Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    NHTSA On Its Way To Greenlight Black Boxes

    Sign in to follow this  

    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    December 10, 2012

    NHTSA is expected to finalize a long-awaited proposal to make event data recorders, the 'black box' standard on all new vehicles.

    Last Thursday, the White House Office of Management Budget completed a review of the proposal which has cleared the way for NHTSA to finish up the final regulation.

    The proposed regulation would raise the percentage of vehicles required to have a black box from 91.6% today to 100%. The incremental cost is expected to be around $24.4 million if the sales of vehicles stand at 15.5 million per year.

    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers agrees with the proposed rule but says the Government needs to take into account privacy of driver.

    "Event data recorders help our engineers understand how cars perform in the real world but looking forward, we need to make sure we preserve privacy. Automakers do not access EDR data without consumer permission, and any government requirements to install EDRs on all vehicles must include steps to protect consumer privacy," said spokeswoman Gloria Bergquist.

    Currently, if your vehicle has a EDR, its yours. If Law Enforcement wants a peek at it, they need to get a court order.

    Source: The Detroit News

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    And I already know of people who had those used against them...people are going to find out quick there are not going to have "rights" while driving a car.

    While I hate it, there are simply too many drivers (stupid ones)we need this for....

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What's the procedure for denying a court order? Oh yea- there is none.

    There is more than enough testing, computer simulations & data logged already, outside of black boxes, that this is totally unnecessary for those purposes.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is totally focused on allowing big brother to dictate what you do and when. I would not be surprised to see them put in a hidden ability for law enforcement to turn off the car so they can force you to stop and ticket or arrest you. This is another step in the multitude of steps they have been doing to control you and dictate what, where and when you can do something.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Might as well ask here- when did they start getting installed, and does my '04 Silverado have an EDR?

    Yes, your 04 Silverado has an EDR. GM I believe was one of the first automakers to put 'black boxes' into vehicles in the 90s.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    So then it is probably a given that my 04 CTS, 05 SRX, 06 ESV and 08 Trailblazer SS all have this bloody thing!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you drive the General... pretty much anything that was released or updated after 1994 will have some sort of device like this...all vehicle with Onstar built in will have it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you drive the General... pretty much anything that was released or updated after 1994 will have some sort of device like this...all vehicle with Onstar built in will have it.

    WOW did not know it went back that far, so all my onstar equipped auto's are tracked. :(

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you drive the General... pretty much anything that was released or updated after 1994 will have some sort of device like this...all vehicle with Onstar built in will have it.

    WOW did not know it went back that far, so all my onstar equipped auto's are tracked. :(

    Tracked? No. The data doesn't go anywhere. All that onstar does is notify emergency response if airbags deploy or certain sensors are tripped. (Someone with a 1000hp CTS-V tripped the g-force sensor when accelerating the car, prompting a call from Onstar to make sure everyone was ok.) But if you think about it... this is specifically what you are paying OnStar for in the first place.

    They record event data in a rolling log... older stuff is deleted as newer stuff is recorded, but only a fixed amount of time ranging from a few minutes up to an hour. All of the concern over this is prompting me to do an article on it though.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you drive the General... pretty much anything that was released or updated after 1994 will have some sort of device like this...all vehicle with Onstar built in will have it.

    WOW did not know it went back that far, so all my onstar equipped auto's are tracked. :(

    Tracked? No. The data doesn't go anywhere. All that onstar does is notify emergency response if airbags deploy or certain sensors are tripped. (Someone with a 1000hp CTS-V tripped the g-force sensor when accelerating the car, prompting a call from Onstar to make sure everyone was ok.) But if you think about it... this is specifically what you are paying OnStar for in the first place.

    They record event data in a rolling log... older stuff is deleted as newer stuff is recorded, but only a fixed amount of time ranging from a few minutes up to an hour. All of the concern over this is prompting me to do an article on it though.

    Your car can be tracked with Onstar. That's how its stolen vehicle recovery feature works. Oh, and it can shut the car down.

