It is considered very bad form for any designated parties[0] participating to talk to the media other than with NTSB approval. Non-essential organizations like union representatives have been booted from investigations for talking to the media.
[0] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Pages/default.as... (scroll down to "The Party System")
Then there is the question of whether the Uber-supplied video accurately represents the lighting conditions at the time... This may seem unduly conspiratorial, but I gave both Uber and the Tempe administration the benefit of the doubt until it became clear that the initial reports were innaccurate and less complete than they could have been.
It's reasonable to assume it's to keep Uber happy.
edit: can someone explain what’s so wrong with this comment please?
This is widely understood in the aviation community. The mission of the NTSB is not to assist with either litigation or PR.
"Contacts with news media concerning the investigation will be made only by the NTSB, through the Board Member if on-scene, the NTSB’s representative of its Office of Public Affairs, or the IIC. The guiding policy is that the NTSB is a public agency engaged in the public’s business and supported by public funds. The agency’s work is open for public review, and the Act under which it operates makes this mandatory. The NTSB believes that periodic factual briefings to the news media are a normal part of its investigation and that, for the public to perceive the investigation as credible, the investigation should speak with one voice, that being the independent agency conducting the investigation. Therefore, the NTSB insists that it be the sole source of public information regarding the progress of an accident investigation. Parties are encouraged to refer media inquiries to the NTSB’s Office of Public Affairs. In any case, release to the media of investigative information at any time is grounds for removal as a party."
[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Part...
If they are not a party to the investigation, I'd question why not. When was the last time an aircraft manufacturer declined to be a party to the investigation? They recognise that if they get a reputation for being unsafe that has repercussions for future sales; I'd hope the same was true of car manufacturers!
To me, there's literally no way this makes Tesla look good.
Tesla has an ethical and fiduciary duty to carry out their own independent investigation, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the NTSB's. These organizations do not have the same interests. They don't have to be adversaries, but it's inappropriate for them to be partners. The public is better served by multiple independent investigations.
Tesla is also clearly trying to control the narrative, and I think NTSB's usual MO is that there simply be as little narrative as possible until something as close to ground truth be determined and released. NTSB understands that releasing reports into a pre-charged environment leads to increased risk of backlask against NTSB, thus reducing its capacity to minimize future risk.
The NTSB doesn't like to speculate. They like to have solid facts, and they want the manufacturer to take blame if need be, so they can fix things.
This is completely irrelevant to the crash. Anyone who uses autopilot knows that throughout the drive even if you have two hands but don't apply enough pressure on the wheel, you will get a warning and you have to jiggle the wheel for it to recognize you're there.
Even if the sensors were correct, I have deep questions about the human ability to follow instructions requiring them to be robot-like. I would love to see some studies measuring the extent to which people can really follow Tesla's guidelines to the letter for the 300-500 hours/year that somebody with this commute would be doing.
I'm sure I'm an outlier, but I would personally never use a system like Tesla's Autopilot. I already think highway driving is slightly too boring to hold my attention, so on long drives I always supplement with podcasts and audiobooks. Until I can lie down and take a nap, I'm sticking with manual driving.
>Participants emphasized being alert at all times, paying attention to the road environment and keeping hands on the wheel while in autonomous driving mode.
...
> Drivers seem to enjoy these technologies, and are aware of the limitations of Autopilot and Summon. In the comments, we observed that drivers were highly motivated to use these technologies safely and have not seen indications of the concerns raised in the past such as engaging with secondary tasks while using Autopilot.
I, for one, would be generally dubious about making such a strong statement against something the NTSB has stated: it may well be the case that the system as designed should work as you describe, but why do they believe otherwise? Was there some flaw in the system?
False negative seems likely. False positive seems unlikely, maybe nearly impossible.
It seems the local government or highway agency also neglected their duty to maintain the highway safety barrier, a shockingly regular occurrence where I live as well. I’ve wondered how often someone is injured because they failed to repair a barrier for several months.
It appears all the pieces fell into place at the right time and this man unfortunately lost his life.
While the crash attenuators should exist and the various responsible authorities should maintain them appropriately, I find it frustrating that this is brought up in this conversation as if it's a significant factor. It might have saved this man's life, but this crash was sure to be incredibly violent with or without the barrier.
The existence of a crash attenuator could not and should not affect anyone's decision making that led to the car impacting the barrier. Not the driver, not Tesla, not autopilot.
I hope the NTSB comments on this and it leads to Caltrans doing a better job of replacing these quickly (if they haven't already committed to this in the aftermath of this incident), but I also hope that it has zero bearing on the rest of the report.
Obviously the crash should’ve been avoided, but poorly maintained or designed infrastructure should not be left out of the conversation.
Why don’t they do this, like in other well-planned places:
Inattentive drivers more than overconfident drivers. You look down and stare at your phone for 10 seconds in a normal car and you are punished pretty quickly and learn not to do it.
You look down and start at your phone for 10 seconds in a Tesla with AP and "nothing bad happens" ... almost all of the time.
And that's the problem with this version of AP. Yes, Tesla says keep your eyes on the road. Yes, Tesla says keep your hands on the wheel. But it's pretty easy to get lax and start to slide.
For the record, I think her use is the one valid use. She has RSI issues with her hands and arms and she does a good bit of expressway driving. She absolutely keeps her eyes on the road and hands near the wheel when using it. But I bet she's in the minority of regular Tesla AP users.
Asking drivers to keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel while not steering guarantees that their attention will wander, because their brain isn’t getting enough stimulus to keep focused on the task.
I don’t know why it’s not clear to most people by now. The current Tesla ‘autopilot’ is simply more dangerous than manual driving because it harms human reaction time during emergencies.
Tesla is using legalese to blame people for this fully predictable effect when crashes do happen, but I suspect it’s only a matter of time before they’re forced to rebrand Autopilot as a lane assist technology which is all it is. Its only use as a safety system is to maintain control of the car is the driver becomes incapacitated, and safely bring it to a complete stop.
https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2018/insurance-company-su...
The insurance company says that despite its suggestive name and marketing campaign, "Tesla produced a semi-autonomous vehicle that misleadingly appeared to be fully autonomous."
In addition, the lawsuit claims Tesla advertised the package as providing a way to “automatically steer down the highway, change lanes, and adjust speed in response to traffic," all without requiring the driver to touch the steering wheel.
(EDIT: This is why the NTSB is mad, Tesla is selectively releasing information like this, so they look good before the NTSB reaches any conclusion)
