"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
> combined with illegal search and seizure.
>

No, not at all.

> There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident.

Rubbish. And it isn't evidence against drivers as much as it is evidence of
what actually happened.

Let me guess, you are an advocate of removing black boxes from
airplanes.

So, have you bothered to ever READ the 4th and 5th amendments?

> Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation?

No, not during a collision. But before one, yes. If someone smacks into
another car it would be useful to know if they were speeding.

> Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed.
>

Modern computers, even cheap ones, can sample far quicker than what
is needed.

> Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
> be considered as sources of evidenciary data?
>

Yes and no. A lot of this really depends on the court case.

Assume for example that driver A hits and kills a pedestrian. The
driver argues that he was going the speed limit, and the pedestrian
jumped out in front of him. Two witnesses to the accident state
the driver was speeding and the pedestrian didn't jump out in
front.

In this case the DA has no choice but to file charges of manslaughter
and let the subsequent court case sort it out.

If the driver had a black box in the car, and was positive that he
wasn't speeding, he would sign over his rights against self-incrimination
and let the DA examine the black box. If the black box said that the driver
wasn't speeding, the DA would know that even if he pressed
manslaughter charges, he would lose the case, and so he wouldn't
press charges, thus saving the driver a lot of grief, and the court
system a lot of money.

If the driver had a black box in the car and WASN'T positive
he was speeding, he would simply refuse to allow it to be
searched. In that case the DA can still search it - and use the
evidence to decide to file manslaughter charges - but the evidence
wouldn't be admissible in the following trial, and the driver would
have the same chance of getting off as without a black box. And
if the DA were to mention it during trial, that would be an immediate
mistrial and the DA could be disbarred.

> This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
> camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.
>
> The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
> or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
> off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
> but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
> defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.
>

OK let's give airplane pilots that right too.

The real issue though is this.

YOU do not own the streets that you drive on. ALL of us, you, I
and everyone, own the streets. If I'm going to allow you to drive
on the streets that I own, I'm going to make you have a data recorder
that you can't shut off. My right to require you to have a data
recorder is equal to your right to not have to have one. So where
does that leave us?

Well, let me explain it. First, read the 5th amendment. To put it
simply, a black box in a vehicle that YOU are driving is collecting
evidence, AKA witness, on YOUR behalf. Legally it is exactly
the same as if you were writing down all that data into a notebook
that you have next to you, at very high speed. After all you own
the black box, not the owners of the airplane.

In a court case, if I demand you hand over the black box data
and you know for a fact that that black box data is incriminating
against yourself, then your lawyer will call for a trial halt, demand
the jury leave, and when they have filed out you can simply invoke
the Fifth Amendment and that is the end of it. When the jury comes
back the judge will simply state that the black box data is unavailable.

In fact if you had a really good lawyer, he might not even bother to
do that, but simply say that we are sorry but there is no data
available from the black box, then refuse to answer any further
questions along those lines. Legally it would be correct for him
to say that even though it would give the impression to the jury
that the black box was smashed, which is a lie.

In any case, this kind of thing is generally handled pre-trial when
each side requests evidence from the other.

Ted