Tesla Issues Strongest Statement Yet Blaming Driver For Deadly Autopilot Crash (abc7news.com)

Tesla has released its strongest statement yet blaming the driver of a Tesla Model X that crashed on Autopilot almost three weeks ago. The driver, Walter Huang, died March 23rd in Mountain View when his Model X on Autopilot crashed headfirst into the safety barrier section of a divider that separates the carpool lane from the off-ramp to the left. Huang was an Apple engineer and former EA Games employee. ABC7News reports: Tesla confirmed its data shows Walter Huang was using Autopilot at the time of the crash, but that his hands were off the wheel for six seconds right before impact. Tesla sent Dan Noyes a statement Tuesday night that reads in part, "Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel... the crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road." The family's lawyer believes Tesla is blaming Huang to distract from the family's concern about the car's Autopilot.
Here is the full statement from Tesla: "We are very sorry for the family's loss. According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location, yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location. The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road, despite the car providing multiple warnings to do so. The fundamental premise of both moral and legal liability is a broken promise, and there was none here. Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel. This reminder is made every single time Autopilot is engaged. If the system detects that hands are not on, it provides visual and auditory alerts. This happened several times on Mr. Huang's drive that day. We empathize with Mr. Huang's family, who are understandably facing loss and grief, but the false impression that Autopilot is unsafe will cause harm to others on the road. NHTSA found that even the early version of Tesla Autopilot resulted in 40% fewer crashes and it has improved substantially since then. The reason that other families are not on TV is because their loved ones are still alive."

Comments

Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility, there is no reason for Autopilot to steer the vehicle into a concrete divider. What good is it even if they say you need to keep your hands on the steering wheel? It doesn't sound very auto to me.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[MightyYar]

I'm just thrilled that these millionaires are doing the beta test for us. In a few years, they'll have most of the bugs worked out and the tech will be a commodity. They are true martyrs for the little man.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[known_coward_69]

then he should have been able to steer it away from the divider

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[c6gunner]

What good is it even if they say you need to keep your hands on the steering wheel? It doesn't sound very auto to me.

I turned on cruise control and it drove right into a stopped car. What good is cruise control if I have to manually slow down? It doesn't sound very "in control" to me.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[alvinrod]

The moral of the story is that when the AI self-driving system starts giving your warning messages about its inability to cope with the current road conditions that you should pay attention to it.

Tesla should know better though. People are fucking idiots and the vehicle should not assume they'll act responsibly. If the AI system doesn't think it can manage things anymore and the user is not responding to input, it should throw the hazard lights on and make an emergency stop. Systems like this should always be able to fail gracefully. If this is a repeated problem, the system should disable the auto-pilot feature and refuse to let the driver use it. If they want it turned back on, they can write to Tesla and explain why they think that they should be allowed to be a colossal moron with a quarter million joules of kinetic energy.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Riceballsan]

Because the technology is in it's infancy? To me it's the equivelant of saying "this medical student is able to treat patients as long as he/she is supervised by an experienced doctor". We don't conclude that to mean that the experienced doctor should sleep in a chair and everyone should fully trust the med-student. Ready for use with supervision, and ready to be trusted, are very different things.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[ShanghaiBill]

What good is it even if they say you need to keep your hands on the steering wheel?

Autopilot is in development, and is improving with every update. Progress requires testing. If you don't want to be a guinea pig, then don't engage Autopilot, or even better, don't buy a Tesla.

I own a Tesla, and while Autopilot isn't perfect, it is pretty good, and getting better. Nothing in life is risk free.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[djinn6]

Comparing it to cruise control is stupid. Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically. In hilly terrain it might go slightly too slow or too fast, but it doesn't put you in a dangerous situation. Autopilot on the other hand is supposed to keep you in the lane, but as this case demonstrates, it's actually not very good at it, and when it fails, you're in a life-and-death situation.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[c6gunner]

Autopilot on the other hand is supposed to keep you in the lane

No, it's not. It's supposed to do a whole bunch of things to assist you, but only if you're paying attention. It was never advertised as a "go to sleep and I'll drive for you" system, any more than cruise control was.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[lhunath]

I think it's important to be mindful with your terminology. Tesla's Autopilot is not a self-driving system. It is cruise control. Conflating terminology causes nothing but confusion and undue misconceptions about emerging technologies.

