Man Blames Tesla Autopilot System For Rollover Crash, Then Recants (autoguide.com)

According to AutoGuide, the driver of a Tesla is blaming the Autopilot system for a recent crash in Minnesota. "58-year old David Clark was approaching an intersection when he turned the Autopilot system on, causing the car to accelerate suddenly and veer off the road," reports AutoGuide. "The vehicle ended up on its roof in a marsh with all five occupants sustaining minor injuries." From the report: Tesla's Autopilot function is considered an SAE Level 2 autonomous system, meaning the car will accelerate and steer on its own, but the driver is expected to remain alert and intervene if necessary. In an emailed statement to Electrek, Tesla said it has yet to establish whether or not the Autopilot function was actually turned on at the time of the accident. The company also noted it is still the driver's responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle when Autopilot is engaged. AutoGuide's report was based off the information Kandiyohi County Sheriff's Office received and reported. Now, it appears the Tesla driver is claiming the self-driving Autopilot system wasn't responsible for the crash, despite what he initially told investigators. According to ABC News, Clark said he was confused in the moments after the crash. After discussing the crash with his fellow passengers, he now believes that he disengaged Autopilot by stepping on the accelerator before the crash. "I then remember looking up and seeing the sharp left turn which I was accelerating into. I believe we started to make the turn but then felt the car give way and lose its footing like we hit loose gravel," Clark wrote in the email.

Comments

When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[mykepredko]

I would think their lawyers (and hopefully marketers) cringe every time they see a story like this. The name "Autopilot" (while great) implies that nothing needs to be done by the driver so any accidents will be the car's fault, basically by definition.

Keep the "Autopilot" registered mark when they have something that works at Level 4 or 5 but for now, call it something like "Lane Keeping Assist" and eliminate the headlines "Driver killed while Tesla Autopilot Active".

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[vought]

People using this feature freak me out when I'm riding my motorcycle into San Francisco. The normal behavior of phone-users is to brake, speed up, slow down, bounce off of the lane markers (Driving by Braille) and generally endanger those of us on two wheels.

Tesla drivers? There they are, tapping away on the fucking phone with their eyes down and the car is gliding along, centered in the lane and steady, station-keeping a safe distance form the car in front of it.

Please, more like this.

As far as people blaming cars for their own stupidity, I'll trust the engineers at Tesla, thanks. Our Audi 5000 didn't take off by itself and neither do Teslas.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[deesine]

Autopilot's other closely linked connotation is what we've seen in many movies/tv/novels, "who's flying, don't worry I've got the autopilot on". People know that autopilot doesn't fly a plane from take-off to landing all by itself, the pilot is needed.

How about fully autonomous, autonomous, driver-less, self-driving. New terms will be better and more accurate I believe than trying to keep Autopilot away from autos just because they're not fully self driving even when they pretty much act just like Autopilot does in aircraft.

These headlines aren't going away just because Tesla changes the name of the feature. And at this point, a change would give the public perception that something's wrong. Tesla has created the boilerplate public response: We've yet to determine if the Autopilot feature was engaged at the time. And please note: it's always a driver's responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle when Autopilot is engaged. Responsible journalists will always include that.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[ShanghaiBill]

The name "Autopilot" (while great) implies that nothing needs to be done by the driver

I have heard this said many many times by people that all have one thing in common: They don't own a Tesla, and have never driven one. So it doesn't matter if it is misleading to them, since they aren't actually using it. Likewise, it doesn't really matter if you misunderstand what a aircraft autopilot does if you aren't a pilot.

Meanwhile, for those of us that actually drive Teslas, there is no way that we are stupid enough to believe that it is "hands-off" just because of the name. Anyone that uses the system can see that it requires human interaction.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Ogive17]

And in the moment where something happens and "Autopilot" notifies the driver it needs to take over and they swerve into your lane because they had no situational awareness... no, we don't need more of that.

I have driven level 2 cars before, they are great.. but I never let it drive me. In my opinion, they greatly reduce driving fatigue. However until every car on the road is at least level 3 or above, I will keep my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road... just hope others do the same.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Octorian]

As one who does drive a Tesla, I find it quite infuriating to constantly have to explain (and re-explain) to people what the autopilot system actually is. They all just casually peruse headlines and assume it must be fully autonomous driving, usable from parking lot to parking lot, able to drive the car with me being asleep.

Now I do absolutely love having the system, especially on long drives. And yes, I'm also quite aware of its limitations and am not stupid enough to assume Elon will take responsibility if it causes my car to hurt someone. (Nor would I be okay with simply shifting the blame, and thus being personally okay with such a screwup even happening.)

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Nor would I be okay with simply shifting the blame, and thus being personally okay with such a screwup even happening.)

Some people do and will.
A client sent me the front page of a tabloid paper with the photo of somebody house burn to cinders, the house owner blamed the fire to my client wall pluggable mains adaptor
She went to chat with a neighbour and left the adaptor plugged in a socket over the kitchen cocker with a pan with oil heating
I seen people do things and then plainly deny it, even menial stuff and when confronted with video evidence

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's annoying because I believe it really is as good as an airplane autopilot (flight director) system of today.

It's just that airplane autopilots have vastly easier tasks -- 80% is simply 'head directly to this waypoint at these coordinates and altitude", and another 10-15% is simply follow this heading given by ATC. (There's a bit more to it around rates of turn and rates of altitude change for the more advanced routes, but the point is it's all hard coded ahead of time and almost trivial algorithm wise.)

There's no 'follow the road' - it's merely head directly to a waypoint.
There's no 'keep track of other cars' - in the rare case of another plane in the way, TCAS systems provide the very straightforward "CLIMB" or "DESCEND" instruction. Most of the time, it's still, "head to waypoint" because ATC has avoided the other planes.
There's no avoid pedestrians.
There's no weather implications. Human pilots program the route in around that..
There are no intersections - the closest is "once you hit waypoint x on the route, proceed to waypoint y".
There are no lanes.

The list goes on.

TLDR: Airplanes head directly to point 'x'. if *that* was all a car autopilot had to do, it's borderline trivial (the hardest point is taking account turning radius!).

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Planes could technically take off and land by themselves, they can already land automatically, except they don't idle the engines or put on the brakes. Take off is the reverse of landing, except you wait longer to pull up. A few minor tweaks, and it could also taxi from the runway to the terminal.

Re: When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just yet. I drive a Model S and love it. But every now and again, I have absolutely experienced the car just driving over a white line and that's with the latest software.

Also, if you push the accelerator while "autopilot" is on, you just go faster, autopilot stays engaged.

--------------
I'll trust the engineers at Tesla, thanks.

Re: When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

'cos we're all above-average driversðY(TM)

-------
there is no way that we are stupid enough to believe that it is "hands-off" just because of the name. Anyone that uses the system can see that it requires huma

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[geekmux]

I would think their lawyers (and hopefully marketers) cringe every time they see a story like this. The name "Autopilot" (while great) implies that nothing needs to be done by the driver so any accidents will be the car's fault, basically by definition.

Every time I hear this excuse regarding terminology confusion, it merely reinforces what has actually been abandoned; peoples ability to use common fucking sense.

Regardless of the industry we borrowed the "confusing" term from, there has never been a commercial plane that has taken off or landed without a licensed pilot at the controls.

Clearly the reason for that is not as stupidly obvious as I thought.

Re: When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[michelcolman]

So what happens if you're nearing a curve, autopilot wants to slow down, but you stomp on the gas? Won't that give a pretty similar result to what happened in this case? Do you think the autopilot will "just go faster" and make the turn regardless of the laws of physics?

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[thegarbz]

The name "Autopilot" (while great) implies that nothing needs to be done by the driver

I think it's time we use a bit of common sense to tell people what "autopilot" actually means. A simple question would do: Would you fly on a plane right now without a pilot? I'm willing to bet 100% of people will answer no because autopilot isn't good enough for that.

Level 4 or Level 5 would be well above what we expect any autopilot system for an aircraft to be capable of, so why should we redefine it for cars?

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[michelcolman]

Most autoland systems do idle the engines and apply the brakes. They don't deploy reverse thrust, though. Also, they don't select flaps and put the gear down. All of the setup is still for the pilots to do, the plane is just really good at keeping the localizer and glide slope perfectly centered, maintaining the set speed, pulling the nose up at the right time and bringing the plane to a stop. That's all the autoland system does, really. And it requires a fair bit of training to handle all the possible malfunctions, because the reaction of the system is usually just a "hey, you need to take over" or even worse, no reaction at all. And malfunctions do occur frequently, these systems are nowhere nearly ready to work without human supervision. Autolands are more stressful than manual landings, we only do them when visibility is really, really low.

