Slashdot Mirror


Consumer Reports Calls For Tesla To Disable Autopilot (consumerreports.org)

Reader parallel_prankster writes: Consumer Reports is calling on Tesla to disable its "Autopilot" feature that enables hands-free operation. Citing the recent fatal accident involving a car with Autopilot engaged, Consumer Reports labels the feature as "Too Much Autonomy Too Soon." In an extensive article posted at the top of its website Thursday morning, Consumer Reports said Tesla should "disable hands-free operation until its system can be made safer." "By marketing their feature as 'Autopilot,' Tesla gives consumers a false sense of security," said Laura MacCleery, vice president of consumer policy and mobilization for Consumer Reports, in the article. "In the long run, advanced active safety technologies in vehicles could make our roads safer. But today, we're deeply concerned that consumers are being sold a pile of promises about unproven technology. 'Autopilot' can't actually drive the car, yet it allows consumers to have their hands off the steering wheel for minutes at a time. Tesla should disable automatic steering in its cars until it updates the program to verify that the driver's hands are on the wheel."

Tesla says it will continue development of Autopilot, insisting that drivers supported by Autopilot "remain safer than those operating without assistance."

42 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. So just rename it then? by butchersong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suppose Consumer Reports would be just as happy based on their rationale if Tesla were to rename it to "Intelligent Cruise" or something like that.

    1. Re:So just rename it then? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Names matter. Expectations matter. Pragmatically and legally.

      I mean, "what a reasonable person would expect" is a common standard, for things like "was this shooting in self defense".

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:So just rename it then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So do you expect "Automatic Pilot" on Airplanes to mean land/take off, deal with adverse weather, etc ?

      Why do drivers of cars take automatic pilot to mean complete robotic control, "I can not pay attention"?

      A car still requires a humans to intervention. No where have I seen automatic pilot to be advanced to complete automatic control/driving.

      Only lawyers and the those in the general populace that are trying to elevate auto pilot as responsible, seem to not have the clue. And for lawyers
      they have the clue, but they ignore it and exploit the notion that auto pilot means you as the human can rely 100% on the computer.

      Lets rename the mode. Even though for 50 years Auto pilot meant do the easy, mundane things. Not complete autonomous control.

    3. Re:So just rename it then? by boristdog · · Score: 2

      Autopilots CAN land, take off and deal with adverse weather...up to a point.
      But yeah, anyone idiotic enough to think that something called "autopilot" will deal with every situation is pretty stupid. Though we are talking about humans here, and overall they do tend to be kind of stupid.

    4. Re:So just rename it then? by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you don't have your hands on the wheel, it will pop up a notice telling you to put your hands on the wheel. If you still don't, it will beep an alert at you. If you still don't, it will gradually slow the car to a stop (it assumes that you are disabled at that point).

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:So just rename it then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you expect an "Automatic Transmission" to operate your transmission for you? Do you expect "Automatic Sprinklers" to water your yard for you? Automatic means what it means and comes with certain connotations. If you want to use the aircraft argument, will you agree then that Tesla should require a several hundred hour certification course before you're allowed to take ownership of your vehicle like is done with commercial aircraft to explain all the nuances of the systems and ensure the pilots know how everything works?

    6. Re:So just rename it then? by tsqr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So do you expect "Automatic Pilot" on Airplanes to mean land/take off, deal with adverse weather, etc ?

      I have no expectations at all regarding the meaning of "Automatic Pilot" on airplanes, because I don't operate airplanes. Why would you expect the average person to know what an aircraft autopilot does or does not do?

    7. Re:So just rename it then? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't have your hands on the wheel, it will pop up a notice telling you to put your hands on the wheel. If you still don't, it will beep an alert at you. If you still don't, it will gradually slow the car to a stop (it assumes that you are disabled at that point).

      And yet all the reviewers and so forth talk about their handsfree driving experience with it.

      And Musk has himself said the car will drive from San Fransico to Seattle; almost without touching the controls at all.

      You can't have that out there and then expect a reasonable person to think he REALLY has to have his hands on the wheel the whole time, just because the car beeps at him.

      Additionally, its unreasonable to put a human being in a situation where they are expected to sit there doing nothing except being perpetually ready to act in case of an exceptional circumstances. Human beings aren't wired for that.

      If we're driving and actively engaged, we can keep our attention on the task for long periods of time without much trouble. But we're supposed to just sit there "at the ready" that's a failure waiting to happen, because people don't work like that.

      It would be like being told to sit in front of the oven and watch the thanksgiving turkey roast with our hand on the off switch the entire time, ready in case the bird catches fire or something.

      We'll check it from time to time, we'll set a timer to help us remember to do that. If we smell smoke or something we'll react ... but no human being can sit there doing nothing, with the expectation of doing nothing, but ready to do something for hours on end. Our attention WILL drift. You can't slap a warning sticker on something and expect it to override human nature.

      The feature is fundamentally incompatible with human beings. When its ready to be responsible enough for driving that it can deal with anything that comes up, and if something comes up that it can't do it can pull over and then alert a passenger to take over as driver... then it's ready for people. Until then its just an accident waiting to happen.

    8. Re: So just rename it then? by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. They can land, but cannot take off. I know it seems counterintuitive, since landing is more difficult than taking off. But they want a pilot to have his or her hands on the controls so they can react quickly if an engine fails or some other unforseen event happens, requiring a split second decision between continuing the take-off and aborting. An engine failure during the approach is less critical due to the lower power setting.

      Also, there is less of a need for automated take-offs as humans are capable of taking off in relatively low visibility, much lower than that required for landing.

    9. Re:So just rename it then? by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      Very true. The manufacturers of security X-ray machines actually include false positive images in the software to keep the person looking at the screen alert.

    10. Re:So just rename it then? by labnet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *this*
      I've driven a tesla with autopilot for a week, and thought it was an undercooked dangerous feature. The number of times it gave up auto steering because it got confused and the only warning you get is a subtle bong with sometimes sub second reaction times to stop an indecent made turn it off altogether.
      I agree with consumer reports. It should be disabled.

      --
      46137
    11. Re:So just rename it then? by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      Humans can do some activity for long periods of time, but the activity has to involve doing something.

      When I drive my mechanical car, I have to constantly adjust the steering wheel to keep the car on the road (the road isn't completely straight after all) and gas to keep the speed as needed (the road goes up and down which makes the car slow down or speed up). This creates "something to do" for me, so I can stare at the road for hours.

      I also know that if I stop looking at the road, I will quickly end up in a ditch or similar.

      Now, let's say the car controls bot speed and direction for me. Now I have to stare at the road, but have nothing to do. This is bad. Having nothing to do makes me bored, I may even fall asleep or find something else to do. After all, the car is driving itself and if I stop looking at the road for a minute I will not end up in a ditch. 99.99% of the time that is.

      There are websites that test your reaction. You usually have to wait a few seconds for some part of the screen to change color and click a button as quickly as you can. Normal reaction time is about 210ms. Now, get a test that instead of making you wait for a few seconds, makes you wait 10 or 30 minutes (or an hour) for the color change. What will be your reaction time then?

    12. Re: So just rename it then? by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tesla explains the limitations of the system when you buy the car, the car explains it to you again when you activate the feature (requiring you to accept that you understand), tells you again when you turn it on to drive somewhere, and reminds you yet again if you take your hands off the wheel. If some moron can't understand that, what would is a 100 hours of training going to accomplish. Maybe they should put shockers in the seat for additional reinforcement

    13. Re:So just rename it then? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      What a crock of shit. According to this logic, commercial flight should be the most dangerous form of transportation.

      http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL...

      What makes you think pilots are immune? Its just that at 10,000 feet over the atlantic the sky is pretty empty.

      That said, they have all kinds of stuff to help them stay engaged. Paperwork and reports. Communications. A co-pilot, and flight crew to interact with. Plus its, you know, their job... so they are trained, and if they can't do it, they get fired.

      Unlike a Tesla owner which only has to buy the car, doesn't have any training, and doesn't have anyone watching him drive to prevent him from being tempted.

      Plus pilots working on paper work and checklists, go for walks and stretch their legs, they play cards, solve puzzles, and other activities that all would not be compatible with the requirements for driving a Tesla.

  2. Elon Musk may meet his Waterloo here by HBI · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ignoring litigation exposure is a really bad idea. I doubt Tesla is adequately capitalized to handle the flood of lawsuits that every little incident involving "Autopilot" is going to result in. Consumer Reports is right in this case...they should disable it, settle the claims and be happy it isn't worse.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Elon Musk may meet his Waterloo here by eepok · · Score: 2

      Agreed.