If people stop thinking about Autopilot as self-driving and start thinking about it as cruise control, it becomes immediately obvious that this is not a conversation about why the car did not dodge the obstacle, but rather a conversation about why the human looked away from the road while hurtling forward at great speed in a metal basket, long enough to travel at least 200 meters in distance.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[aaarrrgggh]

More fundamentally to me is the issue that said car should not drive straight into a wall at full speed without trying to slow down.

There is plenty of blame to go around-- victim, Tesla, Caltrans for starters. Each of them screwed up on at least two levels. Tesla likely needs some kind of way for drivers to flag a spot where the autopilot screwed up, so they can gather data and investigate, because the victim was aware of issues at this location and tried to address it with Tesla in (apparently) multiple occasions to no avail.

What blows my frigging mind though is that the car will drive into a stationary object with high contrast safety striping without attempting to brake. Are they trying to determine approach speed based on visual sensors only that were blinded? Their "neural net" doesn't seem to be learning some important lessons quickly enough.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

You CANNOT provide a product for which the PRIMARY purpose is to prevent the user from needing to pay attention, and then turn around and say "but it isn't done yet so you still need to pay attention."

That isn't how people work. That IS NOT how human cognition FUCKING WORKS.

The product is a death trap, at this point.

Release it when it is fucking ready. Not now, it isn't ready.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[ravenshrike]

What's interesting is that Huang had very specifically complained about the autopilot swerving towards this area of the divider multiple times before. So either he forgot about it and just happened to take his hands off the wheel 6 seconds before coming upon the divider, or knew it was coming up and took his hands off purposefully in order to get in what he though would be a minor accident and subsequently sue Tesla.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[viperidaenz]

Autopilot was improving with every update, until Tesla had a falling out with the original developers of the system and they had to go it alone. Now it's been killing drivers.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[cmcqueen1975]

People are fucking idiots and the vehicle should not assume they'll act responsibly.

This is a huge philosophical question about blame and responsibility and the foundations of our freedoms. If society assumes I'm an idiot that can't be trusted to act responsibly, then I assume I'll be treated like a child and over time lose access to rights and responsibilities that we enjoy in a free society. I think Western society is made greater when people are given rights and responsibilities, and are expected to be responsible and not be idiots.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[thinkwaitfast]

This has been known for decades which is why it's heavily regulated in industries where it's relevant. I remember saying this 5 years ago and was modded as a troll.

See Human Factors Engineering

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[thinkwaitfast]

I know people with auto pilots on boats and when engaged, they'll go downstairs and only pop their heads out of the cabin ever ten minutes or so. But otherwise they're watching movies or cooking or eating or using the toilet. Sometimes they'll even go to sleep if they're alone.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[ewibble]

Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot? The term is clearly a marketing term that makes you think it is going to automatically pilot the car. Call it advanced cruise control, or lane assistance.

Also if the car can detect your hands are off the wheel, and it is not capable of guiding itself when your hands are off the wheel then shouldn't it immediately warn you when you do so and come to a safe stop? At what point when the car is moving and you are driving safely are your hands off the wheel.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[asdfman2000]

I think it's important to be mindful with your terminology. Tesla's Autopilot is not a self-driving system. It is cruise control. Conflating terminology causes nothing but confusion and undue misconceptions about emerging technologies.

That's literally what autopilot is though.

An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.[1]

No (sane) person thinks autopilot is supposed to take a plan through an obstacle course of other aircraft. It's merely to assist a pilot to keep a heading, altitude, etc.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

when the AI self-driving system starts giving your warning messages

It is not AI, it is in fact AutoPilot

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[stabiesoft]

The difference is cruise does exactly what is advertised. It maintains speed. Autopilot is advertised to stay in the lane and maintain speed like adaptive cruise does. In this case, it did not do what was advertised and someone died. Tesla is trying to shape public opinion on this because unlike AZ, it was not some homeless person whose family probably settled for peanuts. This is likely to become a 7 or 8 figure payout due to the earnings potential of an apple engineer if it goes to trial.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If Musk wants to make Tesla great (again), then he'd better be doing wheelies in his mansion parking lot all day with the new model 3 on autopilot.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[c6gunner]

Autopilot is advertised to stay in the lane and maintain speed like adaptive cruise does.

You and the other nincompoops can keep repeating that as much as you like, but repetition does not make something true. Here's how Tesla advertises their newest "self driving" cars:

"Build upon Enhanced Autopilot and order Full Self-Driving Capability on your Tesla. This doubles the number of active cameras from four to eight, enabling full self-driving in almost all circumstances, at what we believe will be a probability of safety at least twice as good as the average human driver. "

That's an advertisement for a package which is more capable than what he had in his car, and still they make it quite clear that it's not perfect, and it won't work in all circumstances. The only claim they make it that it will be safer than the average human driver overall; even if it occasionally drives into a wall, that claim could still be true.

What the hell are you expecting here? There will never be any system which can avoid 100% of all possible accidents. Which is why they never advertised it as being able to do that. This isn't an issue with Tesla selling more than they can deliver; it's an issue with idiots expecting computers to be perfect.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Swave An deBwoner]

Before "people stop thinking about Autopilot as self-driving and start thinking about it as cruise control", as you say, perhaps Tesla ought to describe it as you do instead of the way they describe it:

https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[superdave80]

...at what we believe will be a probability of safety at least twice as good as the average human driver.

The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road,

So, it was an easily avoidable accident for a human driver... but we have an autopilot that couldn't do it, even though we claim it's twice as safe? Sounds like they are talking out of their asses from both ends here.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[superdave80]

What good is cruise control if I have to manually slow down?

Because slowing down is the exact opposite of the purpose of cruise control? What dingbats modded this interesting?

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[superdave80]

...when the AI self-driving system starts giving your warning messages about its inability to cope with the current road conditions that you should pay attention to it.

Where did it state that the AI was giving warnings about not being able to cope with the current road conditions? It mentioned giving warnings about not paying attention, not that it was having any particular troubles with the road.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

But in this case, it's more like the medical student cut someone in half while trying to extract a splinter. The autonomous features of the car plunged it straight into a solid obstacle at high speed. Sure, the doctor should have been awake, but the medical student should have realized that a circular saw is not the ideal splinter extraction tool.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[ColdWetDog]

Yep, and we see these people hung up on rocks all of the time. Kinda amusing actually.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Systems like this should always be able to fail gracefully. If this is a repeated problem, the system should disable the auto-pilot feature and refuse to let the driver use it.

The first sentence is the key. Every reasonable state must fail towards a safe outcome, even if that outcome causes a massive traffic jam.

The problem with the second is your getting into automated law enforcement. Should you automatically get a careless and imprudent ticket when you do things the computer can detect are obviously stupid, such as not facing forward most of the time and holding the steering wheel?

I'm serious. Should you? Your weighing your right to privacy and not to have your stuff tell on you, to the fact that your operating a lethal weapon. Of course if you answer yes, then why shouldn't a gun be designed such that it reports gunfire in areas where it is likely unsafe to fire a gun?

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[WinstonWolfIT]

Modern cruise controls slow down perfectly well. I rented a car in 2009 which did precisely that.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Emergency stops for an innattentive driver would cause havoc on the roads and potentially other deaths for everyone not expecting cars to slam on the brakes for no good reason.

Tesla autopilot will already disable for the duration of the trip if one exceeds 90 mph. No warning, that's it. You have to stop the car and park it to reengage. Very "nanny" annoying. It's the price of the idiots and the whining on, e.g. /. Yes, when it comes to cars, it seems most slashdotters advocate a nanny state solution.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Autopilot could kill millions of people and still be safer than humans. You can't compare numbers with one number alone and in this case you need to remember how horribly bad humans are at driving.
2. No one has claimed that the system is ready. Everyone knows the system has still bugs. That is why you still need to pay attention. If you don't, you can die.
3. We don't need to worry about this stuff. Evolution takea care of it.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do they say about software?

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he wanted to kill himself or he was on drugs ir he fall asleep or something caught his attention or... do you really think there are just 2 options?

