Car Accidents
Modern vehicles can store valuable information about the moments before a crash, including speed, braking and driver inputs. Learn how black box data and other electronic evidence are changing the way Long Island car accidents are investigated.
When I started practicing personal injury law nearly 30 years ago, investigating a car accident was usually pretty straightforward. We looked at the police report, photographs of the vehicles, skid marks, witness statements, medical records and, in more serious cases, accident reconstruction evidence.
Those things still matter. But the cars themselves are beginning to tell us much more about how an accident happened.
Many modern vehicles store electronic information about what was happening in the seconds before and during a crash. Depending on the vehicle, that information may help answer some of the most important questions in a car accident case: How fast was the vehicle traveling? Was the driver braking? Was the accelerator being pressed? Did the vehicle’s safety systems activate? Was a driver-assistance system operating?
And as partially automated and eventually fully self-driving vehicles become more common on Long Island roads, I believe this type of electronic evidence is going to become an increasingly important part of car accident litigation.
For someone injured in an accident, there is a simple takeaway: the vehicle involved in your accident may contain evidence that helps explain exactly what happened. That evidence may need to be identified and preserved.
People commonly use the term “black box,” but the more accurate term is an Event Data Recorder, or EDR.
An EDR is not exactly the same thing as the flight recorder most people associate with an airplane. It generally records specific technical information for a relatively short period surrounding a crash.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, EDRs can record information concerning vehicle dynamics, driver inputs, the crash itself, and the operation of safety and restraint systems.
Federal regulations specify data elements for vehicles equipped with qualifying EDRs. Depending upon the vehicle and system, the information can include:
That can be extremely important evidence.
Consider a fairly typical Long Island car accident. One driver says he was traveling 30 miles per hour and slammed on his brakes when another vehicle suddenly entered his lane. The other driver says he was speeding and never attempted to stop.
Traditionally, we would try to resolve that dispute through testimony, photographs, physical evidence and accident reconstruction.
Today, the vehicle itself may provide another piece of the puzzle.
This is where I think car accident litigation is going to change significantly over the next several years.
The EDR is only one potential source of electronic evidence.
Modern vehicles are increasingly computers on wheels. Depending on the manufacturer, model and installed technology, a vehicle may have cameras, radar, driver-assistance systems, navigation technology, diagnostic systems, connected services and other electronic components.
That does not mean every car continuously records and saves everything it sees or does. It doesn’t. The type of information available, how long it exists and whether it can be retrieved can vary considerably from one vehicle to another.
But it does mean that after a serious accident, a lawyer should be asking questions that might not have been part of a routine car accident investigation 20 years ago.
What electronic information exists?
What systems were installed in the vehicle?
Was adaptive cruise control operating?
Was lane-centering or another driver-assistance feature engaged?
Did the system issue a warning?
Did the driver brake or steer?
Did the vehicle take some action itself?
Were cameras or sensors operating?
Is information stored in the vehicle, by the manufacturer, or somewhere else?
Those questions become even more important when the accident involves a self-driving or partially self-driving vehicle.
Most of the vehicles people commonly describe as “self-driving” today still require some degree of human involvement or supervision. That distinction matters.
NHTSA currently requires identified manufacturers and operators to report certain crashes involving automated driving systems and SAE Level 2 advanced driver-assistance systems. The fact that federal regulators are specifically collecting crash information involving these technologies tells us something important: vehicle automation is no longer a theoretical issue for accident lawyers.
It is already part of modern crash investigation.
Suppose a vehicle equipped with a driver-assistance system rear-ends another vehicle on the Long Island Expressway.
Who was controlling the vehicle immediately before impact?
Was the system engaged?
Did it detect the stopped traffic ahead?
Did it warn the driver?
Did the driver respond?
Did the driver override the system?
Did the vehicle brake automatically?
Was the system being used under conditions for which it was designed?
Those facts could become important in determining liability.
The answers may not come solely from what the drivers remember. Some of the answers may exist electronically.
One of the first things I think about when investigating a serious Long Island car accident is evidence preservation.
Video disappears. Witnesses become difficult to locate. Vehicles get repaired, sold or destroyed.
Electronic evidence creates another potential preservation issue.
If I believe a vehicle may contain important crash information, I do not want that vehicle altered or destroyed before we determine what evidence can be recovered from it.
Depending upon the circumstances, an attorney may need to send preservation notices, arrange for an inspection, involve an accident reconstruction expert or determine whether information needs to be sought from a manufacturer or another entity.
This is particularly important in a serious accident where liability is disputed.
Once evidence is lost, getting it back may be impossible.
I would also caution against treating vehicle data as some type of magic answer.
It isn’t.
NHTSA itself recognizes that EDR information has limitations and should be considered together with other evidence.
A strong accident investigation may still require:
The goal is not to find one piece of evidence and stop.
The goal is to put the pieces together.
That is especially important when electronic data appears inconsistent with what a driver says happened.
This is an area where I expect accident litigation to continue evolving.
Some newer vehicles contain outward-facing cameras used for parking, collision avoidance or driver-assistance functions. Others may contain driver-monitoring cameras or other sensors.
Whether usable footage exists after a particular accident is an entirely separate question. A camera being present does not necessarily mean video was recorded, retained or remains accessible.
But after an accident involving a technologically advanced vehicle, I believe it is a mistake simply to assume that no electronic or recorded evidence exists.
You have to investigate.
In the right case, recorded information could potentially provide evidence about the vehicles, roadway, surrounding traffic or the operation of an automated system immediately before a collision.
For an accident lawyer, knowing what to look for is becoming part of knowing how to investigate the accident.
Free Consultation
After a crash involving a technologically advanced vehicle, recorded footage and electronic data can be critical — but only if someone investigates before it disappears. Palermo Law knows what to look for and how to preserve it. Contact us today for a free consultation, and there’s no fee unless we recover for you.
This may be the most important point for the average Long Island driver.
You do not need to be involved in an accident with a fully autonomous vehicle for electronic vehicle evidence to matter.
Many ordinary cars on the road today contain sophisticated electronics and crash-recording technology. A vehicle may have an EDR even though the driver never thinks of the car as technologically advanced.
That means electronic evidence is becoming relevant to regular car accident cases too.
A rear-end accident on Sunrise Highway, a high-speed collision on the Long Island Expressway or an intersection accident in Nassau County may generate electronic evidence that can help an accident reconstruction expert understand what happened.
The technology is changing, but the underlying legal question remains familiar: Who was responsible for causing the accident?
What is changing is the evidence we may have available to answer that question.
Electronic evidence can help establish how an accident occurred, but an injured person’s case involves much more than liability.
New York’s No-Fault system generally provides initial coverage for accident-related medical expenses and lost earnings regardless of who caused the collision. There are also important filing deadlines following an accident. You can read more about those issues on our Long Island No-Fault Insurance Lawyer page.
For people who suffer life-changing injuries, the financial consequences can extend far beyond the initial medical bills. Future treatment, lost earning capacity, rehabilitation and long-term care can become major components of a claim. We discuss those issues in greater detail on our Long Island Catastrophic Injury Lawyer page.
Technology may change how we prove an accident happened. It does not change the very human consequences for the person who was injured.
I do not think traditional car accident cases are going away. I think they are becoming more technologically complicated.
There will still be drivers who speed, follow too closely, run red lights and make unsafe turns.
But increasingly, those drivers will be operating vehicles capable of generating data about what occurred.
At the same time, more vehicles will use advanced driver-assistance and automated technology. That creates another layer of potential evidence and, in some cases, potentially more complicated questions about responsibility.
Was it driver error?
Was the technology being misused?
Did the system operate as intended?
Was there a problem with the vehicle or its software?
What information did the vehicle record?
Who possesses that information?
Those are questions Long Island car accident lawyers are going to have to become increasingly comfortable answering.
After nearly three decades of handling personal injury cases, one thing has not changed: a good case starts with a good investigation.
What has changed is where we need to look for the evidence.
Today, some of the best evidence about a collision may be sitting inside one of the vehicles involved in the accident.
Tomorrow, there may be even more.
If you have been seriously injured in an accident involving a self-driving, partially automated or technologically advanced vehicle on Long Island, the investigation should begin as soon as possible. The vehicle and its electronic data may become important evidence, and preserving that evidence can be just as important as obtaining the police report or locating a witness.
If you have questions about an accident in Nassau or Suffolk County, you can contact Palermo Law for a free consultation.
A car's "black box" is commonly called an Event Data Recorder, or EDR. Depending on the vehicle, it may record information such as speed, braking, accelerator input, changes in velocity, seat belt status and airbag deployment around the time of a crash. That information can become important evidence when liability is disputed.
Not every vehicle has the same recording capabilities, and the information available varies by manufacturer, model and year. However, EDRs are found in many modern vehicles. After a serious Long Island car accident, an attorney should determine what technology the vehicles contain rather than assuming that no electronic crash information exists.
An EDR may contain vehicle-speed information from the period immediately preceding a collision, depending on the vehicle and whether a qualifying event was recorded. That data can be particularly important when drivers disagree about speed. It should generally be evaluated together with physical evidence, photographs and accident reconstruction evidence.
Depending on the vehicle and recording system, EDR data may indicate whether the service brake was activated before a collision. Some systems may also record accelerator information. This can help accident reconstruction experts evaluate whether a driver attempted to avoid a crash and how the vehicle was being operated.
Vehicles equipped with advanced driver-assistance or automated driving technology may generate information beyond traditional EDR data. The available evidence varies considerably among manufacturers and vehicles. In a self-driving or partially self-driving car accident, it is important to investigate what systems were installed, whether they were operating and what information was preserved.
Some technologically advanced vehicles use cameras as part of their safety, parking or driver-assistance systems. However, the existence of a camera does not necessarily mean useful crash video was recorded or retained. An attorney investigating the accident should determine what recordings or other electronic information may exist and act quickly to preserve relevant evidence.
Retrieving EDR information may require specialized equipment and a qualified accident reconstruction professional. Access can also depend on the particular vehicle and circumstances. In a serious accident, an attorney may need to preserve the vehicle, arrange an inspection and address access to electronic evidence before the vehicle is repaired, sold or destroyed.
Black box data can provide powerful evidence, but it does not necessarily establish liability by itself. Speed, braking and other recorded information must be considered with the police report, physical evidence, photographs, video, witness testimony and applicable traffic laws. The strongest liability analysis usually comes from evaluating all available evidence together.
Electronic evidence may not remain available indefinitely, and vehicles can be repaired, transferred or destroyed. An attorney can investigate what data may exist and take appropriate steps to preserve relevant evidence. Early investigation can be particularly important when a crash involves self-driving technology, driver-assistance systems or a dispute about how the accident occurred.
Many familiar New York car accident principles still apply, including negligence, No-Fault benefits and the serious-injury threshold. What can make an automated-vehicle case different is the evidence and potentially the parties involved. The investigation may include the driver's conduct, automated systems, vehicle data and, depending on the facts, other potential sources of responsibility.
The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and reflects the opinions of the author. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and results depend on the specific facts and applicable law. You should not act or rely on any information in this blog without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney regarding your individual situation.
