Will EDRs Replace The Need For Crash Reconstructionists?
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:38 pm
Nov 2020: From June 2020 some posts to the thread Should a CRASH type damage analysis include induced damage?.
Now made separate posts. The first was about a Facebook post:
Now made separate posts. The first was about a Facebook post:
- And then below was another response by someone to that Facebook Post:
- In the day and age of all vehicles having EDRs I fear these types of analysis will come to an end. Even mathematical calculations that have been the foundation of all that has been done in crash reconstruction will begin to take a back seat to the new reality of crash investigation.
- I disagree...EDRs are NOT infallible and also only tell part of the reconstruction story...sure they are a great additional piece of the puzzle however they can and do have issues/failures and don't tell you everything you need to know about a crash...we will always need a good vehicle and site examination and measurements to fully understand what happened in many crashes, etc.
I've always been wary of using simple 'damage analysis' as a primary reconstruction technique (unless all other evidence not available) since it is a crude first approximation technique and should only be used in concert with other analyses and examinations.
And funny that NHTSA, for whom Ray invented CRASH and NHTSA embraced CRASH damage analysis for their NASS statistical studies, was using tape measure, strings and plumb bobs to measure which i believe is in their recognition of the crudeness of simple damage analysis:- Being within an inch or so of measurements is GOOD ENOUGH FOR DAMAGE ANALYSIS!
don't kid yourself otherwise.
- Being within an inch or so of measurements is GOOD ENOUGH FOR DAMAGE ANALYSIS!