Tesla Model S Plows Into a Fire Truck While Using Autopilot (cnbc.com)

On Monday, a Tesla Model S plowed into the back of a fire truck on a freeway near Culver City, California. The driver is claiming the car was on Tesla's Autopilot driver assistance system. As a result, the National Traffic Safety Board will be investigating both driver and vehicle factors. CNBC reports: The Culver City Firefighters Association Local 1927 union chapter tweeted out a picture of the crash on Monday afternoon. The firetruck was on the freeway helping after a motorcycle accident, the union said in an Instagram post. The post said there were no injuries. The outcome could have been much worse if firefighters had been standing at the back of the truck, Battalion Chief Ken Powell told the San Jose Mercury News. "Autopilot is intended for use only with a fully attentive driver," Tesla said in a statement sent to CNBC.

Comments

Defense: it was drunk

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/01/22/2311225/tesla-owner-attempts-autopilot-defense-during-dui-stop

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[ls671]

His defense didn't work because: "Autopilot is intended for use only with a fully attentive driver"! Same thing is said in TFS of this article with the fire truck story.

If you think about it, a "fully attentive driver" ready to take control at any time seems to me like the driver needs driving school instructor skills where the instructor can take control of the car if the student screws up. Driving school instructors need more skills than a casual driver. It seems to me like being able to take over on the fly at any time might be harder than when you already have control in the first place.

Does driving a Tesla require a driving school instructor license? Maybe it should if it doesn't...

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[fluffernutter]

Its one thing if Autopilot beeps and says 'please take manual control' a comfortable time before the accident occurs. But what the hell is the point of having an automatic driving system if you have to sit there waiting for that split second between when you realize the autopilot isn't working and when the accident occurs?

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[viperidaenz]

what the hell is the point of having an automatic driving system if you have to sit there waiting for that split second between when you realize the autopilot isn't working and when the accident occurs?

It's not an automatic driving system. It's just Tesla marketing that implies it is. Their disclaimer says it's not.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[mkremer]

Except with Autopilot the driver is always suppose to be in control of the vehicle and paying attention to the road, it provides assistance to the driver it does not take over the job of the driver.
Seem many people do not understand this and the name does not help.

Your complaint is why I do not expect to see SAE level 3 cars.

Re: Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Having driven in a city and noticed the tons of social factors involved with safe driving, I believe we are still many decades away from safe car/truck autopilots.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[sjames]

Approaching a fire truck parked on the highway gives you a LOT more than a split second to apply the brakes.

Re: Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

The tweet by the police was quite hilarious (paraphrased): "No, the Tesla didn't drive itself to the tow yard."

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[haruchai]

Approaching a fire truck parked on the highway gives you a LOT more than a split second to apply the brakes.

I think the Auto Emerg Braking may have kicked in. It doesn't look like the airbags were triggered and I would have expected a LOT more damage for at collision at 65 mph.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Xenx]

It's nominally no different in use than cruise control. That's been around for decades. It's just much more advanced. It still requires you to watch what is happening and respond.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[ShanghaiBill]

So this excuses it from being safe?

It isn't clear if it is safe or not. This guy claimed Autopilot was engaged, but I am skeptical. In other Autopilot failures there were explanations, like projections above the cameras' field of view, or a lorry exactly the color of the sky. But in this case it just plowed into a firetruck for no apparent reason. That is a pretty big bug to have gone unnoticed until now.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of funny... "The release of Tesla Version 7.1 software continues our improvements to self-driving technology" (from their announcement of version 7.1 of their software). Seems they do in fact call it self driving.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[networkBoy]

I'm thinking the same thing and the owner is just saying so to try and CYA.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Rei]

More to the point, I doubt it will turn out that Autopilot was even on. "Autopilot crashed me" is the best excuse bad drivers have ever been given. And people automatically take it at face values, until the logs get examined.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a pretty big bug to have gone unnoticed until now.

It’s been noticed before. Tesla just negligently chose to ignore it.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[fluffernutter]

No disclaimer was ever required to 'remain alert' with cruise control. That makes it very different from cruise control.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[mysidia]

But in this case it just plowed into a firetruck for no apparent reason.

It seems like there's a bug, either way.... the Tesla is buggy.... these cars are supposed to have automatic emergency breaking, aren't they?
Explain how crashing into a firetruck at 65 MPH happens without automatic emergency breaking having also failed......

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Nethead]

People drive where they are looking. He was looking at the lights. That's why so many cops get hit on the side of the road.
And yeah, that's not 65mph into a wall crumple. If the bags didn't fire then he wasn't going fast enough to die.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

So they should be sued for false advertising then?

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[crimson tsunami]

There's no warning against putting your dick in the cigarette lighter either*. Some things are just common sense.

* I haven't checked in California.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Nethead]

"automatic emergency breaking" [sic] doesn't mean stopping at 65, it means getting it down to a survivable speed. Notice the air bags didn't fire. That means it was at a survivable speed. That crumple in the picture doesn't look like 65mph into a wall.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[AvitarX]

Ford has said it intends to skip level 3.

I actually think level three would be helpful if the transition time required for it was 10 seconds or so. Anything less than that, I'll handle my own steering and breaking personally.

I wouldn't mind emergency breaking or lane drift warnings though.

The level 3 in bumper to bumper traffic is probably fine too (Mercedes has it I think), when the car ahead breaks 30 MPH for more than a half second (or there's a merge, or whatever causes it to break out), sound a take over alarm, that should be enough notice.

I can't think of many other cases where it'd be particularly useful though (it seems unlikely that it could give fair warning to take over at highway speeds, and it'd likely be useless in city driving).

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

This accident happened on the shoulder. The car didn't hit the corner of the truck, it was squarely wedged under the truck's rear bumper. Therefore, what was the Tesla doing driving on the shoulder? And supposedly at 65MPH.

He was probably impatient with congestion and decided to use the shoulder as a bypass and could not stop in time when he say the truck.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the auto-pilot relies on the radar to detect objects in front of the car. If the fire truck was at roughly a 45 degree angle, most of the radio waves would be scattered and there is so little return, that it might be interpreted as just a small object beside the road.

At least, I've noticed that cars cutting across my path at an angle don't seem to be detected. So when I'm on autopilot, I don't bother to pay much attention to the car in front of me, since the autopilot sees it, I keep a look out for cars crossing my path at weird angles.

Even with it has a problem, the autopilot is far safer that me driving without it. But then I know not to trust it 100% and I've developed a pretty good idea of what to watch out for.

I believe that the person was on autopilot and either not paying proper attention, or just assumed that the autopilot would break and waited too long to hit the breaks themselves.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Nethead]

Considering that my lighter socket is deep in a cubby hole..... Damn!

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Alpha232]

Considering how narrow it is... I'm sorry for him...

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Alpha232]

This isn't the shoulder, this is the carpool lane on the 405. Notice the double yellow lines on the far side and single yellow on the nearside. Somewhere around 33.990053, -118.400939.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Alternatively, by admitting that there are improvements to be done, they're implying it's not (yet).

Re: Defense: it was drunk

[datavirtue]

This isnt even a headline until the investigation is complete. Fake news.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[cdsparrow]

Yeah, sounds like it mostly did what it was supposed to do unless he was the one braking. If the impact has been at 65, there would be pieces of that car a quarter mile past the impact and not much left that looked like a car probably.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

"lorry exactly the color of the sky."

And who would've thought a blue colour truck would trigger a fatal bug in Tesla's software. A bug's never a bug until identified. Till then, it's PEBCAK.

Tesla's software is dangerous. People should quit faffing about renaming it. Instead, point a camera at the driver. If he's goofing or incapacitated, disable autopilot and bring the car to a safe halt, lights and sirens blaring.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

sensor may have been blinded by the emergency lights.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[BronsCon]

Tesla lies about the logs.

So autopilot wasn't on in all the cases thus far where Tesla has said, after examining the logs, that it was on? The thing is, they don't have to lie to avoid liability; they warn you when you turn the system on that you must stay attentive.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Hognoxious]

these cars are supposed to have automatic emergency breaking

Oh, it definitely broke.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking idiot. Tesla's Autopilot doesn't drive the fucking car for you, it's a supplement for YOUR OWN ability to drive.

These morons are trying to use Autopilot as a scapegoat for their own failure and negligence.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Nethead]

The car I had before my '17 Outback was an old '98 Volvo wagon. Of course I had just liability insurance on it. When I got my new Outback I was worried what my insurance cost would be but come to find out that, because of the EyeSight system, it would be less for full coverage than what I was paying for the old V70. That's how much insurance companies like these new avoidance systems. It saves them shitloads on car and human repair.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

That video doesn't demonstrate Tesla's negligence, it demonstrates the driver's negligence. Autopilot is not a fucking self-driving car.

Look at the number of downvotes that video has too and the number of people pointing out that this was 100% on the lazy, inattentive driver (probably on his phone at the time of impact) and the idiot stopped on the side of the highway in heavy fog/smog with no warning signals or lights.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of funny... "The release of Tesla Version 7.1 software continues our improvements to self-driving technology" (from their announcement of version 7.1 of their software). Seems they do in fact call it self driving.

Alternatively, by admitting that there are improvements to be done, they're implying it's not (yet).

They didn't say there are improvements to be done, they said there are improvements that have been done.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[ColaMan]

You can be damn sure your car's owner's manual mentions that you need to remain aware of your surroundings when using cruise control. I suspect there might even be big, bold warnings and exclamation marks in triangles around it.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Oligonicella]

"It's nominally no different in use than cruise control." Translation: "It's in name only, though perhaps not in reality no different in use than cruise control."

Got that right. It's in name only no different as the one and only thing cruise control does is keep the throttle steady.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Oligonicella]

Oh please. We see major, fatal bugs discovered all the time in all kinds of software. Enough that some producers pay bug bounties for others to ferret them out. What on Earth makes you think AP code isn't just as susceptible to hidden, fatal bugs?

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Xenx]

I said nominally no different in use than cruise control. The key being, "in use". That means, you use it in the same way as cruise control. It's an assist. You still have to pay attention to your surroundings.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

It's that same old defence, "the auto-pilot made me do it"

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[gl4ss]

But what the hell is the point of having an automatic driving system if you have to sit there waiting for that split second between when you realize the autopilot isn't working and when the accident occurs?

The point is to sell it to idiots who don't understand it - and tesla managed that bit quite well. the appearance they wanted to sell was that it could drive itself on the freeway, because that has a cool factor to it.

lane follow assist? pssh, thats like what every 100k luxury sedan has. so they had to one up it, by overselling the feature(and yes tesla model s autopilot is just lanewarning & breaking assist hacked to do what it does, quite literally that was the extent of in-house research they did to it, to wire it up from assists to control and take out some driver awake assurances while at it).

so, there really isn't any point to it since you still have to be pretend driving all the time or risk dying or killing someone.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[fisted]

I'd say more rigorous testing, use of mature technology and code review? You know, the things that typically don't happen in consumer grade crapware, but it kind of does work in aerospace, spaceflight and military systems. Mostly anyway.

Re: Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah dum tish

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Advertising X and taking it back with a tiny disclaimer shouldn't be something that's taken seriously.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[JohnnyBGod]

And yeah, that's not 65mph into a wall crumple.

But "Tesla Model S Gently Collides Into a Fire Truck While Using Autopilot" wouldn't be a very good headline, would it?

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet most cars with cruise control have a ton of cruise control related warnings in the manual.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[easyTree]

But what the hell is the point of having an automatic driving system if you have to sit there waiting for that split second between when you realize the autopilot isn't working and when the accident occurs?

The point is that human drivers are being used to train (or at least act as a safety backup system for) autonomous systems until they're ready.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe but it was going under the fire truck.
I like how a fan boy criticize the fire department for taking a picture of the crash like they would not have done it for any car.
Tesla the Apple of car companies.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

The bumper went under the fire truck, fanboy do you have half a clue how little it take to trigger a air bag look at the image with your eyes.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[mjwx]

More to the point, I doubt it will turn out that Autopilot was even on. "Autopilot crashed me" is the best excuse bad drivers have ever been given. And people automatically take it at face values, until the logs get examined.

The problem is that the system is being examined by Tesla, not a third party. Because of the proprietary nature of the system, we're relying on Tesla to tell us Tesla hasn't fucked up. No matter if you like or dislike Tesla, that is a conflict of interest.

However that is not an issue in this case. The law is clear, all a judge will do is ask:
Judge: Did you turn on the "autopilot" system.
TWAT: Yes.
Judge: Then you were in command of the vehicle, you are responsible for what happened.

It doesn't matter if the vehicle was operating independent of the drivers direct control, the driver is still responsible for what the vehicle does and ensuring that it didn't crash.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Keick]

Seems to be the fundamental issue that everyone is missing. There is no way that the Tesla was going 65 at impact. The crush zone is barely impacted, the fire truck looks barely dented. At most that looks like a 7-10 MPH hit. Which means if the Autopilot was engaged, it was doing it's best to stop.

At 65 MPH, that Tesla would of be buried under that red truck up to it's A pillar's at a minimum, if not the B pillar.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Talderas]

Yes, but the new article is already out there saying Tesla's auto-pilot is buggy. That's what people will see and read. Then the facts will come in, the article will receive a retraction but since that's weeks or months down the line no one is reading the article anymore. So the information that is disseminated out in conversation is that Tesla's auto-pilot was responsible for the car crashing into a fire truck.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[CanHasDIY]

"Notice the air bags didn't fire. That means it was at a survivable speed.

Maybe; but it may also mean that the airbags failed to deploy (which they should have if the rate was more than 15 MPH), which could indicate an even greater programming error than originally assessed.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[gnick]

They didn't say there are improvements to be done...

But of course there are. "Ready" doesn't imply "perfect". They just need to be close enough to perfect to get the chances of killing somebody down to an acceptable level. To expect them to develop until there are no improvements left to be made is an impossible bar.

Re: Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess. I've been in cars with lane drift warnings. It's just super annoying. I know before it does when it's about to go off. And 20% of those times it's because I've veered on purpose.

Auto brake is for morons that can't drive or pay attention . There's a lot of them so I'm all for it.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: Who do you think your going to please with THAT?

A: Me.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

" it was doing it's best to stop."

I wish there was an Autopilot for apostrophes. it's means it is.

"Tesla would of be buried under that red truck up to it's A pillar's"

Jesus Christ, are you an engineer? You guys can't spell.

1) Would HAVE BEEN, not "of". This is elementary.
2) it's means it is
3) pillars. No fucking apostrophe.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[SamTombs]

Got that right. It's in name only no different as the one and only thing cruise control does is keep the throttle steady.

Not quite so, at least not for cars with adaptive cruise control (including the Tesla). Such cars attempt to keep a steady distance from the next car, not a steady speed.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Bryansix]

A lot of cars have adaptive cruise control now. The Tesla just has lane keeping as well. The issue is that the cruise control does the braking for you. Initially, this is nerve racking. The car will fail to react for a moment probably to see if the driver is just momentarily breaking as opposed to significantly slowing down. Then the brakes will kick in with varying degree and slow the car while also closing the gap. This happens when you are driving too but when you are not doing it, you want to over-ride the system constantly. Eventually though, you start to trust the system and that's when inattentiveness can be a problem.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Agripa]

But what the hell is the point of having an automatic driving system if you have to sit there waiting for that split second between when you realize the autopilot isn't working and when the accident occurs?

What is the point? It places liability on the driver instead of the manufacturer.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[wikthemighty]

Don't stick your dick in that hole!

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[Megane]

I think in California they care more about the lighter having a sticker announcing a possible cancer risk from sticking your dick in the cigarette lighter.

Re: Defense: it was drunk

[EricTheO]

Tesla does not have âoeautopilot âoe they have driver assistance. Thatâ(TM)s a large difference in capabilities.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[fluffernutter]

Uh, the fact that Elon Musk is willing to have people drive around with it??

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[david_thornley]

I've become used to my adaptive cruise control. One of the neat things is that, given a reasonable interval, there's time for me to notice any failure and take over myself. My Forester theoretically has some sort of lane-keeping ability, but if that fails I may not have a full second to avoid an accident, so I don't rely on it. (The one time I tried it, fingers a centimeter from the wheel, I didn't like how it did it anyway.)

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[crimson tsunami]

How is the sticker made? What if you lick the sticker, do you get tongue cancer? Now all those stickers will have to have their own stickers too.
Stickers all the way down.

Re:Defense: it was drunk

[eric_harris_76]

They said "continues" not "completes".

Should have said the brakes failed

[known_coward_69]

so as not to look as stupid as he/she is

Now the idiot driver wrecked their Tesla and they have to pay for damages to the fire truck

Re:Should have said the brakes failed

[mysidia]

Now the idiot driver wrecked their Tesla and they have to pay for damages to the fire truck

If autopilot turns out to have been on; then probably Tesla will wind up having to pay for damages to a fire truck.... AND replacing that poor idiot driver's car. /P

Re:Should have said the brakes failed

[BasilBrush]

it was most likely not on. And wither way it'll be the driver's insurance paying.

Re:Should have said the brakes failed

[Dog-Cow]

Tesla has no liability for misuse of any feature of the vehicle. At least, not yet.

Re:Should have said the brakes failed

[BradleyUffner]

Even if it *was* on, the driver shouldn't be *relying* on a misleadingly named "autopilot" to not run in to solid objects.

Re:Should have said the brakes failed

[RespekMyAthorati]

It should be called "Driver Assist" or something that conveys that there is little automatic about it.

Of course, that doesn't sell cars as well as calling it "Autopilot" and then claiming that they had their fingers crossed.

Trucking recognition

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like autopilot has issues detecting and recognising trucks. First the decapitation case, now this one.

Re:Trucking recognition

[known_coward_69]

If it was like the idiot in kansas or oklahoma more likely the driver was driving and texting or doing something else you're not supposed to do while driving

Re:Trucking recognition

[Anonymous Coward]

And the driver's failure to be paying attention somehow made the software fail to spot an enormous object right in front of the car? That's some pretty impressive psychic powers the driver has.

The problem with all these Tesla incidents is that everyone goes full 100% "It's the autopilot's fault!" or "it's the driver's fault!". You know what, in this case both the driver and the autopilot fucked up, and both the driver and Tesla need to sort their shit out.

Re:Trucking recognition

[Dog-Cow]

The fact that the airbags didn't fire would suggest that if autopilot was engaged, it did a great job slowing the vehicle. It's not magic. It can't bring the vehicle to a dead stop the moment it detects an obstacle.

Too much delta-v?

[sl3xd]

I don't own a Tesla, but I know my own car's auto brake system doesn't gracefully slow to a stop unless the speed difference between my car and whatever is in front of me is less than 30 MPH.

If the delta-v is more than 30 MPH, my car will do a "panic stop" thing to slow the car down, but it'll be too late to avoid a collision.

Re:Too much delta-v?

[Hal_Porter]

The problem is that people assume that autopilot means they don't need to think of things like delta-v.

Re:Too much delta-v?

[Mr D from 63]

I don't own a Tesla, but I know my own car's auto brake system doesn't gracefully slow to a stop unless the speed difference between my car and whatever is in front of me is less than 30 MPH.

If the delta-v is more than 30 MPH, my car will do a "panic stop" thing to slow the car down, but it'll be too late to avoid a collision.

Maybe, but it seems that the people driven cars also on the road were able to avoid that collision.

Re:Too much delta-v?

[fahrbot-bot]

The problem is that people assume that autopilot means they don't need to think of things like delta-v.

The problem is that most people think "delta-v" is about Delta planes flying in a "V" formation.

Re: Too much delta-v?

[sl3xd]

Thatâ(TM)s kind of my point (and Teslaâ(TM)s too): the driver is responsible.

On an aircraft, the pilot is still responsible for flying the aircraft. If the autopilot flies the plane into a mountain, itâ(TM)s still labeled pilot error. Thereâ(TM)s no absolving the guy at the controls.

Re: Too much delta-v?

[sl3xd]

Apologies for forgetting about slashdot and UTF-8.

Re: Too much delta-v?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is correct. Furthermore, the auto pilot on some planes ive been on has been faulty and somehow I've avoided plowing into the ground.

Also, don't forget that when Toyota had the stuck accelerator issue, everyone claimed it was the cause in every crash.

They discovered in many cases the people were lying. It's entirely possible that this is bs

Re: Too much delta-v?

[Mr D from 63]

Thatâ(TM)s kind of my point (and Teslaâ(TM)s too): the driver is responsible.

On an aircraft, the pilot is still responsible for flying the aircraft. If the autopilot flies the plane into a mountain, itâ(TM)s still labeled pilot error. Thereâ(TM)s no absolving the guy at the controls.

Yes, we can conclude two things from this event;
1) The driver is at fault for not paying attention, and can be held legally responsible
2) Tesla Autopilot is not yet advanced enough to prevent a car from ramming into a parked truck on its own.

What we can also consider is that by enabling drivers to reduce their driving concentration, and even take hands off the wheel, the Tesla Autopilot feature is a contributing factor to the accident. Not in legal terms, but in pure cause analysis terms.

Re: Too much delta-v?

[sl3xd]

The only question, I think, is whether these autonomous systems compensate for human inability to pay attention *more* than they encourage inattention.

Used properly, it can be very useful. As it stands, I think of the current technology as being like a horse saying "Even I am not *that* dumb'.

If nothing else, the big problem is this: marketing requires a very short term to describe a feature. That's how 'net neutrality' became the term for a subject that takes several paragraphs to explain adequately.

Like so many other idioms in the English language, using logic to derive meaning is a recipe for failure.

As an example 'Go knock up your sister' has a VERY different meaning depending on if you are English or American, and will leave a non-native person wondering what either means.

Re:Too much delta-v?

[Dog-Cow]

The problem is that most people never think.

Re:Too much delta-v?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Nitpick: Delta-v is change in velocity. However, your earlier condition was predicated on the relative speed between your car and "whatever is in front of you". This is written as V sub (YourCar | Obstacle).

Re: Too much delta-v?

[BlueUnderwear]

Slashdot displays UTF8 just fine (€ , é, à, ü), while you're just being a jerk. What exactly were you attempting to do with those stupid (TM)'s?

Thereâ(TM)s no absolving the guy at the controls.

Indeed...

Re: Too much delta-v?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was posting from his iPhone, which uses non standard characters for '.

Its helpful for finding djits, like in this case.

Re: Too much delta-v?

[JD-1027]

2) Tesla Autopilot is not yet advanced enough to prevent a car from ramming into a parked truck on its own.

Does Tesla release statistics on the number of cars NOT HIT because autopilot was turned on?

Re: Too much delta-v?

[Anonymous Coward]

2 - I would say it's not yet advanced enough to completely stop before impact in all cases. As others have mentioned, the damage is nowhere near enough for a 65mph impact, so it did slow down substantially.

Re: Too much delta-v?

[sl3xd]

Thanks. I knew it wasn't quite right, but itâ(TM)s been a couple decades since I've needed to worry about somebody grading my kinematics.

Re: Too much delta-v?

[Mr D from 63]

No, of course. There is no practical way to determine such a thing, much less normalizing such data for any useful purpose.

Of course it also not relevant to this specific event.

Re: Too much delta-v?

[sl3xd]

How non-standard is Unicode U+2018 LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK?

Slashdot (or at least m.slashdot.org) doesn't handle it properly, do say nothing of things like Greek Capital Delta (Î")

Re: Too much delta-v?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

And, thank you. It bothered me when I saw it, but I couldn't remember either. That bothered me even more. So I had to go ask someone.

Always nice to relearn something you used to know!

Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

If no defects were found in the autopilot system, then why did the car crash?

Ignoring the fact that drivers are supposed to be paying attention while autopilot is engaged, I can see no reason that if the driver is telling the truth, that the car would not have slowed to a stop instead of hitting the truck at full speed.

I think it is more likely that the person is either lying (or mistaken) about autopilot being engaged or they were doing something else to override the autopilot's normal function.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Burdell]

Because it isn't actually what most people would consider an autopilot and doesn't handle all situations. The truck was stopped and the car was driving at highway speed, and Tesla is probably not handling coming up on a fully stopped vehicle at that speed.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

like putting an orange in the steering wheel.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

The truck was stopped and the car was driving at highway speed, and Tesla is probably not handling coming up on a fully stopped vehicle at that speed.

Then it’s defective and shouldn’t be allowed on the road.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[imgod2u]

I've noticed this with auto-pilot. It's good at following cars that are moving but if I'm driving down a road and there's a car stopped in front of me (for instance, at a red light), it seems to full speed way past the point where I'd start slowing down when driving manually.

I've not let it do its thing yet, instead I'll take over.

It seems they've calibrated it to function like most adaptive cruise controls in that it's great at matching the speed of a car it's already tracking in front of you. But it isn't calibrated for non highway driving in that it'll stop for parked cars...

