At CES 2011, OnStar made headlines showing an aftermarket telematics solution which is now called, FMV (For My Vehicle).  Along with this announcement, OnStar also announced that it had secured the retail giant, Best Buy, as a distribution partner.  Securing Best Buy was a key win for OnStar, but questions remain about the extent to which Best Buy will promote FMV, how much knowledge Best Buy's staff will have about FMY, and if the staff can sell this technology to consumers?  While Best Buy was a key win for OnStar, Best Buy's motives seemed a bit unclear.  Electronic stores have been moving away from aftermarket automotive systems for a while.  These systems take up key real estate on the floor as well as additional real estate and staff for installation bays.  Even PNDs, which do not require installation, have been receiving considerably less floor space as they were quickly eclipsed by tablets as the new hot item.   Furthermore, the move seems a bit strange given Best Buy's recent push into the mobile handset market.

In contrast to OnStar, Hughes Telematics has targeted other channels of distribution.  In July, Hughes announced its partnership with American insurance company, State Farm, to bring insurance telematics to consumers.  Today, Hughes announced another breakthrough partnership, this time with AAA Club Partners.  AAA Club Partners is holding company comprised of 10 American Automobile Association (AAA) Clubs and the combined membership is almost 12 million across 20 states.   Unlike FMV, Hughes' solution can be self installed and features two-way voice connectivity for emergency services, enhanced AAA roadside assistance, and hands-free calling as well as vehicle diagnostics, location and speed alerts, vehicle diagnostics, and stolen vehicle locations assistance.  The solution offered by Hughes is also less intrusive, as it does not require replacing the OEM installed mirror, and instead plugs into the OBD-II port.  

The approaches to distribution differ in many ways.  Hughes appears to be creating strategy partnerships with organizations that are potentially stakeholders.  These companies are not just trying to profit on hardware and service but differentiate their service and enhance customer experience.   Furthermore, these organizations understand their customer base and can attempt to entice the right consumers into adopting telematics services.  This approach is very focused and alligning interested stakeholders could help reduce cost for all parties.   Given that OnStar has spent considerably on advertising to build its brand, perhaps its broader approach will work out, but Strategy Analytics' remains dubious given concerns about the current cost of FMV and early empirical data suggesting little consumer interest.  

Additional Insights:   OnStar: Time to Hit the Reset Button?

State Farm, Hughes Raise Usage-Based Insurance Bar

Yamei Puts Dealers in the Telematics Driver’s Seat

Usage-Based Insurance Brings New Competitors to Telematics Market

Red light cameras and speed cameras are in the news lately thanks to events in both the U.S. and the U.K. In the U.K., the Daily Mail reported that municipalities were turning off their speed cameras – while leaving them in place – because of budget cuts. This would not normally warrant news coverage except for the fact that the local authorities subsequently reported declines in accidents and fatalities. In other words, even without the devices working, the municipalities were achieving the intended outcome of reduced accidents and injuries.

In the U.S., an ongoing struggle is underway in Houston,TX where a referendum narrowly passed calling for the removal of red light cameras, which continue to function and record violations though without issuing citations. The company that installed the cameras in Houston, American Traffic Solutions, has reported a spike in violations, since the shut off.

Houston is not alone. Various states and local governments are considering adding or removing red light and/or speed cameras. And the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) weighed in early last week with a report validating the effectiveness of red light cameras in reducing fatalities.

As usual, the IIHS report – like other traffic-related studies – experienced widespread criticism for a wide range of fairly obvious reasons. The report’s conclusion, that red light cameras save lives, was far from radical, but the methodology left it open to challenge. Far from laying the issue to rest, the report only further inflamed opponents. (The report showed declines in traffic fatalities for cities that employed at least some red light cameras vs. those that did not.)

With more than 6,000 speed and red light cameras in the U.K., more than 7,000 such cameras in the U.S. (according to Photoenforced.com)  and tens of thousands of these cameras in use around the world, one would assume that some one or some organization somewhere would have conducted a definitive study of the efficacy of these systems. Unfortunately this is not the case.

A study of studies published by the Cochrane Library reviewed 35 studies of speed cameras finding a relative reduction in average speed ranging from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranging from 14% to 65%. “In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions range from 8% to 50%.”

But this report complained about the quality of available research and the resulting inability to draw actionable conclusions regarding best practices and anticipated outcomes. Critics of the IIHS study, in particular, have pointed out that the organization is supported by the auto insurance industry which stands to benefit from the raising of insurance rates in those jurisdictions where red light camera infractions are reported to the local licensing authorities and, by extension, the insurance companies.

The issue is becoming even more complex as cameras are increasingly used to identify a growing variety of infractions. In Washington, DC, for example, the city announced last week that its 30 speed cameras and 50 red-light cameras will be augmented with “sleeker, smaller and easier-to-deploy” cameras for enforcing other traffic laws such as failing to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, blocking intersections and for truck-height-restriction violations.

Cameras have also been used to identify motorists passing stopped school buses, obstructing street sweepers and for grade crossing violations. Photoenforced.com, which maintains and licenses a database of enforcement cameras, reports a 25% annual increase in the number of cameras and tracks cameras used for illegal right turn enforcement as well as cameras employed for tracking multiple infraction types.

There are several questions at stake, most of which can be resolved with appropriate, uniform camera deployment strategies based on and guided by sound research. The problems with current implementations include:

1. The perception that the cameras are employed solely to raise revenue
2. The perception that the cameras benefit the contractor and the budget of the local municipality at the expense of drivers
3. Confusion regarding the magnitude in the reduction in violations, crashes, injuries and fatalities
4. The ability of consumers to be notified of the existence of fixed and mobile cameras
5. The availability of camera-enforced violation information to licensing and insurance authorities
6. The availability of fixed and mobile camera-enforcement locations for integration in embedded and mobile navigation devices
7. The use of revenue from fines
8. The belief that red-light cameras – while helping to prevent so-called T-bone accidents, actually cause an increase in rear-end collisions         
9. The charge that automated enforcement impedes due process

 

The biggest and loudest beef that drivers have with speed and red-light enforcement cameras is that they are perceived as a money raising scam by local authorities in cahoots with richly-rewarded contractors and collaterally benefiting insurance companies. Sometimes this is due to the size of the fines (as high as $500 in California) or by the placement of the cameras in high-traffic, low-accident areas.

