The Blame Game: Driver Fingers Autosteer as Cop Car Collision Cause

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems
We’re committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using links in our articles. Learn more here
the blame game driver fingers autosteer as cop car collision cause

This won’t help our Pravda rating.

Police in Laguna Beach, California told the “media” that the driver of a Tesla Model S that collided with a parked Ford Police Interceptor Utility on Tuesday was operating in Autopilot mode. At least, that’s the driver’s claim.

Images released by Laguna Beach PD reveal a somewhat glancing rear impact, as it seems the police cruiser only slightly intruded into the driving lane. The cruiser, then unoccupied, was totalled, while the insurance company — if past collisions are any indicator — will probably declare the Tesla a write-off.

Right now, there’s no confirmation that autosteer and traffic-aware cruise control was enabled on the Tesla.

If this turns out to be a false claim, you’ll see an update here. If it isn’t, well, you’ll still read about it here. As it stands, we don’t know any details of what occurred inside the vehicle leading up to the collision, how fast it was travelling, or whether the driver received any visual or audible warnings. Tesla hasn’t released a data-filled blog post (as it sometimes does when Autopilot pops up negatively in the news).

Sgt Jim Cota, Laguna Beach PD’s public information officer, claims the Tesla driver received minor lacerations from his glasses in the collision.

When contacted by The Guardian, a Tesla spokeswoman repeated the automaker’s safety instructions for the proper use of Autopilot features. “When using autopilot, drivers are continuously reminded of their responsibility to keep their hands on the wheel and maintain control of the vehicle at all times,” she said. “Tesla has always been clear that autopilot doesn’t make the car impervious to all accidents, and before a driver can use autopilot, they must accept a dialogue box which states that ‘autopilot is designed for use on highways that have a center divider and clear lane markings’.”

Despite boastful pronouncements about Autopilot’s abilities in its infancy, Tesla maintains that drivers should only enable the features on proper, divided roadways. Drivers must also remain alert and keep their hands on the wheel. Still, the word “Autopilot” remains in use (much to the consternation of road safety groups), and videos of misuse are a click away on the internet.

This crash brings to mind a recent rear-end collision in Utah that also involved a stopped municipal vehicle. In that incident, a Model S maintained a steady cruise speed as it approached a red light, colliding with a fire truck at 60 mph. Investigations are underway to pinpoint why the car’s forward-facing cameras and radar failed to detect the obstacle and warn the driver.

[Images: Laguna Beach Police Department]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Join the conversation
2 of 45 comments
  • Rasputin Rasputin on May 31, 2018

    The fact that the "overweight police" vehicle was 'totaled' and the "wouldn't exist without taxpayer money" vehicle is a 'write off' is a bigger economic problem for society than what the idiot driver of the government vehicle did or did not do prior to the crash.

  • NeilM NeilM on May 31, 2018

    Regarding the Utah collision where a Tesla ran into the rear of a stationary fire truck, the account I read said that the Tesla had been following another car. That car pulled out into the left lane — at the last moment, or a pretty late moment? — to go around the fire truck, at which point the Tesla continued straight on and ran into the stopped fire truck at speed. I've seen no statement as to how long the Tesla had to detect and process the newly revealed hazard. The Tesla's forward collision avoidance system, however good or bad it may be, only reacts to the vehicle directly in front, and can't look beyond that as an alert human driver would. This is also true of other makes of semi-autonomous driving systems.

  • Carsofchaos The bike lanes aren't even close to carrying "more than the car lanes replaced". You clearly don't drive in Midtown Manhattan on a daily like I do.
  • Carsofchaos The problem with congestion, dear friends, is not the cars per se. I drive into the city daily and the problem is this:Your average street in the area used to be 4 lanes. Now it is a bus lane, a bike lane (now you're down to two lanes), then you have delivery trucks double parking, along with the Uber and Lyft drivers also double parking. So your 4 lane avenue is now a 1.5 lane avenue. Do you now see the problem? Congestion pricing will fix none of these things....what it WILL do is fund persion plans.
  • FreedMike Many F150s I encounter are autonomously driven...and by that I mean they're driving themselves because the dips**ts at the wheel are paying attention to everything else but the road.
  • Tassos A "small car", TIM????????????This is the GLE. Have you even ever SEEN the huge thing at a dealer's??? NOT even the GLC,and Merc has TWO classes even SMALLER than the C (The A and the B, you guessed it? You must be a GENIUS!).THe E is a "MIDSIZED" crossover, NOT A SMALL ONE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, oh CLUELESS one.I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE NONSENSE you post here every god damned day.And I BET you will never even CORRECT your NONSENSE, much less APOLOGIZE for your cluelessness and unprofessionalism.
  • Stuki Moi "How do you take a small crossover and make it better?Slap the AMG badge on it and give it the AMG treatment."No, you don't.In fact, that is specifically what you do NOT do.Huge, frail wheels, and postage stamp sidewalls, do nothing but make overly tall cuvs tramline and judder. And render them even less useful across the few surfaces where they could conceivably have an advantage over more properly dimensioned cars. And: Small cuvs have pitiful enough fuel range as it is, even with more sensible engines.Instead, to make a small CUV better, you 1)make it a lower slung wagon. And only then give it the AMG treatment. AMG'ing, makes sense for the E class. And these days with larger cars, even the C class. For the S class, it never made sense, aside from the sheer aural visceralness of the last NA V8. The E-class is the center of AMG. Even the C-class, rarely touches the M3.Or 2) You give it the Raptor/Baja treatment. Massive, hypersophisticated suspension travel allowing landing meaningful jumps. As well as driving up and down wide enough stairs if desired. That's a kind of driving for which a taller stance, and IFS/IRS, makes sense.Attempting to turn a CUV into some sort of a laptime wonder, makes about as much sense as putting an America's Cup rig atop a ten deck cruiseship.