I’m thinking something along of a continous loop of say the past 1/2 hour… or even 5 minutes. This could include things like time, vehicle speed, throttle position, engine RPM, headlights, signal lights, brake lights, etc. The cost to do this IMHO should be minimal as cars already have sensors for most of this data, there just isn’t much for a storage device.
As it is, accident investigators have to go on eyewitness accounts which can be very unreliable (if there even is an eyewitness) and forensic evidence from the wreck itself (Eg - to determine if a bulb was actually illuminated at the time of a wreck). If they had the equivalent to a “flight data recorder” it would be so much easier to discover causes of accidents and who was actually at fault.
Is there a movement for the creation of devices like this? Would this be too “big-brotherish?”
[sub]and at risk of moving to an IMHO question[/sub]
Would YOU be against a device like this in your car?
As far as the units they use in airplanes, if a similar unit were constructed for cars, do you realize how heavy and bulky that thing would be? Where would you put it?
The cases for those things are cast metal (aluminum I think) and they record on wire. Not tape, WIRE. Reels of wire.
I think it would be weight and space-prohibitive.
Now, if you wanna say “Why doesn’t someone come up with a device that provides the same FUNCTION?” then I’d say a)as far as recording the data, it could be done but b) having it survive an acceptable percentage of significant crashes (i.e. rollovers, fires, head-ons, etc.) would be a challenge. The problem is you have to encapsualte a lot of sensitive equipment, and that’s hard to do without making it big and bulky.
Also, I suspect (but cannot prove) that most auto wrecks are muc easier to investigate than airplanes. Sure, you my not know the exact speed, but usually, it should be pretty easy to tell who hit what, and often why.
Also, I suspect (but cannot prove) that most auto wrecks are muc easier to investigate than airplanes. Sure, you my not know the exact speed, but usually, it should be pretty easy to tell who hit what, and often why.
Aside from that, the real reason is driver error. Most car wrecks are caused by stupid or distracted drivers. No mystery there. Plane crashes are more often vehicle failure, or some environmental disturbance. Different story, and the recorder is far, far more useful in figuring out how to fix said problem.
That said, some cars today do have computers recording certain ppeices of data, like speed and RPM’s. I know one model of Caddy does, the Coup deVille, does this, though not what year the feature was introduced. It’s really a maintenance feature, meant for mechanics.
In addition to the space and weight constraints, there is a greater need to determine the cause of an airplane crash than a car crash. In air accidents, more people are likely to die and a greater amount of damage is likely to be caused. A bigger lawsuit against a wealthier entity is also more likely to be filed. Given those greater stakes, it’s imperative to know the cause of an airplane crash. It’s not the case with the majority of car accidents.
Another thought is that the cause or events preceding a car accident are more likely to be observable or observed by a larger number of people. Though car accident witnesses may be few and their testimony of dubious accuracy, I’d wager that even fewer people have had usable firsthand information on the causes of airplane crashes.
Ahh yes. Good idea. Lets give insurance companies yet another tool to prevent them from paying on policies.
I can see it now…
Lawyer: Your Honour, this was not an accident but rather willful negligence on the part of the driver.
Judge: How so?
Lawyer: Well, our actuaries will supply data that shows in these types of incidents if the brakes are applied within the first 1.79 seconds control can be regained and problems averted. The vehicle data recorder clearly shows that the brakes were not depressed until the 3.56 second mark. Clearly the driver was inattentive or perhaps even under some sort of influence. This renders their policy null and void.
Judge: Works for me.
The concept is too big brotherish for it to work in the US. If we accept that sort of recording of our actions then what? Maybe add a GPS receiver and keep track of our movements as well. You can see how “they” would be interested in this sort of information.
Insurance payouts: I see no problem with forcing the guilty parties’ insurance company to pay. Especially when it comes to a he said/she said argument and one is lying but it can’t be proven.
Aircraft accidents kill more: True per accident, but there are far more auto accidents and they kill more people in all. Maybe a “recorder” in the car would cause people to drive a little carefully? I dunno.
I am not sold on this idea whatsoever but just wondering if it has been seriously thought of before.
I’m thinking something with no moving parts and maybe an EPROM memory or something. I don’t think it would have to be big and heavy just to be “rugged.” Something the size of a walkman?
My point was that per individual accident, there are greater stakes in an air crash than there are in a car crash. Auto accidents kill more people in all, true, but aircraft accidents take out more people at a time. It’s more difficult to ignore 500 people’s deaths in a single air accident than it is to ignore the ~40,000 deaths in car accidents in a year.
