SF Crash of Model X has ridiculous re-run FUD

  • Thread starter Thread starter 101101
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 10
  • Views Views 2K
1

101101

Well-Known Member
Great things were happening with Tesla and in order to try to cover that up the FUD sites did re-run fud on old FUD where an Apple software engineer supposedly reported 7x to a Tesla store a problem with his Model X supposedly veering toward a K rail while on AP when he would pass it on the freeway. Then his vehicle gets destroyed at that spot in a way that shows the vehicle sheered in two literally. And they try to fud this like it is supposed to impact new stuff assuming AP were even at fault. .

My own sense is if someone lies to the public about the public interest for money they should get a really stiff sentence and high percentage asset forfeiture.

Tampering with the voting system same thing. Tampering with a jury, same thing. A politician that puts self interest first, same thing. The damage from these types of behavior is cumulative and we face too many existential challenges to keep allowing this stuff. This paid lie stuff is a form of censorship that can cost us everything.
 
No sure, is that what you are referencing: https://apnews.com/e2eabac31019a5a750dc8ef67791f62b

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — An Apple engineer who died when his Tesla Model X slammed into a concrete barrier had previously complained about the SUV malfunctioning on that same stretch of Silicon Valley freeway.

His complaints were detailed in a trove of documents released Tuesday by federal investigators in two Tesla crashes involving Autopilot, one in California and the other in Florida.
. . .​

Source_2: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY18FH011.aspx
Source_3: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY19FH008.aspx

Bob Wilson
 
@ 101101:

Why do you keep starting threads in the "General discussion" section when there are forum sections where they belong? There is a "Tesla" section of this forum, and a "Model X" sub-section under that. Why not use the forum as it's intended?

I'm reporting the OP for being placed in the wrong forum section.
​
 
I'm listening to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hearing about this accident and three others. But they also pointed out the driver had complained about autopilot steering towards the 'gore' before yet he paid no attention to it on his fatal drive.

There are good points coming out but no 'silver bullet.' Like most accidents, a series of faults that had any one been handled, there would not have been a fatal accident.

Bob Wilson
 
Last edited:
bwilson4web said:
But they also pointed out the driver had complained about autopilot steering towards the 'gore' before yet he paid no attention to it on his fatal drive.
Click to expand...

Inaccurate. The family of the deceased made after-the-fact claims that the deceased had complained to them multiple times (ten times, as I recall) about the same problem at the same place on the road. Claims made by the family after filing a wrongful death lawsuit.

There is no independent evidence that he ever made such complaints. Nor does it pass the "B.S. meter" test. Anyone competent to drive a motor vehicle should know if there is always, or even frequently, a problem with a certain spot on your daily drive, then you need to be alert and in firm control of the car at that point.
​
 
In the hearing, the NTSB claimed it was in an e-mail before the crash. I don't know but a copy of the e-mail may be in their formal report.

Bob Wilson
 
Source: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20200225.aspx

Seven safety issues were identified in the crash investigation:
  • Driver Distraction
  • Risk Mitigation Pertaining to Monitoring Driver Engagement
  • Risk Assessment Pertaining to Operational Design Domain (the operating conditions under which a driving automation system is designed to function)
  • Limitations of Collision Avoidance Systems
  • Insufficient Federal Oversight of Partial Driving Automation Systems
  • Need for Event Data Recording Requirements for Driving Automation Systems
  • Highway Infrastructure Issues

To address these safety issues the NTSB made nine safety recommendations that seek:
  • Expansion of NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program testing of forward collision avoidance system performance.
  • Evaluation of Tesla “Autopilot”- equipped vehicles to determine if the system’s operating limitations, foreseeability of misuse, and ability to operate vehicles outside the intended operational design domain pose an unreasonable risk to safety.
  • Collaborative development of standards for driver monitoring systems to minimize driver disengagement, prevent automation complacency and account for foreseeable misuse of the automation.
  • Review and revision of distracted driving initiatives to increase employers’ awareness of the need for strong cell phone policies prohibiting portable electronic device use while driving.
  • Modification of enforcement strategies for employers who fail to address the hazards of distracted driving.
  • Development of a distracted driving lock-out mechanism or application for portable electronic devices that will automatically disable any driver-distracting functions when a vehicle is in motion.
  • Development of policy that bans nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving by all employees and contractors driving company vehicles, operating company issued portable electronic devices or when using a portable electronic device to engage in work-related communications.

The NTSB also reiterated seven previously issued safety recommendations issued to: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (H-15-4, H-17-39 and H-17-38); the Department of Transportation (H-17-37); and Tesla (H-17-41 and H-17-42). The reiterated safety recommendations issued to Tesla (H-17-41 and H-17-42) were also reclassified from “Open―Await Response” to “Open―Unacceptable Response,” as were two reiterated safety recommendations issued to NHTSA (H-17-39 and H-17-40) and one (H-17-37) issued to DOT.

As a result of the investigation the NTSB reclassified two other safety recommendations with

H-11-47, issued to the Consumer Electronics Association (now the Consumer Technology Association), reclassified as “Closed―No Longer Applicable,” and H-19-13, issued to the California State Transportation Authority reclassified as “Open― Acceptable Response.”

An abstract of the final report for the NTSB’s investigation of the crash is available online at https://go.usa.gov/xdyHM and contains the probable cause, findings and safety recommendations. The full final report is expected to publish online in the next few weeks. Previously released information about the investigation is available online at http://go.usa.gov/xqag4.​

Bob Wilson
 
For Tesla:
  • H-17-41 - limit operation to area it is designed for
  • H-17-42 - make sure operator is alert and in control
Bob Wilson
 
bwilson4web said:
In the hearing, the NTSB claimed it was in an e-mail before the crash. I don't know but a copy of the e-mail may be in their formal report.
Click to expand...

Well, that would certainly be compelling evidence supporting the family's claim. That's the first I've read of that, so thanks for the info, Bob!

Aside to Bob: Strange that you would give my post a "thumbs up" while also telling us that it's (at least in part) factually incorrect. Feeling schizophrenic today, perhaps?
:D
 
Last edited:
Within limits, I encourage participation and dialog. So people who disagree sourcing the best information they have will always get a pass and encouragement. But disagreeable people and those who go out of their way to share inaccurate information, well I have a flexible response scale:
  1. Post sources with accurate data and crafted to be 'bland' ("Just the facts, ma'am.")
  2. Private communication to clarify what is going on.
  3. Ignore user without complaining to the moderator(s).
  4. Abuse of others, submit a "Report" to the moderator(s) suggesting this may be over the top.
I am interested in facts and data along with personal benchmarks and experience. But I am hard set against 'propaganda' and 'abuse.'

Bob Wilson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top