      Eventually, there is going to be a MASSIVE legal battle that everyone building autonomous vehicles will have to face. Are the manufacturers at fault for collisions that their autonomous vehicles cause or fail to avoid? Because even if their autonomous drive mode prevents 2/3 of would-be collisions in those vehicles, the other 1/3 of those collisions will technically be the result of software shortcomings and thus be the fault of the manufacturer.

      With >30,000 traffic deaths per year in the US alone, can autonomous vehicle makers deal with the financial effect of being the direct cause of even 100 people?

    2. Re:Elon Musk may meet his Waterloo here by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

      The freaking manual says to not do what most of these accidents have done.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re: Elon Musk may meet his Waterloo here by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LOL, the guy running the most innovative car company in the world today AND the most innovative rocket company today is an idiot.

      So says the anonymous coward.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  3. How many accidents has it avoided? by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Airbags and seat belts kill, too - but they save way more lives than they take, so they are standard mandatory equipment. I certainly think we need more time to evaluate, but I'd be willing to bet that autopilot has avoided accidents that dumb asses would have otherwise caused.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:How many accidents has it avoided? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      That's data Tesla should have, since they get driving statistics from their cars. They should be able to easily calculate the accident rate for their cars under similar driving conditions with and without Autopilot on.

    2. Re:How many accidents has it avoided? by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apples and oranges. Airbags and seat belts are designed to be of use during an already underway accident. Autopilot caused the accident.

    3. Re:How many accidents has it avoided? by eepok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately, what didn't happen doesn't matter in law.

      Let's say you're driving drunk one day. You hit a car and kill all 4 occupants. You will be thrown in jail and sued in civil court. And you will lose. No court has ever said, "Well, he was such a good driver before. He even actively prevented some collisions with a wise use of horn and blinkers!" Nope. You're still at fault for the collision you cause.

      And this is going to be the MASSIVE legal battle that anyone building autonomous vehicles will have to face. Even if their autonomous drive mode prevents 2/3 of would-be collisions in those vehicles, their other 1/3 of those collisions will be the fault and liability of the manufacturer.

    4. Re:How many accidents has it avoided? by wagnerrp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Autopilot was active during an accident. The truck caused the accident by turning left in front of oncoming traffic. The car had the right of way, and the truck was supposed to wait for the car to clear before continuing. Autopilot failed to prevent the accident, in the same way automatic emergency braking systems offered by other brands may similarly fail to detect an unexpected obstacle and stop.

    5. Re:How many accidents has it avoided? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      You sure about that?

      You might want to go look up a company called Takata. Which has tens of millions of airbags recalled.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  4. Its not Hands Free though... by Pubstar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everything I've read about the auto pilot feature states that you need to have your hands on the wheel at all times. There is even a fucking nag prompt for you to hold the steering wheel.

    1. Re:Its not Hands Free though... by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Autopilot in an airplane maintains direction and speed. Tesla autopilot does the same.
      Autopilot in airplane doesn't swerve to avoid crashes. But Tesla does swerve/brake in some situations.
      Autopilot in airplane requires the real pilot to pay attention and be ready to take over at any time. Tesla pops up a notice every time you turn it on which says "KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE WHEEL AND BE READY TO TAKE OVER AT ANY TIME".
      The name is perfect.
      Unfortunately, we still have some of the same stupid people who can't read and don't follow directions.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:Its not Hands Free though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everything I've read about the auto pilot feature states that you need to have your hands on the wheel at all times.

      This. Even with auto pilot on a commercial jet liner, someone has to be in the cockpit at all times, monitoring and ready to take control. Why? In case shit happens. Which is always does, at the most unexpected times. If you want to get from A to B without having to interact with the vehicle in any capacity, ride a bus or call an Uber. Please don't tell me you're so stupid as to honestly claim you didn't know the car really wouldn't drive itself with 0% action on your part. If you are this stupid.. please ride a bus or call an Uber.

    3. Re:Its not Hands Free though... by F.Ultra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It could have been named "two sticks up your ass" and the three accidents that have happened so far would probably still have happened. The problem is not in the name.

