
Preliminary NTSB report on Tesla crash - Animats
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HWY16FH018-preliminary.aspx
======
neurotech1
Typically the police and NHTSA investigate car accidents, not the NTSB.

While the NTSB don't typically investigate car accidents, they do for
transportation (truck) accidents. It's likely that the NTSB investigated
because it involved a truck with a possible systemic issue, with cars going
under trucks, and the Tesla autopilot being a factor.

One noted NTSB rule is that Tesla or other parties [0] do not comment
regarding the NTSB investigation, except with the NTSB senior investigators'
permission.

[0]
[http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Party...](http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Party_Form.pdf)

~~~
dripton
That gag order looks unconstitutional to me. Has it ever been challenged in
court?

~~~
techdragon
This is one of the few places I feel the simple "shouting fire in a crowded
theatre" analogy holds true. It's in the greater interest of the overall
public good that the parties involved in an NTSB investigation are not given
the opportunity to interfere with the process of the investigation.

Also it's not actually a gag order. I can't find any actual legal regulations
which leads me to the assumption that this is less an NSL style "comply or you
will be silenced" sort of situation. All the evidence I could find makes it
seem like more of a " _gentleman 's agreement_" developed over the decades of
interacting with an extremely small pool of actors. ( American Railroads +
American Truck Makers, and Airlines operating in US airspace ) Infact I
grabbed this exemplary ( if a little long ) quote off the NTSB website from a
press release regarding the FAA accidentally releasing investigation
information when complying with a FOIA request _before the investigation was
complete_. ( The NTSB don't care about the FOIA request, just that you _wait_
until their job is done before answering it.)

>> The NTSB depends upon full participation and technical assistance by the
parties in our accident investigations in order to ensure that our
investigations are objective, rigorous, and complete. Allowing any party to
release investigative information without approval may enable that party to
influence the public perception of the investigation and undercut the fairness
of the process.

>> Accordingly, we require that any release of information related to an
ongoing accident investigation be coordinated and approved by the NTSB prior
to its release. When the investigation is complete, these restrictions no
longer apply.

------
Animats
Not much new yet. Vehicle speed was 74MPH. Autopilot was engaged. The Tesla
was not under power after the crash. There are pictures of the semitrailer,
which was not damaged much by the underrun, and of the Tesla vehicle, where
everything above hood level was bent back or sheared off.

The side of the trailer is corrugated metal painted white. It's not a smooth
white surface. The vision system should have been able to range that.

~~~
stcredzero
_The vision system should have been able to range that._

Please understand that the vision system in a Tesla isn't like your vision
system. There is no AI which is constructing a model of a 3D world out of 2D
visual data, with a road surface and 3D objects located within it. There is no
human or higher-mammal level of _comprehension_ of the scene. There are
probably a series of algorithmic tricks that enable the car to determine in
which direction the distant road is. The computer can then meld that
information with the other shorter ranged sensors in the car that do return
distance data.

The reason why things like LIDAR are used in self-driving cars, is that these
systems can numerically build a model of the 3D scene without having to have
an AI reconstruct a 3D scene out of 2D camera data. They return distance
information, so the data starts out as 3D, so far less interpretation is
necessary. In all likelihood, nothing in a Tesla understands what a truck
trailer is, so how is it going to interpret that set of 2D optical data as an
object that's like a moveable wall suspended a few feet in the air? There's
probably only a rudimentary notion of obstacle in the software.

~~~
avar
I wonder if Elon will ever live down his comments that LIDAR "doesn’t make
sense" and is "unnecessary" in the context of an autonomous car after this[1].

1\. [http://9to5google.com/2015/10/16/elon-musk-says-that-the-
lid...](http://9to5google.com/2015/10/16/elon-musk-says-that-the-lidar-google-
uses-in-its-self-driving-car-doesnt-make-sense-in-a-car-context/)

~~~
manicdee
LIDAR doesn't work in rain and fog.

~~~
mannykannot
Does any current optical technology work any better in rain and fog? Not that
'optical' is a requirement anyway - what is needed is anything that does work.

~~~
izacus
The radars other manufacturers use work well - e.g. my Mazda will detect
obstacles and start braking even in weather conditions where optical
visibility is way worse. Pretty much all other car manufacturers use such
radars mounted in front for the adaptive cruise control systems (front) and
blind spot monitoring (back).

------
slg
I haven't been following this case particularly closely, but looking at the
pictures it seems like a dangerous place to rely on autopilot with the
intersections. Whether Tesla's system can or will be improved from this
accident doesn't appear clear at this point. But it does seem hard to argue
that fault rests with Tesla considering autopilot was being used in a manor
that goes against their instructions. It also makes me wonder if it Tesla
might be better off with some sort of whitelisting system that prevents
autopilot from being engaged on roads like this. That would certainly reduce
the risk of accidents resulting from misuse, although I guess it might open
them up to more blame in the event of a possible accident.

~~~
enoch_r
> looking at the pictures it seems like a dangerous place to rely on autopilot
> with the intersections

To some extent, I agree--uncontrolled intersections on highways are dangerous.

