Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Blog Tesla: Autopilot Was Activated During Fatal Model X Crash

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Autopilot was activated when a Model X crashed into a concrete barrier killing the driver last week near Mountain View, Calif., according to a release from Tesla.

“In the moments before the collision, which occurred at 9:27 a.m. on Friday, March 23rd, Autopilot was engaged with the adaptive cruise control follow-distance set to minimum,” the company said. “The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision. The driver had about five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider with the crushed crash attenuator, but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken.”

Damage to the Model X was severe, in fact Tesla said it has it has “never seen this level of damage to a Model X in any other crash.” The company blames the severity of the crash on the absence of a crash attenuator designed to reduce the impact into a concrete lane divider. The crash attenuator was reportedly destroyed in a separate accident 11 days before the Model X crash and had yet to be replaced.

“Our data shows that Tesla owners have driven this same stretch of highway with Autopilot engaged roughly 85,000 times since Autopilot was first rolled out in 2015 and roughly 20,000 times since just the beginning of the year, and there has never been an accident that we know of,” the company said in an earlier statement. “There are over 200 successful Autopilot trips per day on this exact stretch of road.”

U.S. National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash.

Here’s Tesla’s update in full:

Since posting our first update, we have been working as quickly as possible to establish the facts of last week’s accident. Our hearts are with the family and friends who have been affected by this tragedy.

The safety of our customers is our top priority, which is why we are working closely with investigators to understand what happened, and what we can do to prevent this from happening in the future. After the logs from the computer inside the vehicle were recovered, we have more information about what may have happened.

In the moments before the collision, which occurred at 9:27 a.m. on Friday, March 23rd, Autopilot was engaged with the adaptive cruise control follow-distance set to minimum. The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision. The driver had about five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider with the crushed crash attenuator, but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken.

The reason this crash was so severe is because the crash attenuator, a highway safety barrier which is designed to reduce the impact into a concrete lane divider, had been crushed in a prior accident without being replaced. We have never seen this level of damage to a Model X in any other crash.

Over a year ago, our first iteration of Autopilot was found by the U.S. government to reduce crash rates by as much as 40%. Internal data confirms that recent updates to Autopilot have improved system reliability.

In the US, there is one automotive fatality every 86 million miles across all vehicles from all manufacturers. For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident.

Tesla Autopilot does not prevent all accidents – such a standard would be impossible – but it makes them much less likely to occur. It unequivocally makes the world safer for the vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists.

No one knows about the accidents that didn’t happen, only the ones that did. The consequences of the public not using Autopilot, because of an inaccurate belief that it is less safe, would be extremely severe. There are about 1.25 million automotive deaths worldwide. If the current safety level of a Tesla vehicle were to be applied, it would mean about 900,000 lives saved per year. We expect the safety level of autonomous cars to be 10 times safer than non-autonomous cars.

In the past, when we have brought up statistical safety points, we have been criticized for doing so, implying that we lack empathy for the tragedy that just occurred. Nothing could be further from the truth. We care deeply for and feel indebted to those who chose to put their trust in us. However, we must also care about people now and in the future whose lives may be saved if they know that Autopilot improves safety. None of this changes how devastating an event like this is or how much we feel for our customer’s family and friends. We are incredibly sorry for their loss.

Photo: @DeanCSmith/Twitter

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think anyone really knows what that interior camera will be used for on the Model 3. Apparently it is already on and capable of sending screenshots of you to Tesla after your airbags deploy (according to VeryGreen) but Tesla has not mentioned it or even asked for consent for it to be on. I think the assumption was it would be used for eye tracking, but it could just as easily be used as CYA for Tesla to prove drivers aren't paying attention in AP accidents.

Wild guess: It decides if you are trying to use FSD when you only paid for EAP. Safety functions will be the same on both versions, but EAP will force you to be attentive. Also a security/ people in vehicle cam for Tesla network.
 
