NHTS is asking Tesla to dutifully report all cases when illegal function was enabled, or FSD failed, or if car systems misbehaving could contribute to a crash. But can they trust Tesla to provide accurate data? Same with accident investigation - Tesla likely has much more data about events leading to an accident than investigators, bit would they provide all that data if it would suggest Tesla's responsibility for the accident? Looks like we have no choice but to trust Tesla, but should they be trusted in such matters?
As noted in your citation, Tesla requested the data they provided to be confidential (which is not an uncommon request), and the NHTSA granted the request. Whether the statement from the regulatory agency can be independently verified is immaterial.
As can be seen on page 16 of the order, outlining request format 1, each reporting entity is required to submit a initial incident report and a follow up updated report 10 days after receiving notice of the incident. This is registered in Column D, Report Type, as 10-day update.
As can be plainly seen in Column D, Report Type, and Column B, Report Version, the vast majority of Tesla reports are on version 2, the second updated report issued 10 days after initial notice of the incident. Most of the remaining, newer, reports are on version 1, a report issued 5 days after notice of the incident as it has not yet been 10-days since the corresponding released NHTSA dataset.
Also note that reporting entities are allowed to voluntarily issue subsequent reports marked as Report Type, Update. Tesla has intentionally chosen to not do any investigation to evaluate the operational or safety characteristics of their incomplete product in use. That is completely and utterly unacceptable for a safety-critical product.
In addition, even if you were not colossally wrong on the nature of the reports, safety-critical systems require a positive proof of safety. You do not get to bet lives on unproven systems. If no proof is available, and no conclusions can be drawn, then it is not acceptable for use. This is the absolute basics of safety-critical system evaluation. The absence of information or inconclusive results is not a defense as you seem to think, it is a admission of guilt.
In conclusion, you are completely wrong in both the particulars of report submission and the generalities of what conclusions can be drawn from the Tesla reporting methodology.
NTSB does an excellent job in its investigations in getting to the root cause of accidents. The only way they can do that is in a depoliticized atmosphere where they can focus on getting to the truth of something, not worrying about one of the parties to the accident spinning things for their commercial advantage. Tesla trying to corrupt an NTSB investigation like this is the worst kind of bad faith. Particularly for a technology as important as self-driving cars.
Can we trust Tesla (and other manufacturers) after they did this:
"Tesla eventually agreed to split the cost of the repair, but before they would do that, the owner had to sign away his right to discuss the defect, which could preclude him from reporting it to the National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration (NHTSA)."
While I don't know about how this is percieved within Tesla, the adversarial relationship you paint between NTSB and Tesla is exactly what should not happen. Root causes of crashes must be investigated and published so that Tesla and their competitors can improve safety of their cars.
Frankly I feel that for this kind of investication (car crashes and accidents) the manufacturer should be required to hand over all data relevant to the investigation. On device logs are probably the most relevant data you could get in these cases.
That this lab decided to try to decipher the data, and found troves of it that wasn't known to exist before, speaks to how the relationship must be.
They didn't trust Tesla to hand everything over.
In my humble opinion, any region should force all manufacturer of cars that will be sold in that region to hand over data (or methods by extracting the data) in cases like these, lest their license to sell their product be rescinded.
The NTSB is involved in the investigation of the Florida case, but not the others. NTSB investigations are rigorous to the extreme, and move at a pace much, much slower than the media events surrounding the other crashes. Any data that Tesla has regarding the crash will be meticulously picked apart and anything relevant will be published in the comprehensive NTSB report. [1] I imagine there is some force compelling Tesla to be more quiet on that case, whether it is deference to the NTSB, or respect for the fatality. Either way, the data will become known eventually, from quite possibly the most transparent and independent source possible. I look forward to the report.
"The Tesla was equipped with multiple electronic systems capable of recording and transmitting vehicle performance data. NTSB investigators will continue to collect and analyze these data, and use it along with other information collected during the investigation in evaluating the crash events."
I mentioned this in a reply to another comment, but the NHTSA findings have apparently raised suspicions in other researchers. Currently, the DOT/NHTSA are facing a FOIA lawsuit for not releasing data (they assert that the data reveals Tesla trade secrets) that can be used to independently verify the study's conclusion:
> In contrast, Tesla redacts all narrative and does not confirm injury severity. In over 700 cases, around 95% of their reports, they choose not to investigate whether an injury or fatality occurred.
The primary reason why all those Tesla cases lack those details, is that they're reported basically immediately when they happen, because all Teslas are connected to the mothership and report back when it happens.
The NHTSA page even explicitly points it out under the data limitations section, under "Incident Report Data May Be Incomplete or Unverified".
