The family of the late Model X customer Walter Huang www.moviesfilmonline.com / de / movies / … of ̵
"Ms. Huang lost her husband and two children lost their father because Tesla tests its autopilot software on live riders," family lawyer Mark Fong said. He says the family wants to make sure that other drivers do not suffer the fate of Huang.
Huang died in March 2018 while traveling on a highway in Mountain View, California. He had used autopilot as his model X approached a point where a vehicle approached. The exit lane was on the left side of the road. His Tesla hit a concrete barrier that separated the two lanes, and he died of his injuries.
A June National Transportation Safety Board report reconstructed the last seconds of the journey. The agency noted that "Tesla brought a left steering motion" seven seconds before the fatal crash into the widening gap between the diverging lanes, which it apparently took for a lane.
At this point NTSB says the car realized that there was no vehicle in front of him. So it began to accelerate and crashed at 70 mph into the track separator. The NTSB says that "no premature braking or evasive steering movement has been detected."
The family says autopilot is "unreasonably dangerous"
Tesla declined to comment on this story, but in the past, the company has publicly blamed Huang for its own death. "The only way was for this accident "If Mr. Huang did not pay attention to the road even though the car made several warnings," the company said last year.
According to the NTSB, Huang's hands were discovered in the last minute of the journey for 34 seconds – but not in the last six seconds.
The Huangs' lawyers, on the other hand, argue that Tesla still bears the responsibility of producing a product that was allegedly directly controlled by the Gleisteiler. The lawsuit argues that the Model X was "in a broken state" and was "inappropriately dangerous". The lawsuit alleges that Tesla knew about Autopilot's shortcomings but did not adequately warn customers of these dangers.
The lawsuit compares Tesla's autopilot with emergency brake products manufactured by other automakers – Subaru, Mazda, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, and Honda – that sold cars. Huang bought his X model from Tesla at the time with automatic emergency braking systems. (All newer Tesla vehicles, including Huang's, are equipped with automatic emergency braking.)
The lawsuit seems to imply that these other systems would stop a car approaching a concrete scout, but the lawsuit does not provide any evidence for this. And there is reason to doubt it.
As we explained in detail last year, most driver assistance systems on the market today are explicitly and not to prevent high-speed collisions with stationary objects. On highways, these systems generally ignore stationary objects and focus on maintaining a safe distance to other moving vehicles.
Many emergency braking systems on the market today are simply not mature enough to distinguish an object in the road from an object near the road. If they tried to stop for any object that appeared to be on the street, they would have many false positives. On freeways, unnecessary braking can lead to accidents.
The lawsuit alleges, however, that Walter Huang's Model X has not failed to prevent a crash with the tracker – it actively steered the vehicle into the barrier. This could place this crash in a different category than in situations where an emergency braking system simply can not prevent a threatening crash.
Tesla has argued that the use of autopilot makes Tesla's cars safer, but there is no clear evidence of this. Tesla has released statistics showing that its cars crash more rarely when the autopilot is activated. However, this could simply reflect the fact that the autopilot is mainly used on shared highways, which tend to have lower accident rates.
The Huangs also sued the state of California
Track splitters often have a crash cushion – an accordion-like device that absorbs the impact of a car. Unfortunately, the crash damper for this particular divider of the roadway was damaged in another accident at the same location last week. The transportation department in California had to replace it until Huang's crash.
The Huang family also named the state of California as a defendant in their lawsuit. The family argues that the highway department had more than enough time to repair the Attenuator and that this resulted in a dangerous road situation, which partially blamed the Golden State for the death of Huang.