Slashdot Mirror
Second Tesla Autopilot Crash Under Review By US Regulators (time.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Wall Street Journal and many other publications are reporting that U.S. auto-safety regulators are currently reviewing a second crash that occurred while Tesla's Autopilot mode was activated. The Detroit Free Press reports that a Michigan art gallery owner told police that he survived a rollover crash that happened when his Tesla Model X was in self-driving mode last Friday. The newspaper didn't disclose any additional details regarding what led up to the accident and whether or not the driver was to blame. Last week, it was reported that U.S. regulators were investigating Tesla after a fatal crash occurred involving a vehicle using the Autopilot mode. Tesla said in a statement after that incident, "This is the first known fatality in just over 130 million miles where Autopilot was activated." They also said Autopilot "is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times."
The robots are starting to revolt and killing a few people at a time...
People didn't die and Tesla hasn't gotten access to the data from the vehicle, obvious Musk conspiracy.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Here's hoping that a few fools silly enough to trust their lives, and by extension others' lives, with something in beta doesn't mess up everything for autonomous vehicle research.
You know what would be awesome? A manual Tesla car. You know, a regular car with an electric motor. Why do they have to force the maximum bells and whistles? I can't be the only one who would want this.
I like Elon, electric vehicles, and autonomous vehicles. But I hope they get hit hard for calling their adaptive cruise control feature "autopilot".
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
From this report (chart on page 7), a passenger car rollover (ie - not a light truck) begets a 16% chance of fatality.
This is not the first Tesla rollover crash I've read about, the other one would lead me to believe that Teslas are in fact safer than average. (Click the link and see for yourself, the crash was reportedly spectacular.)
Of the crash in question, Tesla had this to say:
“We received an automated alert from this vehicle on July 1 indicating airbag deployment, but logs containing detailed information on the state of the vehicle controls at the time of the collision were never received. This is consistent with damage of the severity reported in the press, which can cause the antenna to fail. As we do with all crash events, we immediately reached out to the customer to confirm they were ok and offer support but were unable to reach him. We have since attempted to contact the customer three times by phone without success. Based on the information we have now, we have no reason to believe that Autopilot had anything to do with this accident.”
The owner *claims* that the car was in autopilot, but we don't really know yet.
Also of note, the following (from same link):
[...] As reported yesterday, the police investigator on the case, Dale Vukovich, said that he is likely to charge Scaglione after his investigation without specifying the charges.
I'm going to wait a couple of days before making any judgements on this specific incident.
At the worst, it *may be* that autopilot mode isn't appropriate for human drivers simply due to the chance of it being misused. If too many people are relying on it when they shouldn't, then it likely should be taken off the market.
But that's an entirely different situation from Tesla being negligent, or unsafe, or unpromising.
Maybe I have an unusual outlook, but I just barely trust my plain old cruise control enough to enable it on the highway, and it doesn't have any sort of "smart" features. The only reason I trust it enough to use it is that I have a manual transmission with a clutch that can disconnect the drive-train in an emergency.
The more complex features get, the more points of failure there are going to be. Of course humans drivers also have points of failure, so it's not one sided. Still, I think I'll wait until there is a much broader data set, before using features like lane assist.
Tesla's coverage of these incidents is a smear campaign.
GM, Ford and Chrysler experienced hundreds of vehicle accidents in the same time span.
In 2014, there were 32,675 deaths by vehicle incident. Not one of those is getting the same attention as these Tesla reports. Why?
Because the media is in the pockets of Big Auto. Every day in 2014, there were almost 90 deaths in all the other car manufacturers vehicles. I'm counting only two accidents in Tesla vehicles. That's actually quite good!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Here's hoping it *does* mess everything up for semi-autonomous systems like Tesla's. These belong in public transport, where you have a relatively controlled environment running down predetermined routes where outside factors can be mitigated, and where the drivers are employees who can be regularly trained and tested on their knowledge of the system's capabilities. An autopilot function makes sense in, say, a bus.
Where it most definitely does not make sense is in passenger cars, where the moronic part of our population (that is, most of it) will assume it to be far more capable than it really is, and who will choose simply to ignore the system once it is operating. In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.
With a little luck, Tesla's idiotic hype will ensure that the failures of these systems get enough publicity to regulate them out of being until such time as we are able to create a system that can run reliably in all conditions and on all road types. Leave the tech whizbang crap where it belongs in public transport, and get it out of passenger cars, please!
Why do they call it "Autopilot" if it is only "an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times"? Tesla deserves all of the bad press they're getting.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
It is not auto-pilot or an autonomous car, it is just an advanced cruise control with a lane warning and brake assist system. Any driver that fails to stay focused while behind the wheel of a vehicle under any circumstances gets what they deserve and should be further prosecuted for negligent operation of a car.
Just because a route is predetermined does not mean that outside factors can be mitigated in any meaningful way. Jackasses cut off busses and cross over in front of light rail trains all the time.
