U.S. to propose mandatory vehicle 'black boxes'

http://detnews.com/article/20110526/AUTO01/105260436/1148/rss25

he U.S. Transportation Department said today it will propose making vehicle "black boxes" mandatory in all vehicles by the end of the year. The department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has long considered whether to make black boxes, officially called event data recorders, or EDRs, mandatory. They collect data about the seconds leading up to a crash and can help investigators determine the cause. Last year, Congress considered requiring EDRs in all vehicles. NHTSA Administrator David Strickland told Congress the agency was studying the issue. The plan was included in a 197-page Transportation Department regulatory reform proposal released by the White House this morning. "NHTSA plans to propose mandatory EDRs in all passenger vehicles in 2011," the Transportation Department said in the report.

Most automobiles already have the devices. NHTSA estimated that about 64 percent of 2005 model passenger vehicles had the devices. Many major automakers already include them all vehicles, including General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Mazda Motor Co.

layers of the onion

That would be thanks to your privately run insurance company- so that 1) they can raise their rates by monitoring your ride, and 2) deny coverage for whatever they see fit.

Both raising profits.

Remember, whatever congress does, it starts as an idea outside of it, and they tell thier representation. In this case, insurance lobbies congress.

The real fun will be when insurance companies start requiring you to let them download your data before paying out. Naturally, that will be buried in the fine print of the contract.

alfadriver wrote: That would be thanks to your privately run insurance company-

You just beat me to it.

JoeyM wrote:

alfadriver wrote: That would be thanks to your privately run insurance company-

You just beat me to it.

shoulda put in in the original post.

Yet another reason for me to never buy a car from this century again

I got that part of it is trying to standardize the data across manufacturers.

alfadriver wrote: That would be thanks to your privately run insurance company-

You say this as though a gov't run insurance company wouldn't do the same thing.

Hack the black box and you just might have a decent data acquisition setup. How good is the data they collect?

z31maniac wrote: I got that part of it is trying to standardize the data across manufacturers.

alfadriver wrote: That would be thanks to your privately run insurance company-

You say this as though a gov't run insurance company wouldn't do the same thing.

They may, but we seem to want to reduce the deficit. there you go.

None the less, the fact is, there is no public insurance, so the only way this gets started is if the insurance companies need to be so greedy that they add cost to cars. You get to pay twice- once for the parts, and a second for higher insurance rates. Unless you get into an accident- three times- since they will deny coverage. All to make more money, and make sure investors (who don't actually do anything) can make more money. love our system sometimes.

alfadriver wrote: That would be thanks to your privately run government

FTFY!

alfadriver wrote: All to make more money, and make sure investors (who don't actually do anything) can make more money. love our system sometimes.

since when is assuming financial risk not doing anything?

alfadriver wrote: That would be thanks to your privately run insurance company- so that 1) they can raise their rates by monitoring your ride, and 2) deny coverage for whatever they see fit. Both raising profits. Remember, whatever congress does, it starts as an idea outside of it, and they tell thier representation. In this case, insurance lobbies congress.

Sigh....why does it seem everything gets blamed on the "big bad" insurance company?

These EDRs have been in most cars for years, dating back to the late 80's and early 90's. I can tell you from working in auto claims for almost 15 years now, and having been to many seminars regarding these things, your fears are unfounded. That data is hard to get access to, sometimes darn near impossible. In many cases, you need a subpeona to get it. Insurance companies rarely use it. When it is used, it's done after an accident has already happened, not to predict rates. And usually, it's only in major accidents, such as fatalities.

Progressive Insurance does now offer something called the "snap shot" program. I don't know all of the details, since I don't work for them. They are able to get readings from your car to see how you drive. But it's a purely voluntary program, not mandatory. Their regular rates and programs will always be available.

These EDRs were not for the insurance companies. They're for the manufacturers. Their purpose is for the manufacturer to be able to defend itself in a lawsuit when a claim is made that the brakes failed, seatbelt failed, airbag failed, the throttle stuck or something else. That's what they're primarily used for, and that's why it's so hard for an insurance company to get the data. The manufacturers don't want to give that info up. Insurance companies just piggy backed on the concept to be able to help them in very high dollar claims.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Yet another reason for me to never buy a car from this century again

Expect older cars (without boxes) to pay a premium for insurance. Though they will not directly say "without boxes" the idea will be promoted that old cars are unsafe and not good for you.
The reality is that cars with boxes will be bad for insurance companies.

If it's only used in serious injury/fatal accidents to help determine fault, I'm all for it.

Klayfish wrote: ... it's a purely voluntary program, not mandatory. Their regular rates and programs will always be available.

It is a slippery slope as pricing starts to drive volunteerism.
"Regular rates" get hiked to the point where "volunteering" becomes the average Joe's only choice.

Klayfish wrote: When it is used, it's done after an accident has already happened, not to predict rates. And usually, it's only in major accidents, such as fatalities.

If the actuaries get access to the information, it WILL be used to determine rates.

jrw1621, I have to say I kind of had the same concerns when I first heard about the program. If nothing else, it would certainly raise some eyebrows for consumers who are weary of insurance companies anyway. I can't say how that part will play out, I can only say that the regulations imposed on insurance companies by the Department of Insurance for each state and the federal government are really strict. I can't forsee that it would be allowed to go too far down that slippery slope.

z31, Yes, sure, after an accident. If the insured was found to have been going 65mph (or 128mph in a 45mph zone ) and caused a fatality, it would definitely play a factor in renewal of a policy. Very similar to the accident and driving history that's already in use.

ProDarwin wrote: If it's only used in serious injury/fatal accidents to help determine fault, I'm all for it.

And the chances of that are ...?

Klayfish wrote: jrw1621, I have to say I kind of had the same concerns when I first heard about the program. If nothing else, it would certainly raise some eyebrows for consumers who are weary of insurance companies anyway. I can't say how that part will play out, I can only say that the regulations imposed on insurance companies by the Department of Insurance for each state and the federal government are really strict. I can't forsee that it would be allowed to go too far down that slippery slope.

Done in the name of "protecting inoccent lives" I clearly see it being allowed.
Add in a dose of, "if you have nothing to hide, why would you care about being monitored?" and I see it happening sooner rather than later.

Trust me, I would rather just be wrong and believe what you believe.

Yeah it would be great if we had no private insurance companies and the goverment came out with this plan on thier own so they could just dirrectly send you tax bills or if you want to call them fines based on the box..

jrw1621 wrote:

Klayfish wrote: ... it's a purely voluntary program, not mandatory. Their regular rates and programs will always be available.

It is a slippery slope as pricing starts to drive volunteerism. "Regular rates" get hiked to the point where "volunteering" becomes the average Joe's only choice.

This is only peripherally related, but I fully expect onstar-type services to be used to enforce speed limits through the same methodology...."volunteer" ==> price gouge ==> de facto control.

The time is drawing close now.

wasn't there an issue a while back about rental car companies using gps to monitor if the driver was exceeding speed limits?... or something to that effect. IIRC, the discussion was if a speeding ticket could be warranted in that case.

One more reason to not buy a new car.