Crash Cube - downloadable vehicle data after crash

[AA999]

Police across the country are now starting to use a neat little device called a “Crash Cube” that will plug in to existing motors to obtain vehicle data and also more importantly for crash investigators allow the quick ability to find out what the vehicle was doing prior/during the crash.

Data such as speed, steering angle, brake application, working condition of vehicle lights, g-force during crash impact, stolen parts, etc, etc. can all be obtained within a few minutes of plugging in the device and downloading to a laptop or tablet.

This opens up the obvious discussion about ‘non-consented surveillance’, but with the balance being that it is undoubtedly a great tool for crash investigators to determine what happened and to then provide evidence to court where they will determine who was at fault.

I think the majority of vehicles sold after 2007 have this data recording enabled as part of the manufacturer/build process, ie. its there already when you buy the car and not some black-box addition that it fitted for insurance (or other purpose). So private vehicles from 2007 onwards all have the ability to show what you are doing behind the wheel (to some extent) and also if you’re negligent with the condition of brake light bulbs for example.

http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2014-11-11...

[untakenname]

Looks like a bluetooth obd2 reader.

I wonder what would happen if you have disabled the odb2 port for sercurity reasons, would you get done for perverting the course of justice or obstruction?

[agtlaw]

untakenname said:

Looks like a bluetooth obd2 reader.

I wonder what would happen if you have disabled the odb2 port for sercurity reasons, would you get done for perverting the course of justice or obstruction?

No. The police would do what they've done for many years - send the ECU unit to the manufacturer to download the data.

The "crash cube" is just a snazzy OBD2 reader. I have a similar device for use at trackdays - PLX Kiwi WIFI.

[Cerberaherts]

Obd2 data is purely related to emission components of an engine. This unit must also read the CAN gateways of the body processor and airbag ecu to determine such information.

[Devil2575]

Seems like a good idea to me.

[un1corn]

I've done some research on this type of data recently. There's two occasions where this data has been used in court, both involving fatal accidents. There's also an airbag data recorder which has been used in the US as evidence too.

I'm sure a smart enough barrister would be able to challenge the evidential properties of these devices. Even more so if they are fitted aftermarket or not from the manufacturer.

[agtlaw]

A challenge to the admissibility of the data would have to be supported by expert evidence. If you know someone then let me know.

[V8 Fettler]

agtlaw said:

A challenge to the admissibility of the data would have to be supported by expert evidence. If you know someone then let me know.

Calibration testing and certification is usually the easiest method to undermine this type of kit, particularly where accelerometers are involved.

[calibrax]

Cerberaherts said:

Obd2 data is purely related to emission components of an engine. This unit must also read the CAN gateways of the body processor and airbag ecu to determine such information.

No, although OBD2 data was initially intended to give emission related data as standard, in reality most manufacturers allow much more info on the car to be accessed via the OBD2 port.

[Cerberaherts]

calibrax said:

No, although OBD2 data was initially intended to give emission related data as standard, in reality most manufacturers allow much more info on the car to be accessed via the OBD2 port.

Yes, everything is read by the obd plug, but generic obd testers only read off the k-line (two signals, two grounds and a positive) but safety related items are usually on high speed b&c can.

[un1corn]

agtlaw said:

A challenge to the admissibility of the data would have to be supported by expert evidence. If you know someone then let me know.

So you could have any old casio calculator, installed years ago with no checks, tests or calibration, recording a round about 'maybe' speed from a none-calibrated speedo and that's going to get you convicted?

Great British justice.

Also, for the accurate recording of speed, doesn't it have to be of a device of type approved? Or does this just relate to the offence of speeding and not other motoring offences.

[Alucidnation]

This is all assuming the ECU is intact after a collision?

[agtlaw]

un1corn said:

So you could have any old casio calculator, installed years ago with no checks, tests or calibration, recording a round about 'maybe' speed from a none-calibrated speedo and that's going to get you convicted?

Great British justice.

Also, for the accurate recording of speed, doesn't it have to be of a device of type approved? Or does this just relate to the offence of speeding and not other motoring offences.

Calibrated speedo not required. Type approval not always required. Common law presumption computer / machinery is working - evidential burden on party asserting otherwise.

As I mentioned above - get some expert evidence.

[agtlaw]

Alucidnation said:

This is all assuming the ECU is intact after a collision?

I've had at least one case where police seized the ECU, which looked ok but was unreadable.

[ging84]

OBD2 is a connector nothing more, has nothing specific to do with emissions it was not developed specifically to give emissions data it was developed to be multifunctional yet standardised, there are US vehicle requirement which mandate an obd2 interface with standardised access to certain emissions data, but that is just one of it's uses.
I would be very surprised to find any vehicle which has been fitted with an obd2 port, which cannot be used to connect to the srs system

[un1corn]

agtlaw said:

Calibrated speedo not required. Type approval not always required. Common law presumption computer / machinery is working - evidential burden on party asserting otherwise.

As I mentioned above - get some expert evidence.

I'm not being a chump, i'm involved in a case which will soon be going to crown court and the majority of the job rests on one of these event data recorders, and im not convinced or satisfied with what it says.

[supermono]

Mags up and down the country already prejudice someone's case by misusing speed as if it's directly related to safety. For example if you were doing 130mph they'd claim that was dangerous even though you were cruising along minding your own business and not even coming close to having an accident.

Give them steering angle and god knows what other parameters and they'd be completely out of their depth yet would convict you anyway.

Time to get some people with a clue about modern driving in the system. Police and their laughable over-reaction to ordinary driving don't help.

[agtlaw]

un1corn said:

I'm not being a chump, i'm involved in a case which will soon be going to crown court and the majority of the job rests on one of these event data recorders, and im not convinced or satisfied with what it says.

Your opinion isn't important. Get some expert evidence if you want to challenge it. Preferably someone who can offer a bit more than mere speculation.

[Cooperman]

This is not dissimilar to airliner black box technology, but much less parameters are measured.
The big difference from aviation, however, is that with aviation post-crash the 'black boxes' are interpreted by aviation experts who are totally non-biased.
With RTC's there will be the CPS wanting to gain convictions and the lawyers wanting to have large claims, so a lot of 'spin' will be applied to the results of the downloaded data.

[supermono]

In a nutshell these people are simply not capable of making intelligent use of the data because their eyes are blinded with the sort of nonsense the wannabe film stars on the police-camera-mayhem spout to camera (when I'm paying them to be my effective police force FFS)