News Uncovering the Truth Behind Event Data Recorders in Cars

[Ivan Seeking]

...In 2005, it was estimated that about 64 percent of passenger cars on the market came equipped from the factory with "Event Data Recorders" that kept a computer record of various things a driver was doing in the moments just before and after a serious impact. The number today is certainly much higher and the devices are becoming more advanced.

...If you've purchased a new car in the past two or three years, chances are excellent that it has one. All General Motors passenger vehicles have them, for example. Ford, Toyota and other manufacturers have been including these devices in their cars for years. [continued]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/22/autos/edr_concerns/index.htm

More of the same... On the face of things it seems like a good idea, but as this technology evolves and becomes accepted, I expect this to lead to much more invasive devices and tactics. Already we find that our driving was being monitored without our knowledge; unless we happened to read our manuals. Okay, but come on, who ever reads the manual!

 

[russ_watters]

I read my manual and as both an engineer and a law-abiding citizen, I think this is a great idea.

 

[kyleb]

It is a great idea from a product evaluation standpoint, but from the consumer perspective I don't see how it is anything but frivolous to make such systems standard to production models.

 

[BobG]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/22/autos/edr_concerns/index.htm

More of the same... On the face of things it seems like a good idea, but as this technology evolves and becomes accepted, I expect this to lead to much more invasive devices and tactics. Already we find that our driving was being monitored without our knowledge; unless we happened to read our manuals. Okay, but come on, who ever reads the manual!

Monitored by who? Unless someone is sneaking around the neighborhood, breaking into cars, and secretly downloading the info from the module, the only way anyone sees this data is if you're in a collision.

Even then, it depends on state law what happens to the data. At most, it might be something all states should address, but it's evidence that's pertinent to the collision and the likelihood for abusing access to the data is small.

I would liken it to scanning a suspect's computer hard drive for child pornograghy, except without the chance of also finding legitmate information that the individual has a right to keep private, which is the real reason for privacy laws. The laws aren't to prevent access to legitimate evidence - they're to prevent having legitimate private information being obtained on the pretense of possible wrong doing, or wrong doing so trivial that it's not worth the violation of privacy to a 'reasonable' person.

Unless they start integrating GPS into the modules to keep a record of where you've traveled (which would serve no purpose in analyzing collisions), I don't see any violation.

 

[Astronuc]

Monitored by who? Unless someone is sneaking around the neighborhood, breaking into cars, and secretly downloading the info from the module, the only way anyone sees this data is if you're in a collision.

I believe that dealers' shops are equipped with diagnostic computers that download data from the cars' on-board system when the cars are taken in for servicing. Ostensibly, it helps to diagnose any problems, but I wonder if the dealership can check on anything that might void a warrantee.

I would have worried about Ivan if the title was "My mother my car".

 

[Bystander]

(snip) --- but I wonder if the dealership can check on anything that might void a warrantee. (snip)

That's the only reason they're in cars.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe that dealers' shops are equipped with diagnostic computers that download data from the cars' on-board system when the cars are taken in for servicing. Ostensibly, it helps to diagnose any problems, but I wonder if the dealership can check on anything that might void a warrantee.

I would have worried about Ivan if the title was "My mother my car".

Since they only (currently) record a few seconds worth of data, all it'll show is how fast they got it onto the lift.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obviously the next step is to allow this as evidence in a court of law in the event of an accident.

I think the consumer should have the option to disable the recording.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would have worried about Ivan if the title was "My mother my car".

I was hoping that someone would get my joke.

I noticed that in California, the seat belt law is now a primary offense. When it first passed, one could not be pulled over for failing to wear a seat belt. But as these things go, the law becomes broader and more invasive.

The next logical step in the technology is to record all driving data for a week or a month, or more. Of course, we could just allow this data to download to our insurance companies daily and issue speeding tickets at the same time.

On a related note: Why don't we electronically limit all cars to the maximum speed limit?

 

[Astronuc]

I was hoping that someone would get my joke.

Yeah, I'm that old.

The next logical step in the technology is to record all driving data for a week or a month, or more. Of course, we could just allow this data to download to our insurance companies daily and issue speeding tickets at the same time.

I guess corporations are worried about 'invasion of privacy'.

On a related note: Why don't we electronically limit all cars to the maximum speed limit?

I've wondered the same thing. Also, when one drives on a toll road between fixed points, and in the process, one picks up an electronically readable ticket, which usually has the 'time and date' on it, when one leaves the toll road, it should be fairly easy to calculate the average speed. Certainly, if one arrives at the exit at an average speed above the speed limit, then obviously one has exceeded the speed limit. It seems no one bothers to check.

In Germany, on some of the regulated sections on the Autobahn, they have radar triggered cameras to catch speeding cars. I triggered one once but didn't get a ticket. I was changing lanes when the camera took the picture.

 

[Manchot]

I read my manual and as both an engineer and a law-abiding citizen, I think this is a great idea.

Really? You never go faster than the posted speed limit on the highway, even if the flow of traffic is quite a bit faster or if you're passing a semi? Do you think that these black boxes account for these types of factors? Suppose that the speed limit is 55 mph, the flow of traffic is 65 mph, and you're hit by a car going 85 mph. What happens when your insurance company subpoenas your black box and finds out that you were speeding? I'll tell you what: no money for you.

 

[BobG]

Obviously the next step is to allow this as evidence in a court of law in the event of an accident.

I think the consumer should have the option to disable the recording.

What's the point of having the option to disable the recording? Is it so the person at fault in an accident can escape being found liable?

Technically, that is a legitimate reason. A person isn't required to serve as a witness against themselves, but that right is already limited. If the data on the unit belongs to the owner, it does mean authorities need at least a warrant to access the data (much the way a warrant would be required to search the computer files of a suspected child pornographer, for example).

I'd have a little more of a problem with a couple of other technological developments than event data recorders (which I guess supports your idea that it could lead to more invasive tactics).

Pay as you drive insurance. This reveals a lot more data than the event data recorders used in accidents. This version was a voluntary program, but I've also heard the idea floated as a possible way to revise taxation for roads. Currently, a lot of the taxes added into the cost of the gasoline go to road maintenance. One idea is that taxes could be tied to actual miles driven rather than the number of gallons of gasoline used (why should SUV users be paying part of those whiny Sentra drivers' taxes - SUV users have enough problems right now ).

Technology tracks cell phones. This one already exists and at least has the potential to gather a lot more data about you (yeah, technically it's tracking the cell phone you probably carry with you in your car, but same idea).

 

[Andy]

I work for a mercedes benz dealer and one day we had the driver of a mercedes benz A Class come into our dealership after they had crashed their car. They clamied that as they where going around the corner the steering went funny but the ABS didnt cut in and they crashed in a ditch.

mercedes benz technical departement got involved and they sent a technician out with a diagnostic computer he plugged it into the car and read the fault codes. They showed him the exact times that the ABS had been functioning on the last 50 (i think, don't hold me to that) times that the ABS had cut in. This prooved that there was no faults with the car and that the accident was down to driver error. This saved Mercedes quite abit of money in liability. As a normal technician we can't access that information with the standard diagnostic computers but the computers that the mercedes benz technical guys use can access a lot of history from the cars control units.

 

[russ_watters]

Obviously the next step is to allow this as evidence in a court of law in the event of an accident.

Ok... so what's wrong with that? It might cut down on frivoless lawsuits.

I think the consumer should have the option to disable the recording.

Why? Why not make it mandatory like it is on airplanes?

Really? You never go faster than the posted speed limit on the highway, even if the flow of traffic is quite a bit faster or if you're passing a semi? Do you think that these black boxes account for these types of factors? Suppose that the speed limit is 55 mph, the flow of traffic is 65 mph, and you're hit by a car going 85 mph. What happens when your insurance company subpoenas your black box and finds out that you were speeding? I'll tell you what: no money for you.

The black boxes in question don't have anything to do with what you are talking about. But if the capability is ever expanded, I, like everyone else, will do what is necessary to avoid a ticket. I certainly won't be complaining about being punished for breaking the law.

Are you guys really saying that you don't like the idea because it makes it tougher for you to lie to police and investigators? Perjury is not a right, guys.

 

[russ_watters]

I work for a mercedes benz dealer and one day we had the driver of a mercedes benz A Class come into our dealership after they had crashed their car. They clamied that as they where going around the corner the steering went funny but the ABS didnt cut in and they crashed in a ditch.

mercedes benz technical departement got involved and they sent a technician out with a diagnostic computer he plugged it into the car and read the fault codes. They showed him the exact times that the ABS had been functioning on the last 50 (i think, don't hold me to that) times that the ABS had cut in. This prooved that there was no faults with the car and that the accident was down to driver error. This saved Mercedes quite abit of money in liability. As a normal technician we can't access that information with the standard diagnostic computers but the computers that the mercedes benz technical guys use can access a lot of history from the cars control units.

Perfect example of why these things are needed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No matter what the risk...

 

[Hurkyl]

Really? You never go faster than the posted speed limit on the highway, even if the flow of traffic is quite a bit faster or if you're passing a semi?

I certainly don't.

No matter what the risk...

Who said that? Burning strawmen is easy. Try your hand at the real deal once in a while.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Who said that? Burning strawmen is easy. Try your hand at the real deal once in a while.

Russ said that this is a good idea and has failed to respond to the valid concerns expressed. No strawman here, but it is a good dodge to make the accusation.

 

[Astronuc]

Do you think that these black boxes account for these types of factors? Suppose that the speed limit is 55 mph, the flow of traffic is 65 mph, and you're hit by a car going 85 mph.

Well, that would be an inelastic collision and the car being hit wouldn't achieve 85 mph. Besides the impulse would cause a momentary acceleration well beyond what could be achieved by using the accelerator, and thus a black box would most likely confirm the car was hit. Plus there would the fact that two cars are damaged, and probably not driveable.

And modern cars have air bags (aka safety restraint systems) which might deploy.

 

[moose]

I hate the title CNN has on it... it doesn't even record sound or anything, so wtf's up with that?

 

[shmoe]

The next logical step in the technology is to record all driving data for a week or a month, or more. Of course, we could just allow this data to download to our insurance companies daily and issue speeding tickets at the same time.

Working on it, http://www.autonet.ca/Insurance/story.cfm?story=/Insurance/2006/02/04/1426413-sun.html" that adjusts rates according to driving patterns. This could potentially turn out very well for the responsible drivers in an otherwise horrible insurance category- the 20-25 year old single males for example. All voluntary and in test stages at this point.

On a related note: Why don't we electronically limit all cars to the maximum speed limit?

You've never had to speed up over the limit to avoid a potential accident? A strict limit could be unsafe, but some kind of timed limitation might be a good idea, as well as a cap over a certain point (I'm not sure anyone has a need to hit 200km/h).

 

[BobG]

This goes way beyond the event data recorders, but this has interesting possibilities: Technology Let's Parents Track Kids' Every Move.

Companies could use technology like this to track their drivers' activities. Heck, a person could take this a step further and track their spouse's every move, or how about hiding it in an estranged boyfriend/girlfriend's car?

The event data recorders are a good idea, since I see that info as being more like the skid marks left on the road at an accident site. Still, there's definitely limits on how far you'd want to take this technology (although, I have to admit that having your car's horn start beeping when your teenager's driving over the speed limit would have some entertainment value, especially if your teen was unaware of the monitoring devices you'd installed.)

 

[russ_watters]

No matter what the risk...

What risk? Please explain yourself! This sounds like a knee-jerk fear of information itself to me. Is there any logic behind your belief on this or do you just automatically object to any collection of information by anyone anywhere? It seems silly, but I can imagine you walking around in an overcoat, hat, and sunglassess all the time, paying for everything in cash, and signing your name with an X.

Can you explain what troubles you about this?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ said that this is a good idea and has failed to respond to the valid concerns expressed. No strawman here, but it is a good dodge to make the accusation.

Failed to respond to valid concerns? You are not providing ANY specific concerns, just a general distaste for the concept of information collection. You are dodging attempts to ascertain why you believe what you believe.

 

[Janus]

A strict limit could be unsafe, but some kind of timed limitation might be a good idea, as well as a cap over a certain point (I'm not sure anyone has a need to hit 200km/h).

Yes, a system that allowed short bursts over the speed limit, but prevented prolonged periods of speediing could be done.
It would be a far sight better than the mechanical governor they put on the U-Haul I drove cross-country in about 25 years ago. It wouldn't go over 60 mph.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a short thread, so I'll go point by point:

On the face of things it seems like a good idea, but as this technology evolves and becomes accepted, I expect this to lead to much more invasive devices and tactics.

Slippery-slope fallacy. You're admitting you have no basis for saying there is anything wrong with it as is, but saying it could change into something worse, yet not explaining why it would be worse. Perhaps you see it as self-evident that collection of information is a bad thing - well I don't, so explain it.

Already we find that our driving was being monitored without our knowledge; unless we happened to read our manuals. Okay, but come on, who ever reads the manual!

Fear based on willful ignorance is not a valid fear, any more than ignorance is an excuse for breaking the law.

Obviously the next step is to allow this as evidence in a court of law in the event of an accident.

Slippery-slope fallacy again, but without any explanation for why that would be a bad thing - and I asked why.

The next logical step in the technology is to record all driving data for a week or a month, or more. Of course, we could just allow this data to download to our insurance companies daily and issue speeding tickets at the same time.

Slippery-slope fallacy again, and again with no explanation of why what lies at the end of the slope is a bad thing.

So there it is, Ivan. The only thing you've provided are nebulous slippery-slope fears with no logical explanation of why you are actually opposed to these things, despite repeated requests for an explanation by me and others.

 

[Anttech]

Fear based on willful ignorance is not a valid fear, any more than ignorance is an excuse for breaking the law.

Actually Russ there are some laws in which you can only be prosecuted if you "willing" break it. If you are ignorant of that law then you arent willing so you arent breaking it.

The Law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000924----000-.html

The Case

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-8422.ZO.html

This case got some airtime because it involved a cnn presenter who bought a gun privately in Texas and transported it back to Atlanta.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What risk? Please explain yourself! This sounds like a knee-jerk fear of information itself to me. Is there any logic behind your belief on this or do you just automatically object to any collection of information by anyone anywhere? It seems silly, but I can imagine you walking around in an overcoat, hat, and sunglassess all the time, paying for everything in cash, and signing your name with an X.

Can you explain what troubles you about this?

It amazes me that you must constantly make personal attacks and innuendo on people with whom you disagree. It is how cowards and brutes debate. Also, other people cited objections to which you didn't respond. I hadn't really said much yet. You on the other hand gave the idea a gold star without qualification or limits.

I object to the government, insurance companies, or any entity invading our lives any more than necessary - the essence of liberty. The danger is that our every movement will eventually be tracked and scrutinized. If you have no objection to this, then why not just put dog collars with GPS units on everyone? And if you are sincere in wishing to address my concerns, then you give a direct answer void of your silly attacks.

I cited one example of the slippery slope just noted in California. There was a reason that one could not be stopped for failing to wear a seat-belt - you are not a threat to the public. Of course, with very little time this is forgotten and the law is changed to allow greater invasion into our lives by the government. This happens with predictable regularity. Your insistence that the slippery slope doesn't exist, doesn't make it so no matter how many times you make the assertion.

 

[Hurkyl]

I cited one example of the slippery slope just noted in California. There was a reason that one could not be stopped for failing to wear a seat-belt - you are not a threat to the public. Of course, with very little time this is forgotten and the law is changed to allow greater invasion into our lives by the government. This happens with predictable regularity. Your insistence that the slippery slope doesn't exist, doesn't make it so no matter how many times you make the assertion.

Er, you call that a problem?

 

[russ_watters]

It amazes me that you must constantly make personal attacks and innuendo on people with whom you disagree. It is how cowards and brutes debate.

Excuse me? You are not providing arguments, Ivan, just one-liners and - like you accuse me of - inuendo.

Tell me specifically, though: what personal attack did I make? Surely it can't be pointing out your logical fallacy, because you freely admit you are using it as your primary reasoning. If there is a specific statement I made that it is a personal attack, then by all means point it out and I will edit it out. Speaking of which, please edit out your attack/inuendo calling me a coward and a brute.

Also, other people cited objections to which you didn't respond. I hadn't really said much yet. You on the other hand gave the idea a gold star without qualification or limits.

In the first sentence there, you say I haven't been responsive, then admit in the second that you were the same! It's your thread, Ivan. You to make your points.

I object to the government, insurance companies, or any entity invading our lives any more than necessary...

Clearly, Ivan, but the point is that you are not defining a criteria for determining what is "necessary". In addition, you are objecting to things that you even think are a good idea for slippery slope reasons, which is a contradiction of that.

- the essence of liberty.

That is not the definition of liberty. Liberty is about freedom from control and the only control issue you cited is about the government making it tougher to break the law - which then by definition is not a liberty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty

The danger is that our every movement will eventually be tracked and scrutinized.

Why is that dangerous? Ivan, you are stating a lot of "what's", but not explaining why.

If you have no objection to this, then why not just put dog collars with GPS units on everyone?

Every cell phone has a gps chip and if it is useful for that to be tracked (we've discussed examples such as traffic monitoring), I'm all for it. Again, Ivan, you are bringing up examples that seem to you to be 1984ish, but you are not explaining why they should be a matter of concern. 'This scares me' is not an argument.

And if you are sincere in wishing to address my concerns, then you give a direct answer void of your silly attacks.

Again, I can't give you a direct answer to something you haven't explained. If you explain why you have these opinions, I'll certainly explain why I think your reasoning is flawed. But again, all you have provided so far is 'this scares me' and that isn't an argument.

I cited one example of the slippery slope just noted in California.

Besides being a logical fallacy, you can't even say there is a slope unless you define the points. Slippery slope to what? and why is that "what" undesirable?

There was a reason that one could not be stopped for failing to wear a seat-belt - you are not a threat to the public.

Can you provide a citation for that? That would seem to be an arugment against the very existence of seat belt laws. But if the government can legislate it, then they can enforce it as appropriate.

I think you are forgetting a simple thing: the government can and does (and should) legislate to protect people from their own stupidity. Heck, you're a Democrat - that's a big part of what entitlements do!

Of course, with very little time this is forgotten and the law is changed to allow greater invasion into our lives by the government. This happens with predictable regularity. Your insistence that the slippery slope doesn't exist, doesn't make it so no matter how many times you make the assertion.

Again, two separate points:
-You haven't explained where the slope goes so I can't comment on if we're on it.
-Regardless of where the slope goes, the argument is a logical fallacy: every law must stand on its own merrit, not be judged by another law that doesn't exist.

 

[russ_watters]

Can you provide a citation for that? That would seem to be an arugment against the very existence of seat belt laws. But if the government can legislate it, then they can enforce it as appropriate.

I'm looking for citations myself. So far, it looks like there has never been a court challenge on the general existence of seat belt laws. I found one challenging the lack of a religious exemption and one challenging the vagueness of a particular law.

I found one site with a number of concise arguments against seat belt laws, but none of them address the issue of liberty. The most relevant arguments are not about the law itself restricting liberty but about hypothetical abuses that the law can be used for illegally. That isn't the same thing (it is essentially an adjacent slippery slope argument).

http://www.w3taxi.com/emancipation/holdorf1.shtml

MADD cites an NTSB official about the issue of liberty:

The NTSB's Quinlan says some opponents of seat belt laws confuse liberty with license.

"The issue with primary seat belt laws is not the infringement of liberty; rather, it's the protection of everybody," Quinlan says. "Driving a car has responsibility that goes along with it. You're not entirely free to do whatever you would like to do. There are limits and driver responsibilities. One of them is wearing a safety belt."

http://www.madd.org/stats/5611

I always do find irony in arguing about liberty with a liberal, though, as a central tenant of modern liberalism is the severe limitation of personal liberty in economics. Seat belt laws do no general harm to a person, but do protect people from their own stupidity(ie, you can get hurt by a seatbelt, but it is statistically far more likely you will be saved by one) . Tax laws and entitlements, on the other hand, take money from some people for the benefit of others - a straightforward violation of personal liberty.

The liberty argument is also short-circuted by the fac that peoples' failure to wear a seatbelt does, in fact, harm society. The public pays for the police, fire, and to a lesser extent, ambulance services that have to respond in such cases. [edit: this is discussed in great detail in the court case below]

 

[russ_watters]

One very interesting case I found has this to say:

At the outset we note that, in reviewing the constitutionality of Illinois' mandatory-seat-belt law, this court does not join in the debate over whether the law is desirable or necessary. Our nation was founded in large part on the democratic principle that the powers of government are to be exercised by the people through their elected representatives in the legislature, subject only to certain constitutional limitations. Although this court has never hesitated to invalidate laws that it believes to be unconstitutional, we emphasize that our role is a limited one. The issue here in "not what the legislature should do but what the legislature can do."

http://www.bikersrights.com/states/illinois/kohrig.html

Honestly, I had not considered that. So that voids your "necessary" argument as well. That isn't an issue here: what is at issue is if such legislation is Constitutionally allowable.

It even goes on to say that courts should be wary of an unwarranted expansion of the right to privacy - an other side of the coin I hadn't even considered:

Moreover, recognizing that a court is "most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution," the Supreme Court has emphasized that there should be "great resistance" to further expanding the substantive due process right of privacy. (Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), 478 U.S. ----, ----, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 2846, 92 L.Ed.2d 140, 148.) Thus, attempts by litigants to expand the privacy right beyond matters relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relations, abortion, child rearing and education have largely been unsuccessful.

More to the point:

In the present case it cannot be said that defendant Greene's claimed right to decide whether or not to wear a safety belt on a public highway resembles those liberties identified by the Supreme Court as being included in the right of privacy protected by the fourteenth amendment.

Further:

The States historically have been given a wide latitude to regulate the use of motor vehicles (Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959), 359 U.S. 520, 530, 79 S.Ct. 962, 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1003, 1010), and the individual driver's autonomy on the road has, out of necessity for the public safety and welfare, been significantly curtailed by State regulation. Like the court in Bisenius v. Karns (1969), 42 Wis.2d 42, 165 N.W.2d 377, appeal dismissed (1969), 395 U.S. 709, 89 S.Ct. 2033, 23 L.Ed.2d 655, we reject any notion that the right of privacy includes the right to "do one's thing" on an expressway [emphasis added]

Overall, this court verdict is an extremely strongly-worded decision against the right to privacy on the road.

It also points out another way not wearing a seatbelt can cause harm to others: if a person is injured in a car accident, they may lose control of the vehicle while the accident continues. That brings up another circumstance: quite a large number of accidents occur because of drivers leaving the driver's seat (ie, bending down to retrieve a cigarette), which is something you can't do if you are wearing your seatbelt.

Incidentally, the slippery-slope argument isn't used in court because it isn't a valid argument.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually Russ there are some laws in which you can only be prosecuted if you "willing" break it. If you are ignorant of that law then you arent willing so you arent breaking it.

That's kinda self-evident/redundant, Anttech, that a law about intent can't be broken without intent, but that isn't relevant here.

 

[Andy]

Actually Russ there are some laws in which you can only be prosecuted if you "willing" break it. If you are ignorant of that law then you arent willing so you arent breaking it.

Nobody that has a drivers license can claim to be ignorant of traffic laws. Whats your defence going to be? "I didnt know that the speed limit was 70mph!"

In the UK it is an offence for anyone in a car to not be wearing a seatbelt and anyone under the age of 17 is in the drivers responsibility and anybody 17 or over can be fined.

 

[Anttech]

In the UK it is an offence for anyone in a car to not be wearing a seatbelt and anyone under the age of 17 is in the drivers responsibility and anybody 17 or over can be fined.

actually its over 14 AFAIK:

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/seatbelts.htm

 

[Andy]

Thank you, did it used to be 17? Maybe i just plucked 17 out of the air from somewhere.

 

[Anttech]

17 is the age you can drive :)

17 makes more sense to me than 14 for being fined, not many 14 year olds have jobs enough to pay for a fine.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In the states I've lived in as an adult (Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin), 15 year olds take drivers ed and get learner's permits, and then can get their real license at (I think) 16. A learner's permit requires you to have a licensed driver in the car with you when you are driving, and that licensed driver CAN (I don't think must always) share legal liability for anything you do wrong.