Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

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

#11

Post by wpietri »

jijojv wrote: post #9

> “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.

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.

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

#13

Post by wpietri »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #8
hirundo wrote: post #3

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?

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 g…

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.

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

#14

Post by wpietri »

classicsnoot wrote: post #6
masklinn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

The NTSB has a 50+ year history of producing detailed reports on accidents:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/Ac...

The notion that they'd suddenly turn secretive now seems absurd to me. Given their expertise and excellent track record, I think it's reasonable to trust them when they say they want to completed the investigation and publish a proper report, just like they do with other accidents.

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

#15

Post by denzil_correa »

wpietri wrote: post #11
jijojv wrote: post #9

> “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.

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…

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

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

#16

Post by jedberg »

hirundo wrote: post #3

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?

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.

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

#17

Post by gsnedders »

jijojv wrote: post #9

> “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.

> 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?

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

#18

Post by Animats »

hirundo wrote: post #3

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?

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...

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

#19

Post by gsnedders »

jedberg wrote: post #16
hirundo wrote: post #3

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?

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.

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.

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

#20

Post by creato »

alphabettsy wrote: post #5

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…

> 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.

Post reply on HN