No current autopilot system on commercial planes can take off autonomously. That's a deliberate decision because airplane manufacturers have decided that the decision to abort or continue a take-off is too critical to be left to automation. The margin for error is so small that they want the pilot to have his/her hands on the controls and actively controlling the airplane rather than waste seconds having to transition from "all is going well automatically, no need for me to do anything" to "WTF we need to do something!".

Taxiing is a different matter altogether. It would need extra sensors to avoid hitting things with the wings, and the added value is probably not considered to be worth the development cost. If a pilot gets lost on the taxiways, that's just an inconvenience with no lives depending on it.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[jabuzz]

Given the worst "air accident" in history could be described as a "taxiing problem" (see Tenerife airport disaster) your view that a pilot getting lost on the taxiways is just an inconvenience is utter bollocks.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"People using this feature freak me out when I'm riding my motorcycle into San Francisco." - you sir are a brave soul. Be careful riding. Lane-splitting and CA drivers is a bad combination.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Ol Olsoc]

but for now, call it something like "Lane Keeping Assist" and eliminate the headlines "Driver killed while Tesla Autopilot Active".

We are talking about Tesla. Detractors will seize on whatever they can seize on, so the headlines won't go away. Remember the hue and cry when one Tesla caught fire? You would have thought that Musk was hiding a body in the trunk of every Tesla.

Meanwhile Legacy vehicles catch fire every day.

So these stories will not stop, and even a fake positive like this one is seized upon.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[AcquaCow]

People using this feature freak me out when I'm riding my motorcycle into San Francisco. The normal behavior of phone-users is to brake, speed up, slow down, bounce off of the lane markers (Driving by Braille) and generally endanger those of us on two wheels.

Tesla drivers? There they are, tapping away on the fucking phone with their eyes down and the car is gliding along, centered in the lane and steady, station-keeping a safe distance form the car in front of it.

Please, more like this.

As far as people blaming cars for their own stupidity, I'll trust the engineers at Tesla, thanks. Our Audi 5000 didn't take off by itself and neither do Teslas.

My Audi 5000 always got the accelerator stuck under those horrible floor mats. I eventually got tired of fixing the floor mats and just took them out to be safer. About 2 months later, the throttle itself got stuck. I shut that boat of a wagon off but lost the brake booster support to slow it down. I pulled the e-brake and the e-brake cable snapped, so I had to perform a few "evasive maneuvers" to get it safely into a parking lot and stopped.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[tlhIngan]

I would think their lawyers (and hopefully marketers) cringe every time they see a story like this. The name "Autopilot" (while great) implies that nothing needs to be done by the driver so any accidents will be the car's fault, basically by definition.

Keep the "Autopilot" registered mark when they have something that works at Level 4 or 5 but for now, call it something like "Lane Keeping Assist" and eliminate the headlines "Driver killed while Tesla Autopilot Active".

Except it really is like an autopilot.

You may not realize this, but a lot of autopilots are barely even "level 1" when flying a plane. (A good chunk of them are single axis - they will control the ailerons only). The ones airliners use is only level 2 at best.

So it's really quite true - it's an automation assist and nothing more, just like regular airplane autopilots. Sure some fancy ones can land the plane, but they require a pilot to be monitoring it at all times - none are capable of flying the plane all by itself.

Hell, drones have better autonomous flight capabilities than autopilots.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

" disengaged Autopilot by stepping on the accelerator before the crash"
The BRAKE will disengage autopilot. Pressing on the accelerator with autopilot active will still accelerate.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[michelcolman]

You're right, I stand corrected.

Re:When will Tesla lose the name "Autopilot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's curious that "autopilot" implies that nothing needs to be done. The origin of the term, from airplanes, was simply a tool to maintain level flight without the pilot constantly needing to fiddle with the controls. A pilot is still needed.

Why does it suddenly mean "A magical AI that does everything!" in cars?

Autopilot Regret

[turkeydance]

i was confused/drunk/high

"The car will tattle on the driver."

[SensitiveMale]

I said it before here https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10765687&cid=54657685 and I'll say it again.

There is no more "he said/she said" with a Tesla. That car will tell investigators everything.

If you get into an accident driving one, everything you did is logged and will be submitted into court if it goes that far.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Rei]

Which, IMHO, is a good thing.

If I did nothing wrong, I want my car to exonerate me.
If it was my fault, then I deserve what I have coming.

He said / she said is a terrible system.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[redcliffe]

I agree. A lot of anti-surveillance and anti-logging arguments are basically "I want to do the wrong thing and get away with it".

The actual argument we should be having is about what is right or wrong, not whether you should be caught if you do the wrong thing.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Herkum01]

Obviously you are not a lawyer, because "he said / she said" is numerous billing hours and courts and works out great for them and the justice system.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[SensitiveMale]

Well, yes and no.

If a driver has done "nothing wrong" then the driver has nothing to worry about, right? But what does "nothing wrong" mean?

Let's say you were driving your car into an intersection, have a green arrow, and saw the light turn yellow. You've been driving this road for decades, so you know it's a long yellow light. You don't brake because you had the arrow and you hit the front corner of a car on the other side of the intersection turning right.

Now, the physical evidence points 100% to the other driver's error. But you drive a tesla and the case goes to court.

The other lawyer subpoenas your car's logs and finds out a few things. You didn't brake going into the intersection, you didn't brake before you hit the other car, you had only one hand on the wheel when you were going straight, you were holding the wheel with two fingers of your right hand at the 5 oclock position, you had the radio playing loudly or you were on a phone call while the accident happened. Now imagine if the lawyer subpoenas your previous tesla logs?

See what I mean? You may have done nothing wrong and couldn't have prevented the accident, but the logs could show something different.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[PolygamousRanchKid]

If you get into an accident driving one, everything you did is logged and will be submitted into court if it goes that far.

The helpful engineers at VW have logged all the emissions data from my car, and the data proves that my Triple-Diesel-Turbo-Afterburner-Stinker is actually Carbon Negative! This means that the more I drive and the more diesel I burn is actually better for the environment!

I have this faint, fleeting notion that Tesla software is never going to log a problem that implicates itself.

"Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error."

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Pascoea]

You've been driving this road for decades, so you know it's a long yellow light.

So you're saying, "I could have safely stopped for the yellow light, but since I know it's a long yellow I decided I could beat it." Along with all of the other "bad stuff" you mention, not driving defensively, poor hand placement, loud music, distracted driving, are all choices you make.

You may have done nothing wrong and couldn't have prevented the accident

Not doing any one of the 5 things you mentioned in your comment may or may not prevent the accident, but which one is going to look better on paper in front of a judge? Your argument is basically, if I get in an accident I don't want my car to tell the judge if I fucked up.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Anonymice]

Sounds like you weren't taking due care when crossing an intersection, especially so if you chose to negotiate the crossing on a non-green light. The timing will show both of you failed to correctly heed the signal & sufficiently observe your surroundings.

Re: "The car will tattle on the driver."

[KGIII]

Umm... You did all sorts of things wrong, in your example.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, posting on /. while driving isn't such a hot idea.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[SensitiveMale]

So you're saying, "I could have safely stopped for the yellow light, but since I know it's a long yellow I decided I could beat it." Along with all of the other "bad stuff" you mention, not driving defensively, poor hand placement, loud music, distracted driving, are all choices you make.

Nope. There is no "beating" the yellow light. I was clear in my example. The light was green when you started in the intersection. Are you telling me that you're one of those people that will slam on the brakes at the first sign of a yellow light? Yes, I'm sure you will reply to some different scenario that the one I'm suggesting.

I'm sure that you always have both hands at 10 & 2 (even during turns so kudos on that by the way), never coast through an intersection, immediately slam on the brakes when the light turns yellow no matter how close you are to the light, never have the radio on, never talk on the phone, never eat or drink in the car, never have a pet in the car, never bring your kids along, or do anything else while driving. I'm sure you never speed (not even 1 mile over or coast while going downhill), never turn the radio on above a whisper, never carry on a conversation in person or on the phone, always stay in the right lane, and so on. Well, congratulations because you're the only one.

Before you think I'm going overboard, reread your reply and you put yourself on that pedestal.

