
NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash - fancyfacebook
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/04/01/ntsb-unhappy-with-tesla-release-of-investigative-information-in-fatal-crash/
======
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...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Pages/default.aspx)
(scroll down to "The Party System")

------
lafar6502
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
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.

~~~
mannykannot
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.

~~~
atomical
> Then there is the question of whether the Uber-supplied video accurately
> represents the lighting conditions at the time...

Why would that matter? The issue here is that the LIDAR system failed to
detect the pedestrian.

~~~
newnewpdro
It's of tremendous importance from the perspective of public perception of
who's at fault.

If the average observer watching the published video arrives at a conclusion
of "well I would have hit that person too, she appeared out of nowhere in
front of the car", it obviously matters.

~~~
atomical
It's not important at all. There's a bug in Uber's software. That's what we
should be talking about.

~~~
mannykannot
It does seem that there is a problem with the vehicle's lidar or the
associated software, so does it not strike you as strange that the story being
pushed claimed that the victim "came out of the shadows", which is a
misleading irrelevance if lidar is the primary sensing technology? Especially
as the unrealistically dark video does not even seem to fit that story.

~~~
atomical
Yes. That's why I am posting in this thread.

~~~
mannykannot
Sorry, I misunderstood your point.

------
hirundo
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?

~~~
Animats
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...](https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Party_Form.pdf)

~~~
gsnedders
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.

~~~
ethbro
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?

~~~
gsnedders
Is the same not true for Boeing?

~~~
ethbro
I'd argue Boeing (and most other companies) have the benefit of amortizating
"fear" over the total installed base of similar technologies.

A Chevy engine turns out to have a design flaw, investors say "Yes, but Ford
produces and sells tons of engines, so here's how much we think fixing it will
cost."

It seems like the recent Uber / Tesla self-driving impact is more of the form
of "Gee, maybe this isn't even possible."

If the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor were the _only_ aircraft Boeing made... then I'd
say it would be a more similar analogy.

------
jijojv
> “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.

~~~
wpietri
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.

~~~
PhaseBlue
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.

~~~
strathmeyer
Didn't work for trains, now did it?

~~~
lolc
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.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Tesla is the company you pay $100,000 to kill you and then make you look bad
in public.

~~~
jey
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.

------
alphabettsy
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.

~~~
creato
> 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.

~~~
alphabettsy
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.

~~~
jackvalentine
I think it's best to split these in to two 'investigations' to talk about. Yep
the barrier probably contributed to the death but are we really interested in
talking about? We're here to talk about the self-driving bit! We wouldn't be
talking about it if it was a 2002 Toyota Camry that hit it..

~~~
alphabettsy
There’s no need for there to be two investigations, the NTSB generally
produces very thorough reports that will acknowledge all causes leading to
injury or death.

~~~
jackvalentine
I'm not saying there should be two investigations, I'm saying there should be
two 'investigations' for the purposes of us talking about it.

Nobody here is actually interested in the case because of the implications for
roadside maintenance - they're interested because it's a (semi) autonomous
vehicle.

------
bordercases
Does autopilot lead to overconfident drivers?

~~~
cmsonger
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
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.

~~~
annerajb
I am curious how do aircraft pilots got around this? Autopilot on aircraft
work same as a Tesla drive a straight line where I aimed you have way less
interaction than on the car. Yet pilots are able to take over autopilot and
their responsibility during it's use is mostly looking out the window and
occasionally switching frequency

~~~
random4369
There are two critical differences.

1: The handover latency (time from AP requesting handover to time pilot takes
over) is measured in seconds to tens of seconds. AP is designed to give up a
long time before any possible issues occur. Contrast this with cars on roads
where the reaction times need to be in the sub-second range to avert crashes.
If AP took a plane into terrain during poor visibility conditions and the
pilots only got a second or two of terrain warning prior to a crash, such a
crash would never be classified as pilot error on those grounds. Contrast this
with self-driving cars where the autonomy frequently _doesn 't give up at all_
and the driver's awareness of the situation is the only thing to save them.

2: There are two operators on controls at all times. Recognising the
limitations of human attention spans is one of but not the only reason for
this being a requirement in civilian airlines.

Boeing has a whole design philosophy about making the operations of AP
completely transparent to the pilots and failsafe. That means that all key
controls (thrust, trim, stick, etc.) in the cockpit are physically manipulated
by the AP so the pilots can see exactly what's going on. and more importantly
that the controls represent the exact state of AP when the pilot takes over,
so there are no unexpected sudden changes in input. The current generation of
self-driving cars is a joke compared to the safety engineering that goes into
AP systems.

------
jijojv
From Feb'18

[https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2018/insurance-company-
su...](https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2018/insurance-company-sues-tesla-
model-x-crash.shtml)

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.

------
United857
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
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
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
Even more deviously, it's "lying with true statistics".

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

Now it is statistics.

------
jaimex2
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?

------
aurizon
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.

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

~~~
classicsnoot
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.

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

[https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/Ac...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AccidentReports.aspx)

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.

~~~
classicsnoot
Just to clarify, "secrecy" is not a word to which I attach negative sentiment.

