Collection of private information without consent is criminal if not inadmissable.

Semi-interesting, if long thread...
Back at the Cars Have a Mind of Their Own Ranch,

I still have not found any reports of any kind of unintended
acceleration/uncontrolled throttle, on any X5. Not saying it
won't/can't happen; just haven't found any "reports".

As for the Toy drivers, all good advice, amongst the written monologues.
Common sense remains: drive the sumbitch, or don't; if you do, and have
a problem, stick it in Neutral, hit the brakes and steer it to a safe spot.

For all of us X5 drivers, I would be more concerned about what to do
with all those millions when one hits Powerball. ;)
GL, mD

LOL! :iagree:

Nearly all states require informed consent to have their actions or words recorded. There in no informed consent that takes place when one purchases an Audi or BMW. Do they have you sign a form that clearly informs you that your vehicle has a "black box," of sorts?

If not, I don't know how they'll be able to prove the legality of this. There have been several high profile cases in which GM has attempted to submit such evidence to the courts from their Corvette models, which have had such devices for about 10-years. Those efforts have largely failed due on the face of their legal merit.

There may be a few cases that have slipped through the cracks or cases, I'm not aware of, but this is a very new area of the law, and one that faces many constitutional challenges.

I'll be happy to do more research on the matter, and but I'd prefer to stick on topic and save that for another thread, unless someone can tell me that our BMW X5s have "black boxes."

1. They are not recording your words or actions- just the operating parameters of the car.

2. They are not "collecting it".. YOU ARE. It is in your car.

3. They've disclosed it- they do not yet need "informed consent". These two terms are worlds apart, legally.


Be interesting to move this to another thread. I suspect you will not be able to definitively find out much.

A

Disclosing it, where? Hidden in the back of the manual? I'd disagree with your assessment and would argue that without informed consent the driver does not know his actions are being recorded, unless he reads the fine print in the back of his manual, and fully understands what the legal ease is telling the reader.

I'm aware that the "black boxes" in question do not record sound, YET, at least not that we're aware. Of course, it took some clever journalists asking some tough questions before GM admitted it had installed such devices in their cars in the first place. One must admit automobile companies are not known for their integrity. The Toyota debacle and this very thread is a result of that claim.

Most drivers are not aware that their vehicles have such devices, and as of now, apparently most vehicles do not, but many do.

Disclosure is fine and appropriate, but the manner by which an issue is disclosed is not always legally adequate to meet a given test, and is also very material as to whether or not disclosure was ever issued. Hence, if these companies were smart they'd have owners initial a section, in the sales contract, and explain to them that the boxes are there.

For the moment, the companies claim they use the boxes for their own research only. However, we all know they're there to limit liability. What's curious, as I've stated above, is that they (GM) have attempted to have information obtained from such devices submitted as evidence, with extremely mixed results.

Anyway, this is a completely academic debate, but one that will become more material as the years go by. The fiasco with Toyota, if they survive, the onslaught of lawsuit and punitive damages that are going to set historical records, if I had to guess, are going to be all the incentive automobile companies need in order to install such devices in their vehicles moving forward.

Rightfully so, a company that is being sued for a wrongful death, should know whether or not the driver committed suicide, for example, or whether the accelerator stuck wide-open. The point is, that if "black boxes" are installed, owners should be properly informed, and consent should be given. Consent, of course can be given by purchasing the vehicle.

But, where it can be argued that improper disclosure was given, is in the fact that one rarely has an opportunity to read an owner's manual prior to purchasing a vehicle. It is only after they take delivery, does such a disclosure become apparent. Point, being, there are many ways in which these black boxes will not pass evidence submission tests, in most states, due to lack of "proper" disclosure and/or "informed consent." Again, it's a debate for another thread.