Crash site lines.jpg
I used Google maps to take a look at the road lines leading up to the crash site. See the image above. You can see that the line leading to the lane on the right of the barrier is almost completely worn away while the line for the lane leading to the left is very solid. It easy to imagine that if the MX was in the lane to the right of the barrier then AP would have fixed on the left line which would lead it directly to the barrier. Once you get past the split and closer to the barrier, the line for the left lane and the line for the right lane make a perfect lane of the median.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhzmark
For the purposes of public safety I am less
concerned about coverage and more concerned about assigning liability. I do not think “read the manual” and “always pay attention” will be enough to shield automakers. The amount of time before ignoring the warning and an accident could be hours, weeks, months etc. Without strong monitoring and verification of awareness I see the issue as problematic. As for all the people doing dumb things, they share the road with us and as more and more tech rolls out there will be more and more people napping with their hand on the wheel or other dopey things. I think the tech is available to prevent this without resorting to the hope that dumb people take personal responsibility to keep me or you safe. Tesla has been lucky that their system did not cause a third party injury or fatality.

Every car manufacturer supplies an Owner's Manual with the new cars. Owners/drivers are expected to review it and learn about their car. Not sure where the concern about assigning liability comes from. Regardless of an ICE vehicle or EV vehicle, unless there's a defective part involved in an accident like the brake line ruptures, it's the driver's liability here. The AP system is not defective, drivers were warned not every situation could be anticipated by AP which is why driver's are required to intervene and be ready to and why it's beta and changes/improvements are being made. Drivers have driven distracted for decades which is what the various software systems are trying to alleviate most of (don't even thing all is anticipated). As to the text above that I bolded, not even Volvo has reached that since they are saying they "hope" to be accident free by 2020. It's still a dream in manufacturer's and the public's eyes.

People need to acknowledge driver-assist systems on cars for what they are...a long way off from perfect. They also need to acknowledge and accept the responsibility they have as drivers. Trying to make these systems anything more is just a recipe for disaster and maybe cost someone's life. As I learned in driver's ed decades ago, "Keep your eyes on the road, drive defensively, wear your seatbelt".
 
View attachment 292308 I used Google maps to take a look at the road lines leading up to the crash site. See the image above. You can see that the line leading to the lane on the right of the barrier is almost completely worn away while the line for the lane leading to the left is very solid. It easy to imagine that if the MX was in the lane to the right of the barrier then AP would have fixed on the left line which would lead it directly to the barrier. Once you get past the split and closer to the barrier, the line for the left lane and the line for the right lane make a perfect lane of the median.

You do realize that the google image you posted is NOT from the MX crash that was on 101/85. This image was from the September 2017 red MS crash on CA-92, showing the right exit lanes to Hesperian Blvd/San Lorenzo. It's been discussed in the other Model X 101/85 accident thread and brought up after an ABC7news I-Team report aired. But yes, another example of incongruent lane lines resulting in a barrier crash. The CA-92 accident for those unfamiliar with the report did not result in the death of the Tesla driver. The barrier was extended when he impacted it. PHOTOS: Tesla crash in Hayward is similar to fatal Mountain View accident
 
Last edited:
I used Google maps to take a look at the road lines leading up to the crash site. See the image above. You can see that the line leading to the lane on the right of the barrier is almost completely worn away while the line for the lane leading to the left is very solid.

Besides the fact that the fatal crash was nowhere near CA-92, the image you're seeing there was composited from multiple cameras. It does not actually look like that. The line might be better, or it might be worse, but I guarantee that it is not blurry.
 
You do realize that the google image you posted is NOT from the MX crash that was on 101/85. This image was from the September 2017 red MS crash on CA-92, showing the right exit lanes to Hesperian Blvd/San Lorenzo. It's been discussed in the other Model X 101/85 accident thread and brought up after an ABC7news I-Team report aired. But yes, another example of incongruent lane lines resulting in a barrier crash. The CA-92 accident for those unfamiliar with the report did not result in the death of the Tesla driver. The barrier was extended when he impacted it. PHOTOS: Tesla crash in Hayward is similar to fatal Mountain View accident

I didn't realize. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
 
View attachment 292308 I used Google maps to take a look at the road lines leading up to the crash site. See the image above. You can see that the line leading to the lane on the right of the barrier is almost completely worn away while the line for the lane leading to the left is very solid. It easy to imagine that if the MX was in the lane to the right of the barrier then AP would have fixed on the left line which would lead it directly to the barrier. Once you get past the split and closer to the barrier, the line for the left lane and the line for the right lane make a perfect lane of the median.