Your argument is basically, if I get in an accident I don't want my car to tell the judge if I fucked up.

Nope. My argument is that the driver didn't do anything wrong, but a lawyer can and will argue that he did. If you would get off that delusional and self righteous horse, you could see that.

You are driving into the intersection and the light changes yellow. Got that? You're IN the intersection. The safe course of action is to keep going because the light just turned yellow, you KNOW it's a long yellow, the guy behind you is going as well, so it would be stupid to slam on the brakes & hope to stop near the brake line.

But a lawyer will argue the opposite because it's their job to do so.

The point is you didn't fuck up but a lawyer can pour over the logs and make it look like you did.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla alters the logs.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[vux984]

"There is no more "he said/she said" with a Tesla. That car will tell investigators everything."

The car won't lie, but its only as good as it's sensors and programming.

Scenario -- Car hits a concrete wall, catches fire, and partially burns out.

Driver -- car didn't stop when I hit the brakes.
Car logs - driver didn't press on the brakes.

Reality - the brakes WERE depressed; the brake pedal sensors failed and then burned in the fire); and as far as the car's logging system is concerned the brakes were not used prior to the crash.

This kind of failure happens all the time. The self-test reports its fine, but it still doesn't work. The self-test reports it's fine, but its still not sending events properly. The sensor itself is fine, but the events are getting swallowed somewhere else along the way. Or the self-test is fine at cold while idling, but get it scorching hot after a few laps and things start flaking out... add in 10 years wear and tear, humidity, rain, spray, and the ravages of time on rubber, seals, lubricants, sealants... and you really want to bet that the computer log of what happened is infallible?

Its just a new witness to the event, it's more credible than a human in many ways; some of the time; but it's not infallible.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Pascoea]

No righteous high horse, no pedestal. I'm just as guilty as you are of everything you mentioned. Merely looking it it from the other point of view.

I've been on both sides of shitty situations. I busted up the back of another car because it was wet and I was following too close, and I've totaled a car because a guy completely disregarded a traffic signal. My point is that in both instances, data logging likely would have changed the outcome. The guy I rear ended unreasonably dynamited the brakes because the left turn light turned yellow, dude was literally stopped in the middle of the intersection when I hit him. When I t-boned the guy I was exceeding the speed limit, not by a lot but enough that 5-10 MPH would have made a huge difference. The first instance I was 100% at fault, when in reality he should have shared some of the blame. In the second, he was found 100% at fault where I should have shared in it.

And the argumentative side of me want's to say no, you weren't clear at all in your example. All you said was you were driving on a green and it turned yellow, no mention of how far away from the intersection you were or if you could safely stop. The only detail you provided was you that know the light stays yellow for a long time

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[jezwel]

Nope. There is no "beating" the yellow light. I was clear in my example.

You are driving into the intersection and the light changes yellow. Got that? You're IN the intersection.

Yup got it.

The safe course of action is to keep going because the light just turned yellow, you KNOW it's a long yellow, the guy behind you is going as well, so it would be stupid to slam on the brakes & hope to stop near the brake line.

You are legally obliged to 1) not enter an intersection where you cannot clear the intersection - regardless of the color of the light, and 2) clear the intersection after entering it. The length of the yellow time is irrelevant - if it turns red while you are still clearing the intersection you are still in the clear.

The point is you didn't fuck up but a lawyer can pour over the logs and make it look like you did.

You were following the law by clearing an intersection where the light turned yellow. As long as the Tesla can report that it could not safely stop prior to the start of the intersection when the light turned yellow, you are in the clear in regards to whether you should be in the intersection. As to hitting another car, well that's where the argument starts as to who had right of way.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[ElizabethGreene]

> I have this faint, fleeting notion that Tesla software is never going to log a problem that implicates itself.

Your notion is incorrect. They have cooperated fully in several crashes, including one where the autopilot system failed to recognize an illegally turning truck and resulted in a fatality and one where the autopilot failed to understand construction road markings and sideswiped a construction barrier.

Humans are really awful drivers making the bar extremely low for AI to beat us at this. Neither Tesla or Google/Waymo need a thumb on the scale to demonstrate that.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[AchilleTalon]

That's why I believe BeauHD is on autopilot mode and let this story make its way to Slashdot while it shouldn't since there is nothing to discuss. The driver doesn't know if the autopilot was engaged or not. So, until we know, there is nothing to discuss. Why /. are you wasting our time publishing such stories?

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Jeremi]

Hopefully Tesla will continue to be honest, but the underlying issue is a valid one; if it's in the manufacturer's financial interest to put the driver at fault, what's to stop a less-than-scrupulous auto manufacturer from "doctoring" the automobile's driving logs (either before, during, or after the accident) in a way that would be very difficult for the humans involved to defend against? Especially after a few years/decades of the public (and judges and juries) being trained through experience to believe that the computers don't miss any details and never lie...

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[ElizabethGreene]

if it's in the manufacturer's financial interest to put the driver at fault, what's to stop a less-than-scrupulous auto manufacturer from "doctoring" the automobile's driving logs

You are right, it is a concern. How does enterprise IT prevent log tampering? Aside from getting the logs off of the box as quickly as possible?

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[tlhIngan]

There is no more "he said/she said" with a Tesla. That car will tell investigators everything.

If you get into an accident driving one, everything you did is logged and will be submitted into court if it goes that far.

Not confined to the Tesla - a LOT of cars are coming with basic event data recorders that like a flight data recorder, get all the parameters. It's only saved in memory when an event like a collision occurs that triggers the airbags or other event.

The parameters recorded include pressure on the pedals, steering wheel angle, lights, speed, wheel actions (in case any are slipping), g-forces, etc.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Waccoon]

Fuck telemetry. I'll trust my legal sanctity to my dashcam, thank you very much.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yellow means "Stop unless it's too late". So, no, "I thought I could beat it" is an offence. Yellow doesn't mean "Speed up to get through before it goes red".

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[thegarbz]

What has that got to do with Tesla? If your car was made this decade you have a black box already recording the final moments leading up to your accident. There hasn't been a proper he-said she-said situation for quite a long time.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[thegarbz]

You've been driving this road for decades, so you know it's a long yellow light. You don't brake

So you breached the road rules by not stopping since it was safe to do so.

Now imagine if the lawyer subpoenas your previous tesla logs?

Why Tesla? Cars have had black boxes for the best part of a decade.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[mjwx]

Which, IMHO, is a good thing.

If I did nothing wrong, I want my car to exonerate me.
If it was my fault, then I deserve what I have coming.

He said / she said is a terrible system.

"I was exceeding the speed limit and take full responsibility officer"
- No-one Ever.

The problem you have with "Autopilot" is that the idiots that use it think that the car is driving so they're automagically protected and they have zero responsibility what so ever. I guarantee that for years to come we will see law suits saying "I wasn't driving, it was the car, remove my responsibility and give me money". Such law suits may even bury Tesla despite the law stating that the driver was in control of the vehicle even if it was in autopilot. Lawyers will find any loophole in the small print or lack of warning messaged (think McDonalds Hot Coffee). In the end such systems will require another system to ensure the driver is paying attention (capacitive pads on the steering wheel, cameras to monitor head and pupil position).

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[mjwx]

I said it before here https://slashdot.org/comments.... and I'll say it again.

There is no more "he said/she said" with a Tesla. That car will tell investigators everything.

If you get into an accident driving one, everything you did is logged and will be submitted into court if it goes that far.

Most cars do this now. There was a recent report in the UK about a base model Ford Fiesta which logged the driver exceeding the speed limit before they crashed.

Another reason why you want to keep an old car.

Re: "The car will tattle on the driver."

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, human reports of events are notoriously bad. Our "memories" are largely fabrications.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[drinkypoo]

Every modern car does the same thing. It records major sensors for 30 seconds before and if it can, 30 seconds after a collision. It also takes an OBD-II "freeze frame" at the time of the collision, which records things like whether the brake switch was activated, and the throttle position. If you think that this is new to vehicles since Tesla came around, nobody should care what you said.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[drinkypoo]

Reality - the brakes WERE depressed; the brake pedal sensors failed and then burned in the fire); and as far as the car's logging system is concerned the brakes were not used prior to the crash.
This kind of failure happens all the time.