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Mr D from 63]

If no defects were found in the autopilot system, then why did the car crash?

Ignoring the fact that drivers are supposed to be paying attention while autopilot is engaged, I can see no reason that if the driver is telling the truth, that the car would not have slowed to a stop instead of hitting the truck at full speed.

I think it is more likely that the person is either lying (or mistaken) about autopilot being engaged or they were doing something else to override the autopilot's normal function.

The Tesla owner's manual says that Traffic-Aware Cruise Control, which is part of the Autopilot system, "cannot detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles"

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[gravewax]

IT ISN'T allowed on the road, The driver must be attentive and in control at all times, the fact that it was left to the autopilot to make the decision was a driver failure and I say this as someone that doesn't like Tesla!

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[sl3xd]

If no defects were found in the autopilot system, then why did the car crash?

The "no defects were found" is from the fatal crash a couple of years ago, and there were several contributing factors, outside of the autopilot.

That said: I don't drive a Tesla, but my car has a similar adaptive cruise control and auto-braking system. On my (non-tesla), I can easily see how somebody not familiar with it would think "Oh, I have the system engaged, the car will stop."

The reality is that it'll only stop if the difference in speed between my car and the object in front of me is less than 30 MPH. Drivers must go to the effort of learning the car's systems in order to know that. (And the learning comes from the Manufacturer's YouTube videos, The Fine Manual, The Dealership's guy whose only job is to teach customers about it, and said it at least a dozen times...)

I've been in more than a few situations where I can see traffic is stopped ahead, but my car continues accelerating towards them -- I'm accelerating past 50 MPH, while they're at a dead stop, 50 meters ahead.

Honestly, it feels like my brain is breaking every time: "Why isn't the car slowing down? Oh yeah, dummy! I gotta do it this time!"

So with my experience in a similar system on an entirely different make/model, I'm willing to bet the guy could have had autopilot engaged, but he didn't learn (for whatever reason) its limitations.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

All Tesla’s should be banded from the road. They are defective by design.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could easily think of how autopilot could be spoofed.

Tesla is following a car at a safe distance at highway speed. This locks radar.
Idiot in front car waits until the last second to swerve around stopped vehicle in lane.
Tesla is now traveling at high speed at stopped vehicle with insufficient warning to stop.

I've seen this scenario happen numerous times with humans driving.
It seldom ends well.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

Every collision avoidance system in vehicles today that I know of knows to apply the brakes when an obstacle is detected in front of the car. The car would be plainly able to detect the vehicle at a distance that is still far enough away that it would have been more than capable of safely slowing down.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

"cannot detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles"

Ah.... well that's a major pitfall right there. If it can't brake or detect for stationary vehicles, will it also fail to brake or detect someone, perhaps a child, who runs out in front of traffic?

I was under the impression that all modern collision avoidance systems are more than capable of handling this... if Tesla's cannot even manage this detail then their so-called autopilot is, to put it bluntly, a piece of shit.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[OrangeTide]

If no defects were found in the autopilot system, then why did the car crash?

If Volkswagen can cheat at environmental tests for about 8-10 years, then I'm not confident that complex autopilot systems are throughly examined. As far as I know they aren't even using formal verification to prove the correctness of the autopilot software or even its subsystems.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[fluffernutter]

So best case, no one shoud trust Autopilot. There simply isn't enough time to take over between when you trust it and when you realize you can't.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

All Tesla’s should be banded from the road. They are defective by design.

And your logic is as defective as your fucking ability to spell.

Feel free to attack Tesla autopilot after you get all the drunks and idiots who can't put down a a fucking phone off the road. Pull your head out of your ass as to the real threats that kill thousands every year. I can count the number of Tesla autopilot deaths on one fucking hand.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Junta]

One, the other big notable accident was also with a vehicle with high ground clearance. At the time it was suggested that the system sensors were basically counting on something relatively close to the ground, and would miss things as they approach 'decaptiation level'.

I will say I am highly skeptical that the car slammed in at full 65 mph into a stopped fire truck. I got rear ended while I was going about 15 mph (traffic jam) by a car that was going about 60, and there were injuries and both cars were in much worse shape than the Tesla pictured (both cars totaled, frames bent so bad that no doors able to open without prybars), and that's with both cars having crumple zones, whereas the fire truck didn't yield much at all and the Tesla had to take the vast majority of the energy of the impact. Also, the Model S is a pretty heavy car, so there had to be a lot of energy in that collision.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

The reality is that it'll only stop if the difference in speed between my car and the object in front of me is less than 30 MPH

That is a strikingly severe limitation... one that I had not heard about this previously. is this actually deliberate, because I cannot fathom how it would only be the best we can do technologically.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is by the time you realize the autopilot isn't going to stop in time its too late for you to stop as well.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

^Its not just about 'fault', you moron. Its also about the limits of the highly touted 'advanced' auto pilot system, and how very far it still needs to go before true autonomous driving is realized.

But, a human interface that enables and even encourages drivers to not pay attention when they need to could be considered a direct contributor to the accident despite what the fine print in the manual says. Those are tough issues to deal with, but I think all you care about is that your beloved Tesla is not blamed at all.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Mr D from 63]

^to be fair, it says its only a problem at higher speeds.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

Ah.... so it's untrustworthy when it's also the most likely to be deadly.

Good to know.

I thought stuff like this was supposed to *save* lives...?

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every collision avoidance system in vehicles today that I know of knows to apply the brakes when an obstacle is detected in front of the car. The car would be plainly able to detect the vehicle at a distance that is still far enough away that it would have been more than capable of safely slowing down.

Well, you're clearly not as smart as Elon Musk, who is looking further down the road (past that parked truck).

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is the Corvair of electric vehicles.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again you seemed to have missed the most obvious and important note: Tesla themselves are very clear as to how this system should be operated. Deviating from those instructions MAKES YOU AN IDIOT. And if that seems odd to you then you may be an idiot as well. Their "highly touted" systems WAS EXPLICITLY SAID TO BE USED WITH FULL ATTENTION OF THE DRIVER. Never, not once, has Tesla even insinuated that one could relinquish all control when autopilot is activated. That isn't just something you are supposed to figure out, YOU ARE EXPRESSLY TOLD THIS WHEN YOU SHELL OUT THE $5,000 ABOVE THE STICKER PRICE FOR THE AUTOPILOT SYSTEM. Once again any individual who posses both common sense AND the instructions from Tesla would never have gotten themselves into this predicament. The rational individual would think: "Well I have this autonomous system that is in beta and that I had to opt-into to even get and was told explicitly not to use this while not paying attention. I guess I better not turn it on and then read a book or otherwise be indisposed for long enough to miss the fact that a giant fucking red fire truck was stopped in my own lane.

You seem to think that because Tesla has this feature to make driving easier it is automatically their fault when individuals go beyond its design intentions and accidents ensue. Radio's encourage drivers to not pay attention. Electronic billboards encourage drivers to not pay attention. The clearly visible TV playing a Disney movie in the backseat of the car in front of you encourages drivers to not pay attention. The goddamn check engine warning light encourages drivers to not pay attention. Stop blaming the world for a single individuals bad judgement. If we continued to the logical conclusion of your sentiment the entire world would be bubble wrapped to protect us from ourselves. This is the real world, if you act like an idiot you could possibly die or seriously injured (or cause death or injury to another). Trying to protect against idiocy by demanding companies make perfect products or not release them at all is a ridiculous argument. The only thing Tesla could do to further drive the impression into buyers that the Autopilot system is BETA and isnt intended to replace actual driving would be to make buyers sign a contract that in big bold red letters says you are an idiot if you go against the instructions Tesla provides for safe operation of the autopilot system.

I have a feeling even such a morbid and obvious contract would be insufficient for you and would still deem the autopilot as "encouraging driver not to pay attention". What could Tesla do, in your opinion, to rectify this situation? Is it not enough that anyone who even wishes to try the autopilot system gets a nice lecture (and a $5,000 USD lighter wallet) about its safe usage? Are you implying that an individual who was clearly instructed how to operate a system is not liable when that individual knowingly goes against the instructions they were given?

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

U r a moran. If the name was anything else than autopilot I would agree but calling it "auto" meaning automatic or autonomous. Or you think I can sell you toothpaste and then tell you - well, it's not tooth paste, it's poo and you are not supposed to use it as toothpaste, but I still sell it under the name toothpaste.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Kumiorava]

Except all/most auto braking implementations guarantee stopping before impact ONLY if the velocity difference is small enough. Tesla or any other system cannot make a full stop from highway speeds in time.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the term autopilot is quite apt. In the aviation industry the autopilot is treated with the exact respect this Tesla driver failed to show. In fact, if you google "FAA Autopilot rules", click the first link from the FAA website (Chapter 04: Automated Flight Control - Federal Aviation Administration) and look at the section on the FIRST PAGE entitled: "How To Use an Autopilot Function" you will find under point number 5 the instructions: "Be ready to fly the aircraft manually to ensure proper course/clearance tracking in case of autopilot failure or misprogramming".

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Jetboy01]

Tesla
>Sells car with "auto pilot" mode, advertises as self-driving feature with claims of how advanced it is and how much stress it can relieve from the average highway drive.

Tesla Shill
>Never, not once, has Tesla even insinuated that one could relinquish all control when autopilot is activated.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

I would think that at highways speeds, it would slow down sooner, basically as when a stationary (or nearly stationary) obstacle is detected directly ahead, and the speed at which the vehicle is going still leaves a safe stopping distance.

If you are a safe following distance behind a car and it suddenly stops, why on earth would it not be able to detect that? If a moose or bear happens to be crossing the road, are you saying it would not see it and try to slow down as quickly as possible? It's obvious that a human driver should also be doing so, but it makes absolutely no sense that at the speeds where a collision is the most likely to be deadly, the so-called collision avoidance system is actually most likely to be unreliable, and thus no more likely to save lives than if it had not been there at all (possibly even less likely, given the nature of human psychology).

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

From other articles, I gather all of the groups attempting autonomous cars are training neural nets in driving situations - not only are they not using formal verification, they aren't even capbable of cursory examination.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Nethead]

My Outback with EyeSight will do its damnest to brake in that situation because the engineers understand that slower is better than doing nothing. I've tested up to about 45mph with cardboard boxes. Very strange felling. Amazing what they can do with two cameras, even in PNW rain.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[sl3xd]

Well, if you can work out how a computer vision system can easily tell the difference between a car in a different lane on a bending road, versus a car stopped in the lane in front of you, you're a better developer than I.

Google's best can't tell the difference between primates and humans with a similar skin color, so I do not feel too bad.

I'm willing to bet they have the limitation to avoid unnecessary slamming on the brakes for no reason.

(My car has a much simpler system, and doesn't claim otherwise. It's an alternative to nothing.)

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

It suffers from the same problems as normal cars.

If you jump out in front of a car travelling at speed, you're gonna get run over... Is that a surprise to you?

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the people who programmed this car never accounted for the possibility that there might occasionally be random, stationary shit on the road that it might need to avoid? Let alone shit the size of a fire truck?

Next time I'm feeling too lazy to write some basic feature into whatever I'm designing I'll just blow it off and bury a disclaimer in the ToS saying it's the user's problem.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

My Eyesight Outback will break too... eventually.

It has no ability to gracefully handle a car stopped on the freeway, though - EyeSight switches from accelerating towards the object on the road to slamming on the brakes in an instant. (I can replicate this every time).

Any sane human would take the more sensible path of coasting and/or slowing down smoothly.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[No Longer an AC]

Drivers must go to the effort of learning the car's systems in order to know that..

Yikes - maybe we need a new class of license for people to drive a car with advanced but not fully autonomous features like these.

I always cringe when I see drivers not looking at the road for too long. This often happens in movies, but all too often it happens in real life as well. If I have to watch the road all adaptive cruise and auto-braking would do for me is give my foot a rest. That's where conventional cruise control is great (giving my foot a rest) on long trips but I still have to pay attention to the road.

Such advanced features should be considered more of a backup rather than a primary safety device.

That is until we can truly have a car that we can trust to fall asleep in and never have to be expected to take over control at a moment's notice.

If you do happen to fall asleep at the wheel maybe it will save you, but don't count on it.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[AvitarX]

Perhaps the lack of dealers is what's causing the problem with people over estimating the auto pilot.

