Automobile Black Box Sends Driver to Jail 825
myzor writes "This article from the Montreal Gazette reports that a driver got 18 months in jail for speeding that killed a man, after the black box in his car revealed he was going 157 km/h (98 mph) in a 50 km/h zone in downtown Montreal. The recording device, which stores data on how a car is driven in the last five seconds before a collision, showed that four seconds before impact, the driver had the gas pedal to the floor and didn't brake before impact." Reader ergo98 writes "Setting a precedent for the Canadian legal system, a Quebec man was convicted based upon the incriminating evidence found in his own car's black box." The Star also has another article looking at the issues surrounding the data recorder.
Not quite there yet (Score:1, Insightful)
Banned for life (Score:2, Insightful)
Bloack Boxes are certified by whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this a privacy issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just an instrument measuring the state of the car. People don't call Odometers a "privacy issue".
Slippery Slope? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
If black boxes mean I have an objective witness when some a-hole hits me at 98mph, I say bring on the black boxes.
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
These black boxes have far more benefits that outweigh any concerns about privacy. The use of them can serve as neutral observers to determine what really happened in an accident, and can help automobile manufacturers improve safety with the use of this data.
So no, the black box didn't send him to jail. Killing a guy with his car did.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no. Actually driving like a criminal, and using one's car as a weapon is what sent this scum bag to jail. The "black box" just helped make sure this freak is off the streets.
possible invasion of privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's hardly a privacy issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for posting this, eds, right after we heard about someone getting 2/3 of that time for UNAUTHORISED RECORDING OF A MOVIE.
Why bother burning a copy of a "My Life and Times with the Thrill Kill Kult" album, when you can apparently live it for yourself at only marginally greater cost.
Lucky bloke (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm one for putting speed restrictors on cars, seen a couple of nasty accidents in my time. Would make black box redundant
Before your knee jerks... (Score:2, Insightful)
But what about the privacy implications, you ask? Which ones. No data is stored unless you're in a collision, and in that case information is in the best interest of all parties.
I drive a car. I speed. I own aa radar detector. But this doesn't botehr me, because I'm a catious driver. I don't drive at highway speeds in a downtown area. I don't run people over. So unless you do, this isn't a problem.
Anyone know if it's legal to remove these? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in the process of stripping my car down to it's bare essentials for autoX use however it needs to be street legal to get to the track.
I know that the aftermarket ECU I've installed is illegal because it can be tuned by the user and therefore fails the local smog rules. However when I had the car tested the inspectors didn't find the ECU and the results still came out clean enough so I don't care.
In my mind the most likely place to have this tracking hardware is in the ECU. It already knows all of the information he was convicted on. The new ECU has the capability of logging the same info, but I can turn it on or off.
I'd hate for something stupid like that to be the thing that gets my car pulled off the road.
Clarifying for lack of a better title (Score:5, Insightful)
I read that as:
The Montreal motorist betrayed by the truth has been sent to a facility which offers the possibility of those lacking responsibility to rethink their stance on this moral predicament.
If the tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? For those to dense ... if information exists that is not made aware, does it hold any importance?
Ah yes, it then becomes a matter to how much truth we are entitled to maintain to ourselves. Or in another word, privacy. Corruption will remain all the while truth is suppressed. I don't like this fact, but I find it doubtful we'll get there because we are brothers (sisters -- does it even matter?)
(Note I just got done watching Dogma ;)
Re:Bloack Boxes are certified by whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, this thing is better at ruling out theories that didn't happen than proving ones that did. This guy was caught dead to rights already, the black box just supported a case that was already made.
Re:That's hardly a privacy issue (Score:2, Insightful)
I know that this happened in Canada, but in the States it could be construed as a 5th amendment issue. Can a persons property be compelled to testify against him?
