 |
|
|||
|
Accident Reconstruction News Article A black box under the hoodJust like their airplane counterparts, "black boxes" in cars provide invaluable information in crashes. But Big Brother shouldn't be allowed to get his hands under the hood without legitimate reason. Legislators will soon consider this relatively new technology. Led by Sen. Tony Stamas, R-Midland, they will debate a proposed law that would require car buyers to be told about these gadgets -- a reasonable idea. People should have a right to know what's lurking next to the water pump or under the dashboard. And they should have a right to control the information, which would naturally be subject to seizure by police in some circumstances, just as is other physical evidence. Legislators should, however, avoid setting overly burdensome restrictions on these extremely useful devices or otherwise over-reacting. The "black boxes" really are small, computerized "event data recorders." They collect information important to determining when and how air bags deploy. In the process, they track car speed, engine rpms, braking, throttle use, seat belts, steering input and the force of impact with other objects. The recorders are in most 2004 models and 15 percent of all cars, according to the Federal Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They aren't standardized -- car manufacturers collect the information differently -- but perhaps they should be. Airplane "black boxes" (actually orange and rectangular) provide crucial clues in the rubble. Whereas an airplane's flight data recorder holds as much as 25 hours of information and records 90-some measurements, a car's event data recorder takes a snapshot of just a handful of events over a few seconds. They are decisive seconds, however. When a crash occurs, investigators often lack objec- tive data on, for instance, whether or not both drivers tried to stop, or how fast they were going when they collided. Ask three people who saw an accident what happened and you'll likely get three conflicting, even contradictory accounts. Witnesses to trauma are notoriously unreliable. Hard data are exactly that -- hard and specific. The recorder doesn't show whether or not the car had been speeding an hour before or if the driver was turning wild circles yesterday. Given technology, that information could be collected -- a worry for privacy advocates, and precisely why car buyers deserve to know exactly what stories these techno-tattles will tell. Also worrisome: Insurance companies may go after the data to set rates, especially if the amount and duration of what's collected expand. Automobile manufacturers may seek it to defend themselves in lawsuits. Neither should have a presumptive right. Law enforcement, too, shouldn't automatically be able to examine someone's car -- and driving habits -- anymore than police can storm into a house without a warrant. For police, however, the claim to access is stronger. If the recorder can show that a drunken driver never tried to stop or an oncoming car turned seconds before impact, that could change the charges brought in a case and alter the outcome. Technology has raised nettlesome questions, privacy one of the most pressing. The best answers fairly consider both the importance of keeping some information personal and the positive possibilities wrought by microchips. Lawmakers should strike that balance. ### |
|||
|
ARC NETWORK QUICK LINKS
|
||||
