Absolutely correct, v1 is driver at fault.. That is what I learned on Thursday while trying to understand the police report for my car which got totaled in May. No injuries thankfully.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Close, lol. I haven't been in a accident since college...that was 23 years ago.
deonb
Active Member
Yes, but just in that an accident report doesn't in itself ever constitute a citation to anybody.
If the Tesla driver was unharmed and the car had a few dents, you would probably see the same accident report, together with a citation for the truck driver to either appear in court or pay a fine. In such a case, based on the accident report, the truck driver more than likely would have just paid the fine, and his insurance paid for the damage to both vehicles. Like with all traffic fines, he could go to court to contest it. Nothing would happen to the Tesla driver, and his own insurance wouldn't even have to pay anything.
However, as it is now, you instead see an accident report, and an open homicide case involving the truck driver (716-39-007). You obviously can't pay a fine to get out of a homicide case. You either go to trial for those, or they're dropped during a pre-trial process.
I can't find that specific case file - court cases are surprisingly difficult to find online. However, I bet the truck driver hasn't been issued a summons to appear for any trial yet. The case is probably on either the investigators or the district attorney's desk and they're waiting to see what the NHTSA investigation says before they decide whether to proceed. If the NHTSA is saying that the Tesla driver was not at fault, the homicide case against the truck driver will more than likely proceed. Normally the truck driver would just plead that out, but a lawyer may convince him to actually go to trial for this one - depending on exactly what the NHTSA findings are.
If however, NHTSA comes back and says Tesla or the Tesla driver is at fault, the DA will probably give the truck driver an option to pay a traffic fine and then they'll drop the homicide case.
Last edited:
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
So to sum up:
1. We have a very tragic accident. Then again, I would call any fatal accident tragic.
2. It involved Tesla "Autopilot", showcasing a possibly unfortunate device-naming due to misconceptions about what an autopilot system is or does or can or should do.
3. Whoever is/was at fault is more or less moot*, at least as far as the victim is concerned.
What surprised me most was that this incident made it into the main German evening TV news programme as one of its biggest stories. That's a first.
*don't get worked up, I of course know it isn't. But somehow regarding the most important effect of that crash, it just seems to be imho.
1. We have a very tragic accident. Then again, I would call any fatal accident tragic.
2. It involved Tesla "Autopilot", showcasing a possibly unfortunate device-naming due to misconceptions about what an autopilot system is or does or can or should do.
3. Whoever is/was at fault is more or less moot*, at least as far as the victim is concerned.
What surprised me most was that this incident made it into the main German evening TV news programme as one of its biggest stories. That's a first.
*don't get worked up, I of course know it isn't. But somehow regarding the most important effect of that crash, it just seems to be imho.
Keiron
Member
I am staggered at the response to this tragic event. Could someone remind me about the clause - hands on the wheel and watch over the AP. Oh yeah it comes at you on the dash every time you engage the AP. Whilst in San Diego we witnessed an brand new BMW (top down) with their version of AP being driven in fast traffic with the driver leaning back with his arms wrapped around the roll bar with chuff chuff music blaring & eyes closed!. Theirs no doubt idiots are everywhere. Doesn't it seem strange that cars collide all over the world every day including under trucks etc and get no news play... Yet millions of safe miles over 6 years world wide with super low injuries Tesla draws all the media big guns.? I feel for Elon and the team - they have been singled out for attack not because the concept is bad its because its good.! I would suggest theirs a possibility the driver was asleep. Ive done it and the reminder ping woke me as my beast was slowing down to save me - 2.5 hours on the road , sunset and fatigue- easy to do. In any other car I would vanished of the highway and most probably not come home... Elon is absolutely right when he states AP is not equal to Autonomous. AP is an aid to driving not an abdication of responsibility to be the driver. Nonetheless my condolences to the family of this EV pioneer.
nikielizabeth
Member
I have a legal question. In aviation NTSB conclusions are not admissible in court. Factual findings are. Supposedly this keeps their findings independent but it is often frustrating when responsibility is clear but lawyers are looking for deep pockets. Is the same true for NHTSA?
New theory on the lane change
(I admit this is very speculative).
Ignoring stationary objects is done in order not to get distracted by the scenery on either side of the roadway. It seems obvious that knowledge of this scenery could factor into the car's idea of where the roadway is.
If the radar identified the truck as stationary, then where did it think the road was? Could it have identified the tractor and the rear wheels as two different stationary vehicles with a gap or overhead road sign between them? I've seen several say that it sometimes loses track of the road markings when cresting a hill. That could have happened here, with the result that the car aimed at a slow-moving gap, "thinking" that it was staying in its lane.
(I admit this is very speculative).
Ignoring stationary objects is done in order not to get distracted by the scenery on either side of the roadway. It seems obvious that knowledge of this scenery could factor into the car's idea of where the roadway is.
If the radar identified the truck as stationary, then where did it think the road was? Could it have identified the tractor and the rear wheels as two different stationary vehicles with a gap or overhead road sign between them? I've seen several say that it sometimes loses track of the road markings when cresting a hill. That could have happened here, with the result that the car aimed at a slow-moving gap, "thinking" that it was staying in its lane.
