Tesla Faces Backlash Over Autopilot Technology in Wake of Crash

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Safety advocates are claiming Tesla’s reputation as a leading innovator in the automotive world could breed overconfidence in its new technology, putting drivers in danger.

The May 7 death of a Tesla driver whose vehicle collided with a tractor trailer while in “Autopilot” mode sparked renewed calls for proper vetting of advanced technology in production vehicles — especially if the technology allows the vehicle to drive itself.

Joshua Brown was killed on a Florida highway after his 2015 Tesla Model S’s Autopilot mistook a brightly-lit tractor trailer crossing the highway as the sky. The autonomous driving system didn’t react to the obstacle, leading to a fatal collision. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is now investigating the Model S and its Autopilot system.

Following the crash, the truck’s driver, Frank Baressi, claimed the victim was watching a movie at the time of the crash, saying he could hear the film Harry Potter playing from the Tesla’s wreckage.

Tesla vehicles can’t play videos on their infotainment screens, but Reuters now reports that the Florida Highway Patrol found a portable, aftermarket DVD player in the wreckage of Brown’s vehicle. Brown was a great fan of Tesla and its Autopilot technology, uploading many dashcam videos to his YouTube page, including one showing the system avoiding a collision with a truck earlier this year.

Police said no video recording device — mounted to the dash or elsewhere — was found in the wreckage.

Tesla markets the Autopilot system as a driver’s aid, maintaining that drivers still need to be aware of their surroundings and ready to respond to danger while the system is activated. The mere presence of the technology, however, could lead to overconfidence in its abilities.

Speaking to Bloomberg, Jackie Gillan, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, criticized the practice of “beta” testing — having consumers test and help improve new technology through real-world use.

“Allowing automakers to do their own testing, with no specific guidelines, means consumers are going to be the guinea pigs in this experiment,” said Gillan. “This is going to happen again and again and again.”

Joan Claybrook, automotive safety advocate and former NHTSA director, said the “trial-and-error technique” is a threat to public safety.

“The history of the auto industry is they test and test and test,” she told Bloomberg. “This is a life-and-death issue.”

Expect the Florida crash to make other automakers extra cautious about perfecting their own autonomous driving technology (or semi-autonomous driving aids) before making it available in production vehicles. In March, NHTSA administrator Mark Rosekind gave the regulator a six month timeline in which to create federal rules for self-driving cars.

[Image: Tesla Motors]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 164 comments
  • NMGOM NMGOM on Jul 04, 2016

    Coming here late: Looks like everyone has thoroughly commented on this "backlash" issue. Already gave some perspectives on this technology in the first Tesla post: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/06/nhtsa-investigating-tesla-model-s-following-fatal-autopilot-crash/ Please check these experiments, data, analysis we had done in the late 1990's in the link above. Just some emphasis: 1) There is no such thing now as a completely autonomous vehicle, and will not be reliably available earlier than perhaps 2025-2030. It is foolish to pretend otherwise. 2) One real test of what defined an "autonomous vehicle" in 2004 is recapped here: "The ultimate success of AI-based vehicle systems was judged to be SLEEP! If you can take a nap and/or have NO ability or desire to intervene, — EVER — then the AI system would be seen as successful as your being a passenger with a competent spouse (or others) doing the driving." 3) A real autonomous vehicle will have to handle a white-out snowstorm with pavement substrate coated with ice. (Not simple, but yes, I drive successfully, albeit awkwardly, in this stuff routinely in January and February in WI.) 4) Toyota and some others are to be praised for going slow and thorough with testing this technology. In fact, BMW had this to say: "On this very topic, BMW (CEO Harald Krueger) just announced BMW will be the “#1 in autonomous driving” — but in 2021 and beyond. His comment was that current technology is just not ready for “serious production”. And: “we need those next years”. http://www.autonews.com/article/20160701/VIDEO/307019998/autonews-now-fca-ford-nissan-gain-in-june-toyota-gm-slip?cciid=email-autonews-anno" 5) Tesla's use of the triumphalist term, "Autopilot" may have been unfortunate. Psychologically, to me at least, it implies more capability than actually exists, and others may feel greater confidence in the current Tesla system than is wise. As some have pointed out, a more restrained, less absolute, perhaps less bravado-filled term may have been better. 6) Heuristic computer systems, taught to anticipate future events in difficult traffic/road situations, --- coupled with five (5) types of "surround sensing" and GPS road-location capability --- will be essential for approaching AND exceeding "proper" human accident-avoidance capability, but it can eventually be done. Will that be inexpensive and add just a mere $5,000 to the price of a vehicle? Probably not. ====================

