News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

crs1026 said:
If our murder rate exceeded our fatality rate, perhaps that might be proposed.
Click to expand...
Fatal collisions is reported at 40 for 2020, 71 homicides for the same year.

So the police should get daily reports on what's in everyone's trunk.
 
A couple of points:

- As NL points out, flight data recorders, railway event cameras, etc. are used for TSB investigations, which are investigations regarding risk, not liability. I assume they also available to the employer. Whatever findings came out of those two sources, no one faces fines or incarceration. If the police wanted to use them as evidence in a criminal investigation - to find somebody criminally responsible - they would need to obtain judicial authorization (warrant, production order).

- There are actually very few sections of the HTA that are 'owner liability'. Photo radar is one, but note that there are not demerit points assessed against the owner (and I don't believe they appear on a d/l extract but not certain).

- The Court's current view on 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is, by its very nature, contextual. Any extension of a 'traffic stop' into a criminal investigation would have to satisfy that expectation as defined in multiple decisions in order for any resulting evidence to be ruled admissible. A police officer has no authority to search a vehicle for drugs w/o 'articulable cause'; they can't go on a fishing trip. The driver can consent to the search, however.

Should a person's personal property be conscripted against them when conducting a regulated activity in the public realm, even in the spirit of public safety, in a manner that holds them liable? Not currently, but perhaps it may come to that, but I see a whole lot of slippery slopes.
 
lenaitch said:
Should a person's personal property be conscripted against them when conducting a regulated activity in the public realm, even in the spirit of public safety, in a manner that holds them liable? Not currently, but perhaps it may come to that, but I see a whole lot of slippery slopes.
Click to expand...

So - the courts’ bright line would be that the vehicle (property) must remain passive? I could mostly live with that, although I would feel it’s only fair that if an accused driver disputes witness or officer accounts, it would be fair game to ask the vehicle for its data as one further bit of evidence. And using devices to determine vehicle identity ( an extension of the officer’s eyes, and an extension of the analog license plate) seems reasonable so long as it does not lead to databases or mass recording and screening of data.

When I bought my most recent vehicle, which has the now-common driving assist tech (lane tracking, intelligent speed control, etc) there was a waiver that gave the manufacturer the right to download data after an accident or near miss.

I see driving as a matter of social contract more than a matter of state regulation of behaviour. When you turn on the ignition, you commit to a code of conduct. You also commit to verification of your compliance with that code. If you don’t like the terms, you can call an Uber.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
So - the courts’ bright line would be that the vehicle (property) must remain passive? I could mostly live with that, although I would feel it’s only fair that if an accused driver disputes witness or officer accounts, it would be fair game to ask the vehicle for its data as one further bit of evidence.

When I bought my most recent vehicle, which has the now-common driving assist tech (lane tracking, intelligent speed control, etc) there was a waiver that gave the manufacturer the right to download data after an accident or near miss.
Click to expand...
That would be fair.
 
crs1026 said:
So - the courts’ bright line would be that the vehicle (property) must remain passive? I could mostly live with that, although I would feel it’s only fair that if an accused driver disputes witness or officer accounts, it would be fair game to ask the vehicle for its data as one further bit of evidence.

When I bought my most recent vehicle, which has the now-common driving assist tech (lane tracking, intelligent speed control, etc) there was a waiver that gave the manufacturer the right to download data after an accident or near miss.
Click to expand...
I would imagine so, as a component of the accused's right to 'full answer and defence', provided they could establish the untainted source of the data and interpret it to the Court's satisfaction.
 
lenaitch said:
A couple of points:

- There are actually very few sections of the HTA that are 'owner liability'. Photo radar is one, but note that there are not demerit points assessed against the owner (and I don't believe they appear on a d/l extract but not certain).
Click to expand...

Would also apply to red-light cameras with the same caveats.

So, here's a question for you (I realize its speculative); but what about using the car's data stream in the same way, as the basis of an absolute liability offense, in relation to speed, billed to the owner, w/o assertion of criminal or operator liability?

****

Second thought, in respect of criminal liability, it is my understanding that Flight Recorder data was used in trial of those w/connections to a terrorism charge. A warrant was obtained, I'm sure, in respect of the use of that data; though it was protected, prior to any warrant........could/should the same apply in the event of vehicle collision? (does it?)

****

Third thought, I'm toying with buying a new car............was looking at some of the features...........turns out, even the new entry level models have emergency rear breaking as a collision avoidance system, and that system overrides the driver instruction to the vehicle.

Can that same tech not be used to reasonably limit excessive speeds in the first place, irrespective of criminal liability?

****

Last one: Back our airplane example. Certain real-time data is now streamed between planes and ATC as well, typically as the airline itself (real-time location monitoring etc etc.).......

That data-stream includes information which could be used as evidence (subject to production order).....but which more importantly, allows real-time monitoring of location and altitude and speed in some circumstances, data which can be and often may be seen in real-time by a third party (ATC control etc.).

If ATC is the 'regulator' or 'traffic cop' of airspace and can see certain data in real-time; should a regular traffic-cop have access to same? If so, what action, if any, should that information permit? Can they respond to a speeding car, and if they then measure speed by either radar or pursuit lay a charge?
 
