More and more drivers are ratted out to police and insurance adjusters – by their own cars. “Event data recorders that function much like the “black boxes” on airplanes, and which are now installed on virtually all new vehicles, can give investigators incriminating details about your driving behavior in the final seconds before a crash,” writes The Tennessean. The paper quotes Gary Biller, executive director of the National Motorists Association:
“It’s in the cars, it can’t be turned off, and the information is available to anyone with a court order. Our members ask whether these devices can be disabled, but they can’t, because they are integral to the computer systems that control modern cars.”
A Nashville company, VCE Inc., is in the business of making the boxes talk. Says VCE Vice President Todd Hutchison:
“We have been involved from the start and were among the first ones to begin downloading the data from these recorders for the accident reconstructions we do for attorneys and insurance companies. We typically get permission from the owner of the vehicle, but that’s not necessarily who owned it at the time of the accident. If the insurance company has bought the salvaged vehicle, they can give us permission.”
On some cars, connecting a cable is no longer necessary. Beginning with the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze, GM will be able to access the information from the recorders wirelessly through the OnStar system included on most of the automaker’s vehicles, The Tennessean writes.
Biller has heard of remote readers that could access the data just by coming close to a vehicle.
It doesn’t need an accident to make the data change your life. Buddy Oakes, a Columbia-based insurance claims adjuster says that some insurance companies are using the data to help rate customers’ driving habits to determine how much their premiums should be.
General Motors safety spokeswoman Sharon Basel says:
“We have them in all of our vehicles, and have had since the mid-’90s. It’s not a continuous recording; it’s only during an event. And we can’t access the data without the consent of the vehicle owner or lessee.”
Help is near – from the government: Beginning with the 2011 model year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires that automakers tell in the vehicle owner’s manual whether a recorder is installed and where it is located.
“Help is near – from the government: Beginning with the 2011 model year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires that automakers tell in the vehicle owner’s manual whether a recorder is installed and where it is located.”
Maybe so, but if you’re in an accident with injuries that may well have been the fault of other guy when he ran the red light—but you know that your 2 miles per hour over the posted speed limit at the time will be used against you by law enforcement and the insurance companies— good luck removing and destroying your car’s black box. At best they’ll think you have something very ominous to hide. At worst they could charge you with the felony count of destruction of evidence. Yup, Big Brother is alive and well. Time to start buying up older cars that have been well-kept…
That’s good. Maybe this’ll lessen road d-baggery. Next stop should be raising car prices.
Yep, anything that relies on digital technology, to include credit cards, cell phones and now a vehicle data recorder, can be held against you in a court of law.
To add to your lack of anonymity, there are closed circuit cameras in nearly all commercial establishments and growing in number along public roadways.
OMG !! I hope I don’t get in trouble for clipping that wire that sets off the seat belt buzzer! That damn thing was annoying.
More over reach by the Nanny state Government. Although the airline industry has had black box flight data recorders for decades, the pilots’ union successfully lobbied for the pilots to have absolute control of the data. There is a button in the cockpit that a pilot can press when the plane reaches the arrival gate that deletes all of the information. FAA investigators have been stymied for years, when there is no cockpit data to analyze after a “near miss”.
I wonder how European cars support this function? It is my understanding that Germany has some of the strongest personal privacy laws in the World. I cannot imagine a German car manufacturer supporting something as intrusive as this unless mandated by the United States Government.
The foolish optimist in me hopes that there will be either enough Public outcry or the guys that can figure out how to disable this “spyware” publish on the Internet, like when Onstar announced it was tracking vehicle location data.
“There is a button in the cockpit that a pilot can press when the plane reaches the arrival gate that deletes all of the information.”
Well there are two different “black boxes” on FAR part 121 aircraft. The CVR – Cockpit Voice Recorder – does in fact have an erase button, although at the regional airline I used to work for, all that did was alert whoever was interested that an attempt was made to erase the voice data, while keeping the data intact. The older CVRs used a 30 minute tape loop while the newer ones use a 2 hour loop.
The FDR – Flight Data Recorder – is non erasable, at least from up front in the flight deck. This is the “black box” that’s analogous to the one in cars today. Both boxes would be pulled and downloaded after an event. Also, any engine limitation exceedances would be recorded on engine management computers for the main engines and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit). So if an engine was oversped, over temped, or over torqued (in the turbo prop), that date and time stamped data would come back to bite the flight crew during the next maintenance cycle. I know ALPA – Airline Pilots Assoc. – was fighting to keep video cameras out of the flight decks.