On the other hand, in this particular case, a 14 foot tall, 75 foot long,
40-ton obstacle blocking the roadway is probably something _any_ autopilot
should be able to detect and _attempt_ to avoid. This was not a case of the
Tesla not being able to stop in time because someone pulled out in front of
them. The Tesla did not slow down at all from its cruising speed of 74mph
before impacting the trailer. It simply did not detect the obstacle.

~~~
slg
That obstacle was only on the road because it was an intersection. It is
extremely unlikely that a truck would be in a similar position on a
hypothetically Tesla approved autopilot road unless an accident occurred
directly in front of you and Tesla likely has other ways of detecting such an
accident. It is similar to if someone was using autopilot and drove through a
red light and was t-boned. It isn't a good look for Tesla, but I can't fault
them for not preventing the crash when the car was clearly being used under
conditions they recommend against.

~~~
kpil
Apparently, the car is oblivious to trailers parked across the road, so it
seems unlikely that there are "other ways."

------
sunstone
Hard not to notice that the Tesla was doing 10mph over the speed limit.
Keeping to the speed limit is probably a better idea for auto pilot as a
general rule, though it may not have made a difference in this particular
accident.

~~~
lutorm
Doesn't the auto pilot function as a normal cruise control, ie the driver sets
the speed, unless it's following traffic?

------
Mao_Zedang
That road looks very dangerous to speed on, with cars crossing perpendicular
to oncoming traffic.

~~~
beachstartup
that's basically how every rural highway looks in the US.

~~~
tinco
In Europe that road would have a 40mph or maybe 50mph speed limit. A 65mph
road would not have crossings without traffic lights, and a 75mph road would
not have crossings at all.

Yet Tesla's autopilot apparently drove 74 on this road? Not that I think that
speeding was the cause here (i.e. going 65 would not have prevented probably)
but I think there should be a special sort of fine for speeding autopilots,
that's just not acceptable at all..

~~~
beachstartup
yeah, rural crossings are dangerous in the US, but it's probably not worth the
inconvenience and cost of lowering the speed limits or adding stops.

people expect to use these things to travel hundreds of miles in a reasonable
amount of time. there are literally thousands of these highways, and probably
hundreds of thousands of crossings.

~~~
tinco
To be fair, it looks like the visibility is great, I don't know the weather
conditions at the time of the accident but I feel the 'driver' must not have
had his eyes on the road at all. It's not like a combinator like that speeds
onto a highway, it was probably visibly entering it from a mile away.

~~~
beachstartup
the incident in question involved a driver that was asleep or otherwise not
paying attention to the road. he killed himself.

------
nraynaud
They might want to put an overpass, separation rails, reflective distance
markers around the entrances/exits, and generally do something about road
safety.

An interesting tidbit from wikipedia: "[highway] is not an equivalent term to
Controlled-access highway, or a translation for autobahn, autoroute, etc."

~~~
PhantomGremlin
The problem is that there are many thousands of places that can use
improvements. Individually they're not necessarily expensive, but collectively
the cost would be astronomical.

Even low hanging fruit sometimes doesn't get fixed in a timely manner. E.g.
here's an example:
[http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2014/11/odot_s...](http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2014/11/odot_signs_7_million_deal_to_i.html)

I-5 is the primary North-South highway for the US west coast. In Oregon until
recently there were numerous stretches without anything separating the traffic
other than a grass median. Many cars have crossed the median at high speed,
sometimes resulting in fatal crashes.

That particular improvement cost $7 million. But, to riff on a comment from
the late Senator Dirksen, "$7 million here, $7 million there, pretty soon,
you're talking real money."

~~~
honkhonkpants
"The narrow 30-foot median contains only a low earthen berm"

Don't you have to be driving like a bit of an asshat to feel like 30 feet of
earthen berm is not enough between your lane and the oncoming lane? That's a
pretty big barrier and the road in question is straight and level.

~~~
brokenmachine
Don't know what the speed limit is there, but when an asshat is out of control
at over 40mph, I wouldn't consider 30 feet of grass a "pretty big barrier"
between myself and them.

------
jalk
slightly off topic, but when I saw the images of the trailer, I couldn't help
but think that the collision wouldn't have been fatal, if the trailer was
fitted with "side underrun protection". IIRC those are required on trucks and
trailers driving in the EU.

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
If it stopped the car from going under @ 74MPH, odds are the passenger would
still have died. I doubt they're build to withstand _that_ much energy,
though.

------
magoon
I wouldn't use cruise control in tight areas, and I get extra attentive
maneuvering around trucks. I wouldn't be surprised if Autopilot gets modified
so that it locks-out in these precarious circumstances.

------
11thEarlOfMar
"the main body of the car was generally intact"

Looking at the photo of the car, the 'main body' must not mean what it implies
to laypersons. Or perhaps 'generally' is a broader spectrum of conditions that
I'd guess.

~~~
Animats
By "intact", the NTSB means "in one piece", as opposed to "debris field".

~~~
euyyn
That's a weird meaning of theirs, then. Intact comes from "not touched".

