Slashdot Mirror
Tesla's Autopilot Mode Reportedly Saves Pedestrian's Life (electrek.co)
An anonymous reader writes: Following reports of Tesla's Autopilot mode being linked to a fatal crash, one Tesla Model S owner is reporting that the Autopilot mode has likely saved a pedestrian's life. The driver sent an email to Elon Musk explaining the situation, which was confirmed by Tesla through the vehicle logs: "I wanted to let you know that I think my car probably saved the life of a pedestrian last night, 7/16 around 10:30pm when I was driving in Washington DC with my daughter." The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from "when a pedestrian stepped out in front of [their] Model S in the dark with dark clothes and in the middle of the road." The car slammed on its breaks before he could and "stopped just inches from hitting the pedestrian." The driver said, "I am not sure if I would have been able to stop before hitting him but I am so glad the car did." The Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), which is standard on all Tesla vehicles and is part of Tesla's Autopilot mode, is what was at work here. It appears that many of the convenience features of Autopilot were not activated at the time of the incident. This is likely the first of many good press stories released by Elon Musk, who said he would consider releasing the stories of accidents prevented by the Autopilot mode with the authorization of the Tesla owners and by confirming the events through the vehicle logs. Elon Musk did also announce Tesla's 'Master Plan, Part Deux,' which includes new kinds of Tesla vehicles, expanded solar initiatives, updates on Tesla's 'autopilot' technology, and a ride-sharing program.
ESL post
Tesla's Autopilot isn't auto-pilot either.
It's collision avoidance, radar cruise control and lane-keep-assist.
Lots of new cars have all of those as options, but they don't let the driver take their hands off wheel.
Actually it is mostly the pedestrians fault, according to the way the story reads. Both parties may have been semi-distracted, but the pedestrian only has the right of way under certain circumstances, as detailed below. From what data we have available the pedestrian walked out in front of the vehicle with only enough room for computer assisted braking to save him from being struck.
Pedestrians only have the right of way:
by almost, if not all laws written, 1: in a marked cross walk ( convenient how this is left off in the quote all the time, no? ) and 2: only when it is safe for them to cross.
For number 2, many states have it written into the lawbooks that pedestrians who dart out in front of cars when the driver does not have an adequate and reasonable means of stopping have given up their right of way, and have actually committed a cite-able violation themselves. Many times, also, crossing outside of marked crosswalks is "at will" as well, with absolutely no expectation of having a right of way.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
I don't know if all of the logs do, but a substantial amount of them do. This is the "fleet learning" that Tesla talks about. Even when Autopilot isn't active, it's still watching, and comparing what it would do with what the human driver actually does as part of that fleet learning system.
Note that this is opt-in. When you purchase a Tesla, one of the forms they ask you to sign gives them permission to collect this data. You can decline to sign it, which will result in much of the online functionality of the car being disabled, but it doesn't stop the purchase and you can still use the car as a car.
Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
I don't think that's the driver's fault. The pedestrian essentially darted out into traffic, not giving enough time for a human driver to react. However the autopilot, which presumably has a quicker response time, was able to react without driver intervention.
Now, had the pedestrian gone through a crosswalk and had there been roadsigns to notify the driver as such, but the driver was relying on autopilot and the pedestrian got hit? Driver's fault.
And yes, you can have it both ways here. Why? Because it is made pretty clear that autopilot is more of a convenience and in the right circumstances it can correct driver error (including errors made by other drivers and pedestrians,) but at the same time it is not intended to be a replacement for an actual driver, nor is it ever advertised as such. This means that ultimately you, the driver, are responsible for correcting the autopilot, but the autopilot is not responsible for correcting you.
As a driver, you're obligated to pull over and make way for emergency vehicles, so it's naturally to look for the source of sirens as a driver. We're often required to divert our eyes and look behind us or to the side at times as well, even when driving in normal circumstances. Humans can't focus in all directions at once. Moreover, it's more or less impossible for a person to be 100% focused and ready to brake at an instant's notice.
Accusing him of not looking where he was going is more or less accusing him of not having eyes in the back of his head.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
"The car slammed on its breaks before he could and "stopped just inches from hitting the pedestrian"
"Brakes". The word is "brakes".
Cars have brakes.
Not "breaks" (a verb), not "breeks" (Scottish trousers), "brakes".
No sig today...
Well, given how many cars are on the road and the millions of daily miles - he doesn't need to make up shit like this.
I drive a car (totally different brand) that also features emergency warnings/braking. When merging onto a high speed Road here I briefly checked my blind spot, while a car in front merging had for no reason suddenly slammed on his breaks. Only because of that emergency system did I not rear end him.
That was with only a few thousand miles of owning this car.
Practically speaking, that would mean an implicit speed limit of 10mph or less anywhere there's on-curb parking.
Yep.
And yet, that is not the standard. Perhaps you are confused about the standard. Pedestrians do have responsibilities. Even in Santa Cruz, where pedestrians have the right of way outside of crosswalks, if a pedestrian suddenly steps out in front of a vehicle somewhere other than a crosswalk (where you are pretty much always religiously at fault unless you have a protected light, and even then you are expected to exercise caution) then they are at fault. You may be called upon to prove this as the driver, so you should have a dashcam... welcome to Russia, comrade.
But no, you are totally off your nut about driving speeds. We set them to 25 to reduce speeds in a collision with a pedestrian, and have recently mandated that vehicles should accomodate pedestrians in a crash, so the hoods and fenders have been redesigned not to kill them as easily. Unless you have a reasonable expectation that someone is about to step in front of your car, the speed limit in such areas is still whatever is posted. If they wanted a lower speed limit, they'd post one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"