Not everyone rtfm, but Tesla drivers don't have the sales guy tell them at least a dozen times.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Nethead]

I know exactly what you mean. But I think that is more to do with the specs of how far the EyeSight can reliably discern an object and providing false positives. But hey, at least it stops!

The only false positive I've had going forward is a slight braking (and beeping) when a plastic shopping bag flew in front of the windshield, but that was just for a moment. Better that than mistake a kid.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[sl3xd]

Forget what Tesla does. Think of used car salesmen.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be difficult not to find a statement from Tesla on the topic of their system without them mentioning they expect you to keep your hands on the wheel. Every time an accident like this happens they parrot back the same thing. At this point it would be hard to NOT notice this information, and would be downright impossible if you are an actual Tesla owner who opted in to have the autopilot beta feature. Have you been living under a rock? Also as has been stated elsewhere, autopilot even in the aviation industry, was meant to be an aid and not a replacement for a competent pilot. It really isn't that difficult to understand. At this point I feel like people are being deliberately obtuse and holding Tesla to the letter of their word rather than the spirit of it (not to mention the overall body of their statements on this autopilot and the necessity of the driver being attentive while using it) .

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[datavirtue]

The excuse in this case is: "auto pilot didnt save me."

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[aaarrrgggh]

The guy walked away from the crash, so the car did its job. I guess they isolate the following and stopping logic because there are too many motionless things that cannot be logically tracked or anticipated until you are on an otherwise irreversible collision course with them.

Room for improvement to say the least; something blocking the traffic lane should be considered prior to impact.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

If the road is bending, then you'd need to be moving slower anyways... It can't be that hard to ensure that if there is something in front of the vehicle, the car never be moving faster than it could safely stop in the distance to it.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

Ah.... damn that stupid fire truck, jumping out in front the Tesla like that with no warning.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think maybe you're underestimating the energy required to lift a fire truck. The picture shows that the Tesla did a nose-dive under the fire truck, so a lot of the kinetic energy got transformed into potential energy when the Tesla wedged itself under and lifted the back of the fire truck.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Hognoxious]

Apples and oranges. They don't give out pilots' licenses on cereal boxes in most jurisdictions.

Having visited Italy and California I can safely conclude that getting a driver's license is a lot less stringent.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are vastly underestimating the complexity of the problem. People drive past rows of parked cars all the time, and the difference between passing and colliding is a very small angle or difference in arc radius. Trying to reason about the difference between a collision and an intentional near-miss trajectory is difficult and expands like a wedge (a sort of cone of uncertainty) as you try to project further out in front of the car. The reason for the maximum delta-v that the car can safely brake is directly related to the extended horizon needed to perform that braking as speed goes up. You simply get too large of an area of uncertainty.

Meanwhile, you can't just say "better safe than sorry" and demand that the cars brake under any uncertainty. People would riot and demand that these panicky, unstable cars be removed from the road if they freaked out and slammed on the brakes with the frequently benign occurrences that we human drivers accept every day, with stationary (or oncoming) vehicles zooming by mere feet outside our path.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

People drive past rows of parked cars all the time, and the difference between passing and colliding is a very small angle or difference in arc radius.

True, but one is in the same lane as you... the other isn't. At highway speeds, usually the lanes are fairly clearly marked. A computer vision based system should be able to extrapolate information about the lanes in the road ahead to tell what cars are within a stopping distance and are on the shoulder vs which may be stopped and blocking the road. In the city, or especially suburban roads where the road lanes may not be so clearly marked, one is also driving at considerably lower speeds, the stopping distance is shorter, and so the angle between cars you would pass vs cars in the same driving lane as you at the necessary stopping distance is correspondingly larger.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Tesla's autopilot system isn't very good. It often misses obstacles that are very clear to a human driver or to most other driving assistance systems.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Calydor]

Dude, you're talking about laws of physics here. A car going 65 MPH is physically incapable of coming to a complete and abrupt stop in a way that does NOT kill the driver of said car.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't be waiting for Autopilot to stop the car, YOU should be stopping the car. You should be driving as though the Autopilot weren't there at all, dumbass.

For fuck's sake, you're the kind of person who would start a kitchen fire and then wait for the smoke detector to activate before you took action to put it out. Lazy, entitled, irresponsible assholes who expect to have their hand held everywhere are why shit like this happens.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a fucking name. A Ford Explorer isn't actually an explorer nor is it a man named Ford. A Mars candy bar is neither a planet nor a Roman god. Windows operating systems aren't panes of glass. An Alienware isn't actually made by extraterrestrials.

These are things people shouldn't have to explain to you, you stupid fuck. I'm surprised you aren't whining that Tesla vehicles can't fly or travel across bodies of water because it says "pilot" in there.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. The driver could be bubble wrapped into one of the Zorbie human hamster balls and ejected out of the vehicle and over the obstacle.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

The driver who manually shifts into an obstructed lane at 65+ is unlikely to avoid a crash. Autopilot or not.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try a high resolution high contrast camera filter, pick out the lane markings and run markhov chain based on recently established marking to estimate distance and curvature. A Pi3b can steer my bike at mid to low speeds.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[BlueUnderwear]

is this actually deliberate, because I cannot fathom how it would only be the best we can do technologically.

Maybe because they have somehow difficulties telling the difference between a car stopped in the middle of the road, or a car parked at the side of the street? Well, lane detection should help them out there, or is there maybe a distance limitation about how far ahead the car can follow its lane?

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

Only if they are so close to the obstruction that a collision cannot be avoided. The safe stopping distance required at that speed is actually less than 300 feet, with about 30% of that being taken up by time required for human reaction time, which should be neglible for a computer controlled system, so the actual stopping distance by a computer can be correspondingly less. And given that the stopping distance at a given speed is almost exactly the same as the minumum recommended following distance, any car with something called an autopilot feature should be able to detect things at that distance (otherwise what the fuck is adaptive cruise control even doing that a basic cruise control that just presets the car's speed doesn't do?)

So why couldn't a sensor on a car modern with a collision avoidance system be able to clearly see that a truck is blocking its path long before it gets too close that it is unable to stop in time?

Or are you saying that he deliberately shifted into a lane that, being less than 300 feet away, *HE* could have plainly seen was blocked as well?

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[SuiteSisterMary]

No, you shouldn't trust autopilot. Hell, you shouldn't trust *the car.* You should know what to do if your brakes fail. You should know what to do if you develop a steering problem. You should know what to do if a tire blows out. And so on.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

Here's the thing though.... the minimum safe stopping distance at any given speed is roughly the same minimum distance you are ordinarily supposed to keep between you and the car in front of you when travelling at cruising speed, so the cars sensors should be more than able to ordinarily detect something in one's own lane that is not moving at the same speed as the car itself, and the greater the speed difference, the faster it can be detected.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[HornWumpus]

Maybe it's just lurchy lane changers. But when I'm passing a lane full of stopped/slow cars I like to be going no more than 20-30 mph faster than them.

For vehicles on the shoulder, I was trained to _not_ buzz right by them at full speed. Move over or slow down. Doubly so when emergency lights are flashing.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[HornWumpus]

We should also have tougher license standards for people who want to drive cars with slush boxes. 99% of _terrible_ drivers can't drive stick.

Make everybody take their driving test in a stick shift.

And required 'yellow bumpers' until they drive for a year without accident or ticket.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[HornWumpus]

I for one, won't be giving up my car with physical connections between both brake pedal and master cylinder, steering wheel and rack and gas pedal and throttle body. Not until car software is developed to FAA standards. Even then, maybe.

I'm amazed at the number of /.ers that are buying into vapor being an inevitable success.

Consider how your reaction would be different if MS was making the software...that's the correct reaction.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are clearly being obtuse. All this would take and has ever required is to change the word autopilot to something else.

But no, keep comparing it to airplanes, for some bizarre reason (which require licenses and training to pilot. Oh, plus they're in the air)

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[OrangeTide]

I for one, won't be giving up my car with physical connections between both brake pedal and master cylinder, steering wheel and rack and gas pedal and throttle body.

Then 10-15 years from now you might not be able to drive in certain city centers. I predict some cities, perhaps London, will require autonomous cars on certain days to reduce traffic congestion downtown. These corporations can manipulate city governments quite easily with incentive programs or just outright bribes.

I'm amazed at the number of /.ers that are buying into vapor being an inevitable success.

Oh it's inevitable. I think a lot of people are going to make a ton of money. And a lot of consumers are going to be buying expensive autonomous cars to replace their old fashioned one. Even if the reality is that the autonomous cars don't live up to their promises. We'll see government agencies looking the other way in traffic fatalities from this new technology, especially from the driver assist (level 1) to high automation (level 4?) because the human driver will be the one taking responsibility even in cases where the software is faulty. This is because once a standards organization rubber stamps the autopilot software after passing a few irrelevant tests, the company is nearly off the hook on liability. For full automation (level 5), we'll see government organizations stepping in to protect car manufactures on the excuse that important new technology needs help to mature.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

What ? There are often bends on roads over hills where you can't see the lane lines precisely out in front of you. (Not to mention bad weather)

There are often large trucks parked on the side of the road. You can't slow down to 10 mph for them on the freeway "just to be safe" . ( people will get mad at their OWN cars going to slow much less the people rear ending them)

I am very surprised people think this is an OK situation for even lane assist / auto brake to not handle correctly.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[TheCastro1689]

Where can I get a cereal box driver's license? Which states accept them?

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[sl3xd]

Alll bets are off during rush hour in a city thatâ(TM)s consistently in the top three contenders in the race for the worst drivers in the US.

Iâ(TM)ve lost count of the number of times somebody uses the âcurteouslyâ(TM)-unoccupied lane as a âoefast laneâ, zooming past everybody else well above the speed limit. Then they make an emergency lane change when they run out of room...

I've simply come to accept that even driving defensively, eliminating distraction, and keeping my eyes glued to the road, I may react to crazy shit #1 and totally miss crazy shit #2.

Thatâ(TM)s where I see a real benefit from an autonomous system that reacts faster than I can...

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[HornWumpus]

I predict you're wrong. Again, reconsider this steaming pile of vapor in light of it having come from MS.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

False Positive. You want to limit the impact of an erroneous emergency break. Setting an upper limit on the speed reduction helps there ...

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[fluffernutter]

So what's the point of having a car that can brake for you if you have to do it manually all the time anyway? Because if you let it do 'it's thing' it might be too late to take over and you'll be blamed for the accident?

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[mark-t]

If a computer can't tell what was within a minimum safe stopping distance then neither could a human, and a defensive driver would adjust their speed to compensate for lack of visibility.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[david_thornley]

I don't trust the safety features on my car. I'm fine with adaptive cruise control, because I've always got a couple of seconds warning of impending collision. I keep the vehicle more or less in the lane by myself, and I brake myself rather than letting the car do it. On the other hand, if I screw up, the car may do the right thing anyway, so that's good.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[david_thornley]

Add to the list of things that distract drivers: hard-to-read electronic signs warning against distracted driving. I found that one ironic.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well, what's the point of cruise control? Blind spot assist? ABS brakes? Power steering? All that stuff is there to help the driver, not supplant the driver.

At some point, we'll tip over from 'full suite of driver assist features' to 'Siri, drive me to work.' But we're not there yet.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

As all the examples you give are *brand* names and autopilot is supposed to be a *descriptive* term this attempted analogy wins you the retard of the day award (which is quite an achievement on today's /.).

For the hard of thinking: The analogy above would be apt only if we were complaining that the Tesla was not made by Tesla or was not a Tesla coil.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[fluffernutter]

None of those things are expected to replace you. Autopilot is advertised as replacing you as a driver at least some of the time. Except apparently it sometimes doesn't. If we aren't to the point of full autonomous yet, then Tesla should have done what all the other vehicle manufacturers are doing; get something that is at that point before releasing it. Tesla drivers are nothing but human guinea pigs. I guess they signed up for that but it seems bizarre to me that anyone would.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[OrangeTide]

I remember when people used to tell me that PDAs and Palm Pilots and electronic organizers wouldn't catch on. And I probably looked stupid carrying one around back in the day. But smart phones aren't really all that different from PDAs in terms of use. Maybe I had to HotSync once a day instead of being connected to "the cloud".

Adoption of technology that is convenient is inevitable. I totally understand if you think self driving cars are some kind of fad. But if you think that people aren't willing to give up control or sacrifice safety in favor of convenience, then you haven't been paying attention for the entire 20th and 21st centuries.

