By on September 14, 2016

tesla

The death of a young Chinese man in a Tesla this past January could be the first fatality linked to a malfunctioning Autopilot system.

Tesla claims it is investigating the crash as the company faces a lawsuit filed by the man’s family, Reuters reports. Unlike a fatal Florida crash in May, this collision has video evidence.

Chinese media has identified the victim as 23-year-old Gao Yaning. The man died after his Tesla Model S crashed into the back of a street sweeping truck while travelling in the far left lane of an expressway.

In a statement to Reuters, Tesla claims it “has no way of knowing” if the vehicle’s semi-autonomous Autopilot system was engaged at the time of the crash.

“Because of the damage caused by the collision, the car was physically incapable of transmitting log data to our servers,” Tesla stated.

Autopilot factored into the May death of Joshua Brown, whose Model S collided with a semi trailer on a Florida highway. Due to unusual light conditions, the Autopilot in Brown’s car failed to recognize a truck crossing the highway. The crash led to a firestorm of controversy over the system’s safety, sparking federal investigations.

Under pressure, Tesla agreed to update the system’s technology, detailing the new system in a recent blog post.

While Tesla claims it doesn’t know if Autopilot played a role, a dashcam video aired on China’s CCTV shows Yanning’s crash from inside the vehicle. The video shows the Tesla speeding along in the far left lane, not swerving or slowing before it impacts the truck, which is seen hugging the barrier — half in and half out of the lane. The weather seems foggy (or smoggy), with the vehicle driving towards the rising or setting sun.

At first glance, the odd light conditions and the fact that the occupant doesn’t take over control as the truck approaches implies an Autopilot failure, though we can’t know for sure.

According to its statement, Tesla claims it tried to work with the victim’s family to determine a cause, but no useful information cropped up. The family filed a lawsuit against Tesla in July.

[Image: CCTV]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

85 Comments on “Tesla Investigates Deadly China Collision; Could Be the First Fatal Autopilot Crash...”


  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Bold prediction: Tesla backs off this tech.

    • 0 avatar
      markogts

      I wish you were right… This damn Silicon Valley videogame will destroy Tesla and with it the hopes of a quick EV revolution. Elon please stop!

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Neither Musk nor his closest associates are likely to consider themselves “Born to Back Off.” They’re going to Mars, or they’re going to die trying.

      In addition, Tesla is priced like a reasonable probability moonshot. So even money men who may be getting concerned, realize their investment’s best hope, is to be really, really careful about pricking any dream balloons the founding posse have created.

      The big, established car makes, have to be careful, since they have lots to loose. They’re built around weathering ups and downs, relying on their size and momentum to get them through rough spots. Tesla isn’t nearly at the size where they would be worth squat, were it not for the sheen of grandiose “change the world” prospects.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        It seems money men are getting worried. Reports are out that an oil industry executive actually tried to fish for information from Tesla’s CFO by impersonating Elon himself through email.

    • 0 avatar
      alexndr333

      Un-bold prediction: Tesla says Beta-testing isn’t for the timid.

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    Elon will blame the truck for blocking the road. “Nothing wrong with our autopilot system” Another dumbass who took that Musk BS seriously and paid dearly for it.

  • avatar

    I don’t wish harm upon anyone, but a few more of these crashes may convince people that these technologies are NOT ready for use without absolutely constant driver monitoring. I have no interest in having them in my cars. I almost never even use cruise control because it makes that part of driving “lazy” and a bit less commanding of my attention.

    There are only a maximum of 6 logos on a roadside sign indicating hotels, restaurants or fuel stations at the coming exit, because it takes about 2 seconds of attention to view 6 and 2 seconds is the maximum diversion of attention to the road that is deemed safe at highway speeds. Automated systems can easily divert attention for more than 2 seconds. No thanks.

  • avatar
    Cactuar

    What a terrible tragedy for the young victim and the family.

    If the auto-pilot system is indeed the cause of the crash, I can’t say I’m surprised. There simply are too many variables present on the road to ensure that autonomous systems will function reliably 100% of the time.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      While agree with your premise, in this case something doesn’t add up. Teslas have forward-facing radar, and the vehicle it struck was in the lane directly in front of it. No matter what the lighting conditions, the radar should have detected it. If the radar wasn’t working, I can’t imagine the system would have engaged.