    4. Re:Its not Hands Free though... by xrhunex · · Score: 2

      Autopilot in an airplane does far more than maintain speed and heading. An autopilot in an airplane can takeoff, land, and everything in between. Autopilots are better at every single part of the flying process than humans, as long as all equipment is operating properly. It's not even a contest. Machines are superior to humans. There are autopilots now (the X-47B being the main interest) that can land tailless aircraft on aircraft carriers without human input. Despite the fact that airplanes fly through the air, and so it seems like it's more open than, say, a road, airplanes are far more restricted than cars. The 'choices' an autopilot or human pilot make are a lot more constrained than a typical car driver, with the exceptions of course being the cases where catastrophic equipment failures are present (at which point the meatbag pilot must take control and handle the situation - regardless of whether its in the air or on a road).

      Also, modern autopilots are integrated with TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems) in order to do exactly that - avoid traffic collisions. An autopilot integrated with TCAS would be able to avoid traffic just like a human pilot, because collision avoidance has *very* strict rules set by the FAA and other aviation administrations around the world which determine things like: who goes nose up, who goes nose down, what altitudes they need to go to, and what heading/speed they need to be at. And the TCAS/autopilot systems on aircraft can communicate this amongst each other in real-time at rates exceeding 50 Hz (as opposed to a human, whose reaction time from eye-to-brain-to-hand is 10 Hz at a very theoretical-best).

      So comparisons to an aircraft autopilot aren't really appropriate. They do just as much as the human does, but both are so heavily constrained on what they can do in an average situation that it becomes easier to make the decision making autonomous. However, due to the ironically more open nature of driving a car on a road than flying an airplane through the air, the things a human can (legally) do and what a car's 'autopilot' can do are not yet the same. If roadways were as heavily restricted as airspace and required the same level of training, planning, and communication for a driver to operate a vehicle on the roadways, then the autopilot's job would be far easier to automate. But we don't require drivers to have much training, we don't require them to register their driving plan before driving, we don't require them to communicate their driving plans to others while driving, we don't require them to communicate changes to driving plans while driving, etc.

      Roadways are also far more densely packed, and there is currently no analogue of a TCAS. To be clear about what TCAS means - it's not just any system that does Something to avoid a collision. It's a very specifically defined piece of equipment that is required to transmit data such as x, y, z velocities + accelerations, course, true airspeed, heading, latitude, longitude, altitude, etc. While there are systems in cars that can be classified as 'tries to avoid collisions' there are no systems which communicate with other cars in order to calculate whether collisions are about to occur, and offer corrective actions to avoid collisions - and this owes a lot to the fact that the car/roadway system is far more complex in some ways than the airplane/airspace system, and also that we allow extremely old cars to drive on roads, whereas the FAA can mandate TCAS to be installed on all aircraft that wish to fly in certain airspaces (low flying aircraft like crop dusters, for example, usually aren't required to have a TCAS, but they also fly in airspaces that don't typically intersect with commercial passenger aircraft).

      Not trying to beat you up on these things, it's just that I have experience with working with, and on, these systems in aircraft. I agree that the name is appropriate if people understand how to use it (and Tesla is clear on the "Keep your hands on the damn wheel, you hairless monkey" thing), but perhaps if people are too stupid to understand it based on its name, then perhaps the name needs to be changed. It's our job as engineers to make sure that everyone is safe, even the stupid people.

    5. Re:Its not Hands Free though... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Except when you hear Musk talk, it hardly sounds like the Autopilot will change name between now and becoming self-driving. He talks as if this is their automatic driver but since it's still in beta wait just a little bit longer to take your hands off the wheel. When in fact it's much closer to the adaptive cruise control/lane keeping etc. that other cars have had than to Google's car project. Sure the legal disclaimers are all there but very often they disclaim anything and everything just to be on the safe side.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  5. fucking great by indy_Muad'Dib · · Score: 4, Insightful

    im going to lose the best feature of my model S because some asshole decided to watch a movie instead of the road while in his car.

    1. Re:fucking great by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A man died because Tesla marketed the system as more than what the specs said it could do.

      That is a lie. Tesla marketed it as handling the activity of driving for an alert driver who may well have to step in and start driving again

      He's dead because of the Elon Musk hype train because the way Musk talked about the feature, he felt comfortable doing this.

