Three crashes involving Teslas that killed three people have increased scrutiny of the company’s Autopilot driving system, just months before CEO Elon Musk has planned to put fully self-driving cars on the streets.
On Sunday, a Tesla Model S sedan left a freeway in Gardena, Calif., at high speed, ran a red light and struck a Honda Civic, killing two people inside, police said.
On the same day, a Tesla Model 3 hit a parked firetruck on an Indiana freeway, killing a passenger in the Tesla.
Back on Dec. 7, a Model 3 struck a police cruiser on a Connecticut highway, though no one was hurt.
The special crash investigation unit of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is looking into the California crash. The agency hasn’t decided whether its special-crash unit will review the crash that occurred Sunday near Terre Haute, Ind. In both cases, authorities have yet to determine whether Tesla’s Autopilot system was being used.
Autopilot is designed to keep a car in its lane and a safe distance from other vehicles. Autopilot also can change lanes on its own.
NHTSA is also investigating the Connecticut crash, in which the driver told police that the car was operating on Autopilot.
Tesla has said repeatedly that its Autopilot system is designed only to assist drivers, who must still pay attention and be ready to intervene at all times. The company contends that Teslas with Autopilot are safer than vehicles without it, but cautions that the system does not prevent all crashes.
13 Tesla crashes
Even so, experts and safety advocates say a string of Tesla crashes raises serious questions about whether drivers have become too reliant on Tesla’s technology, and whether the company does enough to ensure that drivers keep paying attention. Some critics have said it’s past time for NHTSA to stop investigating and to take action, such as forcing Tesla to make sure drivers pay attention when the system is being used.
NHTSA has started investigations into 13 Tesla crashes, dating to at least 2016, in which the agency believes Autopilot was operating. The agency has yet to issue any regulations, though it is studying how it should evaluate similar “advanced driver assist” systems.
“At some point, the question becomes, how much evidence is needed to determine that the way this technology is being used is unsafe?” said Jason Levine, executive director of the non-profit Centre for Auto Safety in Washington. “In this instance, hopefully these tragedies will not be in vain and will lead to something more than an investigation by NHTSA.”
Levine and others have called on the agency to require Tesla to limit the use of Autopilot to mainly four-lane divided highways without cross traffic. They also want Tesla to install a better system to monitor drivers to make sure they’re paying attention all the time. Tesla’s system requires drivers to place their hands on the steering wheel. But federal investigators have found that this system lets drivers zone out for too long.
A Tesla sedan using Autopilot struck a parked Laguna Beach Police Department vehicle in Laguna Beach, Calif., in May 2018. (Laguna Beach Police Department/Reuters)
Tesla plans to use the same cameras and radar sensors, though with a more powerful computer, in its fully self-driving vehicles. Critics question whether those cars will be able to drive themselves safely without putting other motorists in danger.
Doubts about Tesla’s Autopilot system have long persisted. In September, the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents, issued a report saying that a design flaw in Autopilot and driver inattention combined to cause a Tesla Model S to slam into a firetruck parked along a Los Angeles-area freeway in January 2018.
The board determined that the driver was overly reliant on the system and that Autopilot’s design let him disengage from driving for too long.
In addition to the deaths on Sunday night, three U.S. fatal crashes since 2016 — two in Florida and one in Silicon Valley — involved vehicles using Autopilot.
David Friedman, vice-president of advocacy for Consumer Reports and a former acting NHTSA administrator, said the agency should have declared Autopilot defective and sought a recall after a 2016 crash in Florida that killed a driver. Neither Tesla’s system nor the driver had braked before the car went underneath a semi-trailer that had turned in front of the car.
“We don’t need any more people getting hurt for us to know that there is a problem and that Tesla and NHTSA have failed to address it,” Friedman said.
In addition to NHTSA, states can regulate autonomous vehicles, though many have decided they want to encourage testing.
In the 2016 crash, NHTSA closed its investigation without seeking a recall. Friedman, who was not at NHTSA at the time, said the agency determined that the problem didn’t happen frequently. But he said that argument has since been debunked.
Autopilot system ‘defective’
Friedman said it’s foreseeable some drivers will not pay attention to the road while using Autopilot, so the system is “defective.”
“The public is owed some explanation for the lack of action,” he said. “Simply saying they’re continuing to investigate — that line has worn out its usefulness and its credibility.”
In a statement, NHTSA said it relies on data to make decisions, and if it finds any vehicle poses an unreasonable safety risk, “the agency will not hesitate to take action.” NHTSA also has said it doesn’t want to stand in the way of technology, given its life-saving potential.
Messages were left Thursday seeking comment from Tesla.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has planned to put fully self-driving cars on the streets later this year, but recent deadly crashes involving Tesla’s Autopilot system could complicate this. (Philip Pacheco/AFP/Getty Images)
Raj Rajkumar, an electrical and computer engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said it’s likely that the Tesla in Sunday’s California crash was operating on Autopilot, which has become confused in the past by lane lines. He speculated that the lane line was more visible for the exit ramp, so the car took the ramp because it looked like a freeway lane. He also suggested that the driver might not have been paying close attention.
“No normal human being would not slow down in an exit lane,” he said.
In April, Musk said he expected to start converting the company’s electric cars to fully self-driving vehicles in 2020 to create a network of robotic taxis to compete against Uber and other ride-hailing services.
At the time, experts said the technology wasn’t ready and that Tesla’s camera and radar sensors weren’t good enough for a self-driving system. Rajkumar and others say additional crashes have proved that to be true.