      • 0 avatar

        Reading the Tesla blog link in the article it seems radar was installed but was only a secondary sensor they relied on the camera because they worried you would get too many false braking events with the radar. The new software they launched earlier in the week changed that. So no the radar wouldn’t stop the car unless the camera agreed.

  • avatar
    Macca

    As autopilot is thought to have ‘factored’ in the death of Joshua Brown, how is this the ‘first fatal autopilot crash’? Does the headline need an ‘in China’ modifier or should it read ‘second’?

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      The accident in China was in January, Brown’s was in May.

      I’m sure the usual suspect will tell us that it’s not the driver’s or Tesla’s fault, it was the fault of the street sweeping vehicle for being partly in his lane.

      • 0 avatar
        Macca

        Ah, I totally missed the chronology of the events. Thanks for the clarification.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        If you still haven’t figured out that vehicles making left turns at uncontrolled intersections don’t have the right of way, then you should burn your driver license and apologize to the DMV for whatever scam that you pulled.

        If you don’t understand the difference between liability for crashes while turning across traffic (almost always 100%) and liability for being rear-ended (almost always 0%), then buy a lifetime bus pass and leave the driving to those who know something about it.

        • 0 avatar
          285exp

          I knew I could count on you.

          Both wrecks were caused by the same thing: grossly negligent drivers who used autopilot beyond its capabilities and, due to their total lack of situational awareness, allowed their car to drive them into objects that would have been easily avoided if they had been paying proper attention.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Your fundamental ignorance of traffic law is a bug, not a feature.

            The police report found the truck driver to be at fault in the Joshua Brown crash due to the truck driver’s failure to yield. If you knew enough about driving rules to deserve having a license, then this would not be a mystery to you, but you’re obviously not bright enough to understand the concept of right of way. God help anyone who has to share a road with you.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Where can I see this police report finding the truck driver at fault? I’d like to see their findings. Apparently, the police spoke to a woman who said she was going 85 mph when Joshua’s Tesla flew past her prior to the collision.

            http://gas2.org/2016/07/02/new-details-fatal-tesla-crash-emerge/

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            So your simplistic claim that the person making the turn is always completely at fault isn’t actually true? That speeding, proven in this case, and negligence in operating the vehicle that contribute to the accident can make the driver with the right of way partially liable? Nah, that’s just ignorant.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I provided a link from Nolo Press, which is one of the top publishers of self-help legal books (read: stuff that should be simple enough so that even you can understand it) in the country.

            The police report is consistent with that. Failure to yield is the cause of the crash and assigned to the vehicle that turned left, with no fault assigned to the vehicle traveling straight.

            You’ve got sweet FA. You really shouldn’t be driving, since you don’t have the vaguest idea about who is supposed to yield when.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            You know pch, the silly personal attacks don’t make your arguments any better.

            Let me know when you find the link to the court ruling showing Brown was totally cleared of any fault in the accident.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            As these things don’t generally end up in court, your position is completely bogus.

            The truck driver was found at fault in the police report. The police report is consistent with the law. I’m sorry that you are too ignorant to realize that the law goes against you, but that’s your problem.

          • 0 avatar

            They go to trial some times. And yes some times excess speed means a liability split, even when the speeding driver had right of way.

            Romano v. 202 Corp., 305A.D.2d 576, 759 N.Y.S.2d 365 (2nd Dept. 2003), defendant B failed to fully stop at a stop sign and was struck by defendant A who was traveling through the intersection at excessive speed. Although the lower court dismissed the claims against defendant A, the claims were reinstated by the appellate court. The court held that the fact that one defendant violated a stop sign would not preclude a finding as a matter of law that the negligent conduct of the speeding defendant contributed to the accident.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I used to get offended by PCH’s personal attacks, but now I enjoy them, like the old SNL fake news. “Jane, you ignorant slut…”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Besides Brown’s contribution in the accident, the trucker is yet to be charged with negligent homicide or anything of the sort. It’s unclear how the trucker named a specific movie he heard playing in the Tesla, and no one is denying there was a portable DVD player in the car, nor denying it had that exact movie in it.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            ignorant
            adjective ig·no·rant ˈig-n(ə-)rənt

            1 a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence

            2 : unaware, uninformed

            _____________

            Labeling Mr. 285 as ignorant isn’t a personal attack, it’s just a statement of fact. The law is clear on this matter, and the police report is consistent with the law. Denying verifiable facts is both ignorant and embarrassing.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s odd that Mike feels so compelled to believe everything that comes out of the truck driver’s mouth, when the truck driver was at fault for a fatal crash.
            _________

            Neither the laptop nor a DVD player also found in the vehicle was running after the crash, said Sergeant Kim Montes of the Florida Highway Patrol. Montes said investigators could not determine whether the driver was operating either at the time of the accident.