-Peter
Re:This is a non-story (Score:3, Insightful)
I can get angry about it when people start suggesting that black boxes shoulld be mandatory, and that's the next logical step in this case. Once they start being used in court, there will be increasing pressure to make it a legal requirement for all cars to have them. My car doesn't have a black box. Should I be forced to install one, presumably at my own expense, just because I don't want to buy a new car? That's where this is headed, and I don't like it. Nor do I like the assumption that the government has the right to know what I'm doing and how I'm driving. As for the legal rammifications, I don't like those much either. How was the black box calibrated? When was it last calibrated? what are the error margins on its measurements? What safeguards are there to prevent the data being tampered with after the accident?
Re:Only 18 months? (Score:5, Insightful)
His lawyer is apparently whining "we'll have to appeal this very, very harsh sentence". Harsh?! 18 month sentence (and let's be honest, that only really amounts to 12 months inside) for killing someone?! Shit, the kid should be thanking his lucky stars *I* wasn't handing down that sentence...
Hitting someone when you're doing 157km/h in a built-up area is not an accident - it's like standing on a crowded subway, pulling out a pistol, closing your eyes and pulling the trigger. Maybe you won't hit anyone, but that's only by luck. That speed on the freeway, fair enough if you can handle it. But in a built-up area, no way.
Grab.
Re:Bloack Boxes are certified by whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not quite there yet (Score:1, Insightful)
It's time people take responsibilities for their actions. Hopefully this will help.
The behavior that will really change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
He is also barred from driving for the next three years.
WTF? He's had two accidents within the last three years due to wreckless driving, one of which kills someone, and they're only going to take away his license for three years!
Once you kill someone due to wreckless driving you should loose your driving privilages permanently. Assholes like this and the courts that fail to appropriately punish them are the reason why my insurance bills are so rediculous.
Re:This is a non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you familiar with the logical fallicy called "Slippery Slope?"
The argument about whether or not these can be used against you is lost (or won, depending on your POV). The next argument will be either "should these be required on all new cars" or "should taking these be standard procedure", and after both of those, mabye, we'll argue about retrofitting old cars.
But you're not required to install an airbag on your 1960s muscle car, so don't expect to be forced to install a black box, either.
Re:This is a non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
Curious comment, considering the government already has this "right," by virtue of the fact that your driving license is a privilege, and not a right. Ergo, you posess the license at their discretion.
As for them monitoring your driving, are you not aware of the hundreds of thousands of speed traps, and automated red-light/photoradar camera installations that populate the continent? They do have a right to know how you're driving, and they are exercising that right vigorously, daily.
As for calibration errors, I think it's a non-issue. If you're involved in a collision in which your bumper is crushed, but the rest of the car is intact, and the black box claims you were impacted the tree at 182 MPH, I'm pretty sure common-sense would prevail and the data would be discarded.
Everything here was done the way it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
He was supposedly going just over the speed limit, but the excessive damage to the cars didn't support this. There were no skidmarks to suggest that he had tried to stop. He said the other car was running a red light. There were just a lot of things that didn't add up.
So, rather than just making a guess at who was right and who was lying, they brought in more evidence to make sure. That makes me feel more confident, not less. I'd rather have justice properly served, than not introduce that evidence for some silly reasons.
I'm a huge privacy advocate, but I don't oppose things like properly-granted search warrants, nor do I oppose this. If it gets abused in the future, then something should be done to prevent that abuse. But in this case, everything was done correctly, and what do you know, the system works.
Montreal Driving (Score:2, Insightful)
Good riddance to bad rubbish. (Score:5, Insightful)
157 km/h, in downtown Montreal.... what the fuck are you thinking?
This guy deserves it. How is this any different from an outside CCTV camera catching the whole incident? This makes everyone accountable.
The recording device, which stores data on how a car is driven in the last five seconds before a collision, showed that four seconds before impact, the driver had the gas pedal to the floor and didn't brake before impact.
+1 for perfectly reasonable uses of monitoring technology. Note how (a) it only recorded because there WAS an accident (post facto) and (b) the evidence was used only because someone was killed.
Let the leadfoot rot.
Re:That's hardly a privacy issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, time for some education. This person was SENTENCED to jail for 18 months. For killing someone - that's light to me. Especially since they couldn't be bothered to hit the brakes.
The kid filming the movie was ARRESTED. The statute he's charged under allows for jail time up to 1 year, if convicted, and/or up to a $2,500 fine.
See those key words - up to. Yeah, he might, MIGHT get that for the first offense. Unlikely. Probably a fine and probation. Get busted a couple of times, that's when more severe penalties get applied.
To tie this back to this discussion, the driver was probably facing up to a couple of years. His lawyer considers this a "very, very severe" sentence. Yeah - 18 months for killing a kid while travelling 3 times the speed limit and not hitting the brakes and having the car floored is light.
-- Ravensfire
An exceptional case? (Score:4, Insightful)
One might even extend this surveillance to gather even more data. Perhaps there should be continual video surveillance of the inside of your car to monitor for unsafe behavior. Even better, perhaps the police should even be allowed to search your vehicle anytime they wish to ensure that you are not carrying any stolen goods or contraband. If you have nothing to hide, why should you care?
Take it a step further. Perhaps there should be continual video surveillance of the inside of your home to ensure your safety, monitor for unsafe behavior and check for stolen goods.
It is exactly this attitude on the part of the British that stimulated the Revolutionary War. There are many good reasons to allow the redcoats to trample on an individual's private life, much like the example in the article. But are these good enough reasons to turn loose of these rights?
Privacy concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing a blackbox records is what the car was doing, not what you were doing. The police still have to prove YOU were the person behind the wheel.
If they were to start equipping cars with interior video cameras to record the occupants, then I'd be worried about my privacy!
Re:Slippery Slope? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's a slippery slope, random trawling for speeders is a long way down the slope from collecting all available data at the scene of an accident.
Why not draw the line at probable cause, just like we do with other sorts of data collection? If you cause an accident, I don't see any reason why the police should limit the kinds of evidence they collect about the cause of that accident. I don't see that as a slippery slope to anything, other than locking up more homocidal maniacs.
It's just one piece of evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know all the evidence the police have but it probably includes: severity of damage, lack of skid-marks, testimony of the passenger in the vehicle, and distance that objects in the collision were thrown.
I'll bet they have a pretty good idea of the speed involved without the black-box. Maybe not that he was doing 3.14 times the limit but, say, 2-3 times the limit. Two decimal accuracy isn't important. The fact that he was way, way over the limit combined with his driving history is what sealed his fate.
A better question is why, given his track record, was he allowed to drive and why is his punishment for wildly reckless driving resulting in the death of a human being a mere 18 months and why is he banned from driving for a mere 3 years? He obviously didn't learn his lesson after the previous triple-the-speed-limit crash.
Re:How is this a privacy issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
We have a terrible track record in the United States (although this occured in Canada, it could have just as easily happened here) when it comes to punching holes in privacy rights.
In Michigan, we have what is called a "implied consent law". What this means is that if you are stopped by a police officer on a public road, he can ask you to take a breath test for alcohol without even reasonabl suspicion. If you refuse, your driver's license is automatically suspended.
What I see happening is a similiar "implied consent" law apply to black boxes. Any time you are stopped, the police officer will not need any probable cause to search the records in your black box...this is because you "implied consent" by driving on the public roads.
So you see, this could very much become a privacy issue.
18 Months is not enogh (Score:2, Insightful)
Make people personally responsible. (Score:4, Insightful)
I do think this would make the world a better place.
-Brent
Re:Banned for life (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I'm not saying everyone having a deadly accident should be banned for life. But going at 3X the speed limit and not even releasing the gas pedal before impact with a real person is a bit irresponsible to me.
Talk about this being extreme to the poor victim's wife and kids...
Re:Before attempting to remove... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not so fast, bub (Score:3, Insightful)
PRIVILEGE: "A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."
RIGHT: "Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."
According to several US Supreme Court decisions (see U.S. v Guest, Shapiro v Thomson, et. al.), the right to travel freely is enjoyed by all citizens. As the primary purpose of driving is to travel from one point to another, it must therefore be a right. As far as I have been able to determine, there have been no USSC cases that, by abridging the right to drive, relegate it to "priviledge" status.