MS's software quality is not really relevant. For starters people put that crap operating system in ATMs now. Nobody but you fucking cares anymore. Convenience over safety, reliability, security, etc. If we had 10 self driving cars a week driving into brick walls it would be data that is lost in the noise of the 750 traffic fatalities a week we have with human drivers today in the US. And I don't think most consumers are going to care enough not to move forward with buying one of these vehicles. They might care enough to write their congressperson and demand better regulation, but we know that the legislature is only going to go through the motions long enough to get their constituency of their back.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Kumiorava]

It does try to stop as soon as obstacle is detected. The detection distance is most likely less than the stopping distance. In any case in sudden cases braking happens faster with brake assist than without one, so end result is better. Anticipation and seeing past the detection distance is left to the driver.

One comparison: https://youtu.be/UK7JqCR7w-g

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[gravewax]

you just don't seem to get it. autopilot SHOULD NOT be making that decision. You are supposed to make that decision, if you somehow forget to make that decision or got distracted for a moment then Auto Pilot is meant as a backup that might prevent the accident, it is not meant as a replacement for your driving.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[gravewax]

autopilot is not advertised as replacing you as the driver, in fact it is explicitly forbidden to use autopilot in such a manner, at this point in time it is purely a driver assist not a driver replace.

Re:Well... was the driver lying?

[fluffernutter]

You're missing the point. The point is that humans are unable take over properly in all the scenarios that this type of technology creates. Using it means that they must trust it, but trusting it will get you into an accident. It doesn't really matter what Tesla advertises it as, the fact that they create it and endorse it is enough.

Re: Well... was the driver lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Massachusetts.

Intended use

[arth1]

I'm kind of wondering what the purpose of autopilot is since it's only to be used by a fully attentive driver. What benefit does it add?
And if no benefit, why is it in the car in the first place, since it obviously acts as a lure for those who aren't fully attentive?

Re:Intended use

[JediJorgie]

Because you have to walk before you can run. When you buy/enable the feature you opt in to Tesla mining the data so we can someday actually have autonomous cars.

Re:Intended use

[imgod2u]

It's the difference between constant, can't-miss-a-second attention vs check-it-once-a-minute attention. For me, it's a pretty big convenience during the morning stop-and-go commute as well as on freeways during road trips.

My brain wanders more, I'm able to glance to the side for a few seconds to look at something interesting on the road and I'm not constantly adjusting speed/steering.

Makes longer drives far more tolerable.

Re:Intended use

[Krishnoid]

I'm kind of wondering what the purpose of [blank] is since it's only to be used by [blank]. What benefit does it add?

The answer, as always, is kinky stuff and/or porn.

Re:Intended use

[arth1]

It's the difference between constant, can't-miss-a-second attention vs check-it-once-a-minute attention.

"Fully attentive" means can't-miss-a-second, not check-it-once-a-minute.

My brain wanders more, I'm able to glance to the side for a few seconds to look at something interesting on the road and I'm not constantly adjusting speed/steering.

In other words, you are part of the dangerous problem: people who don't understand that you need to pay full attention to driving when on autopilot. You should not be on the road, because your disregard of Tesla's instructions means you're not just a danger to yourself, but to everybody else too.

Re:Intended use

[gravewax]

that makes you part of the problem, fully attentive is not checking it once a minute. It means watching at all times, you are putting more trust in it than you are supposed to, it should be their to assist and potentially catch something you missed not to be in control while you rest glancing up every minute or so.

Re:Intended use

[Alain Williams]

It's the difference between constant, can't-miss-a-second attention vs check-it-once-a-minute attention.

It you have not looked where you are going for a minute then, at 60 MPH, you will have travelled one mile -- you would not have seen that fire truck even if you had tried! Driving like that is what causes accidents like this.

A paradox of safety features like this is that gives the drivers more confidence to push the car to its limits; before anti skid brakes people were much more cautious on wet surfaces than they are today. I remember this being discussed on Radio 4 (England) some 20 years ago; the tongue in cheek comment was that the best way of reducing accidents would be to put a large, sharp spike above the dashboard pointing at the driver's head; the driver would then be careful enough to avoid any accident.

Re: Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

You need your license revoked until you learn how to read the manual and properly operate that shitpile Tesla of yours. You are a danger to everyone around you.

Re:Intended use

[fluffernutter]

Now companies will allow people to die so that they can get data. Gotta love corporatism.

Re:Intended use

[quantaman]

I'm kind of wondering what the purpose of autopilot is since it's only to be used by a fully attentive driver. What benefit does it add?
And if no benefit, why is it in the car in the first place, since it obviously acts as a lure for those who aren't fully attentive?

It allows Tesla to claim they have the first self-driving car.

Re:Intended use

[Known Nutter]

It's the difference between constant, can't-miss-a-second attention vs check-it-once-a-minute attention.

My brain wanders more, I'm able to glance to the side for a few seconds to look at something interesting on the road and I'm not constantly adjusting speed/steering.

You are part of the problem.

Re:Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

It is meant to be an adjunct to driving and nothing else. If you are too tired, inebriated, or otherwise do not posses the capacity to drive a car under normal conditions, the autopilot system is also unsuited for use. It was designed with the idea that the person behind the wheel was otherwise capable of driving and reacting under normal conditions without the aid of the autopilot system. It comes into its own when you consider things like driving fatigue and issues that come with old age or imperfect health. A few scenarios demonstrate this:

In one scenario, a person driving several hundred miles a day on average would greatly benefit from such a system. Even though the driver is still supposed to keep hands on the wheel and eyes on the road, the duty of minor adjustments in speed and lane position can fall to the autopilot, making the driving experience subjectively easier and less exhausting. As someone who has years of experience driving large recreation vehicles (30ft+ length) I can personally attest that one of the most mentally demanding tasks on long-haul trips is just holding steady in your lane. In this case the autopilot can help extend the amount of time a driver needs between stops and can ultimately increase the amount of miles traveled in a day without increasing driving fatigue similar amounts.

Another scenario is one I find personally compelling, consider the old or otherwise physically less fit individuals. This can be age related issues (slower cognition, degrading vision, etc), or similar problems caused in younger individuals by illness. Driving can be a hazard for those whose faculties are only minorly deficient. These people don't recognize that their own deficiencies may make them dangerous drivers, and furthermore those around may not recognize it either. But a loss of say a few percentage in terms of effectiveness in driving can make all the difference. Things like forgetting to look over your shoulder when turning, failing to notice a merging car on a thoroughfare, even just noticing an individual clad in dark clothing in low-light conditions are serious considerations. Heck even fully attentive drivers have trouble sometimes with these. If you could augment these minor deficits in ability with the autopilot system you could markedly increase the safety of this specific class of drivers. Again, as before these drivers arent expected to relinquish total control of their vehicle. The system merely augments their own driving ability to fill in the gaps. In this scenario, even a slightly deficient driver would be expected to see a large obstruction in the road such as a bright red fire engine with flashing lights and sirens.

And finally, as another poster mentioned, this is merely a stepping stone to something greater. If you think Tesla is fine resting on their laurels think again. Everyone working on self-driving cars have that level 5 autonomy class as the end-goal, but as the saying goes "Rome was not build in a day". Eventually these systems will get smarter and less prone to errors. If there is one thing we know about Human beings its that we can accomplish anything if we truly set our minds to it. As long as there are people dreaming of the future, its only a matter of time before it becomes the present.

Re:Intended use

[sl3xd]

What benefit does it add?

Its benefit is if the driver's treats it like an extra set of eyes, and is able to take corrective action when the driver fraks up. If the driver thinks it'll drive for him, you're right, it's a bad idea. (If you know anything about an aircraft's autopilot, you know it does not mean the flight crew is playing "I spy" while the plane does all the work).

* Blind Spots. You wanna change lanes or merge into traffic. So you check your blind spot, and glance away from the road in front for a fraction of a second. Problem is, somebody else just cut you off and stomped on the brakes. (Or somebody cut off the guy in front of you, and he stomped on the brakes.) In either case, the car starts braking before you know there's a problem.

* Blind Spots part II: We aren't paying as much attention as we think we are. The reality is humans suck at paying attention, we have mountains of data to prove it, and that's why we pay big bucks to watch "Magicians" and "Illusionists" perform.

* Blind Spots, part III: We're effectively blind for the fraction of a second while our eyes move from one focus point to another. That matters more than you'd think. The "I didn't see it coming" excuse doesn't even require a distraction... just glance at the road sign for a second.

* Distractions: A Pennsylvania insurance company found that 62% of accidents were caused by somebody being "lost in thought". Humans suck at paying attention.

* Another one I didn't appreciate until I got a car with a similar system: The car handles the gas pedal, and I cover the brake pedal with my foot. Wild animals (deer, moose), pets, children, and even adults jump in front of cars all the time. My car (not a Tesla) won't react until something is in my lane, so there's a chance I'll react first.

Re:Intended use

[Trogre]

All good questions that Elon Musk should be asking himself about now.

Given that he has carefully constructed a very successful brand that is practically synonymous with "Electric Car" for many people despite other popular models existing, why is he adding these useless and potentially harmful anti-features that can only damage this brand's reputation?

I realize there's a strong pro-self-driving-vehicle lobby here on /. but they conveniently ignore the need for and complete lack of software that, despite what marketing droids will tell you, is anywhere near ready for actual road driving.

Re:Intended use

[hey!]

I think our implicit model of what the brain is doing when we talking about being "fully attentive" is too simplistic. Who hasn't found themselves thinking about something while they drive and at least starting to go to the wrong place out of habit? Clearly when you do that you are not being "fully attentive", and yet your brain is constantly monitoring for dangers and obstacles, adjusting the car, even navigating.

Here's another thing I've noticed. On a long drive, especially in difficult conditions, your performance degrades. Your reaction time drops, your movements are slugglish and less precise, and your body exhibits stress symptoms. Taking a break for fifteen or twenty minutes dramatically restores your performance. And yet you are no more conscious of what is going on around you. Your brain is simply performing better.

Driving is a highly complex activity involving the coordination of many conscious and unconscious thinking, perception and motor processes. It's not as simple as "were you paying attention or not". I think normally it's fine not to be paying conscious attention as long as you're feeding your brain the input it needs to preserve itself.

So to answer your question, here's what I think the application may be: demanding fewer brain resources and thus reducing fatigue. Even a simple cruise control can make a long drive less tiring, although you can't use it most of the time. Just the break from having to control that one thing for a few minutes is helpful.

Re: Intended use

[Miamicanes]

Regardless of blame, Autopilot is probably a net safety improvement for the majority of Tesla owners who use it. They might not be as attentive as they're officially supposed to be when using it, but the car is probably more attentive and adept at avoiding accidents than the nominal human driver would be in real life.

The fact is, being in or near a stopped vehicle on a limited-access road with high-speed freely-flowing traffic is EXTREMELY dangerous under ANY circumstances. Humans don't expect to encounter parked vehicles amidst 80mph traffic, either. That's why emergency vehicles have so many lights to call attention to their presence. Parked cars & emergency vehicles on freeways were getting hit, scraped, sheared, rear-ended, and losing doors LONG before Elon Musk was born.

When a Tesla Autopilot allegedly does it, it's major news. When a human driver does it, it's one of several hundred accidents just like it that happen all the time.

Re:Intended use

[RightwingNutjob]

What's more, now he's developing an awful habit that will bite him and someone else in the jugular the moment he sits behind the wheel of another car.

Re:Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

*ALL* drivers of a semi-autonomous car are part of that dangerous problem.

The brain simply cannot maintain full engagement when it is doing no work. The fact that the auto-drive is handling the work trains you to stop paying attention.

This bullshit of "well it can drive, but it can't" is the root of the problem. The feature set *is not ready*, and this "you must pay attention" workaround is creating danger and accidents.

These systems should not be on the road until they are truly ready. Once the manufacturer certifies (and accepts liability for) sleeping babies being the only occupant of the car, then these systems will be safe for use on the road. Until then, they should be outright illegal (in my opinion).

Re:Intended use

[Nethead]

Driving the old pre-1968 VW Microbus made you feel that way. You never tailgated in those things. Your knees were only about 6 inches from the front of the bumper.

Re: Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

Old and physically/mentally unfit individuals should not be driving

Re:Intended use

[Nethead]

* Adaptive Cruse Control: One less task to pay high attention too and reduces road rage. Teaches proper following distance.

* Rear Assisted Braking / Camera: Get sandwiched between two vans when parking and trying to see out? I don't know how I lived without this. No more inching out and hoping.

* Blind Spot Alert: Nice little yellow light that, if I have my blinker on, beeps at me to let me know there is a car at my 8 o'clock.

