Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
164 6. Public Acceptability of Event Data Recorders 6.1 Background Paralleling the legal issues of Event Data Recorders (EDRs) are concerns over consumer acceptability. For example, a recent class action suit, filed in New Jersey, alleged that General Motors never told owners of their vehicles that EDRs were installed [USA Today, 2000]. A consumer revolt against the installation of EDRs could negatively impact sales and/or lead many manufacturers to offer owners the option to turn off their EDRs or even to stop installation of them altogether. These options would seriously limit the amount of EDR data collected for research by personnel in law enforcement, insurance, government, manufacturing, and education. The objective of this portion of the research project was to determine the public awareness and level of acceptance of Event Data Recorders. The consumer acceptability study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a survey was mailed to a large sample of licensed drivers. In the second phase, focus groups were conducted, with a smaller sample of licensed drivers, to follow-up on the survey. The survey was mailed in the spring of 2003 to 10,000 persons. The focus groups, held in February 2004, were comprised of 18 persons. 6.2 Consumer Survey A survey was designed to measure the attitude of the public toward Event Data Recorders and mailed to 10,000 licensed drivers. A copy of the questionnaire and cover letter is provided in the appendices. As a means of simplifying this issue for a non-technical public, the term âEvent Data Recorderâ (EDR) was replaced with the term âCrash Data Recorderâ (CDR). The results, which follow, will use the term CDR rather than EDR. The survey focused on the following major areas: ⢠Awareness of CDRs ⢠Thoughts on CDR Installation ⢠Legal Issues Regarding CDRs ⢠Access to CDR Data ⢠Impact of CDRs on Driving Habits ⢠Impact of CDRs on Purchasing Decisions
165 The survey also provided the opportunity to examine how opinions in these critical areas varied with age, gender, ethnicity, and safety record of the respondents. 6.2.1 Research Method The questionnaire was designed based on the findings of a pilot study conducted in spring 2001 by Dr. Berhe Habte-Giorgis of the Department of Marketing in the College of Business Administration at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey. The pilot study identified the factors that should be investigated in the study. The survey sent to the public was designed after extensive consultation with the Project Panel and the Expert Advisory Group. In addition, the opinion of stakeholders in the study, primarily automakers, government agencies, and other associations and interested organizations, was obtained by circulating a draft of the questionnaire. A sample of 10,000 licensed drivers was selected from a mailing list maintained by a commercial supplier. A mail survey was the preferred method of collecting data because of the need to get the data from a large number of subjects located all over the country at reasonable cost and within a limited time. Mailing of the questionnaire was preceded by a postcard informing the subjects of the upcoming questionnaire. The questionnaire was mailed to the selected sample members with a self addressed and stamped return envelope. Twenty questionnaires were returned for non-delivery and ten questionnaires were discarded because they were not correctly completed. In the end, there were 790 usable questionnaires. Each returned questionnaire was edited for error and deliberate bias. Data were entered into a standard statistical package for analysis. 6.2.2 Analysis of the Data Demographics: The most typical type of respondent to this survey was an older, wealthier, white male. The male respondents outnumbered the female respondents by two to one as shown in Figure 6-1. Almost half of the respondents were middle-aged, 40 to 59, as seen in Figure 6-2. The average household income level of the respondents was somewhat higher than national averages with the mean, median, and mode all in the $30,000 to $69,999 range. Figure 6-3 shows the distribution of household incomes. Most respondents were Caucasian (86%) followed by 5% Black/African American, 3% Hispanic/Latino, and 2% each Native American/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and other as shown in Figure 6-4. All fifty states and Washington, D.C., were represented. Just over half of the respondents lived in a suburban or rural area. Almost one-third of the respondents had children at home who were not of driving age and one in five respondents had children of driving age living with them.
