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

  • NTSB: Uber’s AV in fatal crash ‘had software issues’
    November 6, 2019
    The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has found that an Uber autonomous vehicle which killed Elaine Herzberg last year had software flaws. NTSB released a report which says the Volvo XC60’s autonomous system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object and determined that an emergency braking manoeuvre was needed to mitigate the collision. Uber confirmed that emergency braking manoeuvres must be carried out manually and the system is not designed to alert the driver. Data
  • In-vehicle systems as enforcement enablers?
    January 30, 2012
    From an enforcement perspective at least, Toyota's recent recalls over problems with accelerator pedal assemblies had a positive outcome in that for the first time a major motor manufacturer outside of the US acknowledged publicly what many have known or suspected for quite a while: that the capability exists within certain car companies to extract data from a vehicle onboard unit which can be used to help ascertain, if not prove outright, just what was happening in the vital seconds up to an accident or cr
  • ITE: position statement on C/AVs following fatal crash in Arizona
    April 4, 2018
    A strong government role remains critical to ensuring that the deployment of connected and automated vehicles (C/AVs) improves the quality of lives for all citizens – according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The Washington DC-based company’s new position statement has been published following the fatal crash involving a self-driving car in Arizona and the rapid development of the technology. ITE highlighted that governments must provide the regulatory oversight to ensure that C/AV test
  • Cooperative systems and privacy not mutually exclusive
    February 1, 2012
    Are co-operative systems and personal privacy mutually exclusive? Not necessarily, says Neil Hoose. But the more advanced the application, the greater the concession of privacy may have to become. ITS Stockholm in 2009 and the Cooperative Mobility Showcase event which took place alongside Intertraffic in Amsterdam in March this year both featured live, on-street demonstrations of safety and driver information applications that used Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) and Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communications,