This week is intense for Tesla, but the manufacturer would certainly have gone well from this whole “advertising”. He was, in fact, partially found guilty in a fatal accident in 2019. The company has to pay $ 240 million, but it announced to call the verdict.
Beyond the court decision, our colleagues from Electrek peeled the transcription of the trial to have more details on the ins and outs of this case. Their conclusion is final: ” Tesla has done data retention, lied, poorly oriented the police and the complainants to avoid being blamed ». For our colleagues, there is no doubt: Tesla ” undeniably covered the autopilot “And tried” to reject the whole fault on the driver ».
Discord file: snapshot_collision_arbag-deployment.tar
The transcription of the trial is, in fact, overwhelming for Tesla. Our colleagues explain that, within three minutes of the collision, the Model S sent all the data (videos, CAN bus flows, EDR data, etc.) to Tesla servers, via a snapshot_collision_arbag-etar file. Then the vehicle deleted the local storage file. In fact, Tesla was therefore ” the only entity to have access »To this file.
Obviously, the police and the complainants have repeatedly asked to obtain this data, but Tesla ” trained in a long journey of deception and disorientation, which lasted years “: From 2019 to the end of 2024. The case was brought to light thanks to the complainants who hired an expert in accident reconstruction (Alan Moore) so that he recovers the data from the ECU (Electronic Control Unit), the computer in charge of the various components of the car.
Electrek details the course of the facts, which began in April 2019 at the time of the accident, fatal. Tesla first ” sore The Florida Highway Patrol investigator, pretending to collaborate. The manufacturer’s lawyer explains to him that it is not worth assigning Tesla to recover the data and intends to help the investigator to write a request.
Have confiaries …
The latter obtains many data, but not those crucial in relation to the collision. The lawyer had ” specifically written the letter to omit to share The file sent by the car, explain our colleagues. The investigator obviously thought that Tesla wanted to collaborate.
A few weeks later, the investigator recovers the ECU and the MCU (Media Control Unit, the on -board computer with the touch screen) and requires Tesla help to recover data from IT equipment.
The lawyer is organizing an appointment, in business premises, with a Tesla technician who had never extracted data from an autopilot computer before, that is at least what he said in a testimony. After connecting the components, he claims that the data was ” corrupt And unusable. Gold, and “ To be clear, Tesla already had all this data in her servers and could simply have sent it », Add Electrek.
In the years that followed, Tesla never mentioned being in possession of the data, whether in the police, the complainants or the court. Worse, according to our colleagues, ” Tesla invented a “automatic deletion” function ».
Impossible to recover the data according to Tesla. The proof that no
It was not until the end of 2024 that the court authorized the complainants to call on an expert to access the data from the ECU, at least to make a “bit by bit” copy of the information it contains. The goal is to work on a copy of the data, without touching the original. “” Tesla engineers said it was impossible … However, it was done by people outside Tesla “Explains Alan Moore.
In addition to having been able to access all the data, the engineer has identified metadata from the snapshot_collision_Airbag-Deployment.tar file, including his sum of control SHA-1 and the exact path to the server. And instead of the file, an empty location in the memory of the car.
Faced with these elements, the complainants were able to demand Tesla’s AWS newspapers. The manufacturer ended up giving the compressed file as well as the access newspapers ” showing that it was stored since 6:16 pm PDT on April 25, 2019 ». Eventually, ” Tesla admitted the existence of data until it has been presented to him legal evidence that they existed and that they had been transferred to her servers ».
Autopilot and Autosteer on the move, without alert
Still according to Electrek and the transcription of the trial, the autopilot and the Autosteer (assistance to the maintenance of CAP) of the Tesla were very active. According to the card and the ECU data, the car was in an area ” restricted Autosteer zone “, But the autopilot was” remained engaged at full speed ».
These last points echo a recommendation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTS) of… 2018 (.pdf). She asked Tesla to ” Integrate system protection measures that limit the use of automated cars automated control systems under the conditions for which they have been designed ».
The on -board computer did not record any manual braking or change of direction from the driver. For his part, the car did not send an alert asking the driver (he then did not have his hands on the steering wheel) of ” take control immediately While an intersection was approaching, with a car stopped in its trajectory (the one that was struck).
Responsibility: 33 % for Tesla, 66 % for the driver
As our colleagues remind us, the Tesla driver recognized his share of responsibility in the accident. He explained that he had ” Too confidence in technology […] I thought that if the car saw something in front of her, she would make a warning and brake ».
Our colleagues say that the complainant’s objective was ” to assign part of the responsibility of the accident to Tesla so as not to prevent such an abuse of the system despite the obvious risk ».
This is ultimately the case since justice has recognized Tesla guilty at 33 % of the fatal accident. This could change since the manufacturer has already announced its intention to appeal the decision. Case to follow.