” … the pilots’ union successfully lobbied for the pilots to have absolute control of the data. ”
I’m sure that the passengers would be thrilled to know that some of the pilots didn’t want people to know what they were doing ….
That’s an oversimplification.
From what I know, non-voice data is not erasable. Voice data, which is essentially workplace conversation between pilots and ground control, is erasable.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of unions. But, the pilots’ union raised a relevant point: Where should the line be drawn when recording workplace behavior? What jobs in our society (cops, doctors, truck drivers, pharma workers) should have their work conversations recorded???
Audio and visual recording is becoming very inexpensive. It can be implemented anywhere. Imagine how it would effect YOU doing YOUR job.
Should medical operations be recorded? With just audio? Maybe add a camera? But how many cameras and where should they be positioned??
How about video and audio of OTR truck drivers?
Why stop at truck drivers – why not make it a condition for operating ANY motor vehicle?!? 100 Americans per day die on our highways…
This is not really driven by “big Government”, though they may have some uses for this. Nor is it in place to assist in a fair and accurate assessment of an accident though it could be used in that manner as well. No, this is about one thing only. MONEY. The automakers can use the data to help absolve them of blame with the use of their products. The insurance industry will use it to assign blame and jack up rates. That Progressive Snapshot program might be optional now (which is fine if it stays that way) but I am willing to bet that in the near future, insurance base rates will require it, and those who “opt out” will be surcharged or assigned risk. Now that Onstar can be used to automatically upload the data, well, if anybody needed another reason to smash all bits of ONstar equipment in their car, this is it.
No surprise the carmakers are soft-pedaling this thing. They don’t want to be ones to take the nanny state blame…they will let the government take it. I wonder about the constitutionality of this thing. After all, is this self-incrimination? Right now it seems that should you get into an accident that indicates you had excess speed, you (or your family if you are in the hospital) should have the car towed home and destroy the black box (hey, somebody took some parts off of my car at night…I’m a dummy – I don’t know a microprocessor from a toilet seat). I guess you must buy back the salvage rights as well, but if the insurance nazis have to see if first rest assured they will grab the data right then and there. Looks like a Supreme Court case to me, but with the pro-business stack of judges in the “Roberts-Scalito” court, things don’t look good for us car owners. Can’t let a little thing like the constitution get in the way of some good ol profit making, oops I mean proper public safety…
The government’s help of required notification is a bit late. My Nissan has the EDR information plainly listed in the owner’s manual. Location check is but a Google search away. Don’t care about that one because the car belongs to my employer, not me. I don’t like it but I really have no leg to stand on as I don’t own the car so the data does belong to them.
I agree that it is about the money. Manufacturers want to protect themselves. But drivers want to protect their lawsuit rights also and so do their lawyers in the case of a potential lawsuit. I would be surprised if the trial lawyers association didn’t oppose this, at least surreptitiously. My thankfully limited experience with some of that bar is that they would prefer to argue emotion than facts. Further, while I have no data, but I suspect that awards between driver and driver far exceed awards between manufacturer and driver/passenger.
A former co-worker now does accident investigation full-time – including fraud by drivers, serious injury/fatals and so forth. He was using software 15 years ago, along with photogrammetry, metallurgy and field testing, to determine the likely cause of accidents. I am OK with black box data being used in case of an accident, provided it isn’t compelled, and provided it isn’t generally available for 340-4’s nightmare scenario a few entries below. (Jay Leno suggested on Top Gear that the British traffic camera system couldn’t happen in the US – after all, we have guns and enjoy target practice. Clarkson looked at him like he was from Mars. I wonder if there would be a market for a supersoaker that shot a viscous obscuring fluid……. which hardened like epoxy….)
I know that this is not a popular opinion in this neck of the woods, but to me, the only really troubling part of this news is that OnStar can upload the BB data, presumably at any time. If the BB were to simply store a few minutes worth of driving data in a loop, it’s just as likely that the data would absolve you of culpability in an accident as incriminate you. It’s just data about what the vehicles were doing prior to an incident, and data doesn’t lie the way people sometimes do. And that data would go a long way to resolving matters like Toyota UA. Yes, mfrs desperately want cover from lawsuits, but if the data is collected and stored in a BB in a way that allows independant review, less insanity like the UA nonsense would be good for everyone.
I agree, tho, that uploading data, or BBs that record more than a few minutes of data, would represent an irresistable opportunity for insurance companies to require you to give them access to that data so that they can better manage their risk. I, too, expect that programs like Progressive’s will eventually become the only way to get good rates.
ClutchCarGo:
> If the BB were to simply store a few minutes worth
> of driving data in a loop, it’s just as likely that
> the data would absolve you of culpability in an accident
> as incriminate you. It’s just data about what the vehicles
> were doing prior to an incident, and data doesn’t lie the way
> people sometimes do.
Could have expressed it better.
It’s just truth – who should be afraid of it? Driving it the leading death reasons for people below 50. There are gobs of added life in taming road rage.
You’re right: if this were just about truth, we should all be supporting black boxes in vehicles. However, more often than not, this is really about revenue generation. I’d wager fully half the posted speed limits are deliberately lower so as to generate more potential revenue in the form of speeding tickets.
But the double whammy is the commensurate increase in insurance rates. Every speed trap I pass is in an outrageous location: straight, flat stretches of road with no driveways or intersections that just beg for a driver to ‘catch up’ for lost time in passing through a gauntlet of traffic lights.
I’d sure hate to have a claim denied because I was traveling 10 mph over the limit in an area where that posted 35 mph is just plain stupid.
More and more drivers will be ratted out by – reality.
I don’t have any problem with in car data recorders. Then again, I’m not in the habit of lying about what happened after a wreck.
Why are people so concerned about having their ability to get away with lying protected? Can you imagine if pilots started complaining about the post crash use of aircraft black boxes? We expect to find out what actually happened when there is a plane crash. It would be nice to do the same with auto crashes. Somewhere well over half a MILLION people are killed on the roads globally every year. http://www.transport-links.org/transport_links/filearea/publications/1_771_Pa3568.pdf For every automotive death, there are roughly ten injuries bad enough to warrant hospitalization. That puts the total casualty (death + injury) number in the 5 to 10 MILLION people per year range. This is hundreds of times more people than are killed or injured in airplane crashes.
So yeah, let the black boxes tell the truth if the drivers are unable or unwilling to.
See my subsequent post.
It’s *how* the data is used that’s the worry.
And mark my words, it’s going to be used for profit for someone’s shareholders.
Now, if it were, in theory, limited in use for accident cases, then perhaps there’s merit. But as Zeus01 said above, it will be used against you regardless of fault.
John, please refer to my earlier post on this. I’ve no problem with the evidence incriminating the at-fault drivers who were doing something blatantly negligent and/or dangerous to cause an accident. My beef is with the potential abuse committed by insurance companies that would allow them to deny a claim on what amounts to a technicality.
As for getting away with lying, I’d recommend you think very carefully regarding your black-and-white stance on the subject. Just as one can get busted for lying to the authorities to avoid facing up to crimes committed against innocent others, one can also get seriously murdered for lying to protect their loved ones from abuse of authority.
Just ask anyone in Germany during WWII who was questioned about their government-mandated garden (required to provide food for the nazis) as to why their children’s ribs weren’t sticking out quite as far as those of their neighbour’s kids. Or the Jewish sympathizers who lied to the border guards about their cargo— only to be given away when the baby hidden under the rear seat cried. Oh right, you can’t ask them— they’re all dead.
Yes, be very careful with being a proponent of socialist nanny-state policies— The flame that illuminates can also burn.
“As for getting away with lying, I’d recommend you think very carefully regarding your black-and-white stance on the subject. Just as one can get busted for lying to the authorities to avoid facing up to crimes committed against innocent others, one can also get seriously murdered for lying to protect their loved ones from abuse of authority.”
It should be obvious that I was speaking about lying in the context of the actions and events leading up to an auto wreck, which is a much more limited situation than what you are getting into there. I’m not an absolutist about always telling the truth to authorities no matter what the situation. That is a whole other issue, and well beyond the scope of automotive black boxes.
