Compulsory Vehicle Black Box Recorders for New Cars in EU

pegaxs on 08/03/2019 - 11:28

Staying up to date on automotive trends and came across this new idea/law they are trying to get enacted in Europe where by all new cars would have to be fitted with much more invasive recording coupled to GPS data.

Have heard a few different versions of what these boxes will record and when they will record. But basically there is a consensus that the recorders will not be able to be disabled and will be able to be accessed at any time by police and information made available to insurance companies.

Naturally, this technology will automatically come installed on cars shipped to Australia (ie: I can't imagine a seperate car just for Aust. market.) and I am sure police here would love a system where they can just scan your car to get incriminating information.

So, what are people's thoughts about big brother spying on your driving habits? A good thing or a bad thing? Will it make it safer? Would it change how you drive if every car had it.

And cause ya'll like polls, if you were to buy a new car and of the potential new cars you are looking at, if one of them had this recorder built in, would it deter you from buying that brand??

Lots of info from lots of sources

Poll Options

  • 56
    Wouldn't buy a car with recorder at all.
  • 5
    Would buy if I could disable recorder.
  • 2
    Would buy if I could select what/when it records.
  • 25
    Don't care, I drive like a saint.
Automotive

Comments

  • baytrail on 08/03/2019 - 11:34
    +1

    happens in UK already with insurance companies. when my fiance moved to england a couple years back and since she had no driving history over there, insurance came out and installed a black box for the 12 months.

    • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 11:52
      +3

      Yeah - this is what I'd be more worried about. Say your insurance company says you can get a 40% discount on your premiums if you have it installed and accessible by them. How many people would say no to that kind of offer? Even if not actually mandatory, it'd become de-facto mandatory just because of financial realities (and the practical need to have insurance).

      • c0balt on 08/03/2019 - 12:01
        +4

        I would 100% allow an insurance company to put a recorder in my car if it meant a saving like that.

        • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 12:27

          Precisely.

          • Hybroid on 08/03/2019 - 12:29
            +5

            @HighAndDry: You would quickly realise it's not worth it when you get a long list of infractions for every tiny mistake. Even those that think they're saints will and do constantly break the law unknowingly. It even includes things like 'accelerating too fast' although still within speed limit. So it quickly becomes a list of 'bad driving habits' as defined by insurance rather than just actual laws.

            I would never ever have this fitted no matter the saving. It also sets a really bad precedent in many ways. Just no.

            • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 12:33
              +2

              @Hybroid: You overestimate people's opposition to incursions on their privacy. (Hell, I'm not even excluding myself from this either). People still use Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, after all the news about how they log and share your information with others including the government. People by-and-large do. not. care.

              And the police will know not to overplay their hand - just like surveillance, they wouldn't use it for garden variety revenue raising. They'd use it to track down terrorists, armed robbers, kidnappers, paedephiles… at first. Then slowly expand its use to tax dodgers (no one likes those anyway right?), illegal immigrants, people behind on child support… and then to gang members and associates, whistleblowers, union bosses, protest organisers….

              Oh, and the few times a police officer abuses the system to track down an ex or stalk a celebrity? Well those are one-off cases that they're sure to discipline!

            • s3th2000 on 08/03/2019 - 13:17

              @Hybroid: I had a black box when I was in the UK, and was definitely not a saint. Never heard anything about it, but I guess I never made a claim. Saved about 50% in premiums though!

              • Cliche Guevara on 08/03/2019 - 14:27
                +3

                @s3th2000: Except if you ever did file a claim it would possibly been have been rejected, then your 50% saving will not have been a saving at all…

          • c0balt on 08/03/2019 - 12:37
            +1

            @HighAndDry: I really don't see what the problem is considering we all have computers already in our pockets that can and do log much more information than a car black box ever could.

            A lot of us use programs like Google maps which will log all of that stuff anyway and is already accessible by law enforcement. All this stuff has been happening for a long, long time so finally one that will potentially save people money and cost those who are drongos on the road more is a great idea in my book.

