's intensely scrutinized (heh, ask any auto insurance company), etc. But doctors don't have a tattlebox installed in their stethoscope. The difference between meticulous recordkeeping and an electronic monitor is the potential for misuse. I would not have any problem with EDRs if their memory was limited to seconds, or even single digit minutes and could only be accessed by direct linkage by a mechanic (NOT a roadside policeman with a bluetooth device).

There's the misinformation again. Where are you guys getting stuff about bluetooth accessible EDRs? Moreover the law still explicity states the requirement of a court order to view them. I mean shit, if we can just make up facts about this to support our viewpoint then I have to say that I support this because it will cure cancer.

This is what happens when you use Infowars as a source ffs. You really should read it, it's completely ridiculous.

And someone explain to me how this is STILL an argument?

1) These devices already exist on 80% or more of the cars on the road

2) Insurance companies already get access to the data in them after a wreck when they buy the salvage rights

3) The standards for what an EDR will monitor were set in like 2006. This follows the same standard, all it does is requires them in all cars (the 20% or so that they weren't in already, like Audi's)

4) They only record like 30s of data

5) There are NO INDICATIONS OF:
-Bluetooth access
-GPS
-Active monitoring
-Transmission of data
-Remote access of data

6) A court order (or voluntary compliance by the owner, see #2) will be required to retrieve the data from these devices.

Necronic said:

There's the misinformation again. Where are you guys getting stuff about bluetooth accessible EDRs? Moreover the law still explicity states the requirement of a court order to view them. I mean shit, if we can just make up facts about this to support our viewpoint then I have to say that I support this because it will cure cancer.

This is what happens when you use Infowars as a source ffs. How is this STILL an argument?

Click to expand...

Court order or "in the process of an investigation," at least the article said. I'm of the opinion that it should treated as basically needing a search warrant... and even THEN still only keeping data from seconds previous to impact.

Here's the pertinent section from the actual bill:

(2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless--

(A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of a legal proceeding;

(B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle;

(C) the information is retrieved pursuant to an investigation or inspection authorized under section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49, United States Code, and the personally identifiable information of the owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the vehicle identification number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information; or

(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.

Click to expand...

The bolded part is the section you have issue with. First off I can't figure out what that section 1131(a) actually is, but also notice the last line. You can get this information w/ out a warrant but you can't get the VIN or any identifiable info from it. So I don't really know what good it is for to be honest.

There's also another section of the bill, which I think you guys would actually LIKE, that requires car manufacturers to clearly state on the owners manual whether or not a car has and EDR, and to explicitly state where it is on the car. One of the reasons this is even an issue to most of you guys is that you didn't realize that your car ALREADY had this.

This whole thing has been a complete waste of tinfoil. In the future please reserve your tinfoil for baked potatos, not half-baked theories.

Edit: Ok, I found some stuff on that Title 49 thing. It's basically for doing large scale analyses of certain types of cars and/or certain types of accidents. Like looking @ all of the Toyota cars w/ the uncontrolled acceleration issues. Hence why it is anonymous.

So, there you go.

*throws ball of tinfoil at Necronic*

Don't get me started on traction control!

This isn't going to change people's shitty driving habits; it's just going to provide more income for governments.

Necronic said:

Also did anyone else notice that this article sources Infowars? Yeah.....that's....that's does not indicate good journalism.
Edit: Also, just so this is clear (people seem to not understand this so much), these items already exist in most cars. For all of you that are so concerned abou this, do you even know if your current car has one? It probably does.

Click to expand...

I did look around a bit for a better article (something a little less tinfoil-y) but couldn't really find one that said much more than, "This is coming in 2015." However, the sensationalism in the article does not make my concerns any less valid.

Make no mistake. My concern is not with the collection of this information, it is with the use of said information. I would love to get more info about my own driving habits. I love to crunch data and extract interesting tidbits. I would love for the pace of automotive refinements to be accelerated when the amount of useful info the manufacturers get increases a thousandfold. But what I don't want is for this info to tempt opportunists (agencies, mischief-makers, jealous spouses, insurance, etc) to invent excuses to grab it (whether they are entitled to it or not) and use it to justify raising my rates, shaming/embarrassing me, trumping up charges (with associated fines), etc. I know that the Bill prohibits illicit access, but am concerned that the lure of all that easy info will spawn efforts (legit or not) to circumvent these protections. After all, I've seen what can happen with credit scores, or medical info as regards health/life insurance.

--Patrick