Curious about the initial story that came out in the press from a BIL. Never got a quote from him that I recall but the statement printed had to do with the owner jumping in the back seat. If he was just guessing that might have happened, that reporter helped create the story of driverless car on autopilot. If the BIL actually said he saw that, that would be interesting to read in a report.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[UPDATED] 2 die in Tesla crash - NHTSA reports driver seat occupied
- Thread starter diplomat33
- Start date
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY21FH007-preliminary-report.pdf
"The crash trip originated at the owner’s residence near the end of a cul-de-sac. Footage from the owner’s home security camera shows the owner entering the car’s driver’s seat and the passenger entering the front passenger seat."
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Wrong. BIL said the owner "may have" jumped into the backseat. I guess to a leading question by the constable on how he ended in the backseat.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Interesting that the StreetInsider had to slip the word "accelerate" into the article. (Though of course, literally, that is factually correct.)
EDIT: This alternative wording was from the NTSB press release, as @MP3Mike points out, which is worded differently than the NTSB report (and oddly provides more information than the report!).
Leaving remaining discussion unchanged...but keep that in mind...
StreetInsider:
"Footage from the owner’s home security cameras show the owner entering the driver’s seat and the passenger entering the front passenger seat. The video also shows the car slowly entering the roadway and then accelerating down the road away from the camera and out of sight. Based on examination of the accident scene investigators have determined the car traveled about 550 feet before departing the road on a curve, driving over the curb, and hitting a drainage culvert, a raised manhole and a tree."
NTSB:
"Footage from the owner’s home security camera shows the owner entering the car’s driver’s seat and the passenger entering the front passenger seat. The car leaves and travels about 550 feet before departing the road on a curve, driving over the curb, and hitting a drainage culvert, a raised manhole, and a tree."
Perhaps there was an earlier version of the NTSB report I am missing? (EDIT: Yes, it was from the press release.) There's no evidence in the NTSB report that the vehicle was "out of sight" when departing the road, either (it's ambiguous in the NTSB report, though the way it is worded and the verb tense makes it sound like it was captured on camera - it seems like it would have been written completely differently if the accident investigation showed those details and not the camera...speculation though...no reason to read too much into a very cursory report with words kept to a minimum).
I guess very poorly timed medical issues, resulting in loss of control also can't be ruled out for an accident like this. Though obviously demonstration of speed is also a possibility. Time will tell; no point in speculating really and it is all extremely sad for the families and friends involved. Departing the road at 30mph and hitting a manhole cover with the battery could lead to this final result - it's not really clear what speeds were involved, in spite of speculation about trees having marks way up (the bark falls off of burnt trees, BTW), etc. All should become clear later one way or the other. Seems like they will likely have the information they need to make those determinations based on vehicle deformation, etc.
So far no surprises here though.
EDIT: This alternative wording was from the NTSB press release, as @MP3Mike points out, which is worded differently than the NTSB report (and oddly provides more information than the report!).
Leaving remaining discussion unchanged...but keep that in mind...
StreetInsider:
"Footage from the owner’s home security cameras show the owner entering the driver’s seat and the passenger entering the front passenger seat. The video also shows the car slowly entering the roadway and then accelerating down the road away from the camera and out of sight. Based on examination of the accident scene investigators have determined the car traveled about 550 feet before departing the road on a curve, driving over the curb, and hitting a drainage culvert, a raised manhole and a tree."
NTSB:
"Footage from the owner’s home security camera shows the owner entering the car’s driver’s seat and the passenger entering the front passenger seat. The car leaves and travels about 550 feet before departing the road on a curve, driving over the curb, and hitting a drainage culvert, a raised manhole, and a tree."
Perhaps there was an earlier version of the NTSB report I am missing? (EDIT: Yes, it was from the press release.) There's no evidence in the NTSB report that the vehicle was "out of sight" when departing the road, either (it's ambiguous in the NTSB report, though the way it is worded and the verb tense makes it sound like it was captured on camera - it seems like it would have been written completely differently if the accident investigation showed those details and not the camera...speculation though...no reason to read too much into a very cursory report with words kept to a minimum).
I guess very poorly timed medical issues, resulting in loss of control also can't be ruled out for an accident like this. Though obviously demonstration of speed is also a possibility. Time will tell; no point in speculating really and it is all extremely sad for the families and friends involved. Departing the road at 30mph and hitting a manhole cover with the battery could lead to this final result - it's not really clear what speeds were involved, in spite of speculation about trees having marks way up (the bark falls off of burnt trees, BTW), etc. All should become clear later one way or the other. Seems like they will likely have the information they need to make those determinations based on vehicle deformation, etc.
