Europe's prang-phone-in-every-car to cost €5m per life saved
Members of the European Parliament are backing calls for a mandatory eCall scheme, forcing every car sold in Europe to be fitted with an embedded mobile communications device to save an estimated 2,500 lives. The European Commission has already adopted eCall, which mandates the fitting of a mobile device in every private car …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Wrong numbers
Your figures are wrong.
It'll be a seperate box. It will need to be so that steros and other in car kit can be upgraded as needed without affecting the box. As to cost reduction due to mass production, probably but car manufacturers already try and save any penny so €100 or €50 or €10 is still too much. Don't forget they'll need to design the car to accept it, install it, wire it up, test it, etc.
As for saving lives, costs might reduce a bit for the hospitals, but a broken bone is still a broken bone no which will be the vast majority of medical issues. And it might increase costs because trauma teems are called to incidents by the automatic system when they might not be needed. The system will need to have lots of false positives otherwise someone might die because the system didn't call for help.
Overall, a lot of expense to save a few lives. Look at the train industry. They work out safety systems on the basis of a life being worth about £3m and that is one industry which uses very high values.
Re: Wrong numbers
"The system will need to have lots of false positives otherwise someone might die because the system didn't call for help."
Not to mention the real emergency calls that go unanswered for lack of resources while dealing with the false positives.
Re: Wrong numbers
The 100 euro cost and 2,500 lives saved are the figures being pushed by those who want the system implemented.
This means you can pretty much guarantee that it will cost more and save less lives than they claim.
Re: Wrong numbers
"For an average low-end car with a stereo sans GPS and sans 3G with some sort of stereo the incremental should be under 50£. This is roughly what it will cost to replace the stereo controls with Android or some embedded clone of Windows, add a limited SIM and basic GPS and connect the "active" indicator from the airbags control unit to a GPIO pin."
You don't work with automotive systems do you? Just because a basic Android phone can be made from bin scraping components, it doesn't follow you can make an in-car system for that money. Quite the opposite - there's a vast amount of legislation you have to comply with for automotive systems, and you have to use automotive grade components - ie. much more expensive - check out the unit pricing for a typical factory fit ECU in the auto industry - they're not cheap, especially the ones that have a connection to the CANBUS subnet carrying critical telemetry information (like, the sort of information the engine management system uses, and the steering assist uses, and the fly-by-wire throttle uses, and the adaptive suspension uses, and the airbag uses). Then factor in the RF immunity requirements, the standby current drain, license requirements for a CAN stack from one of the mandated safety critical suppliers (KPIT, etc) - suddenly, it's not a cheap item at all. The stereo head unit tends to get let off slightly more generously, as it's not considered a safety critical item - but this system will fall into the same bracket as the airbags, and will cost similar amounts.
For the record though, I think it's a waste of time, effort and an epic fail from a safety perspective - much more about road charging and making it easier to prosecute speeding (just think - the feel of an average speed camera zone, but everywhere... hands up the people without cruise control who find that safer?).
(and won't work - how many of us have actually managed to keep any sort of data connection up reliably on ANY UK motorway - even the M25 round London has spotty coverage, and if you plan to head further afield, you might as well forget it)
Re: Wrong numbers
Voland's Right hand: I think you are sadly mistaken.
They require a new style of rugged (crash proof) phone to be wired into sensors that will trigger it in the event of an accident to connect to a network and transmit the details to the waiting system that will then notify the emergency service. It will not be a phone wired into the car that will call 999 on an impact, or a re-purposed stereo system or GPS system, none of which needs to be rugged.
There will be no subsidy and no competition for this device: Each car manufacturer will be fitting the system of their choice, not yours, so will charge you what they want, not what you would prefer to pay. The cost of the supporting network also needs taking into account for that will also not be cheap. In all, €100 is an underestimation of the actual cost, especially if you consider the cost of adding side impact sensors to a car that otherwise does not have them, or any other sensor they deem is required to reliably trigger the system.
So, I recon the MINIMUM cost will be €100 (please note it was '€' in the article, not '£').
Re: Wrong numbers
As others have stated, you assume that the component can be made as cheap as your average Android phone*. It can probably actually be made cheaper, since it doesn't have to do anything like what your smart-phone does.
