Forensic Analysis of Vehicle Communication Standards in Modern Traffic Accidents
Speak with an ExpertCV Download
Understanding the Role of Communication Standards in Modern Collisions
As vehicles become increasingly reliant on wireless communication to navigate complex roadway environments, the role of engineering standards in traffic accident litigation is evolving rapidly. Today’s crash scenes can involve not only mechanical failures or human error, but also the invisible breakdown of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) or vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications.
Analyzing Causes of Communication Failures in Traffic Accidents
For attorneys and insurance defense teams, this creates new opportunities—and challenges—in proving or disproving liability. When safety-critical data isn’t transmitted or received as expected, it may point to a deeper failure in conformance with established engineering standards. Electrical engineer expert witnesses play a crucial role in identifying these lapses and linking them to system design, signal interference, or protocol compliance.
Engineering Standards Behind the Dashboard
SAE J2945/1: Defining V2V Safety Communication
SAE J2945/1 outlines minimum performance requirements for Basic Safety Message (BSM) transmissions among light vehicles. These BSMs include real-time data about a vehicle’s position, speed, heading, and braking status. The goal: help surrounding vehicles anticipate and react to sudden changes that could cause accidents.
In congested environments, this standard becomes especially critical. It incorporates a congestion control algorithm that dynamically adjusts the frequency and power of message transmission based on surrounding traffic density and radio channel usage. If a vehicle transmits BSMs (Basic Safety Message) too frequently in a crowded environment, it may increase the risk of packet collisions, rendering the messages unreadable. Conversely, too infrequent messaging may mean that critical updates never reach their intended recipients in time.
ASTM E2213: Managing Roadside-to-Vehicle Interactions
This standard defines how roadside units (RSUs) communicate with vehicles using Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) protocols. It establishes both Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) parameters, based on IEEE 802.11 and 802.11a standards.
RSUs play a key role in traffic management systems—transmitting timing for signal changes, toll information, and other critical data. ASTM E2213 ensures these signals can be reliably transmitted and received even at highway speeds. A failure in this infrastructure-to-vehicle channel can contribute to intersection collisions, especially where signal phase or right-of-way guidance is in dispute.
IEEE C95.3: Addressing Electromagnetic Interference
IEEE C95.3 provides best practices for measuring and evaluating electromagnetic fields in relation to human and system exposure. While often cited in cases involving EMF health risks, this standard is equally important when evaluating interference between wireless systems in a vehicle or between a vehicle and its environment.
In traffic accidents, electromagnetic interference (EMI) from other onboard systems—or even nearby infrastructure—can degrade the performance of V2V or V2I communications. Misinterpreted signals or dropped messages may not leave physical evidence, but their effects can be traced through RF exposure assessments and timing reconstructions that align with IEEE C95.3 guidance.
Comparison of ASTM E2213 and IEEE 95.3 Standards
Applying Standards to Litigation: Engineering Meets Legal Strategy
Establishing Compliance or Deviation
One of the most significant contributions an electrical engineer expert witness can make is evaluating whether systems involved in a collision were operating in conformance with the applicable standards. For example, if a vehicle’s BSM frequency exceeded the allowable rate under SAE J2945/1, it may indicate software or firmware misconfiguration. If an RSU (roadside unit) was improperly installed or operated outside ASTM E2213 parameters, this could support an argument of negligent deployment or maintenance.
Conversely, if a manufacturer can demonstrate compliance with these standards, it may offer a credible defense against defect claims. In both directions, the interpretation of engineering standards becomes a linchpin in determining liability and causation.
Quantifying Technical Failures Using Standard Metrics
Standards such as SAE J2945/1 and ASTM E2213 include quantitative metrics like Channel Busy Percentage (CBP), Inter-Transmission Time (ITT), and Age of Information (AoI). These metrics are critical in reconstructing what happened during the seconds leading up to a crash.
For instance, if an analysis shows that a vehicle’s AoI exceeded 650 milliseconds—the threshold recommended for maintaining safe situational awareness—it may indicate a communication delay that contributed to the collision. Similarly, abnormally high CBP may signal excessive message traffic or interference that prevented timely reception of critical data.
These data points can be derived from vehicle log files, wireless packet captures, or reconstructed RF environments using calibrated equipment and software models.
Understanding technical failures through quantitative communication metrics
Case Applications: Turning Data into Legal Evidence
Example: Intersection Collision with Infrastructure Signal Dispute
Consider a multi-vehicle collision in an urban setting where one driver claims they had a green light, supported by RSU (roadside unit) logs. An electrical engineer expert witness may be called to assess whether the RSU transmitted the signal data in compliance with ASTM E2213, whether the vehicle was capable of receiving that message per SAE J2945/1, and whether any nearby RF activity interfered with that signal’s integrity.
This tri-level analysis—device capability, transmission behavior, and RF interference—can either bolster or dismantle a party’s argument depending on what the data reveals.
Example: Alleged Malfunction in BSM Transmission
In another case, a vehicle involved in a rear-end collision may be accused of failing to transmit BSMs as required. Logs showing that the vehicle adjusted its transmission frequency based on rising CBP could support compliance with SAE J2945/1. Alternatively, a pattern of unchanging ITT (Inter-Transmission Time) under varying traffic conditions might suggest a fault in the congestion control algorithm or its implementation.
This level of detail often requires an electrical engineer expert witness testimony to contextualize the data for judges and juries unfamiliar with the nuances of wireless protocols and vehicular telemetry.
Expert Witness Insight: Bridging the Legal-Engineering Divide
In litigation involving advanced automotive systems, attorneys face a steep learning curve when it comes to understanding the implications of technical failures. Expert witnesses specializing in electrical engineering not only interpret raw data but also explain how it aligns—or fails to align—with regulatory and industry expectations.
This interpretive role includes translating engineering shorthand into courtroom-relevant testimony. For example, a discussion of “packet error ratio” becomes a question of whether or not a safety-critical message was received in time to prevent a crash. Likewise, “channel saturation” can be reframed as a loss of communication in a critical decision window.
Such testimony from an electrical engineer expert witness often carries substantial weight in both settlement negotiations and trial verdicts, especially when supported by recognized standards and reproducible methods.
Bridging the Legal-Engineering Divide
From Signal to Verdict: Why Standards-Based Analysis Matters
The increasing complexity of vehicle systems means that more accident cases will involve questions not just of driver behavior, but of signal behavior—who transmitted what, when, and whether that signal was interpreted correctly. Standards like SAE J2945/1, ASTM E2213, and IEEE C95.3 offer a framework for evaluating these issues rigorously and objectively.
For legal professionals, understanding how these standards interact—and how deviations can be proven—is essential for effective advocacy. Whether defending a manufacturer, questioning infrastructure reliability, or challenging the accuracy of event data, a standards-based engineering analysis provides the technical clarity and fact-based evidence for your case.