166 Male 67% Female 33% Figure 6-1. Gender Differences 17-23 2% 24-39 22% 40-59 46% 59+ 30% Figure 6-2. Age Distribution
167 $30,000- $69,999 46% $15,000- $29,999 15% <$14,999 7.6% $70,000+ 31.4% Figure 6-3. Distribution of Household Annual Income 85% Caucasian 5% Black 4% Hispanic 2%Asian 2%Native American 2% Other Figure 6-4. Ethnicity Distribution General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were, by far, the most popular makes of the vehicles driven most frequently by the respondents. The model years of their cars ranged from
168 1952 to 2003 with 1999 being the most common year cited and the 1996-1997 era vehicles as typical. Only one in five respondents indicated they planned to purchase a car within the next two years. Although the characteristics of our sample are not necessarily representative of the national population, they do tend to represent persons most likely to be primarily in charge of buying cars for the household. Driving Habits: Seventeen percent indicated they never or only sometimes wear a seatbelt when riding in a car. Men were disproportionately more likely to say they did not always wear seatbelts. Most respondents, 85%, had no non-parking traffic citations/tickets in the last three years and the same percentage had not been in any traffic accidents resulting in vehicle damage of more than $500 during the last three years. Most respondents, 79%, indicated they drive their own car to work. Three percent primarily use public transportation and less than one percent car pool. Presumably, the other 18% either are unemployed, walk to work, or work at home. CDR Awareness: The survey results indicated that level of awareness about the CDR and its application is fairly low. One third of the respondents indicated they had heard about CDRs in vehicles prior to receiving this survey as shown in Figure 6-5. This matches data obtained by the Insurance Research Council in 2002 in which two-thirds of car buyers were unaware of these devices [Oldenburg, 2003]. Less than 1% reported having a CDR in their vehicle. However, only eight percent indicated they knew how to determine if there was a CDR in their vehicle. Three percent knew of an automobile crash in which CDR data were used to determine the cause of the accident. Yes 34% No 63% Don't Know 3% Figure 6-5. Response to âI have heard about CDRs in vehicles prior to receiving this surveyâ. When developing the survey, we suspected that many vehicle owners would not know that their car already contained a CDR. In addition to asking participants whether their car had a CDR, the survey also asked the participants what car they drove. We knew from earlier work on this project that all GMC vehicles (GMC, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Saturn) manufactured since the 1996 model year have a CDR already installed. As shown in Table 6-1 below, our suspicion was confirmed. Nearly
169 two-thirds of all GMC vehicle owners with CDRs already installed told us that their vehicle did not contain a CDR. Table 6-1. Response to âI have a CDR in my vehicleâ from owners of 1996-2003 GMC vehicles known to have CDRs installed Response to âI have a CDR in my Vehicleâ Number % Yes 3 2 No 93 65 Donât Know 47 33 Total 143 100 Installation of CDRs: A substantial number of respondents thought that installation of CDRs should be an option left to the prospective vehicle owner, not vehicle manufacturers as shown in Figure 6-6. Caucasian respondents, who made up most of the total respondents, thought that it is not acceptable for their vehicles to be equipped with a CDR without their knowledge. However, among ethnic minority groups, a majority of respondents, 52%, reported it would be acceptable for CDRs to be installed without their knowledge. Two-thirds of respondents thought CDR installation should be optional equipment. Only 47% thought they should be standard equipment. Five types of respondents held different views from the majority of respondents: women, minorities, lower income, seat belt wearers, and those who had not heard of CDRs. Strongly Disagree 7% Disagree 19% Neither 23% Agree 37% Strongly Agree 14% Figure 6-6. Response to the statement âThe installation of a CDR should be an option left to the prospective vehicle ownerâ
170 Legal Aspects of CDRs: A slim majority of respondents, 51%, tended to think that there should be a law requiring all new cars to be equipped with CDRs. However, certain groups of respondents indicated significant differences in opinion. Those individuals who were more likely to support such a law included those who were unaware of CDRs before this survey, seatbelt wearers, of lower income, women, and/or minorities. This finding perfectly supports the finding regarding installation that these same groups thought CDRs should be standard equipment. A slim majority of respondents overall, 57%, think use of CDRs is not an invasion of their privacy. Although those who had not heard previously about CDRs and those who do not always wear seatbelts were much more likely to think CDRs are an invasion of privacy. All groups of respondents tended to report (77%) that, if vehicles have CDRs, use of data should be regulated by law. Access to CDR Data: One of the biggest concerns about CDRs was access to the data. The questionnaire included a series of questions pertaining to various groups who could conceivably want access. More than half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that each of the six groups in question should have access. The range was highest with owner at 87.1%, law enforcement with 70.5%, vehicle manufacturers with 65.2%, government researchers with 63.3%, and just 53.8% saying rescue and medical personnel should have access. Following this pattern, 56.4% of respondents thought that CDR information belongs to the vehicle owner. However, even though a majority of respondents thought the information belonged to them, only 44% thought vehicle owners should be able to remove a CDR on their car if already installed and only about one third thought vehicle owners should be able to turn a CDR on or off. In fact, 17% of respondents said the data belong to them, but they should not be