However, here's the big thing that makes it expensive - it still has to work after the vehicle has been involved in a crash at +70mph. The vast majority of items on the car do not have to do this - deform and save the occupants yes, but not still work after that sort of impact. It has to keep working no matter how badly damaged the vehicle it's in is, that means needing redundant power-sources, redundant aeriels etc etc etc.
The question is - how did they come to the conclusion that such a device would save this many lives?
* why would you use Android anyway? The generally agreed most reliable *phone* is the Nokia 3310, you don't need anything more than a 2G connection to make a call and/or send a text message.
Re: Wrong numbers
Not only will it need to be a separate box, it will need to be completely self-contained with a back-up power supply and completely ruggedised and fire-proof (while maintaining a transparency to RF signals).
It cannot use existing GPS or sensors because they, or the wiring may be damaged in the accident. Locating the device might also prove difficult. It will need to be able to see as much of the sky as possible whatever orientation the car is in. Mounting on or near the roof will be useless if the car ends up upside-down.
And what about the areas of Europe that have no cellular coverage?
Nothing less than an EPIRB with its Satellite monitoring infrastructure will really fit the bill. Okay, when Gallileo is active, that may be able to support such an emergency call system, but I, for one, would rather see that reserved for maritime distress!
Re: Wrong numbers
it can use existing gps kit in a car, and the gps kit does not have to survive the impact... only the item sending the message needs to survive.
if you think about it this way... if you have just hit (or been hit by) something hard enough to trigger the system and destroy the gps kit the the last known position will be more than good enough (after all your car isn't likely to be going anywhere afterwards) so a record saying "I was in this position 1 second before impact" is unlikely to vary enough from a record saying "I am in this position 1 second after impact" to make any real difference to emergency services trying to find the accident
Re: Wrong numbers
A life saved will probably cost a lot more than a life lost. DOA at hospital has trivial cost. Weeks in the Expensive Care Unit costs a fortune.
regards,
A. Cynic
Normal prank in 10 years
Walk into a car park with a baseball bat, smack the front of every car in a line, one after the other.
All call the emergency services - looks like a multi-car pile up.
Re: Normal prank in 10 years
Not if the unit is active only with the key in the ignition which is likely to be the case if the unit is integrated with the car stereo/dashboard.
Re: Normal prank in 10 years
...A multi-car pile up in a car park? And when the police arrive (which would be fairly quickly if the system works as advertised) and find a car park full of dented cars and you with a baseball bat, exactly how long do you think it would take them to jump to the right conclusion?
Re: Normal prank in 10 years
If the police turn up fast enough to catch you, I'll eat my hat. They'll be too busy responding to the millions of other false positives. Stupid, stupid idea. Technology for technologies sake. Also, gives them monitoring of peoples location and a cost free way of introducing road charging. Brilliant!!
Re: Normal prank in 10 years
So if you are hit while parked, or on the hard shoulder fixing a tire - no ambulance for you!
Re: Normal prank in 10 years
I did think of this, but I assume they would expect the person hitting to make the call. Rather than depends though. Will these systems also detect a driver running someone over (rather than car v car action) and if so, give them the right to cancel and flee?
....or it is a way of reducing whip lash claims. How does that stack up against the 12.5 billion euro cost?
This is seriously old news
Most fleets have this type of software built into their cars as an add on at the moment...so all you need add is a prang-o-meter and a server upgrade for the requisite batphone call.
And..my merc came with the option for this cobblerswhen I ordered it about 10 years ago
1984 here we come
I like technology, I use technology, I make money like most readers of el-reg, but this is another one that scares me.
When the tech is in the car, what is to say that they wont pass a new law which demands monitoring of all movement to be held in a datacenter for 3 years and available to police / security with a court order etc. If there is probable cause, then they switch on call recording etc.
Im really beginning to see parallels of 1984 in the things we do in our every day lives.
Re: 1984 here we come
Not to mention the remote speeding fines... 3 strikes and insurance quadruples... etc., etc.
Back in the 80's scaremongers were claiming that the cost of fitting seatbelts was going to price cars out of the hands of many people. The same occured again when airbags went from being a paid for extra to mandatory.
