NTSB Boots Tesla From Investigation Into Fatal Autopilot Crash (theverge.com) 160
The National Transportation Safety Board has removed Tesla from the investigation into a fatal Autopilot accident that occurred in March. The NTSB says it took the action because Tesla had released "investigative information before it was vetted and confirmed by" the agency. "Such releases of incomplete information often lead to speculation and incorrect assumptions about the probable cause of a crash, which does a disservice to the investigative process and the traveling public," the agency writes. The Verge reports: The NTSB's account contradicts Tesla's version of the story. In a statement, the automaker says it decided to remove itself from the investigation on Tuesday because of the NTSB was restricting it from sharing information before the probe ends. The company also accuses the NTSB of being duplicitous, arguing that the agency has released statements about the crash at the same time that it told Tesla not to. "It's been clear in our conversations with the NTSB that they're more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety," a spokesperson for the company says. "Among other things, they repeatedly released partial bits of incomplete information to the media in violation of their own rules, at the same time that they were trying to prevent us from telling all the facts. We don't believe this is right and we will be making an official complaint to Congress." The company also said it will issue "a Freedom Of Information Act request to understand the reasoning behind their focus on the safest cars in America while they ignore the cars that are the least safe." The full letter send to Musk from the NTSB can be seen here.
Tesla apparently doesn't understand how NTSB works (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how the NTSB operates - it releases preliminary information as it sees fits, but waits until their investigation is complete before making a final determination. It's their investigation - Tesla is only an invited guest, used as a technical resource, the same as Boeing for airplane crashes. You never hear Boeing releasing important accident details before the NTSB does.
Re: (Score:2)
You also don't see consumers purchasing Boeing airplanes...
Re: (Score:3)
Yet hundreds of people can die in a single plane crash so I don't see what your point is. In both instances the purpose of the investigation is to find the cause and determine what can be done to prevent it from happening again, which can include recalls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...the technology isn't mature enough to use on public roads yet.
You mean cars? Those things are more dangerous than guns [motherjones.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been better for me to say:
Cars are dangerous whether they have autopilot or not. The only way to guarantee safety is to keep all cars off public roads. They kill more people than guns.
Saying that cars are "more dangerous" than guns misrepresents the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
... safety under all possible circumstances
That is a totally unrealistic standard. SDCs just need to be safer than HDCs.
... more than hundreds will die, mark my fucking words. -hmm
Worldwide, 3500 people are killed everyday by HDCs.
Re: (Score:1)
" SDCs just need to be safer than HDCs." No, that's ridiculous averages-law thinking. They need to AVERAGE BETTER than the BEST HUMAN. Not just compare favorably to the AVERAGE human.
AI is going to take over, so why not have high fucking standards? Are you high? There's no need to rush this. If anything, DENY BAD HUMANS LICENSES and save lives that way until the AI gets good enough.
Rushing AI security will lead to problems greater than bad human drivers, which will exist anyway also for the medium fu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Because Self Driving Vehicles are already safer than the AVERAGE human.
I am not sure how true that is, if you compare to cars with safety features like Automatic Emergency Braking, Lane assist, and similar features. IE Tesla claims their cars are safer in that mode, but only compared to the average person, in the average dumb car. Then compare only paved roads in a new car to all roads and cars.
I doubt the Tesla system is smart enough to take the lead from several other automakers systems. The Uber
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla set themselves way back by ditching their partnership with MobileEye and trying to use a much cheaper sensor suite. Most SDCs use lidar and more expensive sensors, with the goal of reducing the cost. Tesla decided to start with cheap sensors (cameras and front facing radar) and build up the software.
Tesla's idea kinda makes sense, in that a human driver only has cameras (eyes). But humans have stereoscopic vision and a highly advanced image processing subsystem that uses the data to build a 3D model o
Re:Tesla apparently doesn't understand how NTSB wo (Score:4, Informative)
That might be true for Waymo's self-driving tech (I don't know, because I've never been in one), but it sure as heck isn't true for Tesla's. It's a nice convenience to relieve us of some of the tedium of having to pay continuous attention to traffic when it is moving bumper-to-bumper at 10 MPH. It is halfway decent at most straight or nearly straight roadways. BUT:
In short, there are plenty of spots where it drives significantly worse than someone who has never been behind the wheel of a car before. The only way that's better than an average driver is if you're limiting the discussion to people who are out driving after 11:00 P.M. on New Year's Eve.
