The other side of the coin is those who see them as protection, i.e. evidence that they were not at fault. Some people with a lot to lose, who are likely to be sued by those trying to capitalize on an accident, want EDRs in their cars. It is like always having a witness who will be objective. In fact, there was a trucker who used the EDR data to fight a charge of vehicular homicide - the EDR backed up his witness's version of the wreck that he applied the brakes, tried to avoid the collision and was never speeding.

 

I respectfully disagree. All the EDR does is record data. Assuming it or the sensors it relies on do not make any errors, it is then up to a hired "expert" witness to correctly read the data, then interpret the data, then convey his/her "findings" to the parties involved. Like other "objective" evidence, there's alot of room to play the results any way you like. Even in the example you cite above, the EDR data alone was not exculpatory . . . it was the EDR data combined with an eye witness (who are usually unreliable) that perhaps convinced the jury or court.

Bottom line is EDR's are just one more thing to go wrong and subject to misuse.

 

I agree with you. I don't think I would want to rely on an EDR but I have read that some executives in Japan and elsewhere ask for them for the reasons I mentioned. Also I suspect that eventually insurance companies will give discounts for them.

 

I'm very sorry about your brother. I'm sure it was, and is, very tough.