Skip to main content

Tesla Autopilot system ‘not at fault’ in fatal crash

A nine-month investigation by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) into the fatal car crash involving a Tesla Model S in Florida last year has concluded that the car’s Autopilot system, which was in operation at the time, was not at fault. The decision noted that Autopilot is a Level 2 self-driving system and, therefore, requires the driver to always monitor the system and be at the ready to intervene – a stipulation that the driver failed to perform, the administration says.
January 24, 2017 Read time: 2 mins
A nine-month investigation by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) into the fatal car crash involving a 8534 Tesla Model S in Florida last year has concluded that the car’s Autopilot system, which was in operation at the time, was not at fault.

The decision noted that Autopilot is a Level 2 self-driving system and, therefore, requires the driver to always monitor the system and be at the ready to intervene – a stipulation that the driver failed to perform, the administration says.

“A safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further examination of this issue does not appear to be warranted,” says the NHTSA in its report and the investigation is closed. However, it warns that the closing of the investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that no safety-related defect exists. The agency will monitor the issue and reserves the right to take future action if circumstances warrant it.

Following this and other crashes in 2016, Tesla modified the Autopilot system, which it describes as semi-autonomous, to ensure drivers don't take their hands off the wheel for extended periods and reminding them of the need to remain aware of road conditions.

Tesla issued a statement following the investigation, saying, “At Tesla, the safety of our customers comes first, and we appreciate the thoroughness of NHTSA’s report and its conclusion.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • The benefit of Lidar: touch, don’t look
    September 28, 2020
    The benefits of Lidar as a safety device for automobiles rather than as an enabler for AVs are easy to overlook – but Dr Jun Pei of Cepton Technologies tells Adam Hill why that would be a big mistake
  • Idaho adds human dimension to winter savings
    September 23, 2014
    Idaho leverages the increased capability and reliability of its road weather sensor network to reduce costs and prevent accidents. Weather-related accidents can form a significant chunk of an authorities’ annual road casualty statistics. While authorities cannot control the weather, the technology exists to monitor the road conditions and react with warnings to motorists and the treatment of icy or snow-covered roads. However, with all capital expenditure now placed under the microscope of public scrutiny,
  • When speed compliance becomes a safety issue
    March 29, 2017
    David Crawford finds that softly, softly can be safely, safely when it comes to speed enforcement. Comedians and controversial TV presenters have long made jokes about having to watch the speedometer so closely as they pass speed camera after speed camera that they mow down bus queues. But the joke may have some factual basis according to a study by researchers from the University of Western Australia.
  • Preparing for connected vehicle technology challenge
    December 14, 2012
    A decision on mandating connected vehicle technology is expected in 2013, when associated political issues such as privacy are likely to come to the fore. Pete Goldin investigates industry’s preparations for the challenge. Once in a while new technology comes along with the power to revolutionise the way we live our lives. Connected vehicle technology could be such a game changer. If mandated in the United States, it could quickly become the status quo for transportation in the US, and such a disruptive cha