allowed to turn off the CDR. Eleven percent who said the data belonged to them, said they should not be allowed to remove the CDR altogether. Acceptability of CDRs by Vehicle Owners: Drivers were asked what kinds of factors regarding CDRs and data would make CDRs more acceptable to vehicle owners. A two- thirds majority of respondents thought that if vehicle owners were permitted to view CDR data, CDRs will be more acceptable. Almost half thought that allowing researchers but not law enforcement officials to access the data will make CDRs more acceptable. Finally, just under half thought that allowing vehicle owners to turn off some CDR elements such as vehicle speed or allowing vehicle owners to delete recorded data altogether will make CDRs acceptable. A notable minority of around one-quarter each was neutral on these four items. Perceived Benefits of CDRs: In general, respondents tended to perceive that CDRs could be beneficial. For example, CDRs could help in crash investigation such as in determining who was at fault in the event of a collision. Many respondents thought insurance fraud could be reduced by use of CDR data (77%) and that CDR information could lead to improved road and vehicle safety (78%) and reduced insurance costs (55%). However, most drivers (70%) indicated that they, themselves, would not be more cautious while driving with a CDR in their own car. Finally, a small majority of
171 respondents, 60%, thought that CDR information could also help emergency medical response teams. Again, some groups of people held slightly different views than the majority. For example, the only group to report that they would drive more cautiously as a result of CDRs was the lowest income category. Persons of higher income status were much more likely than the lower income groups to report that CDRs would not make them more cautious in their driving. Income again was a factor in whether respondents thought CDRs would reduce insurance costs such that the highest income group were the only ones who thought CDRs would not reduce costs. Respondents with children of driving age in their household also did not think CDRs would lower insurance rates. As far as whether CDRs would help emergency medical response teams, only those who had not previously heard about CDRs tended to think the teams would benefit. 6.2.3 Summary of Survey Results ⢠Most respondents were unaware of CDRs and their use. ⢠Most respondents saw considerable benefits of CDRs such as in crash investigation, lowered insurance rates, encouraging safer drivers. ⢠Most respondents would prefer CDRs and their use to be optional. ⢠Most respondents had some concern about access to CDR data (i.e., who has access and how data are used). ⢠Opinions were reasonably consistent across demographics, but older, wealthier, Caucasian men were more concerned about control issues. 6.3 Focus Groups The survey analysis led to a desire to meet with drivers face-to-face (i.e., in a focus group) to conduct qualitative analysis on the public perception of crash data recorders. As a follow-up to the survey, eighteen licensed drivers with a demographic breakdown similar to that of the United States were gathered together in a focus group format to discuss their perceptions of crash data recorders. 6.3.1 Focus Group Study Leader Dr. Heidi L. Newell, who analyzed the survey results, served as the coordinator for the focus groups. Ms. Alana DeSimone, mechanical engineering student at Rowan University, served as an assistant to the coordinator. She was a research assistant working with the Principal Investigator, Dr. Hampton C. Gabler, on the technical aspects of this research program.
172 6.3.2 Subjects A stratified representative sample of twenty licensed drivers with at least one vehicle being used in their household and who live within a twenty minute drive from the campus of Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey, were selected. The invitation list included an equal number of men and women. Five participants were African American, Hispanic, or Asian. In terms of the four age group categories used in the survey, the invitation list included four persons ages 17 to 23, four persons ages 24 to 39, eight persons ages 40 to 59 and four persons ages 60 and older. Fifteen persons of the invited sample had children, either living at home or adult children outside the home; five had no children. Persons from a variety of occupational backgrounds participated in the focus groups including, for example, a librarian, a homemaker, a contractor, a physical therapist, a computer technician, a construction worker, a businessman, and a student. The sample was asked to participate in the study, via telephone. A cover letter describing the project and directions/maps to campus were sent to participants. A copy of the cover letter is contained in the appendices. Some persons included in the original sample were unable to participate and substitutions were made in all but two cases in which the researcher did not have sufficient notice to substitute. Therefore, there was a total of 18 participants, 9 in each session. The demographic breakdown of actual participants was as follows: Table 6-2. Demographic Breakdown of Focus Group Participants Age N Ethnicity N Gender N Children N 17 to 23 3 Caucasian 13 Women 9 With 14 24 to 39 3 African American 2 Men 9 None 4 40 to 59 8 Hispanic 3 60+ 4 Each subject was given an honorarium to participate payable upon full completion of the focus group session. 6.3.3 Format The focus groups were held in a conference room in Rowan Hall on the campus of Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey. Participants were asked to sit around a large, square table designed to seat twelve comfortably. The first focus group was held on Wednesday, February 11, 2004, and the second on Thursday, February 12, 2004. Both sessions began at 7:00 p.m. and ended by 8:30 p.m. The first fifteen minutes were designated for getting nametags and dessert as well as becoming acquainted with one another. Then, focus group participants were given a few minutes of instruction about how the focus group would be run. The session itself lasted about an hour.
