Connect with us

News

Fatal 2021 Tesla crash tied to excessive speed, not Autopilot: NTSB

Credit: Reuters/Twitter

Published

on

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) confirmed on Wednesday that its investigation into an April 2021 fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S found no indications that the vehicle was operating on Autopilot at the time of the incident. Instead, the probable cause of the crash was determined to be the driver’s excessive speed, alcohol impairment, and inability to maintain control of the vehicle.

Two men were fatally injured in the accident, which resulted in the ill-fated Tesla Model S bursting into flame. The men were determined to be 69-year-old engineer Everett Talbot and 59-year-old Dr. William Varner. One man was found in the front passenger seat while the other was found in the back seat. 

Following the crash, Harris County Pct. 4 Constable Mark Herman told reporters that investigators were “100% certain” that there was no one in the fill-fated Model S’ driver’s seat when it crashed. This prompted widespread coverage from numerous media outlets, with several immediately declaring the fatal incident as a “driverless” crash. 

“They are 100% certain that no one was in the driver seat driving that vehicle at the time of impact. They are positive… Several of our folks are reconstructionists, but they feel very confident just with the positioning of the bodies after the impact that there was no one driving that vehicle,” Herman told journalists. He later noted that a search warrant had been executed on Tesla to secure data about the tragic incident.

But while the idea of a fatal Tesla Autopilot crash may be compelling, there were immediately some issues with the idea. For one, the absence of lane markings in the area’s streets meant that Autopilot could not have been engaged. Traffic-Aware Cruise Control could only go up to 30 mph in the area as well. For context, the incident involved the Model S accelerating to 67 mph before it crashed.

Other details, such as the allegation that firefighters had to call Tesla for help due to the Model S’ supposed uncontrollable fire, were debunked by the fire chief for The Woodlands Township Fire Department a few days after the incident made international news. 

Advertisement

Needless to say, the findings of the NTSB have revealed that the fatal accident did not involve Autopilot at all. The agency noted that a review of the data from the crash showed “no use of the Autopilot system at any time during this ownership period of the vehicle, including the time frame up to the last transmitted timestamp on April 17, 2021.” 

The agency also noted that the probable cause of the crash was the “driver’s excessive speed and failure to control his car, due to impairment from alcohol intoxication in combination with the effects of two sedating antihistamines, resulting in a roadway departure, tree impact, and post-crash fire.”

The NTSB further noted that “the available evidence suggests that the driver was seated in the driver’s seat at the time of the crash and moved into the rear seat” and that “it was not possible to determine whether the doors were manually operational following the power loss.” These conclusions are in line with footage retrieved from the owner’s home, which showed the driver entering the ill-fated Model S’ front seat before driving away. 

Tesla has not issued a comment about the matter as of writing. Teslarati also conducted a deep dive into the matter in 2021. A link to that report, which includes pertinent background about the incident, can be viewed below.

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Advertisement

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

Tesla Cybertruck explosion probe ends with federal involvement and new questions

The 78-page document detailed a planned attack by former Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger, who died by suicide before the blast that injured six people.

Published

on

Credit: IAA Auctions

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) has released its final investigative report into the New Year’s Day Cybertruck explosion outside the Trump International Hotel. But instead of bringing clarity, the findings have only raised more questions. 

The 78-page document detailed a planned attack by former Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger, who died by suicide before the blast that injured six people.

The perpetrator’s manifesto

According to a Fox News report, Livelsberger rented the all-electric pickup through Turo while on leave from his Special Forces unit. He filled the rented Cybertruck with fireworks, gas cans, and camping fuel before driving it to the hotel shortly after 8:40 a.m. on January 1. Surveillance footage showed him pouring accelerant into the truck bed moments before detonation, confirming premeditation.

Livelsberger left a manifesto on his phone, which was later deemed classified by the Department of War. This case was then handed over to federal authorities. Still, the LVMPD and federal investigators noted in their report that the incident was a “vehicle-borne improvised explosive device” (VBIED) attack “with the potential to cause mass casualties and extensive structural damage.” Officials, however, stopped short of labeling it terrorism.

In digital notes, Livelsberger wrote that his act was not terror-related but intended as “a wake-up call,” criticizing what he called America’s “feckless leadership.” He wrote, “Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives.”

Advertisement

The incident ironically showcased the Cybertruck’s durability

Tesla CEO Elon Musk was among the first to respond publicly after the blast, confirming through X that the company’s senior team was investigating the incident. He later stated that vehicle telemetry showed no malfunction and that the explosion was caused by “very large fireworks and/or a bomb” placed in the Cybertruck’s bed.