If you come up with a USSC case to the contrary, please post it.
Re:How is this a privacy issue? (Score:2, Insightful)
Grandfather clause (Score:3, Insightful)
As for calibration, yes, there are issues there. But now we are talking about fraud. The government already knows how many miles you've driven your car. There are severe penalities for altering odometer readings. I don't see how altering a black box would be much different.
Re:Bloack Boxes are certified by whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
I reckon you gotta be moving pretty fast to be airborne for the 5+ seconds necessary to fill the device's b uffer with erroneous data. I think it's safe to assume that if the box was wrong for that reason, it might as well have been right...
Re:Slippery Slope? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a non-story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so fast, bub (Score:5, Insightful)
And it hasn't made it to the USSC because it's pretty damn self-evident. People are denied driver's liscences all the time, and liscences being revoked by the DMV or the courts is a pretty common occurance.
Denying someone the ability to drive themselves on a public road does not deny them the ability to travel.
Try driving... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you are driving without that permit or license, make certain you get pulled over and make certain that you tell the police officer right away that you are driving illegally. See how long you stay out of jail for.
You are right, the government cannot take away your fundamental right to travel freely across this nation. You can walk, you can pedal yourself around with a bicycle, heck you can even drag yourself on your belly if you so desire.
You have no inherent right to drive an automobile, it is written nowhere that at birth you have the fundamental right to drive.
Nobody here needs to put up a single US Supreme Court decision. That is covered by the State Law and there is no single Lawyer that I am aware of that would ever claim and attempt to take to the Supreme Court your 'Fundamental Right' to drive if you have a Suspended License or revoked Operator's Permit.
You want proof? Walk, bike or drive yourself down to your local circuit court and look at the day's docket. You will see more then a few people with reckless driving cases up before the court.
Re:This is a non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
Your example is completely loaded. A more likely example is one where there is an accident without clear fault and the black box records one car at 56 (in a 55) and the other at 54 (in a 55). The calibration of one box by 1 MPH could mean the difference between fault and no-fault for some people. Additionally, some speedometers are inaccurate too, so if the black box is measuring speed from something like a speedometer this might still be an issue. This is especially true on older cars where the cars' settings aren't as tight as they were when it left the factory.
Your circular reasoning in regards to the government's supposed right to monitor our driving habits is blatant. Just because the government has the ability to monitor us, and just because it does monitor us, does not mean the government has the right to monitor us!
The government is constantly testing its powers and hopefully some court cases will come up challenging the government's most recent driver monitoring techniques.
Furthermore, speed traps are not a very good example of this kind of monitoring because they are done by humans for public safety. Contrast that with the machine operated red light cameras and black boxes, and I think you'll see there is a clear difference. The ethical distinction here is, in my mind, the difference between humans being held responsible by machines v. humans being held responsible by other humans. IMHO a cop sitting at a stop light giving red light tickets is justified while privately owned and operated red light cameras giving out tickets is not.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's why all of the sudden the discussion about automotive black boxes has gone from "How dare you?" to "This guy should lose his licence for life". "Big Brother" type technology is never feared when it is used to harrass or penalize law-breaking individuals. Most of us don't think that the FBI using Echelon or other data sifting systems to find terrorists is a bad thing. However, when those systems begin to be used outside of the original domain, the problems start. Some people are against "Big Brother" technology before it is even used on the 'bad guys' because history has shown that it has never been limited to the original domain. Social Security numbers were never meant to be used as a national identification number. RICO statutes were never meant to be used against anyone except drug dealers. Then it was the mafia, now its even politicians and other criminals. I'm not exactly arguing that these are bad things, but the fact of the matter is that it is very rare that a "Big Brother" technology or law never extends outside the domain it was originally designed for.
Re:Search Warrant (Score:3, Insightful)
And if the vehicle is involved in an accident, then anything that has to do with that accident is under investigation.. including the vehicle involved.