Despite those dire warnings the number of registered cars in the UK, private and company, has grown from 20 million in the mid-90's to over 30 million today.
In the UK there is no mandatory legal requirement for new cars to be fitted with airbags
This is what make EU different from US, we value life, they value money.
If you want to save lives I'm sure there are better ways to spend the money (i.e. something that saves 2 lives per €5m is twice as good and so on).
eh?
So all cars carry one passenger do they? Right. ...
If the car buyer has to pay an extra $100 on the price of the car for something that might get emergency services out faster after a serious collision...... I don't see the problem. At all.
in the UK, our roads are already among the safest in the world
Not that you'd think it, based on how much we're raped for car insurance by fat opera singers and their ilk.
who's paying for this?
ringing up a €12.5bn bill
is the EU going to be paying for this then? or will the car manufacturers just be adding €200 to the cost of each vehicle and then keeping half of it for themselves?
Re: who's paying for this?
$100-$200 on top of the price of a car is utterly f*cking irrelevant.... I think anyway... If I'm spending 20,000 or so, why would I care about that tiny surplus for a device which may well save my (and my families) life?
Integrety amoungst people
Well, the tracking to show who is at fault is something that is needed in this day and age (privacy is dealt with down the post).
Over the last 3 years or so I have been hit 3 times, each time the other party said to their insurance it was not them. Lots of wasted time (because the insurance company dos not investigate they just want your money) and I managed to prove it was the other parties fault. One was even a rear shunt and he said it was not them. This is why I pay insurance, not for me to do all the leg work and still have to pay them a fortune.
If there is no one else witness, and the party responsible says it was not them then the insurance companies do nothing / can do nothing (this is what my insurance company told me). This is why we need some sort of accident tracking system.
But the privacy invasion is something that needs to be kept in check. Why can the system for tracking the fault not be a black box system like on planes? Then the data can only be retrieved manually after the event and not over the air. Just the fact there has been an accident is reported with the severity (if the system is capable of that).
Re: Integrety amoungst people
I agree this is an issue, but there are far better, cheaper (or at least no more) ways of doing this. You can install a camera in the front (behind rear view mirror) and back windows which records a few minutes of action. When an event occurs, it stops recording on the loop and you can download the video and show the car (including number plate and often even drivers face) driving into you!! Far better. This system will only show someone is there, not whose fault it is. In the case of a rear end shunt, it will always be the one behind, but there are many occasions when it is not so clear cut. Having film of the incident adds greater to the clarity.
"voluntary adoption has been derisory"
Please take that as a hint that we don't want this, and go away to work on some other terrible proposal.
One more thing...
Such a mandate would only accelerate the assignment of telephone numbers thereby using them up faster. Thus Europe would more quickly find itself being forced to revamp their entire telephone network to introduce 27-digit dialing for local calls (perhaps a slight exaggeration). It could cost hundreds of billions to accommodate a telephone number in every vehicle.
Also, phones embedded in cars typically incur a monthly charge. The telcos don't normally provide service for free. This is one reason why the trend has been away from embedded car phones and towards BlueTeeth links to one's one-and-only mobile phone carried in one's pocket (one monthly bill vice two).
Also, such systems will have a requirement that they keep working even after a major crash. Those that suggest that this can be done with cheap hardware are not accounting for this type of technical requirement that would obviously be defined and imposed.
Re: One more thing...
Not sure why the downvote. This is absolutely true. 999 calls are made over a phone 'line' that has already been paid for by monthly cost or pay as you go etc. So, the cost is simply in the call, which can be accomodated by the phone companies. However, this system would require a new phone line dedicated to the purpose and who's paying for that? Are the mobile phone companies going to be happy providing millions of free phone numbers, the 'lines' and calls? I suggest not. I suspect the car might not just cost more, but come with a monthly fee as well!!
The requirement to keep the system working after a crash would require, amongst other things, built-in battery power, not just a reliance on the car battery. Therefore, as these mobile phone batteries have a distinct lifespan (anywhere up to 3 years) and generally don't like being continually charged without also being rundown, there will be additional maintenance costs as well replacing them.
