NTSB Blames Drivers, Tesla, Lax Regulations in Florida Crash
The National Transportation Safety Board said Tesla failed to limit where its autopilot can be used, allowing drivers to activate it in areas it wasn't designed for.
March 20, 2020 at 12:51 PM
4 minute read
The National Transportation Safety Board says two drivers, Tesla and lax regulation of new partially automated driving systems are to blame for a fatal 2019 crash in Florida involving a Tesla on Autopilot.
The NTSB, in a report issued Thursday, said the design of the Autopilot system contributed to the crash because it allowed the Tesla driver to avoid paying attention. Tesla also failed to limit where Autopilot can be used, allowing drivers to activate it in areas it wasn't designed for, the report said.
The board, which investigates crashes and makes safety recommendations, also took the unusual step of accusing the government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of contributing to the crash. The agency failed to make sure automakers put safeguards in place to limit use of electronic driving systems to areas where they are designed to work, the report said.
The report was another case of sparring between the two federal agencies over regulating new electronic driver-assist technology, which NHTSA so far has been reluctant to do.
The March 1, 2019, crash in Delray Beach, Florida, killed the 50-year-old driver of a Tesla Model 3. The car was traveling 69 miles per hour when neither the driver nor the Autopilot system braked or tried to avoid a tractor-trailer that was crossing in its path on U.S. 441 around 6:17 a.m. The car struck the trailer, whose driver the report cited for turning in front of the Tesla. The trailer sheared off the Tesla's roof. The truck driver was not hurt.
"The Delray Beach investigation marks the third fatal vehicle crash we have investigated where a driver's overreliance on Tesla's Autopilot and the operational design of Tesla's Autopilot have led to tragic consequences," NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt said in a statement.
At a hearing last month on a California fatal crash, board members were frustrated that safety recommendations from previous Tesla Autopilot crashes had been ignored by Tesla, and that NHTSA has not taken action on its recommendations.
NHTSA referred to a previous statement that it will review the NTSB's report and that all commercially available vehicles require human drivers to stay in control at all times.
The Delray Beach crash was remarkably similar to one in 2016 in Williston, Florida, which also killed a Tesla driver.
In the Delray Beach crash, the driver turned on the car's adaptive cruise control system, which keeps it a set distance from vehicles of ahead of it, 12.3 seconds before impact, the NTSB found. Autosteer, which keeps the car centered in its lane, was turned on 2.4 seconds later. No pressure was detected on the steering wheel in the 7.7 seconds before the crash, the report said.
Tesla told the NTSB that the driver wasn't warned about not having his hands on the wheel "because the approximate 8-second duration was too short to trigger a warning under the circumstances," the report said.
The NTSB's report said Autopilot wasn't designed to work in areas with cross traffic, yet Tesla allows drivers to use it under those circumstances. Tesla told the NTSB that forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems on the Model 3 in the Delray Beach crash weren't designed to activate for crossing traffic or to prevent crashes at high speeds.
"According to Tesla, the Autopilot vision system did not consistently detect and track the truck as an object or threat as it crossed the path of the car," the report said.
A message was left Thursday seeking comment from Tesla, which warns in owners manuals that Autopilot is designed for use on limited access highways with no cross traffic. The company also says Autopilot is a driver-assist system and that drivers must be ready to intervene at all times.
Tom Krisher reports for the Associated Press.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecurities Claims Against Lilium N.V. for Electric Plane Production Delays Fail to Take Flight, Federal Judge Holds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 2Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 3SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 4Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
- 5Polsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250