> This means that a reporting entity with access to vehicle telemetry may quickly become aware of an air bag deployment incident subject to the General Order, but it may not become aware of all circumstances related to the crash, such as surface conditions, whether all passengers were belted, or whether an injury occurred.
This is also the reason why Tesla are so overrepresented in the data. Almost no other automaker has connected cars, or are like the GM On-Star a subscription service that not everyone has.
All other reports have to come in manually though actual crash investigations, which can take time. Or not happen at all if nobody thinks those systems might have had been activated/relevant. For example, a car using driver assist technology getting t-boned by a manually driven car at an intersection will likely not raise any alarms about automated systems during crash investigations. But for Tesla they're reported, because they immediately know those cars were in a crash.
So in conclusion, as NHTSA has said, none of the data has been normalized, and lacks important contextual information to properly analyze it, and should thus not be used by itself to draw any conclusions.
I imagine maybe the NTSB feels that their neutral position is being undermined? NTSB gave Tesla the data recorder in order for them to help the investigation, but then Tesla took some of the data on it and used to make a press release to put some spin on the event---probably the NTSB feels they were played...
Oh, you assume Tesla won't fight to the death to avoid releasing data recorder information. They will.
Unless it "absolves" Tesla.
Remember, this is the company that when someone died, put out actual PRESS RELEASES to say "Not the car's fault. In fact it warned him before the collision that he was inattentive."
They neglected to mention it triggered ONE steering wheel warning... FOURTEEN MINUTES before the collision.
Even your example is problematic. "FSD/AP isn't at fault/didn't cause the collision/near miss, because it wasn't engaged..."
... because the driver had to take emergency action to avert FSD/AP's behavior.
They got taken to task for that, when investigatory boards started asking "just how long before that collision was FSD/AP disengaged, and was it disengaged by hard manual braking, etc.?"
Typically the police and NHTSA investigate car accidents, not the NTSB.
While the NTSB don't typically investigate car accidents, they do for transportation (truck) accidents. It's likely that the NTSB investigated because it involved a truck with a possible systemic issue, with cars going under trucks, and the Tesla autopilot being a factor.
One noted NTSB rule is that Tesla or other parties [0] do not comment regarding the NTSB investigation, except with the NTSB senior investigators' permission.
Not sure if your comment is meant to insinuate that Tesla is being more transparent than it needs to be. Its press release, dated June 30, refers to a fatal accident that happened on May 7. Judging by the first sentence of that press release, it seems to have been spurred because the U.S. decided to open an investigation yesterday. Tesla has had 50 days to say something and they waited until the day after they learned about the investigation.
AFAIK, accidents in which a consumer complaint is received or in which a defect in a vehicle or vehicle-part is suspected is sent to the NHTSA [1], which then decides whether or not to conduct an investigation. The NYT article makes it sound like the NHTSA has been in contact with the Florida Highway Patrol...I don't see where it says that Tesla went out of its way to tell the NHTSA (at least compared to other automakers)
Tesla will actively throw you under the bus to defend themselves.
"His vehicle had warned him about having hands on the steering wheel" (... fourteen minutes prior to the accident).
Leave aside the fact that if you have an accident in your Tesla you will need to go to court to subpoena telemetry data. But they'll happily publish your telemetry data without your (explicit, I know, I know, TOS) agreement if they think they're being painted in a bad light.
And if you disclose information about the vehicle, they'll happily force push neutered/old firmware to your vehicle to hide or prevent such activities, lock you from future upgrades, and disable ethernet and OBD ports in your vehicle.
Or a Douglas Adamsesque approach to right-to-repair, where there's a website with parts you can "order" (except everything down to the most commodity bolt says "Call Tesla" and they will tell you its unavailable to order via the website), that's if you know what parts you need, a process which required making an appointment with Tesla to look at the service manual, several months out, which required a fee, had a time limit, and put you in a room where you were not allowed a computer, phone or camera, just a notepad and pencil), all the while touting their "corporate commitment to transparency" as they pulled out of NHTSB testing.
In June, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration ordered automakers to cough up data on every crash that involves automated driving systems, such as Tesla’s Autopilot. Last month it launched an investigation into a dozen crashes in which Teslas on Autopilot plowed into parked emergency vehicles.
Then, on Tuesday, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation sent an 11-page letter instructing Tesla to provide the agency with an enormous volume of detailed data on each Tesla vehicle sold or leased in the United States from 2014 to 2021. “This could be a very big deal,” said Bryant Walker Smith, a professor at the University of South Carolina, one of the legal field’s foremost experts in automated motor vehicle law.
Tesla has not responded to the NTSB. The NTSB is not a safety regulator. They are accident investigators and also make safety recommendations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would be the relevant safety regulators in this case.
reply