However, if they go into the trunk and find a bale of pot, they have to have a reason to have been in the trunk. But they certainly don't need a warrant to inspect your brakes if there was an accident.
Re:This is a non-story (Score:2, Insightful)
When discussing law, politics, and romance "Slippery Slope" is just how things work. Please see: War on Drugs, War on Terror, "War of the Roses".
Re:This is a non-story (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is a non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this a privacy issue? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that a lot of people on Slashdot oppose anti-speeding measures because they speed and want to continue to do so. Let's even assume that you are one of these people. If you're going 100MPH and you have to slow down safely, find a spot to pull over, and actually do so, even if the recorder stops when the car is stopped, there's going to be nothing left on the recorder of you travelling 100MPH.
I can see car-based devices becoming privacy issues. I just plain can't *imagine* how people could complain about a five second black box recording.
I especially can't see how people can back this guy. He was (a) driving three times the speed limit in a crowded area, (b) made no attempt to slow down, (c) lied about both his speed and his actions during the crash, (d) his lies were already shot down by other evidence, and prosecutors just wanted more firm data, and (e) killed someone. The main argument I see from the "I want to speed" fans is still "I can handle that speed" -- this guy clearly couldn't, was going faster than any human could reasonably handle themselves (in such an environment) and *killed* someone.
Heck, he still got an awfully light sentence, IMHO. If you are going through reckless disregard for human life to this kind of extreme degree (where you were probably bound to kill someone within two or three repetitions of the behavior) *and* kill someone *and* lie about your actions, I'd say that eighteen months in jail is awfully nice.
Slippery Slope: A Logical Fallacy That Happens (Score:1, Insightful)
I acknowledge and engage in pure logical debate, but this ends when we are talking about what actually happens. Hence, I acknowledge slippery slope as a valid concern (if not a logical debate point).
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it legal to have your own fingerprint testify against you? Your own freezer full of severed heads? The rifling of the barrel of your own pistol? In the U.S., at least, the 5th Amd only protects you from SELF incrimination. Neither your car's black box nor the bloody knife you dropped at the murder scene can be considered part of your SELF. Besides, the only thing you're protected against is compulsory self incrimination, e.g. verbal testimony.
Re:This is a non-story (Score:4, Insightful)
The current crop of black boxes really isn't all that scary. But the slippery slope we're on (as others have pointed out) is VERY scary.
After we get 24 hour recording with GPS, the next step is... what? Remotely accessible by law enforcement? Perhaps video recording as well?
Scary scary scary.
Re:Only 18 months? (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno. But why don't we ask the dead guy how his life is going at this point? Or any family members?
This isn't the first time the perpetrator was caught exceeding the speed limit either. The prior incident just destroyed a couple cars -- expensive, but no big deal. Destroying someone else's life is another matter.
Don't get me started about revenge, it's among the most primitive and WRONG emotions a human being can have.
Agreed, but what if it's not about revenge? What if it's about protecting society from someone who is (apparantly) incapable of controlling themselves and/or understanding the consequences of their actions? It's not called "reckless driving" for no reason.
Sorry, seen too many idiots who don't realize that a misused vehicle is just as much a deadly weapon as a gun. Either, when used correctly and appropriately, is fine by me. But this guy didn't use it correctly.
And yeah, I used to be a dipshit driver too... I never did anything close to this (3x the speed limit), but I know I did some stupid stuff. And if I had ever killed someone in the proces I would expect to have been sent to prison for a long, long time.
It's called being an adult and taking responsibility for your own actions. If you're not willing to do so, then I'd suggest giving up the other trappings of adult life -- because you don't deserve them.
Re:This is a non-story (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an extreme example. What about your are involved in a collision (no such thing as an accident), and the box says you were going 5 MPH over the posted limit due to a calibration error. You get whatever punishment although you may have done nothing wrong. It only takes 1 MPH to make something your fault (pending circumstance, etc.)
Re:The behavior that will really change (Score:1, Insightful)
Driving with a airbag in your face and a pedestrian-sized dent in your hood won't work anyways.