173 The session was recorded on audiotape for subsequent transcription. Also, the leaderâs assistant typed key thoughts on her lap top computer. 6.3.4 Questions The questions were piloted with a select group of Rowan University engineering faculty and members of the general public prior to the actual focus group sessions to make sure they were clear, sufficient, and would fit within the time allotted. The subjects were told that the leader would ask questions and record the answers, but would not participate in the answer dialogue so as not to influence the discussion. Subjects were asked to freely express their thoughts and opinions. They were told that it was acceptable to disagree with someone else, but that they had to be respectful of othersâ ideas. They were told that they did not have to answer any given question if they felt uncomfortable doing so. They were encouraged to express a level of agreement to disagreement with anotherâs ideas even if they did not have anything more to add. They were not given any other information about CDRs other than what appeared in the cover letter. Listed below are the basic questions asked: ⢠What is your initial reaction to Crash Data Recorders? ⢠Had you heard of Crash Data Recorders for personal vehicles before you learned about this study? ⢠Which vehicles do you know currently have CDRs installed? ⢠Have you ever been in a car accident? Were data from CDRs of any of the cars involved used? How did you feel about that usage? ⢠What is your reaction to each of the pieces of data they can now record? For example, vehicle speed, seatbelt status, braking, seat position, air bag deployment⦠⢠Would you buy a vehicle with a CDR already installed? Why or why not? ⢠If a CDR were already installed in a vehicle you were considering purchasing, would you go to another dealer to buy a vehicle without a CDR? Why or why not? ⢠Would you prefer a vehicle with a CDR already installed? Why or why not? ⢠Who should have access to your vehicleâs CDR data? ⢠On the scale âpersonal privacy vs. public safetyâ, which way do you lean?
174 ⢠How would your driving habits change if there were a CDR in your car or wouldnât you change? ⢠How would you react if the federal Department of Transportation (USDOT) passed a law requiring that CDRs must be installed in all new vehicles? ⢠How would you feel if the police (or other governmental accident investigators) had the right to collect data without a warrant during post-accident investigations? During traffic violation stops? ⢠How would you feel about usage of CDRs in vehicles like busses, taxis, and rental cars? ⢠Whom do you think would benefit the most from CDRs? ⢠Some of our survey respondents responded that emergency medical response teams would not benefit from those data. Do you think they would or would not and why? ⢠Would use of CDRs be detrimental to anyone? ⢠How do you think CDR data could help design safer cars? ⢠In what ways could/should CDR data be used in a legal proceeding? ⢠How would you feel about CDRs being used with teenage or other new drivers? ⢠How do you think CDRs and their data would impact cost in terms of vehicle manufacturing and insurance rates? ⢠Our survey asked respondents what kinds of things car manufacturers could do to make CDRs more acceptable to vehicle owners such as giving drivers the option to remove it or turn some of it off. What are some other things that could be done? ⢠A small number (between 11 and 17%) of our survey respondents said that CDR data belonged to vehicle owners, but owners should not be allowed to turn off the CDR or remove it altogether. What are your thoughts on this position? ⢠If you could talk to auto manufacturers about CDRs what would you tell them? ⢠If you could talk to lawmakers about CDRs what would you tell them? ⢠What other opinions do you have about CDRs that were not mentioned in this focus group? That is, what didnât I ask you?
