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

  • Don’t drive drunk – or use a hands-free phone
    August 29, 2019
    Despite law changes, drivers’ bad habits have been creeping back in. TRL’s Dr Shaun Helman tells Adam Hill why using a phone at the wheel is just as distracting as driving after a few drinks esearch from as far back as 2002 (see box) suggests that driving while making a phone call – either hands-free or holding a handset to your ear – creates the same amount of distraction as being drunk behind the wheel. While it is notoriously hard to predict how alcohol will affect an individual (due to the speed of
  • Intersection collision avoidance system trial
    January 31, 2012
    Although much of the emphasis of research into intersection management has tended to concentrate on the needs of urban locations, there remain specific issues pertaining to rural intersections which need to be addressed. Here, Rebecca Szymkowski and Greg Helgeson, Wisconsin DOT, Todd Szymkowski, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Craig Shankwitz and Arvind Menon, University of Minnesota detail progress on an intersection collision avoidance system for more remote locations.
  • Uber AV driver charged with 'negligent homicide'
    September 17, 2020
    Rafael Vasquez pleads not guilty in collision which killed pedestrian Elaine Herzberg
  • Investigating charging methods for open road tolling
    January 30, 2012
    Toll system suppliers are considering service structures and technologies needed to address issues of social exclusion in open road tolling. Jason Barnes asked Telvent's Pat McGowan to explain moves to address the needs of all toll customers