No, it does not. If the brake switch never activates then the PCM will show an error when scanned. The brake switch is critical to the proper function of the vehicle.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[Anonymous Coward]

Tampering with evidence, perjury and other charges? If the manufacturers simply provide the information that is logged then the worse they can generally expect is a fine, a lawsuit and/or a recall. If they actively seek to manipulate evidence they are looking at jail time. No executive is going to risk time in a 4x8 block cell to protect a dip in their stock price when they've got millions in the bank and a golden parachute to fall back on. It will also become increasingly difficult to maintain such deceptions as logging becomes more prevalent in vehicles, if the altered logs claim the vehicle slammed on its brakes but the LiDAR from the 3 other cars in the accident say it didn't slow by so much as 1 mph its going to be pretty easy to figure out something sketchy is going on and from where the "erroneous" data is coming from.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[angel'o'sphere]

I'm sure that you always have both hands at 10 & 2 (even during turns so kudos on that by the way),
No I prefer half past 9 and 2:30.

never coast through an intersection,
True.

immediately slam on the brakes when the light turns yellow no matter how close you are to the light,
Nope, the yellow is an indicator. Red is the stop sign, not yellow.

never have the radio on,
True, I listen to CDs :D with "normal loudness"

never talk on the phone,
True.

never eat or drink in the car, never have a pet in the car, never bring your kids along,
All three true.

or do anything else while driving.
Exactly. I don't do anything else while driving.

I'm sure you never speed (not even 1 mile over or coast while going downhill),
That happens sometimes.

never turn the radio on above a whisper, never carry on a conversation in person
That is bollocks, why do you ask this?

or on the phone,
Exactly, I don't phone when driving, chances are my phone is in flight mode.

always stay in the right lane, and so on.
Of course. Other people driving on the wrong lande drive me nuts. Why would I join their behaviour?

Well, congratulations because you're the only one
No, I'm not. I'm simply german. And regarding a few things I have some personal rules, e.g. my phone in night mode till 11:00 in the morning, with very few exceptions, in flight mode when I drive, and no drink or food in the car. As I have no kids or pets, that part was easy :D

So the only thing distracting me while driving are sexy ladies on the side walks or bicycles, or in cars (less often as you only see the faces)

And driving defensively helps to have more time to watch those sexy ladies ...

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[angel'o'sphere]

This kind of failure happens all the time. The self-test reports its fine, but it still doesn't work. The self-test reports it's fine, but its still not sending events properly. The sensor itself is fine, but the events are getting swallowed somewhere else along the way.
You want to say:
o the sensor that registers how hard the pedal is pressed down failed?
o the oil pressure sensor of the breaking oil failed?
o all 2 sensors for the ABS on all 4 wheels failed?
o the sensors for electronic lane stabilization failed? ... hve to check again how many sensors are involved in breaking ...

And/or all data transmissions to the log failed?

Erm, and you really think this happens all the time????

If that would happen once, it would be braking news and all cars of that product line would be called back for inspection.

You are an idiot.

and you really want to bet that the computer log of what happened is infallible?
Yes, because the most important part of the log has nothing to do with the brakes at all: acceleration sensors. Facepalm.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[vux984]

You want to say:
o the sensor that registers how hard the pedal is pressed down failed?
o the oil pressure sensor of the breaking oil failed?
o all 2 sensors for the ABS on all 4 wheels failed?
o the sensors for electronic lane stabilization failed? ... hve to check again how many sensors are involved in breaking ...

And/or all data transmissions to the log failed?

No. Just the first one. The rest of the sensors all correctly show that the car didn't brake, because as far as the car was concerned the driver never pressed them.

"Yes, because the most important part of the log has nothing to do with the brakes at all: acceleration sensors."

They show it driving into the wall. And coming to a rather sudden stop.

Now, for a typical current car, you are right in the sense that any sensor on the pedal is supplementing a mechanical system; but what about a brake-by-wire car where the brake pedal isn't mechanically attached, where a sensor records how much the brake pedal is depressed and relays that back to the computer.... much the same way video game steering and pedal sets work. Where if the 'brake pedal system' fails, and the brake event isn't recorded; the pedal doesn't do anything. And the rest of the car's telemetry agrees that the brakes weren't pushed.

Erm, and you really think this happens all the time????

In a typical cars brakes? No, of course not. They're primarily mechanical on most current cars. But all kinds of electronics and wiring problems do happen; especially as cars age. I had a car that started stalling -- some failure in the ignition switch itself ... the the car thought the ignition had been turned off, when it hadn't been. A friends car had some weird glitch where activating the turn signals turned off the cruise control. (some sort of partial short with the brake lights). I've heard of a cases where when flooring the accelerator, the sunroof opened. Where turning activated the horn. Where hitting a bump in the road would activate something... turn on the radio, sound the horn, flash the highbeams, open the windows, release the trunk... etc. A failing switch or loose wiring, or a short somewhere... it happens ALL THE TIME.

Is it really so hard for you to imagine a drive-by-wire system failing to correctly sense driver inputs? Or to spuriously generate driver events that didn't actually happen? Especially in an intermittent failure mode? Really?

I'd hope (and expect) drive-by-wire brakes to have more robust design and more redundancy then the sunroof controls but i can still envision occasional failures happening.

And in other areas of the car... for example, to disengage the tesla autopilot, all you have to do is push a button. If the switch is starting to go, a bump on the road could trip it. If you aren't paying attention and have an accident, then what... Musk's techs show that you explicitly disengaged the autopilot a full 30 seconds before you drove into oncoming traffic...because the disengage button was logged as pushed... therefore you must have pushed it right? Because never in the history of switches have they ever started to fail and intermittently open or close without deliberate user intervention.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[angel'o'sphere]

No. Just the first one. The rest of the sensors all correctly show that the car didn't brake, because as far as the car was concerned the driver never pressed them
All the other sensors show: the car breaked an the non existing pedal sensor is broken.

No idea why you think the pedal has a sensor, it needs none.

but what about a brake-by-wire car where the brake pedal isn't mechanically attached, where a sensor records how much the brake pedal is depressed
They don't exist.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[vux984]

but what about a brake-by-wire car where the brake pedal isn't mechanically attached, where a sensor records how much the brake pedal is depressed

They don't exist.

They will.

http://articles.sae.org/14570/

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[angel'o'sphere]

They wont.
A car that can not brake when its electric network/power supply fails wont ever get a clearance to be run on european streets.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[vux984]

A car that can not brake when its electric network/power supply fails wont ever get a clearance to be run on european streets.

It looks like they are talking independent / redundant power supplies at each brake as their approach to that hurdle.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[angel'o'sphere]

Then you still had the problem of communication to each break.
Bottom line I doubt having multiple power supplies, communications etc. will save any money (or construction complexity) over a standard simple mechanical breaking system that only has an amplifier and an anti blocking system that can fail.

But lets see how it evolves ...

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[SensitiveMale]

And the argumentative side of me want's to say no, you weren't clear at all in your example. All you said was you were driving on a green and it turned yellow, no mention of how far away from the intersection you were or if you could safely stop. The only detail you provided was you that know the light stays yellow for a long time

I said "Let's say you were driving your car into an intersection, have a green arrow, and saw the light turn yellow."

Looks clear to me

You were driving into an intersection with a green light and you saw it turn yellow. I mentioned a "long yellow" so people would know there was plenty of time to drive through the intersection.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[SensitiveMale]

never turn the radio on above a whisper, never carry on a conversation in person
That is bollocks, why do you ask this?

Because the point was none of those example behaviors is necessarily bad, but a opposing lawyer can make it look like that was the overriding factor in an accident that wasn't your fault.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[SensitiveMale]

You've been driving this road for decades, so you know it's a long yellow light. You don't brake

So you breached the road rules by not stopping since it was safe to do so.

Nope. No breaching of road rules. Reread the example.

Why Tesla? Cars have had black boxes for the best part of a decade.

Not like the Tesla. That's the point.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[thegarbz]

Nope. No breaching of road rules. Reread the example.

Re-read. You didn't stop even though you knew it was safe to do so. Breached a road rule. You may not have been at fault but your actions contributed to it and you can be certain if there's footage or details of you doing so that you're going to be partially to blame for entering an intersection you shouldn't have.

Not like the Tesla. That's the point.

The only thing separating Tesla from every other vehicle is that the data is remotely uploaded and Tesla is more than willing to share at every opportunity. The data is there, and in very great detail. People just don't bother with subpoenas for the data as fault is usually attributable without going through the legal process.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[PolygamousRanchKid]

How does enterprise IT prevent log tampering?

Blockchain

I hate to use that word, because it is an integral part of the CIO Schtick these days, but in this case, it really could be a possible solution to the problem.

