Black box' in car crash court case

[MO]

No it should not be used,it is an indicator of speed NOT an accurate reliable set of data.
As for you jim goose now go away.

[whynot]

This is a really complex question. Rightly or wrongly, we are living in a society with ever increasing data collection. For some, this impinges on what they believe is their right to privacy (whatever that definition is to any specific individual).

Scientific observation and analysis can turn data into evidence. The role of evidence is to uncover the truth.

Our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence and a general right to privacy. This is protected by the concept of search warrants. All search warrants are designed to do is to stop police from hassling an individual by conducting searches without just cause. Search warrants are not designed to be a “privacy shield” around evidence. In fact, if there is a merest suspicion that there is evidence the courts require, the courts (not the police) will make the privacy shield vanish by issuing a search warrant.

For a moment, imagine that there is a hypothetical shop at the crash site and this shop was equipped with a security camera that recorded crash. There is nothing stopping the police from asking the shop owner if they may “please” have a copy of the security tape. There is nothing stopping the shop owner from willingly handing the security tape over. By subjecting the equipment to scientific analysis it would be reasonably easy to determine the vehicles speed.

Now if the hypothetical taped evidence indicated that the Commodore was travelling at 150kph, then I would suggest that it was a clear cut case that the driver was lying. And we would all be commenting how stupid the driver was. Notice how the issues of privacy and search warrants completely evaporate in such hypothetical circumstances.

As for the point about the calibration of the airbag data recorder ... once again, there is a well established verification process (and happens all the time in air crash investigations). The data is read off the device in a controlled manner. Then, the device is subjected to a calibration run to establish the level of “drift”. This drift is applied to the original data to establish a calibrated speed.

My only concern about the police actions (as given in the article) is that it is not exactly clear that the chain of evidence was preserved. AND, that the testing was conducted by a testing authority with a certification trail (e.g. NATA). AND, the testing was conducted in the presence of defendant appointed witnesses. Some thoughts about digital evidence can be found here ...

http://scissec.scis.ecu.edu.au/proce...20argument.pdf

If you are a privacy nutter (and I must admit that I am) then I am afraid you will find the future a frighting place. For example, nearly all of us have mobile telephones. Using “multilateration” techniques it is possible to pinpoint the phone’s current position on the face of the earth AND your current velocity in all three dimensions.

[burnz]

apparently the impact happend at 98kph.
now airbag dont read speed they read kenetic energy, when ppl say an airbag deploys above 40kph is missleading.
they deploy with the equivilent energy of 40kph.

so 98kph into another car could mean 50 by one car 48 by the other.

and as for airbags reading speed earlier mean a recording device and or storage chip.

[dom_105]

Originally Posted by flappist

Look at the big picture people otherwise one day you will be stopped for a "random computer check" and have your car confiscated on the spot for doing 150km/h with a grace period of 24 hours for you to prove that it was on a race track not a road.
Of course proving someone else was driving, even the previous owner will just allow you to recover your lost license not recover the "naughty" car.........

It's a slippery slope alright. It's like the frog in the boiling water. Sooner or later, our freedoms are going to be taken/restricted by increments, one by one.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by flappist

The black box in an aircraft records the outputs from avionics and control systems. These avionics and controls systems are maintained on a VERY regular basis, in the case of bug smashers every 100 hours and in the case of RPT much more often.
This equates to the average car being completely stripped and recalibrated every 4000-5000km or so as opposed to the current practice of NEVER.

The fact that so many are so willing to accept that information supplied for cheap domestic rubbish is gospel is the most frightening although we do live in an age where so many believe anything they read on the internet or see on A Current Affair.

The adage "only in extreme cases" is another trap. What is an extreme case?
Causing death? What about injury?
Causing injury? What about could have caused death or injury?
In other words any and every time your car is being driven this would apply because at any time you can cause death or injury can't you.

