Essay Example: Tesla Autopilot and Auto Industry

Tesla is an automaker (Cheney, 2011). The company is involved in the innovation and implementation of advanced technologies. Over time, it has pioneered in electrical technology to such extent that tech reviews escalate the entitys reputation to auto sorcery. In late 19th century, it developed alternators that challenged popular professional view to produce more energy than was thought possible. Tesla technology is envied by numerous companies and rivaled by few (Cheney, 2011). Its radical approach cannot be implemented by conservative automakers. Subsequently, such approach to manufacturing has and continues to define Teslas character. The companys founder, Nicola Tesla was a radical inventor who dared to think that he could revolutionalize the AC motor and equally achieved success in its engineering (Cheney, 2011). Teslas induction motor was ahead of time (Cheney, 2011). The automaker has always been on the forefront of engineering progress supporting disruptive technologies and producing sustaining innovation. Succeeding its induction motor development, Tesla evolved all existing motors and modification systems (Cheney, 2011). The company has received accolades attributed to technological advancement and pioneering efforts. However, such advancements are not express considering the observation that significant extent of criticism has been directed towards the company. Teslas critics are diverse with some being knowledgeable figures such as Professor Holden, formerly of University of California (Cheney 2011). The most recent criticism events focus on the alleged malfunctioning of automakers technology or its failure to prevent fatality. Tesla produced autopilot technology purposed to allow unmanned driving. Autopilot driving experience entails ability to instruct a vehicles destination and route then enjoying a computer determined mobility by exercise of advances algorithms and manipulation of artificial intelligence. Teslas autopilot malfunction is a revelation that automated driving does not guarantee accident free travel; however, it is unlikely to stop the innovative journey but it will advice the auto industrys inventiveness and inspire a development of corrective measures.

Teslas Autopilot malfunction

The Automaker is facing harsh criticism since the occurrence of an accident involving its Model S and a Trailer. A Tesla Model S crashed while operating under autopilot configuration (Knight, 2016). Knowledgeable persons and technology contributors provided opinions about potential causes of incidents while others stated that driverless technology is dangerous (Knight, 2016). Besides a debate about the validity of autopilot technology, the features of the Model S were assessed. The car model offers a stable ride on highways by exploiting a convergence of advanced technological installations such as radar and ultrasound sensors (Knight, 2016). Such advancements allow a vehicle to maneuver corners and achieve optimal performance in overtaking traffic. The firms report insinuated that the accidents cause was a visual flaw since the sky was bright and so was the obstacles color (Knight, 2016). The software and hardware design have come under question as critics and highway traffic regulators show interest in the causes of that accident. Stakeholders are curious whether there was a malfunction or a design deficiency denying the automobile necessary capacity to avoid crushing. The Tesla Model S crash occurred in June 2016 and claimed life at Williston, Florida (Knight, 2016). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration instigated an investigative exercise in pursuance of traffic safety obligations and maintained that such inquiry was not evidence of malpractice or blame towards Tesla (Knight, 2016). The authority observed that there could be a possibility that the mentioned unfortunate events were not caused by technological failures. Contradictions emerged as the automatic emergency braking systems manufacturer, Mobileye presented an argument that current technology responds to proximity orientations of rare-end collision (Knight, 2016). Ideally, if the trailer approached the vehicle heads on or the Tesla was following behind the trailer an accident would be avoided. The argument that emergency braking failed due to the trailer approaching the Tesla from sideways would seem sensible. However, the likelihood that technological refinements can mean progress for the innovation does not seem to stop critics from harsh remarks.

Perhaps one of the matters exaggerating the issue is evidence of other incidents involving autopilot technology (Harris, 2017). The reporting of multiple safety features failures seem to create an image of technology flaw (Harris, 2017). Knowledgeable individuals consider the context of incident reporting and explore the possibility of exerting influence on technological development through condemning of accidents. Over time, numerous Tesla related accidents have been reported. The rise of such incidents creates a negative impression of the entity and industry as a whole (Harris, 2017). Consumers and critics are more keen and likely to associate other accidents with poor systems performance (Harris, 2017). Fortunately, a significant percentage of accidents are not fatal and human life is not lost. Boudette and Bill (2017) note that Tesla system over performed since it is not fashioned to respond to the kind of situation that occurred.

