EDR-event data recorder

Citat:
Uporabnik SJTV1 pravi:
Čisto prav je, da ne dobijo. Stavr je namenjena izboljševanju varnosti (analizi nesreč), in tovrstne stvari sodstvu ne smejo biti dosegljive.

Klikni za razširitev

Citat:
Uporabnik Denis pravi:
Mislim da je bil sarkasticen.

Klikni za razširitev

Citat:
Uporabnik Denis pravi:
Hmm...torej avto pelje prehitro, podre pešca, ta umre. Voznik pravi, da ni peljal več kot 35 kmh, peljal pa je v resnici 75, na cesti blato ali voda ali sneg, tako ni bilo mogoče izmeriti zavorne poti (en tak primer pač).
S to zadevo bi lahko ugotovili, da je ded peljal 75 in je to bilo krivo za smrt pešca. Enako bi lahko politik koga podrl v bosni ali kakor koli pač.

Klikni za razširitev

Citat:
Uporabnik WeWatchingYou pravi:
Ampak v tem primeru gre za smrt človeka in zaradi razjasnitve nesreče..

Klikni za razširitev

Citat:
Uporabnik Pbutec pravi:
Predvsem pa za odredbo sodišča. Ampak kot smo že takrat ob dogodku ugotovili, se bo mulo zmazal, ker imamo spet bogatega in vplivnega strica v ozadju. Sodišče pa spet išče načine kako zajebati primer. Za navadne smrtnike še nikoli niso potrebovali take vrste dokaza. A je sploh važno če si človeka ubil s 100km/h ali s 160km/h?

Klikni za razširitev

Citat:

Use as evidence in courts[edit]

There have been a number of trial cases in the US and Canada involving EDRs. Drivers have been convicted and exonerated as a result of EDR evidence.

Examples include:
In New South Wales, Australia, a teen-aged female (a probationary driver) was convicted of dangerous driving "causing death/occasioning grievous bodily harm" in 2005. Evidence from the Peugeot's EDR showed that the car was being driven in excess of the posted speed limit. An injunction against the use of EDR evidence, obtained by the owner of the car (the parents of the defendant), was overturned in the NSW Supreme Court.
In Quebec, Canada, the driver of a car who sped through a red light, crashing into another car at the intersection and killing the other driver, was convicted of "dangerous driving" in 2001 after EDR information revealed that it was he, not the deceased driver of the other car (as the defendant asserted), who was speeding. There were no other witnesses to the crash.
The first such use of EDR evidence in the United Kingdom was at Birmingham Crown Court during the trial of Antonio Boparan-Singh who crashed the Range Rover Sport he was driving into a Jeep in 2006. The accident left a baby girl paralyzed and the driver, who was aged 19 at the time of the incident, was sentenced to 21 months in prison. The EDR evidence allowed investigators to determine the driver was speeding at 72 mph in a 30 mph zone.[14]

Although EDR evidence can be valuable in the litigation of traffic-related accidents and incidents, the primary purpose of an EDR is to improve driver safety and not to provide data for accident reconstruction, and courts should consider the limitations of EDR data in determining the cause of traffic accidents.[15]

Klikni za razširitev