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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
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.
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.
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
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'
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.
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.
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.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
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.
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.
How come things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?
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.
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.
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.
Oh, it definitely broke.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.