The appearance of the third party staged Rashomon: the Han Dynasty exposed some data of Chaozhou EDR accident.

The identification results of the traffic accident of Chaozhou Tesla Model Y car have been released, and the identification institution entrusted by Chaozhou police is the Institute of Judicial Appraisal Science; The institute has sent the appraisal results to Chaozhou police, and said that it will not publish the appraisal report and will not accept media interviews.

It seems that only Chaozhou police are qualified to issue appraisal reports. Whether it will be announced and when it will be announced are still uncertain. It depends on the final negotiation result between Tesla and the driver involved.

But one person got a partial appraisal report! This person is Han Chao, a well-known blogger, who had a lawsuit with Tesla before.

Now there is the first question:

Through what channels did Korea and North Korea get some data reports of Y-type super-European traffic accidents EDR (Automobile Event Data Recording System)? On the premise that the Institute of Forensic Medicine explicitly does not publish reports and does not accept media interviews, it seems that there are loopholes in the acquisition of some data by Han Dynasty. Now the data is in the hands of Chaozhou police, and a car got the data from a media person. This result is very strange.

The reference that can confirm the appraisal result now is the statement of the insurance company staff involved in traffic accident claims, saying that the appraisal result has come out, but the owner does not recognize the appraisal result and asks for re-appraisal. The police have not issued a traffic accident responsibility confirmation yet. The son of the driver involved once said that when his father was ready to pull over, he found it difficult to step on the brake pedal, and he still couldn't brake after stepping deeply, and then the vehicle drove at a high speed of about 2.6 kilometers; However, the exposure appraisal report shows different results, but the information is not perfect.

According to the data exposed by the Han Dynasty, the driver fastened his seat belt before the collision, and the speed before the collision was 163KM/H, which was one kilometer faster. Five seconds before the impact, the steering wheel had a 25-degree angle change. The stability control shows that the vehicle stability control system intervened and the vehicle speed dropped by five kilometers. After the steering wheel stabilized, it accelerated again.

And within 5 seconds before the impact, the travel of the switch (corresponding to the accelerator pedal of the fuel vehicle) of the vehicle has been 100%, that is, the brake pedal has been closed-the brake pedal has not been pressed.

Judging from this result, it seems to be caused by the misoperation of the driver involved! The result is obvious. If the final confirmation is the responsibility of the driver, then the driver will basically face imprisonment of more than three years and less than seven years; This result is obviously unacceptable, so it is expected that it refuses to accept the appraisal result and asks for re-appraisal.

However, this result cannot be confirmed only by the two-page appraisal report exposed by the Han Dynasty. Han Chao also said that the EDR data he obtained was limited and the final result of the report was not clear. It's just the statement of the staff of the comprehensive insurance company, which is basically confirmed as the responsibility of the driver.

(The picture below shows the news released by the owner's family after the traffic accident. )

However, it is very interesting that this information was revealed by the Han Dynasty. Han Chao bought the second-hand Model 3 in a used car certified by Tesla as an accident repair car for normal vehicle sales, and later sued Tesla for several times of compensation; Later, Tesla counterclaimed that Han Chao infringed on goodwill and compensated more than 5 million. Now that the Han Dynasty has thrown out such a two-page appraisal report, it seems really difficult to understand Rashomon's feelings.

First, EDR's Automobile Event Data Recording System (GB39732/ GB) requires EDT to record two types of data, namely, A 17 items and B-43 items. Class A data include vehicle identification number, speed, rotational speed, braking parameters, accelerator pedal opening, seat belt usage, speed change caused by collision, etc. Class B data mainly include collision acceleration, brake pedal opening and steering wheel angle, and functions of active safety systems such as ABS/ESC/TSC/AEB/ACC.

It seems that the appraisal report still lacks some corresponding data (not yet published). The key point is that its EDR only records the vehicle driving data 5 seconds before the collision! Will not actively record the data before the collision.

So the second question appeared. Before the accident, the driver was driving at a high speed of about 2.6 kilometers, and the data at this stage is unknown.

In other words, the data recorded by EDR is only the first five seconds, which is far from explaining why this car is "arrogant" for more than two kilometers; The status of a few minutes is blank, and it is really unconvincing to use only the results to represent it.

Give an example that may not be appropriate: a man rides a stubborn donkey. The donkey is disobedient and keeps jumping around. The rider tried to tame it, but he never tamed it; Finally, the donkey collided with people on the roadside, but people only saw the scene of the donkey hitting people. After hitting someone, the donkey quieted down, so people said it was the rider's intention.

Can this statement be convincing?

On the other hand, if a docile donkey is urged to run by the rider, it will hit someone when it is out of control; What people see is also the last scene. At this time, some people said that the donkey was frightened and the rider could not control it. The businessman who sold the donkey to the rider was not convinced.

But who knows?

Without process evidence, whoever says what is right and who says what is wrong must be wrong from the opposite side; Therefore, if EDR can only record the data of five seconds before the collision, and the background database does not record the data of continuous driving, there is no dispute in this case.

It seems unreasonable to blame anyone. If the responsibility of a driver is defined only by the result of the last five seconds, I am afraid many people will not accept it. Let's wait for the complete appraisal report to see if it is defined by these five seconds of data.

Editor: Tianhe Automobile-Automobile Science Island

Published by Tianhe MCN, all rights reserved.

Like our content, please like it and follow the comments.

This article is from Tianhe Automobile Science Island, written by Che Yi, and the copyright belongs to the author. Please contact the author for any form of reprint. The content only represents the author's point of view and has nothing to do with the car reform.