Re:Not so fast yourself. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Regulating travel among the several States" is not listed anywhere in the Constitution under the powers reserved to the government. As such, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, that right explicitly falls to the State and the individual. This has been upheld in Crandell v Nevada and Edwards v California, both of which were attempts to enforce direct restrictions on travel. Both were savagely smacked down by the courts.
Please learn the Constitution before you attempt to argue it.
Incidentally, I like any flavor of jelly bean except coconut. Where should I pick up my five?
Re:Not so fast, bub (Score:2, Insightful)
According to several US Supreme Court decisions (see U.S. v Guest, Shapiro v Thomson, et. al.), the right to travel freely is enjoyed by all citizens. As the primary purpose of driving is to travel from one point to another, it must therefore be a right. As far as I have been able to determine, there have been no USSC cases that, by abridging the right to drive, relegate it to "priviledge" status.
Does the fact that this took place in a Canadian province which may (haven't verfied this) treat driving as a privilege, do anything to frame this discussion properly?
I'm a resident of an adjacent province [gov.on.ca] where driving is indeed privilege [gov.on.ca] irrespective of any right to free passage [justice.gc.ca]. While this decision, which happened in a Quebec Provincial Court, will undoubtably affect rulings in Ontario, it's not going to automatically cascade into the U.S. Court systems.
Stand easy, good and faithful Defender of Freedom[TM]!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a non-story (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because the government has the ability to monitor us, and just because it does monitor us, does not mean the government has the right to monitor us! (emphasis removed due to laziness, refer to the original post if you want to know where it was)
Yes and no. The government has a responsibility to enforce certain laws enacted by legislation. Specifically, the cops have this responsibility. Setting up a speed trap is perfectly legal. Setting up a speed trap next to my 10 acre parcel is perfectly legal. Me posting a sign on my land indicating this speed trap is also perfectly legal. ;)
The cameras are, in fact, legal as well, and have been tested in court already. The cameras were determined to be legal, but taking a picture of the man and his not-wife lover and including it in the ticket, thus causing a divorce that was already inevitable (apparently), is not legal because it's a violation of privacy. What's the difference between a speeding car getting caught by a speed trap with a real cop in it and a camera? (obviously, the difference is knowing who is in the car and actually holding them responsible, but it's been upheld in court so far)
Re:The behavior that will really change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about PRIVATE PROPERTY? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say you OWN a car, it's YOURS. YOU CAN PROVE IT BY SHOWING THE CORRECT PAPERWORK.
You have the RIGHT to do with it as you will.
Your right to do as you please with your belongings ends where other people's belongings (including their bodies) begin. Should you be allowed to park your car sideways in the middle a street, blocking two driving lanes, for example? Nobody got hurt by you doing this. Nobody got damaged by it. It's just that you ruined the usefuleness of everyone else's cars when you did so.
Re:The guy that got hit deserved it. (Score:1, Insightful)
#2. Darwin was ROBBED! The idiot should have killed his own damn self running into a telephone pole or something. I don't think 18 months is enough for him.
#3. I think these black boxes are great! Those civil liberty freaks can shove it... they probably think it shouldnt be allowed because it incriminates people
Last. What kind of inconsiderate jerk are you to say such a terrible thing. How would you feel if this was a close relative of yours or your best friend... would they still be a dipshit?
Fallacious slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the best example, because there are plenty of examples from real life where first the government required registration, and then the government came and took the guns away. It's hardly unreasonable to worry about something that has actually happened many times.
A better example would be "Since it is possible to put an RFID chip in cats and dogs now, it's possible to put one in people now, and therefore the government is going to require RFID chips implanted in all people. Therefore RFID chips in cats and dogs will lead to tyranny."
steveha
Entrapment (Score:2, Insightful)
Making a car that goes to 200km/h, then putting in a chip that tells the cops when you go over 50, is ENTRAPMENT. Make a car that stops accelerating at 50 instead. It's already nasty enough that speed limits are being calculated according to income possibilities, not safety. I would be quite happy to drive the black box up the designer's ass at 200km/h.