            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-autopilot-idUSKCN0ZN1XX

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            pch,

            You are the one who has been claiming that the driver making the turn across traffic is always at fault. Now you have provided a legal citation that proves that you were wrong. Then, you have been claiming that Brown has been completely cleared of any negligence, and that the truck driver has been found completely at fault, but you are unable to provide any proof of that, mainly because it does not exist. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you’d know that police reports are not legal findings. They will be used in court, but the simple fact that the report states that the truck driver failed to yield does not mean that the truck driver will be found entirely at fault. The police report does not state that Brown was speeding, though he was, or that he was blowing down the highway while not bothering to look out the front window because he had an unrealistic belief in the abilities of his car, though he was. If you believe that does not indicate any of the responsibility for the accident is Brown’s, then perhaps the ignorance is yours. I certainly wouldn’t want to ride with you if you think that was responsible driving.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge

            The police report lists the proximate cause of the accident. That does not mean that it was the only cause of the accident.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            So you’re not particular literate, either.

            What I said: “***almost always*** 100%”

            What Nolo Press said: “A car making a left turn is ***almost always*** liable to a car coming straight in the other direction”

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The officers didn’t have to see or hear the movie playing, the trucker did. Unless you know how the trucker knew there was a DVD player in car and what exact movie was in it, it’s a fact. There was a movie playing that could be watched instead of the road ahead.

            This combined with speeding with the autopilot on, is more than enough to find Brown at least 50% at fault. Probably more.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            pch,

            Since day 1 of this, you have been insisting that the truck driver was completely at fault, that he has already been found to be at fault and that Brown was found to have no responsibility. You have blamed the truck driver, and rightly so, Tesla, less so, but you give Brown a pass, despite his gross negligence and reckless behavior. Perhaps the court will find the trucker 100% responsible, but it damn sure hasn’t yet, despite your ignorant insistence that he has been.

            Brown and the Chinese gentleman both did the exact same thing, they handed over responsibility for both their and other’s safety to an unproven technology, against both the recommendation of Tesla and of common sense, and now they’re both dead because of it, and it’s just fortunate that they didn’t kill anyone else too. Both accidents were completely avoidable, if the drivers had actually been driving the cars instead of just going along for the ride.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The police report says that the truck driver is 100% at fault.

            Nobody who actually knows about the law and crash investigation is on your own side. Take the hint.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge

            Brown isn’t at least 50% at fault. That’s crazy talk.

            I have seen a copy of the police report, just read the news articles about it. I’ve seen plenty of police reports doing insurance claims and they don’t usually assign a fault percentage, just who was cited and what the proximate cause of the accident.

            https://www.michigan.gov/documents/UD-10_Manual_2004_91577_7.pdf

            http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/ecrash/CrashManualComplete.pdf

            On the Florida form, officers just fill out contributing factors. They write citations for hazardous actions, but they aren’t making liability decisions in terms of percentages.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The police report states that the truck driver failed to yield, which contributed to the crash.

            It also says that Brown did not take any action that contributed to the crash. It also claimed that distraction did not play a role in the crash.

            Everything in the police report points to the truck driver, nothing in it points to Brown. Hence, the 100% comment.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge

            A settlement or civil trial we determine fault percentages for liability purposes. The trucker may or may not be 100% at fault. That being said, his action was the proximate cause and he will be substantially more at fault. If I were his adjuster, and I’ve been in this spot, I’d counter Brown’s insurance company’s assessment with 75/25 fault and accept anything in-between.