Of course, there are folks these days who claim that every problem can be solved by hitting it over the head with a Blockchain, but if you can navigate through the Blockchain hype fog, there really is something there.

Hey, but how about some IoT with a Blockchain together? And add some microservices and fuzzing . . . micro-fuzzing! And do it in an innovative, disruptive way . . .

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[SensitiveMale]

Nope. No breaching of road rules. Reread the example.

Re-read. You didn't stop even though you knew it was safe to do so.

How do you know it was safe to do so? Could have been someone tailgating. Could have been someone behind trying to beat the light.

I was specific in my example. You're entering an intersection with a green light and the light turns yellow. You know it's a long yellow. There is plenty of time to get through the rest of the intersection during the yellow just like EVERYONE DOES EVERY DAY. The other option is to slam on the brakes IN THE INTERSECTION which isn't safe.

Yes, I know there are knuckleheads that will argue anything and it looks like you're one of them. Vaya con Dios buddy.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[thegarbz]

How do you know it was safe to do so? Could have been someone tailgating.

But there wasn't. By your own admission the only reason you didn't stop was because you knew that traffic light was long.

Re:"The car will tattle on the driver."

[SensitiveMale]

How do you know it was safe to do so? Could have been someone tailgating.

But there wasn't. By your own admission the only reason you didn't stop was because you knew that traffic light was long.

Nope. The reason I wasn't stopping was because I was in the intersection. That's clear. I love knuckleheads on the internet. "No, in your story, the guy wasn't thinking what you said he was."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

[Rei]

Autopilot is the best excuse for a driver getting into an accident that ever was invented. "No officer, it wasn't me! My car did it on its own!"

Thankfully, it's easy for Tesla to avoid legal liability for things like this because the car logs when autopilot is actually in use and what it's doing. Unfortunately, it doesn't help with the PR aspect, as the media just blindly reports that it was Autopilot before taking the time to find out if it actually was.

Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

[Balthisar]

Autopilot is the best excuse for a driver getting into an accident that ever was invented. "No officer, it wasn't me! My car did it on its own!"

Any time I'm in my beater Expedition (it's only 2004), I have to remind myself that the cruise control is not adaptive. After being trained by Ford's stop-and-go ACC, it's really easy to be lulled into thinking that the truck will stop instead of rear-ending the car in front of me at a red light.

I'm an attentive driver under most circumstances. Seriously attentive, as in exclude the rest of the world attentive. Except when my car trains me not to be. If I can nearly fall into the spell, I wonder how dangerous the migration is going to be for other people who drive multiple cars, some of which without autonomous features?

Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

[Anonymous Coward]

The media has its faults to be sure, but having this pointed out by Trump and his cronies is like a bank robber ranting about someone stealing the a pair of sunglasses off the dash of his car as he tosses bags of money, a gun and mask in the back of it.

The media may present a somewhat bias view of the news in many cases, but it is at least generally rooted in some level of fact and usually presents at least some conflicting viewpoints. Trump and his surrogates though can't keep their statements based in REALITY let alone fact, and any viewpoint/person that doesn't reinforce their narrative is instantly dismissed, attacked or ignored.

Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

[Nethead]

Exactly! I experience the same thing going from my Outback with EyeSight ACC to my old Ranger. My 2017 Outback is fully loaded with all options, a dream to drive. My 2007 Ranger is bog fleet, no options at all. I really have to remind myself to pay attention now driving the truck.

Memory altering medication

[Anonymous Coward]

It'a amazing the changes your memory undergoes when a person with suitcase full of money and an NDA shows up on your doorstep.

Win-Win, both he and Musk are now happy, and we're all safer in our minds knowing it was driver error, right?

Re:Memory altering medication

[Anonymous Coward]

Or when you realize you've just made false statements in an official police report (aka perjury), there is a millisecond by millisecond event log in your car and possibly on Tesla's servers by now that directly contradicts your statements and if you don't come clean quick your little "oops my bad" car accident could turn into a "looks like I'll be staring at these metal bars for the next few months" situation.

Bad Editor, Bad Submitter!

[Anonymous Coward]

A driver was confused after a crash, then he recovered. Shock effects like that are perfectly normal. Why is this non-news being published?

Brake vs Accelerator

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like he stomped on the accelerator when he had intended to brake. Usually not a huge deal, except that this car has WAY more pick-up than a traditional car.

Re:Brake vs Accelerator

[Locke2005]

My ex did that once, stomped on the accelerator instead of the brake, drove my pickup 50 feet into a field and wrecked it so it had to be towed out. But then, she was an IDIOT!!!

Re:Brake vs Accelerator

[Octorian]

So autopilot is actually a combination of two features:
TACC (traffic-aware cruise control) and autopilot itself (a.k.a. highway autosteer)

If you step on the break while these are engaged, it turns it all off.
If you turn the steering wheel while these are engaged, it turns the autopilot part off (but leaves TACC on)
If you press the accelerator while these are engaged, the car will accelerate and automatic-emergency-breaking is temporarily disabled (the car will pop up a warning telling you about this). TACC and autopilot remain engaged.

yet again, manufacturer NOT to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

So many accidents are to be blamed on the user, either do to utter incompetence as is this case of driving to fast, or just well lack of maintenance any many other issues. So few accidents are actually to be blamed on manufacturing defects. Yet, it's the manufacturer with deep pockets so the lawyers always go after them.

Has Tesla truly been to blame for any accident yet? For every story I can recall reading it's always the fault of the moron behind the wheel.

Why did he have to "look up"?

[jimtheowl]

"I then remember looking up and seeing the sharp left turn which I was accelerating into."

Look up from where?

At his foot to reassure himself that he was pressing the accelerator, or at at text on his phone?

Re:Why did he have to "look up"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I then remember looking up and seeing the sharp left turn which I was accelerating into."
Look up from where?
At his foot to reassure himself that he was pressing the accelerator, or at at text on his phone?

Looking up from the large distracting screen built into the car?

Which sane manufacturer puts controls of a car on a touch-screen? Every primary input should be done in a way that it can be used blindly. This guarantees that the eyes can be on the road where they belong. That's impossible with a touch screen.

Re:Why did he have to "look up"?

[jimtheowl]

I have never operated a Tesla but I'm not quite sure why you were modded down.

Every primary input should be usable without looking at it, especially if one is trying to do something as simple as change the audio volume.

Re:Why did he have to "look up"?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is he was turning back around from telling his passengers "now we're done demonstrating autopilot-mode, lets see what ludicrous-mode has to offer..."

Cruise Control

[wolfheart111]

Better off calling it Cruise Control. People are comfortable with this idea and may be safer. I remember seeing This on cars when I was a kid and thought, "Hey the car drives itself", maybe I was just a forward thinker :)

Re:Cruise Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Like a six year old me, you probably saw Knight Rider and thought that's how it worked -.o

Nerds have a very low threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

for what they consider to be news that matters.

My dog pooped next to a tesla. Page 2 story.

we give you a free car if you shut up ok?

[Joe_Dragon]

we give you a free car if you shut up ok?

This shouldn't be news

[FeelGood314]

What anyone says in the hours after an accident should never be considered accurate or even news. (It shouldn't be allowed in a court of law without a warning either). People are stressed, they are frightened, they might even be defensive. Someone who wouldn't normally lie might tell something that is blatantly false. I'm not going think less of this person but I will definitely lose respect for any paper that prints it or a website that links to it on their front page. I feel almost dirty clicking on a link from BeauHD - click bate shit.

Re:This shouldn't be news

[PIBM]

I once was t-boned in an intersection, during a snowstorm, while the other driver of that white car had shut off his lights to better see through the snow. He never saw the stop sign since his lights were off, and I had no way to see that someone was incoming. My car was totalled and thrown off the road.

I hit my head pretty hard on the window. Allegedly, I kind of removed the door to get out after the accident. While I do remember some things, not much, it appear that the cop asked me what I would do once he would let go of me. I replied that I would take my car and drive to meet my girlfriend. That's when he called an ambulance :)

Re:This shouldn't be news

[thegarbz]

What anyone says in the hours after an accident should never be considered accurate or even news.

No what it is called is "Breaking news". You heard it here first! Accuracy doesn't come into news and hasn't for a long time.

Re:This shouldn't be news

[Anonymous Coward]

I replied that I would take my car and drive to meet my girlfriend. That's when he called an ambulance :)

Hah! No way this guy has got a girlfriend. Must but in shock. -- the cop, probably

Tesla Blackbox

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to accuse Tesla better make damn sure what you are saying. You don't want it to come back and haunt you.

