Slashdot Mirror


Man Says Tesla Autopilot Saved His Life By Driving Him To the Hospital (cnbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Last month a man sent an email to Elon Musk explaining how his Tesla Model S with Autopilot activated may have saved a pedestrian's life. Now, it appears Autopilot may have saved the life of a Tesla Model X driver. CNBC reports: "A Missouri man says his Tesla helped saved his life by driving him to the hospital during a life-threatening emergency. Joshua Neally is a lawyer and Tesla owner from Springfield, Missouri, who often uses the semi-autonomous driving system called Autopilot on his Tesla Model X. The system has come under fire after it was involved in a fatal Florida crash in May, but Neally told online magazine Slate that Autopilot drove him 20 miles down a freeway to a hospital, while Neally suffered a potentially fatal blood vessel blockage in his lung, known as a pulmonary embolism. The hospital was right off the freeway exit, and Neally was able to steer the car the last few meters and check himself into the emergency room, the report said."

24 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature, but wouldn't it have made more sense to call an ambulance? The auto-pilate might be able to get you there, but if you need immediate treatment, the Tesla can't do much for you.

    1. Re:Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Odd, I would expect the auto-Pilate function to crucify me, not to save me.

    2. Re:Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature by Adriax · · Score: 4, Funny

      An Auto-Pilates system wouldn't be very good either. I'm pretty sure exercise is a bad idea for people with a pulmonary embolism.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature, but wouldn't it have made more sense to call an ambulance?

      Yes, and no. Pulmonary embolism (PE) survivor here. I had mine for over a week before my employer finally told me they would not give me any more hours until I went to the hospital. Yes because there is plenty of time to get an ambulance, and for the same reason, no. But arriving in an ambulance will get you looked at sooner when you get there. I walked to the hospital though (very slowly). Twice. The first time I left after waiting 90 minutes in the emergency room without seeing a single medical professional, just a few cleaners (this was mid-afternoon). I went back the next day and when someone finally saw me, they put me in intensive care immediately, do not pass go. By that point I was bringing up not insignificant amounts of blood.

      I have been through a lot of physical pain in my life, but there is no pain like PE pain. Can't sleep, or even lie down for a week pain. It was intense.

      Interestingly, in the process, being unable to yawn during that week because it was too painful, I now have a theory that yawning has some respiratory function. Once I could yawn again I really appreciated it, and could feel its effect.

    4. Re:Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature by Memnos · · Score: 2

      Now you're just being Pontius.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    5. Re:Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature by gweilo8888 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. Instead of hyping Tesla, this idiot should have called for an ambulance. What happens if he passes out on the way to the hospital, and then his "autopilot" decides it can't quite tell what it's doing and reverts control the unconscious driver? An accident, that's what.

      Tesla owners really are a special kind of stupid to rely on autopilot like they do.

    6. Re:Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature by billmarrs · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wash my hands of these posts.

    7. Re:Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature by ilctoh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to diminish the usefulness of the feature, but wouldn't it have made more sense to call an ambulance?

      Yes, and no.

      Actually, just yes. Speaking as a paramedic, a PE (or really anything which causes difficulty breathing lasting longer than a few seconds) is a completely legitimate reason to ask for an ambulance. That clot could move at any time, making it impossible to breath. And especially in the case described in this story, where the patient was suffering enough that he couldn't maintain full control of a vehicle without assistance - choosing to drive yourself is just silly. Just go ahead and give us a call, we don't mind. Or, at a minimum, get someone else to drive you.

      But arriving in an ambulance will get you looked at sooner when you get there

      Actually, no. Now, it sounds like you ended up in a shitty hospital that was poorly staffed or something - but in reality, the hospital staff triages and sees patients in order of severity, regardless of whether you arrived by ambulance or walked in. In fact, a lot of ne'er-do-wells seem to share your belief that an ambulance will get you seen faster, and thus call us for silly reasons that do not need an ambulance. And while we are more than happy to give you a ride to the hospital (non-emergent, without using the lights and sirens) - we'll drop you off in the waiting room, where you'll get triaged along with everyone else.

      --
      How many slashes would a slashdot dot, if a slashdot could dot slashes?
  2. call an ambulance by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't risk wrecking or running over people on your way to the hospital. Call an ambulance. Even if it is expensive, if you can afford a $100K car you can afford to call an ambulance.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re: call an ambulance by alcmena · · Score: 5, Informative

      Other articles were more clear. He was on the freeway, and he was worried, probably correctly, that he could drive there faster from where he was than an ambulance could arrive.