175 ⢠Now that youâve participated in this focus group, how has your initial reaction to CDRs changed? 6.3.5 Qualitative Analysis Preconceptions: About one-third of the participants had heard of crash data recorders (CDRs) before they were invited to participate in the focus group. Most of those who were familiar with CDRs were men. The participantsâ initial reactions to CDRs tended to fall into one of two categories and correlated roughly with gender: the men were most interested in what CDRs were going to cost them in terms of increased vehicle purchase price and car insurance whereas the women were most interested in how CDRs would improve vehicle safety for them and their loved ones. The men were also more curious about what specific data are currently being recorded by CDRs and what is planned for the future. Most respondents were initially very excited and had positive feelings before the discussion got going. When asked if they knew which vehicles currently had installed CDRs, subjects tended to report public transportation vehicles, commercial vehicles, and âhigh-endâ personal cars such as SUVâs (by type) and Lexus, Cadillac, and Mercedes (by name). Although several participants had recently been involved in car accidents, none knew of involvement of CDR data in their post-accident investigations. Reaction to Types of Data Recorded by CDRs: In general, subjects tended to accept recording of driving-related factors that they felt they were executing properly anyway, but were a little bit skeptical of things that they might be âcaughtâ not doing properly at least some of the time. ⢠Vehicle Speed â most subjects would not object to vehicle speed being recorded and some thought that this might help the perceived speeding problem in this geographical area. One senior citizen woman was focused on safety and said that CDRs could help monitor driving habits. Another younger woman thought it could help monitor vehicle speed, in particular. However, a few subjects were concerned that they could be cited for speeding even if they were âonly going a few miles over the limitâ whereas a police officer âprobably would not issue a ticket without the CDR data.â One young, Hispanic man was very concerned that CDRs would âtake away his right to make decisionsâ and that he âwould not have the same freedom as before,â indicating that he thought the âfreedomâ to drive a few miles over the limit was important to him. ⢠Seatbelt Usage â Recording whether the driver and passenger(s) were wearing seatbelts was not of concern to these drivers, but they reported that they generally wear seat-belts. Those who did not wear seatbelts all the time admitted that they knew they should being doing so and that knowing CDRs were recording their status might encourage them to buckle up. A middle-aged woman worried that she might suffer negative consequences if her carâs CDR data showed that she had unbuckled her seatbelt only temporarily to retrieve an item and, then, rebuckled.
176 ⢠Braking â Subjects did not object to the CDRs recording their braking behavior and reported that they believed they tended to brake properly. ⢠Seat Position - As with braking, subjects believed their seats were properly positioned so this would be a non-issue to them. A middle-aged man thought that perhaps some drivers and/or passengers position their seats too far forward and the CDR data might show them that. ⢠Airbag Deployment â Subjects were most accepting of this piece of data being recorded because they viewed that this was not under their control as a driver. Following up on a comment about seat position, the middle-aged man thought that if airbags are injuring people because they are sitting too close to the airbag storage area when the airbag deploys, this type of CDR data would be a major positive use. CDR Impact on Vehicle Purchasing: Most subjects reported that they would buy a vehicle with a CDR already installed as long as it did not increase the purchase price. Some of the men expressed a desire to first learn what their CDR is recording and how these data would be used. One woman said that she would buy a car with a CDR installed if the extra cost were reasonable. None of the subjects said they would avoid buying a vehicle with a CDR installed, again unless that meant a higher cost. Although these drivers would not avoid cars with CDRs and would buy vehicles with CDRs, no one seemed to want to seek out a car with a CDR installed. One participant said CDRs would not be a âselling-pointâ as are some other features available in vehicles because he saw it as a tool for the auto manufacturers and not vehicle buyers. Some of these drivers, mostly the men, said they did not see the benefit in having a CDR installed. CDR Data Access: Most respondents tended to think that it was acceptable for car insurance companies to have access to CDR data and some thought the police investigating an accident could have access. One woman mentioned personal attorneys representing car accident victims as deserving of data access and a man mentioned car repair personnel. One notable factor with the issue of data access is that these drivers did not seem to think that auto manufacturers should have access to their data. The other notable factor is that these drivers were more in favor of access in accident cases and, generally not much in favor in the case of police stops for traffic violations. CDR Impact on Driving Habits: These drivers tended to think they were already safe drivers so they thought CDRs in their vehicles would have little impact on their driving habits. They did tend to say they would probably âthink twiceâ about their driving habits, at least initially, but may tend to forget about the presence of CDRs after awhile. These drivers were wholly in favor of CDRs being installed in all public transportation vehicles and commercial vehicles because they believed that this would lead to safer driving habits on the part of those transporting the public or the publicâs goods. School busses were cited first by both groups. Even though they would be driving rental vehicles, these drivers thought that rental car owners had the right to have CDRs installed to improve driver habits. The only concern expressed was to question to what extent recorded driving