Northern Light said:
Third thought, I'm toying with buying a new car............was looking at some of the features...........turns out, even the new entry level models have emergency rear breaking as a collision avoidance system, and that system overrides the driver instruction to the vehicle.

Can that same tech not be used to reasonably limit excessive speeds in the first place, irrespective of criminal liability?
Click to expand...

Given that trucks have governors required by law, I can't see why cars shouldn't.

With respect to Vision Zero, the problem in a city is that the speeds that are unacceptable are within what a governor-equipped vehicle can still manage.... it's the going 70 in a school zone that is the problem, not going 150 on the 401.

I don't see why there couldn't be technology that limits speed based on fixed sensors in the road - so when the car hits a school zone, 40 is all it will do. Cancel by a second sensor and/or automatically after x meters, so even if the car misses the second sensor, full speed capability is restored. It's kind of part-way towards AV technology.

Some of the legalistic opposition can be mitigated by recognizing that most of these restrictions are aimed at an administrative matter (posession of a license) rather than a criminal charge. Maybe no fines at all.... but when your points add up, your license is gone. And your insurance company finds out as the normal course. One 150 km/hr offense is pegged at 15 points....you only do it once to lose your license. I'm far more interested in taking bad drivers off the road than in criminalising them. That's all the deterrence required.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Given that trucks have governors required by law, I can't see why cars shouldn't.
Click to expand...
There was even a constitutional challenge, which confirmed that governments can do this.


But in his decision, Lauwers agreed that limiters reduce emissions and improve highway safety.

"The purposes of the speed limiter legislation for trucks, being the improvement of highway safety and the reduction of greenhouse gases, are pressing and substantial," he wrote.
Click to expand...
 
Northern Light said:
Would also apply to red-light cameras with the same caveats.

So, here's a question for you (I realize its speculative); but what about using the car's data stream in the same way, as the basis of an absolute liability offense, in relation to speed, billed to the owner, w/o assertion of criminal or operator liability?
Click to expand...
I suppose it could, but the data is stored not transmitted, except, perhaps, those vehicles that have Onstar or its equivalent. Even at that, the data goes to the manufacturer/service provider. Otherwise, both transmission and receiving capabilities would be required. Keep in mind that, while the problems being discussed are largely urban, vehicle standards are national, based on international agreements.
Northern Light said:
****

Second thought, in respect of criminal liability, it is my understanding that Flight Recorder data was used in trial of those w/connections to a terrorism charge. A warrant was obtained, I'm sure, in respect of the use of that data; though it was protected, prior to any warrant........could/should the same apply in the event of vehicle collision? (does it?)
Click to expand...
Should, and currently happens all the time with respect to serious motor vehicle collisions. The police swear information to a justice that they believe the data will afford evidence in relation to a criminal offence (or even provincial offence if warrant obtained under the Provincial Offences Act). In the collision I was involved in a couple of years ago, I signed consent for the police to access my data recorder; they obtained a search warrant for the other vehicle.
Northern Light said:
****

Third thought, I'm toying with buying a new car............was looking at some of the features...........turns out, even the new entry level models have emergency rear breaking as a collision avoidance system, and that system overrides the driver instruction to the vehicle.

Can that same tech not be used to reasonably limit excessive speeds in the first place, irrespective of criminal liability?
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are talking about a governor. Sure, but it would like involve more throttle (speed) than braking control. One problem (of many) going down this road is, if something goes awry, liability will shift away from the driver and to the manufacturer, which they will no doubt fight. This is going to be an issue with AVs as well, just on a smaller scale.

A word of caution - I get a lot of false positives from the collision avoidance system in my vehicle (my previous vehicle was the same make and model and acted the same). If I am approaching a right hand curve, it often interprets a approaching vehicle as being in my lane, and I get a warning tone, indicator a wheel shake. I don't know if it will actually 'brake to full stop'. I have its range turned down as low as it will go.
Northern Light said:
****

Last one: Back our airplane example. Certain real-time data is now streamed between planes and ATC as well, typically as the airline itself (real-time location monitoring etc etc.).......

That data-stream includes information which could be used as evidence (subject to production order).....but which more importantly, allows real-time monitoring of location and altitude and speed in some circumstances, data which can be and often may be seen in real-time by a third party (ATC control etc.).

If ATC is the 'regulator' or 'traffic cop' of airspace and can see certain data in real-time; should a regular traffic-cop have access to same? If so, what action, if any, should that information permit? Can they respond to a speeding car, and if they then measure speed by either radar or pursuit lay a charge?
Click to expand...
A c couple of differences. Air traffic is highly regulated, performed, at multiple levels, by highly trained personnel who are re-certified on a regular basis. The level of control, and hence the level of data and 'flight following' required, is governed by various levels of airspace. A bush plane flying VFR north of Superior is governed by different rules than AC in a high level flyway. The data is streamed to regional control centres which can communicate with all aircraft. I don't see a practical comparison to road traffic unless large, central monitoring sites are established - I can't see how it would be of any practical use to police on patrol. The number of aircraft under the control of a given ATC doesn't come close to the number of vehicles on the road in the GTA at any given time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top