Lets look at hoon laws. How many cars have been confiscated for minor operational indiscretions?
A minor chirp or spin leaving the lights in a low traction environment, goodbye car.
A short burst of speed in the middle of woop woop, goodbye car.
A mechanic working on your car does something silly, goodbye car.
An employee talks on a phone and has let their license lapse, goodbye front end loader.

Naive do gooder mentality is the source of almost all the injustice, tyranny and autocracy in Australia and the whole "if it just saves one life" dogma will be the epitaph on the gravestone of performance motoring.

Look at the big picture people otherwise one day you will be stopped for a "random computer check" and have your car confiscated on the spot for doing 150km/h with a grace period of 24 hours for you to prove that it was on a race track not a road.
Of course proving someone else was driving, even the previous owner will just allow you to recover your lost license not recover the "naughty" car.........

As I said there is a procedure to have to actually get the data so it'll be allowable if you go to court. Kinda like a search warrant...oh unless your a 'terrorist' (yet many were happy with that rule on here if I remember). If you make it hard for the data to be then there would have to be a reason for it in an investigation. Also as I said I'm happy if its used as a tool and not the gospel. I understand what your saying but if strict procedures were put in place to a point where you would go to it as a last resort it could be useful in an investigation.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by burnz

apparently the impact happend at 98kph.
now airbag dont read speed they read kenetic energy, when ppl say an airbag deploys above 40kph is missleading.
they deploy with the equivilent energy of 40kph.

so 98kph into another car could mean 50 by one car 48 by the other.

and as for airbags reading speed earlier mean a recording device and or storage chip.

No it actually says...

Mr Haight told the court via video conference yesterday that 2.5 seconds before the crash Hohaia's Holden was travelling at 150kmh and 0.5 seconds before the crash it was travelling at 98kmh.

So yes something is reading & logging the vehicles speed.

Interesting views from both sides, my issue is if the insurance companies start to follow the Police and use the data to deny claims.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by fairBA

correct me if I'm wrong but when certain models depoly air bags - the speedo and tacho stay frozen displaying the speed and revs at the time of the crash - A few cop/crash shows feauturing bseries have done this...

I have been to many crashes as part of my work and I can not remember seeing a speedo or tacho "frozen" at the last reading on a car.

I assume this is because most speedos and tachos work electronically and at the loss of the electrical signal, the needle will return to zero as a result of the spring pressure. Try unplugging your instrument facia from the wiring loom with the engine running to demonstrate this. I have heard of this freezing of the reading happening on older vehicles with cable drive speedos and tacho but there are not many of these vehicles now.

I have however seen a motorcycle that had a mechanical drive tacho that froze at the last reading on impact when it t boned a car. The accident investigator said that they will check what gear the bike was in and calculate the speed according to the reading on the tacho and the gear ratio. Considering the bike had a heavy aluminium box section frame on a high powered sport bike, which was snapped in two at the head tube, he was going a bit faster than the 60 kmh limit.

Next time I am at a serious crash and accident investigation are there, I will ask to clear this up.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by MO

No it should not be used,it is an indicator of speed NOT an accurate reliable set of data.
As for you jim goose now go away.

Gee wizz.... personal insults.
Usually occurs when another person hasnt got anything to contribute to the arguement/ discussion...

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I have been to many crashes as part of my work and I can not remember seeing a speedo or tacho "frozen" at the last reading on a car.

I assume this is because most speedos and tachos work electronically and at the loss of the electrical signal, the needle will return to zero as a result of the spring pressure. Try unplugging your instrument facia from the wiring loom with the engine running to demonstrate this. I have heard of this freezing of the reading happening on older vehicles with cable drive speedos and tacho but there are not many of these vehicles now.

I have however seen a motorcycle that had a mechanical drive tacho that froze at the last reading on impact when it t boned a car. The accident investigator said that they will check what gear the bike was in and calculate the speed according to the reading on the tacho and the gear ratio. Considering the bike had a heavy aluminium box section frame on a high powered sport bike, which was snapped in two at the head tube, he was going a bit faster than the 60 kmh limit.