Many experts say they’re not aware of fatal crashes involving similar driver-assist systems from General Motors, Mercedes and other automakers. GM monitors drivers with cameras and will shut down the driving system if they don’t watch the road.
“Tesla is nowhere close to that standard,” he said.
He predicted more deaths involving Teslas if NHTSA fails to take action.
“This is very unfortunate,” he said. “Just tragic.”
MONTREAL – Travel company Transat AT Inc. reported a loss in its latest quarter compared with a profit a year earlier as its revenue edged lower.
The parent company of Air Transat says it lost $39.9 million or $1.03 per diluted share in its quarter ended July 31.
The result compared with a profit of $57.3 million or $1.49 per diluted share a year earlier.
Revenue in what was the company’s third quarter totalled $736.2 million, down from $746.3 million in the same quarter last year.
On an adjusted basis, Transat says it lost $1.10 per share in its latest quarter compared with an adjusted profit of $1.10 per share a year earlier.
Transat chief executive Annick Guérard says demand for leisure travel remains healthy, as evidenced by higher traffic, but consumers are increasingly price conscious given the current economic uncertainty.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
Dollarama Inc.’s food aisles may have expanded far beyond sweet treats or piles of gum by the checkout counter in recent years, but its chief executive maintains his company is “not in the grocery business,” even if it’s keeping an eye on the sector.
“It’s just one small part of our store,” Neil Rossy told analysts on a Wednesday call, where he was questioned about the company’s food merchandise and rivals playing in the same space.
“We will keep an eye on all retailers — like all retailers keep an eye on us — to make sure that we’re competitive and we understand what’s out there.”
Over the last decade and as consumers have more recently sought deals, Dollarama’s food merchandise has expanded to include bread and pantry staples like cereal, rice and pasta sold at prices on par or below supermarkets.
However, the competition in the discount segment of the market Dollarama operates in intensified recently when the country’s biggest grocery chain began piloting a new ultra-discount store.
The No Name stores being tested by Loblaw Cos. Ltd. in Windsor, St. Catharines and Brockville, Ont., are billed as 20 per cent cheaper than discount retail competitors including No Frills. The grocery giant is able to offer such cost savings by relying on a smaller store footprint, fewer chilled products and a hearty range of No Name merchandise.
Though Rossy brushed off notions that his company is a supermarket challenger, grocers aren’t off his radar.
“All retailers in Canada are realistic about the fact that everyone is everyone’s competition on any given item or category,” he said.
Rossy declined to reveal how much of the chain’s sales would overlap with Loblaw or the food category, arguing the vast variety of items Dollarama sells is its strength rather than its grocery products alone.
“What makes Dollarama Dollarama is a very wide assortment of different departments that somewhat represent the old five-and-dime local convenience store,” he said.
The breadth of Dollarama’s offerings helped carry the company to a second-quarter profit of $285.9 million, up from $245.8 million in the same quarter last year as its sales rose 7.4 per cent.
The retailer said Wednesday the profit amounted to $1.02 per diluted share for the 13-week period ended July 28, up from 86 cents per diluted share a year earlier.
The period the quarter covers includes the start of summer, when Rossy said the weather was “terrible.”
“The weather got slightly better towards the end of the summer and our sales certainly increased, but not enough to make up for the season’s horrible start,” he said.
Sales totalled $1.56 billion for the quarter, up from $1.46 billion in the same quarter last year.
Comparable store sales, a key metric for retailers, increased 4.7 per cent, while the average transaction was down2.2 per cent and traffic was up seven per cent, RBC analyst Irene Nattel pointed out.
She told investors in a note that the numbers reflect “solid demand as cautious consumers focus on core consumables and everyday essentials.”
Analysts have attributed such behaviour to interest rates that have been slow to drop and high prices of key consumer goods, which are weighing on household budgets.
To cope, many Canadians have spent more time seeking deals, trading down to more affordable brands and forgoing small luxuries they would treat themselves to in better economic times.
“When people feel squeezed, they tend to shy away from discretionary, focus on the basics,” Rossy said. “When people are feeling good about their wallet, they tend to be more lax about the basics and more willing to spend on discretionary.”
The current economic situation has drawn in not just the average Canadian looking to save a buck or two, but also wealthier consumers.
“When the entire economy is feeling slightly squeezed, we get more consumers who might not have to or want to shop at a Dollarama generally or who enjoy shopping at a Dollarama but have the luxury of not having to worry about the price in some other store that they happen to be standing in that has those goods,” Rossy said.
“Well, when times are tougher, they’ll consider the extra five minutes to go to the store next door.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
TORONTO – The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has ordered TD Bank Group to pay US$28 million for repeatedly sharing inaccurate, negative information about its customers to consumer reporting companies.
The agency says TD has to pay US$7.76 million in total to tens of thousands of victims of its illegal actions, along with a US$20 million civil penalty.
It says TD shared information that contained systemic errors about credit card and bank deposit accounts to consumer reporting companies, which can include credit reports as well as screening reports for tenants and employees and other background checks.
CFPB director Rohit Chopra says in a statement that TD threatened the consumer reports of customers with fraudulent information then “barely lifted a finger to fix it,” and that regulators will need to “focus major attention” on TD Bank to change its course.
TD says in a statement it self-identified these issues and proactively worked to improve its practices, and that it is committed to delivering on its responsibilities to its customers.
The bank also faces scrutiny in the U.S. over its anti-money laundering program where it expects to pay more than US$3 billion in monetary penalties to resolve.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