177 habits in rental cars would be connected to individual driversâ records and possibly held against them. Legal Aspects of CDRs: These drivers seemed to think that if a law were passed requiring CDRs be installed in new vehicles, they would have to accept it, but said that it would feel too much like âBig Brother is watching over them.â Some, mostly men, thought it was an invasion of their privacy whereas the women tended to think having a CDR in their vehicles was not overly invasive. Some said that CDR data should be admissible in a court of law only if all vehicles involved in the crash had installed CDRs. The subjects said CDR data should not be the only piece of evidence submitted in a trial situation. Instead, CDR data should be treated somewhat like a human witness â just one perspective, the value of which could be weighed against other pieces of evidence. Participants were very concerned about the idea of being able to put CDR data into the context of the entire accident evidence situation and its evidence such that CDRs should not take away from the value of the human explanation. They were concerned that CDR data would be perceived by those weighing the evidence as âblack or whiteâ and they wanted the right to present evidence and explain what was happening outside of the CDRâs parameters. However, if a case involved two or more parties who each had a plausible explanation, the CDR might âtip the scaleâ in favor of whose case had more weight. Another perceived benefit mentioned was in cases in which one or more of the parties was killed in the car accident and was, therefore, unable to testify on their own behalf such that the CDR data could âtestifyâ as to what happened with their vehicle. Finally, one subject mentioned that CDRs could be valuable in cases involving a vehicle owner or his/her estate filing suit against the vehicleâs manufacturer because it would be a so-called âneutral third-party.â As with data access, these drivers thought that CDR data should be accessed only if they were being charged with a traffic violation or the post- accident investigators were assigning fault. A man said that âit was his vehicle and it would be unacceptable for the police to collect any CDR data without a warrant.â CDRs and Demographic Groups of Drivers: At first, most participants, especially those with their offspring driving vehicles on participantsâ insurance, thought that CDRs would be a terrific way to monitor those driving their vehicles. Some parents somewhat gleefully said it would allow them to find out what their teenage drivers were doing with the vehicle. A woman in the youngest demographic group said that she and her teenaged brother would have been more responsible drivers if they knew a CDR were installed in their parentsâ cars that they drove. A man in the oldest demographic group thought that although it sounded like a good idea, it would strain the level of trust between parents and their teenaged driver children. However, the older participants expressed concern that if CDRs could be used to monitor driving habits of groups like the very young drivers, then what would stop police from using CDRs to monitor driving habits of them as older drivers. One of the Caucasian men referred to the minorities in the room and worried that police might target them in a discriminatory fashion. Once this idea was expressed, the group became more serious and agreed that, perhaps, it would not be a good idea to start allowing authorities or others to track drivers based on demographic group. One person said it might actually help if it could be shown that certain groups of drivers are not any more likely to be at fault or violate traffic laws than any other group.
178 Perceived Beneficiaries of CDRs: Both focus groups listed auto manufacturers first as the primary beneficiary of CDR data followed by insurance companies. One group listed the ânot-at-fault driversâ in accidents or traffic stops and the other group listed the manufacturers of the CDR devices themselves. Safety researchers and the general public were listed last and almost as an afterthought. If the CDR data could rightfully eliminate gray areas in court, all relevant parties would benefit by the decision being fair. Perceived Detrimented Parties of CDRs: One group reported that poor drivers who were at fault would be negatively, but justly, impacted by CDRs. The other group said that the drivers in the right would be negatively impacted in cases in which another driver tampered with their own CDR and or its data, or in cases in which the device malfunctioned. CDRs and Cost Benefit Analysis: It seemed that these participants were all in favor of safer cars, but they were not necessarily willing to pay for them. Some thought that CDRs would increase the purchase price of vehicles at least until CDRs became more common and/or required by law. Some thought that insurance costs would go down because blame would be assigned correctly more often, drivers would drive more safely, and CDR data might lead to safer cars and, thus, a lower rate/degree of injury and lower rate of deaths might occur. One woman thought that insurance companies might decide to raise the cost of insurance to policies with vehicles that did not have CDRs installed and lower them for vehicles with CDRs. Those in the lower socioeconomic status group worried that wealthier drivers would be able to better afford vehicles with CDRs and, therefore, persons of lower socioeconomic status would be discriminated against in terms of not being able to afford to buy safer vehicles. CDRs and Designing Safer Cars: Participants were very supportive of the stated purpose of CDRs, that is, to design safer cars. The NHTSA also found that the public would be more accepting of CDRs if âthe data are used to ⦠improve the general cause of public safetyâ [NHTSA, 2002]. Participants reported that data recorded by CDRs might show something wrong with a vehicle such as evidence of structural failure, electrical problems, or braking problems â improving or correcting all of which could lead to safer cars. One woman thought that CDRs could âidiot-proofâ the vehicles. A man thought that CDRs might help determine the vehicleâs response and help drivers to become better drivers in conjunction with their vehiclesâ responses. CDR Data and Usage Emergency Medical Personnel: The limited amount of pre-existing information and the complexity of this device led to failure to determine how Emergency Medical Personnel would benefit from usage of CDR data. One woman who is involved in administering physical therapy proposed that these data might provide insight into preventing injuries that were caused by problems with the vehicle and how it responded in an accident situation. One man said that EMTs are not in direct contact with the engineers who design cars so he did not see why EMTs should have the data.