PCH
OK, let’s compare it with giving a saliva or blood sample. You can be compelled to give samples and that is not a violation of the 5th. Surely the black box on your car is less personal and searching it is less invasive. I still don’t see that a 5th Amd. issue exists. A search and seizure issue, perhaps.
Why are people so concerned about having their ability to get away with lying protected?
That Fifth Amendment thing is so 1790’s.
I don’t see how this is self incrimination any more than aircraft black boxes are a violation of Pilot’s 5th amendment rights.
I don’t see how this is self incrimination any more than aircraft black boxes are a violation of Pilot’s 5th amendment rights.
Comparing commercial aircraft with private automobiles is fallacious. The FAA doesn’t require small aircraft to carry black boxes. Our legal traditions provide fewer protections to commercial use than to personal use.
In addition, the agendas are quite different. The FAA investigates crashes primarily for safety purposes.
In contrast, you can bet that insurance companies would love to have an excuse to use automobile black boxes in order to avoid or reduce their own liability, i.e. not making payments to their policyholders. I’m not eager to privatize my privacy rights to the point that I no longer have any rights to privatize.
The Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with this situation. Yes, you cannot be compelled to speak against yourself in court. That is a good thing. People seem to miss the little bit about it still being illegal to lie in court and that the Fifth Amendment does not offer protection of your right to lie.
The Fifth Amendment also doesn’t preclude accident investigators from doing accident reconstruction analysis, from looking at paint transfer, tire marks, steering wheel position and so on. It doesn’t mean that surveillance cameras are illegal in public spaces. It doesn’t mean that information your vehicles stores about operating conditions in the moments leading up to a wreck are somehow off limits.
Most people who speak loudly and often about personal liberty also speak about personal responsibility. Being responsible includes fessing up if you were doing 50 mph over the speed limit in the moments before a crash.
The issue of the potential for insurance companies and such to abuse the kind of data becoming available is a real one, and that is why we need restrictions on what these characters can do with the available information.
PCH
OK, let’s compare it with giving a saliva or blood sample. You can be compelled to give samples and that is not a violation of the 5th. Surely the black box on your car is less personal and searching it is less invasive. I still don’t see that a 5th Amd. issue exists. A search and seizure issue, perhaps.
The Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with this situation.
In the context in which I raise it, it does.
The founders of this country articulated what was a fairly radical concept at the time, namely that the burden was on the state in its role of accuser to prove its case. This burden includes rules of due process that the accuser is obliged to follow, with one of those principles being that the accused doesn’t have to help his accusers.
You come from the more traditional school of “innocent people have nothing to worry about.” You miss the fact that this notion of yours got thrown out the window over 200 years ago. In a modern democracy, we have rules based upon the belief that a person who may be accused of some sort of crime or tort always has something to worry about, even if he is innocent.
In 1984, Orwell depicted a tyrannical state in which we were constantly monitored, including televisions that watched us. The reader was supposed to understand that this surveillance society was not a desirable thing to have.
The burden is on you to explain why you should be taking away my privacy. I frankly don’t trust you with it, and I have no good reason to surrender it to you.
I would no sooner want a black box in my car than I would want a camera with a live feed monitoring my every move. That isn’t because I am a criminal, but because how I generally conduct myself isn’t any of your damn business.
I don’t trust an enforcement system that mostly focuses on those going 10 mph over on an empty interstate in good weather… And often treats driving without a license as less of an infraction.
We allow a lot of consistently horrible drivers on our roads. Period. No black box enforcement system system will address that cultural problem. These black boxes will likely be another revenue grab.
1) The 5th Amendment enables one to NOT testify at all. The black box (property of the car owner) then would be contravening this.
2) Many articles on TTAC have shown courts not accepting red light/radar as faultless scientific evidence. They allow the defendant to ask for the manufacturer/operator to come forward and verify the alleged readings.
3) If a black box can be read wirelessly, hackers could probably write to it in the same way.
A few instances of unreliable black box data will further strengthen defendants challenging the veracity of such mechanical devices.
Flash forward to my credit card bill for October, 2021:
“Interstate 90/Halliburton Toll Road – Fine, sustained average speeds above posted limit, $415.00”
“Junction I15/Redflex taxed intersection – Fine, rolling stop/right turn on red, $145.00”
“Intersection Benton/6th, Fine, excessive application of throttle/consumption of taxed natural resource/emissions violation, $65.00”
You watch.
