Event Data Recorder in Prius 2006 ?

hahaha here in El Paso, I am lucky if someone turns them on AS they are merging into my lane one car length ahead of me. Usually they do not even use them here (especially if they have Mexico license plates). I have about 1 person try to merge into me once a week.

I would not be opposed to a black box in my car that would record in 5 min loops and take pictures of front, rear and sides. If I am at fault then I will take responsibility for my actions. I was not brought up to blame my mistakes on others. However, if I am not at fault I would like to have proof of what did occur. It would also help if it is my fault and there was nothing I could do about it (mitigating circumstance).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Nov 27 2006, 02:10 PM) [snapback]354520[/snapback]</div>

If you could use cameras on all sides as you suggest, this may actually help your case to prove you were not doing, or they were not doing as they suggest in thier report.... Revelation and accountablity is good.. as long as it affects and covers all parties concerned.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 26 2006, 08:59 PM) [snapback]354313[/snapback]</div>

Actually,when most people obtain legal counsel, they not only want to ensure the proper administration of justice, the also want their rights protected. In my humble opinion, that includes, among others, the right against self incrimination, and the right not to testify, i.e. not having the box in my car admitted into evidence against me. If it is evidence in the defendant's vehicle, it may or may not be admissable. It may or may not be subject to discovery. Even so, it would not thus necessairly be admissable into evidence at a trial, and then even if so, not without limiting instructions to the jury (or trier of fact).

To imply the absolute right to counsel is but merely an attempt to evade justice was indeed a poorly thought out comment, or one made from inexperience. What would you do if you were arrested for something you didn't do? Represent yourself? remember the old saying about the person who represents himself?

Justice doesn't mean the admission of all the evidence. It means the Judge gets to decide what evidence is admissable and hence what evidence the jury gets to hear, and then they must decide what the truth is based upon what the Judge lets them hear. I both prosecute and defend cases. I do so zealously in both instances. However, I also do so fairly and in adhearance to rules of procedure, evidence, and the rulings of the Court. I don't do so to evade justice, but to seek it. I also do so honestly. I don't have to impune my credibility to win a case. Any case.

End of soap box. thanks for letting me share

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rangerdavid @ Nov 27 2006, 09:14 PM) [snapback]354668[/snapback]</div>

Its both facinating and a pleasure to get your input David....

In your opinion, do you think the person with the most money wins?

I mean.. if your hired, you will do an honest job to gather evidence and present it, but if the other guy has no money for his own attorney, or only enough to buy an inexperienced one.. aren't you going to eat his lunch?

I have seen many cases where lawyers only go through the motions giving extremely little effort to go against the odds of power, money and influence, even when he knows is client is being unfairly represented unless there is money in the picture for them.
Its emotionally hard to fight a fight that you know your going to lose without a ton of money and resources.. so if you client doesn't have it.. are you supposed to give freebies all day long?

Even if your an exception, don't you think most lawyers "follow the money?"

I can respect that everyone has to eat and you only get what you pay for, but some just don't have it and others do... even to the point that evidence is held back if it will only complicate the case and add more money when there is none?.. but if the money is there, then every dot and title is crossed and dragged out to prolong the case?

Has this been your experience?

My exposure is extremely limited compared to yours so I honestly only have my viewpoint based on what I've seen.

I see it in the medical profession too.. the ones with no insurance get cut short and the ones with really good coverage get all the test "whether they honestly need it or not", rules are bent and they are afforded the best of care.

Its a fact of life... those with money can buy more than those who don't.... its not always wrong.. just fact.

How do you feel about having the box in your car?

 

No, not always, but yes, sometimes.


