Government requiring black-boxes on all vehicles: GM since '04?

[Jahntassa]

Check this out...it says GM has been black-boxing since '04..I wonder if that includes the Vibes?Quote »WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by the National Transportation Safety Board (search) to require electronic data recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United States."I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy attorney and editor of Privacilla.org.Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety experts.EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes — typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in criminal and civil cases across the country.Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used for years to fine tune air bag efficiency."We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA Mid-Atlantic (search). On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it."The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their cars are outfitted with an EDR.Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced to hand over that information to another party if a court order demanded it."I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center (search) at Denver University."Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said.According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63.Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the likelihood of greater injury in the future."We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the highways, in a broader sense."Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic Safety (search), which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations about the NTSB’s recommendation.He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (search). Right now, dueling technologies record different things.Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car owners have ownership of the data once its recorded."I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it," he said.While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun" aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain drivers.Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or report a vehicle stolen.Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by Road Safety International (search) in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe backing, and can store hours of information for review later.Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can easily find incapacitated accident victims."When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html

[damronjr]

I'm wondering the same. I have an 04 Vibe that I bought here in CA, and according to this release, all owners in CA have to be notified if their car has one, and I never heard anything about this. It says ALL GM vehicles 04 and newer have them, so I may check with my dealer and see what they say. I'm sure they won't have a clue as with many other things involving the cars that they sell.

[Jahntassa]

Well...i'd doubt if the '04s do. Just because of the Toyota nature of most of the parts, but the '05's might. If only because the Matrix and the Vibe started drifting designs then.

[scherry2]

I would read the fine print of the contract you signed when you bought the car. Its probably in there. the GM Assembly plants knew about it in '02 during pilot builds.GM never said they would notify you in BIG BOLD LETTERS. just because its a Toyota doesn't mean GM doesn't have some say.JMO

[ColonelPanic]

I don't mind so much that there is something in the car recording data, but I do have some major issues with how this data is being used... I know the Malibu I had did in fact do it, although fortunately it never had to be used. Same goes with the Vibe - I don't know what all it records, but the owner's manual states the SDM does record seat belt usage at the least..I'm sure that NHTSA and the auto makers could find the data very useful. When said data is used properly, it *could* help design safer cars for all of us in the future.Now, when the slimeball ambulance chasers start using the data a vehicle obtained during an accident against any party, I have a big problem with that. I think the data should be kept confidential, and only shared among those who need it for research... The authorities more than likely have been able to determine fault (for the most part) for decades without having such devices, so I really can't agree that insurance companies, lawyers, whoever should have access to this data. Use it for research, not litigation...

[scherry2]

Quote, originally posted by ColonelPanic »Now, when the slimeball ambulance chasers start using the data a vehicle obtained during an accident against any party, I have a big problem with that. I think the data should be kept confidential, and only shared among those who need it for research... The authorities more than likely have been able to determine fault (for the most part) for decades without having such devices, so I really can't agree that insurance companies, lawyers, whoever should have access to this data. Use it for research, not litigation...I agree with you there.

[jake75]

I have heard stories where an owner blew an engine and when attempting to get it replaced under warranty the back box showed that the owner had red lined it deliberately blowing it. In a way that benefits us "honest" people as we won't be paying for what is essentially insurance fraud.

[Baltovibe]

Anyway of just unplugging the damn thing?By looks of the picture in the article, it looks like a box that could be disconnected. Or is it part of the ECM, where it can't be disconnected?

[ToolGuy]

My 98 Vette has it, Vettes have had it since 1997 and is through the air bag module. Like the previous posts pic... Here is what some modules record... 5 seconds of pre-crash data (I'm sparing you confusing details when I say pre-crash). The data includes Speed, Brakes on/off, percent throttle, seatbelt buckled, engine RPM, and several other useful bits of information Change of velocity experienced during the impact - better known as Delta-V Ignition cycle information - No real time time/date stamp unless vehicle has an On-Star system Airbag deployment times and other data critical to the safety device deployment decisions Hexadecimal data pertaining to the event

[ToolGuy]

Are vehicle black boxes 'snitches' or 'saviours?'by Associated Pressposted Jun 30, 2003By Matthew Fordahl No one disputes that Michelle Zimmermann lost control of her 2002 GMC Yukon as she drove on a two-lane highway in Massachusetts one snowy afternoon last January. Her friend died after the SUV slammed into a tree. Zimmermann claims she was driving within the posted 40 mph (about 64 km/h) speed limit, but like millions of other Americans the 33-year-old didn't know that her vehicle had a "black box." Monitoring her driving, it recorded the last few seconds before the crash. Bolstered by data that they say indicates Zimmermann was driving well above the speed limit, prosecutors have charged the Beverly, Mass. woman with negligent vehicular homicide. She has pleaded innocent and faces up to 2 1/2 years in jail if convicted. An estimated 25 million automobiles in the United States now have so-called event data recorders, a scaled-down version of the devices that monitor cockpit activity in airplanes. Like aviation recorders, automobile black boxes mainly receive attention after an accident. What the devices record increasingly finds its way into courtrooms as evidence in criminal and civil cases, leading some privacy advocates to question how the recorders came to be installed so widely with so little public notice or debate. "It's like having a government agent driving around in the back seat of your car," said Bob Weiner, Zimmermann's defense attorney and a former prosecutor. "I think it's a tremendous invasion of privacy." Most people apparently don't even know whether the vehicles they drive are equipped with event data recorders. Nearly two-thirds of people surveyed by an insurance industry group knew nothing about them. "The real issue is one of notice, and the problem arises from the fact that information is being collected about people's driving behavior without them knowing," said David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "If drivers knew about the device, they could at least then begin asking questions." Automakers and regulators have ignored basic privacy questions, leaving individual courts to decide such issues as who owns the information and whether a warrant is required to access it, he said. Some studies have questioned the data's reliability and accuracy. Prosecutors, police and accident reconstructionists say the boxes yield information no different from what can be gleaned from crushed metal, skid marks and other evidence at the scene. Now, they say, calculations can be backed up. "It's appearing in prosecutors' cases in support of the normal reconstruction," said W.R. "Rusty" Haight, director of the Collision Safety Institute. A number of recent court cases across the country have involved event data recorders. In early June, Edwin Matos of Pembroke Pines, Fla., was sentenced to 30 years in prison for slamming his car into a vehicle driven by two teenage girls, killing both. Data from the recorder showed he was driving more than 100 mph just seconds before the crash. In April, Arlington Heights, Ill., police officer Charles Tiedje received a $10 million US settlement after data from the hearse that struck his squad car contradicted claims that the driver blacked out. The device showed the supposedly unconscious driver accelerated and braked in the moments before the October 2000 crash. The devices' primary function is to monitor various sensors and decide whether to fire air bags. But secondary and more recently installed features in many recorders store data from a few seconds before a crash. Though capabilities vary widely among carmakers, most recorders store only limited information on speed, seat belt use, physical forces, brakes and other factors. Voices are not recorded. General Motors Corp. has been using recording-capable devices, called Sensing and Diagnostic Modules, since the 1990s to help improve safety and gather statistics. GM spokesman Jim Schell said consumer privacy has always been a top concern. "We collect the data with the permission with the owner or the person who is leasing the vehicle," he said. "When that data is collected, we take great care to assure confidentiality." The modules helped GM figure out why some air bags were deploying inadvertently, leading to a recall in 1998 of more than 850,000 Cavaliers and Sunfires. But there's a lot more interest in the data beyond engineering -- namely, from lawyers. GM and, more recently, Ford Motor Co. now allow outsiders to access the data by buying a $2,500 US reader built by Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Vetronix Corp. The company says its primary customers are accident reconstructionists, law enforcement and insurance companies. So far, about 1,000 of the devices have been sold, primarily in the United States and Canada. The company hopes to reach deals to cover data from other car makers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been studying data recorders for years, trying to determine whether the auto industry should standardize the equipment. Any decision could be years away, and there's no guarantee privacy would be addressed then. Agency spokesman Tim Hurd said state courts should decide what's admissible. Haight, a former San Diego police officer, dismisses the privacy concerns because driving -- and crashes -- are public. But Sobel argues that drivers at the very least have a right to know that their actions might be recorded. He also fears that data recorders will converge with other devices -- such as locators and voice recorders -- now finding their way into cars. "It's hard to say that there is general public acceptance of this when the public has no idea about it," he said.

[ToolGuy]

Someone correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is the data can only be collected if legally needed...

[futseal04]

Yeah...there is a long process where the court has to subpoena the box and get it read.

[Jahntassa]

Quote, originally posted by MiVibe-ToolGuy »No one disputes that Michelle Zimmermann lost control of her 2002 GMC Yukon as she drove on a two-lane highway in Massachusetts one snowy afternoon last January. Her friend died after the SUV slammed into a tree. Zimmermann claims she was driving within the posted 40 mph (about 64 km/h) speed limit, but like millions of other Americans the 33-year-old didn't know that her vehicle had a "black box." Monitoring her driving, it recorded the last few seconds before the crash. Okay...just for kicks. Look at the above. "Lost control as she drove on a snowy afternoon in January." We know the thing captures like five seconds of pre-crash. Maybe she skidded out of control and the speedo went nuts because there was no traction?Bah..i'm glad there's a lengthy court process to get this stuff..

[MadBill]

Quote, originally posted by futseal04 »Yeah...there is a long process where the court has to subpoena the box and get it read.This is true in most jurisdictions, if the authorities are trying to COMPEL the release of the EDR or its data. A number of drivers however have been surprised and dismayed to learn that: A. if they leased the vehicle, the EDR and its info belongs to the leasing agency and B. if they owned it but it is written off in the accident, the moment the settlement check clears, the wrecked vehicle and its EDR are now "owned" by the insurance company. In several cases, these parties have eagerly turned over the EDR without any coercion in the hopes of pinning liability on the driver.

[zionzr2]

Anyone know for sure if our 04 and newer vibes have this "Black Box" And where it would be located?

[ColonelPanic]

Any data recording (I assume) is done in the sensing and diagnostic module (for the air bags/seat belt pretensioners.) You'll find it under the center of the dash, mounted to the "hump" in the floor, immediately in front of the shifter console.