…….used to hear anecdotal tales of Thruway police lurking at toll booths and doing the quick math on the charges to nab speeders. Hearsay sightings of habitual leadfoot veterans parked 300 yards short of their exit counting down the minutes were common. Might have been an urban myth, but to this day I always factor in a fuel/washroom stop to reduce my average. I’ve recently seen them using the booths for what appears to be seat belt law enforcement.
If you want to avoid the privatized/fined to death future you fear, then you had better support increasing the gas tax and other transportation taxes as required to maintain and build infrastructure. The money has to come from somewhere.
The federal gas tax has been a fixed at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, nearly 20 years ago now.
The money can come from reductions in spending in other areas.
Or simply print them out of thin via your private central bank. lolz
…..”they are integral to the computer systems”….If true, it shouldn’t be long before some whiz kids come up with an easily installed module to circumvent, or even falsify the data, creating a profitable new sideline for the radar detector industry. Some bored ex-hacker is probably working out the details right now. The legal ramifications of patenting such a gizmo could prove challenging, though.
You raise an interesting point: Data Security.
If hacks and other data manipulation tools become commonplace, how long before a car’s black box data is routinely suspect?
Although, a more common scenario would YouTube DIY guides on wiping your data with a powerful magnet or microwave emitter.
YET ANOTHER good reason NOT to buy a new car! Buy old and restore!
Hear, hear.
This is less a result of corporate greed than it is of consumer sloth. If I might adapt Mr. Franklin, “Those who would trade privacy and control for convenience deserve neither privacy nor control.”
I’m not the least bit worried about this. I drive a 20 year old Mitsubishi. “Oh! But the insurance companies will rate you higher!” Let them. I don’t have a car payment. If they quadrupled my premium, it would still be less than a tank of fuel.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
So I’m involved in a crash and the insurance company seems overly eager to declare it totaled and buy it from me to get at the black box to reduce their payout?
Note to the file:
In the event of a crash, have car towed to own driveway, disconnect battery, keep the title until after insurance settlement or trial.
Thanks, got it.
If your car is a mid-priced model more than 5 years old, slight frame damage and 2 or more deployed airbags are likely to push the car into the “total loss” category; my cousin does body work, and it happens quite often.
“Biller has heard of remote readers that could access the data just by coming close to a vehicle.”
I’d sure like to hear more about this little tidbit… I’m sure others would too. This almost reminds me of the rumors I used to hear about being able to clone remote key fobs. The possibility exists, and did exist, but the reality was much different.
Most all cars have had a black box in them for the last 10 years or so. Depending upon the implementation, they cannot hold enough data to record more than a few seconds worth of data. I believe that the OnStar monthly maintenance update uses info from your black box, as I suspect (not just GM but others do too) use that data for warranty purposes. I’ve only ever heard allegations to that effect, no direct personal knowledge.
Depending upon which state you live in (in the US) the data recorded on the black box is yours, and can only be surrendered under a subpoena. There was a case some years ago in Canada about a person who managed to tamper with a black box in order to allow his Chevy to go faster than the speed limiter allowed. IIRC they were involved in a fatal accident and the provincial government used black box data to convict this person.
Since 96 all cars sold in the US are OBDII compliant. Part of that standard means that the calibration can be “re-flashed” through that OBDII connector. The tuner companies have hacked many common models. Since the speed limiter is part of that basic calibration based on the tires that particular car was equipped with it is quite easy to change. When you connect most tuners to the car you run through a list of user adjustable features allowing you to raise of lower, WOT shift points, timing, rpm and speed limiters, fan on and off temps as well as enter the gear ratio and tire size. Exact features of course depend on the exact model of vehicle and tuner.
The tuners of course include a disclaimer about not raising the speed limiter above the speed rating of the tires installed on the vehicle and of course to obey all traffic laws. In addition to being able to raise that speed limiter setting it also allows you to lower it if for example you install winter tires, or just to keep your kid from going more than 87 MPH.
Because of this ability to easily change operating parameters Ford has taken it to a new level with their My Key system. It allows you to set the limits based on the key being used. You get one master key that allows full function and 2 that can be set to individual parameters. So the one you give the kid can prevent them from using the radio if their seat belt isn’t fastened, drop the speed limiter way down and sound a buzzer and shut off the radio as you near the limit. On the other end of the scale it’s pretty much the same thing they are doing with the Mustang track key. The keys were already equipped with a transponder for the anti-theft system so the car knows which of the programed keys is being used and loads the settings on start up.
….scout…actually, Corvette tried the 2 key system 21 years ago on the first ZR1. With the “valet” key, teenage sons had to make do with a measly 250hp. The Lotus-designed (I think GM controlled Lotus Engineering at the time), Wisconsin-built (they farmed out assembly to Mercury Marine), 32 valve marvel produced 375, and later, 405 hp if you had the coveted 2nd key. It had something to do with the variable intake runners on the fuel injection, so it was super hi-tec for it’s time.
True story:
I was talking a cognitive psych class. We called it “Psych with Spike” because of the professor’s first name. I came from more of a biology background and in a discussion, the prof said that the physiology of the brain wasn’t as important as what it did.
I asked him, “So you’re taking a black box approach?”
Before he could respond, an African American young woman seated in front of me angrily whirled around and said, in an accusatory tone of voice:
“What kind of box are you talkin’ about?”
Don’t be so niggardly with your story telling – what happened afterward?
I tried to explain to her what the term meant. She was skeptical. Nowadays, I’d probably be brought up on charges of insensitivity by some kind of academic Star chamber.
Monitoring and liability is a tricky business.
I overheard some techies talking at a conference. They have a system that can detect “extreme braking” incidents typical of situations when people are looking at their phone and not paying attention to the vehicle in front of them. Ordinary drivers brake like this once every couple of months (not always because they are distracted). Bad drivers brake like this many times a week, presumably because they are distracted almost constantly (or having fun with G-Forces, which I do at times).
The automakers, supposedly, don’t want this information, because they feel like it will create an obligation to intercede before a dangerous driver has an accident. This is one reason why GM only keeps “incident” data and doesn’t try to study the patterns of behavior.
I still want to play with g-forces, but I want that cell phone guy off the road.
Why are people so concerned about having their ability to get away with lying protected?
Because they are planning to exceed the posted speed limit by a large margin, and they don’t want that known. That’s all this is about. 90% of the people pretending to be concerned about privacy have a fb page detailing everything they did in Vegas.
This is about getting away with speeding.
..Dynamic88……here’s to (safe) speeding, although I’m not sure of your feelings on the subject. As it happens, my first overdose of the speed opiate took place in my Dad’s ’59 (you guessed it) Olds Dynamic 88. If, as your handle indicates, you’re a student of the marque, you will remember that the ribbon-type speedometer went (from memory) green up to 50mph, yellow from 50 to 70, and red thereafter……….from personal teenage experience, it also became a red and white “barber pole” at 100+ mph…..or was it 120? Having lived thru the foolishness (on 5 inch wide bias-plies), I now restrict serious binges to infrequent autobahn visits . Even “track days” don’t satisfy the way top speed runs used to……….here’s to the Dynamic 88!
dvp cars
Dynamic 88 was just one of the various forms of “88”s that were roaming the streets of my childhood. Never had a chance to drive one though. Drove many a Delta 88 and other Olds models.
My feelings on speeding are mixed. I don’t think it’s inherently dangerous to speed, and when I was young I loved to floor the gas pedal and be pushed back in the seat. OTOH, a 16 year old with a heap is a danger when he’s driving 5 under.
My feeling about the black boxes though is that most of the objections dealing with “privacy” and “Big Brother” are not genuine. The real issues are liability in an accident, and the possibility of receiving speeding tickets. Speeding is speeding whether or not it’s actually a danger, and speeders don’t want to get caught. Liability involves many variables, but it would be hard to argue that speeding didn’t make the situation worse.
I used to handle liability claims. The only times an insurance company is going to pull a black box is when there is a huge lawsuit. Will a jury care if your black box shows you were going 10 over when it was clearly the other guys negligence that caused the accident? Most likely no.
If you destroy your black box, you are destroying evidence. Have fun in court with that. I’d rather the jury see me going ten over then think I was hiding something.
I do agree with most poster’s privacy concerns, but it’s the same as letting an accident reconstructionist look at your car.
In a catastrophic accident, you won’t have a chance to pull the box out of your car, the police will have already seized it as evidence and begun accident reconstruction.
