Waymo Comments on Autopilot Crash, Blames Driver

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

While the investigation into Tesla’s most recent Autopilot-rated fatality continues, Waymo chimed in to remind everyone that the company’s self-driving system isn’t actually self-driving at all. That almost makes it sound like the Google offshoot is coming to the defense of Tesla Motors. However, the truth of the matter is this was a golden opportunity for Waymo to sneak in another humblebrag that its autonomous technology is the genuine article and that most of its competitors are playing catch-up.

It’s a valid point. We shouldn’t forget that Tesla’s Autopilot is not representative of true autonomy and the burden of safety still falls squarely on the driver. But the manufacturer didn’t always market it that way, and only updated the system to require hands on the wheel after the first fatality. This incident is different from the recent Uber crash in Tempe, Arizona. But just how different is debatable and largely dependent on what qualifies as “self-driving” to the average person.

“Tesla has driver-assist technology and that’s very different from our approach,” explained Waymo CEO John Krafcik last week, before Tesla revealed that Autopilot was engaged during the Model X crash. “If there’s an accident in a Tesla, the human in the driver’s seat is ultimately responsible for paying attention. We don’t know what happened here, but there was no self-driving.”

An accurate statement but it doesn’t take into account the full picture. Driving aids allow motorists to place a lot of faith in their vehicles’ on-board safety systems, more than enough to let their guard down. In that respect, any wreck involving advanced assist features mimics a central aspect of the Uber crash — a driver who checked out entirely and allowed the vehicle to do all of the work until it failed.

Besides, there are a subset of Tesla drivers who will go to incredible lengths to continue driving their cars hands-free on the expressway. We’ve seen how-to videos of owners affixing a water bottle or orange to the steering wheel, fooling the car’s computer into thinking they are human hands. It’s wildly unsafe but shows the ridiculous lengths people are willing to go to not to have to drive themselves. But we don’t know what Wei Huang was doing in the moments leading up to the fatal March 23rd crash. The destroyed Model X’s computer logs only showed he was using Autopilot and did not have his hands on the wheel for roughly six seconds before impact.

No, Tesla’s Autopilot is not autonomous and we need to remember that. But the mere fact that it allows drivers to operate the vehicle hands-free, even for short periods of time, still complicates the issue of who is to blame. The average motorist isn’t going to presume they cannot trust the hardware on a vehicle they’ve purchased with “advanced driving technology.” If it’s there, they will attempt to use it. And if it works once, they will assume it will continue to function thusly.

This is an industry-wide problem. Every automaker promoting this kind of technology, whether it’s fully autonomous or not, needs to be incredible careful as to how it’s implemented. Consumers will put their faith into these systems if there is even the faintest shred of self-driving hype and, when it fails, they’ll be the ones paying the price. That doesn’t automatically place the burden of responsibility on auto manufacturers and tech firms; each case is totally unique. But if they all feel a little guilty whenever a customer trusts their safety hardware too much and dies as a result, they’d probably be justified.

[Source: Bloomberg]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 8 comments
  • Dukeisduke Dukeisduke on Apr 03, 2018

    Shut up, Krafcik.

    • Stuki Stuki on Apr 04, 2018

      While certainly done in the interest of self interest, it may well ultimately be in the interest of public safety to educate clueless, starstruck regulators and punters sufficiently that they stop falling all over themselves clamoring to be "the first, like, new-new, like, tech and, like, stock prices it's, like cool, like innovative blah blah" place where a bunch of not even half finished science experiments are being tested on unsuspecting populations. In a fully financialized Hypetopia like ours, there are very real costs to being realistic and cautious, like Waymo have been, compared to other, less scrupulous punters.

  • Mark Morrison Mark Morrison on Apr 04, 2018

    Perhaps the guys who know more about the tech of autonomy could comment on the fact that Tesla doesn’t use LIDAR and most other folks developing autonomous vehicles pretty much say you must have LIDAR?

  • Zipper69 "At least Lincoln finally learned to do a better job of not appearing to have raided the Ford parts bin"But they differentiate by being bland and unadventurous and lacking a clear brand image.
  • Zipper69 "The worry is that vehicles could collect and share Americans' data with the Chinese government"Presumably, via your cellphone connection? Does the average Joe in the gig economy really have "data" that will change the balance of power?
  • Zipper69 Honda seem to have a comprehensive range of sedans that sell well.
  • Oberkanone How long do I have to stay in this job before I get a golden parachute?I'd lower the price of the V-Series models. Improve the quality of interiors across the entire line. I'd add a sedan larger then CT5. I'd require a financial review of Celestiq. If it's not a profit center it's gone. Styling updates in the vision of the XLR to existing models. 2+2 sports coupe woutd be added. Performance in the class of AMG GT and Porsche 911 at a price just under $100k. EV models would NOT be subsidized by ICE revenue.
  • NJRide Let Cadillac be Cadillac, but in the context of 2024. As a new XT5 owner (the Emerald Green got me to buy an old design) I would have happy preferred a Lyriq hybrid. Some who really like the Lyriq's package but don't want an EV will buy another model. Most will go elsewhere. I love the V6 and good but easy to use infotainment. But I know my next car will probably be more electrified w more tech.I don't think anyone is confusing my car for a Blazer but i agree the XT6 is too derivative. Frankly the Enclave looks more prestigious. The Escalade still has got it, though I would love to see the ESV make a comeback. I still think GM missed the boat by not making a Colorado based mini-Blazer and Escalade. I don't get the 2 sedans. I feel a slightly larger and more distinctly Cadillac sedan would sell better. They also need to advertise beyond the Lyriq. I don't feel other luxury players are exactly hitting it out of the park right now so a strengthened Cadillac could regain share.
Next