Walter Roberts

It is not entirely clear that any rule mandating event data recorders is legal without informed consent of the vehicle owner. Mr. LaHood, as quoted in the Detroit News stated, "By understanding how drivers respond in a crash and whether key safety systems operate properly, NHTSA and automakers can make our vehicles and our roadways even safer, this proposal will give us the critical insight and information we need to save more lives." Mr. David Strickland, head of the NHSTA, stated, "EDRs provide critical safety information that might not otherwise be available to NHTSA to evaluate what happened during a crash — and what future steps could be taken to save lives and prevent injuries. A broader EDR requirement would ensure the agency has the safety-related information it needs to determine what factors may contribute to crashes across all vehicle manufacturers [From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121207/AUTO01/212070438#ixzz2EQLOBAIT] Taken together with the data these devices are mandated to collect, which includes significant behavioral information without a driver's consent constitutes a violation of US Treaties (Nuremberg Code which prohibits research without free informed consent). As it provides research into behavior of individuals, without advance informed consent, the DoT further violates several provisions of The National Research Act, which precludes behavior research on individuals without consent. HHS defines a human research subject as a living individual whom a researcher obtains data through interaction with the individual or by means of identifiable private information. Therefore, if vehicles are mandated to carry these devices, each and every automobile so equipped and every driver operating them must be given information and specific consent obtained, within the oversight of a bona fide Institutional Review Board, lest we repeat the Tuskegee experiment.