Drivers also feel that there is some unfairness and lack of due process due to the time lag involved in the delivery of the citation. In the words of an American Automobile Association (AAA) spokesperson: “With notices of automated tickets sent out weeks and sometimes months after the event, it’s nearly impossible for a person to defend themselves. Also, the cameras do nothing to remove a speeder from the road who may be truly reckless, criminal, suffering through a mechanical flaw, and who might pose a danger to others or him or her self.”

Actually, this same AAA representative also noted that “visible traffic enforcement officers in marked cars remain the best deterrent to speeding.” “The presence of marked vehicles helps assure motorists that law enforcement aid is available for those in need. Automated enforcement undermines public trust when policy makers turn to such methods as a revenue source for budgets in lieu of raising taxes or cutting spending.”

Almost any technology that has been proven to save lives or reduce infractions by whatever proportion is worthy of serious evaluation. A recent commentary published by the Institute for Transport Engineers (ITE) provides a roster of best practices for red-light camera deployment including:

1.               Sites for enforcement cameras should be selected by government authorities and based on accident histories or other criteria in an open manner and with careful documentation;
2.               “Deterrence should be emphasized through signing and public information”
3.               “Avoid excessive penalties and late fees”
4.               “Include … stakeholders in planning
5.               Take human and environmental factors into account
6.               Avoid appearance of “revenue motive”
7.               Pre-empt legal challenges
8.               Evaluate program performance

 

The ITE recommendations are more detailed than what I have described above, but do not go far enough. New deployments should be preceded by a thorough analysis of prevailing traffic conditions under a variety of circumstances and installation should be followed by an equivalent analysis to at least try to establish cause and effect; camera locations should be fully and completely disclosed to drivers; insurance companies should not have access to these infractions (which therefore also should be kept off a driver’s record) and resulting revenues should be targeted at the victims of traffic accidents.

In Houston, TX, there is an almost comical scenario unfolding where red-light cameras, which are not recording tickets, are still registering violations, including 3,811 red-light runners at one busy intersection in January 2011 vs. 2,770 in January 2010, a 38% increase. It is also worth noting that in a single week in January 2011 Houston police officers issued 145 tickets vs. the 667 average daily citations issued when the cameras were active. According to a press report the police department attributed the lower number to restrictions on officer overtime.

There is a manpower component to the traffic camera proposition. As the chief of police in Washington, DC, told the Washington Post: “The technology gives us the capability to do additional types of enforcement. I need to get my police officers fighting crime in neighborhoods. If I can have an automated system take the place of what 100 police officers could do and make the work safer for police officers, why wouldn't I?"

The last piece of the puzzle – after validating the research and shifting officers to more effective and productive activities – is the question of public relations. Speed and red-light cameras have a bad name. More complete disclosure of these camera locations will put the driving public’s mind at ease.

There are a variety of solutions for incorporating fixed and mobile red-light and speed camera information into mobile device navigation systems – including crowd-sourcing systems from Trapster (recently acquired by Nokia Navteq), TomTom and Coyote among others. But it has so far been impossible to get these alerts included in embedded navigation systems.

If the goal of deploying these cameras is to save lives and ensure compliance with safety measures it only seems logical that drivers should have access to this public information. So, just as drivers may be alerted to accident “blackspots,” as in the case of some connected TomTom devices, they should also be able to get notifications of upcoming speed and red-light cameras on their phones and in their vehicle navigation systems.

OEMs have not integrated these data points thus far for two key reasons: the locations change and in some jurisdictions, such as Germany and Switzerland, it is illegal to have these locations in navigation systems. I say it is time for law enforcement to be more open about their speed and red-light enforcement activities with the objective of building citizen support for the use of cameras for the enhanced safety of all.

Finally, public authorities can fully silence their critics by diverting the revenue from these cameras to the families of crash victims. There is no rationale for tossing these revenues into the general fund and the good will that will come from this use of the proceeds will cement consumer support.

 

Conclusion

Speed and red-light cameras are proliferating around the world with the avowed objective of saving lives. In fact, cameras are being used to identify a growing range of violation types.

Because of inconsistent implementation and inadequate research it is impossible to accurately quantify the efficacy of these measures. At the same time, consumers are upset at the exorbitant fines and unexpected implementations. By supporting deployments with adequate research, fully disclosed camera locations and by shifting the fine and fee proceeds to accident victims, municipalities will build strong public support. At the same time, the safer and more effective deployment of these cameras will allow police officers to focus on higher priority tasks.

With disclosure, consumers will finally get camera location notifications – legally in all geographies – in their cars and on their navigation systems. In the meantime, the data will still be accessible in apps from Trapster and Coyote and on various portable navigation devices – yet another advantage mobile devices will continue to have over embedded systems.