[/quote]I have seen many cases where lawyers only go through the motions giving extremely little effort to go against the odds of power, money and influence, even when he knows is client is being unfairly represented unless there is money in the picture for them.
Its emotionally hard to fight a fight that you know your going to lose without a ton of money and resources.. so if you client doesn't have it.. are you supposed to give freebies all day long?[/quote]

No, I don't give freebies all day long. I do, however, accept court appointments to represent indigent defendants at a reduced fee because I feel it is my civic duty to do so. In preparation for my cases, I make no distinction between the retained clients and the court appointed clients.

[/quote]Even if your an exception, don't you think most lawyers "follow the money?"[/quote]

No more than most doctors, accountants, store owners, or any other business owner. Running a law firm is indeed a business. It is a means of earning a living, and any business must make money to stay in business. And just like other business that make civic contributions as their civic obligation, some attorneys represent folks pro bono or for a reduced fee.

[/quote]I can respect that everyone has to eat and you only get what you pay for, but some just don't have it and others do... even to the point that evidence is held back if it will only complicate the case and add more money when there is none?.. but if the money is there, then every dot and title is crossed and dragged out to prolong the case?

Has this been your experience?[/quote]

Thankfully, no, this has not been my experience in 25 years of practicing law. Yes, some attorneys are indeed better than others, especially in litigation. Some attorney are just more comfortable in the courtroom than others. Some better public speakers and better speaking in front of a jury than others. But this is not different than any other profession or occupation. I usually hope that I get THE BEST mechanic when I take my Prius in for work.



[/quote]How do you feel about having the box in your car?[/quote]

Actually, I really had not given it a second thought until this thread. After I post this reply, I probably won't give it another. In short, it really makes no difference to me.

P. S. sorry, i really screwed up the quotes

 

thanks for the responses, rangerdavid. when i read windstrings' reply i kinda thought "eek" this could turn ugly :blink:

ps: when using tags, the opening tag doesn't have the slash in front. the slash signifies the closing of the tag. so your quote tags would be [ quote ] and then [ /quote ] (without the spaces)- i hope i explained that ok.

way OT but we've had a good experience with lawyers, of course our case was open and shut and already determined by the state dept of workforce development, but they took us with no retainer and even took a smaller percent of the settlement than they had asked for since settled for a low amount. then they helped us come tax time when the same delinquent people failed to send us our tax information.

as far as the box is concerned, i have yet to hear of one case where the box is used someone. like DH said earlier, they're mainly to cover the legal stuff for the automakers. they're not sticking these things in there to be big brother or anything

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rangerdavid @ Nov 27 2006, 10:01 PM) [snapback]354685[/snapback]</div>

Yea quotes can be a nightmare.. I have to copy and paste headers to get it perfect, otherwise do alot of pasting of the quote tag.. Its easier to just reply in a different color sometimes if there is alot if interjecting to do....

Well you sound like a fine example to your profession, I wish others with as much power wielding in their hands had more concious about humanity and self respect.

It does make me feel better to know this doesn't bother you.. I'm not sure I have the same faith in the legal system you do.... I've witnessed that when your in the profession, you sometimes are not sensitive to how the common layperson gets the full brunt of hassle that the common layperson endures.

Again, If I'm sick and go into an emergency room, I am afforded much more care and graces just because of who I am.... nobody special.. just in the medical profession.... people tend to take better care of their own... another fact of life.

My main beef has been the secrecy of this....
If its something the car manufacturers think you may want "like onstar", they want to charge you, if they think you don't want it, they just don't tell you about it, or at least don't advertise it.

Something is wrong with the equality there....

Sorry I'm a little more paranoid and untrusting of the system as you.

I have no problem with roadside cameras or anything.. as long as its not a secret.
We are supposed to be running the country... as long as the wishes of the people are being represented, its ok.

I'm tired of feeling overwhelmed by big brother and not being to make decisions as to what comes in my car that I"m paying for and what doesn't.... at least its not illegal to rip it out! "for now"... if someone can just figure out how! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Nov 27 2006, 02:10 PM) [snapback]354520[/snapback]</div>

This is a way cool idea you came up with, the pictures thing would be awesome. I would even like to buy something like this. Intergrate the camera into the MDF for lane changes too. EXCELLENT!!!

