Challenge incorrect insurance telematics data?

angrycrow

So there are three possible versions here. Version 1 your son was stationary behind the bmw (car 1) when car 3 hit you son in the rear pushing him forwards into the rear of car 1.

Version 2 your son failed to brake in time and hit car 1 in the rear and some point after that car 3 hit your son in the rear but did not shunt him back into car 1.

Version 3 your son braked late and would have hit car 1 but car 3 hit him in the rear first pushing him into car 1.

Version 1 data will show normal deceleration, a period of being stationary and then 2 impacts within milliseconds.

Version 2 data will show heavy deceleration followed by an impact a pause then a second impact.

Version 3 will show heavy deceleration, an impact a short pause and a second impact.

Get your son to ask his insurers which pattern the data shows.

It should also be noted that if you are injured there is a conflict of interest for you to discuss liability with his insurers as your claim could be against his policy

Strider590

I can't find any solid information that suggests these boxes have the external sensors required to differentiate front/rear impacts. It would require independent accelerometers in front and rear locations on the vehicle, I seriously doubt that happens and more likely there is a single sensor within the actual unit.

In an accident like this it would record a short burst of very harsh forward movement followed by a sudden stop, It would require a very skilled individual to determine whether that movement was the driver or a rear impact.

maddogb

more to the point what pattern of data in the box do they claim suggests the events occurred as described, without anything truly solid there surely occams razor applies.
I mean what are the odds of two accidents occurring in 5 secs within 50 yards of each other without being connected....

arcon5

The guy behind is hardly getting off though like you suggest. He's still liable for damage to your rear end.

You have independent data and a witness (rear driver) saying you hit the car in front first then he hit you... You have nothing but your say so. Doesn't look good.

angrycrow

maddogb wrote: »

more to the point what pattern of data in the box do they claim suggests the events occurred as described, without anything truly solid there surely occams razor applies.
I mean what are the odds of two accidents occurring in 5 secs within 50 yards of each other without being connected....

Actually very likely.

They situation and dispute the op finds themselves in is very common.

Just look at the Sheppey crossing, over 100 separate vehicles in multiple collisions over the space of 10 minutes.

Once came across a man who had four separate fault accidents in the space of 5 minutes with the final one being when he reversed his van without looking and crushed the front of a police car parked behind him.

thescouselander

OP - it might make things clearer if you could tell us what sort of telematics box is installed in the car as different models have different capabilities.

Also, does the box connect to the car's diagnostic port?

justinhow

To bod1467,
I am helping my son who has very little experience in this area - it is obviously with his consent and the insurance company is across this. It is only advice and guidance - I see no legal issues here.

To angrycrow,
We have requested the telematics data and will see what it shows. It should show Version 1.

To Strider590,
I also do not know what they exactly measure - it will be interesting to see what it shows. My dashcam has a G sensor and can show acceleration and deceleration and differentiates between the two. The g force on a rear shunt should be far higher for a very short period of time than acceleration - unless you have a McLaren P1 may be.

To arcon5,
To be fair the rear driver is not a reliable witness - as I am indeed not. We all have vested interests in the outcome - apart arguably from the guy in the front car who is definitely in the clear from an insurance claim point of view. Re the data - I believe it does not show what they claim - I know what happened and it is not as described by the black box company. We will know more when/if we get hold of it.

To thescouselander,
The car and black box has gone - I have requested the make, model and serial # for the box that was in the car. I am not sure about what it connects to but I do not believe so. We will check what the box connects to in his current car although we think it is a different model of black box than the one before. Interestingly there appears to be little stopping the engineer mounting it backwards - just a black rectangular box tie wrapped onto the car.

maddogb

angrycrow wrote: »

Actually very likely.

They situation and dispute the op finds themselves in is very common.

Just look at the Sheppey crossing, over 100 separate vehicles in multiple collisions over the space of 10 minutes.

Once came across a man who had four separate fault accidents in the space of 5 minutes with the final one being when he reversed his van without looking and crushed the front of a police car parked behind him.

interesting your claims of common occurrence refer to a news report 3 years old and include a quote from a senior policeman it was the "worst incident in 20 years"
Contrary much?

Fat_Walt

justinhow wrote: »

To bod1467,
I am helping my son who has very little experience in this area - it is obviously with his consent and the insurance company is across this. It is only advice and guidance - I see no legal issues here.

To angrycrow,
We have requested the telematics data and will see what it shows. It should show Version 1.

To Strider590,
I also do not know what they exactly measure - it will be interesting to see what it shows. My dashcam has a G sensor and can show acceleration and deceleration and differentiates between the two. The g force on a rear shunt should be far higher for a very short period of time than acceleration - unless you have a McLaren P1 may be.

To arcon5,
To be fair the rear driver is not a reliable witness - as I am indeed not. We all have vested interests in the outcome - apart arguably from the guy in the front car who is definitely in the clear from an insurance claim point of view. Re the data - I believe it does not show what they claim - I know what happened and it is not as described by the black box company. We will know more when/if we get hold of it.

To thescouselander,
The car and black box has gone - I have requested the make, model and serial # for the box that was in the car. I am not sure about what it connects to but I do not believe so. We will check what the box connects to in his current car although we think it is a different model of black box than the one before. Interestingly there appears to be little stopping the engineer mounting it backwards - just a black rectangular box tie wrapped onto the car.

So has your evidence then.

thescouselander

Briefly most boxes have GPS and accelerometers similar to whats in a smartphone. In that case I expect the box could detect a front and rear impact and the sequence of those impacts could be derived from the data.

What is important is that it is quite difficult to determine at a high degree of confidence if the car has come to a complete stop with that combination of sensors because both GPS and the accelerometers are prone to drift and other spurious inputs. If the box plugs into the cars diagnostic port however, it would be possible to detect the car has stopped due the speed reading taken from the car.

I expect the box will output the data in something like a CSV or XML file so if you could get hold of that it should be reasonably straightforward to work out what data is available and what could be made of it. I'd be willing to have a quick look at if you'd like as I have a geeky interest in this sort of thing.