            I look forward to the near future when I'll be able to tell my car where to go and I can sit in the back surfing ozb as I sip on pomegranate juice and stare at the masses through the rear window. Until then, I use my e-bike for 80% of my transport anyway to save commute time in my near-CBD area, also saves a bit of petrol money. I also hate traffic more than pretty much anything, so e-bike has been incredible for that. Knowing I'm saving cash and beating traffic makes feel like practically a zen-master now :P

            • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 12:49
              +2

              @c0balt: By that time I think it'd be more prune juice than pomegranate… but yeah I agree with you completely. I like to point out the dangers and risks and orwellian nature of these things, but it's not like I don't myself have a personal tracking device reporting my location to Google in real time…

      • JIMB0 on 08/03/2019 - 12:16
        +3

        The 40% off would be whittled down over time till it got to 0% just like ebay cashback.

        • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 12:28

          No no, the "standard" non-discounted premiums would just magically increase every year… and there'd be zero outrage because 99% of people would be using blackboxes and on the discounted premiums by then.

          • Diji1 on 08/03/2019 - 12:46

            @HighAndDry: HighAndDry also thinks electricity privatisation has been a success because he likes ignoring reality and pretending that business doesn't rip everyone off like a religious person ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

            • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 12:50
              +4

              @Diji1: Christ mate, I posted one comment months ago, after doing a 5 min Google search showing your claims are bunk and apparently that means I get a fan for life? Go outside sometime, sun's out. It'll be good for you.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/03/2019 - 11:49

    It wouldn't necessarily be installed in cars coming in to Australia. Although basically the same model there is differences between cars for each country (eg labels on switches in different languages, emissions systems.

    You didn't say if the data is uploaded live or the box needs to be physically retrieved and read.

  • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 11:51
    +1

    Where's the option for "Don't care because there will definitely be a way to disable it"? I can't imagine a system being so secure that it'd be immune to extended physical access.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/03/2019 - 12:03
      +1

      Gps jammers are illegal but readily available.

      • srsparky on 08/03/2019 - 12:07

        Like this

        • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 12:13
          +2

          Ha, trust it to be a Union delegate ripping off his employer to golf on company time…

        • [Deactivated] on 08/03/2019 - 12:22
          -1

          I knew it was going to be that story. Shit like this is why people don't like unions (because they back people who should be sacked)

  • Euphemistic on 08/03/2019 - 12:06

    Aside from the record of my infringements, I wonder what they are going to do with all that extra data. Then again, google traffic indicates ‘they’ already know where most of us are moving anyway.

    If they do install a black box in my car (or future car) I only hope the system can warn me when I’m doing wrong at the time and not just get a fine in mail sometime later. Give me an opportunity to stop the offense at the time rather than try to remember when I was doing wrong.

    • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 12:25

      A blackbox (which can include accelerometers and other sensors in addition to GPS) can record a hell of a lot of stuff; off the top of my head:

      1. If you accelerate or brake hard, or swerve abruptly often (especially around the time of an accident for example),

      2. It can show if you rev your car or deliberately disengage safety features like traction control, anti-skid braking, etc,

      3. If it's connected to other systems, could even record if you're doing things with the NAV system, the media unit, through Apple Carplay or Android Auto while driving.

      It can get pretty Orwellian.

      • pegaxs on 08/03/2019 - 13:01
        +4

        The amount of things the black box could record is just astronomical. Even at a basic level when you plug into the OBDII plug with a cheap single can give you a plethora of information.

        All the vehicle systems in cars all talk through this interface, every thing from the engine ECU to window ECU. So, data could be pulled from everywhere. ABS and SRS systems for braking and acceleration. Lane departure logging or blind spot monitoring logging in the event of an accident.

        I think it will soon get to a point where you will have to log into your vehicle and get permission to drive it.

        But it also begs the question… With all this information, let's say everyone drives like the pope knowing their every move is being logged, what will the police do to cover revenue. Ive got a feeling that there will be a new ranger type of position where someone just walks around with a scanning device downloading vehicle recorders while your car is parked. No more highway patrol or cameras, just a guy with a reader.

        • Euphemistic on 08/03/2019 - 17:20
          +1

          Ive got a feeling that there will be a new ranger type of position where someone just walks around with a scanning device downloading …

          More like you’ll need to upload all the data to renew your monthly rego and your rego feed will reflect the quality of your driving.