  • Shortest Circuit Shortest Circuit on Jul 06, 2016

    I can only say what people smarter that me said half a decade ago: this _will_not_work_, semi-autonomous driving doesn't work when it is immersed in a sea of regular cars. We either make the switch completely (outlaw all cars that are not autonomous) or stop offering potentially dangerous technology. Where is Ralph Nader when you need him? And yes, I am referring to Isaac Asimov's Sally (1954)

    • Vulpine Vulpine on Jul 06, 2016

      While I agree with the author, the words and the sentiment, SC, there is only one way you could make that work: You would have to remove ALL non-autonomous cars from the road en-masse and issue auto-pilot-equipped cars to all drivers, again, en-masse. In some countries you might get away with that, but here in the US that would be fought every step of the way. People would hide their favorite non-autonomous car in the same way the last remaining EV-1 in private hands was hidden and the mere act of taking that car out on the road would have to be confiscated on sight--possibly at the risk of getting shot by the driver in some parts of the country. No, while it is a nice idea, the only way people will truly accept them is if such technology becomes mandated to where NO new vehicle can be sold without the technology on board and activated by default. Moreover, manual control will have to be gradually removed and ultimately limited to off-road purposes or destination maneuvering such as driveways and work sites.

  • KOKing I owned a Paul Bracq-penned BMW E24 some time ago, and I recently started considering getting Sacco's contemporary, the W124 coupe.
  • Bob The answer is partially that stupid manufacturers stopped producing desirable PHEVs.I bought my older kid a beautiful 2011 Volt, #584 off the assembly line and #000007 for HOV exemption in MD. We love the car. It was clearly an old guy's car, and his kids took away his license.It's a perfect car for a high school kid, really. 35 miles battery range gets her to high school, job, practice, and all her friend's houses with a trickle charge from the 120V outlet. In one year (~7k miles), I have put about 10 gallons of gas in her car, and most of that was for the required VA emissions check minimum engine runtime.But -- most importantly -- that gas tank will let her make the 300-mile trip to college in one shot so that when she is allowed to bring her car on campus, she will actually get there!I'm so impressed with the drivetrain that I have active price alerts for the Cadillac CT6 2.0e PHEV on about 12 different marketplaces to replace my BMW. Would I actually trade in my 3GT for a CT6? Well, it depends on what broke in German that week....
  • ToolGuy Different vehicle of mine: A truck. 'Example' driving pattern: 3/3/4 miles. 9/12/12/9 miles. 1/1/3/3 miles. 5/5 miles. Call that a 'typical' week. Would I ever replace the ICE powertrain in that truck? No, not now. Would I ever convert that truck to EV? Yes, very possibly. Would I ever convert it to a hybrid or PHEV? No, that would be goofy and pointless. 🙂
  • ChristianWimmer Took my ‘89 500SL R129 out for a spin in his honor (not a recent photo).Other great Mercedes’ designers were Friedrich Geiger, who styled the 1930s 500K/540K Roadsters and my favorite S-Class - the W116 - among others. Paul Bracq is also a legend.RIP, Bruno.
  • ToolGuy Currently my drives tend to be either extra short or fairly long. (We'll pick that vehicle over there and figure in the last month, 5 miles round trip 3 times a week, plus 1,000 miles round trip once.) The short trips are torture for the internal combustion powertrain, the long trips are (relative) torture for my wallet. There is no possible way that the math works to justify an 'upgrade' to a more efficient ICE, or an EV, or a hybrid, or a PHEV. Plus my long trips tend to include (very) out of the way places. One day the math will work and the range will work and the infrastructure will work (if the range works) and it will work in favor of a straight EV (purchased used). At that point the short trips won't be torture for the EV components and the long trips shouldn't hurt my wallet. What we will have at that point is the steady drip-drip-drip of long-term battery degradation. (I always pictured myself buying generic modular replacement cells at Harbor Freight or its future equivalent, but who knows if that will be possible). The other option that would almost possibly work math-wise would be to lease a new EV at some future point (but the payment would need to be really right). TL;DR: ICE now, EV later, Hybrid maybe, PHEV probably never.
Next