Re: One more thing...
As far as I'm aware, there are quite a few engineers at Peugeot Citroën, BMW, Daimler, and probably other manufacturers who have been getting paid for quite some time to work on this technology. The social merits of which notwithstanding.
Now, assuming for a moment that you may be a developer or be employed in some other occupation which has a creative / design component, how would you feel if someone went "bleh, this idiot got it all wrong, blah blah blah", based on a journalist's report taken from a press release written by a PR type based on the words of a politician who was briefed once by someone else about your creation / design? You would probably think something along the lines of "what a tosser!", wouldn't you?
I do apologise and will happily retract my comment if in fact you do have intimate knowledge of the technical details of the system, you just haven't made that clear so far.
If you would allow me to illustrate my point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wHKBavY_h8
Re: One more thing...
@AC. I think you're reading another post. I never said they were stupid, idiots or anything in the posting you're responding to. I was merely trying to point out some of the issues that would have to be addressed and dealt with. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't.
However, I am in development type of arena (in terms of creating solutions to problems) and I know that many solutions are actually solutions to problems that don't really exist, for which there is an easier answer or required solely by sales. Rarely is something developed solely on its own merits to solve an identified and relavent problem. Peugeot, Citroen etc. will be developing this as something to make money from. All companies do that. Companies are not (with a few exceptions) there for the benefit of humanity, but to make a profit. If the EU gives them a way of making money, sure they will support and develop solutions to it, whether it's worthwhile, sensible or not. It makes money!! Job done.
I don't have technical details of this sort of system, but I know there is a vast difference between developing something to make peoples life easier (current phone in car technologies pretty much) and a mission critical system where issues cause loss of life or serious injury. I work on systems around this area.
Re: One more thing...
Me again.
My car (Mercedes E class) has this sort of airbag triggered SOS call feature built in. It's not a cheap and cheerful $50 option as some have suggested. As a guess, it's probably many hundreds of dollars (difficult to separate it out) - there was an update a few years ago to make it work with network changes (for previous model years) as the older cell phone network was turned off.
It would also require a monthly fee for the service, which is why I can't be bothered paying extra for it. It's similar to the GM OnStar service. Includes concierge services if you wish.
As far as I know, the system has some sort of built in back up power supply so that it'll still make the call after a massive crash. The main battery is in the trunk, so maybe that helps. I'm not sure if it'll still work after a 250 kmh crash... ...I don't plan to try.
Cheers.
could cut vehicle thefts also
It'd be trivial to have this device report it's location via text message - on receipt of a valid security token obviously.
Re: could cut vehicle thefts also
It'd be trivial to get it to talk to the 4sp API as well. And you just know some bastard is going to do it!
Re: could cut vehicle thefts also
If only life were that simple...
Several tracker type gizmos can report vehicle location via GSM, however the thieving scrotes just carry a GSM jammer along for the ride which means they don't have to concern themselves about such things.
More sophisticated units can detect jamming and will trigger an alert/alarm, but that's normally held as a selling point for the higher end models.
I know what will be next..
.. road pricing. The challenge with road prcing is that you need to kit out cars with a fairly standardised design. If that just "happens" to be in place already by an absolutely miraculous coincidence (yeah right), then why not use it?
There is no way that a device in my car will have the ability to hand off data about me without my permission, even f I have to take a screwdriver to it. Sod that. I'm already seen by a gazillion cameras every day, this really has to stop somewhere because it all happens to always cost the DRIVER money.
Re: I know what will be next..
"I'm already seen by a gazillion cameras every day"
Yup, amongst which those with bar code readers and number plate recognition, which are used today (notably in Central Europe) to check whether you've paid your road tax (a sticker with a barcode is affixed to the windscreen). The concern about feature creep and this being used for tracking would only imply a change in technology rather than the adoption of something which is not already here.