  • bongom on 08/03/2019 - 12:33

    The Federal Government is looking at ways to more closely link how people use the roads with what they pay.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-15/electric-cars-breakin…

    • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 12:34
      +2

      A good start might be to charge cyclists………

      • pegaxs on 08/03/2019 - 13:08

        I'm all for a user pays system, but it kind of already exists with the fuel levy. The more they drive, the more fuel, the more excise… But with hybrid and electric vehicles, they use a fraction of the fuel (if any), thus a tiny amount of excise is paid.

        With the uptake of hybrid and the prices of EV's dropping, it will get to a point where very little is taken in the way if fuel tax.

        If the GPS data is only used in these vehicles to determine registration costs, then it is fairer for everyone in the long run. I drive about 100km a week in my personal car, why should I be paying as much road tax as someone who does 500+km per week.

        As for cyclists, I think they at least need to pay CTP. But in charging cyclists, their entitlement to be on the roads would only increase. Rego plates for anyone who wants to ride a bicycle on the road would go a long way to making some of them accountable for their actions.

        • HighAndDry on 08/03/2019 - 13:12

          Not equal, but I don't think a straight 1:1 between use and pay is fair either, because Fixed cost vs Marginal cost.

          Roads deteriorate and require maintenance works with use, but they also just deteriorate over time. Plus, the upfront costs of building new roads are fixed, and doesn't matter if you use them once or a hundred times - the benefit is as much the option value for everyone who may potentially use them as the fact of actually using them.

          Plus - if it really is tied to who benefits, property values benefit from having better roads, not to mention the flow-on effects for businesses, etc.

          But yes, we'll need something to make up for the very likely, if not inevitable, shortfalls in revenue from fuel excise because of less reliance on fuels.

        • terrys on 09/03/2019 - 07:58

          Given that the wear on the road is exponential according to weight, whereby you get 10 times the damage with each doubling, I'm not really sure S.U.V. owners, caravaners or anyone wanting goods transported by truck would be happy with a "fair" system, but cyclists would have little cause for concern.

          • pegaxs on 09/03/2019 - 09:20

            @terrys: This weight factoring is already taken care of in registration costs. My motorcycles cost about $70, where as my Kenworth truck costs $1,000+ (not including greenslip) This is due to their weight and are already taxed accordingly. This is a separate issue to the "user pays" system I am referring to.

            The current tax on fuel is in part a tax on road use. And if you are saying that a car that is twice as heavy does 10x the damage, then a vehicle that is the same weight but does double the usage is also doing 10x the damage, as it is applying its weight to the road at 2x the rate as I am. The problem is, when there is a shift to hybrid and electric vehicles, while a lot cleaner to run, they don't pay anywhere near what a regular car user does in the way of fuel tax per year.

            It's a bit like the solar scheme at the moment. As more and more people get solar installed, the less reliance there is on power consumption. The less reliance there is, the less power gets sold. The only way to recover these losses is to jack prices for the people still connected without solar. I can see the same thing happening for fuel at this rate. As more and more people move to electric vehicles, the less revenue will be created from selling fuel. To cover this loss, the price of fuel will have to go up to cover the lost ground in fuel taxes. This is a bit unfair that fuel users have to foot the bill for infrastructure but EV drivers don't have to tip in a single cent to use the same roads.

            If the only reason the black box recorders existed in new vehicles was to determine the amount of road distance you had under your vehicle so they could remove the excise on fuel and apply it as a user pays system, Then it would be a much fairer system in the long run.

          • [Deactivated] on 17/03/2019 - 07:31

            @terrys:

            … exponential according to weight, whereby you get 10 times the damage with each doubling…

            It does?

            You must live in a different dimension.

  • Diji1 on 08/03/2019 - 12:50
    +3

    I don't agree with it.

    A better, likely less popular idea, from my point of view is mandatory speed limiters which can be disabled at will. This way there is no chance of mistakenly speeding as many people do but you can still do what you like on private property.

    Then draconian, means tested, speeding fines to remove offending drivers from the road.

    There is an even worse future ahead assuming that automated cars work which may not happen. If it does the scumbag businesses, such as Uber or Google, that provide the service, will lobby Government to ban self driving.

    After that's happened, which will definitely happen in a corporate controlled country like ours, you won't be able to go certain places if Uber or Google don't want it.

    The freedom that the car allows will have been successfully usurped by the scumbags.