179 Increasing the Acceptance of CDRs: The higher educated participants felt very strongly that they needed more information about CDRs so they recommended safety researchers launching an educational campaign targeted at car-buying and driver consumers to explain the benefits of CDRs. The NHTSA reported that General Motors believed that they could alleviate consumer fears âthrough honest and open communications to customers by means of statements in ownersâ manuals informing them that such data are recordedâ [NHTSA, 2002]. All participants wanted to know specifically how vehicle owners would benefit. The mailed survey proposed giving consumers the option to remove the CDR or turn some of it off, but the focus group participants in both groups said that did not make any sense to them. They stated that the CDR should either be in the vehicle, fully functional, and recording, or not installed in the vehicle in the first place. The women participants suggested that if every vehicle had a CDR installed, CDRs would become more acceptable. The men participants suggested that car manufacturers should absorb the cost of installing CDRs if they want access to the data for their research. Insurance companies should use CDR data to lower rates for cars with them and for drivers whose CDR data show safe driving habits. One person suggested that CDRs could be used to establish a pattern of safe driving and this record could be used to subtract âpointsâ against a driver. CDRs should record only data that are needed to make safer cars. What Focus Group Participants Want Auto Manufacturers to Know: These drivers were asked what they thought they and other consumers might think about CDRs and would want auto manufacturers to answer about CDRs: ⢠Why do auto manufacturers want these data and what will happen to the data? ⢠How have CDRs already benefited manufacturers, vehicles, and the general public? ⢠What is legal for CDRs to record? ⢠What is the potential for additional cost if/when CDRs are installed in vehicles? ⢠How will manufacturers pay for this added expense without passing on the cost to consumers? ⢠What are CDRs recording and for how long are the data stored? ⢠How will CDR data benefit the general public? ⢠What steps would be taken to prevent CDR tampering? ⢠Consumers want all cars, not just high-end cars, to be as safe as they can be. What Focus Group Participants Want Lawmakers to Know: When lawmakers are writing new laws about CDRs and their data, consumers want them to understand: ⢠The vehicle owner has a right to access these data. ⢠CDR data should be protected and steps must be taken to ensure privacy is respected. ⢠CDR data should not be used to discriminate against a particular demographic group. ⢠The level of authorized access should be limited to issues of safety. ⢠Auto manufacturers must inform the consumer whether a CDR has been installed in a vehicle and what it is recording. ⢠Lawmakers should decide what is legal for CDRs to record and hold auto manufacturers to just those pieces of data.
180 ⢠Tampering with CDRs and their data should be illegal and punishable by law. ⢠CDR data should be treated as one would treat any other piece of evidence and require a search warrant to obtain access. Additional Concerns About CDRs: Our focus group had many questions and concerns which mirrors data collected in other studies. In short, it is apparent that consumers believe there are many questions about data usage and access to be answered and guidelines to be set. Subjects expressed concern about CDR data usage in traffic stops or post accident investigations if not all vehicles have them. In addition, they worried about the potential for malfunctioning or tampering. They were concerned that CDRs could record and store data over a long period of time and establish a record of driving habits that could be used against them just like other types of personal behaviors. Some worried that CDR data usage would show bad driving habits and make it harder to get car insurance. They wondered if CDRs would be included as part of state inspections and held against them if it were not working properly. They wondered whether it is legal to require used vehicles to become equipped with CDRs and, if so, what is being planned. A woman wondered if another driver could withhold CDR data in an accident case. 6.3.6 Discussion of Focus Group Results As stated earlier, the subjects were generally positive about CDRs at the beginning of the session, but became more concerned as the session went on about ethical and legal issues. What was seen as an exciting new idea as potentially helpful in accidents as flight data recorders in airplanes came to be viewed with suspicion as participants began to ask questions. The link between CDR data and safety research and safer driving was not clear to most participants. The men, in particular, seemed to be very suspicious as to why CDRs are in the vehicles in the first place and how the data would be used. Some of them stressed that more consumer education is needed. There were differences in opinion between the men and the women. If the men are to be appealed to on this issue, the cost factor must be addressed favorably toward the consumer. If the women are to be appealed to on this issue, the safety factor must be addressed. The focus group participants seemed to apply a âdouble-standardâ at times such that their perspective was different depending on if they were using themselves in the argument or referring to âotherâ drivers. These drivers seemed unable to see that they were the other drivers to everyone else. For example, they said they would not drive differently, but CDRs would likely affect how other drivers drove. In general, the discussion focused on these questions that must be answered for consumers: How will CDRs affect cost, safety, and driver rights? If the auto industry and law makers are able to satisfy consumers that CDRs will not raise costs, will improve safety, and protect their rights, then, consumers will probably accept the widespread use of CDRs. All agreed that this focus group discussion gave them a lot to think about and they planned to find out more about CDRs. They hoped that, perhaps, if todayâs teenaged drivers learn to drive vehicles with the understanding that the CDR is storing data about their driving habits, future generations of drivers will drive more safely.
