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

  • Frequency changes threaten vehicle safety applications
    January 24, 2012
    The use of frequency spectrum at 5.9GHz for vehicle safety applications is at risk because of two draft bills currently before Congress. Here, we look at why and what’s being done to address the issue. In the US, the right of cooperative infrastructure to use frequency at 5.9GHz is under threat as a result of the proposal of two bills in Congress. The chronology of spectrum allocation for Dedicated Short- Range Communications (DSRC)-based Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) and Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) safety a
  • Increased automation is already improving road safety
    April 20, 2017
    Richard Cuerden considers how many of the technologies developed as part of a move toward autonomous vehicles are already being deployed as ADAS improve road safety. The drive to create autonomous vehicles has caused a re-evaluation of what is needed to safely navigate today’s roads and the development of systems that can replace the driver in many scenarios. However, many manufacturers are not waiting for ‘tomorrow’ and are already incorporating these systems in their new cars as Advanced Driver Assistanc
  • NTSB calls for immediate action on collision avoidance systems for vehicles
    June 12, 2015
    A report by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) outlines the life-saving benefits of currently available collision avoidance systems and recommends that the technology become standard on all new passenger and commercial vehicles. The report, The Use of Forward Collision Avoidance Systems to Prevent and Mitigate Rear-End Crashes, stresses that collision avoidance systems can prevent or lessen the severity of rear-end crashes, thus saving lives and reducing injuries. According to statistics fro
  • Regulating rural road use
    June 20, 2016
    David Crawford looks at problems facing indigenous communities and those unfamiliar with driving in rural areas. While it is well known that the fatality rate for road crashes in rural areas is higher than in towns and cities, some groups suffer far more than others. For instance, the rates of death and serious injury from vehicle accidents is much higher for American Indian and Alaska Native (AI and AN) populations living in rural tribal lands than for any of the country’s other ethnic populations. Crashes