    2. Re: call an ambulance by alcmena · · Score: 3, Informative

      I happen to own a Model S, so have more experience with Autopilot than most. As someone who has never used it, I understand and appreciate your concern. As someone who had experienced Autopilot over a length of time, your worries are overblown and the bigger concern would be if he passed out before the final stretch. That concern isn't because he would have hurt someone else. It's because without him being aware, he wouldn't have made it the final stretch.

    3. Re:call an ambulance by gweilo8888 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is the USA. We're the ultimate example of why privatization is a bad thing. Want ambulance service? Oh, no, you're taxes don't cover that. Pay up. House on fire? No, your taxes don't cover that either -- pay $900/year for the privilege of maybe having some of your stuff saved if it goes up in flames. Instead of the lowest possible cost spread across an entire nation, it's essentially legalized extortion and most people just try and do without.

      Oh, and that $900 figure? That's not made up. It's approximately what I'd be charged per year for fire service in my old house in a relatively less affluent neighborhood in a non-rural area of a reasonably large city. It's approximately 0.6% of the entire value of my house, every year. When I first moved here, I got a delightful letter from the local fire department -- which is why I call this extortion -- advising me that if I have a fire without paying up ahead of time, they'll either refuse to do anything except what's necessary to stop my house damaging a neighbor's house who paid up ahead of time, or they'll sit and watch my place burn until I agree to pay into the tens of thousands of dollars -- even if they don't manage to save a single thing.

      Nice, eh?

    4. Re:call an ambulance by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      For those here who missed the news a few years ago, here's how things work in some parts of the US:

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn
      http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

      Hard to believe, I know.

    5. Re:call an ambulance by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may have missed the point.

      This is not about expectations of firefighters working for free, nor about cops.

      In most civilized locales, firefighters (and cops) are paid through public funds obtained via taxes.

      In rural Tennessee, it appears that the fire department is paid via individual homeowner "subscriptions", literally. If you don't subscribe then they will let your home and your pets (maybe your kids too, I don't know) burn. In fact it's not the firefighters who decided that, it was the pea-brained politicians and --, probably by the power of suggestion -- their constituents, who decided that. "No more taxes", yeah!

  3. Corrected headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man puts other drivers at risk by keeping driving after being severely impaired with the help of a half-baked autonomous driving system.

  4. Your honor, consider all the people I didn't kill. by eepok · · Score: 2

    We'll probably see these stories highlighted non-stop until some sort of legal decision is made on the liability of the actions genuinely autonomous vehicles. Google, Tesla, and everyone else working on the tech will need constant need investor support and public reaction to happy stories otherwise they'll have to face the real question of liability.

    The problem at hand: It doesn't matter how many people a car's autonomous driving doesn't kill, what matters is the number of people it fails to save. The same rule applies to humans: People cannot defend negligent or murderous actions by a listing of all the people that they didn't kill. What matters is harm committed, not harm evaded.

    Moreover, can any company survive the of full liability of the loss of more than a few lives? Over 30,000 people per year are killed on American roads. Even if autonomous vehicles reduced that to 10,000 people per year (a 66% reduction!), their manufacturers/programmers would still be responsible for the death of 10,000 people! What industry could survive that liability? That many civil law suits?

  5. Slant by mentil · · Score: 2

    Tesla's 'Autopilot' feature takes another person to the hospital. When will the carnage end?!

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  6. Needed tweak for the release version by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

    This feat was impressive, but it will do no good unless Autopilot takes the driver to a hospital that takes his insurance plan.

    1. Re:Needed tweak for the release version by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      Hm? last I checked a hospital in the united states can not deny anyone for emergency care.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Needed tweak for the release version by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Hm? last I checked a hospital in the united states can not deny anyone for emergency care.

      They are required to treat you in the ER, but if you pick a hospital that doesn't take your insurance, you will be billed at the chargemaster rate and spend spend the rest of your life paying it off.

  7. I hope his license is permanently revoked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So he knew he was in need of urgent medical attention and he knew his driving was severly impaired, but instead of getting off the road and calling an ambulance, he continued to drive, relying on a system not at all designed for such circumstances?