A wide lane warning solves that.
 
Another perspective of CalTRans neglected lane lines creating a death trap to a barrier crash.

A long term solution is better AP vision recognition of course, but other long term solution is lobbying for stricter required lane line maintenance where the agencies will not maintain the lines properly on their own decision. And not just the lane lines, but additional gore zone marking with higher signs and rumble strips etc.

I wonder if they reset that barrier on 92 yet? It’s only been six months.

048C8FE0-4CF0-4AAD-80C9-D33C6EC63821.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: GatorGuy
Blaming lane markings for this accident is absurd.
Not sure I agree entirely with this. This accident seems to be a classic Swiss cheese lining up of the holes resulting in a fatality;

- line markings which AP interpreted in such a way as to drive the car directly at the gore point
- no corrective action from the driver to avoid the gore point
- no automatic emergency braking, so no mitigation of the impact speed
- inadequate gore point protection changing a potentially survivable accident into a fatality
 
Every car manufacturer supplies an Owner's Manual with the new cars. Owners/drivers are expected to review it and learn about their car. Not sure where the concern about assigning liability comes from. Regardless of an ICE vehicle or EV vehicle, unless there's a defective part involved in an accident like the brake line ruptures, it's the driver's liability here. The AP system is not defective, drivers were warned not every situation could be anticipated by AP which is why driver's are required to intervene and be ready to and why it's beta and changes/improvements are being made. Drivers have driven distracted for decades which is what the various software systems are trying to alleviate most of (don't even thing all is anticipated). As to the text above that I bolded, not even Volvo has reached that since they are saying they "hope" to be accident free by 2020. It's still a dream in manufacturer's and the public's eyes.

People need to acknowledge driver-assist systems on cars for what they are...a long way off from perfect. They also need to acknowledge and accept the responsibility they have as drivers. Trying to make these systems anything more is just a recipe for disaster and maybe cost someone's life. As I learned in driver's ed decades ago, "Keep your eyes on the road, drive defensively, wear your seatbelt".

this NTSB report kinda says it all, “read the manual” and “pay attention” may not be enough to avoid lawsuits and taking measures to insure compliance may be needed

From LA Times I think:
The death of Model S driver Joshua Brown in May 2016 spurred a NTSB report in September in which the agency recommended that automakers do more to guard against driver misuse of automated vehicle control systems. The NTSB said Autopilot’s measurement of interaction with the steering wheel was an ineffective method for ensuring that the driver was engaged with the task of operating the vehicle.”
 
this NTSB report kinda says it all, “read the manual” and “pay attention” may not be enough to avoid lawsuits and taking measures to insure compliance may be needed

From LA Times I think:
The death of Model S driver Joshua Brown in May 2016 spurred a NTSB report in September in which the agency recommended that automakers do more to guard against driver misuse of automated vehicle control systems. The NTSB said Autopilot’s measurement of interaction with the steering wheel was an ineffective method for ensuring that the driver was engaged with the task of operating the vehicle.”


NTSB recommendations have almost nothing to do with "avoiding lawsuits" or in many cases even future regulatory action.
 
this NTSB report kinda says it all, “read the manual” and “pay attention” may not be enough to avoid lawsuits and taking measures to insure compliance may be needed

From LA Times I think:
The death of Model S driver Joshua Brown in May 2016 spurred a NTSB report in September in which the agency recommended that automakers do more to guard against driver misuse of automated vehicle control systems. The NTSB said Autopilot’s measurement of interaction with the steering wheel was an ineffective method for ensuring that the driver was engaged with the task of operating the vehicle.”

Yes it recommended an action. Different manufacturers try different variations around the steering wheel. Vibrations, sounds, lights. We've been seeing cameras facing the driver being included...in the wheel area or incorporated into the rear view mirror. Personally not a fan of being constantly watched while driving. The Model 3 has a mirror with a camera (don't think it's been activated yet and I assume when the MS/X get upgraded they'll have wiring going to a camera in those car rear view mirrors as well.

