Print 37 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on May 26 at 5:23 PM

User privacy and costs regarding the integration of high-tech EDRs are the largest concerns

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration may make event data recorders, or "black boxes," a requirement for all vehicles starting next month according to Wired’s Autopia.

Event data recorders (EDR) are devices already installed in some automobiles, and record information during vehicle crashes or accidents. EDRs cannot be turned off, and once electronically triggered by problems in the engine or dramatic shifts in wheel speed, the EDR records this vehicle input and produces a snapshot of the final moments before the accident. 

General Motors has installed black boxes in nearly all models with airbags since the 1990's. In North America, GM currently uses Bosch EDRs for its models.

"In the early 90's, we could get diagnostic data, seatbelt use and crash severity," said Brian Everest, GM's senior manager of field incidents. "Currently, we can get crash severity, buckle status, precrash data related to how many events the vehicle may have been in and brake application."

Newer vehicles can identify all of the above along with steering input and whether lane departure warning systems were used. 

Some people see EDRs as tracking devices that invade personal privacy, while others see them as helpful aids to accident-related cases. The main problem is that there are no clear universal standards regarding EDRs and who can access their data. 

Florida is one of 37 states that have no statutes barring the access to EDR data, while most of the other 13 states would allow police officers with a warrant to obtain EDR data. 

Car companies originally owned the data, but courts later ruled that vehicle owners and lessees owned the data. There are no federal laws regarding access to EDR data, but states stepped in and determined how much data those other than owners and lessees could access. 

"Until recently, there has been no industry standard or recommended practice governing EDR format, method of retrieval or procedure for archival," said Tom Kowalick, chairman of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers P1616 Standards Working Group on Motor Vehicle Data Recorders. "Even for a given automaker, there may not be standardized format. This lack of standardization has been an impediment to national-level studies of vehicle and roadside crash safety. It also addresses concerns over privacy rights by establishing standards protecting data from misuse." 

Some statutes, such as one in particular in California, came about due to insurance companies obtaining EDR data from users' vehicles without their knowledge or consent. 

In 2008, standards were proposed in an effort to make EDR data accessible to more than just automakers as well as prevent data tampering. These guidelines would also prevent the removal or deactivation of the black boxes, making them useful and trustworthy. In addition, standards would clearly state who has access to the data and what they can do with it. 

While black boxes can be used for vehicle crashes in order to assess what happened, they can also be used to determine whether an accident was caused due to a vehicle defect, which would lead to a recall if necessary. 

The NHTSA's pending mandate may assist in overall driver safety, but there are still many concerns regarding EDRs. For instance, automakers and buyers hope that newer, advanced black boxes do not heighten the price of new vehicles. But perhaps the biggest question involves access to the EDR data. Many wonder if insurance companies and car dealers will be allowed to look at EDR data and deny claims based on that information. 

"Our position on EDRs is that we would only use that data in a claims investigation with customer consent or if we're required to do so by law," said Leah Knapp, a spokesperson for Progressive Auto Insurance. 

For now, how much an EDR affects you depends on what data points it records and where you live, but the NHTSA's new standards are expected to clarify this universally.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Crash Fatalities
By Skywalker123 on 5/25/2011 11:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
"Because if it saves the life of just ONE child it will be well worth it!" blubbers the liberally retarded activist.

RE: Crash Fatalities
By M4gery on 5/25/2011 3:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Because if it saves the life of just ONE child it will be well worth it!"

Ugh, no it wont. There are already too goddamned many people. We need some form of population control.

RE: Crash Fatalities
By JakLee on 5/25/2011 4:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well if that is how you truly feel, off yourself - there are plenty of people who feel that way & are only looking for a leader - you will be famous!

RE: Crash Fatalities
By YashBudini on 5/25/2011 5:58:58 PM , Rating: 3
"Because if it saves the life of just ONE child it will be well worth it!"

Whom here are you quoting? Oh, nobody said it, you made it up to support your hatefilled stance. That's certainly justification enough.

How does a device that records an accident save anyone? It's not a preventative device. And it's not here at all in your favor, the only reason these devices will be present is the same reason you have TPMS, to limit or eliminate corporate liability. Nobody's interested in helping you or anyone else. Your bleeding heart scenario either doesn't exist or it's the sham you fell for.

At casinos they video record people entering the site because many claimed they would being hurt by the automatic doors. The video recordings eliminated the liars. Then one day a person really was slammed by an automatic door. When police asked for the video they had a damn hard time getting hold of it. It's release had to be mandated by the courts.

If you think such recordings are going to show a potentially fatal defect in a car that either won't happen at all or will happen with another law.

Luke, your force is way off, go practice some more.

RE: Crash Fatalities
By tng on 5/26/2011 11:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
I think you missed it Yash, that was not the real reason they would want to put them on everything that moves, just the crap get sympathy reason to get acceptance from all of the people out there.

Those would be the same people who really thought that this administration would really bring change over the last one.

RE: Crash Fatalities
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 1:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
Those would be the same people who really thought that this administration would really bring change over the last one.

The scope of my response was limited to the hate monger's remarks. Very un-Luke-like.

The fact that we got Bush 3 for president comes as no suprise to me. Prior to the election dem optimism turned into euphoria, that was the red flag.

RE: Crash Fatalities
By tng on 5/26/2011 2:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
Prior to the election dem optimism turned into euphoria, that was the red flag.
It was more than just euphoria, there were people out there that would pass out when he would walk onto the stage at an election rally!

You are right, at that point I lost hope. Bush 3.....Can I use that?

RE: Crash Fatalities
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 5:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Bush 3.....Can I use that?

No charge, but if you make a movie out of it I'll see you in court.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki