Feds Launch Investigation Into Tesla Over a Single Fatality
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is holding vehicles to higher standards than it does drivers.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an investigation into Tesla on Thursday, reports the Associated Press. Though every preventable death is a tragedy, not every death should trigger a federal investigation and potential recall of overwhelmingly safe technology. The NHTSA's overzealous scrutiny of Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) feature is unwarranted and counterproductive.
The NHTSA lists a total of four crashes in its Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) report. Only one of the crashes involved an injury, which was unfortunately fatal. The November 2023 accident occurred when a Tesla Model Y using FSD collided with a Toyota 4Runner that had stopped to respond to a previous collision on Interstate 17 in Rimrock, Arizona. The accident killed a 71-year-old woman, per A.P.
The ODI report cites "reduced roadway visibility…from conditions such as sun glare, fog, or airborne dust" as contributing to all four crashes involving Tesla FSD. These conditions don't just hinder the functioning of advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) but human drivers as well. The collision that the 4Runner had stopped to assist was caused by sun glare, as was the fatal Tesla crash. Both the human drivers and the ADAS system were vulnerable to diminished visibility, but only the latter is the subject of a federal investigation.
This isn't the first time the NHTSA has scrutinized Tesla. The agency began investigating the car manufacturer in August 2021 after 11 collisions involving Tesla's autopilot and first responders occurred between 2018 and 2021. In 2022, NHTSA expanded its investigation, recording 956 crashes "where Autopilot was initially alleged to have been in use at the time of, or leading up to" incidents from January 2018 to August 2023, 29 of which were fatal.
The report concluded that "drivers involved in the crashes were not sufficiently engaged in the driving task" due to insufficient warnings from the autopilot and autosteer features. But the responsibility of driving rests squarely on the operator of the vehicle.
Drivers are often insufficiently attentive to the task at hand—driving a multi-hundred-pound mass of metal and glass—and people are too frequently harmed and killed as a result. One might expect that vehicle fatalities have increased as a consequence of the growing prevalence of ADAS, but that's not the case.
The NHTSA's April 2024 Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities reports 40,990 deaths due to motor vehicle crashes. This number is horrifying at first glance, but represents the "seventh consecutive quarterly decline in fatalities beginning with the second quarter of 2022." Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have also decreased, from 1.33 in 2022 to 1.26 in 2023 (the most recent years for which data are available).
Even as ADAS systems have become "increasingly available as standard or optional equipment in many new vehicles across most manufacturers" according to the NHTSA, driving has become safer, not more dangerous. ADAS, like human drivers, are not infallible. And driving, like all other human activities, is not completely safe. However, at what is still a relatively early stage in its deployment, ADAS is associated with safer driving on balance and Tesla's FDS feature should not be recalled due to one fatality.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
if it saves just.one.life.
I know you're being sarcastic but there are people who really think that - people who are willfully blind to the hidden costs via the lives lost when all those impaired and fallible humans get back behind the wheel.
We should ban all car travel. Planes, too.
Get back in your pod and eat your bugs, citizen.
To be fair, it actually makes sense to focus on vehicles rather than drivers, at this point.
If you find the mistake a driver made, you can't exactly push out an update to prevent other drivers from making that mistake.
With assisted/self driving vehicles, you can do exactly that: Find why one car made a mistake, and you can stop a whole bunch of cars from making it.
So the payoff from investigating the vehicle is potentially much higher than investigating the driver, even if it's ultimately the driver who is at fault.
Yes, only government can solve problems. It’s almost like the manufacturer has no incentives to make a better product.
>>To be fair, it actually makes sense to focus on vehicles rather than drivers, at this point.
I wouldn’t put my life in a “self-driving” anything unless it was on rails and I see your point … this NHTSA move smacks as totes political however sans rationale.
I'm not keen on "self driving", so long as you're required to be ready to take over again at a instant's notice. I mean, sure, if I have a heart attack while driving, I guess I'm better off letting the car drive me to the nearest emergency room. But it just sounds exhausting spending time ready to take over at any instant, while not actually being in control. Like teaching my son to drive, really.
