Discovery Questions...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Discovery Questions for Distracted Driving

8 Posts
6 Users
0 Likes
2,573 Views
alveylee
(@alveylee)
Posts: 6
Active Member
Topic starter
 

Researching the issue of forensics in distracted driving cases. I'm at the point of where I want to create and refine questions that attorneys can use in the collection/preservation stage of the investigation.

Would anyone in the community have and be willing to share any DISCOVERY Questions that have used in past cases?

Thank You for sharing,

 
Posted : 29/07/2018 5:33 am
(@armresl)
Posts: 1011
Noble Member
 

I'm confused.

Why would you need questions in discovery?
In discovery you are requesting documents, reports, video, etc.

Also, what type of cases are these?
Distracted driving is usually a M or a ticket. This sounds like for insurance companies.

Researching the issue of forensics in distracted driving cases. I'm at the point of where I want to create and refine questions that attorneys can use in the collection/preservation stage of the investigation.

Would anyone in the community have and be willing to share any DISCOVERY Questions that have used in past cases?

Thank You for sharing,

 
Posted : 29/07/2018 8:32 am
(@trewmte)
Posts: 1877
Noble Member
 

Can you confirm more clearly what it is you seek, please? Questions about distracted driving is a huge area because there are distractions for a driver internal and external to a vehicle.

Distractions caused by state of mind, emotions, drink, drugs and so. Do these elements form part of the questions you seek?

Equally, you will need to be specific about the make and model of vehicle involved and avoid generalisations. Do you know the make/model?

Additionally, have you identified any infotainments systems installed in or on the vehicle?

What about navigational and communication systems data?
(https://trewmte.blogspot.com/2008/12/research-into-hands-free-mobile-calls.html)

Would the question cellphone location data have relevance?
(https://trewmte.blogspot.com/2014/08/csa-site-survey-method4cell-types.html)

Do you see the telematic systems data as being relevant?
(Engine Control Unit (ECU), Transmission Control Unit (TCU), Anti-lock Braking System (ABS),
Body Control Modules (BCM) etc.)

This is an area that I do have some understanding as I was one of the experts in the first UK case concerning death by driving caused by the driver being distracted using a mobile phone (on a call) whilst driving at speed and on the wrong side of the road. (https://trewmte.blogspot.com/2010/10/mobile-phones-carrying-warning-signs.html And some later cases of car and heavy goods vehicle fatalities.)

Of more recent work I am researcher for the last 3 years researching "safety" concerning Autonomous/Connected Vehicles/Artificial Intelligence. Distracted driver forms part of that research. Another aspect of my research is the examination of The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) risk assessment for autonomous docking and manned docking, and autonomous-to-man handover control in emergency cases of space vehicles (on planetary surfaces). The purpose of that study is that AV project management should be to NASA standard for rigorous assessment and testing. Although more information is disclosed on a daily basis AV industry best practice, assessment and testing is difficult to define as no one standard has been set.

Regarding AV and distracted driver I have raised the query that should the vehicle AV system bring the vehicle to the point of risk/danger (collision) and the AV/AI raises an alert (e.g. 7-seconds before impact) how does the AV system know the driver has consciously taken control? In this regard I raised the point should the AV system have knowledge (conformation response) by having hand-engaging sensors on the steering wheel? Of course, if those sensors were not there what risk/danger algorithm would be in place as a secondary AV defensive accident avoidance procedure? I have yet to receive any responses.
(https://mashable.com/2018/03/21/uber-self-driving-car-fatal-crash-video/)

BTW - The steam locomotive Stephenson's Rocket model launched with no brakes and on the day of Rocket's first demonstration in 1830 the day was marred by the death of William Huskisson, the Member of Parliament for Liverpool, who was struck and killed at Parkside.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenson%27s_Rocket & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3woUopc1ZS4). Would that omission be down to driver distraction?

 
Posted : 29/07/2018 9:11 am
hcso1510
(@hcso1510)
Posts: 303
Reputable Member
 

I believe that Greg is correct that some additional information on your part would be helpful. In the meantime I’ll take a stab at it.

Now you indicated that you wanted to refine questions that attorney’s could use in the collection/preservation stage of the investigation? Seeing how they wouldn’t be involved that I am assuming what you want are ideas “questions” to use to attack law enforcements actions and thereby the States case? Am I correct?

First let me put my Darth Vader mask on and then I’ll tell you what I would do and what I won’t to.

So first off “If I We’re the investigating officer” I would seize the drivers cell phone if possible and isolate it from the network. I’d get the number of the device and send out a preservation letter to the carrier. 2703d, or SW, from a court of record, and request calls, texts, mms and internet records. I’d also get the text content if you were dealing with the carrier that retains it.

Then I’m going to Apple “If they had an I phone” and requesting iMessage logs.

If the handset is a Droid I might go to Google and see if they have any Google messaging data?

Does the vehicle have a crash data recorder?

Infotainment system? I’ve not been to the Berla 40hr school yet, but I know they would have recommend practices for how to handle and process evidence.

How about an OnStar deployment record, or video?

Now that’s a pretty good portion of what I would do. Now let me tell you what I wouldn’t do. I wouldn’t touch any of this with a 10 foot pole. Now there is one exception, but I’ll mention that at the end.

So hypothetically I going to say that your crash took place at 1210 PM.

So if that is what you had what time is 1210? Is it 1210 and 00 seconds, or is it 1210 and 59 seconds?

Now If I sent a text message at 121000, got my eyes back up on the road at 121001 and was focused an aware of roadway condition by 121003-04 and a crash took place at 121010 did my sending the text approximately 10 seconds previously contribute to the accident? Now what if the accident took place at 121059? Approximately 59 seconds later?

So 1210 depending on how detailed a record goes can be 121000 seconds or 59 seconds later. Just 1 second before registering 1211.

I ask this because I do not know….Depending on the OS is there a .db that records when a sms/mms was created, finished, or sent? How detailed is it? Hours/minutes, or hours/minutes/seconds?

Now let’s say you had ALL the available times for ALL this stuff. Here is you $64, 000 question. What are all these things synced to? A time that was manually imputed, GPS synchronization, Cellular carrier time, World Clock, OnStar time, Naval Master Clock? What is the variation, and how often are corrections made if necessary?

If reaction time is roughly 1.5 seconds then how long after a distraction can someone be fully aware of their surroundings? Maybe 2 seconds?

Ok, so here is my exception. If I had CDR’s that showed an active voice call at the time of the accident “I might” use that, but as far as a message goes I would not testify to that.

I don’t need the specifics of the case, but I would think that the crash happened. IF it happened what would a conviction for distracted driving do? Is it an enhancement to the original charge?

Without video, or an eyewitness saying they saw X with the phone in their hand I personally believe there is grey area, or possibly reasonable doubt in making arguments of this nature.

Get some details out to Greg. I’m anxious to read what he has.

 
Posted : 30/07/2018 2:16 am
alveylee
(@alveylee)
Posts: 6
Active Member
Topic starter
 

Ed,
Developing these questions is meant for the initial collection/preservation stage of the investigation and assisting attorneys at the beginning of their cases. The end goal is to identify all the potential sources of digital evidence that could be used in personal injury cases. These are being developed purely for civil matters in personal injury casework. The questions will be broken down into an outline based on the potential type of evidence desired for preservation in hopes of obtaining the digital evidence for extraction and forensic analysis at some point.

The comment regarding using this information to attack law enforcement investigations is 100% inaccurate.

Thanks,

 
Posted : 30/07/2018 2:28 am
(@armresl)
Posts: 1011
Noble Member
 

Thought it was about insurance.

You wont have access to as much as has been mentioned in the replies after the one I posted.
Blackboxing the car is a whole other discipline and tool set which almost all of us on here don't have.

Ed,
Developing these questions is meant for the initial collection/preservation stage of the investigation and assisting attorneys at the beginning of their cases. The end goal is to identify all the potential sources of digital evidence that could be used in personal injury cases. These are being developed purely for civil matters in personal injury casework. The questions will be broken down into an outline based on the potential type of evidence desired for preservation in hopes of obtaining the digital evidence for extraction and forensic analysis at some point.

The comment regarding using this information to attack law enforcement investigations is 100% inaccurate.

Thanks,

 
Posted : 30/07/2018 6:33 am
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

I don’t need the specifics of the case, but I would think that the crash happened. IF it happened what would a conviction for distracted driving do? Is it an enhancement to the original charge?

At least here, if actually proved and if the crash caused injuries, it implies a revision of the driving license, here is a recent case (Italian but not too bad in Google translate)
http//www.camionsupermarket.it/blog/incidente-stradale-revisione-della-patente-in-caso-di-distrazione

Ordinance n. 61 of March 8, 2018 the TAR Liguria, with which rejected the request presented by the driver of the vehicle occurred in a road accident with injured, against the provision of the Motorizzazione Civile di Genova, with which the license was revised driving the driver for the behavior of the applicant, appropriately described in the communication of the Traffic Police 22 June 2017, against a woman (driver), in relation to the fact detected following the road accident.
This decision is of considerable importance for the so-called distracted driving, often a source of road accidents, which also involve your means. In the common lexicon, your vehicles when involved in traffic accidents often occupy the main titles of the various newspapers, even if it is a simple road accident.
Returning to the commentary of the sentence of the Genoese TAR, we read ". . and admitted confessorily, appears gravely imprudent, resulting in distraction from the unavoidable attention to driving to take an object from the bag placed on the front right seat; behavior that resulted in an accident with injuries to the detriment of another driver, justifies the administration's doubts as to the persistence of technical fitness to the driving qualification ".
In PQM the judging body has expressed itself "The Regional Administrative Court for Liguria (Section Two) rejects the incidental request for suspension of the execution of the contested provision."
The decision of the judges with this ruling can pave the way for similar decisions, unfortunately as is known, distraction is an aggravating factor in the cause of road accidents, often this "ugly" habit of using the smartphone without speakerphone while driving, in "Beard" to the provisions of art. 173, which reiterates with force in the second paragraph that it is forbidden for the driver to use radiotelephonic devices while operating the headset, adding in the last paragraph that the use of handsfree or headset-equipped devices is permitted, provided that the driver has adequate hearing abilities at both ears (which do not require hands to operate).
This ruling irrefutably conveys the legitimacy of the measure adopted by the Office of Civil Motorization, pursuant to art. 128 CdS "Revision of driving license" with which the driving license revision was ordered, as per paragraph 1-ter. " The driving license revision referred to in paragraph 1 is always available when the driver has been involved in a traffic accident if he has caused serious injuries to people and against him has been challenged the violation of one of the provisions of this code from which it follows the application of the administrative sanction of the suspension of the driving license. The license can be revised, after a serious traffic accident, as a result of this standard ascribed in the Highway Code.

Without video, or an eyewitness saying they saw X with the phone in their hand I personally believe there is grey area, or possibly reasonable doubt in making arguments of this nature.

This.
I doubt that without a confession, or the video or eyewitnesses (and possibly even eyewitnesses could be hardly trusted) it can actually be easily proved, and I presume that traffic police isn't going to become digital investigators only to add the revision of the license to the charges in case of such a crash.

Maybe the actual insurance may want to go all the way down to this kind of investigation in order to have (I think it is called in English) "right of recourse" and recover at least parts of the indemnifications payed to the victim(s) from the "distracted" driver.

But of course, being not LE and surely intervening not immediately, the insurance investigation has little chances to actually "prove" anything.

Another note about messaging/texting (let us assume for the moment that the hypothetical driver was using a "legal" earpiece or speakerphone setup, self-standing or connected to the infotainment system of the car).

If a message is received, there is no actual proof that it represented a distracting item AFAICT, the phone maybe buzzed once, and even if the incoming message was tapped on, you have no real way to know if it was actually read.

If a message is sent, it implies active use of the phone (and of course typing the message is a distracting activity) but how many times will be the message actually be sent?
99.99% it will go type-type-type- type-type-crash, i.e the message will not be sent at all.

And the same applies to - still an example - entering an address in the navigator while driving.

jaclaz

 
Posted : 30/07/2018 9:42 am
(@Anonymous)
Posts: 0
Guest
 

This level of investigation is undoubtedly beyond anyone’s imagination and can have ramifications. Then I asked one of my friends who works for a DUI lawyer and he told me that this isn’t going to happen in next 5 years or so but can be implemented one day.

 
Posted : 17/08/2018 9:11 am
Share: