TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Blog NTSB Says Tesla Was Dropped From Crash Investigation For Releasing Details

Discussion in 'Model X' started by TMC Staff, Apr 12, 2018.

  1. Tam

    Tam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    8,036
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    For the fire truck accident, the driver admitted using Autopilot. It's was then documented by the fire department and police.

    There was no fatality so there was no urgency.

    There was no need for Tesla to reveal the vehicle log urgently.

    It could wait 1 or 2 years for NTSB to release it.

    It's an easy case to be silent and complying to NTSB's silence rule.
     
  2. Az_Rael

    Az_Rael Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,586
    Location:
    Palmdale, CA
    So if Walter had survived, the safety issue would have been much less urgent? I disagree.

    Just because the fire truck incident didn't result in a fatality (of the Tesla driver or one of the first responders on foot at the scene) doesn't mean there might be some finding from that case that affects the safety of all of us. Actually - that case was really the same root cause that killed Walter - a driver not paying attention with Autopilot engaged and the car hit a stationary object. Tesla should have gone full press after that one in the name of safety and maybe Walter would have been more cautious using AP on his commute.

    At my job we consider near misses to be just as serious as actual mishaps.
     
  3. Tam

    Tam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    8,036
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    #43 Tam, Apr 13, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2018
    Like you, I too disagree ( that means I agree with your point.)

    However, that is how society weighs the seriousness of an issue even if it's an issue that can cause both no-human-harms as well as human fatality.

    If no human is harmed, the issue is considered as non-urgent even though we all know that that same issue can cause fatality next time.

    For example, before the first documented Autopilot fatality, there were a lot of people showing how they drove without hands on the wheel.

    Even though we all know that that practice can lead to fatality but there was no investigations on those youtubers, there were no urgency.

    Why must we wait until there's an accident or fatality in order to classify "no hands on the wheel" problem as an urgency?

    I disagree with that and we shouldn't wait but that is the way the world operates.
     
    • Like x 1
  4. NCAviator

    NCAviator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2017
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Here we have the clash of cultures. NTSB was created for the aviation industry. They are well understood there. All the Aviation companies know how they operate. As their investigative mandate has been expanded to other transportation areas by Congress; those cultures are not as use to their rules and process. Rail mostly understands their ways. Autos not so much. Very few auto investigations. Mostly bus and bridges.

    There are ways to get information released through the NTSB process. Tesla just did not try to work that process it appears or they tried and the NTSB didn't want to go alone.

    Companies can also withdraw from being a "party". The NTSB can also kick you out.

    There are major advantages to having the companies part of the investigative process. The public is the greater loss.

    NTSB and NHTSA can make it hard on Tesla also. Some of those ways have been discussed here. Tesla has been fighting state governments for so long; they now have a culture of not trying to get along.

    We will have to see how that works for them.
     
    • Like x 2
  5. Darmie

    Darmie Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,334
    Location:
    Clear Lake TX.
    Maybe I have missed it somewhere, but where was the story about the vehicle that hit this same barrier prior to this accident? Did NTSB investigate that accident as well?
     
    • Like x 4
  6. hacer

    hacer Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,017
    Location:
    Clarksville, MD
    Gosh, in just a matter of 1 day the NTSB has revealed that "A first look showed evidence of metal fatigue where the blade attached to a hub, according to Chairman Robert Sumwalt of NTSB" regarding the Southwest airlines engine failure. They also revealed some details from the flight data recorder such as the altitude and airspeed. These are not safety recommendations, they are facts similar to what Tesla released from their data recorder. I guess the NTSB has a generous double standard. Also Southwest has said a fair amount now about what happened. Is the NTSB going to smack them down too?
     
    • Like x 7
  7. jelloslug

    jelloslug Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2015
    Messages:
    4,605
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    If the NTSB and the NHTSA try and "make it hard" for Tesla, you can bet that Tesla will go after that.
     
  8. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,597
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm thinking Tesla has better things to do with its time (unless provoked).
     
  9. alcibiades

    alcibiades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2017
    Messages:
    821
    Location:
    IL
    You're just setting us up for a game of "Spot the differences".

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Chocomonsters

    Chocomonsters Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Los Angeles

    They can certainly limit how Tesla advertise AP.

    Tesla webpage fails to disclose that its AP is “beta” and that video of FSD is very misleading.
     
    • Disagree x 1
  11. Chocomonsters

    Chocomonsters Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Think NTSB is interested in this crash since it involved AP with fatality. NTSB is involved in Uber’s crash in AZ also since there was fatality and self driving issue.

    AP, FSD, automous driving, and etc are new thus under closer scrutiny.
     
  12. Electroman

    Electroman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    5,909
    Location:
    TX
    They should. I hope they tell Tesla to change the name AutoPilot to something else.
     
  13. MrAustraliaTax

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    253
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Tesla didn't release only facts. They very deliberately tried to spin the narrative in their favour with specific wording designed to misdirect the reader into blaming the driver prematurely and deflect attention away from the fact that AP was ON at the time of the accident.
     