    The devil here is how this might be used against an owner - the implications are obvious.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    it's not tracked unless the owner activates the stolen vehicle locater services.

    and if you don't want the stolen vehicle slow down service well... this blurb from OnStar says it directly: "OnStar subscribers have the choice to opt-out of the Stolen Vehicle Slowdown service at any time by contacting OnStar if they prefer not to have this capability on their vehicle. This will not affect the rest of their OnStar services."

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Doesn't matter.

    Mandating this for every car is simply invasive and wrong - and it will be used against owners, and the use will be broadened in the coming years.

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Camino is dead right. Because the Gov't is involved, it will do what it always does, mushroom larger & larger.

    May not happen next year, but it absolutely will.

    "pretty much every GM vehicle after 1994" - I would like to learn for sure how to tell which vehicles do & don't.

    BTW- I have no OnStar (service or button) in my truck.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It won't just be the government either.

    Just wait until your insurance company gets access.

    Or the finance company that issued your loan...

    Or your employer...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Irresponsible and dangerous according to whom?

    I'm sorry, but I just don't see being a compliant drone as a good thing.

    This information could also be used to send a compliance drone after you... :)

    If I were paranoid, I would assume all this data will be gathered and analyzed by DHS, NSA, etc for finding pre-crime scenarios and tracking potential threats. It's inevitable.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It won't just be the government either.

    Just wait until your insurance company gets access.

    Or the finance company that issued your loan...

    Or your employer...

    Finance Company New OnStar Feature:

    Attention Customer Mr. Smith, due to a late payment missed exactly 59 seconds ago we are giving you 10 min to make instant electronic payment or else we will turn on the Auto shut off feature and will bring your auto to a controlled safe stop as which time you will need to exit the auto and remove all personal items as a tow truck will be dispatched to retrieve our auto. Have a nice day.

    Electronic Payment required

    t minus 10 min......

    t minus 9 min 59 sec.....

    t minus 9 min 58 sec.....

    :P:rofl:

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Back in 2017, the NHTSA released a report on the safety of Tesla's Autopilot system after the fatal crash of a Tesla owner in 2016. That report claimed that the use of Autopilot, or more precisely the lane-keeping function called Autosteer, reduced crash rates by 40%. 
      In that original crash, the owner repeatedly ignored warnings to resume manual control of the vehicle.  Critics questioned whether Autopilot was encouraging drivers to pay less attention to the road.  The NHTSA report appeared to put those concerns to rest.
      Later, when a second driver died in an Autopilot related accident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk pointed to the NHTSA study and the 40% increase in safety claim. Now, 2 years after the original report. According to a report by Arstechnica, a third party has analyzed the data and found the 40% claim to be bogus.
      Originally the NHTSA data on Autopilot crashes was not publically available when Quality Control Systems, a research and consulting firm, requested it under a Freedom of Information Act request. The NHTSA claimed the data from Tesla was confidential and would cause the company harm if released.  QCS sued the NHTSA and in September of last year, a federal judge granted the FOI request.
      What QCS found was that missing data and poor math caused the NHTSA report to be grossly inaccurate.  The period in question covered vehicle both before and after Autopilot was installed, however, a significant number of the vehicles in the data set provided by Telsa have large gaps between the last recorded mileage before Autopilot was installed and the first recorded mileage after installation.  The result is a gray area where it is unknown if Autopilot was active or not.  In spite of this deficiency, the NHTSA used the data anyway.
      In the data provided only 5,714 vehicles have no gap between the pre and post Autopilot mileage readings.  When QCS ran calculations again, they found that crashes per mile actually increased 59% after Autopilot was installed.
      Does that mean that a Tesla using Autopilot makes a crash 59% more likely?  The answer to that is no for a number of reasons.  First is that the sample size QCS had to work with is a very small percentage of Tesla’s total sales.  Secondly, the data is only representative of vehicles with version 1 of Tesla’s Autopilot, a version that Tesla hasn’t sold since 2016.
      Tesla stopped quoting the NHTSA report around May of 2018, possibly realizing something was fishy with the data. They have since taken to their own report stating that cars with Autopilot engaged have fewer accidents per mile than cars without it engaged.  This has some statistical fishiness to it as well.  Autopilot is only meant to be engaged on the highway and due to the higher rate of speed all vehicles have a lower rate of accidents per mile.
      We may just have to wait until more data is available to find out if Tesla Autopilot and systems similar to it make crashed that much less likely.