Autopilot might still be to blame

[quantaman]

Now the guy might be lying and the autopilot was never engage, but, if we're to assume he's being honest the autopilot might still be at fault.

But in an email sent Monday afternoon to the sheriff's office, Clark said he was confused in the moments after the crash. After discussing the crash with his fellow passengers, he now believes that he disengaged Autopilot by stepping on the accelerator before the crash.

"I then remember looking up and seeing the sharp left turn which I was accelerating into. I believe we started to make the turn but then felt the car give way and lose its footing like we hit loose gravel," Clark wrote in the email.

The biggest problem with Tesla's partial autopilot is that there's a lot of situations where it's extremely difficult to switch back and forth safely. Assuming he's being truthful it sounds like this is exactly what happened, that he accidentally disengaged the autopilot at the wrong time and didn't realize he was in control of the vehicle.

Re:Autopilot might still be to blame

[fche]

An autopilot that gives up control without the driver/pilot having situational awareness is worse in emergencies than no autopilot. They breed complacency in the driver/pilot, who cannot flip into effective engagement instantly.

Re:Autopilot might still be to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Autopilot (TACC) does not get disengaged when pressing the accelerator (fact)... it accelerates; if you stop accelerating it resumes it's set point speed.

One might assume the driver did indeed have TACC enabled and was following a slower vehicle (reducing it's speed to follow the vehicle in front). The driver was likely accelerating to compensate for the set distance (buffer) between vehicles; when the car in front turned at the intersection, the Tesla resumed to it pre-set speed... accelerating (as designed).

The real problem are drivers who are not fully familiar with how Autopilot/TACC works and when/where to use it appropriately. The fact that even after the accident, he now believes he "disengaged Autopilot by stepping on the accelerator" just reinforces the above statement.

Tesla's AI responds...

[hyades1]

In the original 70's "By your command" Cylon voice: "I call bullshit. The idiot drives like a Bombay cab driver on crack"

Still doesn't add up...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stepping on the accelerator doesn't disengage the autopilot. It will happily drive with your foot on the "gas", but it will tell you auto-braking is disabled while you are doing so.

Tests fails at neuroscience

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't mentally disconnect from a task and maintain situational awareness to the degree necessary to avoid hazards. So what's the point of this thing if it can't operate the car in a safe fashion?

Re:Tests fails at neuroscience

[jimtheowl]

Its for the driver to make that call.

I might use it to drive from and to a location that I am already familiar with. In those conditions, the mental disconnect tends to happen to some level anyway.
Any abnormal activity such as an accident or a blocked lane would likely catch my attention and bring me to take control of the vehicle. It is very much just another form of cruise control.

From the manufacturer's view point I suppose that if they don't go through these growing pains (which is mainly being first to be blamed), they will not be in a leading market position for the next step. So far these incidents seem to be occurring at a manageable rate.

red light photo lead to slam the brakes or hit gas

[Joe_Dragon]

red light photo lights lead people doing an slam the brakes or step on the gas when the yellow comes out.

Money Talks

[Anonymous Coward]

If EL-ON sent me a Western Union Check for $100,00,000 Dollars, I would certainly recant that he is not a legal citizen of the United States of America!

Ha ha

When will idiots stop complaining about the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's bugger all problem with the name "autopilot", only with idiots who "think" this is the problem with the cars.

Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[N3wsByt3]

Or, more generally, the Elon Musk bashing.

It's become a tradition for the /. trolls, after all.

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[hyades1]

There seems to be a concerted effort to turn Slashdot into another little amplifier in the right wing echo chamber. Bashing Musk, and anybody else whose efforts could be construed as "environmental" or "progressive" has become the norm, and you can watch the comments of anybody who mentions this get modded into oblivion with depressing regularity.

The bottom line on Musk is that he's consistently done what people said was impossible, and he's done it against opposition from powerful vested interests. For example, car dealerships have a huge amount of influence at the state and municipal level in the United States. As a result, thanks to antiquated franchise laws aggressively defended by car dealerships, there are still at least six states where it is literally illegal to buy a Tesla. One of them, last time I looked, was Texas, where everybody will tell you the Invisible Hand rocks the cradle and runs the universe...unless you're trying to sell an electric vehicle, apparently.

Anyway, Musk is one of those people who has a vision for the future, and will drag the naysayers along kicking and screaming, whether they like it or not.

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[N3wsByt3]

Well, with the caveat that I'm rather right myself, and certainly not a socialist, nor a green. (Though I think 'right' in the EU or in the USA differs quit substantially as far as I've noticed).

It's just that I think logic should prevail, not ideologies, and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Elon Musk certainly has proven his worth, and while one may argue he's not perfect nor a true genius in the sense that Einstein was, he certainly has shown he has vision and is actually aiming at improving things - and has grand goals, like going to Mars (which, in contrast to ma,ny other CEO's, the drive to do that is genuine with Musk). One doesn't even have to go into the whole 'green' and 'climate' thing (though it's silly to deny there is a climate problem like some Trump supporters claim): he just progresses technology and creates a future-oriented business as well.

The Elon Musk/Tesla/SpaceX/(Bezos/Blue Origin/etc) bashing is just getting annoying. It's based on nothing accept ego-tripping for trolls, and personal pet peeves one wants to hold on to and grind an axe with. There is seldom a logical argument to be discovered, rather mostly either some sort of jealousy or rabid libertarian dogma ("He gets subsidies for his cars!" - as if other car companies and whole industries didn't before and after) is the core root to all the complaints.

Now, I don't think highly of the left, nor greens, because they have their own dogma's and are as rigid and annoying in their thinking (aka; nuclear plants, for instance), and I also think the free market in a liberal capitalistic system trumps socialism/communism - but all that has nothing to do with it, really. It just doesn't make sense to bash the guy (and others like him) for no valid reason at all.

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[hyades1]

I agree with almost everything you said. We part company a bit on nuclear plants, though. My argument against them probably isn't what you think. It's that "all in", they're just a very, very expensive way to generate electricity. For starters, there has never been one built that was on time, on budget, delivered electricity at the promised cost and met its maintenance targets. And when you don't externalize the cost of dealing with uranium tailings, transportation and storage of waste, you don't get a lot more energy out than you've put in generating it.

This is a little bit of a sensitive subject for me, since where I live, we're now paying sky-high electricity rates, mostly to pay for maintenance of nuclear plants that spectacularly failed to deliver on promises made when my province committed to going mainly nuclear. And of course the local Conservative Party is blaming the high cost on a solar/wind initiative so modest most European countries would laugh themselves silly at it.

I can give you numbers if you really care, but trust me when I say nuclear in Ontario has been a huge pain in the rectum.

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[N3wsByt3]

"For starters, there has never been one built that was on time, on budget, delivered electricity at the promised cost and met its maintenance targets."

There have been several; https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

"And when you don't externalize the cost of dealing with uranium tailings, transportation and storage of waste, you don't get a lot more energy out than you've put in generating it."

The dealing, transportation and storage (which is done mainly underground) requires very little energy. I'm surprised you made this argument, and not one with 'work' or 'costs'... but in regard to energy, it's several orders of magnitude more that a nuclear plant delivers, than all what you describe together.

"we're now paying sky-high electricity rates, mostly to pay for maintenance of nuclear plants"

Germany pays even far higher rates, and it's mostly due to subsidizing wind- and solar energy . They subsidized their nuclear plants as well, but during whole that time, energy prizes were relatively low and stable. The prices skyrocketed there, when they *closed* the nuclear plants, and had to subsidize massively the 'neue wendung' with all the 'alternative' energy-sources (primarily wind).

Just saying: it's not all that clear cut. And I think the greens should at least be open to a mix where nuclear plants still play a role - being one of the few energy providers that can deliver a stable base load and isn't pumping CO2 in the air.

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[hyades1]

I didn't say there isn't a role for nuclear. And I saw nothing in the Forbes article to refute what I said about the failure of nukes to deliver promised performance. I'm sorry, but I can't take China seriously as a case, for any number of reasons.

As for Ontario, we could shut down all our nuclear reactors tomorrow and buy hydroelectric-generated electricity from Quebec at one third the cost we're paying right now. If you want a horror story on the kind of cost overruns I'm discussing, google Darlington. We're talking three hundred percent. And the "upgrade" just getting underway now is already about a hundred million over budget, and they're hardly even started.