It is, however, usually better than a driver who is drunk or asleep or not paying attention to the road, which means it is better than the average driver at his or her worst times. That makes it useful, but only as a backup.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but those statistics show it being safer while monitored by a human driver who takes over when it goes bonkers. If you had to rely solely on their self-driving tech (i.e. if the driver stops paying attention), it can go wrong in a hurry on some roads. It is nowhere near as good as even an average driver by itself, or at least not with AP2 and later. (I have no experience with AP1, so I can't comment on that.)
For example, until 2018.10.4, CA-17 was downright terrifying with AP2 under autosteer from
Re: (Score:2)
And just to be clear, I love the tech. I'm glad I have it; driving home late at night, there's no question about whether it is safer with that feature than without. If I fell asleep at the wheel, I would have a decent chance of surviving the experience with autosteer active, which is far better than the likely result without that feature. As I said, it is better than even the best drivers at their worst. :-)
Re: Tesla apparently doesn't understand how NTSB w (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They need to AVERAGE BETTER than the BEST HUMAN.
Says who?
AI is going to take over, so why not have high fucking standards?
Because delay means deaths. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
There's no need to rush this.
Go tell that to the 3500 families that lost a son, daughter, spouse, or parent, just TODAY.
SDCs should be on the road as soon as they are "good enough". Then they can get better with OTA software upgrades. And they will get better. How many HDC fatalities are investigated by the NTSB? Nearly zero, because we already know that a human caused almost all of them, and there is no way to "fix" humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tesla apparently doesn't understand how NTSB wo (Score:5, Informative)
Tesla should have a great deal less than 2 deaths under their belt to be on par with human safety levels.
That is a strong assertion from someone who says "I can't find any stats".
Human drivers kill about 15 people per billion miles.
Tesla Autopilot has driven more than 1.3 billion miles [electrek.co], and has killed two people. So the fatality rate is roughly a tenth that of humans. That is a lot better than "on par" with humans.
Re:Tesla apparently doesn't understand how NTSB wo (Score:5, Insightful)
The times when the car is most likely to be in danger of getting into a wreck, a human has to be in control. AP is reluctant to change lanes, cannot turn or exit at all, cannot handle stop signs or traffic lights, etc. Given those limitations, if it didn't cause an order of magnitude fewer deaths, I'd be terrified.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice comparison there between apples and sausages.
What's the human driven death rate per billion miles driven on highways in 0-4 year old $70k cars? I'm guessing it's significantly lower than 15/billion.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla should have a great deal less than 2 deaths under their belt to be on par with human safety levels.
That is a strong assertion from someone who says "I can't find any stats".
Human drivers kill about 15 people per billion miles.
Tesla Autopilot has driven more than 1.3 billion miles [electrek.co], and has killed two people. So the fatality rate is roughly a tenth that of humans. That is a lot better than "on par" with humans.
How many of that 1.3 billion miles is on populous roads though? Are they counting test track miles or only public roads? Is this self driving in the manner of a smart cruise control or truly self driving? I don't know the numbers but I find it hard to believe they truly have 1.3 billion miles of legit fully self driving miles on populated roads.
Re: (Score:2)
The times when the car is most likely to be in danger of getting into a wreck, a human has to be in control. AP is reluctant to change lanes, cannot turn or exit at all, cannot handle stop signs or traffic lights, etc. Given those limitations, if it didn't cause an order of magnitude fewer deaths, I'd be terrified.
This is a somewhat of a misconception, especially when we are talking about fatalities, not merely accidents.
Most fatalities occur on A-roads and motorways (I think the equivalents are interstates & freeways in the US) because of vehicle velocity, and these are exactly the times that 'autopilot' (as in cruise control / automatic braking and lane assist) is engaged and useful. Crashes on minor roads (barring the occasional car wrapped around a tree on windy, back country, lanes), i.e. those at lower spee
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to assume that you are in the UK from the language used. You are flat out wrong, a motorway is the safest type of road to drive on in the UK. That is there are fewer fatalities per passenger mile than any other type of public road.
