The issue is that this investigation is important to Tesla but not considered 'Major' in NTSB definition. In a major investigations, such as airline crashes, the NTSB are the lead agency who give press multiple press conferences and release preliminary information to the media.<p>It is considered very bad form for any designated parties[0] participating to talk to the media other than with NTSB approval. Non-essential organizations like union representatives have been booted from investigations for talking to the media.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Pages/default.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Pages/default.as...</a> (scroll down to "The Party System")
Both Uber and Tesla try to discredit the victim before any official investigation ends, and in both cases it’s quite clear they will try to cover their asses first. And they have all the data. How can we be sure they don’t selectively hide something or don’t tamper with the records before giving them to investigators?
Funny, the article says several times that the NTSB is unhappy with Tesla's release of information, but it never says why. It's not clear how it can interfere with the investigation. Maybe they just want to control the narrative? But that is no part of their function. Sorry if you're unhappy about Tesla's disclosures guys, but why, and why should we care?
> “The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive"<p>This is completely irrelevant to the crash. Anyone who uses autopilot knows that throughout the drive even if you have two hands but don't apply enough pressure on the wheel, you will get a warning and you have to jiggle the wheel for it to recognize you're there.
It’s early, but it seems likely there was an issue with Autopilot that contributed to this crash. To make matters worse, the owner apparently complained about errant behavior on that section of road. Why did he continue to use it without paying attention and why didn’t Telsa act much earlier?<p>It seems the local government or highway agency also neglected their duty to maintain the highway safety barrier, a shockingly regular occurrence where I live as well. I’ve wondered how often someone is injured because they failed to repair a barrier for several months.<p>It appears all the pieces fell into place at the right time and this man unfortunately lost his life.
From Feb'18<p><a href="https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2018/insurance-company-sues-tesla-model-x-crash.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2018/insurance-company-su...</a><p>The insurance company says that despite its suggestive name and marketing campaign, "Tesla produced a semi-autonomous vehicle that misleadingly appeared to be fully autonomous."<p>In addition, the lawsuit claims Tesla advertised the package as providing a way to “automatically steer down the highway, change lanes, and adjust speed in response to traffic," all without requiring the driver to touch the steering wheel.
Given the fact that the autopilot warnings were ignored, could this possibly be a case of sudden driver incapacitation? Eg falling asleep at the wheel, a heart attack, etc?
I learned everything I needed to know about Tesla's culture and Elon Musk specifically after their response a few years ago to the NYT's review criticizing the Model S's cold weather performance. All their subsequent responses to criticism haven't changed my impression at all. 'Lying with statistics' is a go-to Tesla PR move.
I respect the NTSB, but I do not like institutional secrecy aspects to try to muzzle Tesla - facts like this can help people from placing excessive reliability on self driving abilities of Tesla's autopilot - as long as personal privacy is respected.
After all, calling it an autopilot is intrinsically wrong - as Tesla repeatedly asserts.