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just that, but having people present, but not actively engaged is extremely hard to accomplish. I remember when I worked security and when nothing was going on in the garage it was extremely difficult to shift back to being focused and attentive if something did happen.

And that was in a garage where it was unlikely that I wouldn't have at least 10 seconds to regroup if something did happen.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we really becoming so lazy that we canâ(TM)t drive our cars. And we need a system to look out for obstacles that actually drives into them if itâ(TM)s not monitored. Why not just drive and forget about this useless feature. This is technology for technologyâ(TM)s sake and its not safe yet.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[blindseer]

Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically.

Actually it can and does. Cruise control in slippery conditions can put a car into a dangerous condition.

Here's one citation, I'm sure anyone can find more:
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

Early cruise control systems were sometimes quite dangerous, not always to the passengers but could cause damage to the engine or transmission. I remember cars having a hardwired switch on the dash to disable them, in addition to the software button on the steering wheel, because people learned not to trust them. They got "smarter" and today most will detect wheel slippage and not gun the engine if it hits a slippery spot in the road.

Cruise control is especially dangerous with rear wheel drive and powerful engines, like on a sports car or light truck. One wheel on a slick patch will cause the cruise control to open up the throttle and get the wheels spinning, when they finally find traction the vehicle might no longer be pointed in the desired direction of travel and the front wheels could still be on a slick surface which can send the vehicle flying uncontrolled.

Cruise control is very safe, especially newer ones that integrate with a traction control, but a claim that they never fail catastrophically is provably false.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[blindseer]

Perhaps the "neural net" became self aware and saw humans as a threat. Saw that in a movie once.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Cryacin]

Think I'll stick with my current "autopilot". A broom handle cut in half stuck through the steering wheel. Seems more effective.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[thegarbz]

In any other scenario I agree with you, but the single person to blame for the death in this case is the driver.
Not only did the driver know it was buggy, he apparently knew that the car steered towards THAT SPECIFIC DIVIDER, and even attempted to demonstrate it to his wife by her own admission.

If I do something that I know is going to get me killed, in a place that is going to get me killed, and ignore warnings telling me that what I'm doing is about to get me killed then there's two possible explainations for that: attempted suicide, or Darwin award.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[dgatwood]

Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot? The term is clearly a marketing term that makes you think it is going to automatically pilot the car. Call it advanced cruise control, or lane assistance.

The terminology issue is a red herring. The reality is that partial self-driving capabilities lull users into a false sense of security because they usually work well. The rare failures are often catastrophic precisely because people have gotten used to the technology working, and end up surprised when it doesn't.

That's what made this recent software update such a problem. It made major changes to the way autosteer works on (at least) AP2-based Tesla cars. One of the big changes was "wide lane" handling, which changed the way vehicles behaved when they encounter a wide lane, such as an exit lane. This has resulted in a number of unexpected behaviors, up to and including cars driving straight towards gore points.

I don't know whether that change was in any way a factor in the autosteer malfunction that led to Mr. Huang's death, because I have no way to know what firmware version that car was running. However, the fact that this major update was in the process of being rolled out to users at the time of the accident is suspicious.

To be fair, a lot of other driving situations got significantly better with that software update. However, Tesla AP's tendency to ignore solid white lines has been an ongoing problem that might well have been made worse by that update; if that is the case, then the problem needs to be corrected ASAP, and they probably should NOT have continued the rollout of that update. Either way, I'm not convinced that Tesla did enough to warn drivers that autosteer might behave very differently, and to be particularly alert after that update.

Also, I would add that, speaking as a Tesla owner, it bothers me to see the amount of spin they're spewing after this accident. I realize that they don't want to let their users get scared into not using AP, because on average, it does significantly reduce accidents. And if there are videos out there showing AP malfunctions that they feel are not genuine, they can and should comment. But they should really stop trying to convince the public that the driver was solely to blame, because IMO, that just isn't the case.

First, the fact remains that autosteer obviously DID malfunction, and that malfunction DID result in a fatality that would NOT have occurred if the vehicle had not been equipped with autosteer functionality (because no sane driver would have looked away from the road for 5+ seconds without that functionality).

