EU orders new cars fitted with "black-box" data monitoring

theguzman

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/105413/all-new-cars-to-have-black-box-data-loggers-under-eu-laws

Interesting ideas and one of several new safety features which are coming on-stream via EU law.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/103530/11-car-safety-systems-to-become-mandatory-by-2021

Disappointingly there is no mention of OEM mandatory dash cams which would fit very well into this plan. Dashcams are illegal in some member states of the EU which is probably why. I personally think in countries like Ireland they should become mandatory to drive down claims and determine liability in accidents.

Fann Linn

Not even established yet if these dashcams are GDPR compliant according to some solicitors. A case was identified where an alleged offender in a truck did not pass over dashcam footage on the instructions of his own insurance company.

kirving

Most manufactures have had "black-box" type systems for years, and in the case of Volvo, since at least 2004. Posted before, but the following is written in the user manual of a Mk2 S40.

Recording vehicle data
One or more of the computers in your Volvo are capable of recording detailed information.

This information is intended for use in research to enhance safety and for diagnosing faults in some of the in-car systems.

The data may include details regarding seatbelt use by the driver and passengers, the functions of various vehicle systems and modules, and status information about the engine, throttle, steering, brakes and other systems. This data can also include details of the way the car is driven.

This type of information can include, without being limited to, specific details such as vehicle speed, the use of the brake and accelerator pedals and steering wheel position.

This latter type of data can be stored for a limited period while the car is being driven and subsequently during a collision or a near-collision. Volvo Car Corporation will not disclose the stored information without consent.

However, Volvo Car Corporation may be forced to disclose the information due to national legislation. Volvo Car Corporation and authorised Volvo workshops may also read and use the information

biko

To be forced to record my speed and all kinds of details and then possibly be forced to share this with police, insurance, and who knows who else, is too intrusive for my taste.

data recorders that will log information “such as the car's speed or the state of activation of the car's safety systems before, during and after a collision”.

The last sentence simply means "always".

Auguste Comte

I'm surprised it took so long. If road safety is a priority gps enabled speed limiters should be introduced and mandated on new cars.

Beasty

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I'm surprised it took so long. If road safety is a priority gps enabled speed limiters should be introduced and mandated on new cars.

That should at least boost the 2nd hand market:)

RustyNut

Beasty wrote: »

That should at least boost the 2nd hand market:)

Just like old trucks with analog tacos that are incredibly easy to fiddle, worth their weight in diamonds to certain hauliers around the country.

ironclaw

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I'm surprised it took so long. If road safety is a priority gps enabled speed limiters should be introduced and mandated on new cars.

Except speed is not the problem, it's just the easiest to target. I'm not saying that as an armchair bandit or to troll, it's actually a fact.


Of this number [800+] 19% cited excessive speed as the sole contributory factor

Cited: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Contributory_Factors_in_Fatal_Collisions/Fatal%20Collisions%202008%20to%202012_Excessive_Speed%20.pdf

Going further back in time:

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Speed%20and%20Speeding.pdf

These are contradictory:

- Speed is the biggest contributing factor to road deaths in the Republic of Ireland.

- Between 1996 and 2004, excessive speed contributed to 29% of our road deaths.

This next stat is suspect because it doesn't give the year range. For example, if we assume 1996 to 2004, then the numbers killed exceed 300 per year. Meaning, it's 30%.

- Speed is directly killing an average of 107 people a year in the Republic of Ireland.

So it's the biggest single factor, but it's only 1/3 of the problem.

I'm not defending speeding but it's time we stopped this idea that if everyone slowed down, we'd all live longer. It's nonsense. We all need to take responsibility on the roads and realise its a privilege, not a right.

- 19 drivers (28%) were not wearing seatbelts (http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Provisional_Reviews_of_Fatal_Collisions/RSA%20Review%20of%20fatalities%2021%20December%202015%20.pdf)

- Defective tyres (http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/News-2016/DEFECTIVE-TYRES-A-FACTOR-IN-71-ROAD-DEATHS-BETWEEN-2008-AND-2012/)

- Of the 867 collisions analysed, 274 (32%) were cited as having excessive speed for the road and conditions as a contributory factor to the collision. (http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Contributory_Factors_in_Fatal_Collisions/Fatal%20Collisions%202008%20to%202012_Excessive_Speed%20.pdf)


Anyway, on the thread, I'm against any sharing of info. There is no way to know how truly accurate it would be and how useful, if at all, it would in a collision. I'd rather it be used as an aid, not as evidence.