Next time I am at a serious crash and accident investigation are there, I will ask to clear this up.

A long time ago there was a thread with a link to an auction on a Falcon and it had been in a serious crash and the speedo needle was frozen on like 160km/h. Maybe its not designed there but the impact from the crash probably effected something.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by burnz

thats proves nothing, i can download your (ford) softwear with anything similar doesn't mean that it accurate.

and thats a mistake on it's own.... airbag data

Humour me and explain what you mean....

I said you take it to the manufacturer or an impartial company/ organisation in responce to your "Why didnt they take it to Ford " arguement.

So all the wizz bang stuff in there is not accurate?

Strange that the Police thought it was accurate enough to have it sent to the USA in order to get it read... But then im guessing they dont know how to investgate things...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

A long time ago there was a thread with a link to an auction on a Falcon and it had been in a serious crash and the speedo needle was frozen on like 160km/h. Maybe its not designed there but the impact from the crash probably effected something.

That is why I said in my experience I have not seen this. I was trying to say this is not a common thing. I guess it is more likely to happen in a crash involving high speeds (say 160 kmh), involving forces so great it damages internal components of the gauges. In most crashes the forces involved are unlikely to be high enough to do this.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

No it actually says...



So yes something is reading & logging the vehicles speed.

Interesting views from both sides, my issue is if the insurance companies start to follow the Police and use the data to deny claims.

the BCM will record throttle position, brake line pressure, speed of car, yaw,(if fitted DSC)
but the fellow in the states doesent have the right equipment, two very differant moldel cars to gauge info off and the wrong softwear to read with.

ps: the 150k bit 2.5 second could be from loss of traction, which instant rpm and wheel speed increase.
it would be interesting to see what the "mercs" BCM has to say as to what speed and how he reacted.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Humour me and explain what you mean....

I said you take it to the manufacturer or an impartial company/ organisation in responce to your "Why didnt they take it to Ford " arguement.

So all the wizz bang stuff in there is not accurate?

Strange that the Police thought it was accurate enough to have it sent to the USA in order to get it read... But then im guessing they dont know how to investgate things...

you implied that its bosch softwear, if so take it to any manufacturer.

holden write their own softwear not GMNA, and to have a third party (copper in the states) try interperate it is missleading at best.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by burnz

you implied that its bosch softwear, if so take it to any manufacturer.

holden write their own softwear not GMNA, and to have a third party (copper in the states) try interperate it is missleading at best.

It wasnt sent to a "copper in the states"

It was sent to San Diego Collision Safety Institute

I didnt IMPLY anything... It says in the article it was MADE BY BOSCH.

The Police wouldve had their reasons for sending it there, like its a company which does this sorta thing for a living, its equipment would be calibrated, tested etc etc etc....

Holden may have been told not to get involved by their legal dept. we dont know this... (i.e: it was a high powered car involved in a high speed accident)
Forgotten the "Killer Cars" article of the 1970s which killed the GTs?

[Boosh Brus]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

It wasnt sent to a "copper in the states"

It was sent to San Diego Collision Safety Institute

I didnt IMPLY anything... It says in the article it was MADE BY BOSCH.

The Police wouldve had their reasons for sending it there, like its a company which does this sorta thing for a living, its equipment would be calibrated, tested etc etc etc....

I have just been reading up on these things and they are pretty high tech. They have been used in quite a number of cases in the US.

[SpoolMan]

The only thing that should be posted are replies about data recorders, anything else doesn't belong in here this includes pot shot insults..

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by dom_105

It's a slippery slope alright. It's like the frog in the boiling water. Sooner or later, our freedoms are going to be taken/restricted by increments, one by one.

Not 'are going to be taken' - already have been taken.

