Everyone knows that the first step investigators take in plane crashes is recovering the event data recorder (EDR), aka, the “black box“. An EDR’s function is to capture data (audio, mechanical, electrical, speed, positioning/crash angles and myriads of other useful information) during the operation of a vehicle, machine or even a program. An invaluable tool for investigators in determining the exact details of a crash incident.
Starting in 2013, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will require that all vehicles capture the same data in the same format as well as a device to remove and translate this data. This will bring an entirely new dimension of clarity in vehicular accident investigations, now arming the reconstructionists with precise information as to speed prior to impact, impact speed, braking distances, mechanical failures, number of crashes and other crash factors.
According to government figures released in 2008, between 70 – 85% of vehicles now being manufactured have pre-installed EDRs.
With respect to privacy concerns, this black box information has not been available to insurance companies or defendants without the express written permission of the EDR’s owner. Obviously, a litigant may not be forthcoming with a black box data release authorization if s/he feels at fault in the accident.
Also, the EDR captured data is only retained for approximately eight weeks within the device, thereby making its recovery essential, especially in serious/fatality-involved collisions.
The above are the facts. Below is a statement by the NHTSA, the latter portion regarding recording driving time, I find disconcertingly intrusive. Each person has individual driving capabilities, with some able to drive long distances for many hours and others finding short hops to the local grocery store an overwhelming task.
Also, we believe further safety improvements could be realized in vehicle subsystems, such as… the use of on-board recorders to capture crash data similar to that recommended for passenger vehicles and also to monitor drivers’ hours of service.
The facts are also however that 1 in 4 people over the age of 16 will find themselves involved in a vehicular accident requiring medical treatment at some point in their lives. My expectation is that we will see a swift and massive rise in litigation involving black box evidence and creative theory introduction (e.g., possible sleep deprivation, motorist distraction and just plain unforeseeable and possibly unrecordable weird events).
TruTouch Technologies, a New Mexico-based sensor technology company, already manufactures and sells a portable non-invasive dermal alcohol and drug tester, currently in use by law enforcement in various states including New Mexico and Arizona. How soon can we expect insurers to draft in mandatory on-site testing for its policy holders? And the state DMVs to suspend the licenses of non-compliant drivers?
Keep your eyes on these developments (and obviously on the road), folks. We’re in for some bumpy legal rides.
Our Operatives: Street smart; tech savvy.
As always, be safe.
Related articles
- New Auto Safety Bill: Black Boxes For Auto Accidents (danielrrosen.com)
Filed under: crash investigations, dermal testing, driving, electronic recording, vehicle Tagged: | accident reconstruction, alcohol testing, Black box, car accidents, driving, drug testing, EDR, insurance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, recorders, tru-touch technologies, Vehicle
Ralph Coti of Coti & Sugrue (NYC)
Ralph Coti
It is possible that some day the government may require “black boxes” in automobiles for the ostensive purpose of avoiding litigation.
—– However, I guarantee that within two to five years after the “black boxes” are installed the government will start to use them for giving drivers fines for speeding, improper parking, not yielding the right of way, etc.
—– If politicians really want to stop unnecessary litigation, they would have approved numerous tort reform proposals over the years. The politicians have consistently refused to pass cost-free methods of avoiding litigation and they consistently try to sneak in new taxes.
—— Do not be tricked into accepting an expensive machine which can easily be used to raise revenue and is far more complex than numerous free methods of avoiding litigation which the politicians have consistently rejected.
Ralph, as we continue this thread on FB, I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one foreseeing governmental overreach on this matter. Best, Lina