Auguste Comte

ironclaw wrote: »

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I'm surprised it took so long. If road safety is a priority gps enabled speed limiters should be introduced and mandated on new cars.

Except speed is not the problem, it's just the easiest to target. I'm not saying that as an armchair bandit or to troll, it's actually a fact.

I agree it's not the only problem, so many people getting killed without wearing a seat belt, I mean wtf.

But speed or at least inappropriate speed is one of the big problems that could easily be dealt with by technology.

As a young lad I would have raged against it but as an oul lad now with kids out and about on the roads I see things differently.

I don't see any down side provided that you accept that drivers should operate within the law.

Padraig Mor

ironclaw wrote: »

Except speed is not the problem, it's just the easiest to target. I'm not saying that as an armchair bandit or to troll, it's actually a fact.


Of this number [800+] 19% cited excessive speed as the sole contributory factor

Cited: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Contributory_Factors_in_Fatal_Collisions/Fatal%20Collisions%202008%20to%202012_Excessive_Speed%20.pdf

Going further back in time:

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Speed%20and%20Speeding.pdf

These are contradictory:

- Speed is the biggest contributing factor to road deaths in the Republic of Ireland.

- Between 1996 and 2004, excessive speed contributed to 29% of our road deaths.

This next stat is suspect because it doesn't give the year range. For example, if we assume 1996 to 2004, then the numbers killed exceed 300 per year. Meaning, it's 30%.

- Speed is directly killing an average of 107 people a year in the Republic of Ireland.

So it's the biggest single factor, but it's only 1/3 of the problem.

I'm not defending speeding but it's time we stopped this idea that if everyone slowed down, we'd all live longer. It's nonsense. We all need to take responsibility on the roads and realise its a privilege, not a right.

- 19 drivers (28%) were not wearing seatbelts (http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Provisional_Reviews_of_Fatal_Collisions/RSA%20Review%20of%20fatalities%2021%20December%202015%20.pdf)

- Defective tyres (http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/News-2016/DEFECTIVE-TYRES-A-FACTOR-IN-71-ROAD-DEATHS-BETWEEN-2008-AND-2012/)

- Of the 867 collisions analysed, 274 (32%) were cited as having excessive speed for the road and conditions as a contributory factor to the collision. (http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Contributory_Factors_in_Fatal_Collisions/Fatal%20Collisions%202008%20to%202012_Excessive_Speed%20.pdf)


Anyway, on the thread, I'm against any sharing of info. There is no way to know how truly accurate it would be and how useful, if at all, it would in a collision. I'd rather it be used as an aid, not as evidence.

Note there is a big difference between 'excessive speed' and 'driving in excess of the speed limit'. Last time I checked, the RSA don't record the latter, but analysing the available data, and comparing with the UK, suggests that driving in excess of the limit is the primary cause of only ~5% of fatal crashes - hardly proof of a requirement for GPS speed limiters! The number one cause of fatal collisions? One car on the wrong side of the road. Funny, I've never seen a RSA ad telling us to 'drive on the ****ing left you idiots'! But enforcing that would be hard......

professore

As others have pointed out, this is completely impossible under GDPR.

How can you guarantee the safety of data stored in thousands of cars all over the place? It's hard enough if you know exactly where your data is.

Imagine the fines car companies are leaving themselves open to with this : €20 million OR 5% of turnover WHICHEVER IS GREATER. And you can't insure yourself against breaking the law.

People have no idea how restrictive these laws actually are to real beneficial applications like this one, or health, to name two, while completely ignoring the likes of Facebook pixels tracking your every move online. Must have been written with a quill and ink as they don't bear any relationship to real world applications.

Dytalus

professore wrote: »

As others have pointed out, this is completely impossible under GDPR.

How can you guarantee the safety of data stored in thousands of cars all over the place? It's hard enough if you know exactly where your data is.

Imagine the fines car companies are leaving themselves open to with this : €20 million OR 5% of turnover WHICHEVER IS GREATER. And you can't insure yourself against breaking the law.

People have no idea how strict these laws actually are.

GDPR covers only personal data, and has allowances for collection of personal data under legal obligations, or to fulfil a contract. Arguably this would come under one of those - explicit consent would not have to be given. There's a bit of a grey are when it comes to the private sector and legal obligations (it's written with public bodies in mind), but that would be something for lawyers and the courts to decide. Further, if there's nothing personally identifying in the data on the black box to tie you to the data it collects, it may not come under GDPR. Similar, I'd wager, to the black boxes on aircraft. That's an argument for lawyers to clarify, however.

Likewise it allows for data to be gathered in the pursuit of, or prevention of, a crime without it constituting a data breach or 'excessive data gathering' (GDPR requires that data controllers only gather data that is specifically necessary to their function. A car collecting and storing your speed wouldn't necessarily be required for the manufacturer to continue with their job, but if it were for crime prevention then there's an argument to be made to allow it).

And it's 4% or €20 million, not 5%. And that's only the upper band which covers very specific breach types. Usually of 'Special Category' data, or particularly gross negligence. The speed you were driving definitely isn't Special Category data, so it would fall under the 2% or €10 million guidelines.

People have no idea how restrictive these laws actually are to real beneficial applications like this one, or health, to name two, while completely ignoring the likes of Facebook pixels tracking your every move online. Must have been written with a quill and ink as they don't bear any relationship to real world applications.

Facebook is going to get raked across the coals in EU courts. Their stance very much seems to be "we're based in the US, so we don't have to comply" and US data protection laws are abominable. Russia has better legislation for it. Other companies, like Google and Microsoft, have done a much better job of complying and still managing to perform their functions. Facebook just doesn't care.

There are plenty of points in GDPR to allow for data collection just like this, and for healthcare, and for whatever public interest you can think of. There are six criteria for lawful processing of data, and Data Controllers only need to qualify under one of them. And only one of the six is explicit consent (which the public sector doesn't typically rely on, that's a private sector mostly thing).

Dravokivich

From a GDPR prestective there's 3 things to consider:

1) If there's no means to distinguish drivers, it's the car being monitored not the driver.
2) The car has a unique identifier with the VIN, essentially being a serial number. Where I work, we've had to acknowledge serial numbers as private data, because they are used to reference individuals.
3) If one is to sell their vehicle, do they have a means to clear data previously related to their use of it, as it would potentially be irrelevant to any following owners?


Personally, I'd be interested in more open technology to track and support diagnostics. It ain't the same getting an ODB reader, which will read an arkward code when not used with OEM equipment, and then clears the messages after being acknowledged. Then requiring waiting for the fault occurs again, or trying to get a mechanic to repeat the issue.

H3llR4iser

ironclaw wrote: »

Anyway, on the thread, I'm against any sharing of info. There is no way to know how truly accurate it would be and how useful, if at all, it would in a collision. I'd rather it be used as an aid, not as evidence.

As an engineer, the idea of fitting cars with "GPS Black Boxes" and "Speed limiters" and it being a silver bullet solution makes me laugh every time.

People go "sure, airplanes have it!" or "racecars have it!" - most of these devices cost more or less as much as a brand new four door saloon. Yep, the whole car - tires, seats, engine et all.

What we'd get on road going cars would be an inaccurate, failure prone, overcomplicated hot mess.

Yet to be honest the technical side, as important as it is, is not the main pain point here...

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I don't see any down side provided that you accept that drivers should operate within the law.

...the above is one, although not the most important yet: considering these devices will need to be "cost effective" (read: cheap), the accuracy of their data will be questionable at best. Ever had your phone claiming you were doing 20km/h while walking around at a normal pace?

But the real downer comes when data protection and most importantly, its use is concerned: private companies, especially insurances, will want to have access to the data. It should be an easy "NO", but people are idiots - lure them in with a "discount" or some other pie in the sky and they'll gleefully sign their life away to you. At that point, there won't be anything to prevent your insurance underwriter from charging you more because "on August 23rd you drove 12km between 3.27 and 3.40 am, which carries a XY% increased risk of claim", or because once a week you park your car in a not-so-nice neigbourhood...and so on.

TL;DR - there is a concrete risk that the statement "drivers should operate within the law" will become "drivers should operate within acceptable parameters", which will be established by a private corporation (read: money making business) based on faulty data and completely arbitrary deliberations.