2015 will be a GREAT year for used cars.

[sixpackshaker]

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...

 

[Azurephoenix]

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...

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).

 

[GasBandit]

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.

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).

 

[Necronic]

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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?

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.

 

[Necronic]

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.

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.

 

[Azurephoenix]

*throws ball of tinfoil at Necronic*

Don't get me started on traction control!

 

[Hailey Knight]

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

 

[PatrThom]

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.

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