Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Issues Strongest Statement Yet Blaming Driver For Deadly Autopilot Crash (abc7news.com)
Tesla has released its strongest statement yet blaming the driver of a Tesla Model X that crashed on Autopilot almost three weeks ago. The driver, Walter Huang, died March 23rd in Mountain View when his Model X on Autopilot crashed headfirst into the safety barrier section of a divider that separates the carpool lane from the off-ramp to the left. Huang was an Apple engineer and former EA Games employee. ABC7News reports: Tesla confirmed its data shows Walter Huang was using Autopilot at the time of the crash, but that his hands were off the wheel for six seconds right before impact. Tesla sent Dan Noyes a statement Tuesday night that reads in part, "Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel... the crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road." The family's lawyer believes Tesla is blaming Huang to distract from the family's concern about the car's Autopilot.
Here is the full statement from Tesla: "We are very sorry for the family's loss. According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location, yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location. The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road, despite the car providing multiple warnings to do so. The fundamental premise of both moral and legal liability is a broken promise, and there was none here. Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel. This reminder is made every single time Autopilot is engaged. If the system detects that hands are not on, it provides visual and auditory alerts. This happened several times on Mr. Huang's drive that day. We empathize with Mr. Huang's family, who are understandably facing loss and grief, but the false impression that Autopilot is unsafe will cause harm to others on the road. NHTSA found that even the early version of Tesla Autopilot resulted in 40% fewer crashes and it has improved substantially since then. The reason that other families are not on TV is because their loved ones are still alive."
Here is the full statement from Tesla: "We are very sorry for the family's loss. According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location, yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location. The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road, despite the car providing multiple warnings to do so. The fundamental premise of both moral and legal liability is a broken promise, and there was none here. Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel. This reminder is made every single time Autopilot is engaged. If the system detects that hands are not on, it provides visual and auditory alerts. This happened several times on Mr. Huang's drive that day. We empathize with Mr. Huang's family, who are understandably facing loss and grief, but the false impression that Autopilot is unsafe will cause harm to others on the road. NHTSA found that even the early version of Tesla Autopilot resulted in 40% fewer crashes and it has improved substantially since then. The reason that other families are not on TV is because their loved ones are still alive."
[Emphasis mine] Hands not on the wheel, a clear day with plenty of warnings to pay attention it's like he purposely wanted to crash.
People die while driving to work. Using your argument, no one would ever get into a car.
Yes, Tesla's Autopilot isn't perfect, and its capabilities may be exaggerated, but I believe that, overall, drivers using Autopilot are less likely to get into an accident. Isn't that the real measure?
Tesla's crash rate dropped 40 percent after Autopilot was installed, Feds say
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I own an Tesla S. I use autopilot daily, itâ(TM)s awesome.
However you do have to know what it is and what it is not capable of and you do have to be attentive because it can get itself into trouble ( today, for example, it didnâ(TM)t want to let a bus into my lane - the bus came in anyway )
All that said calling the thing autopilot is what gets Tesla in trouble. Itâ(TM)s more of a âco-pilotâ(TM)
All "AUTOPILOT" does is conjure up images of planes flying themselves while pilots LEAVE THE FUCKING COCKPIT to go to the bathroom.
No pilot would ever do that exactly because the autopilot is just a simple program which only controls speed and heading. In the sky, with very few aircraft around you, it would be much safer to leave the controls than it would be in a car, on a highway, and yet aircrew always make sure that there is at least one pilot monitoring the controls at all times. If you hear "autopilot" and think "well, no humans required!" then you are badly misinformed.
The family admits that the driver had had issues at that exact location. Why on earth would he use it there then? Why wasn't he paying attention near that spot? Why did he ignore the warnings? He was a programmer. He should have known.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
i own a Tesla. it bings at you if you're not holding the wheel, and WILL eventually shut off autopilot, but bringing the car to a stop is inherently dangerous.
ultimately, the driver of any vehicle is responsible for following the instructions for operating that vehicle.
i could live a little longer in this prison
The terminology issue is a red herring. The reality is that partial self-driving capabilities lull users into a false sense of security because they usually work well. The rare failures are often catastrophic precisely because people have gotten used to the technology working, and end up surprised when it doesn't.
