Event Data Recorder in Prius 2006 ?

[smcracraft]

Hi,

I have an EDR in my Prius 2006 and just heard a rather
scary story at www.cnn.com with

java script:cnnVideo('play','/video/law/2006/11/26/kaye.car.black.boxes.wsvn','2006/12/03');

that the EDR is in all cars starting since (some recent year)
and that it is routinely used to convict the driver, as necessary,
in crashes.

True and true about the Prius?

Stuart

[tumbleweed]

Yes, big brother is watching. I didn't know they were in all new cars but certainly in most if not all.

[IsrAmeriPrius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(smcracraft @ Nov 26 2006, 12:43 PM) [snapback]354245[/snapback]</div>

True and true about the Prius?[/b]

In California a search warrant or a court order is required before law enforcement agents can inspect the EDR in your car. However, reasonable suspicion that one broke the law when an accident took place is all that it takes for such a warrant or order to be issued.

[Allannde]

I have seen some argue on PC that one should violate the law and drive faster than the speed limit if that is what the flow of traffic is doing. Should one become involved in an collision while driving in that situation and the EDR exposes the violation, would not one be more liable for the collision? For the sake of discussion, let us assume that the "other" car was not exceeding the speed limit at the moment of collision.

What is a person to do when they know that they carry a tattle tale?

[Rangerdavid]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Allannde @ Nov 26 2006, 05:03 PM) [snapback]354258[/snapback]</div>

I have seen some argue on PC that one should violate the law and drive faster than the speed limit if that is what the flow of traffic is doing. Should one become involved in an collision while driving in that situation and the EDR exposes the violation, would not one be more liable for the collision? For the sake of discussion, let us assume that the "other" car was not exceeding the speed limit at the moment of collision.

What is a person to do when they know that they carry a tattle tale?
[/b]

In North Carolina, not necessarily "more liable". However, it is a very good practice to (a) drive defensively, and ( obey traffic laws. That being said, I drive in excess of the speed limit almost every time I get in the car. Sometimes its 40 in a 35 zone, sometime on the freeway its 78 in a 65. Regardless, speeding does not constitute negligence per se in this state. It may, however, in some others. I think it certainly raises a rebuttable presumption that had one been traveling the speed limit, the accident may have been avoided.

Does our Prius record our speed traveled on each trip? I didn't know it was that detailed a data recorder.

Regardless, I hope all PriusChat members and guests had a safe and happy Thanksgiving Holiday!!

[hobbit]

Now, does anyone have an idea on what the interface and protocol are
for *talking* to the thing? It's most likely a component of the
airbag ECU, and it's probably not accessible via CAN but rather some
custom connector, but what do I know.
.
_H*

[galaxee]

it's activated by airbag deployment, DH doesn't know that anyone other than toyota can access the info. he imagines it'd be through the DLC3 connector.

it's mainly to cover the asses of the carmakers, but apparently others are finding ways to use the data as well.

[mtsarpilot]

Does anyone know what info is recorded in the EDR? Is it an ongoing recording that throws away the old data like a Flight Data Recorder?

[windstrings]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Allannde @ Nov 26 2006, 04:03 PM) [snapback]354258[/snapback]</div>

I have seen some argue on PC that one should violate the law and drive faster than the speed limit if that is what the flow of traffic is doing. Should one become involved in an collision while driving in that situation and the EDR exposes the violation, would not one be more liable for the collision? For the sake of discussion, let us assume that the "other" car was not exceeding the speed limit at the moment of collision.

What is a person to do when they know that they carry a tattle tale?
[/b]

I too speed quite frequently... however in 31 years of driving, I have never had an accident.. what gives?

Does that mean the law is for some and not for others.. well maybe.. but not in court!

Some are just more attentive, better drivers, and more responsible than others.. but laws have to be made to cover the idiots as well as good drivers in order to work.

The more idiots you have in city driving, the more rules you have to have to protect all.
You notice the farthur out in the country or woods you get, the less and less signs?.. you don't need them!

I see a stop sign as a total waste or a stop "light" for that matter when all views are open and your the "only" car around.. but you still have to stop right?

Anyway.. my attitude is if I break the law, its my butt if I have an accident and I'm liable for any damages because of breaking the law.

I don't mine fessing up to being guilty if I really deserve it.

But I don't want them being nosey and knowing what I do and trying to persecute me for crimes that have caused no harm to myself or anyone else.. but if I did cause harm....... then I'm guilty.

Remember, WE made the laws for us.. the laws didn't make us!
Guilt is usually not imputed unless some damage has occured.

My only beef is I think they should also make a rule that says if they use that info against you, the other driver needs to also have one to be equal.

I don't want my little tattle tale going up against someone else's lie in court.

Unfortunately, I doubt the courts would care....In court, its all about who wins..not whats right and wrong.

If the prosecuting attorney finds out incriminating evidence against you on your box and his client doesn't have a box.. all the more good for his case... but its still unfair.

Thats like allowing DNA evidence to be gathered against one suspect, but not the other... heys.. it happens all the time right?

If we are going to have to have a polygraph, then every suspect involved should also have to have one too in order to use that info.

but whats "right" and whats "legal" are often and even "most of the time", two different things in court!


So after saying all that, and although I"m not afraid of the truth, I would still wish I could disable my box for fear the info would be used unfairly against me when some guy in a junker car hits me and he doesn't have a box.

[Schmika]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Nov 26 2006, 10:49 PM) [snapback]354310[/snapback]</div>

<SNIP>
but whats "right" and whats "legal" are often and even "most of the time", two different things in court!
So after saying all that, and although I"m not afraid of the truth, I would still wish I could disable my box for fear the info would be used unfairly against me when some guy in a junker car hits me and he doesn't have a box.
[/b]

This gave me a chuckle. How is it "unfair" to use your box against you. It shows what it shows. If you were speeding, full on throttle, full on brakes, wahtever.....that is what you did.

How would what YOUR doing be negated or changed by what the other car was doing.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, when one gets an atty, they don't want to ensure a proper trial, they want to be found NOT GUILTY (even if they really are guilty)