The issues is that when it goes wrong it can go horribly wrong much more so than elsewhere, which changes peoples perceptions of where the real risks are. Accidents only tend to make the news if they are multicar pile ups on a motorway these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Impossibly high standard (Score:2)
The best human drivers don't have injury or death causing accidents in their entire driving careers . I've been driving for 35 years and have never been in an accident with another car , and have bent a few panels and scratched paint when hitting stationary objects. I'm not actually a good driver, just cautious. So AVs cannot better the best human safety record.
Re: (Score:2)
SDCs just need to be safer than HDCs.
For what? To improve crash stats? I guess. But to be a viable product in a competitive marketplace? Safer than the average human is not going to cut it. No one is going to buy one unless their perception is that the car is a better driver than themselves. And most people think they are better than the average driver, so these cars have to be perceived to be much better than average if they're going to be anything more than a niche product.
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, many recent cars come with automatic braking (Collision Avoidance) and lane keeping. They just don't call their systems "Autopilot" and don't encourage drivers to count on them working 100% of the time.
Re: Tesla apparently doesn't understand how NTSB w (Score:1)
Uh. A lot of people buy Boeing aircraft. Just because you can't buy one doesn't mean other peolple can't. They have a whol class of aircraft (business) meant just for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It happens
http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/66... [hubspot.net]
Re:Tesla apparently doesn't understand how NTSB wo (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how the NTSB operates - it releases preliminary information as it sees fits
... and that is ok, because unlike Tesla, NTSB has no incentive to twist the facts to fit their corporate PR agenda.
I am a Tesla owner, and normally a Tesla fanboi, but they have recently been acting like jerks. One of their customers was killed. They should be focused on fixing the issues rather than shifting blame.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Tesla apparently doesn't understand how NTSB wo (Score:5, Insightful)
So an IQ test before allowing a sale? .
Do you have a citation that IQ correlated with safe driving?
I have a high IQ, and I tend to daydream a lot. My hands may be on the wheel, and my eyes on the road, but my mind is busy elsewhere.
When SDCs are finally available, I will be first in line.
Re: (Score:1)
IQ, safety and the IIHS driver death rate (Score:2)
Two identical cars from the NUMI plant in Fremont that Tesla took over, the Toyota Corolla and the Chevy Nova (later Geo Prizm). The Corolla had a noticeably lower driver death rate per miles driven.
This indeed that "the nut behind the wheel" is perhaps a more critical safety component than seatbelts or stopping distance or crumple zones.
Do you suppose high IQ people were purchasing the Corolla and driving safer? Or do you suppose high IQ people were in the Nova because it was hundreds of dollars che
Re: (Score:2)
I have a high IQ, and I don't think I'm a particularly good driver. I got my latest car with all the safety features I could get, and I leave them on.
Re: (Score:2)
If the problem is idiots
That's the problem, we don't know that. Tesla said so.
I'm not sure I totally trust the NTSB either, so I'm happy to have two points of view.
Re: (Score:2)
This AC comment covers what I wanted to say very nicely, so I'll just quote it and say "What he/she/it said."
Unsafe autopilot is what sells Teslas (Score:5, Insightful)
People want to look away from the road for minutes at a time and Tesla sells drivers that ability. This is adding more to their bottom line than the fact their cars are electric. Break assist and lane wander warnings would accomplish the same safety features autopilot does, without crashing into firetrucks and lane dividers. If they actually get forced to make autopilot work that way, they will lose a ton of customers though. Not something they could survive, currently.
This is why Tesla is running scared.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Unsafe autopilot is what sells Teslas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is not responsible for your ignorance about the features or your lack of attention to their warnings.
Predictable repeated operational failure is a design issue, so yes, Tesla are responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've designed a device that will explode, killing several thousand people. It's easy to stop though, all you have to do is walk over to it and press the secret button.
If you fail to press the button, you're telling me that you're responsible for the death of thousands of people.
