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

  • Truck platooning trials take to the highways
    July 24, 2017
    There is rising enthusiasm in America and beyond for the concept of truck platooning with trials being planned in several US states, as David Crawford reports. Growing numbers of US states are considering or implementing plans for trials of electronically-linked truck platooning on public road networks. This is in response to the interest being shown by the US$70bn a year road freight industry, where fuel represents 41% of the operating costs making the prospect of improving fuel economy by trucks travellin
  • Truck platooning trials take to the highways
    July 24, 2017
    There is rising enthusiasm in America and beyond for the concept of truck platooning with trials being planned in several US states, as David Crawford reports. Growing numbers of US states are considering or implementing plans for trials of electronically-linked truck platooning on public road networks. This is in response to the interest being shown by the US$70bn a year road freight industry, where fuel represents 41% of the operating costs making the prospect of improving fuel economy by trucks travellin
  • Groups seek electronic collision alert devices on big trucks
    February 20, 2015
    The US Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the Truck Safety Coalition, the Center for Auto Safety and Road Safe America have filed a petition with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking to require forward collision avoidance and mitigation braking (F-CAM) systems on all new large trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more. F-CAM technology uses radar and sensors to first alert the driver and then t
  • Cooperative road infrastructures - progress and the future
    February 1, 2012
    Robert Bertini, deputy administrator of the USDOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration, discusses the research and deployment paths of cooperative road infrastructures. High-level analysis by the US's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the potential of Vehicle-to-Infrastructure/Infrastructure-to-Vehicle (V2I/I2V) and Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) technologies indicates that V2V could in exclusivity address a large proportion of crashes involving unimpaired drivers. In fact,