Retention is the key to the imminent rise of usage-based insurance. More accurate rating and customer acquisition may be the immediate motivations for insurance companies, but only customer retention has the power to transform the industry – and reduce carbon emissions in the process. These conclusions were clear from the Telematics Update Insurance Telematics event two weeks ago in Chicago. Returning home from the event, though, I was soon inundated with the daily tidal wave of car insurance advertisements on U.S. television. The multiple offers of the deepest discounts, lowest deductibles and superior service seemed like far more relevant messages to me as a consumer than the proposition of allowing the insurance company to monitor my driving behavior. Allowing an insurance company to monitor my behavior, to me, sounds like a particular circle of Hell inconceivable to even the vivid imagination of Dante. What I was forgetting in this kneejerk reaction is the equal and opposite force within me (or most consumers I presume) that is powerfully drawn to any discount – no matter how small – particularly if it is associated with cheaper car insurance – a product one pays handsomely for and hopes never to use. (Because if you use it you may lose it or end up paying more for it in the future.) The offers on television from Progressive, Nationwide, AllState, State Farm, Farmers and others addressed all of my concerns as a consumer. There were discounted rates earned by parents extended to teenage children. There were deductibles that decline over time when there are no claims. There were offers to top competing discounts. UBI insurance offers the prospect of cutting through the advertising clutter with a message that has the power to draw in new drivers while making them long-term committed subscribers in the process. On the surface, usage-based insurance looks like an expensive proposition (for the insurer) built around the concept of providing discounts to an insurance company’s best customers, according to multiple presenters at the Insurance Telematics event. So let me get this straight:  As an insurer I am going to spend millions of dollars to create a data acquisition and management system and deploy wireless monitoring devices all so I can charge my customers less money? It truly sounds crazy, until one understands the challenges of providing insurance. (No tears, please.) The insurance industry has few reliable tools to offer consumers proper insurance rates. What to the consumer appears to be a generally expensive product is priced based on an opaque process based on age, gender and location and a limited amount of driving history such as infractions, accidents and mileage. The industry was recently revolutionized by the deployment of credit scoring as a rating tool. Not surprisingly, credit bureaus featured prominently among attendees at the Insurance Telematics event. Credit scores, the early insurance company pioneers such as Progressive discovered, were an excellent segmentation tool and proxy for assessing risk. Possessing a more accurate tool for determining risk meant that underwriters using this tool could confidently justify deeper discounts than competitors and they won truckloads of business as a result. Of course, competitors soon learned about the new risk proxy and all companies began using credit scores for segmentation and risk analysis. Usage-based insurance is the new proxy and insurance companies are wary of missing a competitive advantage. From presentations at the event it is clear that the early movers in UBI insurance have learned that the process must be as simple as possible. As a result, Progressive has shifted from an OBDII plug-in device that had to be removed and connected to a consumer’s computer, to a wireless module the customer can plug in and forget. (Progressive has already moved on to the next incarnation as well, read on.) Similarly, Octo Telematics, the European pioneer of UBI insurance with more than 1M subscribers via multiple insurance partners, has introduced a device that clamps onto a car battery. This is an alternative to a device that was professionally (and expensively) installed on the vehicle and provided additional services such as stolen vehicle recovery. Multiple exhibitors at Insurance Telematics touted Bluetooth-based or cellular-based OBDII connections for extracting vehicle data – including Directed Electronics, Zoomsafer, Telenor, Walsh Wireless, Numerex, SmartDrive, Scope Technologies, Matrix Technologies, Xact Technologies and Octo Telematics. (Attendees actively discussed word of legal action between Hughes Telematics and insurance and device providers and others over the use of wireless technology for acquiring vehicle data via the OBDII port. Some companies are reported to have settled with Hughes or, as in the case of Progressive, countersued. Suffice it to say that the intellectual property underpinnings of insurance telematics are unresolved.) The powerful interest of consumers in obtaining discounted insurance taken together with the newfound ability of insurance companies to offer discounts based on more accurate risk segmentation is the motivating force behind a revolution poised to sweep the industry. But why is there little or no advertising of UBI insurance in the U.S. when Progressive has been in the game for 12 years? (European advertising of UBI insurance is widespread.) The answer is simple: The insurance industry is governed by 50 different state authorities, some of whom, such as Pennsylvania, have challenged the rating models and others that simply haven’t made their final ruling. (Pennsylvania withheld approval based on their requirement that Progressive disclose the details of there rating model.) Progressive’s SnapShot product is currently available in 23 states. Another learning from the early UBI movers has been that the device need not be indefinitely installed in the vehicle. Insurers active in UBI have learned that a limited time (ie. one month? six months?) “snapshot” of a driver’s driving behavior is sufficient to assess risk and applicable discount. The SnapShot approach also means the device can be removed and plugged into another customer's vehicle for yet another driver assessment.  Of course, this same snapshot is also key to determining which drivers qualify – and insurers have found that not all drivers are suited to UBI programs. As speakers at the Insurance Telematics event repeatedly said: Everyone thinks they are an above-average driver, but only 50% of those can be correct. The key to success in UBI insurance will be to move early. Insurers feel an overpowering need to deploy systems absolutely as quickly as they can because the likelihood is that the first module a customer installs will be his or her last. Once the insurer learns that customer’s driving behavior and can accurately and affordably underwrite their risk, the customer is unlikely to switch insurers. The competing insurer will always be at a disadvantage, not knowing the customer’s driving behavior. For this reason, the industry is struggling to move very quickly in the U.S. in spite of the state regulators and IP issues. UBI has the ability to change the balance of power in the industry and no company wants to be left disarmed. Conclusion: This battle has just begun. Insurers are likely to package offerings built around comprehensive portfolios of driver services such as roadside assistance, navigation and maybe even stolen vehicle recovery to say nothing of on-scene claims reporting – all built around the modules they are bringing to cars. UBI insurance will not only transform the insurance underwriting industry, it also has the potential to alter the relationships between insurers and OEMs. Insurers that deploy telematics systems are in a position to threaten OEM relationships with their own dealers and consumers. Wireless carriers too have skin in the game as insurance applications are already deployed to mobile phone platforms. Insurance companies have powerful leverage over the customer and cannot be ignored by any of these parties and the mobile phone is an alternative path for a UBI deployment. UBI insurance will rapidly achieve ubiquity nationwide. The prospect of obtaining discounts based on driving behavior will lead to some actual improvements in driving behavior but, mainly, it will contribute to a reduction in driving activity overall, which may be the best outcome of UBI deployment. In the end, the insurance industry will achieve the road charging objective of reducing carbon emissions (a Federal goal) which will forever be politically beyond the reach of  Federal authorities. Additional Insights:http://bit.ly/aWhNuC - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/9QCIVw - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Datatables - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity  - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c1nvTq - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/9PUqjp - UBI Market Poised for Growth - John Canali - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

