Ford began installing a single Restraint Control system (RCM) beginning in 1997. The primary function of the RCM was to control deployment of occupant protection systems (air bags, seat belt pre-tensioner, etc.). In addition, the RCM system stored a limited amount of air bag deployment data. Ford introduced a more advanced RCM in its model year 2000 Taurus and Sable vehicles that were equipped with advanced occupant protection. This system records longitudinal and lateral acceleration, along with some data related to the driver and passenger air bag deployment including: 80 milliseconds of crash pulse; deployment strategy of the dual-stage air bag system; seat belt use; pre-tensioner operation; and driver seat position.
The Ford system is different than the Vetronix CDR tool. Unlike the Vetronix CDR, the Ford system only allows the user to connect directly between a notebook computer and the vehicle's diagnostic connector (J1962 or Universal Serial Bus Connector). Unlike the Vetronix tool, the Ford unit cannot simulate the on-board bus or sensors, therefore the unit cannot be connected directly to the to the RCMs. Thus, in those cases when the vehicle's electrical system has been damaged in the crash, EDR boxes must be removed and sent to Ford for downloading. Further, the RCM were designed to be reusable. The Ford RCM does not store the crash event file in a permanent or incorruptible format. It will be overwritten by the next deployment event. In addition, the Ford software only provides a hexadecimal file that must be interpreted by the manufacturer.
Another major shortcoming of the Ford RCM system has been noted when there has been a complete electrical system failure in the Taurus/Sable. When this has occurred, an incomplete file was written from the EDR. This resulted in lost data in most of the severe crashes involving these vehicle.
The Following is a List of Firms and Individuals that Provide Event Data Recorder (EDR) Data Recovery Services:
|
Arizona |
Salem Boys Auto |
California |
Delta Analysis Fimbres Investigations Edward Phillips & Assoc. |
Colorado |
Colorado Collision Consultants, Inc. Impact Consulting Engineers, LLC |
District of Columbia |
D. P. Plant & Associates |
|
Georgia |
Ralph Cunningham |
Illinois |
William L. Newman, Jr. Packer Engineering |
Indiana |
Stephan M. Neese & Associates, Inc. Michael E. Walters |
Louisiana |
Gonzales & Associates |
Maryland |
R.J. Squire & Associates, Inc. Warshaw Engineering |
|
New Hampshire |
Collision Analysis & Academics, Inc. Mechanical Forensics Engineering Services, LLC |
|
New York |
Bob Burns John McManus, P.E. |
|
Ohio |
Introtech, Inc. |
|
Pennsylvania |
Commonwealth Transportation Consultants Forensic Engineering Services, Inc. |
|
Utah |
MRA Forensic Sciences |
Washington |
David C. Thornburg |
Wisconsin |
Great Lakes Crash Analysis, LLC |
Is the data from a "Black Box" admissible?
To date, there is only one reported case dealing with the admissibility of the data that is downloaded from an SDM. In July, 2002, the Appellate Court for the Fourth District of Illinois, applying a Frye standard, held that "the trial court did not abuse its discretion by (1) finding that the process of recording and downloading SDM data is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community and, thus, (2) determining that the Frye admissibility standard had been satisfied."
Bachman v. General Motors Corporation, 2002 Ill. App. LEXIS 659 (Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District) July 29, 2002.
Auto Accident Reconstruction: "The Black Box"
- Part 1: Auto Accident Reconstruction: The Black Box
- Part 2: The Black Box
- Part 3: A Technical Description of the Event Data Recording Process
- Part 4: Data Accuracy, Limitations, and Validation
- Part 5: List of Vehicles Equipped with an Event Data Recorder
- Part 6: Data, Tables, Charts, Graphs
- Part 7: The Ford Motor Company System
- Part 8: Bibliography
