NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/04/01/ntsb-unhappy-with-tesla-release-of-investigative-information-in-fatal-crash/

by fancyfacebook • 8 years ago

90 99 8 years ago

washingtonpost.com

aurizon2• 8 years ago

I respect the NTSB, but I do not like institutional secrecy aspects to try to muzzle Tesla - facts like this can help people from placing excessive reliability on self driving abilities of Tesla's autopilot - as long as personal privacy is respected. After all, calling it an autopilot is intrinsically wrong - as Tesla repeatedly asserts.

masklinn3• 8 years ago

Is it institutional secrecy or is it disapproval of unilateral disclosure of only a sub-set of elements of an ongoing inquest?

classicsnoot2• 8 years ago

What is the distinction between the two that changes the justification? I see those things as part of each other, as in institutional secrecy is bred from ongoing inquests in perpetuity.

aurizon2• 8 years ago

What has Tesla concealed - as you intimate? What does the NTSB know they are not telling? One hopes their report at the end will tell all.

hirundo3• 8 years ago

Funny, the article says several times that the NTSB is unhappy with Tesla's release of information, but it never says why. It's not clear how it can interfere with the investigation. Maybe they just want to control the narrative? But that is no part of their function. Sorry if you're unhappy about Tesla's disclosures guys, but why, and why should we care?

icegreentea2• 8 years ago

If the NTSB was truly focused on providing investigations that minimize future risk (this is separate from blame, responsibility or punishment), then it's pretty clear that it should ideally be able to work in as neutral of an environment as possible.

Tesla is also clearly trying to control the narrative, and I think NTSB's usual MO is that there simply be as little narrative as possible until something as close to ground truth be determined and released. NTSB understands that releasing reports into a pre-charged environment leads to increased risk of backlask against NTSB, thus reducing its capacity to minimize future risk.

wpietri5• 8 years ago

Yeah, I have huge respect for the NTSB. I think they're a big reason air travel is so safe. You'd never see an airline energetically trying to assign blame like this, and I'm disappointed that Tesla's PR operation is spinning vigorously before the investigation is over.

jedberg• 8 years ago

My guess is that they are unhappy because Tesla has decided they hold no responsibility. They blame 1) the driver and 2) Caltrans (for not maintaining the median).

The NTSB doesn't like to speculate. They like to have solid facts, and they want the manufacturer to take blame if need be, so they can fix things.

gsnedders4• 8 years ago

Also they're interested in minimising risk in the future and providing recommendations to achieve that. It may well be the case that in a strict legal sense Tesla has no responsibility here, but from the NTSB's point of view that's irrelevant—the question is whether there's anything Tesla could do to minimise the risk of future incidents like this.

Animats3• 8 years ago

Because, if Tesla signed up as a "party" to assisting with the investigation, that puts them under certain nondisclosure rules.[1] At the end of the investigation all the info comes out, but not in the early stages. Selectively releasing information that makes some party look good is not allowed if you are involved with the investigation.

This is widely understood in the aviation community. The mission of the NTSB is not to assist with either litigation or PR.

"Contacts with news media concerning the investigation will be made only by the NTSB, through the Board Member if on-scene, the NTSB’s representative of its Office of Public Affairs, or the IIC. The guiding policy is that the NTSB is a public agency engaged in the public’s business and supported by public funds. The agency’s work is open for public review, and the Act under which it operates makes this mandatory. The NTSB believes that periodic factual briefings to the news media are a normal part of its investigation and that, for the public to perceive the investigation as credible, the investigation should speak with one voice, that being the independent agency conducting the investigation. Therefore, the NTSB insists that it be the sole source of public information regarding the progress of an accident investigation. Parties are encouraged to refer media inquiries to the NTSB’s Office of Public Affairs. In any case, release to the media of investigative information at any time is grounds for removal as a party."

[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Part...

gsnedders4• 8 years ago

If they are a party to the investigation, ignoring the non-disclosure rules makes Tesla seem to me like a dodgy company willing to act against established norms designed to ensure transport safety, and I hope they get the book thrown at them for it.

