New Owner concerned with Data Recorder

[KMX3060]

Maybe no one noticed but the "Onstar" system does the same thing but in real time to someone who is watching.

"Onstar" can tell where you are using GPS, what speed you are going, what your emissions are, if your seatbelts are on, etc.

The Government was also speculating on using the remote start system to also stop your vehicle if speeding, which it can do.

 

[boston_kevin]

Maybe no one noticed but the "Onstar" system does the same thing but in real time to someone who is watching.

"Onstar" can tell where you are using GPS, what speed you are going, what your emissions are, if your seatbelts are on, etc.

The Government was also speculating on using the remote start system to also stop your vehicle if speeding, which it can do.

Couple of things about OnStar...

1) It only works where cell phones work. The GPS gets the data from the satelites, but transmits that data back to OnStar via celluar technology.

2) OnStar cannot remotely start your vehicle, but they can remotely disable it (again, only in celluar range)....

Now, if you think that's bad, your cell phone (if it is less than 3 years old) can do the same thing, only it's on you, not the car. But if you are really that big of a celebrity that you believe everyone is monitoring your location and what you do, the Paparazzi must be waiting outside your home every morning.

The black box can only talk to someone when they hook up to the port on the box. There is no wireless tranmission of data, no GPS data, no voice, no video, etc... It is strictly for recording the last few seconds of computer data before a crash. I would think the easiest way to prevent access is to block the download port. I'd had to look carefully to figure out where this is though.

 

[4RunnerRon]

I think everyone's a little overly concerned about this issue. Hopefully, I can clarify a couple things and make everyone feel more comfortable about having this thing in their car. From my standpoint, I can confidently tell you the following:

1. When police document a collision with a report, it's not usually very involved. Most collisions don't occur in our presence, so we're simply documenting the opposing sides' account (and witness accounts) of what happened. We'll throw in the damage to vehicles, physical evidence (skid marks, debris, etc), and a conclusion of what we think occurred based on everything put together. Most of this service is actually a courtesy to the involved parties, but not required because no crime occurred. That's why it's called an accident. If data recorders are needed, the case is more complex.

2. Most police officers and investigators don't even know about data recorders in vehicles. Sure, the highway patrol may have some special training about vehicle equipment since they mostly deal with traffic, but unless the cop is a car nut (like me), they may not even think about it. Even I never really think about data recorders until I read this thread.

3. The only time I can think of where a date recorder might be needed by police, the collision would have to involve a felony (for example dui w/serious injury or death), PLUS there is still a suspect alive to be prosecuted. That data recorder may hold some evidence and would be obtained through a warrant, but I've never heard of this. Most fatal crashes are simple to prove without the data recorder, either by proving the suspect was intoxicated, or by determining excessive speed based on skid marks, witnesses, etc.

Oh yeah, and even if a data recorder was obtained through a warrant, the prosecution would have to subpoena a Toyota computer technician to testify to the meaning of its contents.

All in all, I think data recorders are rarely used. If anything, the increasing presence of Nav in vehicles would be more of a concern, if they hold record of speed and location for any matter of time.

Hope this helps.

 

[RunnerUp]

i have a friend who had an old body style escalade (had the data recorder in it) he was going 80mph on a road with a posted speed limit of 40 mph, wound up running into a lady that tried to beat him so she could get to the other lanes and killing her. needless to say the police took this evidence and charged him with vehicular manslaughter. he deserved it, even though the wreck could have been last avoided by her. stupid kids and driving twice the posted speed limit

im just glad i survived that age!

 

[gapboi210]

I read somewhere that Onstar will not disable a vehicle due to the risk of loss of control since you loose power steering and power brakes. As for the EDR we have never seen one read or requested at the shop. I could only see it being requested in a case like the one above where there was a fatality. I heard from a Chevy tech that GM has had them for a while except the basically on recored if the seatbelt was in use at the time of airbag deployment. Something about several lawsuits of people getting banged up by the airbag because they were not using a seatbelt.

 

[007Runner]

I will give you a good example of why I don't want this thing in my car. Say your traveling at the posted limit, dark outside and the roads are dry. You hit a patch of black ice, end up hitting a tree causing massive damage to the car. The temperature climbs a few degrees before the police and tow truck arrive. Now it is just a small wet spot on the road. You get ticketed for unsafe speed and reckless driving. Plus the insurance company drops you and fights your claim. Too bad the black box did not tell them about the black ice. This is a true story. 5 people came forward and gave statements under oath to the effect that they almost lost control and crashed. This was printed in the local newspaper.
Black boxes can screw you good. One more thing. This guy taught driver education at a high school. Even if you are a careful safe driver, the lawyers will use any black box information they can to make you look like a fool, and the cause of a accident. Even if you did nothing wrong. Like oh gee what took you so long to brake, it took you 2 seconds to decide to brake etc.

