[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.