Had a friend get into an accident where they were clearly not at fault and the insurance company said it was a no fault accident and both parties had to pay their own damages. The other party was given a ticket for running a red light which caused the collision. I had to pay the county clerk to get a copy of public records of this ticket to fight the insurance company before they would accept the claim. It still took weeks before I got the insurance company to accept the claim.

So if it takes getting data from these black boxes to protect the innocent, then I am all for it. I am glad my PRIUS has this black box.

I still cannot figure out why I have to pay for UNINSURED & UNDERINSURED motorist in NE, when having insurance is required to operate a vehicle on the public roads. Humm, let's all just pay for everyone's privilege to drive? Yes, driving is a priviledge not a right.

And yes, some people around here also do not know what the lever on the left of the steering column is for because they don't use the turn signals either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KTPhil @ Nov 27 2006, 02:01 PM) [snapback]354495[/snapback]</div>

While the Prius does not have "OnStar", it does have a built in microphone. Could the EDR also be recording audio? Scary!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmccord @ Nov 27 2006, 08:40 PM) [snapback]354704[/snapback]</div>

only Prius with Nav/Bluetooth have the mike.

 

One of the referenced artices tries to make the reader believe that
a GPS unit is a transmitter. Heh, credibility out the window.
.
The thing that annoys me most is all the attention given to EDR,
more and more airbags [which are supposed to be the SUPPLEMENTARY
restraint system, remember?] and safety ratings, while the real
basics like how cars and driving are marketed to the sheeple which,
coupled with total lack of enforcement, is WHY we have so many
problems that cause accidents these days. This is bullshit, it's
like continuing to mop up the puddle from a leaking pipe when it
would be so much easier to go shut the valve off.
.
I think Schmika was in general agreement with me on this back in the
"ask a cop" thread...
.
_H*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hobbit @ Nov 28 2006, 12:00 AM) [snapback]354716[/snapback]</div>

What a server they would have to have to be in constant link with thousands of cars that are moving breaking connection turning of, on, in and out of garages, carport, in between buildings.. what a nightmare!

 

I heard this CNN story on my XM Radio and I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the whole thing.

Their main poster child was some guy who is in jail because he ran into and killed two teenage girls who were backing out of a driveway. The EDR stated his speed was 114 MPH. The crash scene investigators estimated his speed to be 80 or 90 MPH. He claims his speed was only 50 MPH. The speed limit was 30 MPH.

So even if you ignore the EDR and just go with the crash scene investigators, he should still be in jail. I would expect the driver to claim as low a speed as he could get away with without look absurd. So if he's claiming 50 MPH in a 30 MPH speed limit, then you know he must of been doing significantly more than that. If he really was doing 50MPH, he would have surely been downplaying it to at least 40 MPH.

And yet CNN tried to make it sound like he was some kind of victim of injustice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rangerdavid @ Nov 28 2006, 12:14 AM) [snapback]354668[/snapback]</div>

I didn't say the atty had that opinion, I said the DEF did, and I am speaking primarily of a criminal defense atty. No, I was never arrested, I have been a cop for 26 years. Most CRIMINAL Defendants, are more interested in "getting off" than making sure all the "proper procedures" are being followed. THAT, sir, comes from experience. If you are an atty, then you know that the 5th amendment pertains to VERBAL admissions or testimony only.......black boxes would NOT fall under this....shame on you for not knowing that.

Oh, as far as your last paragraph, I sincerely mean this when I say that the VAST majority of atty's try to do this. I am speaking, again, of the DEFENDANT's point of view.-

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 29 2006, 09:07 PM) [snapback]355576[/snapback]</div>

This, in a nutshell, is the problem I have with "black boxes". The technology is new, of course, and was not forseen by the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Doesn't this feel like an attempt to end-around our rights and compel "testimony" from a rat-box that we are forced to carry around with us at all times?