So far no surprises here though.
Last edited:
The quote came from this NTSB press release: NTSB Issues Preliminary Report for Fatal, Texas, Tesla Crash
and it includes another extra detail:
and
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Thanks. I poked at a couple links but not that one. Will update post with edits...
While possible, I would think highly unlikely, as the driver was able to climb into the back seat after the crash.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Certainly. People do find the strangest places to demonstrate speed I suppose. But we'll see.
dang, brodensky with the tweet was correct.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
Needsdecaf
Active Member
All of you who posted videos of Auto Steer being activated on roads with no lane markers who argued that it could happen in this case can now suck it. I told you it wasn't possible on these roads.
NTSB tests of an exemplar car at the crash location showed that Traffic Aware Cruise Control could be engaged, but Autosteer was not available on the part of the road (Hammock Dunes Place) where the crash happened.
NTSB tests of an exemplar car at the crash location showed that Traffic Aware Cruise Control could be engaged, but Autosteer was not available on the part of the road (Hammock Dunes Place) where the crash happened.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Regarding timing, FWIW: NTSB says accident occurred at 9:07PM. (This report, presumably based on video evidence timing (which presumably was synced to real-world time).)
From other reporting, as near as I can tell, it sounds like the fire department was dispatched at 9:24PM. So that's about 17 minutes until someone noticed (potentially). And 29 minutes from incident until arrival on scene!
Perhaps someone knows when the 911 call went out? I couldn't find that information and not aware of public transcripts (which would have the time).
From other reporting, as near as I can tell, it sounds like the fire department was dispatched at 9:24PM. So that's about 17 minutes until someone noticed (potentially). And 29 minutes from incident until arrival on scene!
Perhaps someone knows when the 911 call went out? I couldn't find that information and not aware of public transcripts (which would have the time).
EVNow
Well-Known Member
The first thing I thought when I saw this photo was that - definitely AP is possible (at times, atleast) on this read. There is a clear seam in the road - which NN will use to figure out the center line.
Ofcourse, it will be very inconsistent (esp. at night) and AP can't be engaged for long and definitely can't be used to accelerate to 80 mph in 500 ft.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
This seems to support the claims of the anonymous tweeter. So much for everyone claiming the person was obviously fraudulent.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
We don't know the speed do we? Doesn't seem necessary for the speed to be nearly that high, and the deformation pictures are really hard to interpret given the fire damage. Something only investigators have access to.
I have no idea on the Autosteer or TACC. Seems completely unnecessary to explain this accident, but it certainly could have been attempted.
It's so hard to say anything without speculating, and I really don't mean to speculate. But just thinking about possibilities (not likely events or what I think might have happened - I have no idea and there are tons of possibilities, but only the investigation has access to the information to narrow down possibilities): Driver tries to engage AP and ends up in TACC but doesn't realize it (not listening for audio cue). Inattention, vehicle leaves road, hits accelerator briefly rather than brake.
Or TACC/Autosteer might not have been involved at all - clearly not necessary to explain such an incident, taking into account all the possibilities.
Regarding the seam in the road, even if you could prove that Autosteer could be engaged in a test vehicle (sounds like they tried and failed, not sure how much they tried), there's no guarantee that for this particular vehicle it was possible (because whether or not Autosteer can engage in marginal circumstances is strongly driven by random variation in vision output). Similarly, even if you demonstrated it could not engage, there's no guarantee it would not be able to engage some of the time, in the right situation where there are marginal visual cues interpreted as lane lines. So it's a discussion without a satisfying answer, even if you're physically taking a vehicle there and trying to reproduce the circumstances at night.
Yes and that “guessing” on his part started this whole Tesla-driving-by-itself off on a media blitz. Never should have speculated on something like that when climbing into the back seat was more logical. Never should have been reported at all in the press that way but you know how sensationalized stories sell more.
So far, the only person proven to be fraudulent is the constable. The person tweeting about the video just got a confirmation about existence of video evidence from NTSB.
Needsdecaf
Active Member
....And you would be 100% wrong.
While the system CAN see that seam and at times DOES show it on the screen as a lane delineation, it's very inconsistent. It flickers on and off. And even when it DOES, you still do not get the "gray steering wheel" on the screen and if you try to activate AutoSteer, you get the warning tone and the "Autosteer is unavailable" warning displayed on the screen.
I live in this area. I drive these roads. Following this crash, I have purposely tried to fool it using the times when it identifies the seam as a center line.
It WILL NOT ACTIVATE.
Similar threads
