Slashdot Mirror
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.
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/01/22/2311225/tesla-owner-attempts-autopilot-defense-during-dui-stop
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.
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.
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...
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.
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"
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.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
;) Heck if that is the case you may as well be driving yourself ;)
;)
In order to take instantaneous control if needed
Just my 2 cents
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
OK so you have a large red stopped vehicle, and the tesla's sensor location system failed so badly as not to detect it!
;) So was there a reddish sky ;)
;)
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?
Just my 2 cents
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.
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.
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.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
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.
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.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
* 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.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
Ah.... damn that stupid fire truck, jumping out in front the Tesla like that with no warning.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'