Second, the situation was entirely predictable. For at least a decade, people have warned that humans are likely to zone out in partial self-driving situations, and that it isn't really possible to change that innate human tendency. Tesla ignored those warnings and pushed forward anyway, and someone died. They blamed the driver, and the crash investigators tentatively agreed, and they kept pushing forward. And then a second person died. And now a third. IIRC, product liability law hinges in large part on whether user errors are reasonably predictable, and no "I agree to pay attention" can change that fact, which means this is little more than a legal smokescreen, IMO.

Third, the fact also remains that Caltrans failed to reset the safety barrier that was designed to slow down a car before impacting the gore point, after the barrier was collapsed in a wreck nearly two weeks earlier. And the fact remains that had the barrier been reset properly (as is required by law), it is unlikely that Mr. Huang would have died.

In other words, there are three parties, any one of whom/which could have prevented the fatality, and the deceased driver was only one of those three. So it is entirely disingenuous to try to pin this on the driver in the court of public opinion. IMO, it really isn't a question of who is at fault; they all are. Rather, it's a question of wh

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[dgatwood]

There is plenty of blame to go around-- victim, Tesla, Caltrans for starters. Each of them screwed up on at least two levels. Tesla likely needs some kind of way for drivers to flag a spot where the autopilot screwed up, so they can gather data and investigate, because the victim was aware of issues at this location and tried to address it with Tesla in (apparently) multiple occasions to no avail.

They do. Just tap the voice recognition thing and say, "Bug report autopilot tried to inappropriately touch the guard rail again" or whatever.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Cochonou]

Yes, but there's also the autoland feature on aircraft - which is arguably more refined than just keeping an altitude. As all things in aircraft, it still requires supervision.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

An emergency stop on a freeway/motorway is always going to end well for you and everyone else.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we really becoming so lazy that we canÃ(TM)t drive our cars. And we need a system to look out for obstacles that actually drives into them if itÃ(TM)s not monitored.

Did car drivers say "we want autopilot?" No. It's companies like Google and Tesla that pioneered this technology without any consumer request or demand to build this tech. Why did they build it if they had no interest in getting it right? The onus is on Google and Tesla to build proper AI before shipping it to customers.

You don't ship beta level code to customers do you? Well Tesla did by selling a car that can't detect a big obstruction like a divider, and ramming into it a full speed.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Cruise control maintains speed of the driven wheels. If there is a slippery patch and the wheels increase in speed, cruise will immediately *cut* engine power to reduce the speed. It's not some special safety feature that some cruise systems may be missing, it's literally how the system fundamentally works.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[goose-incarnated]

In any other scenario I agree with you, but the single person to blame for the death in this case is the driver. Not only did the driver know it was buggy, he apparently knew that the car steered towards THAT SPECIFIC DIVIDER, and even attempted to demonstrate it to his wife by her own admission.

Victim blame much?

If I do something that I know is going to get me raped, in a place that is going to get me raped, and ignore warnings telling me that what I'm doing is about to get me raped then there's two possible explainations for that: attempted suicide, or Darwin award.

The car killed him. If Tesla stoppe using the words self-driving in all of their literature I'd agree that not steering while in the drivers seat is stupid. But, Tesla uses the words "self-driving" in their literature to sell cars.

They should stop claiming that their car has any self-driving capabilities.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Daralantan]

The problem is the example complained that cruise control kept the car at it's current speed without slamming onto the brakes. Not that cruise control wasn't perfect in every situation. I feel for it to be more accurate to the auto pilot actively steering the car into a barrier, it would be something more like: "I turned on my cruise control at 55mph, and a few minutes later the car started to red line up to 100mph." Braking to avoid an impact is more related to auto pilot (safety aid) than cruise control (holding a desired speed). With how the general public imagines "auto pilot" it really would be better if Tesla had a different name for it.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Viol8]

"Victim blame much?"

In this case perfectly justified since the "victim" was an adult with a driving license who was legally REQUIRED to keep his eyes on the road ahead regardless of any self driving capabilities of the car when in charge of a vehicle. Clearly he didn't and he paid the price.

The guy was supposedly smart, and a programmer not some joe sixpack, and was certainly aware that autopilot is not 100% reliable. The only person to blame here is the driver through incorrect operation of the vehicle. If an airliners autopilot made a mistake that the pilot had plenty of time to correct but didn't bother we'd be blaming the pilot, not the automation. Same here.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Attila Dimedici]

Umm, the system which Tesla claims to be at least twice as good as the average human driver is one more advanced than the one which was in use in this case....but that being said, this was a situation where the driver was aware that the system he had was not competent.

I am NOT a proponent of self-driving cars. I think that except for niche cases they are a bad idea. However, it is not a contradiction for something like the Tesla autopilot to be safer than a human driver and yet fail in a limited number of situations where most human drivers would succeed.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[goose-incarnated]

If an airliners autopilot made a mistake that the pilot had plenty of time to correct but didn't bother we'd be blaming the pilot, not the automation.

Six seconds is plenty of time for an aircraft pilot? Just what aircraft did you fly in that required sub-6 second response times in the air?

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Viol8]

"Six seconds is plenty of time for an aircraft pilot? Just what aircraft did you fly in that required sub-6 second response times in the air?"

If you think 6 seconds isn't enough time to react to a problem then hand in your driving license - if you even have one - because you'd be lethal on the road.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla doesn't make any self-driving cars. The only context that term is used in is something they're working on.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[goose-incarnated]

"Six seconds is plenty of time for an aircraft pilot? Just what aircraft did you fly in that required sub-6 second response times in the air?"

If you think 6 seconds isn't enough time to react to a problem then hand in your driving license - if you even have one - because you'd be lethal on the road.

I didn't say that. Are you saying that 6 seconds is enough time to go from "not in control of car" to "take control of car"? Because it sure as hell is enough to go from "not in control of aircraft" to "take control of aircraft".

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does it say the primary purpose is for the driver to not pay attention?

They keep telling you that you ALWAYS have to pay attention, but you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Big Hairy Ian]

They really need to stop calling glorified cruise control Auto Pilot :|

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Cederic]

enabling full self-driving

But it's his fault for letting the car drive itself?

Nice one Tesla. Big grandiose claims that kill people that believe them.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Cederic]

whether user errors are reasonably predictable

This is the key part that the people defending Tesla keep omitting. There's an inherent design defect that almost guarantees user errors, and blaming the user in those circumstances is (as you say) entirely disingenuous.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that's EXACTLY what the overwhelming majority of (sane) people think autopilot is for. Well... not for obstacle courses as such, but the general impression is that they take over the role of the pilot in normal situations. Actual pilots and a handful of laymen know better, but Tesla does not check that you have a pilot's licence before letting you use Autopilot on your car.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Cederic]

Emergency stops for an innattentive driver would cause havoc on the roads

Controlled braking to reduce speed would however not, and it's a fuck of a lot better to cause minor disruption to other road users than to close the road entirely while police deal with a fatality.

Tesla autopilot will already disable for the duration of the trip if one exceeds 90 mph. No warning, that's it.

Even in Germany?

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

But in this case, it's more like the medical student cut someone in half while trying to extract a splinter.

And instead of "medical student", his credentials said "qualified surgeon (beta)".

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Type44Q]

You could've done a tiny bit of research and prevented yourself from being stupid - but no; you had to have it your way. Well done. ..

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Viol8]

"Are you saying that 6 seconds is enough time to go from "not in control of car" to "take control of car"?"

Easily, with time to spare for even modest drivers. You might as well ask if 6 seconds is enough time for a driver to see an obstruction and start to brake.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution?
If someone says 'here use this automated driving system'

And that system is wildly incompetent and youre unaware of that, that's not natural selection

Fact of the matter is that this system is incomplete and unready for public consumption, it was originally advertised as auto pilot. It now is barely above cruise control. Thats an issue for consumers.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Type44Q]

But it's his fault for letting the car drive itself?

As much as I respect Musk's integrity and the thinking behind his endeavors, there's clearly blame to be had all the way around here (but yeah, your Apple Engineer doesn't exactly come across as the brightest bulb, here; he knew the car had difficulty with that stretch and clearly (out of irrational stubbornness, I'd tend to think), he let it plow straight into the divider.