Look at Vic, for example. Vic police have unprecedented powers to search people - including strip search - for no reason whatsoever. When the law was first introduced, the police could advertise a specific area - say the MCG or Flinders St station - as a 'designated area'. The advertising had to be 7 days in advance, and this gives police the power to search anyone within the designated area, for any reason whatsoever. Now, the requirement to advertise has been abolished completely in some cases. The real kicker is that the government 'is aware that these new police powers to search for weapons without reasonable suspicion are in breach of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities'. (http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/cl.police_powers.pdf, http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content...ument_ID=24350)

AFAIK, these black box recorders in vehicles are not a legal requirement (unlike aircraft), so what can someone do if they want the recording capability removed? Why even have the ability to record at all? I'm sure the system will work with instantaneous readings, without the ability to record the information.

Sure, this makes the job of investigators easier... but IMHO, it also has the potential to make them complacent, and not investigate fully because the data says that's what happened. As flappist pointed out - what if the data is inaccurate?

[NC1183]

Maybe they should make the so-called "black boxes" like the camera's in NSW highway patrol cars, ie they only "save" the information 10sec prior to the event, in the HWY case its ten seconds before the officer hits the lights/sirens, its constantly recording but the important stuff is saved and the other data written over.

[Gaz]

I'd say the data recording is there from when the manufacturer was doing testing. It's been known for a long time that Ford are able to see a lot of information about your driving, (eg, rev limiter hits, time spent on it etc), but from my understanding they can't use this information to dismiss warranty etc because of the nature of how the data is collected.

I only agree with the data being used, if approved by a court in order to reinforce other evidence. I don't believe insurance companies should be able to access this information and if it ever comes to that being the case you will see a trend of people frying ECU's with extreme voltages after accidents. Insurance companies already collect far to much personal data, they can't acquire your driving history, but can say if you don't supply a copy, we won't pay out your claim.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

How many times has an airbag deployed (or not deployed) because of computer oops? Many more times than a GPS receiver has transmitted to a satellite. The airbag systems are designed to check that there is actually an accident happening and you are OVER a certain speed. 41 is over 40, 410 is also over 40 as is any random number between 41 and 160 so if the system can't tell the difference between 60 and 160 it does not matter as it is all over 40 and that is all it needs to know. The problem is not that they can or do look at the data, it is the presumption that this data accurate and valid. How would you feel if you were booked for speeding based on a reading from a "radar gun" bought from Toyworld for $49.95?

The vehicle data logging is a lot more accurate than just identifying the vehicle was involved in an accident over 40 kmh. Many cars now have multi stage airbags that sense the severity of the accident, calculate force and speed of deceleration and adjust the speed of airbag deployment and speed of seat belt pretensioners. This type of system requires a lot more data than a simple " -40 kmh = off, + 40 kmh = on".

Your vehicle is fitted with an event data recorder, which is capable of collecting and storing data during a crash or near crash event. The recorded information may assist in the investigation of such an event. To access this information, special equipment must be directly connected to the recording modules. Ford does not access event data recorder information without obtaining consent, unless pursuant to a court order or where required by law enforcement, other government authorities or other third parties acting with lawful authority. Other parties may seek to access the information independently of Ford.

This is a direct quote of the FPV Owners Manual, BF Mk1 F6 Typhoon, pg 47.
Now, considering all this data recorded is from the safety systems fitted to the car, it will involve vehicle speed sensors, ABS sensors, throttle position sensors, yaw angle sensors, brake sensors, airbag sensors and steering input sensors etc. Many of these sensors are involved in the everyday operation of systems on the car such as EBD, DSC, ABS and traction control as well as the ECU for the function of the engine and transmission.
Due to the link of these sensors to the airbag, DSC and traction control, each of these sensors are run through a diagnostic test each and every time the car is started. Thus a fault in these systems would be communicated to the driver through a warning light and a fault logged on the ECU which would show clearly by a simple scan of the ECU. I think you will find the safety mechanisms put into place on these systems would be very stringent and reliable as any fault found in the system may in extreme cases be found to have contributed in a severe accident causing injury or death, leaving the manufacturer open to legal liability. These system controls and recordings are there to protect the manufacturer from legal action and allow them to prove that all their safety systems were working or if they were not that the driver was aware they were not functioning.
As to the question of accuracy of these readings, let’s think about this.

