Should NHTSA Launch a Full Investigation into Tesla's Autopilot System?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is under pressure to launch a full investigation into the safety of Tesla's Autopilot system. However, there are several compelling reasons to reconsider this approach, particularly in light of the vested interests and potential negative public relations that may arise.

Vested Interests and Manufacturer Responsibility

Vested Interests: It's crucial to recognize that the automobile manufacturer has a vested interest in the Autopilot system, as they are responsible for its design, manufacture, and subsequent performance. When a brand of Autopilot system fails, the manufacturer is under immediate pressure to address the issue and minimize liability.

Class Action Lawsuits: Such lawsuits can have immediate benefit in terms of negative publicity for the manufacturer. These lawsuits might draw media attention and public scrutiny, which could lead to a quick fix or admission of fault. However, this process might not lead to a comprehensive understanding of the problem.

Immediate Identification and Correction vs. Government Investigation

Immediate Identification and Correction: The manufacturer may be in a better position to identify and correct the problem swiftly. They have the technical expertise and can act as soon as the issue is detected, without the need for a lengthy investigation process. This approach allows the manufacturer to address the root cause of the problem without unnecessary delays.

Government-Probing Delays: Past experiences have shown that government investigations often drag on and lead to recommendations for more investigations, consuming valuable time that could be used for addressing the issue. By having the manufacturer and suppliers take immediate action, the problem can be identified and corrected much more swiftly.

Negative Publicity and Extended Procedures

Negative Publicity: While negative publicity can bring attention to the issue, it can also be counterproductive. Extensive government probes can create a sense of mistrust and further negative publicity, which may not necessarily help in finding a solution. The manufacturer can use this time to work on the problem and communicate transparently with the public, which can build trust and support.

Bureaucratic Procedure: The proposal for expanded government probing often involves complex and time-consuming procedures. For instance, sending in forms and requests for information can take a significant amount of time, during which the public and other stakeholders are left in the dark. This process, while thorough, can be detrimental to overall safety and efficiency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while it's important to ensure the safety of autonomous driving technologies, overly lengthy and bureaucratic government investigations may not be the most effective approach. Instead, a collaborative and swift response involving the manufacturer, suppliers, and relevant regulatory bodies can identify and correct the problem more efficiently. Transparency and immediate corrective actions are key to maintaining public trust and ensuring the safety of autonomous driving technologies.