Interestingly, a while ago I was involved in a police investigation (no, not as the target!) in a South European country and, interestingly and to my surprise, it turns out that none of the cameras at tool booths are recorded--apparently they're only there to aid workers to monitor problems at unattended lanes without having to walk across traffic to reach them. I was also surprised to find how little information the police keep on individuals, unless they have taken a specific interest on someone as part of an ongoing investigation (and even so details are only accessible on a need-to-know basis). I suspect this is not the same in Northern countries--my impression being that southerners value their privacy more (I say this, of course, as an armchair sociologist of great repute amongst my mates down at the pub, so take it for what it's worth).
benefits
Working in the world of Accident investigation (hence anon) I can see a lot of cost savings & benefits for the taxpayer IF certain things are monitored.
1) Quicker response may well reduce costs in terms of medical attention. The more someone has deteriorated, the higher the cost of fixing them, and the higher the cost of insurance payouts if things aren't fixable and someone else is to blame. Savings on NHS & Insurance.
2) Evidence gathering. Instead of every time an accident happens the "something must be done" brigade proposing dropping yet another speed limit, spending billions on road changes etc. (Because actually they hate the fact they live by a noisy road), With access to information there may actually be the ability to get a sense of the fact that the accident was caused because the driver is an idiot rather than the road always being to blame. So potentially faster roads and less unnecessary road works and traffic lights.
Accident recording stuff is already mandatory on ships,planes & trains. Many trucks are also carrying recording tech to help improve fuel efficiency etc. None of the mandatory devices call home (very few even have it as an optional extra). If you're worried about big brother - the phone in your pocket is far more likely to be the problem than a device in your car.
Re: benefits
Mmmm. Evidence gathering. Suggests you're going well beyond just reporting the accident and location. Why not just jam one up my a**e and monitor if I fall over or walk into a wall etc. Same argument.
Costs
Quicker responses tend to increase medical costs. If someone dies there is no medical cost. Now that more people can be saved from quite horrific injuries medical costs have shot through the roof.
Look at soliders. There was a time when nearly all who were seriously injured died on the field. Now they are brought back and have their lives saved minus a few limbs. Everyone of them will say it was worth it, but was is the cost? Yes because society says so and also because it still way lower than €5/soldier.
Re: Costs
Yep. Quite right. This is actually standard military doctrine. Killing the enemy takes out one person. If you seriously injure them, you take out the person and others down the chain who have to retrieve, treat, look after him etc. Therefore, injured soldiers actually have a bigger effect on the enemy than killed ones, at least if they give a monkeys about them.
So, saving more people with horific injuries could well cost more. Not politically correct etc., but true. The situation is not as simple and black and white as they make out.
Re: Costs @ The Axe
"Quicker responses tend to increase medical costs"
Don't worry about that, Axe. If you have a prang in the populated parts of the UK, there's usually somebody else to report the prang in a few minutes, so there's no change other than the superfluous cost of "ecall". If on the other hand, you're in part of the UK where there isn't somebody along for half an hour, then you can be fairly sure that mobile coverage will be minimal to non-existent, and there's probably no change other than the superfluous cost of "ecall".
Re: benefits
1) Very true. The sooner medical aid arrives, the better the prognosis for the casualty.
2) Erm, the proposed system will not provide any benefit to evidence gathering. A car camera would, and the engine management system would as would the application of mk 1 eyeball and something that is proving very rare: Common sense. The problem is most investigators are just too lazy or disinterested to do a proper job. If they were not, then they would catch a lot more fraudulent claims rather than leave it to others to challenge the claim and prove it false.
Re: Costs
"If someone dies there is no medical cost"
Not sure if you are trying to joke or just socially dysfunctional, but to answer purely the technical argument, dead people do in fact incur non-negligible medical (and of course social) costs.
Besides, how would you feel about living in a world where a price tag is hung over your right to stay alive? Hopefully your family, friends, colleagues, first-responders, other health-care personnel, and society at large do not share your point of view, should you ever suffer life-threatening injury.
Good luck....
....bleeding out at the wheel down a lonely country lane!
Just make sure you have a Dashcam so at least we can all watch it on LL ; )
Re: Costs
Yes... true. In China it is fascinating to see road traffic accidents... quite often the party at fault will try to delay emergency services in the hope the victim dies, as if they do not, and the injuries are significant and debilitating they will have to pay for the rest of that persons life. Very different system they have out there!
[example : hxxp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=941_1341324774]
This topic is closed for new posts.