Acme (!) Rent-A-Car uses a GPS add-on to keep track of the speed of their vehicles and charges you $150 every time you go over the limit, even if you weren’t ticketed.
What if car insurance companies gave you a discount if your own car had some kind of recorder? I’m not sure if I’d like that, because I think in the long run that would just mean they charge more for no recorder.
The flipside of this is that many rail accidents don’t kill anyone, but the power (or locomotives) have recorders on them too. Even a simple rail accident could cost the rail company and/or insurance company $500,000 (a number I pulled out of my ass) but an auto accident with an injury could cost an insurance company that too… and there are so many auto “accidents.”
The more I think about it, I’m actually suprised insurance companies aren’t pushing for something like this. Or are they?
Yeah, I heard of that. IMHO that’s nothing but a money grab. The view I am looking at it is from the law enforcment side in case of a wreck (hence recording of signal lights, brake lights, throttle,etc). I wouldn’t want it looked at unless there was one, but with all new technologies there are always those that want to exploit it for their own benefit.
NASCAR is using black-boxes - they want to know what went wrong.
The GPS “tattle-tales” are the bane of trucker’s lives - it’s an invasion of privacy thing: they don’y want the company to know about that little “layover” that’s not on the log.
NTSB admits to ‘Black Box’ in vehicles
(Associated Press - Thursday, 01 April 2000)
In a surprise announcement today, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) admitted that, in February of 1998, with the support of the Big 3 automakers, recording devices similar to those found in commercial aircraft were installed in select models of new vehicles as part of a study to determine the effects of the lifting of the 55MPH speed limit. These vehicles include luxury sedans, subcompacts, and 4-wheel drive trucks and SUVs. A representative sampling of vehicles from Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors (along with their subsidiary companies) were used in the study.
A spokesman for the NTSB explained that the recorders were installed in the hopes that the data collected after serious accidents could be used in the design of future vehicles. In a prepared statement a representative of the NTSB stated, "Although the number of accidents has not risen substantially since the lifting of the national 55MPH speed limit, the severity of the accidents has increased. We hope to use the information (from the study) to help the country's automakers design safer vehicles. Additionally, this information can be used to help educate the public in regards safe driving practices." She further mentioned, "Although the data collected to date is to be considered 'preliminary', we have seen some interesting trends and have been making recommendations to the automakers based on these findings."
One of the most unusual, and controversial, features of the black boxes is the voice recorder. The NTSB explained that, under heavy braking, a 15 second tape loop records the drivers comments through a microphone installed in the dash. This loop is over-written each time the driver brakes in a manner consistent with a 'panic stop'. In the event of a collision, the last comments of the driver would be recorded for later analysis and may help to determine the cause of the accident.
To date, the last words of 60% of the drivers involved in collisions have been, "Oh sh*t." The exception to this has been drivers of 4-wheel drive trucks in Texas where 90% of the final words were, "Hold on to my beer, I want to try something I saw on TV last night."
<received from some joker via e-mail. Check by-line date.>
Still considering:
According to AirlineSafety pilot error (or human error) is the most common cause for airline accidents.
Actually, the only reason they’re bulky & heavy is the outer casing has to withstand the tremendous impact and/or fire of a plane crash. Automobiles don’t even approach such forces and rarely involve intense fire. And the analog CVRs and FDRs that record on wire have been significantly phased out. Some still exist but most aircraft black boxes are digital and use solid state memory.
My point is that there aren’t really any practical, physical reasons you couldn’t use them in passenger cars. It’s just not necessary. Cars are not as vulnerable to accidents as aircraft. And cars don’t obliterate themselves totally when they do crash.
Check out http://www.roadsafety.com/
They specialize in automotive data recorders that concerned parents can use to monitor their teens’ driving habits.
And their tracking was found to be illegal! State: Rental car tracking by GPS unlawful
"HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A car rental company that used satellites to track customers and fine speeders $150 was ordered Wednesday to stop the practice and refund an estimated $13,000 or more.
" ‘This just wasn’t fair,’ state consumer protection Commissioner James T. Fleming said. ‘It is not a car rental company’s job to enforce the speed limit in any state.’ "
There are a lot more car accidents because 1) there are a lot more cars, 2) the road is a lot more uncontrolled, and 3) even goofballs are allowed driver’s licenses.
I remember an interview on some prime time news magazine of a Corvette owner who sued to have the black box taken out of his car.
He angrily stated that not only was this an invasion of his privacy: he did not give GM nor the NTSB permission to use his car as a test bed for safety equipment, nor for on-going research and development.