Tesla

Musk Fights to Keep Tesla Operations Open as Shelter-in-Place Orders are Given

May 5, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Tesla must shut down its global operations epicenter–the famous Fremont factory–due to growing coronavirus concerns, despite Elon Musk’s call to keep business running as usual.

The electric car manufacturer had just released its millionth electric car off the assembly line when the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department deemed the factory not “essential,” and the plant’s employees were told they must adhere to the shelter-in-place mandate that was given on March 17th.

The Fremont Police Department and the Alameda County Public Health Department are responsible for enforcing this order at the plant. This demand will send 10,000 of the Fremont factory’s workers home.

“Tesla can maintain minimum basic operations per the Alameda County Health Order,” said the sheriff’s department.

The mandate’s effect on the factory came one day after Elon Musk severely downplayed the virus and its impact. Musk has been working to keep operations underway in any way possible.

“I’d like to be super clear that if you feel the slightest bit ill or even uncomfortable, please do not feel obligated to come to work,” said Musk in a staff email on March 16th. “I will personally be at work, but that’s just me.”

Musk planned to keep Tesla Inc’s factory and its other operations throughout California open for as long as he could, and the company’s head of human resources explained that Tesla’s manufacturing and energy infrastructure were considered crucial. Both said the factory would continue operations despite the stay-at-home order throughout the Bay Area.

“Tesla and our supplier network will continue operations that directly support factory production, vehicle deliveries, and service,” wrote the company’s North American HR chief, Valerie Capers Workman.

Musk even went so far as to Tweet in early March that “the coronavirus panic is dumb.” The company had, up until that point, said little about how it planned to handle concerns surrounding the virus, although other automakers throughout the country had made much quicker public decisions.

“My frank opinion remains that the harm from the coronavirus panic far exceeds that of the virus itself,” said Musk in his email. “If there is a massive redirection of medical resources out of proportion to the danger, it will result in less available care to those with critical medical needs, which does not serve the greater good.”

From this standpoint, plant manager Justin Kirkland also wrote to employees on March 16th, saying that they should report to work unless otherwise directed from the company. In another email, employees were told that they would need to use their vacation days if they decided to follow the shelter in place order, and, if they were to run out of those days, they would need to contact human resources.

Only businesses deemed essential are supposed to remain operating, such as grocery stores and pharmacies. However, there is currently no exemption for car manufacturers in regards to the orders that were issued on March 16th, and which took full effect after midnight the following day.

“Tesla can maintain minimum basic operations per the Alameda County Health Order,” said the sheriff’s department in a Tweet.

Businesses deemed nonessential–like Tesla–are still able to continue the “minimum necessary activities to maintain the value of the business’ inventory, ensure security, process payroll and employee benefits, or for related functions,” as well as the “minimum necessary activities to facilitate employees of the business being able to continue to work remotely from their residences.”

The order also states that social distancing, or the maintenance of a six-foot separation between individuals at all times–must also take place.

Tesla has not yet released its expected production and delivery numbers for the first quarter. In January, the company stated that its deliveries would most likely “comfortably” exceed 500,000 units for 2020. RBC Capital Markets analysts are now saying that they expect the company to deliver only around 365,000 cars, which would be a decrease from its 2019 total deliveries.

Additionally, Tesla shares fell 7.8% as of March 17th in New York, which eradicated their intraday trading gains for 2020. As of February 19th, Tesla stock was up 119% for the year.

Regardless, Musk continues to reiterate that his main concern is for the lack of medical supplies and care that could come from an unnecessary amount of panic around COVID-19.

“If we over-allocate medical resources to (the) corona(virus),” he Tweeted, “it will come at (the) expense of treating other illnesses.”

Lithium Battery Led to Fiery Death in Tesla Crash, NTSB Says

January 26, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A May 2018 Florida crash involving a speeding teen driver and passenger became deadly after a subsequent fire was caused in part by the Tesla Inc. vehicle’s lithium battery, according to a recent federal investigation.

The 18-year-old driver had been previously cited for speeding, and was traveling at speeds up to 116 mph in a Model S when he lost control on a Fort Lauderdale curve with a speed limit of 25 mph, the National Transportation Safety Board explained in its December 19th report.

The report determined that the fire contributed greatly to both deaths, even though the passenger had already sustained head and torso injuries during the crash.

A passenger in the backseat was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected from the car upon impact, but survived with various fractures.