Still the driver's responsibility to maintain control of their car.
 
Yes it recommended an action. Different manufacturers try different variations around the steering wheel. Vibrations, sounds, lights. We've been seeing cameras facing the driver being included...in the wheel area or incorporated into the rear view mirror. Personally not a fan of being constantly watched while driving. The Model 3 has a mirror with a camera (don't think it's been activated yet and I assume when the MS/X get upgraded they'll have wiring going to a camera in those car rear view mirrors as well.

Still the driver's responsibility to maintain control of their car.


And the 64 thousand dollar question will be if the manufacturers will be held partially liable to ensure the driver is engaged while autopilot or driver assist type systems are active, its to soon to tell but with all the model 3 sales its only a matter of time until a third party is injured and the issue is litigated, unless the regulators step in first.
 
And the 64 thousand dollar question will be if the manufacturers will be held partially liable to ensure the driver is engaged while autopilot or driver assist type systems are active, its to soon to tell but with all the model 3 sales its only a matter of time until a third party is injured and the issue is litigated, unless the regulators step in first.

So how is this different than seatbelts, added to reduce injury and death in an accident? People would have them in their cars and told to use them but many still didn't. Manufacturers then made it so that your car would beep at you until you did. Still people came up with ways to defeat it because they didn't want to wear them. Then we had laws enacted saying you'd be fined if found without seat belts on while operating the vehicle. Some still don't. Don't think despite all that that manufacturers were held liable for personal injuries. Let's face there are people and always will be that just don't care. Drivers however have been sued for letting their passengers ride in the car without putting their seatbelts on. The driver is still the one in control and held accountable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anonim1979
So how is this different than seatbelts, added to reduce injury and death in an accident? People would have them in their cars and told to use them but many still didn't. Manufacturers then made it so that your car would beep at you until you did. Still people came up with ways to defeat it because they didn't want to wear them. Then we had laws enacted saying you'd be fined if found without seat belts on while operating the vehicle. Some still don't. Don't think despite all that that manufacturers were held liable for personal injuries. Let's face there are people and always will be that just don't care. Drivers however have been sued for letting their passengers ride in the car without putting their seatbelts on. The driver is still the one in control and held accountable.

Ah, remember that brief era when cars had “auto” seatbelts that were on a track? Close the door, and the shoulder belt would automatically close on you.

I did find it strange that all the emergency responders I interacted with asked me if I was wearing my seatbelt after my crash. I thought that was a given these days, but apparently not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SMAlset
So how is this different than seatbelts, added to reduce injury and death in an accident? People would have them in their cars and told to use them but many still didn't. Manufacturers then made it so that your car would beep at you until you did. Still people came up with ways to defeat it because they didn't want to wear them. Then we had laws enacted saying you'd be fined if found without seat belts on while operating the vehicle. Some still don't. Don't think despite all that that manufacturers were held liable for personal injuries. Let's face there are people and always will be that just don't care. Drivers however have been sued for letting their passengers ride in the car without putting their seatbelts on. The driver is still the one in control and held accountable.

because lack of seatbelts increases injury to the driver and is not the same as the software deciding to veer off the road and injure a third party requiring constant attention to override bad decisions. And if people want to compared it cruise control your talking about a short period of time before something bad happens so people will pay attention. With autopilot or other driver assist technology the duration before something bad happening could be very long, and the longer it is the more people will trust it when they should not.
 
Blaming lane markings for this accident is absurd.

True, we can't expect that lane markings will always be 100% clear. They wear away and certain weather events obscure them.

Maybe at junctions the AP bias needs to be more balanced between line-following and vehicle-following.

And even then, a driver still needs to engage when passing a junction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daktari
True, we can't expect that lane markings will always be 100% clear. They wear away and certain weather events obscure them.

Maybe at junctions the AP bias needs to be more balanced between line-following and vehicle-following.

And even then, a driver still needs to engage when passing a junction.
Agree, in fact, the AP versions in these crashes requires, no demands the driver to pay attention at all times, because the system can misinterpret even minor wear on a lane no human ever would.