Jim MacInnes
Member
I have experienced the same swerving when approaching rolling hills. When you think about it, the Mobileye and the driver both have a limited ability to view the lane markings on the other side of the hill. The Mobileye is constantly looking far forward and it is hard to do this with a hill in the way. This may cause the car AP controls to hunt (swerve back and forth somewhat) to try and find the forward lane markings. This situation seems to be normalized when descending the hill and the lane markings come back into full view. It may take upgrading the AP to also use GPS to help keep the car centered within the lane when approaching these undulating hills. I am sure Tesla is aware of this situation and it will ultimately be cured.
Last edited:
As far as i could see from the street view pics in this scenario the lane markers were perfect?
Do you get an alert when the cam looses lane markers?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I guess being consistent isn't your strong point.
Whenever an author posts anything on the Internet, he or she should reasonably expect that it will be read, downloaded, printed out, forwarded, and even used as the basis for other works to some degree. So, just by posting, an author impliedly grants a limited license to use her work in this manner.
I was always taught that, if you are breaking the speed limit all bets are off. You have no rights. The reports are likely written with the presumption of legal speed, as speed is hard to determine at initial write up.
No, NHTSA documents are admissible. However, people seem to be misunderstanding their role. They do not perform accident investigations in the way NTSB does at all. Their investigation is narrowly tailored to determine if Tesla's systems performed as expected and to determine if a recall or modification is needed. Determining who was at fault in the accident is not their role.
Ok, the area where we see the bikes on the streets are 35mph. The signs tell them to take the entire lane. What is scary for us, is following a car at a safe distance, car suddenly changes to left lane exposing slow bikes and not much time to react.
I view autopilot like cruise control and was concerned when CEO said no touch between cities. Im concerned people would be distracted and focus on other things unlike cruise control.
Interesting times
Canuck
Well-Known Member
You were taught wrong. Breach of a by-law or statute (such as the Motor Vehicle Act) is not determinative of negligence but is only a factor to be considered. It if often considered persuasive but it is certainly not the deciding factor. For example, someone going through a green light at an intersection over the speed limit, who is hit by someone going through the same intersection on a red light, does not automatically make the person going through the green light at fault.
More here: Breach of statute does not mean the standard of care was breached | ICBCclaiminfo.com
Thank you for the link. We have posted speed limits of 85 Miles Per Hour in places... to attenuate this ambiguity.
The folks who have suggested that Tesla should modify their AEB and/or TACC so that it is more cautious and potentially results in more false positives leading to slowing or braking when it's not needed are not thinking it through. If the system did this it would not only become dangerous, but it would be unusable and therefore pointless. With TACC the way it is now, it occasionally misjudges which lane vehicles in front of it are in, especially on curves. As a result, our Model S will occasionally slow when overtaking a vehicle in an adjacent lane. In at least one case, this has almost resulted in a road rage incident: a clearly impatient driver pulled into the fast lane close behind me while we were entering a curve and almost simultaneously my car rapidly slowed (deceleration was sufficient to cause my brake lights to illuminate). The driver behind me assumed that it was a jerk move on my part (actually a logical assumption given the situation) and started tail-gating me and swerving aggressively (not a logical reaction, but unfortunately not a rare one either). I quickly pulled aside to let him pass to avoid aggravating him any further, but you can easily see where this could have gone. It's not outside the realm of possibility to imagine that unnecessary braking or deceleration could lead to violent acts by other drivers who could misinterpret the reason for the maneuver.
I usually drive with TACC engaged, and often with AP operating, but I've begun to be able to anticipate when it may incorrectly slow while overtaking other vehicles and I compensate by applying a bit of pressure to the accelerator in order to counteract the false detection.
In defense of the TACC's difficulty in determining when or if to slow when overtaking other vehicles, it is also fairly common for human drivers to slow when vehicles in the lane next to them slow down, so it's not necessarily dangerous - just annoying. What's different about TACC is that for other drivers around me its behavior is different than what's normal for human drivers, leading to possible misunderstandings.
If the AEB system were modified so that it had even one false braking event, I think some owners would be so frightened/angry that they would disable it completely. If the AEB were so sensitive that it happened as often as once every few months, it would probably cross the threshold from useful to hated for most people. IMHO, drivers will be MUCH less tolerant of false AEB triggering than many posters seem to believe.
I usually drive with TACC engaged, and often with AP operating, but I've begun to be able to anticipate when it may incorrectly slow while overtaking other vehicles and I compensate by applying a bit of pressure to the accelerator in order to counteract the false detection.
In defense of the TACC's difficulty in determining when or if to slow when overtaking other vehicles, it is also fairly common for human drivers to slow when vehicles in the lane next to them slow down, so it's not necessarily dangerous - just annoying. What's different about TACC is that for other drivers around me its behavior is different than what's normal for human drivers, leading to possible misunderstandings.
If the AEB system were modified so that it had even one false braking event, I think some owners would be so frightened/angry that they would disable it completely. If the AEB were so sensitive that it happened as often as once every few months, it would probably cross the threshold from useful to hated for most people. IMHO, drivers will be MUCH less tolerant of false AEB triggering than many posters seem to believe.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I believe in general, a in a left-turn-collision, a charge of failure-to-yield is written despite of protests that the other driver was speeding, distracting, driving under influence....
To yield means to yield ALL traffic, slow, fast, over-speeding, tricky, deceiving traffic...
Similar threads