In these times of economic travail it’s hard to believe that car makers are leaving money on the table, but they are and they have for many years. With car makers and carriers wailing about how to get consumers to pay for content and services a very obvious multi-million dollar (Euro?, Yen?) opportunity for add-on business for dealers and for the OEMs themselves has been left undisturbed – and Roadside Telematics has the answer. The amazing thing is that Roadside Telematics has been around beating a drum for its RoadMedic solution for more than 10 years – adding endorsements and winning awards – but failing to achieve much OEM recognition beyond Ford and Kia. The interesting thing is that this telematics solution requires no box, no call center, no fancy wireless connection, but it does require a smidgen of customer consent and a communications link to the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) – the same communications network leveraged by LoJack and OnStar for their stolen vehicle solutions. The beautiful thing about RoadMedic is that it solves an age old problem for dealer and car maker alike: how to capture the crash parts and vehicle replacement business opportunity from new and existing customers that have gotten into accidents. A damaged or totaled car can mean a lot of things to a dealer, the vehicle owner or the car maker. A damaged or totaled car can mean a chance to sell a new car or repair an existing car (still under a lease or other financing) with genuine, authorized parts. It can also mean the opportunity to provide roadside assistance and/or a loaner vehicle both of which services are already provided for in existing warranties or OEM sponsored roadside assistance plans, though the customer may not realize it. In others words, it is a customer service opportunity. The primary purpose of the RoadMedic solution, as made clear by its name, is to deliver emergency contact information to police officers responding to accident scenes. The problem is that due to a wide range of circumstances the amount of time that elapses, on average in the U.S., before family members can be notified is six hours. Roadside Telematics has secured the support and assistance of the American Association of State Highway and Traffic Officials along with a variety of other health and safety affiliated organizations including: HIMSS, IEEE, AHIMA, IHE, CCHIT, HITSP and GHSA to encourage the OEMs to collaborate and cooperate on the development and deployment of a nationwide emergency contact locator system, like RoadMedic. RoadMedic allows dealers to reach out to customers, with their consent and at their request, in the event of accidents to provide necessary services thereby strengthening the brand message. It’s a patented business proposition that Roadside Telematics calls “reverse retailing.”  The Roadside business model is dependent upon customers providing their emergency contact information at the dealership point of sale. The business model calls for OEMs to pay Roadside Telematics on a per-vehicle basis which is included in the wholesale delivered price to the dealership, similar to the existing business model for OEM sponsored roadside assistance.It is hard to believe, but in an age of proliferating vehicle connectivity, cars can automatically notify public authorities of an emergency situation, but there remains no provision for expediting a connection to family members or other designated emergency contacts. OnStar rolled out a system nearly 10 years ago with a partner called Global Med-Net. But the Med-Net solution – customer endorsements of which are still visible on the company’s Website – was fax based and overreached somewhat by trying to integrate medical information. The Roadside Telematics solution is officially characterized as handling health information in the form of emergency contacts. The Med-Net solution, in contrast, sought to include important medical history. This complicated the point-of-sale paperwork and when combined with the fax-based portion of the notification process proved fatal to the program. It was terminated in 2002. The Roadside solution will allow police officers using NLETS to tap into both the RoadMedic emergency contact database and DMV databases to locate appropriate emergency contacts – providing a critical customer service. In fact, it is an even more reliable service than existing embedded telematics systems or even mobile phones because the notification is based on the police look-up of the VIN# and not on an unpredictable carrier connection.But it is the accident aftercare opportunity that is most intriguing for dealers. A customer will be able to call the dealer for accident aftercare services such as towing or to obtain a replacement car. Today, most customers are provided a wallet-sized Roadside Assistance card which is often misplaced. Worse, the average customer does not even think of adding the roadside assistance card to their wallet or purse. At point of sale the customer can opt in for this accident aftercare and, in the event of an accident, the dealer will get an accident vehicle sales lead – which is where the patented reverse retailing model comes into play. The dealer then has the option to contact the customer to offer to repair the vehicle, with authorized parts, or replace it and/or to provide a loaner vehicle. Roadside Telematics estimates net average OEM results from RoadMedic implementation as rising from $5.5M to $23.4M over the first three years with corresponding revenue gains for dealers. Best of all, the philosophical objectives of the service fit well with the safety and security objectives of existing telematics sytems. Of course, there are also insurance implications to the Roadside Telematics proposition. There is no doubt that insurance companies will always want the earliest possible notification of an accident. The good news for insurance companies is that they are usually the first ones to get the call from a conscious driver, but in the event of a more severe accident they may not be contacted right away. Some car companies, most notably Kia Motors, have embraced the Roadside model, though none have implemented it. Ford conducted a test of concept in Texas in 2004 and Volvo has committed to a test in Los Angeles. Roadside’s goal is to see the system put in place globally and allows that a typical OEM might even seek to reach out to existing vehicle owners to implement the system retroactively, while dealers may want to apply the system to certified pre-owned cars. Conclusion: As someone who has bought four cars in the past 7-8 years and who continues to receive service notifications for cars I no longer own or that no longer exist (due to accident) this analyst sees a powerful business proposition for dealers, OEMs and insurance companies. As a dealer, I want to know when my customer needs a loaner or replacement car or maybe even a repair. As a vehicle insurer, I want to know when that vehicle, that may not yet be paid for, is damaged or destroyed and/or when and if the driver is injured. In fact, if the vehicle is going to be repaired, I will want it repaired with genuine parts. As an OEM, I don't want to lose a customer who may have lost their vehicle entirely. Clearly, car makers, insurers and  dealers can all agree on the RoadMedic value proposition - the public authorities already have.