181 The most substantive difference between the focus group and survey participants was the increasing suspicion and doubt that permeated the focus groups. Like the survey participants, the group was initially positive about the potential benefits of CDR usage, but expressed concerns about the use of the data and the potential invasion of privacy. Initially, the males were the most concerned about these issues, but as the conversation continued, their concerns spread throughout the room. 6.3.7 Summary of Focus Group Results Eighteen licensed drivers with a demographic breakdown similar to that of the United States were gathered together in a focus group format to discuss perceptions of crash data recorders. The results from the focus group matched well with those obtained through the survey and from other related studies in the literature. Many of the participants were unaware of CDRs until contacted about participating in the focus groups. This matched the results of the survey and the trend discussed in [Fischetti, 2004], that indicated that most Americans remain unaware of CDRs and many who are aware only recently learned about them from the media coverage of the trial of Congressman Bill Janklow, who struck and killed a motorcyclist in South Dakota [Schmidt and Williams, 2003]. Both survey and focus group participants felt that the devices could prove useful in accident investigations, much like the results from a CDR were used to convict a driver of vehicular manslaughter when the results proved that he was driving at 114 mph at the time of a fatal crash [Oldenburg, 2003]. Survey and focus group opinions mirrored what GM found in a recent survey, that self-labeled safer drivers are more accepting of CDRs than those who admitted to some minor traffic âtransgressionsâ [Fischetti, 2004]. At first, participants were excited about the idea of a device designed to lead to increased vehicle and passenger safety, but, as the discussion progressed, participants began to become more concerned about specific types of data being recorded by CDRs and other possible uses of the data. They were also concerned that CDRs might be in their vehicles without their knowledge. There was a notable difference between men and women in this study: men were much more focused on the associated costs of such a device and women were much more focused on issues of safety. Participants provided many suggestions for automakers and lawmakers on this topic. Finally, it is abundantly apparent that our survey and focus group opinions reflect the general populationâs opinions, some of which are based in misconceptions. Once again, it appears that those wanting CDR data should promote education about what CDRs can actually do. 6.4 Conclusions The purpose of this special study was to determine the public awareness and level of acceptance of Event Data Recorders. The consumer acceptability study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a questionnaire, designed for this study, was mailed to 10,000 licensed drivers. In the second phase, focus groups were conducted, with a smaller sample of licensed drivers, to follow-up on the survey results.
182 The survey results provided several key findings. A significant majority of all respondents were unaware of CDRs and their use. Most felt that CDRs would be beneficial in accident investigations, lowering insurance rates for safe drivers, and encouraging monitored drivers to behave more safely. Respondents expressed a preference for the use of CDRs to be optional and to maintain control of the data. The opinions expressed were reasonably consistent across demographic groups, but older, more affluent, Caucasian males were more likely to report concerns about control of CDR data and their use. The results from the focus group matched well with those obtained through the survey and from other related studies in the literature. Many of the participants were unaware of CDRs until contacted about participating in the focus groups. This matched the results of the survey that indicated that most Americans are unaware of CDRs. Both survey and focus group participants felt that the devices could prove useful in accident investigations. Survey and focus group opinions mirrored what GM found in a recent survey, that self-labeled safer drivers are more accepting of CDRs than those who admitted to some minor traffic âtransgressionsâ. Finally, it is abundantly apparent that our survey and focus group opinions reflect the general populationâs opinions, some of which are based in misconceptions. Once again, it appears that those wanting CDR data should promote education about what CDRs can actually do. 6.5 References Fischetti, M., âData Driven,â Scientific American, pp. 90-91, February 2004. Oldenburg, D., âThe Snoop in Your Coupe; Data Recorders Interest Parent, Police,â The Washington Post, p A01-A05, September 9, 2003. National Highway Traffic Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Event Data RecordersâRequest for Comments, 67 Fed. Reg. 63493, Docket No. NHTSA-02-13546; Notice 1. RIN 2127-AI72, Oct. 11, 2002 (2002) Schmidt, B.W., and J. Williams â'Black box' in Janklow's car may yield clues in fatal crashâ, Argus Leader, Sioux Falls, SD, 8/19/2003. -, âGM sued over automobile âblack boxesââ USA Today, 12/01/2000.