    • Kangal on 08/03/2019 - 13:28
      +1

      I agree with it.
      I think a Blackbox is a fantastic idea, that all new cars should have a box with a HDD that stores and routinely deletes camera footage (with its own battery pack).

      But it should be my product, and upto my discretion to share with my insurance provider and police. In general, people would share the data for third-parties (eg you saw someone cross redlight and hit another car, or footage captured a thief entering your neighbours residence etc etc).

      I don't want it to be hooked to a live feed where it can be tampered with and accessed by others without my permission or knowledge.

  • hasselbladsnapper on 08/03/2019 - 13:26
    -1

    The existing "body control" module that is part of modern vehicles have for a long time recorded realtime info on your vehicle.
    Speeds, throttle, airbag deployment, ABS info are all able to be viewed by Police, and possibly insurance providers with I suspect Court orders!. Big Brother has been around for a long time. You could remove your cars module, but your vehicle will not be operable!!.

  • Miami Mall Alien on 08/03/2019 - 14:31

    A bit OT, but a lot of this proposed functionality is already available to sufficiently motivated, independent actors and especially nation-state actors (as well as vehicle manufacturers themselves).

    Remote automotive hacking without physical access to the CAN bus that enables attackers to remotely commandeer the vehicle and interrogate almost all on board systems has been a very real phenomenon since at least 2012 and will only proliferate to more cars with the increase in models like the Tesla X and Jeep Grand Cherokee which not only expose the car directly to the Internet for various infotainment/navigation functionality but also phone home to the manufacturer to send telemetry data and download firmware updates.

    Since the CAN bus was originally intended to be a closed network that was only accessible physically there is no inherent security built into it, no encryption and almost no passwords/authentication protocols and now that cellular/Internet-connectivity has been grafted onto it in newer cars post-2012, it's essentially interfacing critical control systems with the Internet. Almost like having no WiFi password at home and sharing the local drives of all client PCs on your home network to everyone by default.

    The world may have already witnessed the first example of a car hacking assassination/targeted killing (more here) utilizing these vulnerabilities, and besides leaked documents confirm the CIA has been funding programs and research into exploiting modern vehicle control systems since at least 2014. Even the FBI and US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have put out PSAs about the vulnerability of modern cars to undetectable hacking.

    What irks me about proposals like these "black box vehicle recorders" is that they constitute a two-part program of public conditioning and expansion of state surveillance, and they're a sly way of retroactively admitting to warrantless surveillance likely going back for years while simultaneously making the argument that law enforcement and federal bodies should have access to this information anyway since the systems that contain it are so hopelessly insecure, in the same way that the metadata retention legislation of 2015 didn't really authorise federal bodies and law enforcement agencies to do anything they couldn't do before, it just made the process much, much easier and less accountable.

    The same script is at play here, might as well just attach a giant "Made by the NSA/CIA/Five Eyes" box to your car since it's already wide open to anyone who wants to hoover up your vehicular telemetry and possibly crash your car remotely.

  • Levathian on 09/03/2019 - 23:48

    I disagree with all of it. Even if it's 'disabled' I bet the government will find a way to get access to it anyway via some back-door. I'll only be satisfied if it's physically removed from the vehicle.

    Do you really want some bureaucrat or program going through sending you fines because you did 51 in a 50 zone, or it thinks you should have slowed down for a yellow light etc. Noone drives perfect and as it is the speed camera thing has gone too far.
    Intrusive devices like this are a slippery slope. I don't trust the government or insurance companies.

    Also opposed to speed limiters.

  • burningrage on 10/03/2019 - 08:40

    I don't like it. I hope it will never happen here. Simple as that.

    • pegaxs on 10/03/2019 - 09:49

      If it gets through in the EU, it will most definitely trickle down to vehicles sold here. It’s only a matter of time.

  • magpuy on 08/07/2022 - 13:12

    Some cars already have enough data collection in the ECU to be able to work out what was going on with the car in the immediate lead-up to an incident. All 4 of my previous Peugeots (2004-2011) had this "feature". Access requires the technician having the car key to "unlock" it. My vehicle tech adivsed me to "lose" my keys if ever I was in an event that might warrant investigating (and I was still in a state to be able to do that).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join