Either he felt sure that it would identify the obstacle and take corrective action at the last second, or he was pissed that his precious 'birthday present to himself' was a flawed piece-of-shit and he wanted it to crash (likely reasoning that he'd be protected).

Or he was, in fact, an Apple whistleblower who was trying to warn the world about their secret plans for World Depopulation: a secret, secondary RF device that will be hidden in future iPhones... that'll turn everybody gay.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be twice as safe on average, and stiff kill a human every now and then.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[goose-incarnated]

"Are you saying that 6 seconds is enough time to go from "not in control of car" to "take control of car"?"

Easily, with time to spare for even modest drivers. You might as well ask if 6 seconds is enough time for a driver to see an obstruction and start to brake.

If you're the driver, you're already in control of the car. You really think that 6 seconds is enough to context switch from seeing a movie, or reading a book, to avoiding an obstacle?

Get ready to receive your nobel prize if you have any evidence of this - you've obviously got some findings the rest of the world will be happy to review.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[yodleboy]

"it's an issue with idiots expecting computers to be perfect"
 
Then it's an issue with Tesla for selling a product to a mass market that generally has no idea how computers actually work, while glossing over the limitations. Are those limitations stated? Sure. Are they clearly reviewed by the sales staff prior to delivery? I doubt it. FFS I got a 45 min tour of all the features in my new car and what they could and couldn't do. That was last year, in a car half the price of a Tesla model S.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road,

So, it was an easily avoidable accident for a human driver... but we have an autopilot that couldn't do it, even though we claim it's twice as safe? Sounds like they are talking out of their asses from both ends here.

Look, the guy drove into a barrier. Being "easily avoidable" doesn't make him look like a very competent driver. Oops, are you one of those people that think it's ok to spend half your time driving staring at your phone?

An idiot was not paying attention. I see at least 6 accidents on my daily commute. I bet most are caused by people that think texting or facebook are more important than PAYING ATTENTION. I'm just glad when these people darwin themselves they take out as few innocent bystanders as possible.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[edtice1559]

No but they also said that it's "at least twice as good as the average human driver" which would certainly make one think that the best thing to do is to engage the auto-pilot and keep your hands away from the controls lest you interfere with the machine's superior driving. We have a name for the Tesla system. Adaptive cruise control with enhanced lane departure warning. But Tesla refuses to call it what it is.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Pascoea]

it was an easily avoidable accident for a human driver... but we have an autopilot that couldn't do it, even though we claim it's twice as safe?

You do realize that the reason the protective barrier was reduced/removed was because someone hit it the prior week (ish), right? Even though millions of cars drive by that same spot, and (I forget the number off the top of my head, but it wasn't a low number) Teslas have successfully driven past that same spot with autopilot engaged. So now we have at 1 Tesla on autopilot and at least 1 other "regular" car that failed to properly negotiate that area, how many cars have do you figure have smashed into that same barrier? Guessing it's a lot more than 2.

Point being, we have illustrated instances of regular drivers and auto-pilots both successfully navigating that stretch, and instances of both of those failing to do so. Your blanket statement of: Drivers can navigate this, why can't autopilot? isn't valid.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[edtice1559]

The problem with any (partial) solution is that either its (a) simple enough that you can fully predict what it will do in which case it isn't valuable or (b) it's complex enough that you have no idea what it will do and you can't manage it. I've never driven a Tesla with lane departure auto-steer but unless the car holds perfectly to the center of the lane, how in the world would one know whether to correct manually or let the auto-steer do it?

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

autopilot is a bigger name than their current technology deserves - clearly misrepresented - dummies who don't understand the limitations of algorithms and material degradation over time will continue to find their bodies popped on the side of some wall or bottom of a cliff

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice. Quote the self driving, but ignore the beta and you need to keep your hands on the wheel at all times for now. Classical selection bias.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Chriscypher]

"Cars don't kill people.
People kill people."

It was an open and shut case of suicide. /s

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[thegarbz]

Victim blame much?

Well yes. Darwin awards is most definitely victim blaming.

The car killed him.

Nope, he killed himself using a car. He had every opportunity along with the knoledge of what would happen right in the specific circumstances to prevent a car from killing him. But he did nothing to do so.

