Connect with us

News

Tesla reportedly dropped by NTSB from fatal Model X investigation [Updated]

The aftermath of a fatal Tesla Model X accident. [Credit: Mercury News/Twitter]

Published

on

Tesla has opted to step back from the ongoing NTSB investigation into the fatal Model X accident last month near Mountain View, CA.

According to Tesla, it has decided to withdraw from its party agreement with the NTSB because it might result in withholding information that affects public safety. In an emailed statement to Bloomberg, the Elon Musk-led electric car maker stated that it believes in transparency.

“Tesla withdrew from the party agreement with the NTSB because it requires that we not release information about Autopilot to the public, a requirement which we believe fundamentally affects public safety negatively. We believe in transparency, so an agreement that prevents public release of information for over a year is unacceptable,” Tesla stated.

Despite not being a formal part of the ongoing NTSB investigation, Tesla stated that it would continue to provide technical assistance to the agency as it continues its probe into the tragic accident.

Citing a person familiar with the matter, Bloomberg stated that the NTSB is actually removing Tesla from the investigation. Quite unlike the “very constructive conversation” reported by an NTSB spokesman last weekend between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and NTSB Chief Robert Sumwalt, the anonymous Bloomberg source stated that the talk involved Sumwalt informing Musk that his company was being taken off the investigation. The source further claimed that the conversation between Musk and the NTSB chief was “tense” due to the Tesla CEO’s reaction to the agency’s decision. 

Advertisement

Tesla’s decision to release information related to the NTSB’s ongoing probe resulted in the agency stating that it was “unhappy” with the electric car maker. Responding to the NTSB, Musk stated on Twitter that Tesla will immediately release information that can directly affect public safety.

“Lot of respect for NTSB, but NHTSA regulates cars, not NTSB, which is an advisory body. Tesla releases critical crash data affecting public safety immediately & always will. To do otherwise would be unsafe,” Musk tweeted.

Updated: Tesla has issued the following response to a statement made by the NTSB.

“Last week, in a conversation with the NTSB, we were told that if we made additional statements before their 12-24 month investigative process is complete, we would no longer be a party to the investigation agreement. On Tuesday, we chose to withdraw from the agreement and issued a statement to correct misleading claims that had been made about Autopilot — claims which made it seem as though Autopilot creates safety problems when the opposite is true. In the US, there is one automotive fatality every 86 million miles across all vehicles. For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident and this continues to improve.

It’s been clear in our conversations with the NTSB that they’re more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety. 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. We will also be issuing 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. Perhaps there is a sound rationale for this, but we cannot imagine what that could possibly be.

Advertisement

Something the public may not be aware of is that the NTSB is not a regulatory body, it is an advisory body. The regulatory body for the automotive industry in the US is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with whom we have a strong and positive relationship. After doing a comprehensive study, NHTSA found that even the early version of Tesla Autopilot resulted in 40% fewer crashes. Autopilot has improved substantially since then.

When tested by NHTSA, Model S and Model X each received five stars not only overall but in every sub-category. This was the only time an SUV had ever scored that well. Moreover, of all the cars that NHTSA has ever tested, Model S and Model X scored as the two cars with the lowest probability of injury. There is no company that cares more about safety and the evidence speaks for itself.”

Just recently, the wife of the ill-fated Model X driver has gone on local news agency ABC7 News to state that her husband had complained about Autopilot multiple times before the March 23 accident. According to Mike Fong, the Huang family’s lawyer, the collision would not have happened had Autopilot not been activated. Fong noted that he would not file a complaint against Tesla while the NTSB investigation is ongoing, though he did state that the carmaker’s responses so far have been to blame the Model X’s driver.

While Tesla could be facing a lawsuit from the Huang family over the fatal incident, Will Huang, the Model X driver’s brother, previously stated to ABC7 News that his brother could have survived the accident had his car collided with a working crash attenuator. During its initial update about the fatal collision, Tesla stated that the crash attenuator that the Model X smashed into had been left unrepaired, causing extensive damage to the vehicle.

“That (the crash attenuator) ultimately should’ve saved my brother’s life. We’ve seen videos of similar crash(es) with cushion, and the driver walked out of it unharmed,” Will said.

Advertisement

Later statements from CalTrans eventually revealed that the highway safety device had been damaged from a collision 11 days before the Model X accident. According to CalTrans, crash attenuators are usually repaired in 7 days or 5 business days, but storms in the area prevented any repair work.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

xAI Colossus pollution concerns in Memphis continue

NAACP & SELC push back against xAI Colossus supercomputer. City tests say air is safe — but activists aren’t convinced.

Published

on

xAI-supercomputer-memphis-environment-pushback
(Credit: xAI)

Politicians in Memphis continue to debate about the pollution concerns arising from the xAI Colossus supercomputer.

The NAACP and the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) have already expressed interest in filing a lawsuit against xAI over concerns related to air pollution stemming from its gas-powered turbines. Environmental groups have now raised concerns about water pollutants.

On Tuesday, Memphis released third-party air quality test results from June 13 and 16. The tests were conducted in downtown Memphis, Whitehaven, and Boxtown, two miles from xAI’s site. The city claimed levels of 10 pollutants tested were safe.

However, SELC–which is representing the NAACP in a potential lawsuit against xAI–criticized the omission of a key pollutant called ozone from the air quality tests. SELC also noted that monitors were placed against buildings, contrary to EPA guidance, stating air sensors should be “at least six feet above ground level, rooftop, or other objects and away from obstructions, vegetation, or emissions sources that would interfere with the measurement.”