That's what made this recent software update such a problem. It made major changes to the way autosteer works on (at least) AP2-based Tesla cars. One of the big changes was "wide lane" handling, which changed the way vehicles behaved when they encounter a wide lane, such as an exit lane. This has resulted in a number of unexpected behaviors, up to and including cars driving straight towards gore points.
I don't know whether that change was in any way a factor in the autosteer malfunction that led to Mr. Huang's death, because I have no way to know what firmware version that car was running. However, the fact that this major update was in the process of being rolled out to users at the time of the accident is suspicious.
To be fair, a lot of other driving situations got significantly better with that software update. However, Tesla AP's tendency to ignore solid white lines has been an ongoing problem that might well have been made worse by that update; if that is the case, then the problem needs to be corrected ASAP, and they probably should NOT have continued the rollout of that update. Either way, I'm not convinced that Tesla did enough to warn drivers that autosteer might behave very differently, and to be particularly alert after that update.
Also, I would add that, speaking as a Tesla owner, it bothers me to see the amount of spin they're spewing after this accident. I realize that they don't want to let their users get scared into not using AP, because on average, it does significantly reduce accidents. And if there are videos out there showing AP malfunctions that they feel are not genuine, they can and should comment. But they should really stop trying to convince the public that the driver was solely to blame, because IMO, that just isn't the case.
First, the fact remains that autosteer obviously DID malfunction, and that malfunction DID result in a fatality that would NOT have occurred if the vehicle had not been equipped with autosteer functionality (because no sane driver would have looked away from the road for 5+ seconds without that functionality).
Second, the situation was entirely predictable. For at least a decade, people have warned that humans are likely to zone out in partial self-driving situations, and that it isn't really possible to change that innate human tendency. Tesla ignored those warnings and pushed forward anyway, and someone died. They blamed the driver, and the crash investigators tentatively agreed, and they kept pushing forward. And then a second person died. And now a third. IIRC, product liability law hinges in large part on whether user errors are reasonably predictable, and no "I agree to pay attention" can change that fact, which means this is little more than a legal smokescreen, IMO.
Third, the fact also remains that Caltrans failed to reset the safety barrier that was designed to slow down a car before impacting the gore point, after the barrier was collapsed in a wreck nearly two weeks earlier. And the fact remains that had the barrier been reset properly (as is required by law), it is unlikely that Mr. Huang would have died.
In other words, there are three parties, any one of whom/which could have prevented the fatality, and the deceased driver was only one of those three. So it is entirely disingenuous to try to pin this on the driver in the court of public opinion. IMO, it really isn't a question of who is at fault; they all are. Rather, it's a question of wh
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
All they said was that there multiple warnings that day, but not specifically in the six seconds before the crash when he had his hands off the wheel. It's a classic misleading statement.
Your objection is wholly irrelevant. He had to sign a paper saying he understood that he had to remain alert with his hands on the wheel to even get the feature turned on, and he was reminded of that obligation several times during the trip. It completely and totally does not matter whether the vehicle warned him in the six seconds prior to the collision. He was warned repeatedly, and before he even used the feature once he agreed that he understood his responsibilities.
Tesla is actually less at fault here than when some old guy puts on cruise control in his RV and goes back to make a sandwich. That guy hasn't had to sign a paper saying he understands that cruise control is not a replacement for a driver.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Victim blame much?"
In this case perfectly justified since the "victim" was an adult with a driving license who was legally REQUIRED to keep his eyes on the road ahead regardless of any self driving capabilities of the car when in charge of a vehicle. Clearly he didn't and he paid the price.
The guy was supposedly smart, and a programmer not some joe sixpack, and was certainly aware that autopilot is not 100% reliable. The only person to blame here is the driver through incorrect operation of the vehicle. If an airliners autopilot made a mistake that the pilot had plenty of time to correct but didn't bother we'd be blaming the pilot, not the automation. Same here.