The malfunctions effects on the auto industry

The claim that consumers might question autopilot technology as a valid prevention of car crashes was made (Knight, 2016). As the debate progresses, other issues come into play with questions about the limitations of technology and extents to which artificial intelligence should override manual exercises. The emergence of public doubts about autopilot technology benefits challenged the industry to embark on an exercise of identifying and implementation of measures that promise consumer orientation (Knight, 2016). Such processes should include but are not limited to the development of automated vehicle testing manuals. The auto industry intends to build consumer interests and exploit such relationship to improve market exposure alongside boosting sales volumes (Knight, 2016). The recognition of possibility that vehicle colors are a factor in traffic safety should inspire automobile manufactures and hardware developers to refine visibility and detection capabilities. The malfunction will act as a call to action, auto manufacturers are challenged to consult a diversity of technology experts and identify various areas of improvement. Some of the issues include revising the process of handing control from a car to the driver especially during emergency incidents (Knight, 2016). Besides operational ease and system efficiency, auto manufacturers might be forces to market the technology as a work in progress instead of a stable product. Such change can encourage technology users to participate in product development and justify the quality of vehicles.

In the event that the National Highway Traffic Safety Authority (NHTSA) finds the companys technology culpable of the accident, the company might suffer a damage of character. Teslas reputation could hang on the balance and an accusation of failure attracts expensive litigations. Additionally, the financial consequences of a negative authoritative report are a huge burden. On the other hand, there is a possibility that Tesla does not face any consequences. The automakers reputation as an aggressive innovator implies that its market base includes radical tech enthusiasts. Therefore, buyer decisions are mostly influences by the level of technological advancement rather than a focus on the fundamental issues of road safety. The malfunction is likely to motivate intensive involvement of the NHTSA in matters driverless auto technology(Knight, 2016).

The future of driverless vehicle technology

Bosch observed that the benefits of autonomous driving exceed its challenged and affirmed that the auto market will eventually accept such technology (Knight, 2016). However, advancements are necessary to ensure that the adoption of driverless technology is reliable and safe (Knight, 2016). The malfunction confirms that progressive changes are in order. Auto manufacturers need not forget that autonomous and semi-autonomous technology is a work in progress (Harris, 2017). Progressive innovations are ensuring that accident-free and autonomous driving goals are achieved a step at a time (Meyer and Beiker, 2014). Though autonomous driving has witnessed harsh criticism, there is hope for successful outcome. Technological advancements especially in the form of communication algorithms offer a promising future. Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure capabilities are a huge communication technology focus (Harris, 2017). Successful development of Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) will be a milestone in autonomous driving safety (Harris, 2017). Such progress will mean reliable and safe transportation since it supports inter-vehicle contact linked to roadside communication units (Harris, 2017). Such technology will enable autonomous vehicles to comprehend the traffic situation within a specified radius.

In conclusion, Teslas driverless technology is under radical scrutiny following a fatal accident whose alleged cause is insufficient technology. The outcomes of NHTSA investigation will likely encourage further scrutiny and advice further technological reviews to address notable issues. However, it is not certain how the Brands client base will respond since the auto manufacturer has always engaged in radical technology as is appreciated due to the same. The share of clients who entire purchase Teslas products to gain a taste of cutting edge technology will likely anticipate its revised version of Model S without prejudice.

References

Boudette, N. and Bill, V. (2017). "Tesla Autopilot Found at Fault In Fatal Crash." New York Times. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Retrieved on 13 Nov. 2017. From s1.farmingdale.edu:2048/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A504312672/OVIC?u=sunyfarm_main&xid=a23c89a7.

Cheney, M. (2011). Tesla: Man Out of Time. New York City: Simon and Schuster.

Harris, D. (2017). Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: Cognition and Design: 14th International Conference, EPCE 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9-14, 2017, Proceedings, Part 2. New York City: Springer.

Knight, W. (2016). A crash that occurred while Teslas Autopilot was engaged may be a crucial moment for the technology. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 10 November 2017, from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601829/tesla-crash-will-shape-the-future-of-automated-cars/

Meyer, G., & Beiker, S. (2014). Road Vehicle Automation. Cham: Springer International Publishing.