I do think they'll eventually get it better than human drivers, just because human drivers aren't getting better, and the computers are. But they're not there yet.
Anyway, I was just making a general point, I agree they're just acting politically here.
Let's face it. The Democrats have a hard-on for Musk.
They see him as an apostate, and will deal with him much as Islamist’s would to one of their own who abandoned their faith. Musk really wasn’t kidding when he said that he’d likely be indicted if Kamala wins.
Everything horrific and fascist that the DOJ did under Biden puppeteers will be tenfold under Kamala's puppeteers. There wasn't a single line on constitution that the Biden DOJ didn't massively and deliberately violate. Now watch them normalize it under Kamala.
Lol it's already been normalized for...like...several administrations
I'm just not sure why you have special ire for Kamala but not (presumably) the MAGA movement
Haha, are you fucking kidding? Whose new sock is this.
Goddamn, what a stupid thing to say.
JD Vance is wrong about the Pinto
A pinto with Firestone 500 tires.
That's why I drove a Gremlin.
Shed a tear for American Motors.
Did you play Bohemian Rhapsody on the 8 track?
Fuck all of you anti American fags, I'm going to go out and drive my edsel
Hey! I liked my Gremlin!
That's why I hopped up my Pinto. If you're going 120 MPH, few cars can hit you from behind.
I wonder if there's a possibility this could be politically motivated.
the state of california is actively going after spacex over tweets
Weird that the author wrote this entire article without mentioning Musk and the documented fact that every federal agency is harassing not just Tesla, but all of his companies.
So? As long as the political persecution follows intersectional critical theory, and righteous progressive values (and narratives), all is good.
A rich White South African is probably pretty low on the intersectionality ladder. Even possible autism isn't going to help.
Yeah, what's one little death? She was old anyway.
"The NHTSA's overzealous scrutiny of Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) feature is unwarranted and counterproductive."
Headline correction:
The NHTSA's overzealous scrutiny of Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) feature will continue until Musk stops saying nice things about Trump.
And stops contradicting the Democratic plan.
Alyssa Milano is sad.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Both the human drivers and the ADAS system were vulnerable to diminished visibility, but only the latter is the subject of a federal investigation.
Not to defend federal investigators by any means, but this is not the self-driving car future we were promised. The specific point of the self-driving system is that it can detect things humans can't detect and react faster than humans can react. If it's plowing into humans as the result of the sun being in its eyes you're overtraining the system if not fundamentally misapplying the technology.
It will be fun... 25 years from now, wondering if the entire industry was aping Musk, or Musk was aping the entire industry.
More testing needed!
Do you really expect perfection? Or would you settle for automated systems that crash (and kill) only half as often as humans?
Does it have a “female driver” mode?
No, it has excellent parking abilities.
Automated systems under whose control?
As Brett mentioned earlier, the human-caused collision can't be corrected. The technology-caused collision can be.
If a person causes an accident due to glare from the sun, you can't investigate the car.
If the car causes an accident due to glare from the sun, you should investigate the car/manufacturer/tech.
Do you really expect perfection?
Who said anything about perfection? Are you defining “It hit and killed someone because the sun was in its eyes.” as perfection?
Exactly how high do the bodies get stacked before you begin to question your definition of perfection, Comrade?
I guess that means that Rivian has something in the pipeline and needs breathing room to get it to market.
Something worse, and more dangerous, but favored.
Bend the knee.
Motley Fool says Rivian stock is poised to go up 1000%. They must know something nobody else does.
There have been five murder attempts on Musk in as many months.
What part of 'fool' don't you understand?
If Tesla knew about this and hid it, a lengthy investigation into the coverup could be called Elongate.
Musk everything be a pun?
"...driving a multi-hundred-pound mass of metal and glass..."
That's an odd description. The vast majority of vehicles are multi-thousand pound objects.
The writer is obviously another victim of the public school system.
And for most large EVs, that is over 5000 lbs, twice as much as small cars.
2024 Chevrolet Suburban/Curb weight
5,616 to 6,016 lbs
Do you think you're correcting someone by providing stats for a vehicle no one mentioned or are you just unable to read?