Local opposition intensified, with State Representative Justin J. Pearson asserting: “I stand firm that nothing matters if you cannot breathe clean air, drink clean water, and plant in clean soil.”

Advertisement

On Wednesday, concerns shifted to the Memphis aquifer, as the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation held a virtual meeting on xAI’s wastewater facility.

Activist Pamela Moses criticized xAI. “They are not coming here to uplift or invest in our community. They are here to exploit it. This a distressed and a historically neglected area, and instead of bringing opportunity, Colossal is bringing pollution…secrecy and broken promises,” she said.

xAI’s $80 million Grey Water facility aims to mitigate water concerns. The Colossus Water Recycle Facility, a collaboration between the Tennessee Valley Authority and Nucor Steel, aims to alleviate the strain on the aquifer.

“This project is a game changer in terms of it saving about 4.7 billion gallons of water projected, and about 4.7 billion gallons will remain in the aquifer every year,” said Bobby White of the Greater Memphis Chamber.

As xAI’s Memphis supercomputer continues to be the center of debates, the tension between economic benefits and environmental justice remains unresolved. With ongoing scrutiny and potential legal action, xAI’s efforts to address pollution and water concerns will shape its role in Memphis’ future.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Robotaxi’s biggest challenge seems to be this one thing

That big bright thing in the sky might be Tesla’s biggest challenge in terms of Robotaxi.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Robotaxi launched just a few days ago to a limited number of riders in Austin, Texas, but its biggest challenge seems to be how the automaker will figure out one thing: the Sun.

Among the company’s unique strategies, its emphasis on using cameras for self-driving is perhaps the most interesting. No other company has adopted the same strategy, as others have relied on cameras with either sensors or LiDAR rigs to accomplish their self-driving deployments.

Tesla, on the other hand, has called LiDAR unnecessary. CEO Elon Musk once called it “a fool’s errand,” stating it was not needed to build an effective self-driving fleet of vehicles.

Musk compared cameras to eyes. Humans don’t need sensors or LiDAR to operate vehicles on the road, so why should cars? This brought up some questions, especially regarding sun glare. Musk said that Tesla would use direct photon counting to see directly into brigt sunlight or even in the darkest conditions at night.

His quote during a recent earnings call was:

“Actually, it does not blind the camera. We use an approach which is direct photon count. When you see a processed image, so the image that goes from the sort of photon counter — the silicon photon counter — that then goes through a digital signal processor or image signal processor, that’s normally what happens. And then the image that you see looks all washed out, because if you point the camera at the sun, the post-processing of the photon counting washes things out.”
So far, this strategy has yielded mixed results. We have seen examples of both:

The Good

We’ve had a handful of people state that they have had no issue using the Robotaxi when it is driving into direct sunlight.

There are plenty of examples:

The Bad

The Verdict

This is obviously a weird case, and it seems that this could be one of the challenges Tesla will face with the deployment of Robotaxi.

While it will get figured out, this is something that could ultimately push back Tesla’s goal of having no safety monitor in the vehicles. However, the instance will be learned and used to improve in the future through its Neural Nets.

The first intervention was captured yesterday, requiring the Tesla safety monitor to stop the vehicle manually on the car’s touchscreen.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla owners take stand as Stockholm insists on blocking FSD tests

Despite the Tesla owners’ efforts, city officials appear unwilling to budge.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla owners in Sweden are taking it upon themselves to lobby for the approval of FSD-style tests in the City of Stockholm. The owners’ efforts come amidst city officials’ continued refusal to allow Tesla to test its autonomous driving system in the capital.

In open letters and social media posts, Tesla owners have urged Stockholm to reconsider its stance, pointing to broader support for FSD trials across Europe. But despite their efforts, city officials appear unwilling to budge, reinforcing the capital’s hardline stance on the Elon Musk-led EV maker.

Public support shows brand loyalty

A group of Swedish Tesla owners recently sent an open letter to Stockholm leaders. Among them is Alexander Kristensen, who has written a letter to officials urging them to allow Tesla to test FSD in the region.

“Members of the Traffic Committee are politically appointed by the Stockholm City Council, whose mandate is determined by the popular vote. Your stance—continuing to block a conditional pilot of FSD— is thus a political decision and fully subject to the electorate’s judgment in the next municipal election.

“When the City prevents tests that could validate and refine the technology locally, it is perceived as hampering life-saving innovation,” the Tesla owners wrote.

Advertisement

The Swedish Transport Administration issued a response, acknowledging the Tesla owners’ feedback. The Transport Administration noted that it could proceed to grant a permit for Tesla to test FSD, but the company would still have to secure approval from local governments where the FSD-style tests will be conducted.

Stockholm remains firm

Despite this, Stockholm doubled down shortly after, stating that Tesla’s FSD software remains prohibited on city roads.

“Thank you for your comments and for taking an interest in traffic issues concerning the City of Stockholm. As previously stated, the City’s assessment of the current application remains unchanged and our position is set out in the opinion,” the City of Stockhom wrote.

In light of the city’s response, some Tesla owners have vowed to campaign against current officials in the next election.

The push for FSD testing comes as Tesla faces ongoing challenges in Sweden, including a labor dispute with unions over collective bargaining agreements. Since late 2023, the conflict has resulted in strikes, blockades, and legal battles, none of which appear close to resolution. Despite regulatory and labor headwinds, Tesla continues to expand in the region, including the recent installation of Superchargers in union-backed areas.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending