Maybe I have lived in a vacuum for a while, but I was not aware that this data was being recorded in our vehicles on a constant basis:
http://www.seniormag.com/headlines/blackboxcars.htm

So, is the next step the LEO having a small handheld PC, stopping you for "equipment", downloading your exact speed from your car's EDR and then issuing you a speeding citation? Or maybe every LEO @ a "sobriety" checkpoint has one the handhelds and just checks every car for any potential violations (speeding, no seatbelts, etc.)

OK, 1984 may have been a while back. Or, maybe, we are just a little slow in catching up to Huxley?

 

LEO gets to use the data now in crash investigations....

 

It's only available to criminally prosecute with a court order from a judge with the same probable cause required in any other criminal search warrant. The device records numerous readings from vehicle sensors (acceleration, deceleration, airbags, etc), but only for brief periods like before an impact.
It was originally designed to give manfacturers an indication of the performance of safety devices, not for prosecution. The advent of anti-lock brakes, active handling, etc results in a lack of roadway (evidence) indicators needed for investigators to determine causal effects of braking and evasive action before a collision. Typically, a fatality or severe injury collision would be a case where an investigator would request a court order. It can be used by defense attorneys as well. It could be ordered produced for a civil trial through a court authorized subpoena. Ten witnesses to such a collision will offer ten differing opinions of the event. The device offers scientific facts.
If you're ever involved in a civil case against a automobile manufacturer for defective safety equipment, you might be glad to have the device to use against them. The technology has been in cars for years. No one complains about "black box" technology in civilian commercial aircraft.

 

Interesting. And how is the accuracy of the data validated? How is the unit maintained, if at all? Who is qualified to testify as to the veracity and accuracy of the data? A Dealer Service Tech? I can hear it now - "The state now calls Mr. Goodwrench to the stand"!

A woman here in Central Ohio was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and a significant part of the evidence was this EDR data. The data conflicted with her testimony as well as the testimony of eye witnesses to the crash that killed her passenger. Heading to appeals, of course.

I guess the one big issue is no disclosure. Airline pilots and airlines know there is a "black box". How many owner of GM cars on that list are aware that this data is being recorded?

 

If a state prosecutor intended to use the data from the device in a criminal prosecution, it would have to be introduced into testimony through someone the court has qualified as an expert to extrapolate/interpret the data. That is open to interpretation by experts from the defense. It may not be a representative from the manufacturer, especially if these cases are common enough that a crime lab expert or independent experts are experienced with the device and have been qualified. The defense could also introduce experts to refute that testimony. The evidence has be shown to have relevancy. The manufacturers frequently resist introduction of this data to negate their own liability. As I said, the device wasn't originally intended for that purpose, but the state and the defense are required and entitled to the "best evidence" to prosecute or defend a defendant. I'd be interested to know the first time this evidence was introduced in court...it was probably by a personal injury attorney in a civil litigation. That let the cat out of the bag.

If a significant part of the evidence was this EDR data, then someone qualified by the trial court testified and was probably cross examined by the defense. I'm not doubting you, but this type of evidence is not introduced without a foundation. It shouldn't be a surprise that a defendants testimony would be in conflict with the evidence. Defendants don't want to be found guilty. Eye witness testimony is the first attack of a defense attorney. Everyone perceives an event from a different perspective and with some degree of prejudice or handicap. That's the perfect target for a defense attorney trying to develop a reasonable doubt in the jury...it only takes one juror to yield a hung jury.

Disclosure? There isn't a right of privacy here like in a private phone conversation (or an aircraft black box that records conversations). The device records only sensor data...whether that data is ever used for anything depends on the totality of the circumstances and court authorization.

 

Not to highjack a great post, but this analogy doesn't work very well any more.

 

first of all this has been

Secondly if you drive normal you have nothing to fear, drive like an *** you got it coming.

Also this black box can save you. How many times a witness says that you were doing 80 mph in a 40 mph zone. They don't know. They can claim that you never hit your brakes because they heard no skidding sound. This black box records all this and will save your ***.

Do a search on black box

 

 

It's part of the airbag control module, and records a continuous 30 sec or so loop of data. If the airbag deploys, the last 30sec is frozen in memory. If the airbag isn't signalled, the recorder will keep running, so even if a cop could read it (it has to be removed and read by a tech,) all he would see is zero speed, idle RPM, and the parking brake set, assuming it is more than 30 sec since you pulled to a stop.

 

next application of remote sensing will be when you get a speeding ticket from some podunk town that you ripped through on the way home from your vacation when the local folks recorded your speed via the OnStar hotline....

 

I thought it was the last 5 seconds of Data.
The only way that the black box can be erased is by High intensity UV light. I think it uses an EDRAM to so the info on.

 

Could be. I just know it's a very short timespan.