 

[gapboi210]

In all honesty I think this is getting blown way out of proportion and there seems to be some paranoia running around here.

Let rude replies begin! LOL

 

[boston_kevin]

I will give you a good example of why I don't want this thing in my car. Say your traveling at the posted limit, dark outside and the roads are dry. You hit a patch of black ice, end up hitting a tree causing massive damage to the car. The temperature climbs a few degrees before the police and tow truck arrive. Now it is just a small wet spot on the road. You get ticketed for unsafe speed and reckless driving. Plus the insurance company drops you and fights your claim. Too bad the black box did not tell them about the black ice. This is a true story. 5 people came forward and gave statements under oath to the effect that they almost lost control and crashed. This was printed in the local newspaper.
Black boxes can screw you good. One more thing. This guy taught driver education at a high school. Even if you are a careful safe driver, the lawyers will use any black box information they can to make you look like a fool, and the cause of a accident. Even if you did nothing wrong. Like oh gee what took you so long to brake, it took you 2 seconds to decide to brake etc.

Just because it was printed, does not make it necessarily true...

If this was a first or second accident with no prior convictions, the insurance company could be sued for wrongful termination of policy and defamation of character (based on the fact they report that they dropped you). I did this with my homeowners insurance company because they counted inquiries about policy coverage as claims against the policy. After 2 legitimate claims and 2 inquiries over 7 years they said they were dropping me - I won and almost got them kicked out of the state (MA is very strict on Insurance companies).

Secondly, the black box may also record outside temps, which if they were at or below freezing at the time of the accident - the last recording on the box - and the officers documented a wet area on the road, even the most basic attorney would prove reasonable cause for black ice on the road.

Let's face it, you are going to have this box (and even worse - the NAV system) which will record speed, direction, and basic information about what the vehicle was doing... All vehicles will have them soon (if they don't already have them), so you have to get used to it or buy older used cars.

 

[Baba Booey]

I saw the recent report on CNN, and it highlighted two people who were convicted of serious crimes. They were convicted partially because of black box evidence used against them.

The one person's black box indicated that he was traveling at 114 mph when his accident occured. He had experts testify that he too would have been killed if he were truly traveling that fast. He did admit that he was speeding, but he claimed he was doing much less than 114 mph.

They then interviewed an industry representative, and they asked him whether the black boxes are infallible and whether they ever need to be calibrated or checked for accuracy in any way. He indicated that, like anything else, they could become defective in some way and record incorrect data, but it was very unlikely. They are never calibrated or checked after installation.

Would you want to place you or your family's life at stake based upon evidence from an electronic device installed by GM, Ford, Kia, or even Toyota? I wouldn't!

 

[4RunnerRon]

I saw the recent report on CNN, and it highlighted two people who were convicted of serious crimes. They were convicted partially because of black box evidence used against them.

The one person's black box indicated that he was traveling at 114 mph when his accident occured. He had experts testify that he too would have been killed if he were truly traveling that fast. He did admit that he was speeding, but he claimed he was doing much less than 114 mph.

They then interviewed an industry representative, and they asked him whether the black boxes are infallible and whether they ever need to be calibrated or checked for accuracy in any way. He indicated that, like anything else, they could become defective in some way and record incorrect data, but it was very unlikely. They are never calibrated or checked after installation.

Would you want to place you or your family's life at stake based upon evidence from an electronic device installed by GM, Ford, Kia, or even Toyota? I wouldn't!

The data recorder is just one piece of evidence in a trial - not the whole case. Most people's experiences quoted in this thread are coming from news articles, not personal experience. Keep in mind that news articles highlight only parts of topics - usually the parts that spur controversy. There are parts of the case that are almost always left out. So take that for what it's worth.

Furthermore, we need to remember that there are many other factors in a case that can lead to a conviction aside from the data recorder. Cases involving high speeds, intoxication, or wreckless driving can usually be proved in other ways, with other evidence. The vehicle's data recorder would most likely be used to help corroborate the other evidence. It's not expected to make or break the case.