A crash investigator told the court the corner could be safely negotiated at 58kmh to 68kmh.

So we can assume that either the speed limit of the crash site was within this speed range or there was cautionary signage advising of this decreased safe speed to negotiate the corner.

Hohaia suffered minor injuries. Hohaia told the court he was travelling no faster than 110kmh and braked to between 55kmh and 65kmh around the corner.

If he was doing this speed, why did he lose control at a speed that the crash investigator stated the corner could be safely negotiated? Personally just this statement causes me to smell a rat.

To prove the speed Hohaia was travelling, police sent the Holden's airbag data unit to William Haight, director of the San Diego Collision Safety Institute. Mr Haight told the court via video conference yesterday that 2.5 seconds before the crash Hohaia's Holden was travelling at 150kmh and 0.5 seconds before the crash it was travelling at 98kmh

So the information recorded on the data recorder clearly shows the driver attempted to negotiate the corner far outside the safe speed for the road conditions. Is the data likely to be inaccurate enough to negate this information? I would say no as the difference between the safe speed and the recorded speed is 30 km/h. I find it hard to believe that in a reasonably new car the data could be that inaccurate.
Consider this, if his wheel speed sensors (the source of the data) indicate he is doing 98 while he is travelling in a 100 zone. Yet he is actually travelling at 65, as his statement suggests (because his system is so inaccurate). I doubt that he would find it acceptable that when his speedo says that he is travelling at the speed limit, all other traffic is passing him 33 kmh faster. I am sure that he would have the car in at the service department stating that his speedo is grossly inaccurate. Yes there may be an inaccuracy in the system but I highly doubt it is enough to account for the 30% difference between safe speed of the road and the recorded speed. If there is that level of inaccuracy, HSV may find themselves in trouble as defective vehicle systems have contributed to the accident.

Mr Haight said the same Bosch data box was used in various makes and models of car. The HSV Holden Clubsport was the same vehicle as a Pontiac GTO and he had been able to read the data on a machine by reading it as if it was from a Pontiac.

I think this is perfectly acceptable, let’s be real here, a GTO is the same car as the Commodore. So therefore all readings would be within an acceptable margin of error to prove that the driver was attempting to negotiate the corner much faster than his statement suggests.

Alan Hohaia, 50, of Levin, appeared in Hastings District Court yesterday to defend a charge of dangerous driving causing injury. He faces a jail term of up to five years or a fine of up to $20,000.

He is not being charged with a speeding offence, it is dangerous driving. This is an offence that may occur at a speed that is less then the posted speed limit. Imagine I am driving in the Mt Glorious area of QLD, the posted limit is 80 kmh but there are a few corners with yellow signs of 20 kmh (these are the conditions present in this area). If I was to attempt to negotiate one of these 20 kmh corners at the posted speed limit of 80, lose control and wipe out another car, I would not be charged with speeding because I wasn't, and it would be dangerous driving because it was. You can not attempt to negotiate a corner at 4 times the advised speed without responsibility for the outcome.
To me, all this discussion regarding the accuracy of the data and the application of the data read as a GTO although the unit was fitted to a commodore is a moot point. Even the defence is not challenging this data or its accuracy (probably because they acknowledge this is not an issue). If the theories on this forum are correct and the data is likely to be inaccurate and his defence counsel has not realised this, he should get a new lawyer (one that knows what he is doing).
They are challenging the legal right to collection of that data only. In a serious crash the police have the right to examine the vehicle and all the systems of that vehicle, they do it every day. As to the question of does the owner of the vehicle have the right to deny access to the vehicle by police investigation, I don't know but I highly doubt it. Does this right of access apply to the data recorder, I assume yes because it is a vehicle system just as the brakes, steering and suspension are. The lawful answer here is one for a judge to sort out and I would suggest we are about to see a legal precedence set here.
As for the question of the thread, should they have access to the data recorded in the event of a serious accident? If the police feel the accident is significant enough to justify spending thousands on getting the data recorder analysed, then absolutely.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

AFAIK, these black box recorders in vehicles are not a legal requirement (unlike aircraft), so what can someone do if they want the recording capability removed? Why even have the ability to record at all? I'm sure the system will work with instantaneous readings, without the ability to record the information.

Sure, this makes the job of investigators easier... but IMHO, it also has the potential to make them complacent, and not investigate fully because the data says that's what happened. As flappist pointed out - what if the data is inaccurate?

I do not see that this "complacency" is going to be an issue.

In an air crash, do the investigators (who have legal access to flight data recorders) sit there and only investigate the black box and nothing else? No they don't, they also review pilot logs, air traffic control transmissions, radar data, witness statements, technical inspection of wreckage and many other sources of information. Why is the assumption that police are going to do any different?

We need to remember that police serious crash investigation is not only about appointing blame for the accident so that charges can be made. It is also about defining the cause of an accident and changes that can be made to prevent a similar occurrence from happening again. No police investigator, on receipt of advice of the accident, is going to decide not to do all other forms of their investigation and just wait for a data recorder to give them the answer. The answer may not be in the data recorder and without all their other investigations the cause would never be determined, that would be a cop with a very short career.

These data recorders are just another tool in the investigation tool box, just as aircraft black boxes are to air crash investigators. All other forms of investigation will remain in place.

AFAIK, these black box recorders in vehicles are not a legal requirement (unlike aircraft), so what can someone do if they want the recording capability removed? Why even have the ability to record at all? I'm sure the system will work with instantaneous readings, without the ability to record the information.

Due to the fact that modern vehicle safety systems can have such a profound effect on the the way a vehicle is controlled (in many car it controls brake application, throttle control and even steering input) and a malfunction could in certain circumstances cause an accident. The manufacturers will insist on data collection as a means to defend that their vehicle system did not cause the accident.

[platinumXR]

I suspect that this may be another example of someone not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.

But that may open up another can of worms...

[zdcol71]

"We need to remember that police serious crash investigation is not only about appointing blame for the accident so that charges can be made. It is also about defining the cause of an accident and changes that can be made to prevent a similar occurrence from happening again."


You can't be serious!!! Are you actually saying that all the mechanisms in place to disadvantage those who transgress our road rules and regulations are not really just in place to raise revenue ,but to actually prevent similar occurences from happening???
Outside of 2010 you could have been put to the stake!! (or could you???)

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

"We need to remember that police serious crash investigation is not only about appointing blame for the accident so that charges can be made. It is also about defining the cause of an accident and changes that can be made to prevent a similar occurrence from happening again."


You can't be serious!!! Are you actually saying that all the mechanisms in place to disadvantage those who transgress our road rules and regulations are not really just in place to raise revenue ,but to actually prevent similar occurences from happening???
Outside of 2010 you could have been put to the stake!! (or could you???)

Just waiting here for the gentle glow of KKK burning torches coming down my street along with the rhythmic clang of pitch forks.

[whynot]

There is a flip side to this discussion as well ... these devices can be used to prove innocence.

We had a case at work last year when there was an accusation from a member of the public about one of our vehicles (number plate quoted) “dangerously” speeding down the highway. This person was raising hell, threatening to call the police and the local media. The first thing done was to pull the GPS records. GPS indicated the vehicle was doing a steady 90 kph in an 110kph zone were the event allegedly occurred. Then the record for the entire trip was painstakingly checked over the entire route. Not once was the speed limited exceeded. Then all of the fleet vehicles in the area were checked. Nope, no trucks were speeding.

Later, it turns out that this particular person had an axe to grind with us over other issues. Lucky for the driver concerned we had a GPS log. Otherwise his name would have been dragged through the mud. The media wouldn’t have cared less in a “they said” argument.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by whynot

There is a flip side to this discussion as well ... these devices can be used to prove innocence.

We had a case at work last year when there was an accusation from a member of the public about one of our vehicles (number plate quoted) “dangerously” speeding down the highway. This person was raising hell, threatening to call the police and the local media. The first thing done was to pull the GPS records. GPS indicated the vehicle was doing a steady 90 kph in an 110kph zone were the event allegedly occurred. Then the record for the entire trip was painstakingly checked over the entire route. Not once was the speed limited exceeded. Then all of the fleet vehicles in the area were checked. Nope, no trucks were speeding.

Later, it turns out that this particular person had an axe to grind with us over other issues. Lucky for the driver concerned we had a GPS log. Otherwise his name would have been dragged through the mud. The media wouldn’t have cared less in a “they said” argument.

Very good point, someone driving within the law and involved in a serious accident may end up having actual data proving their statement or the guilt of the other person. Such is the case for the other seriously injured driver in the OP article.

Imagine if you were the other driver and police could not prove fault in the accident due to many reasons, one of which is they are not allowed to data recorder information.

You are left disabled for life, can no longer work and have to exist on a government disability pension. Meanwhile the other guy who did this too you walks off, no charges, with a new car and you have no avenue to claim for compensation from him, but he gets to live the high life. All this because a lack of information makes the accident a "he said, she said" affair.

I bet in the above circumstance, if any member on here found themselves in that situation and with those injuries, they would want data recorder information admissible as evidence.

[MO]

@gecko,re:above you can in those sort of cases bring about an civil action for compensation etc.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MO

@gecko,re:above you can in those sort of cases bring about an civil action for compensation etc.

Only if responsibility can be attributed on the balance of probability. Do you think a judge is likely to award in your favour if the police investigation determines that no fault can be appointed? You could achieve that but it would be one hell of a fight and too expensive for your disability pension to support. You would only be left with your payout from CTP which is not much, generally enough to cover your medical expenses and modification of your home, car etc for disabled access.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I do not see that this "complacency" is going to be an issue.

In an air crash, do the investigators (who have legal access to flight data recorders) sit there and only investigate the black box and nothing else? No they don't, they also review pilot logs, air traffic control transmissions, radar data, witness statements, technical inspection of wreckage and many other sources of information. Why is the assumption that police are going to do any different?

You make some excellent, valid points. The major difference I see between someone like CASA investigating an aircraft incident and the police investigating motor vehicle incidents is this - sheer numbers.

There are far more motor vehicle incidents than aircraft incidents. This, obviously, puts pressure on police to investigate quickly and efficiently. I'm not trying to suggest that vehicle data loggers will mean the end of investigations, but I can't see how there can't be pressure on investigators to rely on that data alone - particularly in a 'minor' incident.

We need to remember that police serious crash investigation is not only about appointing blame for the accident so that charges can be made. It is also about defining the cause of an accident and changes that can be made to prevent a similar occurrence from happening again. No police investigator, on receipt of advice of the accident, is going to decide not to do all other forms of their investigation and just wait for a data recorder to give them the answer. The answer may not be in the data recorder and without all their other investigations the cause would never be determined, that would be a cop with a very short career.

These data recorders are just another tool in the investigation tool box, just as aircraft black boxes are to air crash investigators. All other forms of investigation will remain in place.

Very true. But what if there is a discrepancy between the data? Eg. data recorder says vehicle was travelling at 59km/h prior to braking, and 35km/h at the point of impact; witnesses all claim the driver was 'hooning' and doing well in excess of 80+km/h... do we rely on the data recorder (which may no longer be calibrated, malfunctioning etc.), or do we rely on the witness statements (generally unreliable, how do they know how fast, etc.)?

As a comparison - look at the situation with speed cameras in Victoria when they were first introduced. Drivers were getting fined, any many claiming innocence... it took A Current Affair exposing the cameras were faulty for the government to acknowledge that, yes, maybe the devices weren't functioning correctly, and drivers had their points/fines reversed.

There will always be a tendency to rely on a recording device... memory is fallible, witnesses will disagree on what happened, they can't accurately estimate speeds etc.

Due to the fact that modern vehicle safety systems can have such a profound effect on the the way a vehicle is controlled (in many car it controls brake application, throttle control and even steering input) and a malfunction could in certain circumstances cause an accident. The manufacturers will insist on data collection as a means to defend that their vehicle system did not cause the accident.

Of course manufacturers will insist on recordings to defend their systems (at least, until one is proven to malfunction), but that doesn't answer my question... what if someone doesn't want their every move recorded? What recourse does the driver have?

[geckoGT]

[QUOTE]You make some excellent, valid points. The major difference I see between someone like CASA investigating an aircraft incident and the police investigating motor vehicle incidents is this - sheer numbers.

There are far more motor vehicle incidents than aircraft incidents. This, obviously, puts pressure on police to investigate quickly and efficiently. I'm not trying to suggest that vehicle data loggers will mean the end of investigations, but I can't see how there can't be pressure on investigators to rely on that data alone - particularly in a 'minor' incident.[QUOTE]

The expense of such analysis will restrict the use of this to serious accidents only, ie crashes involving serious injury or death. There are so many other examples of police investigation relying on many more facets of investigation than technical data alone, this will be one of them.

Very true. But what if there is a discrepancy between the data? Eg. data recorder says vehicle was travelling at 59km/h prior to braking, and 35km/h at the point of impact; witnesses all claim the driver was 'hooning' and doing well in excess of 80+km/h... do we rely on the data recorder (which may no longer be calibrated, malfunctioning etc.), or do we rely on the witness statements (generally unreliable, how do they know how fast, etc.)?

This will become evident in the result of all areas of the investigation, technical inspection of the vehicles, inspection of road conditions, blood testing of the drivers, assessment of weather conditions, witness statements, assessment of skid marks etc. Then it is up to the judge to sort it out and decide if all these elements support the police findings.

As a comparison - look at the situation with speed cameras in Victoria when they were first introduced. Drivers were getting fined, any many claiming innocence... it took A Current Affair exposing the cameras were faulty for the government to acknowledge that, yes, maybe the devices weren't functioning correctly, and drivers had their points/fines reversed.

No system is without fault, crash investigation now often fails to find the truth, perhaps they need more tools in their tool box.

There will always be a tendency to rely on a recording device... memory is fallible, witnesses will disagree on what happened, they can't accurately estimate speeds etc.

And technology can fail, that is why there is no simple answer. It is all about when various forms of evidence support each other to result in a decision. That is why we have courts.

Of course manufacturers will insist on recordings to defend their systems (at least, until one is proven to malfunction), but that doesn't answer my question... what if someone doesn't want their every move recorded? What recourse does the driver have?

Don't buy the car and live without its advantages of increased safety systems. You can not expect a manufacturer to build a car with safety systems that may have a profound effect on the cars handling and response to driver inputs without them having the means to protect themselves from liability claims.

Remember in civil law suits claiming negligence, the complainant only has to provide proof of "negligence in the balance of probability", not "beyond reasonable doubt". This means that if a driver claims the DSC of his falcon applied the brake to the wrong wheel for the conditions on a wet road, causing him to spear off the road and hit a tree, he only has to prove that in the balance of probability this occurrence would have caused the accident. If the manufacturer can not prove this did not happen, they will have a tough time defending the claim.

A relatively small number of those types of claim would put many manufacturers into bankruptcy.