* Lane Keeping Assist: So I was checking out the hottie walking the dog. Gives me a gentle nudge back into my lane and beeps at me.

I feel like I'm driving a Model-T when I drive my old pick-up now.

Re:Intended use

[Nethead]

Adaptive Cruse Control is something I don't know how I've lived without. My new Outback has it and the five mile drive on a semi-rural two lane road to civilization is now so much better, no more micro road rage. Just set and follow. Best thing since women that bake bread at home. (There is nothing better than a woman that bakes bread for you!)

That and the mild lane assist, just kind of nudges you back in lane, is all I really want from "auto pilot" in a car. I'm getting older and know that I'm not becoming a sharper driver. I do try to follow safety things like following distance and not driving like a fucking idiot, but I'm starting to have those space cadet moments. I like having a car that will say, "Hey!", and get me back on task.

Re: Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother to offer this interim capability.

Re:Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck off, pearl clutcher. The only thing your post missed was a shout out to the children.

Re:Intended use

[bingoUV]

Ah, I observe that the successful brand he has created is also somewhat synonymous with AutoPilot (TM). This is quite undeserved, but perception is more important than reality in this field.

I have heard people tell me about Tesla , something to the effect of - "I don't care much about the car running on battery, but I mainly like Tesla for its AutoPilot"

Re: Intended use

[houghi]

How come so many people think that. With one person it is the persons fault. With a few it is a coincide. With many it is a problem from the company.
Companies pay a lot on marketing. These companies what people think that words mean often other things than what the dictionary says.

So the blame is with Tesla for going with the word "autopilot" when they knew people would think it would mean no human interaction us needed.

Re:Intended use

[AmiMoJo]

To be fair Tesla doesn't exactly discourage this dangerous behaviour. You can take your hands off the wheel for quite some time before it starts warning you, and even then it takes a while before it actually starts trying to stop the car.

If they were serious they would make it so that you have a hands-off grace period of about 2 seconds, and once dis-engaged you have to call Tesla to re-enable it.

Tesla seem to have realized that hands-on-wheel is inadequate anyway, because the Model 3 has a camera pointed at the driver's face to make sure they are paying attention. It doesn't work yet but Cadillac and Audi have theirs working.

Re:Intended use

[drinkypoo]

(There is nothing better than a woman that bakes bread for you!)

Not getting fat on all that amazing bread is pretty cool, too

Re:Intended use

[Waccoon]

people who don't understand that you need to pay full attention to driving when on autopilot.

I get really annoyed by the marketable name, "autopilot". If you have to pay full attention to what the car is doing at all times, that's not flippin' autopilot!

Re:Intended use

[Cro Magnon]

My car doesn't have most of the features you mention, but it does have a rear-view camera. I don't want another car without that feature.

Re: Intended use

[arth1]

How come so many people think that. With one person it is the persons fault. With a few it is a coincide. With many it is a problem from the company.
Companies pay a lot on marketing. These companies what people think that words mean often other things than what the dictionary says.

So the blame is with Tesla for going with the word "autopilot" when they knew people would think it would mean no human interaction us needed.

I take issue with the phrase "the blame".
Blame isn't a binary quantity, or even a finite quantity. A person can be at fault for not following instructions, and a company can be at fault for selling a system that tempts bad driving control. The latter does not reduce blame for the former one iota.
Think of blame as a disease. If a second person gets it, it doesn't make the first person any better.

Re:Intended use

[arth1]

Tesla seem to have realized that hands-on-wheel is inadequate anyway, because the Model 3 has a camera pointed at the driver's face to make sure they are paying attention. It doesn't work yet but Cadillac and Audi have theirs working.

I'm not sure that's a good solution, but a pareto solution creating a divide. There are going to be a lot of people on which it will be very difficult to judge by their face whether they pay attention, whether it be due to eyeglasses, headscarves, brimmed hats, head immobility, disfigurements or other.

Too many solutions these days are "one size fits most" and not inclusive. Even though each of them individually allow the great majority of the population to use products, the combination once all of them are layered on top of each other means that in the end, only Bart Thiswee from Schenectady, NY can use them, because he's the only one generic enough in all ways.

Re:Intended use

[edtice1559]

I think that they are now a mandatory safety feature in the US.

Re:Intended use

[HornWumpus]

Driver attention system via a high voltage coil in the seat, just under the drivers crotch.

They won't take their eyes off the road twice.

Re:Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree with this. I rented a car for a trip a few weeks ago and it had all these features except blind spot alert. It made the road trip much easier. Especially adaptive cruise control. I will not be getting another car without that.

Re: Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

We could easily be capturing the DATA from people driving then feeding it into a NN of situations of crash versus not crash , much like GO, should result in most likely safe outcome over a very wide set of data.

Doesn't really require the car to be driving itself at all.

Re: Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

Adaptive cruise control does not keep me at distances I am comfortable with. Either too fast or too slow. My experiences with it have not convinced me.

20 year driver with no accidents , very big fan of normal cruise control. I can bump up or down the CC myself easily, with very little attention required. Rather that than wonder why I'm getting closer and closer to car in front of me and wonder if auto CC is going to actually work.

Re:Intended use

[nazrhyn]

Teaches proper following distance.

It doesn't teach anything.

Re:Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

It allows me to open a mint while on the freeway in a safe manner.

Re:Intended use

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe but then why didn't they market it as the "kinda-semi-pilot"?

Re:Intended use

[arth1]

Driver attention system via a high voltage coil in the seat, just under the drivers crotch.

They won't take their eyes off the road twice.

You underestimate people's kinks.

Re:Intended use

[HornWumpus]

You underestimate the voltage.

Re:Intended use

[Megane]

You never tailgated in those things.

We had one when I was kid back in the '70s. (It was actually a "Campmobile" imported from Germany by a previous owner. I never failed to be amused by the start button saying "FAHRT".) The thing could never go faster than 55MPH except downhill, (this was before the "double-nickel" national speed limit) so yes, it would indeed be difficult to tailgate in one of those things.

Re:Intended use

[Megane]

Blind Spots, part III: We're effectively blind for the fraction of a second while our eyes move from one focus point to another.

My previous vehicle from 1999 finally gave up the ghost, and I had to get something relatively recent (specifically 2013). The backup camera annoys me specifically because it is at a significantly different focus distance than looking in the mirrors, not to mention the poor quality of an LCD image vs direct vision. But we had to have it because every year, a handful of idiots let their kids run around unsupervised, and then ran over them when backing up in the driveway.

Re: Intended use

[david_thornley]

Then provide adequate public transportation systems. Not all people drive because they freely chose to do so.

Re:Intended use

[david_thornley]

even just noticing an individual clad in dark clothing in low-light conditions

Public Service Announcement: you feel well illuminated by the approaching headlights, but in fact you're not. So far, I've noticed all the ones I really had to notice, although I had a close call as a pedestrian once.

PSA 2: Safety vests can be ordered from Amazon for about twelve dollars. I really like being visible at night.

Re:Intended use

[david_thornley]

It habituates drivers, so the distance the driver is used to is adequate.

Re:Intended use

[Trogre]

Yes, and there will be a good chance that those people imagine AutoPilot as some Sci-Fi level AI that can safely drive you to your destination while you kick back with a good book. That does not exist.

At the risk of sounding like an MBA bot: Interesting take on the brand identity though - could be scope for a marketing survey there.

STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Tesla, how about you STOP calling it autopilot. It's NOT autopilot. You don't get into the car and say "Ok Tesla, let's go to the pharmacy" and then sit back and enjoy the ride while the car drives you there.

Call it "Driver Assist" as in the driver is watching what's going on around them like they should and let the car keep itself within the lane and not bump into other cars while driving.

You set a high expectation with drivers when you keep calling it "Autopilot". Stop it.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[b0s0z0ku]

It's an autopilot like in an aircraft, that still requires a human pilot(s) to be a systems manager.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Tesla, how about you STOP calling it autopilot. It's NOT autopilot.

You need to go look up what marketing is... it's exaggerating.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Tesla, how about you STOP calling it autopilot. It's NOT autopilot.

You need to go look up what marketing is... it's exaggerating.

You need to go look up what marketing is... it's lying.</demarketed>

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[alvinrod]

But the common man on the street doesn't know that's what autopilot means and is likely to think it means the plane flying itself because they've never been in a cockpit or have any real idea what pilots do beyond vague notions of flying the plane.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Tesla, how about you STOP calling it autopilot. It's NOT autopilot.

You need to go look up what marketing is... it's exaggerating.

The average consumer is a gullible idiot when it comes to marketing, hence the reason exaggeration works.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[quantaman]

It's an autopilot like in an aircraft, that still requires a human pilot(s) to be a systems manager.

Airplanes fly in the sky. The sky is generally pretty empty.

Asking the human to start paying attention again because something unexpected is going on is a bit more feasible.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[vux984]

Its really not like an aircraft autopilot though.

1) The aircraft has not one, but two pilots, whose mutual responsibility is to ensure at least one of them is always paying attention.

2) Those pilots are trained, retrained, and then retrained again on every aspect of the craft, including the autopilot, its features, and its limitations. When the autopilot is engaged, the pilots are not allowed to watch movies, or play super mario run on their tablets. They are being paid to do a job.

3) Every aspect of a flight plan is managed by multiple people and software to ensure the plane isn't going to be on a conflicting course with any other plane. The pilots, air traffic control etc are on top of this in a way that a car driver

4) The air is mostly empty, except for other planes that are are all as tightly monitored and managed as the one you are in. There isn't another 747 5 feet away from you driven by teenager with poor lane control. There isn't an airbus 5 feet on your right driven by a woman trying to text with her boyfriend. There isn't a jackass in an F16 tailgating you looking for a chance to pass. And there are no stopped firetrucks at 30,000 feet right in your flight path.

To compare a car's lane assist to an aircraft autopilot is to just invite ridicule. If cars were driven the aircraft are flown, then maybe a tesla autopilot would be safe and reasonable.

Let me know when you register your route with a central controlling authority before getting into your car, get authorization from said authority before any turns or route changes, when you request approval before making a lane change, before entering a round about or cloverleaf, and when you have a 2ndary driver watching the road to cover any time you might not be. Then... maybe you can say aircraft 'autopilot' is basically the same thing.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, call it "Void Warranty".

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[jaa101]

That's OK; there's no need for them to understand what aircraft autopilots do. It's very clear in the Tesla manual that you can't just let the car drive itself. These incidents will just help publicise that fact more. It will be very interesting to see if this driver tries to claim that he didn't know that he had to continue to pay attention with autopilot.

Also, looking at the pictures of the crash, there's no way that Tesla hit at 65mph. It will be interesting also to hear how much it had slowed and whether it was the driver or the autopilot that hit the brakes.

Even if people understand that they have to maintain attention to driving with Autopilot, you know that many people won't all the time. People know they shouldn't use their mobile phone driving too but the temptation is just too strong so it's outlawed. We don't need new laws for this with Autopilot because driving without due care and attention is already illegal.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because when you get into an airplane and turn on autopilot you simply say "OK plane, let's go to NYC"....

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The average douche* in a Tesla does not understand the meaning and the limitations, and thinks "autopilot" means exactly what GP described -- hands off operation.

That's just false. The average Tesla driver understands better than most the limitations of autopilot. Think about it, they use the system regularly, so they quickly learn what level of attention they need to give it. It's people that have never used autopilot that are the most uniformed.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[sl3xd]

That's as stupid as saying that because a toddler doesn't know what "dead" means, the only reasonable course of action is to call it sleep.

We all have to grow up sometime.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Known Nutter]

That's as stupid as saying that because a toddler doesn't know what "dead" means, the only reasonable course of action is to call it sleep.

We all have to grow up sometime.

That sounds nice but the analogy is terrible. We have decided that "pilot" means a person who operates the flying controls of an aircraft. We have also decided that "autopilot" is short for "automatic pilot".

I wouldn't call my child on this and call him a pilot any more than I would someone driving a Tesla a pilot.

Meh...

Re: STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[sl3xd]

Terrible analogies are all we have, because every language has idioms or words which have meaning quite different than logic or their base words would recognize.

Tell an English kid to "knock up" his sister, and he'll wake up his sleeping sister.

Tell an American the same thing, and he'll refuse, because there's no way he's having sex with his sister and making her pregnant.

Tell a Chinese guy to knock up his sister, and he'll know what "knock" and "up" means, and will probably think you want him to hit her with something going upwards.