Does it bother you that you can be tracked now by your cell phone, even when you aren't talking on it? Do you care about cameras placed in public areas which track individuals using facial recognition programs? Do you mind your phone calls being intercepted and listened to in the interest of national security? Are you dismayed by the lists of those who are denied the right to travel by air, but who can't be told they are on such a list? Does it bother you that AT&T turns over the phone records of thousands or millions of customers to the government and then stonewalls efforts to expose the program? That airlines do the same?

And the argument in favor of this? "If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." Seems I've heard that one before.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jbarnhart @ Nov 30 2006, 04:24 AM) [snapback]355612[/snapback]</div>

Boy that said allot right there!!!... we need to redo the constitution... we have redone it anyway without redoing it by many of our laws that they would have "never approved of".. but at any rate.

I have no problems with any survallience you mentioned as long as I am insured to being treated fairly with the next guy.. but don't monitor all my stuff, and not allow me to use that same information against some guy trying to sue me.

If I have to show my cards in this poker game, the other guy has to also.

But in court of law it doesn 't appear to be that way.. they actually almost seem to slant the view of the jurors by only allowing them to see the evidence they want them to see "all in the name of law of course!".

Ours laws are unequal and they are misused by those that handle law "not all of course", but enough to be very concerned.

Generally if your a good guy and don't try to hurt people, no one is out to get you.... but that doesn't mean you are not vulnerable should someone point the finger at you and sik the hitman on you!

All that "info" is wonderful to use and access when in the right hands of responsible people, but most of that info can also be accessed "right on the internet in many cases" by unscrupulous individuals out for thier own gain and money at your expense.

I don't really think most people have anything special to hide, they just don't want to be vulnerable to a pissed off wife, boyfriend or whoever.

We are already seeing lots or reports of people being misused by jealous husbands etc.... technology can be our friend and our enemy at the same time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 29 2006, 09:07 PM) [snapback]355576[/snapback]</div>

A persuasive argument could be made that the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to the event data recorders and the information that they contain.

 

Has anyone dissected a airbag ECU for the Prius? The last airbag ECU I've seen didn't have anything too obviously NVRAM related, and I know car companies typically use proprietary parts. But parts are parts. You can usually tell what devices do by looking at them closely.

If it even resembles a commodity memory device, what are the consequences for ermm.. making it not record anything. I know that other companies do mod chips for ECUs, and increasing their performance, but modifying this??? BTW, I would definitely not rewrite the airbag ECU firmware, this would be a really bad thing as it might cause it to do bad things when you need it the most, AND these things are really _fun_ to test.

OTOH, if there is a very clear 'flight recorder chip' or module, could one even locate the storage device, such as an SEEPROM (Assuming it's nonvolatile, since battery power is not always available during/after an accident.) Removing it might not be too bad, or spoofing it with an open source FPGA/CPLD/etc+EEPROM would be even better. Imagine an RSA256 encrypted version that only the owner has the key for. What would the consequences would this make the car illegal to use?

Ok, a little far fetched, but some food for thought, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(_echo @ Nov 30 2006, 04:01 PM) [snapback]355996[/snapback]</div>

You and Frank Hudon need to get together. He has similar thoughts.

Many years ago, I was setting my own standards for "reasonable" driving and every year or so I got a mean ticket. I just decided that this was getting too expensive as my insurance was way high.

Since, I have obeyed the speed limit. If people get behind me and act frustrated, I pull over and let them by.
Every once is a while I pass them while they are stopped getting a ticket.

I think that the most revealing fact came to my attention before I retired from being an urban planner. It is that the design speed at which the most cars pass a given point is 35 mph. Traffic moving faster than that is either light or subject to "waves" which cause it to surge and stop and is commonly known as "stop and go traffic".

Will the world end if we just obey traffic laws? There might be fewer collisions with related injury and loss of life. Woudn't that be a good thing?