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

  • Most crash reports do not capture critical data, says National Safety Council
    April 25, 2017
    A National Safety Council review of motor vehicle crash reports from across the US found no state fully captures critical data needed to address and understand the rise in roadway fatalities. Crash reports from all 50 states lack fields or codes for law enforcement to record the level of driver fatigue at the time of a crash, while many others lack fields to capture texting, hands-free cell phone use and specific types of drug use if drugs are detected, including marijuana. Excluding these fields limits the
  • Clear signs on inspection from EU Road Federation
    December 27, 2024
    Free checklist will help ensure ADAS systems work safely, ERF says
  • Level 4/5 autonomous driving will be possible in the next five years, says research
    May 9, 2017
    Growing consumer preference for convenience-enhancing technologies and automobiles-as-a-service options helped double the adoption of vehicles with automated driving features in 2016, says Frost & Sullivan’s mobility team. Going forward, large-scale investments from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) will refine the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive cloud-based technology solutions even further, enabling level 4/5 autonomous driving within the next five years. Retrofitted automated driv
  • Safer roads need safe systems approach, better infrastructure
    January 19, 2012
    Some developed countries are far from leading the way when it comes to making road infrastructure safe. In fact, says the Road Safety Foundation's Joanne Hill, they learn a lot from what is happening in emergent nations. A new report from the Road Safety Foundation, 'Saving Lives, Saving Money - the costs and benefits of achieving safe roads', makes some startling assertions about attitudes to road safety. Although concerned predominantly with the UK, there are some universal lessons to be learned, accordin