Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Volvo Engineer Calls Out Tesla For Dangerous 'Wannabe' Autopilot System (jalopnik.com)

Posted by msmash on from the increasingly-growing-heat-between-the-two dept.

An anonymous reader shares an article on Jalopnik: Tesla's semi-autonomous Autopilot system has been impressing everyone from consumers to journalists, and even other industry experts and executives. But now a Volvo engineer has called Tesla's system out, claiming it's a dangerous "wannabe" autonomous technology. Trent Victor, senior technical leader of crash avoidance for Volvo, had quite a few choice words to say about Tesla's Autopilot system in a recent interview with The Verge, claiming the electric automaker was touting what is essentially a rudimentary semi-autonomous technology as being far more capable than it actually is. Victor fears that Autopilot "gives you the impression that it's doing more than it is." He went on to call Tesla's system an "unsupervised wannabe."

37 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Crying on the way out? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Tesla: "Thank You Volvo for the free publicity!"

    Many will see this as market insecurity on the part of traditional car makers, and Tesla's stock will probably go up.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Crying on the way out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and if it really is dangerous it's not like the average person can afford Tesla's offerings anyway, so it'll be rich people who die.

    2. Re:Crying on the way out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, that's all this could possibly be.

      I mean, it's not as if Volvo has a reputation for making durable, safe vehicles.

      What the fuck could one of their engineers possibly know about it automobile safety?

    3. Re:Crying on the way out? by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Funny

      Finally, the trickle down economy will work.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Crying on the way out? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tesla Autopilot is working in tens of thousands of vehicles, and has driven many millions of miles of public roads. That actual real-world track record should count for a lot more than a competitor's biased opinion.

    5. Re:Crying on the way out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tesla: "Thank You Volvo for the free publicity!"

      Many will see this as market insecurity on the part of traditional car makers, and Tesla's stock will probably go up.

      You sound like a Christian fundamentalist laughing off real science and arguing Intelligent Design because of "reasons"; you are a Tesla Fundamentalist.

      Volvo has the longest track record of safety features for cars, they've been doing this for decades. They were focused on safety before safety become regulated. They invented three point seat belts, side impact protection systems, roll over protection systems, and consistently their cars have been rated the safest cars on the road. When a guy from Volvo makes a comment about safety features, you probably should take note.

    6. Re:Crying on the way out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      And I have hundreds of billions of hours experience with jacking off. But how does that make me an expert on the life cycle of the monarch butterfly?

    7. Re:Crying on the way out? by afidel · · Score: 2

      47M according to the press release the other day. Musk says autopilot controlled vehicles have half the rate of crashes (where a crash is defined as an event that triggers the airbag) versus those under human control.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Crying on the way out? by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Musk says autopilot controlled vehicles have half the rate of crashes (where a crash is defined as an event that triggers the airbag) versus those under human control.

      That sounds like a BS statistic. You wouldn't use Autopilot for all driving, only for certain highway driving. So a proper comparison would only be between Autopilot-driven miles versus human-driven miles in comparable conditions. And auto crashes on the highway are *already* much less frequent than on surface streets, for obvious reasons I hope.

      So "half the rate of crashes" could actually be much worse than human piloting on the highway.

    9. Re:Crying on the way out? by lgw · · Score: 2

      Neither does Tesla. But proportionally, for all Musk's puffery, he does employ a lot of people in a business that arguably only exists because of special tax breaks. (Not sure of that myself, maybe Tesla would be going strong regardless, but the cars do get a healthy tax subsidy.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re: Crying on the way out? by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      No they are still designed and built in Sweden. The financial owners are Chinese though.

      Yeah, that didn't last long before manufacturing began moving to China as well. Are you surprised? It's been publically in the works for years.

      From Jan 2015:

      After years of promises by the industry followed by manufacturing delays, a major automaker is finally on the verge of starting sustained exports from China to the United States.

      The Volvo Car Corporation announced at the Detroit auto show on Monday that it planned to begin shipping a midsize sedan from Chengdu in the next several months.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. All that Tesla has to say back.. by aicrules · · Score: 5, Funny

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:All that Tesla has to say back.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah yes. "A Volvo vehicle screwed up once, so that means Tesla's systems are fine - stop crying."

      Tremendously compelling logic.

    2. Re:All that Tesla has to say back.. by aicrules · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So because Tesla doesn't have a fully autonomous car Volvo guy's argument is more compelling than a clear FAILURE of the autonomous crash avoidance?

    3. Re:All that Tesla has to say back.. by zenith1111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was a car without the "pedestrian detection" option... The owner, a bit of a moron, for some reason thought it was a standard feature and decided to test it on a group of volunteer fellow morons...

      Regardless of that Volvo spokeperson's intentions, they are right, hinting that you are using an "autopilot" will make idiots do stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      I don't see a problem equipping cars with the current automatic collision avoidance systems and leaving it at that, but autopilots for cars should be "black and white", either completely self-driving or completely manual, no automatic steering input at all. Period. Tesla's system will make people like that Volvo guy in the previous post do very stupid things, like the Tesla driver in this post.

    4. Re:All that Tesla has to say back.. by GuB-42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In fact replying with this video would strengthen Volvo's argument. Because beyond the branding, what it shows is that collision avoidance systems can fail and therefore, driver's attention is crucial. Tesla's autopilot is clearly sold as something that allows the driver not to pay attention, while the system demonstrated in the video is just a driving aid.

    5. Re:All that Tesla has to say back.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the video in question doesn't show that collision avoidance systems can fail, because the car shown in the video doesn't have one (and its driver is a moron):

      http://fusion.net/story/139703...

  3. FUD by harperska · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just like ULA hating on SpaceX's rocket landing plans or Blackberry hating on the original iPhone, whenever a newcomer comes to market with a disruptive technology, the entrenched players do all they can to trash the newcomer in the media to cast doubt on the viability of the disruptive ideas, rather than pivoting to actually address the market shift that the disruption heralds.

    1. Re:FUD by clonehappy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm so sick of hearing this shit repeated ad nauseam. Usually, the "entrenched players" have good reason to be skeptical. In 2007, per your example, a Blackberry was orders of magnitude more functional than an iPhone and multiple times more useful to their core business market. iPhone didn't start to be a serious contender until around the 4-series and some would argue that it never actually caught up from a messaging standpoint to the Blackberry. I won't argue that the iPhone didn't revolutionize smartphones and that there were tons of other benefits once the product became mature.

      The same goes for Uber and all the other "disruptive" services and products. When you don't have to play by any rules it's easy to make things better. I still won't take Uber because I don't trust "some guy" to come pick me up. I want a service that follows all the standards and regulations we've established for a reason. I have no doubts that Tesla's "autopilot" is probably hype. Look where it's coming from. When you have a niche product, it doesn't matter how well it works or doesn't work. Volvo, on the other hand, is legendary for the safety of their products. If a Volvo engineer says it's dangerous, it probably is.

      I'm just so sick of hearing how since something is coming out of some VC hype machine or technological "upstart" or internet company that it must somehow going to change my life. The cell phone changed how we live, the rest has all been incremental. I'm not living any better since the iPhone came around, or Uber, nor will I because of a self-driving car. It's all smoke and mirrors. Really disruptive technologies, like electricity, the internet, refrigeration, splitting the atom, are few and far between and don't need some huckster shouting about how great they are.

    2. Re:FUD by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also see the cable companies' reaction to Netflix and streaming videos in general. "Why would you want to pay $10 a month to stream everything whenever and wherever you want when you have have 10,000 channels of great content like Inane Reality Show Channel #50 and Shopping Network You'll Never Watch #12 for the low, low price of $200 a month? By the way, did you know that Netflix is really super-expensive. Sure, it's only because we imposed caps and overages on your Internet connection to keep you from streaming, but it's true now. So ditch that horrible streaming with it's great user interface and come back to your cable company!"

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm just so sick of hearing how since something is coming out of some VC hype machine or technological "upstart" or internet company that it must somehow going to change my life.

      Me too.

      And I'd like to point out is that we have a Volvo engineer criticizing Tesla marketing.From the verge:

      Because the driver is theoretically freed up to work on email or watch a video while the car drives itself, the company believes it is unrealistic to expect the driver to be ready to take over at a moment's notice and still have the car operate itself safely.

      That's all from Tesla's marketing.

      Musk needs to stop managing Tesla like a silicon valley startup and like the automaker that it is. Actually, I think he should stop making cars and become a battery maker so WHEN the other luxury car makers come out with their electric cars, they can buy batteries from Tesla and have a sticker that says "Tesla inside."

    4. Re:FUD by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Informative

      We cut cable over a year ago. Instead of cable TV, we get our video content from a combination of Netflix, Amazon VOD/Prime, Hulu, Google Play, OTA, DVD purchases, and DVD rentals from our local library. It's just as good as cable TV and we're saving about $700 a year. Netflix might not be a cable TV replacement by itself for most, but combined with other streaming services as well as other video options, cable TV can easily be replaced.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:FUD by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that this "disruptive" tech has the potential to get people KILLED.

      It's one of the hobgoblins that the computer-driving systems have had to overcome, and Tesla HASN'T DONE IT YET.

      Tesla's system is designed to simply relinquish control back to the driver the moment it can't handle what's happening. Could you think of a MORE dangerous model? A car you can grow to a level of comfort trusting (and you know people will) until there's a catastrophically dangerous moment, then it says "whups, I'm out" and now you're supposed to be completely as in-control and aware as if you'd been driving yourself?

      Seriously?

      Look, I know Volvo is harshing on Tesla for commercial reasons, but it doesn't mean their technical complaints aren't valid.

      --
      -Styopa
  4. He's completely right, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea of handling back the controls to the driver whenever the car encounters a situation it can't handle any more is patently absurd. Human reaction time and situational awareness cannot cope with this, and in reality the purpose of this "level 3" concept is to quickly shift the blame back to the human driver rather than the car maker.

    1. Re:He's completely right, of course by mpoulton · · Score: 2

      The idea of handling back the controls to the driver whenever the car encounters a situation it can't handle any more is patently absurd.

      That's how every autopilot system works. It's the only failure mode that aircraft engineers have deemed appropriate in decades of development. What better solution is there?

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
  5. Competitor slags rival. News at 11. by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if the Volvo people are entirely right (and they might be) it doesn't really carry much credibility since they have a clear conflict of interest.

    Yes Tesla engages in some puffery. On the other hand they are really doing the most innovative things in the auto industry so it's not entirely without substance. (of course the auto industry is pretty stodgy so being innovative is kind of a low bar) The Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup so clearly Tesla is doing something customers appreciate more than Volvo. Makes it sound a lot like sour grapes on Volvo's part even if it really isn't.

  6. Uh huh. by jpellino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If something goes wrong, the (Volvo) can safely stop itself at the side of the road." 'Cept if the wrong thing is the brakes fail, and I've got a few stretches of high country road I could introduce you to where you would definitely want human judgement involved concerning what you would generously term "the side of the road".

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  7. Look who's talking by moofo · · Score: 2

    A company who didn't have a car with anything else than a right angle and looked like a butter box until the end of the 90's.

    --
    "I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary." Through the looking glass and what
  8. Not exactly a disinterested observer, though... by bbsguru · · Score: 3, Informative

    Given that the news two days ago was about the new alliance of Tesla competitors, which includes both Ford and Volvo, I can't imagine why a Volvo engineer might be biased..

  9. All 'autopilot' systems are by kheldan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All 'autopilot' / 'self-driving' systems will be 'wannabes' for at least the next 10 to 20 years or more. It'll take that long to perfect it -- and even then you'll be nuts to let yourself fall asleep at the wheel with it operating -- no matter what they tell you.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  10. Since no one's reading his actual statements: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Which is the typical Slashdot way, let me summarize for you guys and have a real discussion.

