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.

14 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:STOP calling it Autopilot!!!!!! by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Re:Intended use by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Well... was the driver lying? by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  4. All ways thought it was werid that by oldgraybeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ;)

  5. Re:Well... was the driver lying? by Junta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  6. Re:Defense: it was drunk by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Defense: it was drunk by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Defense: it was drunk by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
  9. Re:Defense: it was drunk by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  10. Re:Defense: it was drunk by Alpha232 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Defense: it was drunk by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    these cars are supposed to have automatic emergency breaking

    Oh, it definitely broke.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Re:Defense: it was drunk by Keick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.