A heated debate over driver distraction animated an otherwise placid confab of the Networked Vehicle Association (NVA) in Palo Alto recently. The distracted driving discussion was led by an attorney and a representative of the National Safety Council (NSC). The significance of the exchange was rooted in the debate over safe use of mobile phones in a moving vehicle. But, of course, with the participation of the NSC the very issue of using any mobile device in a moving vehicle was called into question. The NSC is in favor of an outright ban on all mobile phone use in automobiles. On the legal front, a representative of the Gowlings law firm described how laws were introduced to prohibit radios in cars when car radios were first introduced in the 1920’s. These proposals were defeated, but they laid the groundwork for the current debate. Interestingly, the argument that won the day for preserving the right of the radio to be built into the car was safety. Radios were perceived as preventing accidents by keeping drivers awake. Vehicle and entertainment technologies have changed but the grounds for allowing mobile phone use in the car remain the same – safety. Mobile phones used by motorists are responsible for many more emergency calls than embedded telematics systems. For this reason alone, it makes sense for legislators and the industry to find ways to preserve the right of a driver to use a mobile phone. But the debate over using devices in a moving vehicle has changed with the passing of 80 years since the introduction of car radios. Thanks to 30 academic studies of driver distraction and mobile phone use, a variety of organizations, including the NSC, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the National Research Council, have all concluded that talking on a phone held to the ear is cognitively equivalent to using a hands-free device. The NSC executive at the NVA event further described the types of studies – including brain scans etc. – and the outcomes – including the concept of tunnel vision experienced by distracted drivers. The significance of the findings of these studies, according to the attorney, is that they serve as the precursor to legal action which is the first step on the path to legislation. The findings of the various studies, as detailed by the attorney, included: NHTSA: Lower number of fatalities in states with primary legislation banning cellphone usage while driving; AAA: Degree of driver distraction no greater than tuning a car radio; Carnegie Mellon: MRI scans and simulation demonstrate impaired sensory and motor function equivalent to DWI; Highway Loss Data Institute: No change in loss data due to legislation vs. states without cellphone bans, but study concedes loss data may be inaccurate due to corresponding unmeasured rise in hands-free usage. The findings that have been used to oppose any mobile phone use in a moving vehicle, in turn, are countered by at least three industry studies that conclude that hands-free use of mobile phones is a safe and effective measure to counter distraction. But even the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found no reduction in distraction-related accidents from mobile phone bans. (The standard response from the anti-mobile phone community is that no states in the U.S. have introduced a complete ban on mobile phones that includes a ban on hands-free operation. Hence, existing laws banning phone use but allowing hands-free operation are not true bans and therefore the data cannot be used as an argument against bans.) The NSC representative at the NVA event remained adamant throughout that any and all mobile phone use in the car ought to be forbidden. The attorney concluded that the status of case law was fairly fluid and was influenced not only by the emotional element of fatalities resulting from distracted driving incidents, but also by research. The likelihood of an outright phone ban, though slim, cannot be completely ruled out. But a ban is likely to be unworkable and a step in the wrong direction, especially when considering that existing embedded telematics systems with their on-board phones would be rendered illegal. In an ideal world, the technology problem of managing mobile phone use in a car ought to be resolved with a technological solution, particularly considering that if a mobile phone ban were instituted drivers would find workarounds. The good news is that smartphone applications - such as Zoomsafer and tXtblocker - have been introduced to mitigate distractions from mobile phone use in cars (see Additional Insight below) and auto makers and suppliers - such as Mercedes Benz, Denso and Volvo - have introduced applications that monitor driver behavior to identify and counter driver distraction and drowsiness. In fact, one solution that is available, though not yet built into any systems that have reached the market, combines driver monitoring with a conversational avatar. The concept takes the Mercedes Benz driver drowsiness alert feature to another level by integrating and alerting the call center when a drowsy driver is detected such that, following escalating warnings, the call center can contact the driver to prevent an accident. Alternatively, the system, created by Great Changes – which owns the transportation license for Cognitive Code’s Silvia avatar, can engage the driver in an artificial intelligence-assisted conversation. The irony is that the NSC executive pointed out in his presentation that multiple studies show that it is safer to drive with a passenger. Interaction with a passenger helps keep the driver focused and alert. The Great Changes solution fulfills that requirement and the proactive call center alert aspect is a unique realization of the kind of safety enhancements promised by telematics technology. In conclusion, the attorney at the NVA event suggested that all industry participants monitor distracted driving developments closely, take into account human ingenuity and resolve in creating workarounds for technological safeguards, standardize and continuously evolve standards for telematics, and develop new “low driver impact” user-machine interfaces. Indeed, telematics should be seen as a potential remedy for driver distraction issues and as a safety enhancement to vehicle design. Under the NSC regime even embedded phones – as in OnStar, mBrace or BMW Assist – will be banned. Additional Insight: http://bit.ly/d3FQbQ - CTIA 2010: Distraction Mitigating Apps on Display – Chris Schreiner http://bit.ly/bbhqGj - Voice HMI: Connected Car Opportunities and UX Best Practices - Chris Schreiner

OnStar is expected to bring out a mirror-mounted telematics device for the retail automotive aftermarket sometime early in 2011. The move is part of a broader strategy to take OnStar beyond the shelter of parent General Motors to tap into the wider market potential of safety and security and to finally and safely integrate entertainment technology with the telematics solution. General Motors’ OnStar division has yet to officially acknowledge its plans for an aftermarket product introduction in 2011, but the company has come close to affirming their existence with a report on CNNMoney.com that the company will “extend the OnStar business even beyond automotive.” The statement comes in the context of an announcement of a relaunch of OnStar before the end of 2010. As part of that relaunch new OnStar president Chris Preuss has been spreading the word that OnStar is looking to hire 30 or more engineers and developers to drive the revamp of the 14-year-old system. OnStar has declined to comment on any aftermarket plans. Preuss has moved quickly to put his imprint on the brand. Preuss arrived at OnStar with a long pedigree within GM as a senior communications executive both in the U.S. and Europe and has joined the broader effort within the company to project the brand into the world of social networking and closer connections with customers. For at least the past two months, GM has been building a team intended to bring an aftermarket OnStar product to the world of “big box” retail epitomized by Best Buy and others in the U.S. According to industry sources, the original plan was to launch before the end of 2010, but it now looks like a 2011 time frame is more likely. But OnStar’s plans likely do not end there. The reason for the aftermarket launch, and a potential move beyond automotive opportunities, is the potential crisis foretold by declining sales volumes for GM vehicles which are packaged with OnStar as a standard feature. Vehicle sales for GM are in the midst of a three-year swoon (down 21% in 2008, down 32% in 2009, flat in 2010) based on JD Power estimates. Assuming unchanged subscriber renewal and retention rates, the OnStar subscriber base – long reported to be 5.5M – is likely in the midst of a precipitous decline and in sore need of shoring up from other sources of subscribers. OnStar currently offers its services free for one year on most GM models, and then at subscription rates of about $20 to $30 a month, depending on the level of service, or $200 to $300 a year. Those numbers translate to more than $1B in revenue. OnStar’s new president claims a better than 50% retention rate among new car buyers – though the overall renewal rate is likely lower. Even if OnStar is maintaining a 50% retention rate, the diminished vehicle sales volumes are undermining GM’s ability to replace subscribers lost to attrition. Under these circumstances, maintaining the 5.5M subscriber base will be a challenge. OnStar executives privately aver that the division is and continues to be profitable, but a significant decline in subscribers is putting that profitability in jeopardy. Further, OnStar is famous within the industry for claiming to save GM hundreds of millions of dollars in warranty costs from catching vehicle problems early in vehicle life cycles. And Preuss is quoted in the CNNMoney report saying that OnStar is a factor in at least two-thirds of customers' decisions to buy a GM product. The challenge for OnStar goes beyond the decline in vehicle sales volumes. GM is competing against Ford and other OEMs that are emphasizing smartphone connectivity, which provides many of the same features and functions as OnStar. With so many functions shifting to phones customers are less inclined than ever before to add yet another subscription, even if it is for an embedded vehicle safety system. One of OnStar’s greatest assets, though, is its brand, which is why the group is looking beyond GM. Preuss says OnStar may return to offering its system to competing OEMs or may vary its business model to allow for sponsored content or services such as ad-supported turn-by-turn instructions. There are other scenarios for an OnStar move beyond GM including a commercial telematics solution for fleet or asset tracking, offerings for insurance companies to target pay-as-you-drive or teen driver applications, as well as, finally, buy-here-pay-here products for the sub-prime auto lending market. Given the urgency of the subscriber erosion situation, it is likely that OnStar will bring multiple solutions to market including, no doubt, a smartphone application offering with roadside assistance, concierge services and other location aware functions. OnStar has shown such a concept in the past but never pulled the trigger on introducing it to the market. Now, such an application is seen not only as a potential source of revenue but also as a brand builder and, of course, an extension of the OnStar platform. Preuss has sent mixed messages regarding the positioning of OnStar going forward. In the CNNMoney report he says the focus will be squarely on vehicle safety. In an Automotive News article announcing his appointment he stated that “fun” will be a priority for OnStar going forward. There is not doubt, though, that OnStar is being re-architected and repositioned to be competitive in a world characterized by social networking and device connectivity. What is most likely in the short-term, is an aftermarket offering, most likely in the form of an OnStar-equipped mirror. In fact, Gentex, which manufacturers an aftermarket replacement version of the OnStar-equipped mirror, stopped distributing its product through distributor Mito two months ago, at the request of GM. OnStar is likely taking control of the distribution of the product in preparation for mass market sales. An introduction of the OnStar brand into the retail automotive aftermarket is in keeping with growing interest in vehicle connectivity, navigation and tracking in general and telematics in particular. The Federal government has made known its interest in standardizing event data recorders in vehicles as a result of the recent Toyota unintended acceleration recall debacle. And companies as varied as TomTom, Hughes Telematics, Guidepoint, Rosen Entertainment and Pioneer Electronics are enabling roadside assistance capabilities in their devices and systems. Guidepoint is the single largest incumbent supplier of aftermarket telematics solutions. The company distributes primarily through car dealers and maintains its own call centers for roadside assistance and concierge calls. Guidepoint recently partnered with Rosen to bring an aftermarket head unit to the retail market with an on-screen button to access call center services. Hughes Telematics is another company looking to enter the aftermarket. Hughes has had an aftermarket offering ready for more than a year and is believed to be putting the team together to bring the product to retail. Given the fact that OnStar has been hiring executives to staff a regionalized sales force, the indication is strong that the group is target both consumer opportunities through retail and commercial opportunities. And an offering to be sold through expediters to competing OEM dealers is not out of the question. (After all, what can a Ford dealer do when the customer asks for OnStar by name?) The key difference, and main advantage, of OnStar remains the automatic crash notification – a function which may be problematic to offer in an aftermarket device. No one believes an aftermarket solution will be an easy sell at retail. But an OnStar-branded device will likely get serious consideration from consumers. The wild card for OnStar will be the precise nature of its reconfiguration and repositioning. The best news is that OnStar is not sitting back in the face of incursions by Google, Apple and others into the vehicle connectivity and infotainment business. The challenge will be for OnStar to demonstrate its ability to retain its industry leadership position and maintain or grow its subscriber base. The announced hirings at OnStar and relaunch indicate much more than a business model tweak for the group. Further Insight: http://bit.ly/cZOxuG - Global Automotive OE Telematics Market 2008-2016 - Joanne Blight