The only solution is to realize that we shouldnâ(TM)t always assume that words and phrases mean what we think they do.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's OK; there's no need for them to understand what aircraft autopilots do. It's very clear in the Tesla manual

When was the last time you read an EULA? How many have you read? Now think about how many people will read that manual.

Re: STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

how do pilot education stack up to driver education? simply moronic to expect everyone else to get it.

Re: STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[houghi]

If they want to have it be the same as an aorplanes, people should have the same training as a pilot before using it.

The general public believes that autopilot means selfdriving as in there is no need for a human. Here is another one: the public thinks a hacker is a bad person.

If your company needs to explain the word over and over again, you know you are using the wrong word.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[AmiMoJo]

It would help if they made sure that the driver remained alert. The Model 3 has a (currently unused) camera pointed at the driver to make sure they are paying attention, but the older Model S and X just rely on detecting hands on the steering wheel. That detection can be fooled easily, and worse still allows you to go up to about 2 minutes hands off before it takes action.

You would think they would have learned from the previous crashes. For example when they guy hit that truck they found that his hands were on the wheel for less than a minute in the previous half hour of driving.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an autopilot like in an aircraft,

Outright lie - aircraft autopilot does not require split-second reflexes to take over.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[oobayly]

There are plenty of aircraft that are rated to be flown IFR with a single pilot - the Embraer Phenom, for example - that single pilot will spend time with their head in the cockpit going through checklists, looking at charts on a tablet, etc.
As you say, the air is a lot more empty so collisions are far less likely, but then the outcome of collisions are fare more deadly - the best odds you have are in a glider (about 50-50 change of dying in a midair collision).
There are also plenty of very simple autopilots (heading, altitude hold) found in GA aircraft that are far less capable than Tesla's system (no collision avoidance, etc), and for some reason people don't complain about them not being adequate.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[bgarcia]

Hey Tesla, how about you STOP calling it autopilot. It's NOT autopilot.

Hey GM, how about you STOP calling it cruise control. It is NOT cruise control. Call it "Speed Assist".

Seriously, this is one of more dumb arguments against the name autopilot I've heard. It is almost exactly equivalent to a plane's autopilot system.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[drinkypoo]

But the common man on the street doesn't know that's what autopilot means

Therefore surely the answer is to make things dumber and more inaccurate so that the common man on the street can feel smart!

The simple fact is that Tesla forces all people who want to turn on Autopilot to attend a safety briefing in which it is made clear to them what autopilot does, and what it doesn't do, and what their responsibilities are. They do this specifically so that the public perception of the word "autopilot" (which is completely, totally, and utterly wrong) is completely irrelevant. Once you have attended the safety lecture, you are no longer an uninformed member of the public. You are highly informed, and have no excuse for not paying attention while driving.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Waccoon]

Modern aircraft can, in fact, fly and land themselves. Pilots are generally just better when you look at the big picture (and even just one human pilot isn't enough for the big planes).

There's a VERY big difference between Tesla's autopiliot and a certified airliner autopilot.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me, in a modern plane autopilot can takeoff, fly to the destination, and land. One the pilot enters the flight plan the auto pilot does the majority of the work.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's OK; there's no need for them to understand what aircraft autopilots do. It's very clear in the Tesla manual that you can't just let the car drive itself.

You think that people actually read their car manuals? How cute.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is NOTHING like an aircraft autopilot, so the same name should not be used.

Especially since the environment is totally different.
In an airplane you have Air Traffic Control which provides you separation. And you have Radar, and notifications if any traffic is on an intersection path with you. (and what type of craft it is)
The protection you have when flying IFR is fantastic, otherwise we would have planes falling out of the sky everywhere. We are certainly NOT depending on a computer processing images from a bloody camera.

How exactly does this relate to the self driving car paradigm? It doesn't!

(and yes, I

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[davros74]

I agree it's a bad misnomer. An airplane autopilot basically maintains altitude, heading and speed. When combined with a navigational system, it is also capable of making turns. When combined with ILS and radio navigation signals, it is capable of performing automated landings. Planes at altitude have big open space and no imminent threat of collision with other planes or objects. Even so, if another airplane is on a collision course, that's not the autopilots job, that's for the TCAS system (which may tie into the autopilot to automatically take evasive action).

In other words, the Tesla system is more like the basic autopilot - maintaining speed and current lane... it's a driver assist. It does not do all of the other functions which on an aircraft are handled by other systems, from GPS, to navigation computer, TCAS, ILS. The autopilot by itself just steers the plane where other systems (or pilots) tell it to go.

Car are surrounded by objects (stationary and moving) at close range that can cause major accident issues.... an autopilot is not advanced enough to respond to and handle all scenarios that could be thrown at it. Airplane autopilots are relatively easy because of the lack of immediate threats on its flight path - and its the pilots job or other systems' to detect and handle those situations.... NOT the autopilot!

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, there's a world of difference between Driver Assist which saves my ass when I f'ck up and "Autopilot" where I'm supposed to make the sub-second decision that the machine has f'cked up and I'm supposed to somehow avoid the accident.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree. It's an advanced cruise control. Not an autopilot.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you claiming that fraud can never be fraud as long as there is fine print?

Re: STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[houghi]

Does a pilot just put on a uniform, or does he have to have some training before he can presss the autopilot button. If the retorical latter, the Tesla does not have an autopilot.

Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!!

[RespekMyAthorati]

It is almost exactly equivalent to a plane's autopilot system.

Exactly. It's primary purpose is to maintain altitude and heading.

Oh, wait a minute..

Trusting technology TOO MUCH

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the sort of thing we're all going to see as 'self driving cars' start being used by average people on public roads on a day-to-day basis.

NOTE: I fully understand that Tesla's 'autopilot' feature isn't a full-on self-driving car. But I'm using it as an example; read on:

People see movies and watch TV shows that have 'fantasy' AI in them (fully sentient, talks to you, equivalent to or better than a human mind, etc) and they think that's what's in their so-called self-driving car. This of course couldn't be farther from the truth. They'll proceed to trust the technology way, way too much, thinking it's got some sort of godlike awareness and intelligence, and there will be death and destruction because of it. Even if you tell most people in no uncertain terms that it's not a real, thinking mind in there, they're not likely to understand.

Since we few who see the flaws and massive deficiencies in this technology are vastly outnumbered by all the fanboys, we'll have no chance to stop this before it proliferates. Cross your fingers, I guess, that a runaway SDC doesn't mow you down on the street because it screwed up. The first decade of so-called 'self driving cars' on public roads every day is going to be bloody and horrifying, mark my words.

Re:Trusting technology TOO MUCH

[Octorian]

NOTE: I fully understand that Tesla's 'autopilot' feature isn't a full-on self-driving car.

I really wish more people would understand this. Pretty much everyone I talk to, who only casually observes Tesla headlines, assumes that it is full-on self-driving. I'm sick and tired of having to constantly explain to them that it isn't.

Re:Trusting technology TOO MUCH

[Anonymous Coward]

Your anecdote is helping prove my point.

Re:Trusting technology TOO MUCH

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll get far worse. As these systems get better, people's driving skills will get worse. When it's too difficult for the system to drive it'll be too difficult for the driver to drive and we'll end up with people stuck on the roads in mildly-bad weather even though their car is fully operational. If you never handle common driving tasks, you'll never be able to handle emergency driving tasks.

Re:Trusting technology TOO MUCH

[Anonymous Coward]

I've commented on what you're saying, many times before, just to be shouted down. It's not just lack of driving proficiency (or ability at any level, for that matter) that I'm concerned about, it's skills in general, as more and more 'conveniences' mean people are less and less motivated to actually learn to do things themselves. In this case I too see a possible downward spiral, as even people who are good drivers get lazy and their skills degrade over time. I don't think it's a good idea for us to become so dependent on automations that we can't take care of ourselves, and being able to get yourself somewhere without any help is a necessary skill.

Re:Trusting technology TOO MUCH

[fluffernutter]

Because it really doesn't matter whether it is self-driving or not. What matters is whether it is reasonable to expect people to stay attentive at all times when they're not doing anything.

Re:Trusting technology TOO MUCH

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the reason people keep confusing it is because Tesla is constantly advertising it that way. I seem to recall Musk tweeting how many million miles Teslas have driven themselves. That's not helping people understand that autopilot doesn't drive the car for you.

Re:Trusting technology TOO MUCH

[Anonymous Coward]

Until there is such a thing as general AI and not only the half-assed crap they've got now, there MUST BE a human being overseeing the machine, and that human operator must be competent. To allow otherwise is grossly negligent.

Re:Trusting technology TOO MUCH

[fluffernutter]

You're not just asking them to be competent, you're asking them not to express human traits.

fun with statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Car companies are going to continue to push their phony autopilot technology as long as they can, because they can always claim it was driver error whenever there is an accident. But eventually statistics will catch up with them, eventually there will be 100 Tesla-related accidents, and some percentage of them will be determined to be the fault of the technology. And then we will have statistical evidence, the number of accidents per million miles, to decide if any of this stuff is worth the expense.

The software is drunk again ...

[TheInkStainedWretch]

... go home.

The fire department is sensationalizing it

[RhettLivingston]

The tweet is on what appears to be an official twitter account. But, it claims the vehicle was traveling at 65 mph when it struck???

Firemen with any experience at all have usually worked a few highway crashes. Anyone with a clue as to what striking a near immovable object (as demonstrated by the mostly superficial damage to the truck) at 65 mph does to a modern vehicle with all sorts of built-in crumple zones can tell at a glance that this collision occurred at a far slower speed than 65 mph. I'd be surprised if it was even 40mph. It does not even appear that any of the Tesla's glass cracked. And the damage to the truck appears to be at a surface level. I wonder if the airbags deployed?

As public officials, these folks need to be much more responsible in what they tweet. Hopefully, responsible officials will correct the record and at least chastise whoever posted the tweet after reviewing the crash data.

Re:The fire department is sensationalizing it

[Anonymous Coward]

The tweet was from the firefighters union, not the fire department. While the union is made up of firefighters, the tweet had no official status whatsoever. But yes, it would be good if they were a bit more responsible - but then how responsible can you be in 140 characters? The most responsible thing would be not to tweet...

Re:The fire department is sensationalizing it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you incorrectly assume the truck didn’t move?

Re:The fire department is sensationalizing it

[Anonymous Coward]

The most responsible thing would be not to tweet...

Awesome observation. Responsibility seems to be a dying thing.

Re:The fire department is sensationalizing it

[Anonymous Coward]

The most responsible thing would be not to tweet...

Awesome observation. Responsibility seems to be a dying thing.

Like the responsibility of not calling it autopilot.

Re:The fire department is sensationalizing it

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

The fire truck had been parked in the left emergency lane and carpool lane.

and

the fire truck has been taken out of service to have body work done

Though it is not stated, I'd bet this vehicle had a full load of water. I'm sure it rocked a bit, but, given the minor damage, I'd be surprised if the wheels were in a different location after the crash. It would have required a frame bending impact to actually shift its position. There would be much more than "body work" to do.

So, perhaps not as bad as hitting a really solid oak tree, but the Tesla did most of the giving here.

All ways thought it was werid that

[oldgraybeard]

While using Tesla Autopilot the driver is to be ready with hands over the wheel and ready and aware of the complete environment around them.

In order to take instantaneous control if needed ;) Heck if that is the case you may as well be driving yourself ;)

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:All ways thought it was werid that

[fluffernutter]

So the driver has to be practically superhuman.

Re:All ways thought it was werid that

[Anonymous Coward]

the autopilot disaengages if you dont have the hands on the wheel
but in reality people put their hands and stop looking, and some put things on the steering wheel to trick the tesla into thinking they have their hands on the wheel... yes, until the auto pilot is rated to be safe unattended that's completely crazy, but they absolutely do it (just youtube-it)

In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[oldgraybeard]

OK so you have a large red stopped vehicle, and the tesla's sensor location system failed so badly as not to detect it!

Pretty bad oops, in their self driving code! And their product in general!

Let me see what was the first Tesla death, the Tesla mistook the White side of a semi trailer for the sky? ;) So was there a reddish sky ;)

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[Nethead]

My Outback with EyeSight would have avoided both. Of course, it also beeps at you if you take your hand off the wheel for more than about 10 seconds. Because it's, you know, an drivers assistance package.

Re:In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only a large, red, stopped vehicle, but one with bright flashing red lights on it!

Re:In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Just an FYI, if that annoys you, there are ways to defeat the steering sensors. I just read an instruction to mod my Legacy GT.

