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

51–60 of 102 posts

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

#51

Post by neurotech1 »

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")

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

#52

Post by Natsu »

xvf22 wrote: post #44
TillE wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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?

Because A.R.S says that pedestrians have a duty to yield outside of crosswalks and they normally make the police's accident report available shortly after any accident.

I know because I was over there not very long ago trying to get one for someone else. It's just off of Mill Ave., not very far south of where this accident happened.

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

#53

Post by hbarka »

creato wrote: post #20
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 thi…

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

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

#54

Post by jijojv »

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.

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

#55

Post by alphabettsy »

creato wrote: post #20
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 thi…

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.

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

#56

Post by lolc »

hirundo wrote: post #37
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…

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 fiducia…

While I don't know about how this is percieved within Tesla, the adversarial relationship you paint between NTSB and Tesla is exactly what should not happen. Root causes of crashes must be investigated and published so that Tesla and their competitors can improve safety of their cars.

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

#57

Post by lolc »

strathmeyer wrote: post #41
PhaseBlue wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Didn't work for trains, now did it?

Exactly. Train drivers have whole protocols to counter attention issues. And they are trained professionals.

A tape repeating "put your hands back on the instruments" can only buy you that much safety.

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

#58

Post by hirundo »

lolc wrote: post #56
hirundo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fiducia…

While I don't know about how this is percieved within Tesla, the adversarial relationship you paint between NTSB and Tesla is exactly what should not happen. Root causes of crashes must be investigated and published so that Tesla and their competitors can improve safety of their cars.

> the adversarial relationship you paint

There is space between being an adversary and being a partner in the investigation.

> Root causes of crashes must be investigated and published so that Tesla and their competitors can improve safety of their cars.

Yes, and two independent such investigations are better than one. With less opportunity for the subject to steer the result.

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

#59

Post by bicubic »

cmsonger wrote: post #42
bordercases wrote: post #10

Does autopilot lead to overconfident drivers?

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 s…

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.

Post reply on HN