Ironically, footage of the incident in the Cybertruck’s bed showed that the vehicle’s durable construction actually helped contain the explosion by directing the blast upwards. The bed remained largely intact after the explosion as well. Even more surprisingly, the Cybertruck’s battery did not catch fire despite the blast.

Months later, the same Cybertruck appeared on the online auction platform IAA, marked as “not ready for sale.” The listing has stirred debate among Tesla fans about why the historic vehicle wasn’t reclaimed by the company. The vehicle, after all, could serve as a symbol of the Cybertruck’s resilience, even in extreme circumstances.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund votes against Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award

The fund is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and it holds a 1.14% stake in Tesla valued at about $11.6 billion.

Published

on

MINISTÉRIO DAS COMUNICAÇÕES, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund has voted against Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award, which will be ultimately decided at Tesla’s upcoming annual shareholder meeting. 

The fund is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and it holds a 1.14% stake in Tesla valued at about $11.6 billion.

NBIM’s opposition

NBIM confirmed it had already cast its vote against Musk’s pay package, citing concerns over its total size, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk, as noted in a CNBC report. The fund acknowledged Musk’s leadership of the EV maker, and it stated that it will continue to seek dialogue with Tesla about its concerns. 

“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk- consistent with our views on executive compensation. We will continue to seek constructive dialogue with Tesla on this and other topics,” NBIM noted.

The upcoming Tesla annual shareholder meeting will decide whether Musk should receive his proposed 2025 performance award, which would grant him large stock options over the next decade if Tesla hits several ambitious milestones, such as a market cap of $8.5 trillion. The 2025 performance award will also increase Musk’s stake in Tesla to 25%.

Advertisement

Elon Musk and NBIM

Elon Musk’s proposed 2025 CEO performance award has proven polarizing, with large investors split on whether the executive should be given a pay package that, if fully completed, would make him a trillionaire. 

Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis have recommended that shareholders vote against the deal, and initiatives such as the “Take Back Tesla” campaign have rallied investors to oppose the proposed performance award. On the other hand, other large investors such as ARK Invest and the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA) have urged shareholders to approve the compensation plan. 

Interestingly enough, this is not the first time that Musk and NBIM have found themselves on opposing sides. Last year, NBIM voted against reinstating Musk’s 2018 performance award, which had already been fully accomplished but was rescinded by a Delaware judge.

Later reports shared text messages between Musk and NBIM Chief Executive Nicolai Tangen, who was inviting the CEO to a dinner in Oslo. Musk declined the invitation, writing, “When I ask you for a favor, which I very rarely do, and you decline, then you should not ask me for one until you’ve done something to make amends. Friends are as friends do.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla begins production of new Model Y trim at Giga Berlin

Tesla announced on Monday that its Model Y Standard configuration was officially being built at Giga Berlin, less than one month after the company officially announced the configuration early last month.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has begun production of the new Model Y trim at Gigafactory Berlin, the company’s production plant in Germany.

Tesla announced on Monday that its Model Y Standard configuration was officially being built at Giga Berlin, less than one month after the company officially announced the configuration early last month.

On October 7, Tesla announced the launch of the Model 3 and Model Y Standard trim levels, its answer to the call for affordable EVs within its lineup and its response to the loss of the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit.

On October 3, Tesla started production of the vehicles in Germany:

The Standard iteration of the Model Y is void of many of the more premium features that are available in the Rear-Wheel-Drive, All-Wheel-Drive, and Performance trims of the vehicle are equipped with.

A few of the features of the Model Y Standard are:

  • Single Motor configuration
  • No rear touchscreen
  • Textile seats with vegan leather, instead of all vegan leather
  • 320-mile range
  • No glass roof

The launch of the Model Y Standard was truly a move to help Tesla get vehicles into the sub-$40,000 price point, and although many consumers were hoping to see the company get closer to $30,000 with these cars, this is a great starting point.

Deliveries in the United States have already started, and it seems it will be a vehicle that will do one of two things: either push some consumers to finally make the jump to Tesla, or it will give car buyers another reason to buy the Premium trims, as they may feel the lack of features is not a good enough deal.

This is something we saw with the Cybertruck’s Rear-Wheel-Drive configuration, which launched last year and ended up being more of the latter option listed above.

The Tesla Model Y Standard is actually a great deal in Europe

It was only a $10,000 discount from the All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck, but it also did not have adaptive air suspension, premium interiors, or the powered tonneau cover, which many people felt was too much of a sacrifice.

The Rear-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck was discontinued only a few months later.

It does not seem as if this is the case with the Model Y Standard, which already seems to be an attractive option to some buyers.

Continue Reading

Trending