The difference with subsidizing wind and solar is that the money mostly stays in the communities where it's spent, generating an economic multiplier effect as well as electricity. Germany's "green" energy sector is now a larger employer than their auto sector, and thanks to Germany's employment model (I hesitate to use the term "unionized", although it isn't entirely inaccurate), those are well-paying jobs.

Ontario started off down the hydro road, then switched to nuclear. It has not gone well. Darlington is a mess, Pickering looks to be an even worse mess, and the largest, Bruce Power, which is private, has just signed a $13 billion maintenance/upgrade deal with the province that might very well turn into the worst economic nightmare yet. Plus, workers have been alleging unsafe conditions.

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[N3wsByt3]

One should look at the facts, not ones own opinions. Remember that was a thing we agreed on about Elon Musk- bashers, after all. When one arbitrarily starts to exempt (or only allow) certain facts only because of arbitrary reasons, one starts to be irrational. China, for all it's faults and lipservice to communism, does show it's possible to create nuclear plants on time and at the foreseen budget. That the forbes article DID make clear.

The main problem with all alternative sources like hydro, solar and especially wind, is that there are, by their very nature, intermittent. This means they can never provide a stable base load (if you don't know the term or the importance of that, feel free to google it). And this in turn means you need something that CAN deliver it. If you close all nuclear plants, like in Germany, that means you have to build and provide the load balance with classical means: in the best case with gas and in the worst case with coal energy plants. Which means augmented CO2 and the statistical certainty of extra deaths far surpassing those of nuclear plants (looking at it statistically, the number of deaths per megawatt hour is FAR less with nuclear than with any other energy provider.) those are facts. Not emotional opinions. And as said, I prefer the former, not the latter, in determining the value of what is being argued.

I don't know the specific situation in Ontario good enough to give a substantiated response, but whatever anecdotal value you might derive from it, has little to no bearings to what is statistically relevant. So it might well be you are right about your specific case, but it doesn't change anything to the argument delivered.

"The difference with subsidizing wind and solar is that the money mostly stays in the communities where it's spent, generating an economic multiplier effect as well as electricity."

The majority of the production value has long since moved to China. So all the cost and value for the production of it, is no longer local or 'in the community it's spent'. The only thing remaining is those companies that place the solar/wind, but more to that later.

"Germany's "green" energy sector is now a larger employer than their auto sector"

Yes, but that on itself is nothing to celebrate. Being 'larger' says nothing about the economic surplus value of something. Contrary to the automobile industry, you seem to forget that the ten-thousands of people employed in the wind-energy sector in Germany are for the most part payed by SUBSIDIZED money. Subsidezed work does NOT create an economic surplus, since you first extracted the money from the economy, to give it to that particular domain. It's not something that creates wealth, thus, but rather consumes it. One can not have an economy run on subsidized work, and people payed by subsidies (aka, a cost, thus, since the money for that is being extracted from the economy in the first place) are the WORST kind of jobs one can create. Because, on themselves, they have no *economic* value. they can have other values (that's why social work is subsidized too), but it has no *economic* net value. The truth of that is obvious. If subsidezed work was truly beneficial and a net-surplus for the economy, it would be simple for any government: make ALL your citizens payed bureaucrats and civil servants, and your economy would boom. No-one would live in poverty, and everybody would have a paying job, no unemployment! Ever thought why this doesn't work?

The reason is, because for stuff that you need subsidizing, you need to extract that money first from the economy and then redistribute it - but it certainly does not create economic worth or surplus of it's own. If everyone would be a civil servant; who's going to pay for it all? See? Subsidized jobs are not an economic boost.

Now, nuclear plants are/were subsidized too, but calculated per megawatt hour delivered, they cost FAR LESS than windmills. Who, I repeat, also need a backup of gas/coal-plants to deliver a stable energy load.

One shou

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[hyades1]

I don't quite know where to start.

1. There can be no reliable information from China relevant to a discussion of nuclear energy in the Free World. Anybody can build a reactor with virtual slave labour, and anybody can dispose of nuclear waste when you can do everything short of flushing it down the toilet without consequence. More to the point, none of these facilities has been in operation long enough for maintenance to become an issue, and it is maintenance that is the bane of the Ontario reactors.

2. Your statement that "subsidized money", whatever that means, cannot create a multiplier effect is flat-out wrong. Seriously...you need to look up the definition, which is very straightforward. One example: You have a massive surplus of a commodity such as softwood lumber. You sell it on the international market, and use the money to subsidize a move to wind generation. The subsidy encourages people to build windmills. The source of the parts is irrelevant, though having them produced locally would be a bonus...perhaps thanks to a subsidy of the kind you're apparently overlooking when you use China as an example of nuclear plants contradicting my earlier comment. By the way, do you think China's market is open to US manufacturing...even if it was subsidized the way Chinese manufacturing is? LOL. And speaking of "at home", the labour to install and maintain solar and wind is local, and it's typically well paid. The local workers spend their money locally on local goods and services, and those local merchants, grocers, bar owners, etc. in turn spend some or all of that money to hire local staff and perhaps buy locally-grown food, beer, etc. The suppliers will hire drivers, warehouse workers and administrators locally...and so on.

In the crudest possible terms, there's your multiplier effect.

3. You ask why a totally-subsidized economy doesn't work. The answer is inflation, and it's not always a problem. Why would you use a reductio ad absurdum argument when it's obvious that there needs to be a balance. All one way or all the other (which you seem to be advocating) leads to poverty and lost opportunities. Why did Bush spend $17 billion propping up your auto sector? Did it work? And why are coal and oil so heavily subsidized, even though they're making billions of dollars a year?

4. You apparently don't understand the realities of building any kind of generating facility. In simple terms, here it is: until the moment they flip the switch, it's nothing but a hole in the ground that eats money. ALL such facilities are subsidized, one way or the other. And in straight up dollars, solar in Arizona is more cost-effective than any of its competitors. You know where it's at its most efficient, by the way? Up north, where it's frickin' cold.

5. Germany, Denmark, Sweden and a number of other "socialist" economies are somehow managing to deliver a standard of living far higher than that enjoyed by most Americans using exactly the kind of subsidized economy you say doesn't work. For that matter, Germany has carried most of Europe on its back for the last half century. The reason? Oh, yeah...America rebuilt West Germany from a ruin with the Marshall Plan...the ultimate subsidy. You guys really should study your own history. You might learn something about the benefits of subsidizing something society as a whole decides is beneficial.

6. The problem of intermittent supply is being solved right now with batteries and a variety of means of generation. It was only a few years ago people said nothing with wings and a motor could fly using electricity. If you choose to overlook the truly incredible developments in materials science generally, and energy storage density in particular, then there's not much I can say. I hope you realize batteries have improved by leaps and bounds, and there is every indication they will continue to do so. Decent storage makes intermittent supply (even assuming a decentralized grid did not result using a variety of means of g

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[N3wsByt3]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The 'working circumstances' and 'slave labour' are both hyperbole and emotional appeals, and have nothing to do with the fact the original claim is completely correct: that modern nuclear plants have been build on budget and on time. You can also look at India, btw, if you find that country more palatable. Or better still, take Korea - South-Korea that is, before you start with the 'slave-argument again - and you'll see a sharp decline in costs. As I've repeatedly pointed out by now, you make the mistake of looking at one or a few examples, and try to interpolate from these anecdotes a general rule. this is not a rational, nor scientific approach. Nor is it, simply, correct to do so.

I also note you give almost no actual references for what you say. Here, let me give you the conclusion of a scientific paper on the subject, which more or less says exactly as I do: that you can't extrapolate from one experience to another. Things like wind energy, solar energy, nuclear energy, water energy, geothermic energy have very specific circumstances, and often are different from country to country. For the question whether one can built nuclear plants on time and on budget, however, one need only to establish that one can, not that one can everywhere in all circumstances. Anyway, here you go:

"The most surprising feature is the large diversity in trends, with the US and South Korea at the two extremes. Countries building reactors more recently, particularly those with construction starts after 1980, have different trend shapes than the early nuclear pioneers. Rather than an “invariable exhibition of negative learning” and “inevitable” increases in complexity intrinsic to nuclear technology that lead to cost escalation (Grubler, 2010), it is clear that there is not a singular cost trend for nuclear technology, but a plurality of different country-specific experiences. A consistent “rhythm” of cost escalation suggested by Grubler (2010) does not match the historical record."

-- Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors --

Bottomline: whether you like it or not, it *IS* possible to build nuclear plants on time and on budget. Period.

The same tendency for anecdotal extrapolation and emotional appeal is noticeable with your examples of the 'costs' of three mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yes, those had costs, monetary and death costs. No one is denying that, but that also isn't the issue. What really matter is the statistical analysis between the various energy sources/providers, and see whom, actually, has the most and the least death toll OVERALL. It's irrational to focus on these three examples and disregard the actual safety record of all the different sources in total. And if you do, you get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's only a little vid, but it's based on hard data, statistically analyzed. I find it ironic you found my comment ironic, thus.

As for hydro not being intermittent... I'll give you partially right. For sure, it's not foreseeable when it rains or how much snowfall there is going to be that melt, so it is, in a sense, intermittent like wind and solar, but on the other hand, it has a much larger buffer then either, and thus can provide a baseload much longer. Let's refrase it thus way, then: it's less intermittent than wind and solar, and more intermittent than nuclear.

I also agree that batteries might make the negative aspects of wind less in the far future, but were not there yet by a long shot. It would need to hold enormous currents for large timeperiods - at least a week to be fairly sure to be able to provide a stable energy. Now, I can concur with that, but then: why is that sort of reasoning not applied in reciprocity. Yes, in the future, wind may become a better alternative. But so does nuclear. There is no reason why nuclear couldn't improve neither in the future IF you do researc

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[hyades1]

Again, I hardly no where to start. The best place would be with your misrepresentation of what I said, then using your own misstatement as the basis for your argument. I did not say there has never been a nuclear plant built "on budget and on time". I said, "there has never been one built that was on time, on budget, delivered electricity at the promised cost and met its maintenance targets."

That is 100% true.

As for the rest, I'll have to respond later, when I have some time. Frankly, I'm a bit pissed off that you mischaracterized my statement so completely, then went on at length "refuting" what I did not say.

Re:Let the Tesla bashing begin!

[N3wsByt3]

Sigh. Look, that's bordering on pedantry. I can do the same.

Well, since the first half has been proven wrong, it would mean everything depends on your second part. To claim there has 'never been' one that didn't deliver electricity at the promised cost nor met it's maintenance target would mean that you know of all and every instance of any nuclear plant in the world the exact promises and delivered electricity cost and/or it's maintenance targets. I have not the time nor the inclination to search for it on the Net as I did for your first half of the statement, but let me say it's highly unlikely you have such intimate knowledge and could speak for any and every nuclear plant.

Which means, let's face it, it's conjecture.

You know it as well as I do: it's a statement you can't make hard nor provide any conclusive evidence for. since the first part has been shown to be wrong, how will you ascertain and proof the second part is the half that is correct? Do you have a reference of a scientific paper where ALL nuclear plants have been scrutinized on as well it's promises that it first made, as it's subsequent deliverance on electricity cost?

Look, I feel we're both getting a bit annoyed here, and that's never a good sign for a fruitful debate. It's clear you have quite some other opinion on a lot of matters. That's ok. I don't even mind socialists all that much, I just wished they payed for their ideology out of their own pockets, and didn't ask me or others that don't share their worldview to co-pay for their socialist dream. If people only subsidized their own way of life and didn't expect others to comply to theirs and also pay for it, it would be far better.

Which, I think, is the main difference. I would leave everyone to his or her own devices, and feel free to pay for their own way of life, even socialism. But socialists never leave the rest alone and expect others to pay for their ideals and ideology. There should be a way for taxes to be divided between groups of people of different ideologies, where the socialists can live their socialist lives as they see feet, but have to pay for it themselves, and others can live and pay to their own belief-systems too. True, it would mean the non-socialists wouldn't 'benefit' from the advantages of socialism neither. But since, imho, it wouldn't last long if they had to cough it up of their own, there would be no great loss for those that didn't get into the group of socialists. I mean, you may be convinced otherwise, but wouldn't we be better of if we let each follow our own thing?

Look at this debate. We can both feel it's going to lead nowhere, we just have too much different thoughts on these issues. It's already a wonder we largely agreed on the Elon Musk thing. But this is going nowhere, let's be honest. At most we can agree to disagree. But isn't that fine also, in a sense? You can merely go your way, and I mine. If we did that in politics and taxes/money/subsidizing too, I wouldn't have any problems. Let the green subsidize windmills with their own money, the socialists can subsidize welfare with their own money and taxes, and the rightwingers can do their own thing - subsidizing nuclear plants maybe. And none gets the benefits of the others, since they didn't pay for it. Sounds fair to me.

The real problem starts with some people wanting others to adhere to their view and having to pay for their exercises in futility. And by its very nature, the left does that a lot more than the right. If I say: you don't have to pay for an immigrant that wants to be on welfare but hasn't contributed anything to the economy himself, but your socialist hart bleeds, you *can* still pay him and provide welfare with your (and the left's) money. However, if socialists rule and say: you have to pay for that immigrant, I don't really have choice in the matter now, do I? I can't just day 'no thanks', or I'll get thrown in jail. So in essence, a libertarian view gives you the opportunity to still act upon your ow, beliefs, but a socialist view will

The name "Autopilot" is fullt correct.

[N3wsByt3]

As has been said over and over again, 'auto' stands for 'automatic', NOT 'autonomous'. Why keep acting as if you don't already know that?

NEVER talk to police

[EmagGeek]

This is why you never, EVER talk to police. EVER. Especially after a traumatic experience. What you say will be taken as gospel no matter what your state of mind, and then used against you in court (both the judicial court and the court of public opinion).

Stepping on the gas seems logical

[houghi]

I said logical, not good.

When you see people driving into stores, they are almost always automatic cars. I believe the reason behind this is human behavior. We know that we need to press down the pedal if we want to stop, In a panic situation what I think is happening is that people have this instinct that they need to push down the pedal. They notice that they go faster, so they press down harder.
Then before people realize they are pushing down the wrong pedal, they hit something all the wile thinking they are doing the right thing. And as they go faster, they won't be calming down to realize the errors of their ways.

With a shift, the way to break is to first lift up your foot from the gas. That would already mean you will go slower. Next you need to press down the break. So going slower is a two-step process where the first is to move up your foot. And as taking your foot of the gas also means you will go slower, you will have a bit more time to correct your foot and press down the right pedal. And if you go faster (because you press down the wrong pedal) you will take off your foot and have time to get it right this time.

I can easily imagine that people press down the gas instead of the break. However the two step process would be safer compared to the one-step process. Just human nature. That does not mean automatic cars are less safe. They are just in these specific situation.

Re:Stepping on the gas seems logical

[Nethead]

My new Outback with EyeSight won't let me do that. If it sees a wall in front of the car it will just turn off the gas pedal, no go for you. Just think how many hair salons (it's always a hair salon) this will save!

Re:Stepping on the gas seems logical

[Anonymous Coward]

All this newfangled ACC nonsense is going to make car chase scenes suck in the movies.

Re:Stepping on the gas seems logical

[godrik]

When you see people driving into stores, they are almost always automatic cars.

That observation does not make sense. Almost all cars in the US have automatic transmissions. A quick googling show over 95% of cars have automatic transmissions. So you would expect that almost all cars that do something stupid have automatic transmissions. It is true for passing a red light, for being double parked, or whatever.

Why the plural?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "we" stuff? How many people were driving that car? Has our aversion to taking responsibility for our own actions gotten so bad that we can no longer use the words "I" and "Me"?

To EVERYONE Who Thinks "Autopilot" is Accurate:

[mykepredko]

First off, I did have a pilot's license and I definitely understand how autopilot's work and what their capabilities are.

Regardless, this is how the average person sees an autopilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:To EVERYONE Who Thinks "Autopilot" is Accurate:

[N3wsByt3]

Dude... that's cartoon, making a joke. And it's from FOX... nuff said.

Most people - at least in the EU and in the states outside the bible-belt where they have at least a semblance of an education - understand perfectly what an autopilot is supposed to do.

And the argument is moot anyway, because the Tesla-drivers sure as hell know: it's been told to them, it's written in the manual, and it's mentioned every freak'in time you start autopilot.

There is NO WAY a Tesla driver doesn't know he has to keep his hands on his wheel and keep his eyes on the road. He might not always do it, but he KNOWS. Full well.

So let's stop acting as if the poor sods get confused so much by the word 'autopilot' they suddenly don't remember anything anymore. It's bull.