Connected Vehicles and Increasing Automation: Emerging Challenges for Evidence, Liability and Crash Investigation

Vehicles are Becoming Rolling Data Recorders

Modern vehicles can contain dozens of electronic control units recording different aspects of vehicle operation. Rather than a single source of information, a vehicle may contain several distinct categories of data, each with different capture methods, retention periods and access requirements. Some of this information is not stored solely within the vehicle, but may also be transmitted to manufacturers, telematics providers or fleet management platforms.

Event Data Recorders (EDRs) may retain a short window of data associated with a crash or near-crash event, potentially including parameters such as vehicle speed, braking inputs, accelerator position, seatbelt status and airbag deployment information. This data can assist in providing useful insights such as such as vehicle speed, seatbelt use and braking behaviour immediately prior to impact.

Telematics systems, whether factory-fitted, insurer-issued or installed as part of a fleet management program, may provide a broader picture of vehicle operation over time, including trip histories, location data, speed profiles and harsh driving events. This information can assist in identifying patterns of speeding, harsh driving or vehicle use, and may help investigators explore whether fatigue, distraction or other behavioural factors warrant further examination.

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) may also retain information relating to system status, warnings, interventions or faults, although the availability and accessibility of such records varies significantly between vehicle manufacturers and systems. This information may assist in determining whether a driver assistance system was active, issued warnings or intervened prior to a collision.

Aggregated connected vehicle datasets can also provide additional context regarding vehicle movements and operating conditions at a particular location. Unlike vehicle-specific records, these datasets can assist investigators in understanding broader trends within the road environment rather than the actions of a single driver.

Aggregated connected vehicle data may provide additional context regarding prevailing traffic conditions and driver behaviour at a location. Frequent harsh braking, sudden lane changes or repeated speed reductions may indicate locations where drivers routinely encounter unexpected hazards or where aspects of the road environment are contributing to elevated risk. Such data may also help experts assess whether assumptions regarding operating speeds and driver responses are consistent with broader traffic behaviour at that location.

The existence of data should not be confused with proof. The information available, and the conclusions that may be drawn from it, will depend upon the capabilities of the particular system, the circumstances of the crash and the quality of the extraction and interpretation process.

Access, Preservation and Privacy

The practical challenge for lawyers is that not all vehicle data is stored in the same place or retained for the same period. EDR data may be downloaded directly from the vehicle, while telematics and connected vehicle records are often controlled by manufacturers, fleet operators or third-party service providers. Some information may be overwritten through continued vehicle use, lost during repairs or become inaccessible if preservation steps are not taken promptly.

Vehicle-generated evidence also raises privacy and data-protection considerations. Driver Monitoring Systems, for example, may process information relating to driver attentiveness, though the nature of the information retained and accessible varies considerably between systems. Lawyers should therefore consider not only what data may exist, but who controls access to it, whether it has been preserved and what legal mechanisms may be required to obtain it.

The Human-Machine Relationship

One of the most significant developments in road safety over the past decade has been the rapid expansion of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).

Although these technologies can monitor the driving environment and intervene in certain circumstances, they vary significantly in both capability and purpose. Some systems provide warnings to the driver, others intervene momentarily to avoid or mitigate a crash, while others provide sustained assistance with steering, braking or acceleration.

Tasks that were once performed exclusively by the driver can now be assisted by vehicle systems, including maintaining speed and following distance, steering within a lane, recognising traffic signs and speed limits, monitoring driver attention, and in some circumstances applying emergency braking.

Importantly, these technologies do not make a vehicle autonomous. Current Australian-market technologies range from warning and momentary intervention functions, such as collision warnings and AEB, to SAE Level 1 and Level 2 driver-support features that provide sustained longitudinal or lateral control. None removes the need for an attentive human driver. SAE Level 3 to 5 automated vehicles, which remove the driving task from the human, are not currently in general use on Australian roads, although approved trials are being conducted. Governments have agreed to work toward conditional deployment in selected locations from 2027, subject to the necessary legislative and institutional arrangements.

That distinction is important because the presence of technologies such as AEB, Lane Support Systems or Adaptive Cruise Control does not, by itself, determine legal responsibility. What it does is introduce a new category of causal question: not simply what did the driver do?, but how did the driver and the system interact, and did either contribute to the outcome?

Examples may include:

• a driver placing excessive reliance on adaptive cruise control;

• a driver misunderstanding the limitations of a lane support system;

• a driver ignoring repeated driver-monitoring warnings;

• a driver disabling a safety feature; or

• a vehicle system failing to detect or respond to a hazard as intended.

These situations can create complex questions regarding driver expectations, foreseeable system limitations and the extent to which technology influenced the events leading to a crash.

For investigators and lawyers alike, understanding the human-machine interaction is becoming as important as understanding the physical evidence left at the scene. In many cases, the key issue may not be whether the driver or the technology was solely responsible, but how the actions of each combined to produce the outcome.

When Safety Systems are Involved in the Crash

Historically, vehicle safety systems operated largely in the background and became relevant only after a crash had occurred. Today, safety systems can influence events before impact.

Consider a vehicle fitted with Autonomous Emergency Braking. If a collision occurs, investigators may seek to establish whether the system detected the hazard, whether a warning was issued, whether braking intervention occurred, and how the driver responded. If AEB activation is recorded, that information may also assist in understanding pre-braking speed, the timing of hazard detection and the sequence of events immediately before impact. Environmental conditions, sensor performance and system design limitations may also become relevant.

Similarly, Lane Support Systems may become relevant where a vehicle departs its lane despite warnings or steering assistance.

As these technologies become more common, liability assessments may extend beyond traditional questions of driver negligence and include detailed examination of vehicle system performance, software functionality and human factors.

This does not mean responsibility shifts from the driver to the manufacturer. Rather, the analysis becomes more nuanced, requiring consideration of both human and technological contributions to the crash sequence.

Implications across practice areas

As valuable as vehicle-generated data is, it cannot determine liability by itself. Its significance depends on the cause of action, the issues in dispute and the purpose for which the evidence is relied upon.

The practical implications of connected vehicle technologies are already being felt across a range of practice areas. While the specific issues differ depending on the type of matter, common themes of evidence preservation, system performance, driver behaviour and causation frequently arise.

Here is how they tend to surface:

• Personal injury: causation and contributory negligence assessments may need to account for whether an ADAS feature was fitted, active and performing as intended, and whether the injured party's or defendant's conduct interacted with that system in a way that affected outcome or severity.

• Criminal law: prosecutions and defences involving speed, dangerous or negligent driving, and culpable driving may turn on EDR and ADAS data that is more granular, and more contestable, than traditional witness or physical evidence, raising fresh questions about data integrity, chain of custody and the qualifications required to interpret it.

• Insurance: insurance matters may require consideration of telematics records, vehicle system performance and whether the conduct of the driver, the operation of the vehicle or both contributed to a loss.

• Transport and heavy vehicle law: for fleet operators, ADAS and telematics data may be relevant to Chain of Responsibility obligations, depending on the nature of the alleged risk and the role of the parties involved.

• Workplace safety: occupational vehicle incidents generate a parallel data trail through fleet telematics and vehicle safety systems, which may assist in assessing what precautions were reasonably practicable and whether relevant safety controls were operating at the time of the incident.

Practical considerations for lawyers

One practical challenge that lawyers should be aware of is that vehicle-generated data may not remain available indefinitely. Some records may be overwritten, lost following vehicle repairs, deleted when power is disconnected or become inaccessible if a vehicle is destroyed.

In serious matters, early consideration should be given to:

• preserving the vehicle;

• identifying relevant data download requirements;

• identifying telematics providers and data custodians;

• reviewing dashcam retention policies;

• obtaining fleet management records;

• understanding manufacturer data access processes; and

• engaging appropriate experts at an early stage.

Waiting until litigation is well underway may result in valuable evidence being lost. Just as lawyers routinely secure CCTV footage following a critical incident, vehicle-generated data should be viewed as a potential source of perishable evidence.

Conclusion

The legal profession is entering a period where digital vehicle evidence will become increasingly central to crash investigation, causation analysis and liability determination.

As vehicles continue to generate larger volumes of operational data and undertake more elements of the driving task, lawyers will need to become more familiar with the capabilities, limitations and evidentiary value of these technologies.

Understanding what data exists, how it can be preserved and what it can reliably establish may become just as important as understanding traditional crash reconstruction evidence. As vehicle technologies continue to evolve, the lawyers who understand how to identify, preserve and interpret these new sources of evidence will be better placed to advise clients and test competing explanations of how a crash occurred.

In many future cases, the most important witness may not be the driver at all, but the vehicle itself.

About The Author:

David Beck, Principal, Datum Road Safety

David Beck is the Principal of Datum Road Safety, an independent road safety engineering and crash investigation consultancy. He has more than two decades of experience in crash investigation, road safety engineering, vehicle safety and forensic analysis, and is regularly engaged to provide expert evidence in legal matters. He regularly provides expert reports and testimony in matters involving road crashes, vehicle technology, human factors and transport safety.

www.datumroadsafety.com.au, davidb@datumroadsafety.com.au