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

31–40 of 102 posts

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

#31

Post by PhaseBlue »

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…

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.

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

#32

Post by TillE »

lafar6502 wrote: post #30

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?

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.

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

#35

Post by TAForObvReasons »

gsnedders wrote: post #21
Animats wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 reco…

"Move fast and break things", including non-disclosure agreements and established norms :/

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

#36

Post by mrtksn »

lafar6502 wrote: post #30

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?

Maybe we have a valid use case for a blockchain?

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

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

#37

Post by hirundo »

Animats wrote: post #18
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…

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.

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

#38

Post by jey »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #34

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

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.

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

#39

Post by amelius »

PhaseBlue wrote: post #31
wpietri wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

You can't ask a human to do that. It's like selling a gun with a trigger that pulls if you wave at it.

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

#40

Post by ethbro »

gsnedders wrote: post #21
Animats wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 reco…

Isn't that a lose/lose for Tesla?

Are not a party to the investigation -- motives questioned, discovering facts takes longer or impossible

Are a party to the investigation and information can only be released by NTSB -- share price gets hammered every time there's a crash and everyone else gets a chance to put out information

I'm inclined to lead towards "special circumstances" here. Does every Ford crash make national news?

Post reply on HN