Any system that can assist and warn a driver should be heralded not bashed when the failing component is almost certainly going to be the air-gap in the driver seat.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Seriously I don't care how good a system is, you give up control of the car to any auto system where the operator now will do everything but pay attention, you're gonna get crashes. Even the few extra second lost to trying to recover to manual driving is enough to potentially get into an accident and win an award..
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I am not a Tesla owner, or a pilot (or even in aviation) but it is my understanding that "autopilot" on planes do not handle all scenarios. Pilots are still required to be in place and monitoring the flight path and ready to take control at a moments notice for anything out of the ordinary. Autopilot is only meant to handle the routine aspects of flying and alerting the pilot of anything unexpected but not used without human presence. The Tesla feature is aptly named in my opinion.
I'd trust a Tesla car in "autopilot" mode to not hit me on the road a lot more than I trust the cars under the control of most of the human drivers out there.
If there are more crashes and they change public opinion on safety of autonomous driving, then it could delay the adoption of autonomous automobiles for a decade or more.
"autopilot" suggests hands-free, driverless.
This is exactly what it has meant in aviation for decades.
The feature would be better called "driver assist" or something--clearly indicating in the name itself that it absolutely does not *replace* the driver.
I don't care how many warning labels you attach to it and instruction manuals telling you not to let go of the wheel--if you call it *autopilot* people are going to think the feature is more than it is--and they *will* test it--as obviously has already happened.
Yes, which is why pilots have extensive training and planes costs millions of dollars. Neither is true of a tesla or tesla owners.
-
Unless you drive a truck on a sunny day.
---- what did you think was going to happen?
I am not willing to let Musk off on this one. He is a promoter whose spell-binding sales pitch always promises more than he is able to deliver.
Aaaaand.... where does the hydrogen come from?
Electrolysis?
Uhuh.
No sig today...
Conspiracies are the homeopathy of the paranoid delusional; the less evidence there is, the more true it must be!
=Smidge=
They also said Autopilot "is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times."
Here's the problem with that. The folks at Tesla HAVE to know that at least some of the people who use the technology are going to take their hands off the wheel. If they don't then they are weapons grade stupid and that seems unlikely. IANAL but it may not matter that Tesla warned people to keep their hands on the wheel given that it is reasonably foreseeable that some portion of the drivers would ignore those instructions. After all, they called it Autopilot for crying out loud... If strict liability is applied there is no need to prove fault, negligence, or intention. See Escola v Coca-Cola Bottling. Now maybe strict liability doesn't apply here but the point remains that manufacturers tend to be responsible for reasonably foreseeable consequences of the features of their products. I have a feeling that the autopilot features may have been released prematurely regardless of the claims of Tesla to the contrary. I love that Tesla is pushing boundaries but they need to tread carefully when it comes to safety.
Teslas do not have a "self driving mode". They have a limited autopilot in no way meant to be a "self dirving mode". Are people making the mistake of acting it is supposed to do all the driving for them?
An avionics autopilot pretty much flies in a straight line and warns you if it notices something it doesn't know how to deal with, with the assumption that you have at least one or two pilots at the helm at all times monitoring for more complex problems.
This isn't an avionics system and the person behind the wheel is not trained with anywhere near the rigor that the FAA demands from pilots. Furthermore there is a LOT less risk of hitting anything while flying through the air. I think you are trying to make the point that calling this an autopilot system may confuse people into believing that the system is more capable than it actually is because they don't understand what autopilot actually means in a plane. If so then I agree.
The Tesla autopilot is far more competent that that.
The person behind the wheel almost certainly is not nearly so competent even if what you are saying is true.
Regardless of what you think the name implies though, releasing such half-baked semi-autonomous driving systems is completely irresponsible
I tend to agree. I work in the auto industry (not for any Tesla competitor) and I've worked at test tracks in the past. I am 100% certain that this system has not been tested to a degree that should reasonably be considered adequate by any responsible engineer. I'm not saying it's not a remarkable bit of engineering (it is) but good may not be good enough in this case. People ARE going to do stupid things. The system IS going to run into corner cases the engineers didn't foresee. People ARE going to die before this technology becomes as safe and reliable as we hope. The Navy has a saying that "the rules are written in blood" which means that people got hurt to learn how to do things right. There is no reason to think that autopilot technologies in cars will be any different.
Can't recall seeing where AutoPilot drops out if both hands come off the wheel, Elon.
Pride goeth before the crash.
They also said Autopilot "is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times."
With outward sensors almost capable of highway driving (almost, but not quite), you'd think inward-facing sensors (that ensure the driver's attention is on the road) would be a piece of cake for Tesla.
But no. Instead, Telsa 'requires' something, and simultaneously makes it trivial to ignore that requirement. Tesla must enforcing inward looking sensors. With power comes accountability.
Unless, in some weird way, avoiding the 'look in' is a hallmark of Tesla's culture.
As I've pointed out before, Congress is going to have to allow machines to kill people in order for these to become widespread. Since the companies making these machines are very powerful and spread a lot of money around, you can be sure Congress will pass the requisite laws. Hop to, lackey Congress! Allowing machines to kill people crosses a line that we will never be able to go behind again.
E Proelio Veritas.
Whenever there's a problem, instead of fessing up and fixing it, he attacks the messenger.
Yes, that's why the F9 strut didn't get fixed and that's why Tesla and the other company aren't fixing the car's vision system...oh, wait!
Ezekiel 23:20
Am I the only one who thinks Tesla should axe the autonomous program? I think Musk has good intent when he says it could save lives...but I also think he is putting too much faith in humanity. American drivers are idiots. It is laughably easy to get a driver's license. Common sense is the exception rather than the rule. Tesla is inviting another episode like the Toyota uncontrolled acceleration thing, but worse - people are trusting this infant technology with their lives. I don't think the tech is necessarily lacking; but I think it promotes inattentive driving. So many new cars are coming with "driver aids" that really aren't necessary. Lane keep assist? How hard is it to keep your car between the lines? Some tech I do like, such as rearview cameras, blind spot warning systems, park distance sensors, etc...but it seems that tech is being used to fill in where drivers are being lazy and stupid.
Really? What messengers has musk attacked? He has gone after liars that are trying to pull a load of BS. Like you.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If the Tesla "Autopilot" was on, I doubt the car would have hit a guard rail.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
No, this is known to be a level 3 autonomy and requires watching. We are required to sign off on that. And those Tesla drivers that are making heavy use say that it not only works great, but makes life easy on them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why are you signing your bottom?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Here's what I think your argument is: It was negligent for Tesla to provide a feature that a reasonable person would foresee substantial misuse leading to death.
I think some lawyers will attempt to make an argument that closely resembles that, yes. It's pretty well trodden ground as far as product liability goes. Will be interesting to see how the inevitable lawsuits eventually play out.
I think the other part of it will be that there will be some corner cases where the system will malfunction in ways not anticipated by the engineers. Think stuff like the sensor's inability to detect problems under certain conditions. No matter how diligent the engineers were there will be some corner cases they miss and there will be lawsuits that result.
If you're the product engineer that is looking at the data that says when Autopilot is used correctly it's expected to save lives, and only adds to the accident rate if the feature is misused. That phenomenon pretty much describes every safety feature ever added to cars. ABS... great until you try to do the old fashioned pump the brakes. Air bags... awesome unless you put a child seat in the front seat.
It's not entirely clear that the autopilot is actually a safety feature, at least as implemented. It's really more like cruise control. While it might have some safety benefit in some cases, it's very much of a driver comfort aid. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea but you'll have a hard time proving that lives were saved by this feature but it will be screamingly obvious when people are killed by it.
Autonomous cars are going to produce some crazy case law!!
Brother, you ain't kiddin...
One of those Tesla fanbois is conspicuously missing lately, at least his head is.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The problem here is the Tesla stuck in a feature which is a) flawed, and b) doesn't enforce driver attention. It's flawed because it appears to have a serious issue with trailers and perhaps other situations. Some reports say it masks out high elevation obstructions because of interference from overhead signage.
Some might say its the driver's fault for not paying attention but that is a natural consequence of a bad design. The car should enforce the driver's attention. If there is no enforcement then people will become inattentive and crashes will happen. This will be true for pretty much any self drive vehicle that requires a human for fallback. The human cannot be allowed to watch a movie, fall asleep or be passed out drunk if there is even a small chance they need to take back control with little notice.
Autopilot “is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times,” Tesla said.
Then why are they calling it Autopilot?
Really, lets accept that Human Behavior, until completely co-opted by computers and AI, will always assume Autopilot, or anything remotely like that means "I don't have to pay attention. I can take my hands of the wheel".
What is it for if you have to keep your hands on the wheel, people with Parkinsons?
As much as I hate to admit it, I think Google is correct in wanting cars that drive themselves while the user is completely oblivious.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
If Google's car kept crashing while they report it's had zero crashes for 300 million miles driven, people would have cell phone pictures of hundreds of unreported crashes.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Yes, which is why pilots have extensive training and planes costs millions of dollars. Neither is true of a tesla or tesla owners.
I'm pretty sure Tesla owners still have to take a drivers test. The "extensive training" a pilot goes under is not about weird magical situations that requires more than normal flight training. Just because my car has "autopilot" doesn't mean I need to undergo some new special drivers training that isn't covered by regular driving schools...the autopilot mode doesn't give the car a complex new control set or somehow change the rules of the road.
Also this has nothing to do with why planes are expensive, not to mention that Teslas aren't cheap.
It sounds like "Autopilot" is a very useful feature, and one has to pay attention only when there's a giant trailer blocking the road in front of you. Otherwise, smooth sailing.
They should never have called this function an autopilot!
While this is consistant with the usage in aircraft, where a "wing leveler and turn controller" is called an autopilot, it is not what the public hears.
To most of the drivers it makes them think this is a robot driver, which it is not. 8-{