    I have some sympathy for people who assume Auto Pilot will not have glaring blind spots due to trivial engineering shortcomings, but anyone who thinks it means you can drive while unconscious/dead is not fit to be on the road. Thank goodness he did not cause an accident on this busy freeway resulting in the injury/death of dozens of people.

    This is the archetypal selfish cunt, who may have made a lucky call on this occasion, but certianly did not make the right one.

  8. Terms of Use Violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But "everyone knows" you're not supposed to do this, right? Tesla tells you not to do this; you agree not to do this. If the article had been "man dies by using autopilot instead of calling ambulance" that's what a lot of people would be saying, right?

    I'm not saying that the feature should be disabled or making any claim as to whether or not it's a net benefit. But if you're going to take credit for these situations where the autopilot worked when the driver was clearly not in any condition to drive, then you should take responsibility for its failures instead of deflecting fault because the driver was "distracted" or "inattentive".

  9. Ummmm... not exactly by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Medical care in the US yes, that is private. So you pay for ambulances. Fire, no that varies by region. There is no federal firefighting setup, for a lot of reasons. So it is a state and local thing. Generally, firefighters are paid for by county or city taxes. In the vast majority of places, this is the case. If you are actually in the city limits, it is essentially always the case.

    The issue is unincorporated areas. They don't have city government services because, well, they aren't incorporated in a city. There is depends on how the state, or usually the county, handles it. Sometimes it is taken care of at that level. Taxes paid to the county are used to with fund rural fire departments, or get paid in to city departments to have service out there.

    However some places decide they want to be cheap to have less taxes. In that case, ya you have to pay some other way. Usually it is directly paying the local FD, often run by a nearby city (or the county) but it could be paying a completely private agency. You could even contract out your own, if you really wanted.

    Don't like it? Well then you may need to move somewhere with higher taxes. Sorry, that's the tradeoff. You wanted to live somewhere with a really low property tax, and probably low property cost, you get to pay direct for some of the things that tax would cover. Where I live it is mostly funded by city sales tax, and also some aid from the state, but there is a line for it on my property tax bill as well.

    I don't have a ton of sympathy for people that want to live in a cheap, unincorperated area and then cry when they have to pay for things that are city services in a city like water, sewer, fire, and so on. Either move, or start a vote to incorporate. You can join (or form) a city, you know. It comes with paying more taxes though.

  10. Also for the idiots hating ambulance response time by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless the ambulance takes a really long time to get to your house (and in most cities they are distributed around town, usually in fire stations, they don't come from the hospital) you get treatment faster. Why? Because they can treat you. Ambulances are little mobile treatment rooms. They have an EMT and Paramedic who have a not insignificant amount of training, a radio back to doctors, and a ton of equipment. No, they are not as well equipped as a hospital, but they have a lot of shit, including most of what you'd want to keep someone stable until they reach the hospital. Also they can usually get there faster than you can since they have the whole lights n' sirens thing. That isn't magic, but it helps them move through traffic a lot faster than normal.

    Let's say you live 30 minutes away from the hospital, presuming normal traffic. If you leave your house right away, and everything goes well (like you don't pass out) then you get there in 30 minutes and presuming they properly triage you you get full care then. However if you call an ambulance you may have to wait, but let's say one is at a fire station only 15 minutes away, particularly since they can move faster. So in that case you get treatment starting in 15 minutes, not full care, but people there to help, and you get full care in 40, because they get to the hospital in 25 minutes rather than 30.

    It will vary based on where you live, of course, but it is information you can find out if you are interested. Usually, you'll be getting care a lot faster with an ambulance and it won't take that much longer to get to the hospital.

    Also it can help with making sure you get care right away if you need it. The Paramedic will be doing triage on you, seeing how bad you are. If you are in a bad way and need immediate care, they will let the hospital know and they'll be ready. You'll be admitted straight away and seen to. However if you walk in, that sometimes doesn't happen. Hospitals assume, usually correctly, that if you are well enough to be able to get yourself to them, walk in and sit down, you are well enough to wait until there is time. Now hopefully they'll notice if you are in need of immediate care, but maybe not.

    Come in on an ambulance though, and it is probably taken care of. If you are not seriously injured, no problem, you'll come in and wait if necessary, just as if you walked in. If you are in need of immediate care though, they'll make sure to have it ready if they can.