    • Like x 1
    • Funny x 1
  14. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,597
    Location:
    Michigan
    Say what now?
    They said AP was on.
    They said there were 5 seconds / 150 meters of clear view of the barrier.
    They said there was no record of driver interaction fir 6 seconds before impact.
    Where is this spin? AP is a driver assistance feature, thus the driver is responsible. Just like if a teenage student driver crashes, the adult in the car is responsible.

     
    • Like x 1
  15. Az_Rael

    Az_Rael Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,586
    Location:
    Palmdale, CA
    They also mentioned the follow distance was set to 1, but how is that relevant to the case if he had 150 meters of clear view? They also said at some point previously in the drive he got wheel nags, but didn’t say when (could have been 20 minutes earlier for all we know - and he did interact with the wheel 6 seconds prior, apparently). I feel the only reason they stated those facts was to paint a particular picture of the driver for the media.

    They did not mention at all how AP may have mistaken the lines, if AEB fired off, or if the car gave him a collision warning. Those last three things probably aren’t in Tesla’s favor, even though they would be useful for us to know from a public safety standpoint (their supposed only reason for talking).

    And it worked. All the headlines then said he had gotten wheel nags and set the follow distance to minimum, even though those two facts may not be related to the crash at all. No article even mentioned the fact that Teslas have AEB and FCW and why those might not have worked.
     
    • Like x 2
  16. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,597
    Location:
    Michigan
    Seeing the world from my engineer POV, I'd say the media are the ones who spun, esp the conversion of "hands not detected" to "hands not on wheel". My thinking is the close following distance exacerbated the issue with the missing section of gore point.

    I do see where you are coming from with the reporting of hands not detected, but nothing about whether AEB/FCW did/or did not activate or why AP did what it did. Again, purely my POV: FCW/AEB are not factors in why the crash happened, but do have relevance to the severity. That said, AEB/ FCW are not catch alls, so having a collision where they did not activate just confirms the known.

    Saying the car crashed, AP was on, and the driver didn't steer means that AP steered the car into the barrier. (just not directly)

    In terms of the crash itself: car trajectory/ mode, driver data available, and driver inputs are the primary factors. If the logged data is similar to a dash cam, then one may be able to get a good understanding of the crash and what factors were in play. If the report of a clear line of sight and no driver input are accurate, (along with CHP report of non-swerving travel), then other data is something to use to prevent future crashes/ look at how AP/FCW/AEB can be improved, but are not the reason for the impact.

    General question in terms of discussion/ linguistics for my own benefit in communication:
    I am thinking spin is taking one thing and making it sound like another/ different than the reality. If the data released supports what really happened is it still regarded as spin? To me, spin would be blaming an FSD crash on a driver.

    Thank you for the great points!
     
  17. Az_Rael

    Az_Rael Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,586
    Location:
    Palmdale, CA
    I guess I see spin as a spectrum. Sure, it can be full up trying to make something seem like it is not. That isn’t what Tesla did. But it can also be emphasizing one portion of a situation over another to not highlight both sides of an issue. For example, we all engage in “spin” when we write our resumes. We are only emphasizing our good points, none of our weaknesses.

    So I think Tesla very carefully crafted that press release to emphasize the driver’s failings, not mentioning the other backup safety systems that may have reduced the severity of the crash but apparently didn’t. The driver was still not attentive. But I think if the collision alert didn’t go off at all, that is a discussion we should be having too.
     
    • Like x 1
  18. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,597
    Location:
    Michigan
    Thanks! That helps me a bunch.

    My spin is that I don't think Tesla crafted the release to emphasize the driver's failings. They are pre-biased with knowing exactly how the system works, so they speak from that point of view. The sub 100% use case safety systems acted in their sub 100% way, the AP line follower did its lane following thing, and the human did what humans do.
    Internal discussion:
    Was AP on? Yes
    Why did it follow the line? because it looked like a line with 85% percent confidence.
    Did the system override the driver? No, the system recorded no steering torque commands.
    Why didn't FCW/ AEB activate? The barrier radar return was 30% lower than the threshold and the vision output is disabled on current versions.

    Honesty as a geek engineer, I'd love to know the intricacies of how the FCW/AEB systems work, but given that the media can't even handle detection vs presence, I'd hate to see what they would do with that information.

    I'll spare everyone a young child /dog action analogy.
     
  19. alcibiades

    alcibiades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2017
    Messages:
    821
    Location:
    IL
    The media didn't spin "hands not detected on the wheel" to "hands not on wheel". They took Tesla's duplicitous statement exactly where Tesla wanted them to. Good grief. Tesla could have "from an engineer's POV" said "no torque was detected on the steering wheel in the 6 seconds prior to the collision." But they didn't.

    "My spin" and "Pre-bias" are post-rational/post-truth expressions.
     
    • Funny x 1
  20. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,597
    Location:
    Michigan
    I was attempting to indicate that I comprehend people, including myself, have known or unknown filters/ biases/ POVs.
    And "duplicitous statement" is an example of what, exactly? Who is Tesla trying to deceive?

    How would the phrasing "no torque" make a difference? Non-engineers/ those not familiar with AP will immediate ask, "What does that mean?" where upon the response would be "the driver’s hands were not detected" or the "driver did not turn the wheel". However, the second explanation could be wrong if the sensor itself had failed, or the driver did, but too lightly.
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC