Tag Archives: NHTSA

Patton plays games driving Model 3
Journalist Vince Patton demonstrates its possible to play video games while driving his Tesla Model 3.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) it is investigating 580,000 Tesla vehicles sold since 2017 that allow those seated up front to play games on the infotainment touchscreen while the vehicle is in motion.

The investigation stems from a complaint filed with agency earlier this month by Vince Patton, a retired journalist from Portland, Oregon.

The formal safety investigation, which was announced Wednesday, covers 2017-2022 Tesla Model 3, S, X, and Y vehicles. NHTSA opened the investigation “based on reports that Tesla gameplay functionality, which is visible on the front center touchscreen from the driver’s seat, is enabled even when the vehicle is being driven.”

Tesla made the software more dangerous

The 2021 Tesla Model S gets an all-new interior, a yoke-style steering wheel and the updated software being investigated by NHTSA.

The feature, known as “Passenger Play,” increases the risk of a crash. Since December 2020, the feature can be used while driving. Prior to that, it could only be used when the vehicle was in Park. The agency said that it is evaluating aspects of the feature, including how frequently it’s used and when.

NHTSA is concerned about distracted driving, an increasing risk as automakers bring increased online connectivity to infotainment touchscreens. Distracted driving caused 3,142 deaths in 2019, all of them preventable. 

While Passenger Play does have a warning stating the game is meant solely for passengers. Although it asks for confirmation that the player is a passenger and not the driver, there is nothing preventing the driver from playing while driving.

Other Tesla safety issues

Consumer Reports criticized the performance of Tesla’s latest version of Autopilot.

It’s not NHTSA’s only Tesla safety investigation, nor Tesla’s only safety issue.

In August, the agency opened a formal safety investigation of 765,000 Teslas equipped with its Autopilot driver-assistance system after 11 crashes involving parked emergency vehicles killed one person and injured 17. The inquiry covers 2014-2021 Models S, X, Y and 3. 

In October, Tesla had to roll back full self-driving, or FSD, with Musk revealing that the company is “seeing some issues with 10.3, so rolling back to 10.2 temporarily.” 

And in November, Tesla issued a recall for 11,704 vehicles sold in the U.S. since 2017. The recall covers Model S, X, 3 and Y vehicles and came about as a result of an over-the-air firmware update of the automaker’s “Full Self-Driving Beta,” its advanced driver assistance system.

The company identified a software communication error that could cause the forward-collision warning or automatic emergency brake system to falsely activate, possibly leading to a rear-end collision.

Other OEM infotainment issues

2022 Mercedes EQS 580 4Matic black daytime
The new Mercedes-Benz EQS was recalled after it was found that its MBUX system allowed television and internet to be displayed while driving

Other automakers are far more concerned over distracted driving than Tesla. On November 29, Mercedes-Benz recalled 227 vehicles in the U.S. after the company discovered that its MBUX infotainment system allowed television and internet to be displayed while driving.

The recall affected 2021 Mercedes-Benz S580, 2022 EQS450, EQS580, and S500 models. Mercedes-Benz has already corrected the problem, and no deaths or injuries seem to have resulted from the problem.

Musk pays billions to satisfy tax bill

In other Tesla news, Reuters is reporting that Tesla CEO Elon Musk sold 10% of his own company stock, 13.5 million shares, 8.06 million of which were sold to pay taxes. The billionaire said he is paying more than $11 billion in taxes this year. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk slammed California over its tax policy.

“California used to be the land of opportunity and now it is … becoming more so the land of sort of overregulation, overlitigation, overtaxation,” Musk told Reuters, adding his combined federal and state tax rate tops 50 percent.

The tax bill may explain why Musk recently relocated Tesla’s headquarters to Austin, Texas from Palo Alto, California.

But taxes aren’t Musk’s only concern.

The company has submitted all the documentation required to get its factory approved near Berlin, Germany. Approval of Tesla’s newest manufacturing facility has been delayed by environmental concerns and red tape due to Tesla’s decision to add a battery factory to the site. That has delayed the approval process. It remains unclear when the new plant is expected to open.

<img data-attachment-id="1776420" data-permalink="https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups/2019-ram-2500-hd/" data-orig-file="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups-5.png" data-orig-size="1420,937" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="2019 Ram 2500 HD" data-image-description="

Ram

" data-medium-file="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups-2.png" data-large-file="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups.png" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-1776420" src="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups.png" alt width="610" height="403" srcset="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups.png 610w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups-1.png 75w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups-2.png 450w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups-3.png 768w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups-4.png 120w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nhtsa-investigating-rams-diesel-pickups-5.png 1420w" sizes="(max-width: 610px) 100vw, 610px">

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation into nearly 605,000 heavy-duty Ram trucks. A report from the regulator’s Office of Defects Investigation has tabulated 22 complaints from the 2019 and 2020 model years, all of which use 6.7-liter Cummins turbo diesel engines, spurring the NHTSA to launch a formal investigation. Complaints revolve around loss of motive power, with most incidents occurring above 25 mph and resulting in the “permanent disablement of the vehicle.”

While the public was not made aware of the investigation until Monday, the agency launched its probe last Thursday on October 14th. The goal will be to establish how widespread the presumed defect is, what exactly caused it, and any potential safety hazards relating to the issue. Some headway has already been made, however. 

Back in 2019, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (now Stellantis) issued Warranty Bulletin D-19-02 to dealers. The memo requested stores participate in a campaign to “collect, monitor and correct quality issues” on certain MY 2018-2020 Ram trucks equipped with the 6.7-liter Cummins. The NHTSA’s action summary states that this resulted in FCA and an unnamed supplier collecting and inspecting high-pressure fuel pumps.

Vehicles under suspicion include all Ram 2500, 3500, 4500, and 5500 HD pickups from the 2019-2020 MY. The NHTSA plans on looking into the trucks to determine whether or not it needs to press Stellantis to launch a recall. That means asking the manufacturer to give its take on the situation while it compiles warranty claims, injury reports, and whatever FCA previously had on those suspect fuel pumps.

Regulators have been incredibly hard on diesel vehicles ever since Volkswagen’s emissions scandal upended the industry in 2015. While a part of me wants to believe the NHTSA just has it out for Ram’s HD lineup (since a few have asked), it seems far more plausible that this was a standard, shrug-your-shoulders defect. Selective environmental regulations have made diesels cost more as they’ve gradually amassed a bevy of pollutant controlling hardware while also complicating powertrains to a point that has lessened their overall effectiveness. But the impact this has had on their reliability is less obvious and may have nothing to do with a bunch of subpar fuel pumps.

Let’s face it, U.S. regulators haven’t been shy about hitting manufacturers with emissions-focused recalls backed by the Environmental Protection Agency and/or California Air Resources Board in the past. If they wanted to chide Cummins or FCA/Stellantis over pollution, they could have done so overtly.

Stellantis has said it plans on cooperating with the NHTSA fully, launching an investigation of its own for good measure. So we should have some answers soon, including the name of the supplier. In the meantime, you might want to keep a closer eye on how your HD Ram is running if it falls under the purview of the investigation.

[Image: Stellantis]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

<img data-attachment-id="1766152" data-permalink="https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes/marijuanaanddriving-dontdrivehigh-carkeysand/" data-orig-file="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes-5.jpg" data-orig-size="1000,667" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"Shutterstock","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"Copyright (c) 2017 Mitch M\/Shutterstock. No use without permission.","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"Marijuana,And,Driving-,Don't,Drive,High,-,Car,Keys,And","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="Marijuana car keys THC dope weed dui" data-image-description="

Mitch M/Shutterstock

" data-medium-file="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes-2.jpg" data-large-file="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes.jpg" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-1766152" src="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes.jpg" alt width="610" height="407" srcset="http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes.jpg 610w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes-1.jpg 75w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes-2.jpg 450w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes-3.jpg 768w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes-4.jpg 120w, http://theautomotivearchaeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/iihs-claims-marijuana-legalization-causes-crashes-5.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 610px) 100vw, 610px">

It’s always nice to get a break from the endless stream of industry marketing materials about electrification, though this week’s impromptu theme still involves going green. Following news that General Motors is considering changing its drug testing policies to exclude marijuana, there has been heavy coverage of an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study claiming states that have legalized recreational use of cannabis are seeing more crashes.

But the framing seems wildly irresponsible as it fails to highlight the problem being heavily tied to individuals operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana and alcohol combined. It’s more or less what the IIHS attempted to do in 2018 with help from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI). Our guess is that the duo is seeking out fresh reasons for insurance companies to raise rates in regions that have legalized pot because even their own research complicates the issue. 

Their latest data suggests that legalization and retail sales of cannabis in California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington resulted in a 6 percent increase in injury crash rates and a 4 percent increase in fatal crash rates compared with other Western states where pot was illegal at the time of the study. The IIHS and HLDI have actually conducted a series of studies since 2014, with the outcome often the same. But it’s at odds with a study released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2015, which came to the conclusion that THC wasn’t contributing to an increase in accidents.

Independent tests and surveys have been a mixed bag. The majority seem to agree that cannabis consumption typically slows driver reaction times and makes it harder to focus. But regular users don’t tend to suffer from these side effects and the abundance of caution THC hilariously might make some stoners better drivers. Simulations have likewise shown them to be less likely to speed or act aggressively in traffic and they typically increase following distances (something the IIHS noted). There are even instances where testing has shown subjects declining to get behind a wheel in a real-world setting, after stating they didn’t feel comfortable driving high.

There’s been no consensus on whether or not smoking pot makes you a menace behind the wheel but the early data seems to suggest not. So then why are the IIHS and HLDI claiming otherwise? Because they can incorporate alcohol on the sly.

In fact, the latest from those outlets used data collected from injured drivers visiting emergency rooms in Sacramento, California; Denver, Colorado; and Portland, Oregon — none of which represented an increased risk associated with marijuana unless it was combined with booze. Of the 1,200 people examined, none of the drivers that tested positive for smoking weed were injured at a higher rate than those who were sober. But the ones that were drinking and also decided to puff the magic dragon did see elevated numbers.

This isn’t a recommendation to get stoned and hop into a vehicle. We wouldn’t advise using any mind-altering substance to someone preparing to drive an automobile and being sober offers some pretty clear tactical advantages. However, the framing of these studies is often misleading and unhelpful in terms of deciding future legislation in a truly effective manner.

If you’re hoping for an outlet that actually seems interested in getting to the bottom of things without a lot of spin, the American Automobile Association (AAA) has frequently shown itself capable of nuance. It’s looked into the issue to and decided that the most serious issue is likely people partying themselves into oblivion using a variety of substances. The AAA Foundation’s annual Traffic Safety Culture Index found that drivers who use both marijuana and alcohol “were significantly more prone to driving under the influence of alcohol alone versus those who only drink alcohol but do not use marijuana.

The outlet also made it clear that it does not support the “legalization of recreational marijuana because of its inherent traffic safety risks and the difficulties in writing legislation that protects the public and treats drivers fairly.” It apparently just sees boozing as the bigger issue and full-on partying behind the wheel as the worst-case scenario for motorists. It’s an interesting report and well worth reading for the added context and rather clear statistical information.

But that doesn’t make the IIHS content totally worthless. Despite our criticizing the group for framing the issue in a specific manner, those who bother to read the entirety of their article still end up learning that alcohol plays a significant factor. It even references the above AAA report and eventually suggests that disparities in state and local regulations might be influencing driver behaviors and the tabulated data. We’re just annoyed that it makes these sweeping assertions using somewhat specious reasoning and limited information. No study appears to have a handle on exactly how much cannabis consumption impairs motorists and most of the data we’ve seen seems to indicate it varies wildly from person to person. Knowing that simply has not stopped the IIHS from jumping to conclusions.

“Our latest research makes it clear that legalizing marijuana for recreational use does increase overall crash rates,” IIHS-HLDI President David Harkey said in a statement. “That’s obviously something policymakers and safety professionals will need to address as more states move to liberalize their laws — even if the way marijuana affects crash risk for individual drivers remains uncertain.”

Policymakers and safety professionals have been placed on notice. Even though there are still glaring questions surrounding the matter, it’s time for them to address these issues as the scourge of hypothetical dope fiends revving their engines in a fit of refer madness is upon us.

[Image: Mitch M/Shutterstock]