 |
|
|||
|
Accident Reconstruction News Article Bill targets vehicle 'black box' data use In fact, a growing number of trucks and cars has increasingly sophisticated "black box" data recorders that most people don't realize their vehicles contain until they have an accident and find out the recorders have such information as speed and brake use at the time of the accident. "I decided to introduce my bill after a national conference I was at where several legislators from other states were talking about the issue," state Rep. Deborah Pelletier-Simpson, D-Auburn, said last week. "There were a lot of concerns about these boxes and who owns the data in them." Pelletier-Simpson said her measure would be based on a first-in-the-nation 2004 California law that requires disclosure to customers that the vehicle they are purchasing has a data recorder of some sort installed. The law also prohibits the download of data from a recorder without the owner's permission or a court order. "I think it's very important we establish who owns this data," she said. "To me this is a privacy issue." While the issue is just now gaining attention of lawmakers, data recorders have been around for decades. Rudimentary recorders were first installed on General Motors cars in 1974 and measure acceleration and deceleration as part of the computer that decides whether to deploy an airbag. Starting in 1999, vehicles have been equipped with a series of more sophisticated data recorders that track speed, engine RPM, the position of the gas pedal and whether the brake pedal was pressed, among other measurements. The recorder keeps the last five seconds of data after a collision has triggered it to stop recording. The proposal has bipartisan support on the Legislature's Transportation Committee. State Sen. Dennis Damon, D-Trenton, said recently his committee discussed the issues surrounding data recorders last spring but did not have a measure before it that could be amended to address the issue. "We didn't have a bill we felt we could use to address the issues," he said. "We did find out it's more complex than it may appear at first." Damon was considering introducing legislation for the January session but said he did not file a bill request by deadline. Rep. Doug Thomas, R-Ripley, said last week he is very concerned about the data recorders and that the matter is a constitutional one to him. "We could solve a lot of crimes if we could force people to testify against themselves," he said. "But we can't. It's part of our Constitution that you can't be forced to testify against yourself, and I believe this is the same thing." It is that argument, among others, that concerns insurers. David Reddick of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies wrote in a policy paper last summer that the constitutional argument was only one he expects will be used to limit the ability of insurers to access the data. Four states have passed laws in the area this year, with 15 more considering legislation. "As more states consider legislation to regulate EDR devices, it will be important for insurers to closely monitor these developments to ensure that any new bill proposals do not contain some of the provisions found in the 2005 laws," he wrote. Insurers are concerned about a provision in the Arkansas law prohibiting data retrieval as a condition of a policy or lease being issued or as a condition for a claims payment and a North Dakota provision prohibiting an insurer from using EDR data as a condition for setting rates. Insurers argue access to the data will lead to settling claims more quickly and will reduce fraud. The bottom line, they argue, is access to the data will reduce costs and that will help keep rates down. Pelletier-Simpson is still drafting her legislation. She said other provisions may be included besides the California language. "I don't think I want the insurers getting this data," she said. Public Safety Commissioner Michael Cantara said he will withhold judgment on the measure until he can see the final proposal. He did participate in the Transportation Committee discussion of the issue earlier this year and said his concern is making sure law enforcement can have access to the data to determine what happened during an accident. "We have a procedure in place now to access the data," he said. The process requires a judge to rule there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and issue a subpoena for the data. He said data have been used several times in Maine to determine what happened in an accident. Pelletier-Simpson said her legislation will allow police access based on "the same procedures used to access other private information." The final proposal will be printed and will have a public hearing before lawmakers consider the measure in the January session. ### |
|||
|
ARC NETWORK QUICK LINKS
|
||||