Design something inherently fucking flawed, don't go blaming the user.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The limitations of steering assist are explained to you when you purchase the car and every time you enable it, a warning message appears telling you to keep both hands on the wheel and be prepared to take control at any time. Tesla is not responsible for your ignorance about the features or your lack of attention to their warnings. Reply to This
Following those precautions, what then is the point of autosteer?
The point might be different then what you think. The point is that you don't need to micro-manage the steering anymore. This is something all drivers do without thinking about it. But only when the car does it for you, you notice the decreased stress level.
It means you are driving more relaxed. Less stressed about the other drivers and you arrive less tired. Autopilot is like having your wife drive the car, but still holding the steering wheel. It means you have a driver, which isn't perfect, but you are
The Tesla Autopilot ad copy (Score:2, Insightful)
Heaven forbid we actually hold drivers accountable for their actions behind the wheel. If the driver isn't paying attention when they're supposed to be, it is the driver's fault.
"The Tesla Autopilot! Keep your hands on the wheel, steer and watch the road. It does the rest!"
Re: (Score:2)
People want to look away from the road for minutes at a time and Tesla sells drivers that ability. This is adding more to their bottom line than the fact their cars are electric.
Bullshit. I want a Tesla and while AutoPilot is an interesting feature it doesn't register as a buying factor. Mainly I want a quality electric car and I want to reward one of the very few car companies that is driving electric car adoption. There are many reasons why people would want a Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
People want to look away from the road for minutes at a time and Tesla sells drivers that ability. This is adding more to their bottom line than the fact their cars are electric. Break assist and lane wander warnings would accomplish the same safety features autopilot does, without crashing into firetrucks and lane dividers. If they actually get forced to make autopilot work that way, they will lose a ton of customers though. Not something they could survive, currently.
This is why Tesla is running scared.
Well, maybe you should talk with Tesla owners like me.
Autopilot has saved my life already a few times. While it is being sold with the promise of constant feature improvements, I think very few owners are interpreting the capabilities of the system wrong. Fatalities will keep on occurring, and the AI Tesla now deploys will and has learned from previous accidents to benefit all current owners. Obviously its very sad for everybody involved if an accident happens, but with traditional systems without autopilo
Re: (Score:2)
Autopilot with only break/steering assist to prevent collision and lane departure warning would be safer than what you have now. But you don't want to be safer, you want to be able to not look at the road.
It's not in our interest to cooperate with you in that desire though, because the next firetruck a Tesla runs into might have a fireman standing next to it. It's just a matter of time before someone like you is watching his phone relying on the car to "save" your life while murdering some road worker or co
Re: (Score:2)
Autopilot with only break/steering assist to prevent collision and lane departure warning would be safer than what you have now. But you don't want to be safer, you want to be able to not look at the road.
If Tesla keeps this up statistics will catch up to them and the person killed will not be the driver using his phone ... if Tesla is really unlucky it will be a roadworker/cop/fireman/ambulance-worker. Autopilot will be banned next day, stocks price will decimate and Tesla will probably go bankrupt if that
Re: (Score:2)
Break assist
I think you've nailed the very definition of the current generation of autopilot software. Now if only Tesla owners could figure it out.
not buying it (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's been clear in our conversations with the NTSB that they're more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety," a spokesperson for the company says.
Tesla has a lot more at risk depending on what those headlines say. I'm not surprised that they wanted to be the first to put out favorable information. I'm a fan of Tesla but when I read things like this I lose respect for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a fan of Tesla but when I read things like this I lose respect for them.
I don't. What a large company achieves and the image is must keep up are two different things. If you take it all together the only companies you will ever have respect for are those crushed by a corrupt corporate world.
I've been around long enough to know that not everything is as the media says, not everything is as the company press release says, and not everything is as the "independent" investigators says, but all the while knowing that if they don't say what they do they end up crucified for it.
I resp
Re: (Score:2)
"not everything is as the "independent" investigators says"
Are you suggesting that the NTSB has some hidden agenda? That they would waste time roasting a relatively small company over a single incident? These guys have regularly held corporate feet to the fire over accidents large and small at huge companies like Boeing and Airbus.