        • 0 avatar

          PCH,

          I pretty much agree with you here but I had an interesting conversation with a former coworker the other day. I used to work auto claims (damage appraiser) but did not handle liability. This person handles liability claims and accident reconstruction at my old company. He said technically there is no right of way the laws most places just laws that state which driver must yield. He said depending on the state (and even sometimes the county) they will often find the person with right of way negligent (as well as the left turning driver) if there was enough room for them to have prevented the accident, which would seem to be the case here. He said normally they just fault the left turn driver and move on, but he said in several cases that have gone to court they have split the liability on similar cases as the on coming driver still had a duty to avoid the accident, this would be further complicated and help the defense case by the fact the oncoming car was speeding. In general the truck was in the wrong but like most things it’s really gray.

          As I’m thinking about it here I had a claim years ago where a car backed out of drive way and was struck by a plow truck. The original claim found her at fault (she was uninsured as well) when she found out she would be on the hook for her own car and the plow truck (like $15,000) she hired a lower who managed to get the insurance company to agree the plow driver had been on the road too many hours and they split the damages to the truck 60/40 between her and the plows insurance.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Liability goes to the car turning across traffic due to failure to yield. Your coworker is correct about that aspect of the law.

            Brown was not found liable for the Tesla crash, which is one should expect given the laws that we have throughout the United States. The turning traffic is obliged to yield, and that obligation to yield does not end while the turn is in progress.

          • 0 avatar

            Yes in the case of Florida the truck driver is most at fault. Given the publicity in the case, my assumption will be the two insurance companies will fight out the claim and the truck drivers insurance will cover most of the claim and the Tesla driver’s insurance will also pickup part given that he was speeding and not paying attention both would be contributing factors to the accident and allow the truck drivers insurance to lower their liability owed.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Whether the “investigating” officers want to talk to witnesses and look for further evidence is a different story.

            The right-of-way driver can be found partly at fault, contributing to an accident. Besides speeding, it’s also not lawful to change lanes in an intersection, drive at night without headlights, text, and talk on the phone, all of which can contribute to an accident.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In the case of the Brown crash, the truck driver was found to be entirely at fault, which is consistent with the law.

            One must ALWAYS yield when turning across traffic at an uncontrolled intersection. If you are hit, then you failed to yield by default. If you had yielded in that situation as the law requires, then you would not have been hit.

          • 0 avatar

            Correct you must yield. And the police report will say at fault but that’s not the end of it. It will either go to court or get hashed out between insurance company lawyers (usually the later). In a death case the truck driver insurance will want to reduce their liability they will claim the Tesla driver was speeding and had ample opportunity to avoid the accident. The way the coworker explained it was as follows. “In court under Florida law they will say that the Tesla driver was negligent in his duties as a driver and thus contributed to the accident. They will say speeding and not having full control of his vehicle at all times contributed to the severity of the crash, if these were not factors the crash may have been less severe.” The coworker then mentioned he thought in this case he doubted a court would allow more then an 80/20 split since courts tend to be sympathetic to deceased plaintiffs. But that could amount to a six figure savings to the insurance company so they will likely pursue it.

            I was just texting with my brother who was also a injury liability auto claims adjuster for a while, he also agrees they will likely avoid some percentage of liability he said he had experience with this in FL, he said he had a case where an elderly person had the right of way in an intersection and hit a car turning into a gas station. They gave partial liability to the elderly driver because there was no sign they applied the brakes (and there was space too have done so) And the lowered her payout by a small percentage thanks to the defendant lawyer who argued thanks to her age (over 85) she did not have full control of the vehicle. (apparently in that case the defendant had a low liability amount and was trying to avoid being personally responsible for an amount over their limit. )

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            Denvermike.
            Once again, exactly.
            PCH and others can try to be wrongfully and deceivably nitpicky and state simple law. But in real life, these laws are not always applied.
            I have, many times, been pulling out from a driveway or street and having checked properly for approaching vehicles and seeing none, proceeded out. Then suddenly I am getting blasted by the horn of an idiot up on my tail that had been going far over the speed limit and came on me before I could be at speed.
            THESE lawbreakers ARE held accountable if any part of their breaking of the law contributed to the accident.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            So your driving sucks, too. Thanks for the tip.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            I’m sure pch can provide a link to the court ruling finding Brown not liable for the crash.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Insurers dispute claims even when the liability is clear cut, particularly if there is a fair amount of their money on the line.

            That’s just how they roll, and that has no bearing on the law.

          • 0 avatar

            Well it is about the law, most states laws allow some split in fault to happen. In this case the largest contributor to the accident was the left turn without enough room. But Speeding and not having full control of a vehicle are also against the law in Florida in as such can be brought into a court of law as a factor in the accident, and to some extent be accepted. Here is a copy and paste out of the Florida driver handbook.
            Right-of-way rules tell you who goes
            first and who must wait in different
            conditions. The law says who must
            yield (give up) the right-of-way. Every
            driver, motorcyclist, moped rider,
            bicyclist, and pedestrian must do
            everything possible to avoid a crash

            I’m not saying you should take a left turn and hope to make it. I’m just saying this is a lot more gray in reality.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            A crash occurs.

            Police report assigns fault.

            Insurers tussle over the money, cut deals that don’t end up in court.

            The settlement/negotiation aspect isn’t driven by the law per se, but by the willingness of each side to fight over money. These days, insurers essentially own their law firms, so their cost of litigation is effectively capped and they have everyone reason to keep fighting and stalling and fighting and stalling.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Apparently pch does not understand the concepts of contributory and comparative negligence, or that they are part of the law.

            Still waiting for that link showing that Brown has been totally cleared in court of any liability.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Is a car making a left turn always at fault in an accident?

            A car making a left turn is almost always liable to a car coming straight in the other direction. Exceptions to this near-automatic liability can occur if:

            > the car going straight was going too fast (this is usually difficult to prove)

            > the car going straight went through a red light, or

            >the left-turn car began its turn when it was safe but something unexpected happened which made it have to slow down or stop its turn.

            Whatever the contributing factors, the law says the car making the left turn must wait until it can safely complete the turn before moving in front of oncoming traffic…if you have had an accident in which you ran into someone who was making a left turn in front of you, almost all other considerations of fault go out the window, and the other driver is nearly always liable..

            http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/traffic-accidents-faq-29084-4.html

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Even Pch will agree driving with your head up your A$$ while letting a sophisticated cruise-control do all the driving is a completely asinine move, even if it only kills yourself, legal or otherwise.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge

            I guarantee Brown’s insurance company is finding Brown 0% and fault and subrogating for everything it can. The trucker’s insurance company will still probably find it’s insured more at fault. They’ll be arguing over that percentage since Florida is a pure comparative negligence state.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      So this happened in January and wasn’t picked up by US ‘journalists,’ allowing Musk to kill the man in Florida?

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        I like the way you put ‘journalists’ in quotes there, as if to say ‘I’m too cool to trust in quote unquote journalists, especially since I have my alt right bros who speak the real truth.’

        And obviously its the quote unquote mainstream media that “allowed” Musk to kill yet again. If only they could be fair and balanced, but clearly they are not.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Dance for me.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            As desperate as you may be to see men dance, you’ll have to go to a club on your own.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            I’ll concede that I have a morbid curiosity to see where the cultivated idiocy will lead you that allows your myopia of the fact that there was a widely covered national news story about Tesla’s autopilot decapitating one of its biggest proponents that failed to mention that it had happened before and there was a video. I understand that actual journalism would constitute a threat to the fantasy land you choose to live in, but it must be embarrassing to have to demonstrate your ideological rigor as a member of the ignorati on a daily basis.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            Prolix writing generally means the writer is dumb and poor.

            Don’t let yourself or your loved ones appear dumb & poor.

  • avatar

    I like how ‘unusual light conditions’ is the cop-out de jour. The earth’s relative position to the sun has existed for eons. People have been high-speed motorists for nearly 75 years. ‘Unusual light conditions’ don’t seem to affect experiences or even amateur motorists.

    But let’s excuse Tesla here.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      ” ‘Unusual light conditions’ don’t seem to affect experiences or even amateur motorists.”

      Bull. There have been crashes due to “unusual light conditions” pretty much ever since there have been self-powered vehicles. They just don’t get the publicity that Tesla’s crashes do.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    Why is this discussion focused on the Autopilot function? So far all that has been established is that a Tesla ran into a slow moving vehicle in the fast lane. If Tesla can’t tell whether the system was engaged I don’t see how anyone else could determine that.

  • avatar
    ejwu

    According to the commentator:
    1. The accident happened around 2pm, so no, it’s not driving towards the sun.
    2. She also said the weather is sunny and clear (so I guess it’s smoggy?)
    3. The driver is young but quite experienced. He was a truck driver during his military service.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Level 2 autonomous system + inattentive driver = crash

    The video is pretty damning, since it certainly seems like AP was engaged and *should* have detected that truck.

    But, just like the Joshua Brown case, the inattentive driver who is supposed to be the last line of defense, isn’t.

    Tesla’s system may have malfunctioned here, but I think the NHTSA autonomous levels should be revisited. These Level 2 systems just don’t cut it because of the mismatch between their requirements on paper, and the expectations of the driver.

    I hold NHTSA liable for permitting Level 2 systems to exist.

    I hold Tesla liable for building a faulty Level 2 system.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Does anyone ever hold the driver accountable? What exactly has happened to American society whereby no one takes accountability for their actions. “I wasn’t driving drunk, the bartender over-served me.” “I didn’t mean to bribe Pam Biondi to go easy on Trump University from my fake charity – it was a paperwork error”

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The whole point of autonomous driving is to transfer accountability to the technology. It wouldn’t be autonomous if that wasn’t the case.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Please show me where Tesla informs its drivers that it has taken over all accountability for their actions with the push of a button.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Tesla is doing the classic dance of overselling while trying to simultaneously cover its backside. It refers to it as “Autopilot” and wants to promote it as breakthrough advanced technology, while also saying that it can’t do everything.

            It’s a contradictory message by design. It’s akin to those pharma ads on American TV that tell you all of the fantastic things that the drug can do with lovely imagery on the screen while also reciting a lengthy list of side effects as a sort of obligatory begrudging sidenote. They want all of the benefits of marketing hype without any of the liability.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            PCH,
            I think that’s a fair summary and good analogy. Musk would be wise to hire a PR rep with some grey hair and to listen to his/her advice on keeping the rhetoric contained where it can result in liability or backlash.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        @VoGo: I do hold the driver liable, and so does the car whose digital agreement he signed electronically when he presumably activated Autopilot. This is why I referred to him as an “inattentive driver”.

        But the mismatch of system capabilities and driver expectations is proving deadly.

  • avatar
    Tandoor

    Tesla (and others) have designed a driver’s aid that actually encourages inattention. Better hope it works flawlessly while you’re daydreaming (or whatever it is you’re doing while approaching the scene of the crash). It’s OK though, we’ll have word from the NHTSA in 11 months or so.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    Everybody pretty much wanged their chung on this Autopilot thing by now. I think it’s a wrap.

  • avatar
    pdl2dmtl

    Not very knowledgeable about Tesla’s models, but I am pretty sure that that is a Model S. Model X has the gull-wing doors…
    On the other hand, their lawyers had better be polyglots, more lawsuits will follow around the world.

  • avatar
    Joss

    Guinea pigs.

  • avatar

    I can’t find a comprehensive list of Tesla autopilot crashes. I’m sure there’s more than just the ones picked up by the media.

    Since the production of these cars is pretty low, I’d like to know exactly how many of them have been involved in an accident so we can figure out the percentage.

    Somewhere there’s got to be a few fender benders that didn’t end up on the back of a wrecker.

    I’m seriously wondering what the percentage of accidents caused by autopilot is compared to regular cars with everyday drivers. I can’t find the info anywhere though.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      As you know, “caused by Autopilot” will be different from “Autopilot engaged” or “Autopilot equipped”.

      A few of the hyped cases have been dismissed since the driver mistook the accelerator for the brake, such as in a driveway or a parking lot, but tried to blame Autopilot.

      I’d say this case in China is certainly partially Autopilot’s fault, and partially the driver’s fault. And as I said above ^^^, I also blame the NHTSA for even allowing Level 2 systems to exist.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Tesla will behave like every other automaker.

    01 REM This short program is used by every automaker when product
    05 REM liability is a possibility. Tyler Durden approves.
    10 PRINT:”Operator error.”
    20 GOTO 10
    30 END

  • avatar
    Roberto Esponja

    Noticed that the truck didn’t have Mansfield bars…guess they’re not required in China?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Fordson: Some makes just should never produce SUVs…this is one of them. Look at the Maserati car in the group...
  • FreedMike: Toyota. Why do you think they haven’t invested in EVs?
  • redapple: Who will buy Tesla? GGM?
  • forward_look: Once I bought a ’74 (?) Colt/Mitsubishi for $100 that had the strut towers rusted out. I welded...
  • thelaine: Tick tock

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States