"Large" EVs -
Tesla Cybertruck Curb Weight (seats 5): 6,660 lbs., 6,901 lbs. (Cyberbeast)
Rivian R1T Curb Weight (seats 5): 6949 lbs.
Rivian R1S Curb Weight (seats 7): 7068 lbs.
"Small" car -
2024 Toyota Corolla Curb Weight (seats 5): 2,955 to 3,150 lbs.
Just saying some other non-ev vehicles are in the same category.
Or not, 6016 2 * 3150
Then there’s also the fact that the Suburban seats up to 9.
Sure, an F350 Super Duty Crew Cab King Ranch weighs 7,400 lbs. and a Peterbilt 589 is probably closer to 11,000+ lbs.
But if you’re willing to deny objective reality and fudge the numbers and categorical definitions, sure, it all works and people would be retarded to spend money on self-driving cars when women with penises are ‘objectively’ better drivers.
So does the weight of a vehicle matter or not?
A 1 ton truck har far greater towing and payload capabilities relative to their half ton counterparts. And Rivian trucks aren’t even really quite half tons. They’re really more comparable to midsize trucks. So more like a Tacoma or Frontier.
'But the responsibility of driving rests squarely on the operator of the vehicle.'
Dude, don't you even Democratic denial of personal responsibility?
Personal responsibility is white supremacy.
The ODI report cites “reduced roadway visibility…from conditions such as sun glare, fog, or airborne dust” as contributing to all four crashes involving Tesla FSD.
In my sci-fi version of the future, my 2018 self driving car has Predator type technology, seeing in a dozen different spectrums of light, low light, infrared, thermovision, ultraviolet etc, and has various types of radar and lidar allowing it to see through dense fog, rain, snow and other phenomenon which would be considered total visual impairment to the human eye.
This a simple question: who holds responsibility?
If we want to accept driverless vehicles, then that falls back on who wrote the driving software.
What if AI wrote the software? Your move, sir.
Sue those computers into the ground!
Learn to code. So we can sue you for your coding.
I blame the dog.
There are parallels to the Alec Baldwin case.
Who was guilty when he pointed a gun at a woman, cocked the hammer, and pulled the trigger?
Apparently not him, but the movie's armorer who gave him the gun and said it was a prop gun and safe.
In this case, Tesla says the self driving thing is safe, but apparently not.,
Point of order. The armorer left the gun in a wheeled cabinet just outside the set area per the COVID protocols demanded by Baldwin, where it remained for an unknown amount of time, before being wheeled into the set area. Then, sometime after that, the assistant director took the gun, declared it safe, handed it to Baldwin, and Baldwin hamfisted the thing with his booger hook pulling the bang switch, then pulled the hammer back and let it drop while pointing it at the director when they weren't even rehearsing the relevant scene.
I get that he might be getting harassed by the government, but c'mon, in this case the supposed "full self driving" failed and it killed someone. Could a human have made the same error? Maybe, but the human would be liable for screwing up, just like Tesla should be.
Just yesterday there was a case of a Walmart worker in Canada being burned alive in a walk in over. You bet there is going to be investigations over that.
Right. The NHTS has to be involved in this because, unlike with a human driver who fatally fucks up, this can't be handled by local criminal courts.
"...ADAS is associated with safer driving on balance..."
Any evidence to support this statement?
Buehler?
It’s true
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198222001300
Uhm, I’m sorry, but no, a federal investigation is warranted. Yeah, some of this is also probably motivated by lawfare against Musk but . . . when an inattentive driver does this we already have ways to deal with it.
With FSD we’re ‘automating stupidity’ and yeah, right now, it needs serious over sight before we turn every car into being driven by an inattentive teenager.
Also, a deep probe into what went wrong will allow an update to be pushed out to all these cars. You can't do that with a person.
Finally, a deep probe can potentially uncover hidden biases in the engineers and training data and processes - something that has caused plenty of automated 'machine learning' systems to make massive screwups because the engineers involved didn't even think to check for biases hidden in training.
It's not about one fatality. It's about a new technology not performing as it's supposed to and as it's been spec'd to.