Automotive Black Boxes, Minus the Gray Area

[Eugen Leitl]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/05/automotive-black-boxes/

Automotive Black Boxes, Minus the Gray Area

By Keith Barry Email Author May 23, 2011  | 7:00 am  | 

Categories: Infrastructure

Next month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to
declare that all vehicles must contain an event data recorder, known more
commonly as a bblack box.b The device, similar to those found in aircraft,
records vehicle inputs and, in the event of a crash, provides a snapshot of
the final moments before impact.

That snapshot could be viewed by law enforcement, insurance companies and
automakers. The device cannot be turned off, and youbll probably know little
more about it than the legal disclosure youbll find in the ownerbs manual.

The pending mandate looks to some like a gross overreach of government
authority, or perhaps an effort by Uncle Sam, the insurance industry and even
the automakers to keep tabs on what drivers are doing. But if youbre driving
a car with airbags, chances are therebs already one of these devices under
your hood.

How much it affects you depends upon where you live and what data points it
records. How much it will affect you in the future may depend on a new set of
standards that spell out exactly what data is collected and who can access
it.

An Incomplete Record On August 17, 2002, two teenage girls in Pembroke Pines,
Florida, died when their vehicle was struck by a Pontiac Firebird Firehawk
driven by Edwin Matos. The girls were backing out of their driveway;
investigators accessed the vehiclebs data recorder and discovered Matos had
been traveling 114 mph in a residential area moments before impact.

Matos was convicted on two counts of manslaughter, but his lawyer appealed
the admission of the data recorder evidence, arguing it may have
malfunctioned because the car had been extensively modified. The attorney
also argued the evidence was based on an evolving technology. The Florida
Supreme Court upheld the conviction, however, establishing precedent in that
state that data gleaned from event data recorders is admissible in court.

There are two important facts to note in this case. First, Matos was driving
in Florida, one of 37 states with no statutes barring the disclosure of such
data. While car companies initially claimed ownership of the data, courts
eventually ruled that it belongs to vehicle owners and lessees. No federal
laws govern access to black box data, and state laws eventually clarified how
much data other parties could access.

bThe state statutes, starting with one in California, arose out of consumer
complaints about insurance companies getting the data without the vehicle
owner even knowing that the data existed or had been accessed,b said Dorothy
Glancy, a lawyer and professor at Santa Clara Law with extensive experience
studying issues of privacy and transportation.

In most of the 13 other states, however, Matosb black box data still would
have been available to police officers armed with a warrant.

bLaw enforcement generally has access to the data,b Glancy said.

The second important fact is that, though the court denied Matosb appeal, the
question of the databs validity remained. Most manufacturers currently use
proprietary systems that require specialized interpretation, and many
individual event data recorders do not survive crashes intact. Other courts
have ruled against the admission of the data.

Setting a Standard

The lack of uniformity concerns Tom Kowalick. He chairs the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers P1616 Standards Working Group on Motor
Vehicle Event Data Recorders, one of three panels aiming to set universal
standards for event data recorders (EDR).

bUntil recently, there has been no industry-standard or recommended practice
governing EDR format, method of retrieval, or procedure for archival,b
Kowalick said. bEven 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.b

Standards proposed in 2008 would ensure that data once available only to
automakers IS publicly accessible. The new standards would make accessibility
universal and prevent data tampering such as odometer fraud.

bIt also addresses concerns over privacy rights by establishing standards
protecting data from misuse,b Kowalick said.

The standards also propose specific guidelines and technology to prevent the
modification, removal or deactivation of an event data recorder.

Those regulations would, in theory, make black box data more reliable than
what is currently collected. But they also would prevent drivers from
controlling the collection of information b information that they own.

bI am not sure why consumers would want a system in their vehicles that they
could not control,b Glancy said.

For What Purpose?

Before shunning new cars and buying a 1953 MG TD to avoid secret tracking
devices, it helps to see how the information gleaned from event data
recorders is used.

General Motors has been a leader in event data recorder technology,
installing them in nearly all vehicles with airbags since the early 1990s. It
currently installs Bosch EDRs in all vehicles sold in North America. The
technology has evolved and now collects as many as 30 data points, said Brian
Everest, GMbs senior manager of field incidents.

bIn the early b90s we could get diagnostic data, seatbelt use and crash
severity,b Everest said. bCurrently, we can get crash severity, buckle
status, precrash data related to how many events the vehicle may have been in
and brake application.b

The newest vehicles also can determine steering input and whether lane
departure warning systems were turned on.

That info is invaluable in determining how a car responds in a crash. With a
vehicle owner or lesseebs permission, crash investigators with access to the
data pass on the EDR records to GM, which can determine whether vehicle
systems or driver error contributed to an accident. They also can discover
what vehicle systems and technologies prevented serious injuries or death.

bItbs about trying to understand what a particular systembs performance did
before a crash,b Everest said.

In addition to helping a manufacturer prevent future crashes or injuries, it
can also help in defending an automaker against claims of vehicle defects.

bIn a great many cases, we can use data to understand whether it had any
merit to it or not,b Everest said.

Sometimes the information vindicates an automaker, such as in the case of
Toyotabs recent unintended acceleration debacle. Investigators could look
directly at vehicle inputs to determine what occurred in each case. In other
cases b a problem with unintended low-speed airbag deployment in a 1996
Chevrolet Cavalier, for example b the data reveals a legitimate vehicle
defect and leads to a recall being issued.

Safety In The Future

While automakers might like to examine every aspect of a crash, there comes a
point where too much data would overload researchers and the relatively
inexpensive computers used in vehicles. The last thing car makers b or
consumers b want is to increase the price of a vehicle to pay for
super-sophisticated event data recorders.

bWebre definitely supportive of additional data,b Everest said. bThe drawback
on parameters is that you want to understand how it would affect the system,b
balancing the need for data with the computing power available from a
low-cost EDR.

Other concerns involve law enforcement access to enhanced electronic data
recorders or whether dealers or insurance companies could use that data to
deny or support claims.

bIt usually depends on state law whether they need a subpoena or a warrant,b
Glancy said. bLots of data just gets accessed at the crash scene or the tow
yard, as I understand actual practice.b

Whether that information was accessed and interpreted by a trained
professional would determine how it held up in court. Insurance companiesb
access and use of the data would again be up to state law, said Glancy.

Several insurance companies contacted by Wired.com declined to comment on the
issue, but Leah Knapp, a spokesperson for Progressive Insurance, offered that
companybs policy. bOur position on EDRs is that we would only use that data
in a claims investigation with customer consent or if webre required to do so
by law,b she said. Knapp stressed that manufacturer-installed EDRs are
different than incentive programs run by insurance companies that offer a
discount for customers who voluntarily install monitoring devices on their
vehicles.

Though dealers have access to EDR records, Everest said he knew of no
instance where the information was used to void a warranty claim by proving
that a customer abused a vehicle.

bAutomakers have a duty to warn vehicle owners about safety recalls and the
like,b Glancy said. bBut you would have to look at the particular warranty to
see what would be covered and what would not.b Still, she said shebd bexpect
that they wouldb eventually be able to access such data.

It comes down to a balancing act between an individualbs right to privacy and
automakersb need for data to determine the cause of a crash, between the need
for a robust reporting system and the computing power available, between
state interests in protecting consumers and insurance companies. Whether that
balance tilts in favor of drivers remains to be seen b but at least EDR
standards ensure a level starting point.

Photo: Chris Yarzab/Flickr

Tags: Business, Current Affairs, General Motors, Policy, Safety