I'm not trying to be offensive, so please don't take it that way -- but you are clearly not a lawyer, are you? Because your statements are both factually and legally incorrect. "Informed consent" has nothing to do with admission of evidence, it has to do with medical procedures. What generally drives the admission of information like this is a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. Do you have a reasonable expectation that your actions driving on a public street in view of others are private matters? I don't think so. That's why evidence 'in plain view' is always admissible. That's why police don't need a search warrant to take your clothes, or scrape under your fingernails. And, contrary to your earlier statement, evidence from black boxes has been routinely admitted in trials all across America for at least the past five years.

The problem with this type of evidence isn't really its admissibility, but the weight which juries give it. Clearly an electronic device must be more accurate and truthful than an eyewitness, right? Except that it isn't; these devices may be faulty or inaccurate, or the information they recored may still need to be interpreted by a person, which then injects some subjective value into the equation -- but that's not generally discussed or admitted.

However, notwithstanding all that, I do believe that car manufacturers will be required to disclose the fact that their vehicles contain some sort of data recording device beginning next year, unless that has been changed (I haven't followed up on that). However, I'm sure you can expect something buried in an owner's manual, not an 'informed consent' type of disclosure.

Drivers could get confused if they were in a panic and miss neutral, I agree. Also agree on brakes will overpower engines if they are in good working order. It would also probably be 2nd nature to get on the brakes - I guess I'd try neutral first but my un-planned reaction would be brakes too. Hard to argue with your logic but I still think Neutral is the best first step.

How about, if when you and I are each driving our new Toyotas, and we both have an unintended acceleration incident, we both go for neutral and the brakes, simultaneously? We can both agree that both actions would help. :thumbup:

Now all I need is a Toyota, with an automatic transmission (since my fictional Toyota would have had a manual so I would have just gone for the clutch in any case) :D

Many vehicles have black boxes, or Event Data Recorders (EDRs) now, and have had for year, but we probably need to define black box. If we are talking about the automotive equivalent of a cockpit flight recorder, then it is primarily GM who is publicly in the forefront. The boxes have existed since 1994 on GM vehicles. Many are made by Bosch. Even without this relatively recent technology, vehicles have been logging data for years. The difference is that the vehicle often logs incidents and peak data, as opposed to recent (time-stamped) data. My 1994 3 Series BMW had such a device. When I took it in to the dealer for a minor problem, soon after I bought it, the technician said to me "so, you went over the Coquihala pass last weekend?" The car was only two weeks old. The vehicle had logged the peak altitude, and the technician knew that the only mountain road at that altitude nearby was this particular pass. He was correct (but he didn't know when I went, just that it had been in the last two weeks). Similar logging shows maximum and minimum values for many vehicle parameters. BMW has used this data to deny engine warranty when it is obvious that turbocharged vehicles have been 'chipped', since there are tell-tale markers left in the logs. This is not the same as a full EDR, but it is a form of the technology. If I had said "no sir, the engine blew up in the first few days, and no, I did not over-rev it at any time" they likely could have argued the point, and rightly so.


I can't comment on the legal aspects raised above, since I have no legal significant legal training and I am unfamiliar with US constitutional law, but a quick web search gives a few counter points, some substantiated and others not:

• The NHTSA reported in 2006 that 64% of new vehicles had an EDR in the US
• Mercedes says they don't use EDRs, and cites Germany's privacy laws. If that is a factor, it would likely impact BMW and Audi equally.
• In the US, it appears to be a state issue re data, not a federal one, with the data being owned by the vehicle owner. That said, courts can subpoena data, and state accident investigation laws come into play.
• EDR data has been accepted in over 100 US cases. Seems to be a precedent there.
• The presence of the EDR devices have been disclosed in owner's manuals since 2006, as required by NHTSA
• NHTSA doesn't mandate that vehicles have the EDR devices, but they now mandate that if they do have them, they follow common data formats in the interest of standardization
• Starting in September 2010, NHTSA is further mandating that if an EDR is installed, it include a minimum number of data types.

Here is a good basic graphic presentation on EDRs. I remembered seeing this a few years ago, and managed to find it again. Recommended.

Black Box of Secrets: Automotive EDRs Revealed

Yes, we are off topic, but since many of us don't have Toyotas this at least brings us back to a BMW discussion.