Consumer Reports shows Tesla Autopilot works with no one in the driver's seat
Consumer Reports argues Tesla needs a better driver-monitoring system.
Last Saturday, two men died when a Tesla Model S crashed into a tree in a residential neighborhood. Authorities said they found no one in the driver's seat—one man was in the front passenger seat, while the other was in the back. That led to speculation that the car might have been under the control of Tesla's Autopilot driver-assistance system at the time of the crash.
Elon Musk has tweeted that "data logs recovered so far show Autopilot was not enabled." Tesla defenders also insisted that Autopilot couldn't have been active because the technology doesn't operate unless someone is in the driver's seat. Consumer Reports decided to test this latter claim by seeing if it could get Autopilot to activate without anyone in the driver's seat.
It turned out not to be very difficult.
Sitting in the driver's seat, Consumer Reports' Jake Fisher enabled Autopilot and then used the speed dial on the steering wheel to bring the car to a stop. He then placed a weighted chain on the steering wheel (to simulate pressure from a driver's hands) and hopped into the passenger seat. From there, he could reach over and increase the speed using the speed dial.
Autopilot won't function unless the driver's seatbelt is buckled, but it was also easy to defeat this check by threading the seatbelt behind the driver.
"In our evaluation, the system not only failed to make sure the driver was paying attention, but it also couldn't tell if there was a driver there at all," Fisher wrote in a post on the Consumer Reports website.
Consumer Reports calls for more robust driver monitoring
Fisher sees these problems as evidence that Tesla has fallen behind other companies with more robust driver-monitoring systems. Companies like GM and Ford use driver-facing cameras to detect the driver's face and ensure they are looking at the road. Such a system would have made it much more difficult to use Autopilot from the passenger seat.
Consumer Reports also suggested that Tesla could "use the weight sensor in the vehicle's driver's seat to determine whether there is a human sitting behind the wheel. These sensors are already used for seat belt warnings and airbags, among other things, so it wouldn't be a major leap to program a vehicle to turn off features like cruise control if it senses that the driver's seat is empty."
At the same time, the investigation makes clear that activating Autopilot without being in the driver's seat requires deliberately disabling safety measures. Fisher had to buckle the seatbelt behind himself, put a weight on the steering wheel, and crawl over to the passenger seat without opening any doors. Anybody who does that knows exactly what they're doing. Tesla fans argue that people who deliberately bypass safety measures like this have only themselves to blame if it leads to a deadly crash.
Still, Consumer Reports argues that government regulators should require more robust safety checks that would make it almost impossible to activate Autopilot without someone in the driver's seat. The group notes that European regulators will require driver-monitoring systems in cars starting in 2023 and urges US regulators to adopt similar rules.
Defense attorneys argue that this is an improper rushing of proceedings.
(Left) Special Counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. (Right) Former President Donald Trump attends his trial in New York State Supreme Court in New York City on Dec. 7, 2023. (Drew Angerer, David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
A federal appeals court on Wednesday agreed to special prosecutor Jack Smith's request to expedite former President Donald Trump's appeal to dismiss his Washington, D.C., election case based on presidential immunity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order outlining a streamlined briefing schedule and calling for oral arguments, with the date to be set later.
According to the order, President Trump's opening brief is due by Dec. 23. The order emphasized that issues and arguments should be raised in the opening brief, discouraging new points in the reply brief for consideration.
Advertisement - Story continues below
"The court ordinarily will not consider issues and arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief," reads the order (pdf).
This decision follows statements by the attorneys representing President Trump accusing the special counsel's office of election interference in a recent appeals court filing after Mr. Smith requested to expedite the appeal so that the case can go to trial on March 4, 2024. March 4 is Super Tuesday, the U.S. presidential primary election day.
"The prosecution has one goal in this case: To unlawfully attempt to try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden," the defense attorneys wrote.
"This represents a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election and to disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump's candidacy."
In response, prosecutors swiftly filed a court document asserting that President Trump's legal team failed to present any valid reasons for the appeals court not to proceed on an expedited schedule. They argued that further delays in the case would "entail serious costs to the judicial system."
This week, prosecutors already asked three separate courts to affirm a March 4 trial date. Prosecutors are arguing that it's in the interest of the public to settle this case quickly, as it pertains to issues "at the heart of our democracy."
Earlier, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan paused court proceedings on Wednesday in the case pending President Trump's appeal.
"The court agrees with both parties that Defendant's appeal automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant," she wrote. "The court hereby stays the deadlines and proceedings scheduled by its Pretrial Order."
Advertisement - Story continues below
Judge Chutkan clarified that this would pause the pretrial deadlines, not vacate them.
Attorneys for President Trump have sought to push the trial date back, citing the 13 million pages of discovery material they intend to review.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have stressed the importance of the case going to trial soon.
Advertisement - Story continues below
Defense attorneys now argue that the prosecution's repeated requests for a March 4 trial date reveal their motives, having brought charges during President Trump's campaign despite investigating for more than two years.
Defense attorneys have denounced this repeated reference to a March 4, 2024, trial in the prosecution's recent court filings, arguing that their rationale shows "strategic gamesmanship" rather than "reliance on the law."
In a major shake-up in the case last week, President Trump appealed Judge Chutkan's denial of his motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity. The same day, defense attorneys filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay proceedings in the district court because an appeals court decision could throw out the case.
Regardless of a favorable appeals court ruling for the defense, this would have thrown off the district court schedule, preventing the prosecution from securing their desired trial date.
Prosecutors have also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review President Trump's presidential immunity defense so that it may inform the appeals court decision in a timely manner and allow for a March 4, 2024, trial date.
It is unclear how the pause in the district court pretrial schedule and the appeals court's schedule will impact a potential March 4, 2024, trial date.
