Where was the driver’s attention directed before impact? Vehicle infotainment forensics can help answer that question when the vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR) cannot, since the EDR is designed primarily to capture limited crash-related information around a triggering event.
Investigators therefore examine infotainment records, telematics data, dash-camera footage, and physical reconstruction evidence together to build a pre-crash timeline. No single artifact establishes distraction on its own.
In 2024, 3,208 fatalities and an estimated 315,167 injuries occurred in U.S. crashes involving distracted drivers, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data. The sections below walk through what this evidence includes, why it matters most in low-speed and no-deployment cases, and how investigators and courts evaluate it.
Key takeaways: what vehicle infotainment data adds to distraction investigations
Attorneys and claims professionals may examine infotainment, telematics, and dash-camera data alongside the EDR to help evaluate a driver’s attention before a crash.
What the evidence includes
Several connected-vehicle data sources go beyond the EDR:
- Infotainment systems may store navigation history, paired device records, and call and message logs
- Telematics systems may preserve location and driving events, while dash cameras may capture roadway or driver video
- These sources can be especially valuable when the EDR contains no relevant event or limited pre-crash data
How investigations typically use it
Investigators pair these records with human factors research:
- Human factors experts may integrate timestamped digital records with glance and response-time research
- A connection event or navigation entry gains meaning only after comparison with vehicle movement
- Significance depends on timestamp validation within the circumstances of the collision
Rimkus digital forensics and human factors experts analyze vehicle and device data in distraction matters; contact Rimkus to discuss a specific case.
What is vehicle infotainment and telematics forensics?
Vehicle infotainment and telematics forensics examines data created by a vehicle’s connected systems, such as navigation history, device connections, location records, and camera footage, in contrast to the EDR, which generally captures a defined set of crash-related data associated with a qualifying event.
For light vehicles equipped with one, Part 563 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets federal requirements for the EDR. Manufacturers are not required to install an EDR, but any EDR that is voluntarily installed must meet these requirements.
Part 563 defines an event in part by a longitudinal cumulative delta-V of 8 km/h or more within a 150-millisecond interval, or by activation of a non-reversible occupant restraint, while recording and retrieval behavior depends on the applicable requirements and vehicle system.
For most vehicles currently on the road, the five-second, 2 Hz pre-crash recording standard remains the practical baseline. A phased rule change will extend that window to 20 seconds at 10 Hz for a growing share of new vehicles beginning September 1, 2028, reaching full compliance by 2031 to 2032. Older and small-volume manufacturer vehicles may remain on the shorter standard even longer.
What are some examples of vehicle infotainment and telematics forensics?
Three evidence types commonly evaluated in infotainment and telematics investigations are infotainment artifacts, telematics records, and dash-camera footage.
Infotainment artifacts
Infotainment artifacts commonly include navigation tracklogs, paired-device records, call and message logs, and connection events, per Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) best practices. The same guidance also lists door, light, gear, and odometer events, along with Global Positioning System (GPS) time-sync and system-reboot records, though which artifacts actually survive varies by manufacturer, system generation, and model year.
Digital Forensics practice notes that in-vehicle infotainment systems can reveal data the EDR does not capture, which is especially valuable in low-speed collisions with no air bag deployment, such as many pedestrian and cyclist cases. Investigators may identify artifacts consistent with touchscreen interaction, calling activity, or navigation entry, then compare them with other records to assess timing and attribution; the available interpretation is system-specific.
Telematics records
Telematics systems may preserve location, speed, and driving-event data locally, through an original equipment manufacturer service, or through a fleet, insurer, or third-party platform. Depending on the vehicle and platform, related records may also include restraint or occupant-status information.
Dash camera footage
Forward-facing dash-camera footage may document pre-impact traffic and evasive action, while inward-facing fleet cameras may document driver posture and gaze direction. Loop recording can overwrite the oldest unprotected segments, and camera clocks are not always accurate.
Why is vehicle infotainment and telematics forensics important?
Infotainment, telematics, and dash-camera evidence can be particularly valuable when the EDR contains no relevant event or provides limited information, including in some low-speed and no-deployment collisions, and when potentially relevant records may be lost if they are not identified and preserved promptly.
Some pedestrian and cyclist strikes may not trigger an EDR event at all, depending on delta-V, restraint deployment, and vehicle-specific recording logic.
In the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report HIR-24/06, a 2023 Arizona crash between a pickup truck and a group of bicyclists, the airbag control module recorded no events despite two fatalities and multiple injuries. Investigators instead estimated the pickup’s speed at one-second intervals using longitude, latitude, and timestamp data recovered from a forensic examination of the driver’s cell phone.
That investigation illustrates how other evidence sources can help reconstruct pre-crash vehicle movement when an EDR does not contain a relevant event. Infotainment GPS tracklogs, telematics records, and dash-camera footage may supplement the available crash evidence with location, speed history, or visual context not contained in the EDR record.
Preservation obligations may arise when litigation is reasonably anticipated or foreseeable, depending on the governing law and circumstances. The appropriate preservation and acquisition process also depends on the data holder, applicable legal requirements, contract terms, and procedural posture.
A vehicle may retain infotainment artifacts locally while a telematics provider maintains separate server-based records under its own retention schedule. A dash camera may continue overwriting unprotected footage in the meantime, so early identification of potentially relevant data sources and custodians can be important to preservation efforts.
How is vehicle infotainment and telematics forensics investigated?
Investigation generally means recovering artifacts from each source, understanding what that source cannot tell an investigator, and then cross-validating everything against a synchronized timeline instead of relying on any single record.
Each source has limits worth understanding before relying on it. SWGDE cautions that a previously paired device may reconnect automatically even when the phone is locked, so a Bluetooth connection entry alone does not demonstrate active use.
Vehicle system clocks may also drift from real time if the system does not sync to a time server, and logged events can be incomplete even under controlled testing conditions. A missing record may simply reflect a system limitation rather than the absence of the underlying activity.
Video carries similar limits. A forward-facing camera may show roadway conditions without capturing the driver’s face or hands, and an inward-facing camera may document posture without establishing what the driver actually perceived.
Digital forensic experts recover and validate artifacts, reconstruction experts analyze vehicle motion and collision dynamics, and human factors experts separately address attention, visibility, perception, and response. Investigators compare each artifact’s timestamp against vehicle movement and hazard development before drawing conclusions, since conflicts among sources may reflect clock drift or differing sample rates rather than a finding about the driver.
A synchronized timeline compares infotainment, telematics, and video against each other and against the EDR, without treating any single artifact as definitive on its own.
An auditable version of that timeline links each conversions, plotted points, and demonstrative exhibits back to source records so another qualified expert can evaluate the basis for the analysis. Cross-validation among independent sources can strengthen the reliability of a pre-crash reconstruction and help identify inconsistencies or limitations in individual data points.
What standards are applied when investigating vehicle infotainment and telematics forensics?
No single technical rule governs infotainment and telematics evidence; investigators may draw on SWGDE best practices, platform-specific procedures, human factors research, and other methods appropriate to the evidence and questions presented.
Recovery and interpretation methods therefore vary by examiner and platform, which is why the standards below focus on evidentiary reliability instead of a fixed technical procedure.
One frequently cited naturalistic driving study sponsored by the NHTSA and conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute is directly on point. It found that glances away from the forward roadway lasting more than two seconds were associated with at least twice the near-crash and crash risk of baseline driving.
Case-specific analysis determines whether comparable conditions and timing appear in a given event before applying that research to a conclusion, since perception-response time can vary with expectancy, visibility, task demand, roadway complexity, and the response required.
Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the proponent of expert testimony must establish that the rule’s requirements are met, including that the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the expert’s principles and methods to the facts of the case. A reliable analysis identifies material assumptions and limitations, considers plausible alternative explanations where appropriate, and documents the basis for the resulting opinions.
Qualifications should align with the specific opinions an expert is asked to provide. Expertise in digital forensics does not, by itself, qualify an expert to offer human factors or crash reconstruction opinions outside the expert’s education, training, and experience.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) addresses certain remedies for loss of electronically stored information that should have been preserved in anticipation or conduct of litigation, which matters given how quickly loop-recorded video and short-retention telematics data can disappear.
Bringing the digital evidence together
A distraction case rarely turns on one artifact. It often comes together through digital evidence recovery from the vehicle’s connected systems and human factors analysis of what that evidence means for attention and response.
Vehicle accident reconstruction ties it all back to what actually happened on the road. Rimkus brings these disciplines together under one roof, with expert witness testimony available when a case goes to deposition or trial.
Have a matter where driver distraction is in dispute? Contact Rimkus to get started.
Frequently asked questions about vehicle infotainment forensics
How can vehicle infotainment and dash-camera evidence be preserved after a collision?
Preservation procedures vary with the systems involved and the applicable legal obligations, so counsel and a qualified forensic expert generally address this together. Early identification of local, server-based, and loop-recorded sources helps determine which records face the greatest risk of loss.
How long do manufacturers retain telematics data, and how can attorneys request it before deletion?
Retention varies considerably by original equipment manufacturer, fleet provider, insurer, subscription terms, jurisdiction, and data type, so no single retention window applies across the industry. Counsel should act promptly to identify the data holder and request preservation, since some records may be lost quickly while others persist for years.
Can infotainment data prove that a driver was distracted?
Not by itself. An infotainment record may establish that a system or connected device generated a particular event, but its significance depends on attribution, timestamp accuracy, vehicle movement, and the circumstances surrounding the collision. Investigators may compare infotainment records with telematics data, video, EDR data, crash reconstruction, and other evidence before evaluating whether the record supports a distraction analysis.
This article is intended to provide general information and insights into prevailing industry practices. It is not intended to constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal, technical, or professional advice. The content does not replace consultation with a qualified expert or professional regarding the specific facts and circumstances of any particular matter.