This is one of several crashes currently under review by the NTSB involving lithium-based battery-involved fires in vehicles such as Teslas. These highly flammable batteries cause fires that are difficult to extinguish, and can even reignite hours or days after a crash has taken place.

During this accident, firefighters arrived on scene four minutes after the first emergency call, and reported the fire’s heat was incredibly strong and that they could see electrical arcing, according to NTSB’s report.

Responders used between 200 and 300 gallons of water and foam to combat the flames, but the battery still reignited two more times. Additionally, a piece of the main battery came into contact with a metal chain and briefly ignited on its own. Firefighters continued to spray the battery once more after it caught fire while being loaded onto a tow truck.

In another case which occurred in 2019, a Model S Tesla driver lost control on a South Florida road and collided with a palm tree; however, his family’s lawyers said the car’s battery and designs were the cause of his death–not the crash itself.

According to the wrongful death lawsuit, the Tesla’s lithium battery immediately caught fire after the crash, causing smoke and flames to fill the car and suffocate the driver. A crowd had gathered at the scene, but was unable to help.

Why? Allegedly, Tesla’s retractable door handles failed to “auto-present” and disallowed first responders to open the doors and save the driver.

“The fire engulfed the car and burned Dr. Awan beyond recognition–all because the Model S has inaccessible door handles, no other way to open the doors, and an unreasonable dangerous fire risk,” said the complaint. “These Model S defects, and others, rendered it a death trap.”

Tesla has claimed that its Model S vehicle once achieved “the best safety rating of any car test,” which is the reason his family’s attorney, Stuart Grossman, cited for Aman’s decision to purchase the luxury vehicle in the first place.

“These things, they just love to burn,” Grossman said. “The car is so over-engineered. It’s so techy, it makes you want to buy a Chevy pickup truck.”

These are only two Tesla-related deaths in a string of incidents that blame the carmaker’s technology.

In April, parking garage surveillance footage from Shanghai depicted a smoking Model S finally bursting into flames–a video which pressured Tesla to begin an internal investigation.

We’ve reported on other accidents–even deadly ones–related to Tesla’s “Autopilot” automated driver-assistance feature.

“There are a number of these cases,” said Grossman. “What the hell is going on?”

Regarding Awan’s case, as well as others, Tesla has maintained that any high-speed crash may end up in flames regardless of how the vehicle is powered. However, Awan had survived his crash–but would have been able to escape the fire had the doors been operating properly and allowed responders to pull him out.

The lawsuit says the innovative features made the car “defective” and dangerous,” and that the door handles added to the major issue of an “inherently unstable” lithium ion battery.

“Tesla failed to warn users about the scope and extent of the defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions of the Model S,” said the complaint.

After firefighters extinguished the flames in Awan’s incident, the Tesla was taken to a tow yard, where it reignited and burned once again.

No recall for Tesla: Did the NHTSA miss a golden opportunity?

January 24, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Last Thursday was another reminder that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is struggling to define what automation means for the future of the auto industry.

According to Reuters, the agency officially closed its investigation into the fatal crash that killed Joshua Brown, owner of a Tesla Model S, who set his car on autopilot as he was cruising on a highway west of Williston, Florida. The car ended up colliding with a tractor-trailer that was crossing an uncontrolled intersection.

Initial reports in May showed that the Tesla had failed to distinguish between the color of the white trailer and a bright-colored sky, therefore it did not slow its speed. Thickening the plot was the fact that Brown, 40, was reportedly watching a movie on a portable DVD player at the time of the crash.

When the NHTSA announced that it was planning to investigate further, people began to wonder if this was the start of something much more profound; part of the investigation was to determine whether Tesla’s semi-automation system — one of the few sanctioned systems being used on the road today — was defective, and whether a recall was necessary.

But after six months, the NHTSA has come to the conclusion that nothing about automation is conclusive. The final evaluation, released last week, determined that the Tesla was working in accordance with its specifications and that the company was not liable for any technical fiascos; no recalls were issued as a result.

“The Autopilot system,” as it says in the NHTSA report, “is an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) that requires the continual and full attention of the driver to monitor the traffic environment and be prepared to take action to avoid crashes.”

More from the NHTSA: “Although perhaps not as specific as it could be, Tesla has provided information about system limitations in the owner’s manuals, user interface and associated warnings/alerts, as well as a driver monitoring system that is intended to aid the driver in remaining engaged in the driving task at all times.”