If they are not a party to the investigation, I'd question why not. When was the last time an aircraft manufacturer declined to be a party to the investigation? They recognise that if they get a reputation for being unsafe that has repercussions for future sales; I'd hope the same was true of car manufacturers!

To me, there's literally no way this makes Tesla look good.

hirundo3• 8 years ago

Because Tesla should be a subject of the NTSB investigation, they should _not_ be a party to it, any more than a suspected criminal should be a party to their criminal investigation. Tesla should have no discretion over what data they provide to the NTSB. Calling them a "party" sounds like an excuse to control the information flow, not narrowly tailored to a legitimate state interest.

Tesla has an ethical and fiduciary duty to carry out their own independent investigation, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the NTSB's. These organizations do not have the same interests. They don't have to be adversaries, but it's inappropriate for them to be partners. The public is better served by multiple independent investigations.

vilhelm_s• 8 years ago

I imagine maybe the NTSB feels that their neutral position is being undermined? NTSB gave Tesla the data recorder in order for them to help the investigation, but then Tesla took some of the data on it and used to make a press release to put some spin on the event---probably the NTSB feels they were played...

alphabettsy3• 8 years ago

It’s early, but it seems likely there was an issue with Autopilot that contributed to this crash. To make matters worse, the owner apparently complained about errant behavior on that section of road. Why did he continue to use it without paying attention and why didn’t Telsa act much earlier?

It seems the local government or highway agency also neglected their duty to maintain the highway safety barrier, a shockingly regular occurrence where I live as well. I’ve wondered how often someone is injured because they failed to repair a barrier for several months.

It appears all the pieces fell into place at the right time and this man unfortunately lost his life.

creato2• 8 years ago

It seems the local government or highway agency also neglected their duty to maintain the highway safety barrier, a shockingly regular occurrence where I live as well. I’ve wondered how often someone is injured because they failed to repair a barrier for several months.

While the crash attenuators should exist and the various responsible authorities should maintain them appropriately, I find it frustrating that this is brought up in this conversation as if it's a significant factor. It might have saved this man's life, but this crash was sure to be incredibly violent with or without the barrier.

The existence of a crash attenuator could not and should not affect anyone's decision making that led to the car impacting the barrier. Not the driver, not Tesla, not autopilot.

I hope the NTSB comments on this and it leads to Caltrans doing a better job of replacing these quickly (if they haven't already committed to this in the aftermath of this incident), but I also hope that it has zero bearing on the rest of the report.

hbarka• 8 years ago

The gore point gets hit multiple times a year and you would think that CalTrans could at least put safety striping. CalTrans has the statistics to show that it needs better visual cues.

Why don’t they do this, like in other well-planned places:

https://imgur.com/a/2KqP7

https://i.imgur.com/PKavNwR.png

https://i.imgur.com/dfZehmd.gif

alphabettsy3• 8 years ago

I understand what you’re saying completely. The point of highway safety equipment is usually as a last resort to minimize injury as much as possible, this is after markings, signage, drivers and vehicles have failed to prevent a crash.

Obviously the crash should’ve been avoided, but poorly maintained or designed infrastructure should not be left out of the conversation.

jijojv3• 8 years ago

“The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive"

This is completely irrelevant to the crash. Anyone who uses autopilot knows that throughout the drive even if you have two hands but don't apply enough pressure on the wheel, you will get a warning and you have to jiggle the wheel for it to recognize you're there.

wpietri5• 8 years ago

Related, I wondered about this bit: "Tesla said Huang had not followed guidelines intended to ensure drivers are paying attention while the vehicle is in Autopilot mode."

Even if the sensors were correct, I have deep questions about the human ability to follow instructions requiring them to be robot-like. I would love to see some studies measuring the extent to which people can really follow Tesla's guidelines to the letter for the 300-500 hours/year that somebody with this commute would be doing.

I'm sure I'm an outlier, but I would personally never use a system like Tesla's Autopilot. I already think highway driving is slightly too boring to hold my attention, so on long drives I always supplement with podcasts and audiobooks. Until I can lie down and take a nap, I'm sticking with manual driving.

denzil_correa• 8 years ago

I have just seen one study (not exhaustive) that goes into some details about Tesla autopilot [0]

Participants emphasized being alert at all times, paying attention to the road environment and keeping hands on the wheel while in autonomous driving mode.

...

Drivers seem to enjoy these technologies, and are aware of the limitations of Autopilot and Summon. In the comments, we observed that drivers were highly motivated to use these technologies safely and have not seen indications of the concerns raised in the past such as engaging with secondary tasks while using Autopilot.

[0] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3005465

PhaseBlue• 8 years ago

The guidelines are pretty simple: When you engage autopilot it reminds you: Keep your hands on the wheel: Be prepared to take over at any time.

gsnedders4• 8 years ago

This is completely irrelevant and false.

I, for one, would be generally dubious about making such a strong statement against something the NTSB has stated: it may well be the case that the system as designed should work as you describe, but why do they believe otherwise? Was there some flaw in the system?

cmurf• 8 years ago

Call me cynical, but it sounds like designing the wheel sensors to tend toward not sensing hands on, increases the chance the company can use the narrative being used "driver received hands-on warning and (apparently) ignored them" etc.

False negative seems likely. False positive seems unlikely, maybe nearly impossible.

bordercases2• 8 years ago

Does autopilot lead to overconfident drivers?

digi_owl• 8 years ago

Supposedly any driver aid can make drivers more careless...

cmsonger2• 8 years ago

Background: My wife drives a Tesla Model S with AP.

Inattentive drivers more than overconfident drivers. You look down and stare at your phone for 10 seconds in a normal car and you are punished pretty quickly and learn not to do it.

You look down and start at your phone for 10 seconds in a Tesla with AP and "nothing bad happens" ... almost all of the time.

And that's the problem with this version of AP. Yes, Tesla says keep your eyes on the road. Yes, Tesla says keep your hands on the wheel. But it's pretty easy to get lax and start to slide.

For the record, I think her use is the one valid use. She has RSI issues with her hands and arms and she does a good bit of expressway driving. She absolutely keeps her eyes on the road and hands near the wheel when using it. But I bet she's in the minority of regular Tesla AP users.

bicubic• 8 years ago

The problem with Tesla’s ‘autopilot’ is that it’s anything but.

Asking drivers to keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel while not steering guarantees that their attention will wander, because their brain isn’t getting enough stimulus to keep focused on the task.

I don’t know why it’s not clear to most people by now. The current Tesla ‘autopilot’ is simply more dangerous than manual driving because it harms human reaction time during emergencies.

Tesla is using legalese to blame people for this fully predictable effect when crashes do happen, but I suspect it’s only a matter of time before they’re forced to rebrand Autopilot as a lane assist technology which is all it is. Its only use as a safety system is to maintain control of the car is the driver becomes incapacitated, and safely bring it to a complete stop.

United857• 8 years ago

Given the fact that the autopilot warnings were ignored, could this possibly be a case of sudden driver incapacitation? Eg falling asleep at the wheel, a heart attack, etc?

fenwick67• 8 years ago

The autopilot warnings happened earlier in the drive and aren't even relevant to the crash, they're Tesla's smokescreen.

(EDIT: This is why the NTSB is mad, Tesla is selectively releasing information like this, so they look good before the NTSB reaches any conclusion)

IBM• 8 years ago

I learned everything I needed to know about Tesla's culture and Elon Musk specifically after their response a few years ago to the NYT's review criticizing the Model S's cold weather performance. All their subsequent responses to criticism haven't changed my impression at all. 'Lying with statistics' is a go-to Tesla PR move.