    Volvo consider's Tesla's system a Level 3 system, which they consider dangerous. The reason they consider this is not for technical reasons but for liability and user control protocol reasons. What he's saying Tesla's system does is that in the event of an emergency, the system relinquishes control of the car to the driver, meaning the driver is now responsible (and has associated liability) for any accident or damage caused from the emergency. However Tesla's promotional material about their system is not suggesting that; their promotions are all focused on technical ability but it's ignoring the fact that if you're in an emergency the system basically tosses control to you, so his argument is that Tesla's promotion of the technology gives drivers and users the wrong impression of what it's really doing. So what he's saying is that if you're driving down the road and you fall asleep at the wheel and start to drift, the system will not take over and park you safely, and if in this process you hit a pedestrian or another car, you are liable for the damage caused.

    Volvo's system coming out this year is what they call a Level 4. What this means is that the car does not require the driver to be in control at any time, even during extreme conditions. If you fall asleep at the wheel and start to drift, the computer takes over, gets you back in your lane first, then finds a way to pull you to the side of the road and park the car safely. They are so confident in their system that Volvo itself is taking on the liability of their system; if it fails to get you to safety or causes damage, Volvo is responsible, not you. Tesla does not make that claim about their system.

    So his argument that the Tesla system which will force control to the driver in extreme driving conditions is actually more dangerous, because the driver is under the mistaken impression that the autonomous system has control and will suddenly find himself thrown into a difficult situation with no autonomous supervision; that surprise will invariably find the driver unable to make rational decisions.

    All you Tesla Fundamentalists should stop with your Musk-worship and brand loving and realize that one of the most experienced safety engineers in the world is making a technical and design process argument. Argue his technical merits or the arguments he makes about Tesla's system and it's design decisions; don't just drink the Elon-Aid and dismiss because of the Gee-Whiz factor.

    1. Re:Since no one's reading his actual statements: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are so confident in their system that Volvo itself is taking on the liability of their system; if it fails to get you to safety or causes damage, Volvo is responsible, not you.

      I realize that is effectively what they are implying, but the fact that they don't actually say this in as many words suggests that they don't genuinely mean that, or at the very least, are hoping that people don't actually realize that is what they are implying, because the possible costs to the company could be incalculable otherwise after the first accident occurs, especially if there is a fatality.

      Do you read? Because the CEO of Volvo Hakan Samuelsson said it himself.

      http://jalopnik.com/mercedes-google-volvo-to-accept-liability-when-their-1735170893

  11. Re:Competitor slags rival. News at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup so clearly Tesla is doing something customers appreciate more than Volvo. Makes it sound a lot like sour grapes on Volvo's part even if it really isn't.

    Uhh... ok. So I get you're a Tesla fan, but a comment like "the Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup" is not an opinion, it's fact that can be checked and in this case is a lie; Volvo had 3 models that outsold the Model S and their total car sales was 10 times Tesla's sales.

    Model S sales, 2015 - 50,580
    Volvo sales, 2015:
    XC60 - 159,617
    V40 - 83,357
    V60 - 51,333

    Total Volvo Sales of all models for 2015: 503,127

    It's fine if you're a Tesla fan-boy, but please get your facts right and stop spreading FUD. It makes you sound like you're sour-grapes about a real car brand providing a real critique of your fab-boyishness and doesn't help your argument.

  12. Shocking by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    I had no idea Volvo still existed.

  13. Re:Not News by randallman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you have a source for that AC? I follow Tesla news closely and that's the first I've heard.

  14. Levels of Car Autonomy by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just some basic information about what they mean when they talk about level of vehicular autonomy:

    NHTSA defines vehicle automation as having five levels:

    No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls â" brake, steering, throttle, and motive power â" at all times.

    Function-specific Automation (Level 1): Automation at this level involves one or more specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting alone.

    Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This level involves automation of at least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering.

    Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation.

    Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles.

  15. It is a real concern... proven by Tesla drivers by Koreantoast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The debate about "autopilot" versus "fully autonomous" is a very real concern, validated by Tesla drivers themselves. You have drivers that stop paying attention to the speed limit, abuse autodrive to violate traffic laws, take their hands off the steering wheel, or just climb into the back seat and let the car drive itself creates not just a danger for the Tesla driver but for every car on the road. This despite Tesla's insistence that people must still stay at the wheel and drive; the technology has advanced enough that people get a false sense of confidence to push the limits even if the technology is not truly ready for it. That's the point that the Volvo engineer is making.