For smaller accidents the insurance company won’t bother pulling your black box, they will base liability on statements, scene photos, and vehicle photos.
GM has always done this but wireless? Something tells me there is to to Toyota SUA litigation than we know. And as mentioned above your not going to keep your title until the data is received.
Just saw a Progressive commercial where they show it’s trendy to record your driving habits and turn it to them for reduced rates. Yeah right!
For every negative part of this thing, there is a positive. When I got into a huge wreck in 2003, the black box proved my version of what happened, even though there really wasn’t any doubt of it anyway. It told that my headlights were on I was going 52MPH (2 over), and that I hit the first car at 48 MPH, took the front end off it, and was defected into the other car, I rear ended it at 42MPH, launched it down the drainage ditch along the road, and I stopped in like 3 feet after hitting it! The airbag didn’t go off until the second hit for some reason. I was the only one hurt. The idiot in the first car, who turned in front of me tried to say I had no headlights on, but the black bulbs, along with the black box said otherwise. I was taken care of nicely by my insurance company, who then sued him and recovered most of what they paid out to me. He also got sued by the insurer of the other car, and they got something out of him too. About a year after the wreck, I got my deductible back. My only complaint with State Farm was that they wasted a crapload of money fixing a truck that should have been totalled.
Will these black boxes have better technology than the speed cameras that have recorded an 81 hp econo car traveling at 220 mph?
sounds just like what already exists with internet traffic records & phone records
The best part of this post was the video for Ride On Time by Black Box. What a great driving song! Thanks for kickin’ it 1990 style – when no one was watching what you were doing in your car….
I am amazed ar=t how many here are actually OK with their car ratting them out. Taxes, no. Red light cameras, no. But this $hit is ok? Incredible…
A lot of what I’m going to say seems to be a lot of what you guys won’t touch on. And that’s goofing around in a car. A lot of you guys are making good points both for and against the black boxes. I think the GPS thing is a good idea, the disabling I’m 50/50 on. Not that I’ll ever run from cops (seeing as how I am one) but I get it. For me, I’m concerned about my premium going up because I brake too hard, speed up while passing a slow motorist, going out to track day or doing burnouts. In my opinion my insurance rate shouldn’t be rated on my driving but on how many accidents I’ve had. None to date. I bought a 2012 Camaro SS this year and like every red blooded American male that buys that kind of car I like to go out and goof around at the local SCCA/AMA track and race it and every now and then do a burnout or two. (With the price of tires and fuel though that’s a LOT less these days.) I shouldn’t have to worry about my going to the track or my doing burnouts in my our car costing me anything more than a set of tires. I shouldn’t have to worry about a warranty being cancelled, tickets being mailed to me or insurance rates going up. And yes all three DO happen and it is starting to occur with more frequency. And being a cop I know that insurance companies rely on a police report as much as they’re own adjusters and what not. I know that a dealer’s warranty adjuster knows the difference between a piston ring gone bad and a blown motor from being dumb. As for tickets (my being a cop I get it) if I get pulled over for doing 80 in a 65, I’m hit. That sucks and I do pay the fine and go to traffic school. (I have seven tickets on my record to prove it.) However, if I’m out on a country road and there’s no one around for miles and I want to run up to 100 or even 120 mph I shouldn’t have to worry about getting a ticket in the mail. As for car accidents and accepting responsibility that’s something else entirely. If I was ever in a accident and was at fault I would accept responsibility for it. Period. But that’s not what people are really concerned about. People are worried about their privacy and about money. Neither governments nor companies have the right to try and force all kinds of fines (or taxes as I call them) on us under the guise of safety. I’m all for safe driving, controlling your self on the road and all of that. Obviously. But the idea that I might get “charged” money one way or another because I choose to do a few burnouts or take my car to the track is complete garbage. I paid for the car, I paid for the warranty and I paid for the insurance. It’s my car, my choice. And if I need the warranty or insurance and they say no because I take my car out for track day every once in a while………..HULK SMASH! (Sadly in this day though Hulk has to smash through lawyers and what not.) Bottom line is I shouldn’t be penalized for goofing around a car designed and built for goofing around in. If any of these companies or government branches were really that concerned with our safety we’d all be driving little while cars that top out at 55mph.