While it’s hard to pin this particular crash on the Tesla automation system alone, it’s also hard to ignore that the NHTSA called out Tesla for not being “as specific as it could be …” Question is: In what respect? These are the specifics that are going to matter in the future, and it probably behooves the agency to elaborate. Looks like we’ll have to wait a little longer.

“A safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further examination of this issue does not appear to be warranted,” says the concluding paragraph of the NHTSA’s investigative report. ”Accordingly, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that no safety-related defect exists. The agency will monitor the issue and reserves the right to take future action if warranted by the circumstances.”

Given the shaky legal landscape surrounding autonomous vehicles, it’s time for the agency to go on heightened alert.

‘Your honor, I call to the stand Tesla Model X’

June 17, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The Tesla Model X. Photo: Steve Jurvetson

Yet another glimpse into the future

Autonomous vehicles will soon change how lawyers deal with their clients and cases, yet I’ve had trouble imagining a day when smart cars start getting subpoenaed.

The Washington Post published a story recently titled “Tesla just showed us the future of car crashes,” about the owner of a Tesla Model X, who claims the car’s autopilot system necessitated a crash by independently accelerating while his wife was behind the wheel. The car jumped over a curb and crashed into the side of a shopping center.

There’s just one problem with that scenario, according to Tesla. Data collected from a diagnostic log, which relies on multiple sensors that keep track of the car’s behavior, indicated that the gas pedal was suddenly pressed to the floor before the crash. Tesla also revealed that the car was never switched to autopilot or cruise control, which would place liability squarely on the shoulders of the driver.

The Post goes on to mention that the owner of the Model X is sticking by his story, even though the data is practically conclusive. We may have the beginnings of an ongoing case study, but the bigger takeaway is whether drivers (and manufacturers, insurers, etc.) are prepared to deal with such a fast-approaching reality. How do you disprove a computer?

Writer Brian Fung had some insightful thoughts on what the Tesla situation means for the future of driving, one of which includes keeping people honest by virtue of the nature of smart cars and how they operate:

“Cars have reached a level of sophistication in which they can tattle on their own owners, simply by handing over the secrets embedded in the data they already collect about your driving.”

That’s a relatively impressive realization when you consider the amount of auto-related litigation that occurs in the United States alone. Outside of our ability to install dashboard cameras, collecting information from a vehicle’s computer system represents a turning point in the way automakers, insurance companies, and lawyers will soon go about their business, including the protection of consumers. Fung goes on:

“But the potential dark side is that the data can be abused. Maybe a rogue insurance company might look at it and try to raise your premiums. Perhaps it gives automakers an incentive to claim that you, the owner, were at fault for a crash even if you think you weren’t.”

As I’ve said before, we’re on the edge of a new frontier and we have to have a clear view of what’s coming.

Yikes. Driver caught snoozing while car is on autopilot

May 26, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Hands-free shouldn’t mean hands-off

That didn’t take long. A driver was caught napping in the driver’s seat of his Tesla Model S on Sunday while the car inched along a congested LA freeway.

There’s only one problem: The Model S is not an autonomous vehicle. Rather, Tesla’s futuristic-style cars are equipped with a semi-autopilot system designed to give drivers a smidge of hands-free liberation on a severely limited basis. That means it’s probably not a good idea to catch a few z’s, no matter how cool your car is.

The few autopilot systems that exist still require drivers to be alert at all times. Anything less likely has bad implications for you, your car, and the drivers who happen to be nearby. Motor Trend caught wind of the video and reached out to Tesla for a statement. The company was quick to reply, describing its auto system as “designed to provide a hands-on experience to give drivers more confidence behind the wheel, increase their safety on the road, and make highway driving more enjoyable.”

Proponents of autonomous vehicles have championed their cause in recent years, as the technology has advanced to a new level of sophistication. We’ve even written about the benefits of autonomous vehicles and what the future may look like down the road. But this is a perfect example of how drivers are taking a relatively fledgling luxury for granted. There’s not enough evidence to suggest that “hands-free” translates to “hands-off.”

In the same article, Motor Trend points out that owners of self-driving cars are responsible for the actions of their property, meaning the sleepy driver from the video would be liable for any crash that he or his car may cause. It’s a logical conclusion. From a legal perspective, however, the case precedence has yet to be written. There’s no telling how a case like that might play out.

The bottom line at this stage? Keep your hands on the wheel.