The state of Maryland’s approval of a cellphone ban yesterday – by a slim 24-23 margin – perfectly encapsulated all that is both right and wrong with the current mobile phone ban hysteria. Will people be safer driving cars without mobile phones? Probably. Is it reasonable to ask people to use hands-free technology in the car? Definitely. Is the law enforceable? Maybe. Can all drivers be expected to completely give up mobile phone use in the car? No. The bigger issue, though, is that the objections to mobile phones in cars masks a movement opposed to an even wider array of emerging and existing automotive technologies and in-cabin interfaces. If the industry does not step forward to defend these technologies, consumers will lose and safety will suffer. This is a topic of legitimate concern given the federal interest in in-vehicle interfaces in both the U.S. and the European Union, among other geographies. Twenty states and the District of Columbia currently ban text messaging while driving and six states plus the District require hands-free devices. (Stricter laws are already in place in many European countries.) Advocates for the bill dragged out multiple statistical justifications for the legislation calling to mind the apocryphal phrase attributed to Samuel Clemens, among others: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. The Washington Post reported that the push to require hands-free devices is seen as a step toward an outright ban on cellphone use by drivers, a prohibition endorsed by the National Safety Council, which blames 1.4M crashes annually on drivers talking on their phones, according to the paper. The Post continues: “Two-thirds of drivers interviewed by AAA's Foundation for Traffic Safety said they thought hands-free cellphone use was less risky. But "scientific research shows that's simply not the case," said Fairley W. Mahlum of the foundation.” The article further cites a recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that “found no declinen in collision rates” once states went hands-free. This leads to the argument surrounding the cognitive equivalence of talking on a mobile phone held to the ear or speaking over a hands-free system. Many experts argue that the two are equivalent, although a similar number disagree. Virginia Tech’s Transportation Institute has weighed in on the cognitive equivalence side finding no added safety in hands-free operation. The Post quotes Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association: “There's no indication that hands-free is risk-free. You're still on the phone, you're still focused on the conversation, and you're still a distracted driver." The bill approved Wednesday by the Maryland Senate bans handheld use of cellphones except to begin or end a conversation. First-time offenders can be fined $40. Emergency calls would be exempt. Opponents took some of the teeth out of the legislation with a secondary enforcement requirement that prohibits a police officer from stopping a driver solely for using a mobile phone. The officer must have another reason for finding the driver at fault before enforcing the ban. The push to completely ban mobile phones in cars is real and is embodied in Oprah Winfrey’s NoPhoneZone campaign. Is the motivation legitimate? Sure it is. Lives are at stake. But I’d strongly argue against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The supporters of an outright ban on mobile phones in cars have a larger agenda. They are not just opposed to Ford’s social media integration in cars. They also argue that the OnStar service, with its embedded phone, is too distracting. OnStar!? A recent statement from AAA of New York reflects this anti-technology philosophy: “Technology improvements and applications present a real double-edged sword for motorists. On one hand, improved driver interfaces for essential vehicle controls hold the potential to make driving safer. Voice-activated climate control systems, for example, can help keep motorists’ eyes on the road and hands on the steering wheel. “Applied irresponsibly, however, these technologies might actually make driver distraction worse by giving drivers access to even more non-driving activities (voice-driven e-mail and text messaging, for example) that draw their attention away from safe driving.  Safety concerns must be paramount when technology advances might encourage motorists to spend more time engaged in risky, non-essential tasks like talking on the phone or sending e-mails via voice recognition software. Technology applications that introduce new distractions for drivers work at cross purposes with the many positive things automotive engineers have done for safety. “We’ve seen auto manufacturers miss the mark before with improvements that weren’t really improvements. For example, more than twenty years ago a manufacturer made some models with a touch screen control panel that required drivers to look at the screen to change the radio station or adjust the heat. More recently, another manufacturer’s “all in one” vehicle control system was widely criticized for the visual and mental distraction involved in controlling temperature, radio, navigation, and phone using one knob, several buttons, and a display screen. We must make sure that one step forward in the name of convenience doesn’t take safety two steps backward.” It’s true that we ought to make sure we continue to move forward. But moving forward means embracing technology and harnessing its power to improve safety and convenience in the car. Based on the AAA statement the touchscreen, the iDrive and a host of other innovations might be banned. But why? People can change radio stations today with voice commands as opposed to reaching out for a knob while calibrating the movement of a needle across a dimly lit display. To return to the matter of safe operation of a phone in a vehicle, multiple solutions have been introduced that leverage technology to control mobile phone use in the car including DriveSafe.ly, SafeReader, tXtBlocker, and Auto TxtBak. But most of these applications lack the policy management elements of a ZoomSafer – which allows for the disabling of phone functions while in a moving vehicle. In fact, Zoomsafer's Voicemate has application in both consumer and commercial applications for monitoring, managing or controling driver use of connected devices. The solution recognizes the need for access to connected devices and provides the means for facilitating safe uses. Zoomsafer is offering a technology solution to a technology problem, but it is just one example. New solutions using new interfaces will help the industry steer its way through the challenge of enabling communication in a vehicle. Voice, touch, haptic, gesture, facial recognition, sensor inputs and fusion-based technologies that process all of these inputs are how enhanced safety will be achieved.

Thanks to Meta Systems and its Octo Telematics subsidiary, the Italian market has become the de facto European proving ground for pay-as-you-drive insurance products. Octo Telematics pioneered pay-as-you-drive insurance in Italy and elsewhere in southern Europe with a connectivity box capable of providing tracking and stolen vehicle recovery services. As a result, it is no surprise that Allianz chose Italy for the launch of its Service Pack and Pay Per Use services more than a year ago. Many insurers in Italy provide PAYD products and services. By some estimates, as many as 800,000 drivers are enrolled in such programs. Allianz has set itself apart from the existing competition in a number of significant respects, but it is similar in also making use of a Meta System supplied “black box.” Both the Service Pack and Pay Per Use services from Allianz are enabled by this connectivity box. Service Pack offers customers eCall, bCall, theft notification and vehicle tracking applications via the Meta Systems box. The service is 99 Euro/year and requires the free installation of the box on the vehicle by a network of professional installers. The customer surrenders the box when the service is terminated. Allianz does not claim to offer stolen vehicle recovery, only theft notification. This notification is achieved through the use of an RF keyfob device, not unlike the way LoJack works in the U.S. If the vehicle is moved without the keyfob being on-board, the customer will be notified by Allianz representatives via the company’s wholly-owned Mondiale Assistance call center subsidiary. Vehicle recovery is left to the public authorities after the customer notifies the police. The Mondiale call center also support the bCall and eCall applications. Unlike the eCall services of competing insurance companies, the Allianze system provides for call center reception and processing of both eCalls and bCalls via an embedded SIM. Calls are activated manually via a single button or automatically in the event of a crash. Competing insurance companies that offer eCall-like features typically set up the application with the customer’s home or mobile phone number, with no connection to a call center. As a result, customers receiving these calls are responsible for seeking assistance for the driver. In this way, Allianz has put itself squarely in the eCall business for its Italian customers who choose Service Pack. Switzerland is expected to be the next market to be activated. The Pay Per Use product is an add-on service for customers who have already chosen Service Pack. The Pay Per Use service is targeted at low mileage drivers who can achieve savings of as much as 25% on their premiums based solely on the amount of driving they do – ie. mileage. Allianz is thought to be satisfied with the response thus far, though it has not been overwhelming. The 99 Euro/year price was introduced in 2009 as a promotional offer but remains more than a year later. The next steps for Allianz are to bring its solution to more European markets. The range of savings on the Pay Per Use product  will vary based on demographic and geographic calculations. The Allianz initiative shows a maturing in the PAYD market as location-aware insurance products begin to move into the mainstream. The Allianz offering is significant for its integration of eCall and bCall services along with theft notification all enabled via the customer’s phone, though the theft notification is enabled by an embedded connection.

European service providers have given up waiting for the European Union’s eCall initiatives and mandates to deliver emergency roadside assistance across Europe. A growing number of private service providers are turning to existing technology in SMS-based alternatives to deliver eCall solutions without using the official eCall in-band modem technology. (They are, however, including the minimum data set portion of the standard.)

 

Volvo, Peugeot and BMW remain the only three OEMs with European eCall solutions implemented, using SMS technology. But third parties including insurance companies, automobile clubs and call center providers are stepping forward with solutions that will work with existing technologies. The latest launches include Allianz’s pay-as-you-drive offering, Allianz OrtungsServices GmbH’s LifeService offered in conjunction with AvD, TCS’s announcement of eCall service in Switzerland in connection with PSA, and ATX’s so-called “self-dispatch” solution.

 

These new systems are designed to provide eCall and bCall support throughout Europe and in the driver’s own language. But the language barrier is only one challenge to providing a pan-European eCall solution. The other challenge is the choice of connection technology. While the European Commission nominated in-band modem technology – sending data over the voice channel - as the standard for official eCall coverage, no mechanism was put in place for upgrading hundreds of public service answering points (PSAPs). The PSAPs must be equipped with the in-band modem technology to connect properly.

 

Qualcomm has stepped forward, as the winner of the in-band modem competition, to license its technology at no charge. But no action has been taken at the PSAP level, hence the emergence of private initiatives.

 

There is a bit of an irony in the focus on eCall. The volume of eCalls that are seen by the current providers number at most in the hundreds per year. This tiny number of incidents calls into question the value of the eCall mandate itself as a lifesaving technology, but this obscures the much more impressive number of roadside assistance calls, which number in the millions. (No one, including this analyst, is questioning the value of eCall services.)

 

The private service providers clearly recognize the value of the combination of these two services to their customers, hence the new offers. Lurking behind these initiatives is a battle for control of the automotive call center market in Europe. This multimillion Euro opportunity will grow in importance as more OEMs launch telematics services.

 

By some estimates, ARC Europe, European equivalent of the American Automobile Association, is the dominant provider of automotive call center support with more than a third of the market, followed by Mondial Assistance, Europe Assist and AXA. The Allianz PAYD offer is made in cooperation with Mondial, its wholly-owned subsidiary.

 

Allianz’s PAYD solution includes a module which provides a portfolio of services including eCall, bCall, stolen vehicle recovery, theft notification, and a hands-free Bluetooth interface. The range of solutions included with the device provide a more comprehensive offering reflecting the priorities of an automobile insurer including, most interestingly, a hands-free phone interface to reduce distracted driving.

 

From sister company Allianz OrtungsServices GmbH, comes the infrastructure for LifeService112, most recently added by Automobilclub von Deutschland (AvD). AvD, though older, is smaller than the widely known Allgemeine Deutsche Automobil-Club (ADAD), which is part of ARC Europe. With the new service, launched last week, AvD says it will be the first German automobile club to offer members GPS mobile phone localization for emergencies.

 

The new offer is made possible by the LifeService platform from Allianz. LifeService112 provides the technical platform for mobile phone localization for more than 90% of Germany’s public safety answering points. It is also compatible with both SMS and in-band modem technology.

 

Accident victims have previously been located via mobile phone cells with the accuracy depending on the number of radio masts. By contrast, GPS technology – independent from the network and available worldwide – can better pinpoint a victim’s location. Special software for the mobile telephone will make precise GPS tracking possible. Allianz OrtungsServices GmbH’s goal is to enable all European rescue coordination centers to access the LifeService112 system. In an emergency, the public safety answering point can locate every mobile phone by way of either radio cells or GPS. Allianz is seeking additional partnerships for the eCall/bCall service including, but not limited to, auto makers.

PSA has signed an agreement with Touring Club of Switzerland (TCS), announced at last week’s Geneva Motor Show to provide eCall and bCAll services for Peugeot and Citroen models sold in Switzerland beginning this month. In the event of an accident, an eCall SMS (with location data) is sent to TCS to process and contact the relevant PSAP. The system is a two-button solution allowing the driver or passenger to activate an eCall or bCall voice connection manually or automatically anywhere in Europe. TCS worked with Alabus AG to implement the solution and the hardware came from Magneti Marelli. The TCS call center will be able to respond in the driver’s language.

ATX, which has lost its European telematics service relationship with BMW, is making what may be the most radical proposal of what it calls a self-dispatching approach to managing eCalls from vehicles. The company’s announcement says its system will work with SMS or in-band modem technology and will make use of multilingual text-to-speech technology and Internet resources all of which may help to define an entirely new approach to telematics and call center support in Europe.

 

At a recent telematics event in Shanghai a General Motors executive, when asked who owned the vehicle data generated by the OnStar system, said the customer owned the data. His response was somewhat misleading, and it highlighted the quandary facing the automotive industry, particularly in the wake of Toyota’s unintended acceleration woes and related recalls. What vehicle data are car makers going to collect, who will have access to it and under what circumstances? In truth, customers have little or no access to the data generated by their telematics systems. In fact, the sharing of this data is anathema within the industry. Some limited information is being shared under very specific circumstances (vehicle location, fuel level, battery charge, etc.), but the volume of data being shared is miniscule in the context of the scope of data collection. Actually, for many OEMs it is a cardinal rule to not preserve or share vehicle data for a wide variety of reasons including, but not limited to, liability and privacy. It is for this reason that companies such as BMW, Mercedes Benz and GM have not provided Web delivery platforms for preserving and reporting comprehensive historical vehicle data to their telematics customers. While it might make sense to provide complete driving and service history to the customer it is also possible that either the customer or the OEM does not want all of this information shared for the reasons noted earlier. (Of course, OEMs are particularly concerned with liability, consumers are more concerned about privacy.) Toyota’s recent recalls related to vehicle acceleration and other failures have highlighted these limitations and threaten to upend the manner in which vehicle data will be managed in the future. One early press report suggested that the current Toyota on-board systems for capturing event data were limited and definitely not able to shed light on incidents that may have contributed to driver fatalities. Whether that is true or not, it is clear, by now, that Toyota either has insufficient data to properly diagnose the problem(s) in a timely manner or is hiding valuable information from its customers and NHTSA. It is hard to envision governmental organizations such as the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) resisting the urge to demand higher degrees of data collection, disclosure and analysis. (A brake override system mandate is already in consideration, according to published reports.) Consumers may demand more data as well and solutions already exist from suppliers such as Hughes Telematics and QNX. Hughes has been showing for more than three years its concept of a vehicle Website showing the status of various vehicle systems in realtime. And QNX has demonstrated comprehensive on-board diagnostics including data and graphics and complete user interface with its LTE car project in conjunction with Alcatel Lucent. Ironically, even in a perfect world, the prospect of diagnosing vehicle problems from vehicle-generated data is far from guaranteed. Still, more data is generally better and the federal government in the U.S. long ago contributed its voice to the debate. A mandate for electronic data recorders – set in 2006 - comes in to being in 2011 in the U.S. laying out requirements for data collection, retention and the terms and conditions for access to the data. Perhaps Toyota would have benefited from such an implementation. (The U.S. mandate contrasts with Europe where privacy concerns have trumped the interest in accident diagnostics thereby forestalling wider EDR adoption either voluntarily or via mandate.) EDR data, unlike telematics-related data, is typically only gathered in connection with a vehicle accident and is normally only accessible to public authorities acting on behalf of law enforcement or insurance agencies with the cooperation of the vehicle owner. OEMs that have deployed telematics systems are already capturing, processing and leveraging vehicle data whether consumers have access to this data or not. GM, for one, claims hundreds of millions of dollars in savings from warranty claims avoided by leveraging OnStar data to resolve problems before they become recalls. Most consumers are not aware of what data is being captured or how it is being used. This contrasts with the mobile market where Droid phones, for one example, ask the customer to opt into sharing location-related information. The proliferation of connected vehicles will force OEMs to reconsider their data management and sharing policies. Toyota is no doubt weighing its strategy for managing its fleet; processing vehicle failure information; sharing that information with regulatory authorities, dealers and consumers; and responding to inquiries from the public and the press. Out of a worst case scenario for the industry is likely to come a new paradigm for information sharing that will be more open and comprehensive and which, hopefully, will lead to greater peace of mind, safety and understanding of vehicle functions among the driving public.