Bottom line is there are people who don't like "big brother" stepping in, no matter what purpose it would cause - good or bad. Nobody's gonna change their mind, and that's fine. But it's easy to create opinions based on news articles that don't include all the facts, and don't represent the majority of cases. I, personally, don't care that I have a data recorder in my car. It could help exhonerate me just as much as it could help prove any wrongdoing.

 

[4RunnerRon]

Oh yeah, and just one more thing on the topic of that CNN report about the guy who committed a "serious crime" while being accused of traveling 114 mph....

Defense "experts" can testify all day long that the defendant would have also died if he, in fact, was driving at 114 mph at the time of the collision. The truth is, experts could testify to both sides of this claim. We can't know for sure that he would have died, unless perhaps, he ran straight into a cement wall. Cars do lots of weird things when they wreck. I've seen people die from what looked like relatively minor/moderate collisions, while some DUI suspects have come out virtually unscathed after rolling their car multiple times. It's just one of those things.

As far as the calibration issue goes, the industry expert is right. They probably aren't calibrated after the factory installs them, but they are probably closer than you think. Who would you rather believe, the defendant's claim (who has a motive to lie or minimize his actions) or an electronic device in a newer vehicle? I'd lean towards the electronic device, unless there was an INDEPENDENT witness who could testify otherwise. The main thing is what a jury believes, not simply what the box indicates. Be more concerned about who's on that jury!

Sorry to pick apart the thread like this, but I'm naturally on the side of the prosecution and hate to see people supporting the accused without all the facts. I tend to ask people to put themselves in the shoes of the victims and see if they'd feel the same way... like if your mom was the person killed by this guy's negligence. You may see things differently.

 

[Baba Booey]

Sorry to pick apart the thread like this, but I'm naturally on the side of the prosecution and hate to see people supporting the accused without all the facts. I tend to ask people to put themselves in the shoes of the victims and see if they'd feel the same way... like if your mom was the person killed by this guy's negligence. You may see things differently.

I enjoy good debate, and I happen to agree with nearly everything you have said. I have been driving for 22 years, and I have never received even a single ticket (not even a parking ticket).

I too usually favor the prosecution in most cases, but the right-wing extremist/libertarian side of me tends not to trust huge corporations and/or big government to look out for my best interests when it comes to stuff that may impact my rights. The thought of an overzealous prosecutor looking for a conviction at all costs, coupled with a giant insurance company looking to avoid a big payout at all costs, teamed up with a huge multi-national auto manufacturer looking to avoid any liability at all costs, leaves me wondering how the "little guy" would be adequately protected in such a hypothetical case.

 

[Jeff Kleb]

I too usually favor the prosecution in most cases, but the right-wing extremist/libertarian side of me tends not to trust huge corporations and/or big government to look out for my best interests when it comes to stuff that may impact my rights. The thought of an overzealous prosecutor looking for a conviction at all costs, coupled with a giant insurance company looking to avoid a big payout at all costs, teamed up with a huge multi-national auto manufacturer looking to avoid any liability at all costs, leaves me wondering how the "little guy" would be adequately protected in such a hypothetical case.

Amen to that, sir!!

:awais: :beer:

 

[boston_kevin]

Yes, but this is what the attorneys of the world have done (and mostly US attorneys). Television/Radio/Print all are flooded with ads about "getting what you deserve" in the event of an accident, and greedy people who always want the easy and quick way to be a millionaire. It also gets back to people wanting to pass the buck on responsibility ( a concept propagated to an extreme these days). In football, a good offense will take you to the playoffs, but a good defense will take you to the superbowl. Same is true in life... Manufacturers are building better defenses to protect their businesses.

 

[4RunnerRon]

I enjoy good debate, and I happen to agree with nearly everything you have said. I have been driving for 22 years, and I have never received even a single ticket (not even a parking ticket).

I too usually favor the prosecution in most cases, but the right-wing extremist/libertarian side of me tends not to trust huge corporations and/or big government to look out for my best interests when it comes to stuff that may impact my rights. The thought of an overzealous prosecutor looking for a conviction at all costs, coupled with a giant insurance company looking to avoid a big payout at all costs, teamed up with a huge multi-national auto manufacturer looking to avoid any liability at all costs, leaves me wondering how the "little guy" would be adequately protected in such a hypothetical case.

A very good point regarding the corporation/big government issue. I guess I've never looked at it that same way, mostly because I've never met an overzealous prosecutor in my area. They usually try to plea-bargain they're cases since our D.A.'s office is so overloaded. Also, once they make it into court, because of our location in the counrty (Northern California), the judges tend to be somewhat liberal. I guess things are a lot different in most other locations.