JshWright• 8 years ago

Even more deviously, it's "lying with true statistics".

buvanshak• 8 years ago

In ancient time, it was by "the word of god" from prophets by which you controlled the masses.

Now it is statistics.

lafar6502• 8 years ago

Both Uber and Tesla try to discredit the victim before any official investigation ends, and in both cases it’s quite clear they will try to cover their asses first. And they have all the data. How can we be sure they don’t selectively hide something or don’t tamper with the records before giving them to investigators?

TillE• 8 years ago

Uber has said essentially nothing about their crash, it's the cops who rushed out and got nearly everything wrong. Uber clearly had a serious technical failure, but there's been no PR spin from them.

xvf22• 8 years ago

No you're right, the police happily pointed out that the woman was homeless and seemed to blame the victim. Why would they do that?

It's reasonable to assume it's to keep Uber happy.

mannykannot4• 8 years ago

I think it is possible that the Tempe police chief and mayor anticipated the incident could be a problem for them, especially given the secret agreement that later came out, and chose to try to spin the story on their own account. It is not hard to imagine that, in that frame of mind, they might be receptive to someone from Uber saying "clearly this was unavoidable", but I have no way of knowing whether any such conversation took place.

Then there is the question of whether the Uber-supplied video accurately represents the lighting conditions at the time... This may seem unduly conspiratorial, but I gave both Uber and the Tempe administration the benefit of the doubt until it became clear that the initial reports were innaccurate and less complete than they could have been.

mrtksn4• 8 years ago

Maybe we have a valid use case for a blockchain?

edit: can someone explain what’s so wrong with this comment please?

MichaelGG2• 8 years ago

Blockchain provides zero benefit in this case. People on HN are tired of people ignorantly (sorry) saying blockchain. You should state, for starters, why simple digital signatures are not enough.

maccam94• 8 years ago

Blockchains do nothing to make the source of information trustworthy, they can only prove the information was created before a particular point in time. You could doctor a photo/video and put it on the blockchain just as easily as a real photo. You would only be able to tell it's fake if the original version was added first (if there's an original to begin with). There's a fundamental analog hole[1] when connecting a digital system to the real world.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

hndamien2• 8 years ago

It is important to distinguish that in the Uber case it was a fully self driving car that had a safety supervisor killing a pedestrian. The responsibility for the fatality was overwhelmingly Ubers. A small responsibility falls on the pedestrian who should not have been jaywalking and should have been looking. In the Tesla case it was not a fully self driving car and the driver who had responsibility to be attentive died. One would expect autopilot to do better and the road markings to do better, but the responsibility is still overwhelmingly with the driver.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 8 years ago

Tesla is the company you pay $100,000 to kill you and then make you look bad in public.

jey• 8 years ago

They're not doing a very good job of delivering on that then. They don't seem to have anywhere near a high enough fatality rate.

hndamien2• 8 years ago

Autopilot is only $10,000, but you are still supposed to be attentive.

neurotech1• 8 years ago

The issue is that this investigation is important to Tesla but not considered 'Major' in NTSB definition. In a major investigations, such as airline crashes, the NTSB are the lead agency who give press multiple press conferences and release preliminary information to the media.

It is considered very bad form for any designated parties[0] participating to talk to the media other than with NTSB approval. Non-essential organizations like union representatives have been booted from investigations for talking to the media.

[0] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Pages/default.as... (scroll down to "The Party System")

jijojv3• 8 years ago

From Feb'18

https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2018/insurance-company-su...

The insurance company says that despite its suggestive name and marketing campaign, "Tesla produced a semi-autonomous vehicle that misleadingly appeared to be fully autonomous."

In addition, the lawsuit claims Tesla advertised the package as providing a way to “automatically steer down the highway, change lanes, and adjust speed in response to traffic," all without requiring the driver to touch the steering wheel.

jaimex2• 8 years ago

Given the media circus that started what choice did Tesla have? If this was really an problem why didn't they make Tesla do a NDA?

NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

Related Stories