New cars offer a delightful array of information and services:
satellite radio, intelligent cruise control, braking and steering
assistance, navigation systems, and roadside assistance, to name a
few. These all appeal to drivers’ desire for safety, convenience,
and comfort.
But a troublesome feature of most new cars is the Event Data
Recorder (“EDR”), or Black Box. As in commercial airplanes, the
automobile Black Box keeps a running record of how a car is being
operated, including speed, acceleration, braking, steering, and
seat belt use.
When there is an “event” — usually a crash — the EDR moves the
last several seconds of information into long-term storage for
later downloading. Well over half of the 2004 model passenger cars
and light vehicles have some recording capability of this type.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed
standards for the data collected by EDRs, but the agency emphasized
in a recent notice that it is not mandating Black Boxes. It will be
under pressure to do so. The National Transportation Safety Board
has listed Black Boxes as one of its “most wanted” measures.
There are obvious safety benefits if auto accidents can be
dissected in detail, of course. Auto manufacturers, safety groups,
and insurers want this information. Police departments want it
too.
Already, prosecutors are using information from automobile Black
Boxes as evidence against drivers. Last year, one Robert Christmann
was convicted in a New York traffic fatality based upon information
downloaded from his car’s Black Box.
But car manufacturers aren’t touting the safety benefits of the
Black Box like they do so many other improvements on the modern
automobile. That is because the Black Box is not a safety feature;
it is a surveillance tool — and when drivers learn about it, they
are none too happy.
After I commented on Black Boxes in a news story earlier this
year, letters poured into my e-mail box. “This is ‘over the top,’
and a definite infringement on my privacy,” said one outraged car
owner. Another wrote, “[T]his is a personal vehicle, I’ve paid for
it, paid my taxes, enough said.” From another, simply: “Not on my
car.”
Many correspondents wanted to know which cars have Black Boxes
so they can determine whether their personal vehicles were, in
effect, spying on them.
There are a number of directions in which this technology is
likely to go. It could collect and retain more information for
longer periods. It could interact with Global Positioning Systems
(GPS) to record where a car has traveled. And it could combine with
communications systems to signal authorities in real time.
Joan Borucki, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s nominee to head
California’s Department of Motor Vehicles, has proposed a mileage
tax that Black Boxes could administer. The Oregon Department of
Transportation has also considered a mileage tax.
In 2001, a Connecticut car rental company began charging renters
a $150 fine for speeding in their rental cars, using a GPS-equipped
monitoring system. Consumers can shun companies which make this a
practice. But they could not refuse an automatically-issued traffic
citation if governments were to add Black-Box-citation revenue to
what they now get from red-light cameras.
Legislation passed by the state of California is likely a sign
where things are headed. The state requires notices in the owner’s
manuals of cars that have Black Boxes. The new law also allows data
to be accessed under court order, for research, and for other
reasons. California’s EDR law replaced consumer choice with an
agreement among politicians, bureaucrats, and industry on a nice
low level of protection for consumers.
There is no question that aggregated EDR data can provide
important safety benefits. If traffic accidents and deaths can be
averted by improving automobile safety, these safety advances
should be pursued. But they should be pursued in a way that unites
the interests of drivers with the interests of the community.
Insurers should offer car owners discounts if their EDR-equipped
cars reveal good driving habits and freedom from blame in
accidents. Consumers, not the government, should decide if they
want their cars to collect such data, and if they want to share it
with others.
