122
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
122 points (97.7% liked)
Electric Vehicles
2832 readers
579 users here now
Overview:
Electric Vehicles are a key part of our tomorrow and how we get there. If we can get all the fossil fuel vehicles off our roads, out of our seas and out of our skies, we'll have a much better environment. This community is where we discuss the various different vehicles and news stories regarding electric transportation.
Related communities:
- !automotive@discuss.tchncs.de
- !avs@futurology.today
- !byd@lemmy.world
- !ebike@lemm.ee
- !energy@slrpnk.net
- !geely@lemmy.world
- !micromobility@lemmy.world
- !polestar@lemmy.ca
- !rivian@lemmy.zip
- !teslamotors@lemmy.zip
- !xiaomi@lemdro.id
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They checked the car's logs.
No, they asked the prolific liar to provide the logs.
Really. Do you have any sources that indicate that?
I love EVs. But stop defending Tesla. Even if it was true that the driver pressed the accelerator to 100%, it's irrelevant. If the FSD put the car in a collision trajectory and the driver got scared and accidentally pressed the accelerator instead of the brake in the last second, it's still the fault of FSD. The accelerator made it worse, but the car would still have crashed.
What "defending?" I'm explaining where they got the information from. It's literally in their preliminary report. I said nothing beyond that fact.
I think we're beyond defending that one company.
Yeah, FSD put the car into danger, through some kind of lag or stupidity.
But at the moment of impact, the driver had stomped on any pedal and taken control. It's like someone tossed you a greased cobra in a room full of cub scouts. You're all fucked no matter what you do, but you're the one with the snake.
I want the NTSB to take the data and see how FSD plotted that particular path, and I want Tesla to take their share of blame - probably 100% - but the sad thing is, the driver - technically - was in control at time of impact, and the legal system (and P.R) will hyperfocus on that particular immaterial detail - doubly bad it was the wrong pedal - and the case won't go anywhere.
Tesla's to blame for ditching lidar, over-promising FSD, all kinds of things. Society is to blame for focusing on the gas pedal and will blame the driver for merely being where the cobra landed. The NTSB (or whatever that org is named) is to blame for not being absolute dickweeds with every collision before this one and ensuring a fix for every bug.
The driver is to 'blame' for doing a very human panic response and taking control in a very understandable fashion past the point where it could have helped, but in doing so takes all responsibility. And that's the saddest part.
What other possible scenario exists?
They read the logs themselves. The NTSB routinely does investigations and Teslas are a popular brand of car, why wouldn't they have the ability to read their logs?
Do you think the company that created the logging system doesn't have the capability to remotely manipulate the logs?
Actually yes. Event data recorders are highly regulated components, and Teslas especially are quite frequently tested for compliance (because nobody trusts them. They're fascists). As far as I am aware (and to be clear I've looked into this rather extensively) there has never been any indication that Tesla has the ability to manipulate information stored in the EDR system, and if indications of it were found it would likely result in the temporary suspension of road certification for all affected models while the issue was investigated - the NTSB's nuclear option.
Well TIL, thanks
Capability, sure. Do you think they actually did, though? That's a positive assertion that I would want to see some kind of actual evidence for beyond an assertion by some random commenter on the Internet.
I suspect you don't have any evidence because if there was I think that would probably be by far the bigger story here. Which is why I expect Tesla would refrain from taking the risk of tampering with logs in situations like this.
LOL go on. This should be good.
I deleted my comment a minute after posting, so no I didn't mean you.
I'm not making a positive assertion, just expressing a heaping amount of skepticism. I don't have any evidence beyond the fact that the evidence NHTSA is using comes from a prolific liar and conman and taking the most logical and rational position accordingly. I wouldn't accept the logs as proof.
While I respect skepticism as in this case it's especially warranted, I do want to point out that you've gotten the investigatory body wrong - the NHTSA is not the NTSB. The NTSB preliminary report itself is really very straightforward and does not at all exculpate Tesla in this incident - a likely reason for that is highlighted in the Ars article:
It is fairly clear in the above NTSB release that they do not have proof positive that the accelerator was physically depressed, just that the logs indicate that is what happened. That ambiguity/uncertainty is likely the reason they have opened a special investigation into this incident, and given the vast horizons of potential biases in reporting about this tragedy I agree that best practice will be to look primarily at what the source has said, and treat speculation (both for or against Tesla) with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Edit: Further, the NTSB is likely pulling this data directly from the EDR itself - a device that must adhere to some extremely strict federal standards on retrieval and data integrity. Teslas do automatically report this information out to Tesla's servers in the event of a crash, but there has never been any indication I have been able to find that Tesla has even the capability to edit the information stored on the device itself - and the EDR is a system component frequently audited by numerous independent bodies for compliance, including that most reliable of compliance tester: open source enthusiasts.
Edit 2: clarity