Content deleted Content added
→Purported use and controversy: resection |
→Notable incidents: rem linkspam, possible COI |
||
Line 129:
*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.<ref>{{cite web |access-date=2010-02-03 |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/how-cars-black-box-trapped-speeding-rich-list-heir-who-left-baby-paralysed-in-range-rover-crash-6615218.html |title=How car's black box trapped speeding Rich List heir who left baby paralysed in Range Rover crash |work=London Evening Standard |date=2008-04-04 }}</ref>
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.
In Canada, usage of such data in court might be considered as an error, without proper evidentiary foundation establishing its reliability, as for with the crash data retrieval software (CDR) that interpreted the EDR.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/litigation/no-privacy-breach-in-warrantless-seizure-of-data-recorder-after-car-crash-sask-court-of-appeal/368692 | title=No privacy breach in warrantless seizure of data recorder after car crash: Sask. Court of Appeal }}</ref>
| |||