      His feelings may or may not be legally actionable. That he didn't follow directions, however, is extremely relevant. Tesla won't even turn on the feature without giving the driver a lecture, so he has no excuse for not understanding his responsibilities as a driver.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Too cautious by worldthinker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I recall correctly, Consumer Reports was the same organization that demerited cars for having electric power windows because they said something to the effect that you'd be trapped in the event your car sank in a body of water.

    It is sad that someone died while using Tesla's "autopilot" feature. But 1) evidence suggests the driver contributed to his own demise by ignoring or circumventing the warnings and safety features of the product 2) the product is only improved by the knowledge gained from this incident making future trips safer for everyone. 3) it is already evident that the rate of fatalities using this mode is already a 35% improvement over non-autopilot users. (1 fatality in 130 million miles driven vs. 1 in 96 million)

    1. Re:Too cautious by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it is already evident that the rate of fatalities using this mode is already a 35% improvement over non-autopilot users. (1 fatality in 130 million miles driven vs. 1 in 96 million)

      Is this an apples-to-apples comparison? I would imagine that autopilot is much more heavily used on highways than on surface streets. So, if the fatality rate on highways per mile is lower than for surface streets, it wouldn't be an entirely fair comparison.

      I genuinely don't know the answer to this, couldn't find any data close at hand...

  7. What happened to personal resonsibility? by l2718 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As far as I know the documentation and the system in operation both clearly indicate to the user that they must be alert and in control of the vehicle at all times. If the users fails to do that the fault is entirely their own.

  8. Can't disable it by synapse7 · · Score: 2

    Then they would be sued for every fatality where it was not available. Also, isn't this like suing GM if your cruise control ran you into a semi, or did that happen when cruise be came available?

  9. Re:umm nope by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

    "to give you more confidence behind the wheel" does not give me the impression to take my hands of the wheel.

  10. Darwin was right. by Charcharodon · · Score: 2

    This just in idiots doing idiotic things with technology. I say no to disabling it. Stop protecting stupid people from themselves.

    1. Re:Darwin was right. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      This just in idiots doing idiotic things with technology. I say no to disabling it. Stop protecting stupid people from themselves.

      I might agree with this if these "idiots" only endangered themselves. But they can endanger passengers and other cars on the road as well.

      This is like someone arguing in favor of letting people drive drunk or while texting or whatever... "Let the idiots kill themselves!" Except they can kill other people in the process when a multiton vehicle slams into another because of that "idiot." There's the problem here.

  11. Re:umm nope by Xenx · · Score: 2

    That statement doesn't say anything at all, implied or otherwise, about being able to drive without hands on the wheel. The fact that they say to drive with your hands on the wheel is rather explicit.

  12. Re:Auto pilot is not... by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People on slashdot love to rip on companies who advertise Unlimited but still have caps. "Unlimited should mean Unlimited!" But give Tesla a pass when they bill something that's not Autopilot as Autopilot.

    Oh, but it is autopilot. Name a vehicular autopilot system that is designed to allow the operator to engage and then ignore it completely for the duration of the trip, without risk of disaster. Commercial aviation relies heavily on autopilot, but they still employ 2 pilots per flight. Why? Because if there's only one pilot, and he's incapacitated, autopilot simply does not have the same capabilities to get the aircraft home safely. Don't you think they would have axed the expensive pilot positions years ago if the technology existed to allow it? So yes, it is autopilot, but no it's not meant to replace a human.

  13. Cruise control by any other name ... by jonesy16 · · Score: 2

    I really don't see a problem with the way that Tesla has implemented this or the name they choose to call it by. Clearly you are going to have some people who push it to the extreme and those people will suffer (or possibly die) because of it. I don't really see how this is all that different from cruise control in general. Cruise control was originally designed to alleviate the physical stress of maintaining a constant speed over long distances (for similar reasons that it exists on planes). Adding the ability for the car to maintain itself in a lane is a further iteration of that, as is the car's limited ability to respond to obstacles in its way. Guess what, if you set cruise control on your car and don't pay attention to changes in traffic ahead of you, you may slam into a car going slower than you, yet none of our cars warn us when we engage cruise control that we should keep checking for cars in front of us (I'm sure it's in the manual in the glove box though). Should Tesla change the name of the feature? I suppose they could, I doubt it would modify anyone's behavior. It doesn't take you that long to realize what the car appears to be able to do before you'll let it steer, accelerate, and brake, regardless of what's it called or what warning messages are read to you.