News

NTSB criticizes Caltrans for slow repairs following fatal Tesla crash in Mountain View

Ongoing investigation also says CHP failed to inform Caltrans that earlier accident damaged crash attenuator on Highway 85 carpool flyover lane

A new report found that Caltrans failed to promptly fix damaged traffic safety equipment on Highway 101, including a barrier involved in a fatal Tesla crash in Mountain View last year.

The report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released Monday, Sept. 9, part of an ongoing investigation into the crash on March 23, 2018, found that Caltrans had "systemic problems" that prevented the swift repair of safety hardware on state roadways -- particularly where the Highway 85 carpool flyover splits from Highway 101 in Mountain View.

Safety repairs that are supposed to be done within a week can take as long as three months to complete, according to the report.

In the March 2018 crash, the driver of a Tesla Model X was traveling on southbound Highway 101 with the vehicle's "Autopilot" function on. The vehicle reportedly veered left and entered the paved divider between Highway 101 and the Highway 85 exit ramp, where it struck the median at about 71 miles per hour. The crash breached its high-voltage battery, causing the vehicle to catch fire.

A bystander pulled out the driver shortly before the Tesla was engulfed in flames. The driver, later identified as 38-year-old San Mateo resident Wei Huang, was taken to a hospital and later died of his injuries.

The NTSB investigation found that the carpool flyover divider was supposed to have what's called a crash attenuator, a long device with a hydraulic cylinder and cable assembly designed to "telescope" and absorb impact when a vehicle hits it at high speeds. Attenuators are meant to slow down a vehicle and reduce injuries.

On the day of the crash, however, the attenuator was damaged to the point of being "nonoperational," the report found. It had been smashed in by a Prius in a solo-vehicle crash 11 days prior and had yet to be replaced. In that incident, the Prius struck the attenuator at 75 miles per hour, and the driver survived with injuries that included a fractured finger and a tear in the "intimal layer" of the aorta.

NTSB investigators found that the crash location on Highway 101 has a history of problems, with the attenuator needing to be repaired and replaced more frequently than any other left-exit crash attenuator in the region, more than twice as often as any other location. In the three years leading up to the March 2018 collision, drivers struck the attenuator at least five times, including one fatal accident. It was hit again on May 20, 2018, two months after the fatal Tesla crash.

Although Caltrans' official policy requires the replacement of crash attenuators and other safety hardware within one week, the agency has a history of missing the mark, the NTSB report found. In a fatal collision at the same location in November 2015, Caltrans had not replaced a damaged attenuator in 45 days. In another location, an attenuator damaged in January 2017 was not repaired until April that year.

"Safety remains Caltrans top priority, we are in the process of reviewing today’s report in conjunction with the California State Transportation Agency to determine the next steps," said Matt Rocco, Caltrans' spokesman, via email.

In the weeks leading up to the Tesla crash in March last year, NTSB investigators found that the CHP had responded to the solo-vehicle crash involving the Prius on March 12 but did not notify Caltrans that the attenuator had been damaged -- a violation of policy and interagency operational agreements. Caltrans maintenance staffers discovered the attenuator was damaged on March 20, three days before the fatal collision, took pictures and forwarded it to their supervisor, according to the report.

No date was scheduled to fix the attenuator in the lead up to the crash, due in part to staffing shortages and the challenges of finding a replacement attenuator. The safety hardware was finally replaced on March 26 -- 14 days after the initial damage and three days after the fatality.

The 9-page report recommends that a "correction action plan" be put in place that guarantees the timely repair of traffic safety devices, including attenuators, and better tracking of compliance with required timelines of the roadway repairs.

The report released Monday is part of an ongoing investigation and is not the final report. It was released in order to give formal recommendations to Caltrans in order to hasten policy changes that could improve traffic safety.

"Rather than wait to complete all facets of this crash investigation, we have moved ahead with issuing this safety recommendation report in the interest of motorists' safety," Robert Molloy, director of NTSB's Office of Highway Safety, said in a statement Monday.

NTSB released an earlier preliminary report stating that the Tesla's autopilot function was on in the moments leading up to the crash, and that the vehicle increased to 70.8 miles per hour before striking the damaged attenuator. Huang's widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla in May, arguing that the company's Autopilot function and emergency braking system were defective.

Tesla was assisting in the NTSB investigation for one month, but was booted in April 2018. The agency accused Tesla of releasing incomplete information on the crash that speculated on the cause of the collision, strongly suggesting that Huang was at fault.

The Monday report does not reveal additional details on the Autopilot function and its potential involvement in the crash. A full report on the battery fire and whether Tesla's driver assistance system had a role in the collision is tentatively scheduled for release in the first or second quarter of 2020.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

6 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 9, 2019 at 12:25 pm

Caltrans keeps adding lanes and capacity to Hwy 101 and the end result is more cars and more car crashes and less safety.


Like this comment
Posted by AC
a resident of another community
on Sep 9, 2019 at 3:13 pm

AC is a registered user.

Our road safety (potholes, disrepair, etc) are disgraceful.

And it killed someone, it appears.

I would love for our roads to be in better repair.

We pay a lot of money to live in this area. It boggles my mind that our infrastructure is so bad.


1 person likes this
Posted by NTSB hypocrites
a resident of Rex Manor
on Sep 9, 2019 at 6:41 pm

So, let me get this straight here:

"The agency (NTSB) accused Tesla of releasing incomplete information on the crash..."

"Rather than wait to complete all facets of this crash investigation, we (NTSB) have moved ahead with issuing this safety recommendation report in the interest of motorists' safety,..."

"NTSB released an earlier preliminary report stating that the Tesla's autopilot function was on in the moments leading up to the crash,..."

Soooooo, the NTSB condemned Tesla for releasing an ACCURATE, FACTUAL, TRUE, but yes "preliminary" "incomplete" report "in the interest of motorists' safety," and then the NTSB went ahead and did exactly the same thing!

Can you guys at the NTSB spell hypocrites?

I don't fault Tesla or the NTSB for releasing serious time-sensitive, but incomplete reports. In fact, I would consider it serious negligence to wait on such information until the entire report was ready.

What I fault the NTSB for is publicly stomping on Tesla for also trying to get critical and accurate information out to the public to help improve public safety.

Tesla has made every effort to reach the public to remind anyone driving a Tesla with Auto-pilot on that they must always keep physical control of the vehicle and keep fully alert to hazards. You're NOT supposed to be SLEEPING at the wheel!

Tesla critics don't wait to blame Tesla when some idiot screws up and ignores Tesla rules of use. Why should Tesla have to wait on the NTSB before Tesla is allowed to release true facts to defend itself against the critics looking to exploit every RARE crash and ever rarer death?


Like this comment
Posted by Cat C
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Sep 11, 2019 at 6:17 pm

Cat C is a registered user.

If people keep hitting this crash attenuator, should Caltrans look at trying to modify the road there to prevent crashes in the first place? That would seem to be a more permanent and cost effective solution to me than trying to replace the attenuator immediately after every crash.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong Palo Alto's last day of business will be Sept. 29
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 4,712 views

Electric Buses: Challenges and Opportunities
By Sherry Listgarten | 23 comments | 2,772 views

Natural Wines?
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 1,061 views

Premarital, Women Over 50 Do Get Married
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,034 views

 

Register now!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info