They don't give a crap about Tesla or self driving cars. As usual, they want to find out what happened and how to prevent it in the future. The NTSB doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that the NTSB has some hidden agenda?
Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that we live in a world of poor quality control. You don't need to have a hidden agenda to produce braindead stupid results, or to do poor science.
I was commenting in a very general case that nothing anyone says can be taken at face value anymore, either through malice, political motivations, or through stupidity. No comment at all on the quality of the investigation at hand. That itself remains to be seen.
If you want a specific case specifically about the NTSB you can loo
I respect the NTSB, but.. (Score:2, Funny)
They do it the old way
They don't release anything until a conclusion has been reached
I prefer realtime, incremental data
Re:I respect the NTSB, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I respect the NTSB, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I respect the NTSB, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They do it the old way
They don't release anything until a conclusion has been reached
I prefer realtime, incremental data
Except they do release some interim data, that's the "double standard" Musk is complaining about.
In reality I agree with the NTSB here.
The NTSB saying absolutely nothing means that media speculation and rumours take over. Releasing a few facts means you can keep the reporting fairly accurate and grounded while you work on the full report.
Musk's problem is he's trying to release preliminary information in order to spin press coverage, it's not surprising that they gave him the boot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except they do release some interim data, that's the "double standard" Musk is complaining about.
There's a BIG difference. Musk want's to release his data the way he wants it presented.
This is coming at a bad time for Tesla. It needs cash to stay afloat and any bad press is gonna scare away people to put more money down the Tesla sink hole.
Musk is on high damage control and he is gonna try to spin it the best way possible.
The fact is that he oversold the "Autopilot" feature and it's coming to bite him.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Elon isn't the least bit worried they'll screw him like that....I put flame decals on my Volt for humor, but...
Re: (Score:2)
A tank full of gasoline fumes is much more dangerous than a tank full of gas. That's the right way to test, in the most dangerous condition.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't test with a tank full of fumes. The fuel is replaced with a non-flammable dyed fluid that matches the density of gasoline in the tank and fuel lines so they can clearly see if any fuel system damage results from the crash, and where the fuel ends up.
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up.
I didn't know that. So we should charge the Volt with fake electricity before crash testing it? Suggestions please on a stamped self addressed envelope.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer realtime, incremental data
That might lead to wrong conclusions as the data is not realtime and incomplete. Take for example Swiss Air Flight 111 [wikipedia.org]. The ultimate cause of the crash as a fire caused by the IFE system. The pilots radioed to ATC that there was an "odor" in the cockpit and they attempted to locate the source while being diverted to land.
To this day, some conspiracy theorists believe that a thermite bomb was the "real" cause because a person with no airplane accident experience has promoted it.
Spin Dr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Musk tried to spin it in his favor, like he always does...
Why wouldn't he? Why wouldn't anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us want to be honest and expect others to be too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he would. That's why the best thing he could do is just shut up and not say anything until the NTSB finishes their investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
I roll my eyes at the "ermagerd Tesla is bankrupt" talk but that is some funny shit right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Headline confused me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the headline meant they booted up the actual car from the crash to go through the computer.
That was my first parsing too. By booting it "into the fatal crash", I thought they replayed the sensor data and recreated the same failure that caused the fatality.
Alas, that would have been much a much more interesting story.
lawyers killed the private small plane industry (Score:4, Interesting)
They killed all the small private aircraft companies that made small planes with the active help of NTSB. Boeing liked small pesky competitors being killed off.
Re:lawyers killed the private small plane industry (Score:5, Informative)
They killed all the small private aircraft companies that made small planes with the active help of NTSB.
Baloney. Here's a list that includes nearly five dozen [aopa.org] small private aircraft companies that make small planes.
Boeing liked small pesky competitors being killed off.
Not only are the above companies not "killed off," they're not even competitors given that Boeing doesn't make small planes. (Unless you somehow consider private versions of Boeing's 7x7 models [boeing.com] "small.")
Re: (Score:3)
I yearn the wealth to be able to say, "Only a couple of us, lets take the small one today" and walk over to my 777.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any reason to allow anyone to accumulate that much wealth?
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'd be perfectly comfortable with having that level of wealth.
I mean, I'm already that many orders of magnitude ahead of the average villager in botswana and I don't send all my belongings over there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be comfortable with having that level of wealth too. My question wasn't "who would want that," but "why would we let someone do that."
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed when I saw the picture of the 747 business jet on the linked site because that's just plain absurd. Then I did a search, and yes, they've sold one (and no, it's not Air Force One in case you are wondering).
Go big or go home, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
They did kill the industry, by influencing FAA regulations to make commercial operations with small airplanes and small operators all but impossible.
Have you taken an Uber or Lyft airplane trip yet? Why is that?
Yes, astronomically expensive Cessnas and Mooneys are still made, but they are only used in a dwindling market of increasingly specialized and deep pocket applications.
hardly (Score:3)
Lawyers did not kill the private small plane industry. Less people are getting pilot certificates and there is a glut of older planes on the market---and many of those older planes will outlive their new owners.
Tesla's black box data (Score:1)
It's not exactly open [electrek.co]. The NTSB has to change that. If we don't demand transparency, we will always get the runaround. It's a law of nature.
How things change (Score:3, Interesting)
Once upon a time Tesla used to brag about how great their relationship was with the NTSB. That was when they were getting their "highest safety rating ever" awards. They used to claim they sent data to the NTSB before it was even asked for.
I guess those times have changed.
If Musk is correct in that the NTSB is releasing data in violation of their own rules then he has a right to bitch about it. Does anyone here know if he is correct?
At the same time I am sure that Musk/Tesla has caused the NTSB concern with their amped up PR efforts. Telsa has to respect that the NTSB can and should control the flow of information.
My guess is Musk is very sensitive to this due to the rampant bias the media has shown against Tesla at every opportunity. Sure they have fanbois but there is no question there is a significant demographic of keyboard warriors panting and slavering to get the goods on Tesla. You can see a number of them right here in this thread.
I wouldn't say it is the level of Hillary Clinton hatred but it is there. You still find people thinking Telsa's wheels are falling off all the time and fires every week. Just like you have people convinced Hillary is running a child sex slave ring. It is the nature of the beast.
Re:How things change (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla vs the NTSB (Score:1)
This is an old story now [slashdot.org]. Tesla repeatedly creates shit storms with regulators and critics [consumerreports.org]. Tesla expects to be the special, exempted exception to every rule and requires every outcome and finding to be in Tesla's favor, lest the offender be subjected to the mud slinging we see here. This scene in particular smacks of desperation; Tesla is finding it difficult to maintain the reality distortion field where it's ok for their "autopilot" operating in broad daylight to bury its passengers into a highway div
I just don't understand something... (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't be the first and foremost use case of an 'autopilot' not to crash into any unmoving object on the road in front of the vehicle?
If an 'autopilot' cannot do that, it is useless.
Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent U.S. government investigative agency responsible for civil transportation accident investigation."
And Tesla is a company. That sells cars. Which have crashed.
One of those is qualified, able, permitted, the people who helped form the legislation, and trusted to give out limited early information that won't be contradicted by later findings and has no political, financial or other interest in anything other than the truth of how the accidents occur.
The other isn't. It's a company selling cars.
STFU and keep your head down, Tesla, or it might hurt badly when it's discovered that it WAS the fault of the car, and that you've just been trying to cover it up.
Be open but be co-operative. "We believe..." not "well, obviously, it can't have been us" before anyone's even had a chance to look.
Because if there's one organisation that can take every vehicle you make off the road, and thus bankrupt you overnight for failing to comply with its own regulations, it's the NTSB.
It's like Boeing being belligerent to the FAA etc. and interfering with a plane crash investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact of the matter is is that if this were a fire started by an electrical short and the fire marshal learned that the person who died in the fire had complained multiple times to his bosses about the light switch that tossed sparks and smoked every time he flipped it and had him on video flipping the switch a bunch of times, the fire marshal would assume arson and not accident.
Re: (Score:2)
The other reason is that the driver was not paying attention when on a stretch of road he knew the autopilot didn't handle properly. Keeping the car from crashing is the driver's responsibility, no matter how much automation is involved.