Re:In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

same as tesla. but you can leave hands on the wheel and look at your feet or your wifes boobs and it works fine til a truck gets in the way.

Re:In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

You know ;) smileys don’t help anyone take your point more seriously. ;) And you didn’t really add much ;) so maybe you should ;) read the other comments.

Re:In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[oobayly]

Doesn't say much for the human driving it either - missing a great big read rectangle (probably covered in yellow chevrons) in front of him.

As for the white semi trailer, I'm sure most of us would admit that we've nearly driven into something because we didn't see it until the last moment because it didn't stand out enough. And there are plenty of people who have actually crashed for exactly that reason.

The problem is that you always hear about the times a Tesla crashes (but rarely the times that autopilot has successfully avoided a collision) and that list of crashes is not long. In fact you've only cited two incidents.

It's never going to be perfect - no autonomous system will ever be - just like human drivers aren't. Despite that, I'd be happy to use use a Tesla with autopilot, just like I'm happy to drive my mum's VW Golf with adaptive cruise control, because it's something that is likely to make things safer.

Re:In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[thegarbz]

Actually something like this reminds me of an even earlier Tesla accident where the investigation went something like:
Driver: "It was on autopilot!"
Investigator: "Tesla, was it on autopilot?"
Tesla: "No."
Driver: "Ok I lied, wait, how did you even know about that? Help help I'm being oppressed".

Re:In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[slashrio]

Why do you assume that's my wife?

Re:In Addition, A Red Stopped Vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Each of these autopilot failures seem to be due to over-reliance on an inadequate sensor. Tesla is using a CMOS camera for it's primary sensor and attempting to compensate for this sensor's shortcomings by supplementing radar data and extrapolating in software. LiDAR sensor data would have clearly seen the semitruck trailer that decapitated a driver 2 years ago and most certainly would have seen big fire truck. A CMOS camera is not going to know the difference between a hole in the ground and a puddle of water under the right lighting conditions and is going to defer to silicon valley over exuberance in software to make a determination in this life or death scenario much like how this Tesla couldn't "see" a plastic covered Jersey barrier in this scenario.

Was it actually on?

[Anonymous Coward]

The driver says he was using Autopilot, but do we know if it was actually on? I didn't see anything in the article about that.

Don't let Tesla off the hook.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right about what fully attentive means, but there's no reason for Tesla nor anyone else to think that that is the behaviour they're encouraging.

1) this "autopilot" idea makes it harder to pay attention because you aren't actually doing anything interactive, and
2) it's just not that easy to suddenly take control of something in a split second when you aren't already in the mindset of controlling the vehicle.

I prefer what some other manufacturers are doing: have the driving assistance leap into action when the driver's inattention has already got themselves into shit.

Re:Don't let Tesla off the hook.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention its fucking called "autopilot." Marketing alone encourages drivers to stop paying attention.

Just because they add a disclaimer saying "you actually have to pay attention" does not mean they are off the hook.

The orange fell out

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the driver's orange must have fallen out

Misleading Headline

[djbckr]

It should be: A person driving a Tesla plows into a fire truck. The person, not the car. The car was not at fault, it just happened to sustain the damage.

Re:Misleading Headline

[fluffernutter]

The car claims to be able to drive, it should be prepared to take some of the fault.

Re:Misleading Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

If what the driver says is true, then both are responsible. Yes, the driver should have avoided the truck, but the autopilot should also have avoided the truck. In this case, neither did their job properly.

That said, I'll wait for the investigation before passing judgement on Tesla. People have a history of blaming autopilot for accidents when they were actually driving unassisted.

Re:Misleading Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't. All it claims is that it will try to avoid accidents.
If it fails, it's still your fault for driving like shit.

Re:Misleading Headline

[fluffernutter]

Humans cannot be expected to take over in all circumstances. Tesla needs to own up to that.

Poor Choice of Name

[GlennC]

Autopilot is intended for use only with a fully attentive driver

Then why the hell are they calling it Autopilot?

Re:Poor Choice of Name

[Anonymous Coward]

Autopilot is intended for use only with a fully attentive driver

Then why the hell are they calling it Autopilot?

Because they want to dupe morons into thinking they have a self driving car.

Re:Poor Choice of Name

[Anonymous Coward]

"The release of Tesla Version 7.1 software continues our improvements to self-driving technology.". They call it self-driving too.

Re:Poor Choice of Name

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why the hell are they calling it Autopilot?

An aircraft autopilot requires the flight crew pay attention and maintain situational awareness. If the autopilot crashes the plane, the pilot is responsible. The pilots stay mentally engaged for the whole flight, they don't "zone out" and watch a movie or something.

So this is just like that. The driver using the autopilot is expected to remain attentive, just like the pilot using an autopilot is.

Re:Poor Choice of Name

[John Jamieson]

You obviously have NO idea what goes on up there. "The pilots stay mentally engaged for the whole flight, they don't "zone out"" ROFL

In almost anything with autopilot, you are flying IFR. Which means that you are flying on Instruments, often because YOU CANT SEE ANYTHING.

You have Radar, Collision Avoidance notification, and Air Traffic Control all keeping you separated. Remember, often you can't see anything, you are flying in soup.

No, the tesla solution and aviation cannot be considered equivalents, because the environment have nothing in common. The name should not be used

Autopilot still not working?

[irrational_design]

I would have thought they would have worked all the bugs out of Autopilot by now. After all they've been working on it for 40+ years as seen in this documentary clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The intersection of sensationalism and ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

In the flurry to report "something newsworthy", I'll wager that km/hr was reported as mi/hr somewhere in the reporting chain. The number would make sense then.

My car with no autopilot crashed... it must be the

[Anonymous Coward]

cars fault... (idiots)

It was a DUI - No AutoPilot

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a DUI. Period. No need for comments re: Autopilot. Move along.

https://t.co/a9GCAwNC9B

What's the point if you have to remain attentive?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of having autopilot, if you have to remain attentive?

Seems to me, it's worse having to worry about the autopilot, than it is to actually drive...

Devil's Advocate

[skam240]

I don't think it can be realistically expected that drivers running autopilot will immediately react to poor choices being made by the car. Continuously monitoring an automated system that works well almost all the time is massively boring. There's just no way that anyone but the most OCD is going to continuesly maintain the level attention that they would deliver if they were actually driving.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[rally2xs]

Yes, I think it is an impossible job to recognize machine failures in time to do anything about them. We shouldn't even try.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[skam240]

Is that sarcasm?

I ask because driving thousands of miles via autopilot with no problem and then suddenly being confronted with one; no, you will not be ready.

Such auto pilot is totally useless.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

There is already a large number of driver who don't have to steer their vehicles for the last 150 years.

The locomotive engineers!

All they have to do is to watch the speed, grade and signals.

And the number one problem for them? Boredom. They fall asleep. The nod off. There have been adding more and more devices to check the alertness of the drivers. Deadman's treadle is what? hundred years old? Now with computers they are thinking of creating a challenge and response to avoid them responding mechanically.

If the autopilot is going to steer and the documentation says, "driver must be fully attentive", it is time they add deadman's treadle and a host of devices to make sure there is a fully attentive driver there.

Re:Such auto pilot is totally useless.

[HornWumpus]

I own a 1960 chrysler with one of the very first curse controls. It pushes up from under the gas pedal. You have to keep your foot on it.

That's a conservative design. WTF happened? Believing your own BS is a trap.

Re:Such auto pilot is totally useless.

[david_thornley]

I've been told that it's perfectly possible to sleep while hitting a button every ten minutes and not waking up.

Yet another moron...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who doesn't realize that Tesla's "autopilot" is just a slightly advanced Cruise Control. It doesn't actually pilot the car by itself, so you should always be ready to take the wheel at a moments notice. This man obviously had misguided belief about what Auto Pilot was and what this will do is just hurt actual self driving vehicle's chance to exist further. Because legislators can't tell the difference, just like this moron.

Re:Yet another moron...

[oobayly]

The kind of idiot that does this...

Does Tesla autopilot improves at lower speeds ?

[maitas]

I was wondering if at lower speeds Tesla Autopilot is able to make better decisions...

Because that's what Autopilot means?

[Brannon]

Go look up how a plane autopilot works.

Re:Because that's what Autopilot means?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go look up how a plane autopilot works.

I did, ya moron. Tesla autopilot requires millisecond responses to errors it makes, aircraft autopilot doesn't.

Re:Because that's what Autopilot means?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never been in a plane when an autopilot has an error. They can make the plane pitch or roll immediately. Some planes will happily go inverted in under a second.

And where the fuck do you get that Tesla's autopilot requires millisecond responses to errors it makes? This guy had many full seconds to notice the firetruck, no millisecond response was needed. No autopilot engaged accident has ever even been hinted that anything less than several seconds elapsed where if the driver had been paying any attention, the accident could've been avoided.

Before calling someone a moron, maybe you should consider that you're just fucking wrong.

Re:Because that's what Autopilot means?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Right.
Because Tesla's are actually planes that have transformed into cars.

The fire truck won!

[Anonymous Coward]

minor scratches on the fire truck; Tesla front end demolished. Fire truck wins!

I'm just glad no one was hurt. modern automobile safety is just amazing. The cars give their all and the passengers walk away.

Humans do poorly monitoring high rel systems

[joe_frisch]

If the autopilot had frequent problems, drivers would stay alert, but if it works very reliably, most people will have difficulty keeping their attention focused.

For aircraft autopilots, most failures allow a lot of correction time - despite the speeds, things happen relatively slowly in most aircraft and there is time for the pilot to give his attention to the problem. With cars an accident can happen very quickly, before the inattentive driver can shift his attention.

Huh huh. Heh heh.

[Hognoxious]

until the logs get examined.

I think I'd be frightened too.

In the other news

[Anonymous Coward]

"It was reported today that the Tesla Autopilot systems have collectively affiliated themselves with ISIS. Our calls to Tesla customer support were left unanswered. Multiple reports of terrorizing autonomous driving systems were reported cross the country. Be safe, citizen!"

Re:What's the point if you have to remain attentiv

[rally2xs]

Exactly. Not interested in anything much beyond cruise control unless I can get in the back seat and snooze while it drives me all night to where I want to go. This would, of course, drive the cops nuts 'cuz there would be nobody to blame if something didn't go quite perfectly.

When we get the positronic brain that enables "Mr. Data"-level intelligence, only then should we be trusting a machine to autonomously navigate the open highways. Otherwise, build transportation on rails, use simple devices to keep vehicles from contacting each other, and still go to sleep in the back seat and still obsolete the traffic cops.

-o-

[easyTree]

Autopilot has done well but there's always room for improvement. Next time, it should aim to include an ambulance in the mix - the human occupants matter too!

twitter instagram

[Anonymous Coward]

post a photo on twitter
said in a instagram post

use a text service to post photo and use a photo service to post text?

Driver interview?

[Not-a-Neg]

What was the driver doing at the time of the crash that they blatantly ignored a fire truck in their lane?

Teslas are not "self-driving" cars

[Dribbitz]

If an airplane on autopilot flies into the side of a mountain, it's the pilot's fault. No difference in this case.

Autopilot..

[h8sg8s]

Even in aviation, the pilot is responsible for safety, not the autopilot. What's really going on is a widespread misunderstanding of the capabilities of autopilots in both aviation and ground vehicles.

You Cannot Trust Your Life to a Computer!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That means we don't ride in autonomous vehicles, we don't fly in autonomous drones, and we don't fly on Airbus aircraft.

I know everyone is excited about autonomous vehicles but we really need to stop it. Computers are great. They do so much for us. Everything's fine as long as they keep running and all the sensors work perfectly. However, once they crash it all goes to hell. We cannot afford to suffer body counts when computers crash or when sensors freeze up.

A generation or so ago some A-type personalities with sales and marketing backgrounds started shoving incomplete and buggy software out the door before it was finished, thus ruining the reputation of software companies forever.

The fact that software sucks has been pounded into the minds of the general public so hard and so often that it's become engrained in our culture. We now have people who think they aren't getting their money's worth if they aren't getting a steady stream of software updates on a regular basis. Update Tuesdays, anyone?

There was once a time when the term "Software Engineering" meant something but that is over now. Like Morpheus said at the end of the second "Matrix" movie, "I have dreamed a dream but now that dream is gone." Microsoft, Apple, Google, and many other coattail-riding companies have ruined everything for all of us.

Change the name

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you stop disingenuously calling it Autopilot, then?