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Back in 2017, the NHTSA released a report on the safety of Tesla's Autopilot system after the fatal crash of a Tesla owner in 2016. That report claimed that the use of Autopilot, or more precisely the lane-keeping function called Autosteer, reduced crash rates by 40%. 
      In that original crash, the owner repeatedly ignored warnings to resume manual control of the vehicle.  Critics questioned whether Autopilot was encouraging drivers to pay less attention to the road.  The NHTSA report appeared to put those concerns to rest.
      Later, when a second driver died in an Autopilot related accident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk pointed to the NHTSA study and the 40% increase in safety claim. Now, 2 years after the original report. According to a report by Arstechnica, a third party has analyzed the data and found the 40% claim to be bogus.
      Originally the NHTSA data on Autopilot crashes was not publically available when Quality Control Systems, a research and consulting firm, requested it under a Freedom of Information Act request. The NHTSA claimed the data from Tesla was confidential and would cause the company harm if released.  QCS sued the NHTSA and in September of last year, a federal judge granted the FOI request.
      What QCS found was that missing data and poor math caused the NHTSA report to be grossly inaccurate.  The period in question covered vehicle both before and after Autopilot was installed, however, a significant number of the vehicles in the data set provided by Telsa have large gaps between the last recorded mileage before Autopilot was installed and the first recorded mileage after installation.  The result is a gray area where it is unknown if Autopilot was active or not.  In spite of this deficiency, the NHTSA used the data anyway.
      In the data provided only 5,714 vehicles have no gap between the pre and post Autopilot mileage readings.  When QCS ran calculations again, they found that crashes per mile actually increased 59% after Autopilot was installed.
      Does that mean that a Tesla using Autopilot makes a crash 59% more likely?  The answer to that is no for a number of reasons.  First is that the sample size QCS had to work with is a very small percentage of Tesla’s total sales.  Secondly, the data is only representative of vehicles with version 1 of Tesla’s Autopilot, a version that Tesla hasn’t sold since 2016.
      Tesla stopped quoting the NHTSA report around May of 2018, possibly realizing something was fishy with the data. They have since taken to their own report stating that cars with Autopilot engaged have fewer accidents per mile than cars without it engaged.  This has some statistical fishiness to it as well.  Autopilot is only meant to be engaged on the highway and due to the higher rate of speed all vehicles have a lower rate of accidents per mile.
      We may just have to wait until more data is available to find out if Tesla Autopilot and systems similar to it make crashed that much less likely.
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg
    • By William Maley
      A new audit released by the U.S. Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General rips the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over its handling of the Takata airbag recall.
      In the report, the Inspector General says NHTSA's recall monitoring process "does not ensure that remedies are reported completely and in a timely manner," nor does it "verify recall completion rates, although it has the authority to do so." Other issues the audit found included the long time it took the agency to determine the scope of the Takata recall and missing documents due to limited monitoring and inadequate procedures.
      "In June 2014, RMD [NHTSA's Recall Management Division] received a recall notification for Takata airbag inflators in over 140,000 vehicles. The notification stated that the manufacturer planned to tell owners to take their vehicles to dealerships for repairs in February 2015. However, as of February 2018, RMD had not received the manufacturer's remedy documents, and [the Office of Defects Investigation's] recall recordkeeping system does not indicate that RMD staff requested those documents," the report said.
      The Inspector General makes six recommendations including better training for staff, creating a system to handle missing documents and communications, and documenting various lessons from the Takata recall.
      NHTSA in a letter said it "did not endorse all of the report’s findings," but did agree to some of the recommendations.
      The agency has come under fire for a number of years due to its poor handling of various auto safety issues, including Toyota's unattended acceleration crisis and GM's ignition switch mess. This latest audit is fourth since 2011 by the inspector general. The last audit done in 2015 said NTHSA failed to investigate safety issues carefully, hold automakers accountable, and adequately train their staff which resulted in “significant safety concerns being overlooked.”
      Source: Reuters
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. flrider
      flrider
      (75 years old)
    2. the_yellow_dart
      the_yellow_dart
      (36 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...