The car didn't kill him anymore than a gun kills a person, a gun with a warning label that when the trigger is pulled a bullet will be discharged passing through flesh and killing you if it goes through your head, ... and yet a person *choses* to shoot himself in the head anyway.

*choice* matters. He had a choice. Not only did the car not kill him, given the circumstances this can barely be considered an accident.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Then maybe it should be marketed it as such? That is what people are hearing and understanding when they see AutoPilot. I guess "Drive Assist" just does not sound as nice?

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[goose-incarnated]

Victim blame much?

Well yes. Darwin awards is most definitely victim blaming.

The car killed him.

Nope, he killed himself using a car. He had every opportunity along with the knoledge of what would happen right in the specific circumstances to prevent a car from killing him. But he did nothing to do so.

The car didn't kill him anymore than a gun kills a person, a gun with a warning label that when the trigger is pulled a bullet will be discharged passing through flesh and killing you if it goes through your head, ... and yet a person *choses* to shoot himself in the head anyway.

*choice* matters. He had a choice. Not only did the car not kill him, given the circumstances this can barely be considered an accident.

If the gun manufacturer makes a repeated and well-publicised claim that the gun is smart enough to know when it is pointed at people and will not kill people, then your argument holds. Right now Tesla makes stupid claims. They should walk back from those claims - especially any claim including the words "autopilot", because an actual autopilot in an aircraft does not require sub-6 second human interventions to prevent loss of life.

Call me when a gun manufacturer claims that their gun is smart enough to not kill people, and then we'll talk.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[mujadaddy]

"at least twice as good as the average human driver"

Define "good" and "average", Mr. Musk...

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hunch you are not really understanding the concept of "probability".

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

And remember what caused that falling out. They said what Tesla was doing was "frankly irresponsible and dangerous, they are trying to do things with our system that it just can't do".

When they dropped Tesla as a customer it's because they knew this was going to happen and they didn't want to get caught in the lawsuits that were going to come from it.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Keick]

Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot?

I really get tired of this argument. Do you even know where the term Autopilot comes from or what it means?

From Wikipedia emphasis mine:

An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.

The autopilot in every fucking definition of the word, is an assist device for the pilot, not a replacement. It handles speed, heading, and in some cases altitude. It doesn't monitor other aircraft, it doesn't avoid collisions, it doesn't (endless list of pilot tasks).

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

"The moral of the story is that when the AI self-driving system starts giving your warning messages about its inability to cope with the current road conditions that you should pay attention to it. "

- not have the AI system pull over a.s.a.p. or even gently stop the car?
(I know this will make a lot of sleeping drivers look foolish, but then again - if you're not looking where you're driving, you tend to end up dead)

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[thegarbz]

Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot?

Why not, it works just like autopilot does. It's not like the pilot gets to leave the cockpit and go for a nap either. The solution to fixing stupid people is to educate stupid people. Maybe rather than renaming autopilot to something else we can teach people what pilots actually do.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[fgouget]

Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically.

In the same situation cruise control would have sent the car straight into the obstacle without ever breaking. In fact that's exactly what it did. The only case where cruise control "doesn't fail catastrophically" is when the driver pays attention to the road and takes over when necessary. Precisely what would have saved this driver.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[BronsCon]

The best drivers are better than twice as good as average, a mathematical necessity to offset the fact that the worst drivers are less than half as good. It's not Tesla's fault that people read "at least twice as good" and think "as good as the best" when that's so far from what it means that you can't even reliably measure the distance.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[c]

Fortunately there aren't other aircraft on the runway, unless you're Harrison Ford and the runway isn't a runway.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[holophrastic]

Comparing it to cruise control is very stupid indeed. Cruise control isn't a driving aid -- it's meant to give your foot a break during a six-hour-on-the-same-smooth-highway-at-exactly-the-same-speed my ankle needs a moment to relax.

The thing of it is (and you hit the nail on the head of this) we all know what happens if cruise control fails. We all know that it can't really fail, and that we'll simply slow down or speed up if it does. It'll happen very gradually, or very obviously, and it's a seat-of-the-pants reaction to solve the problem.

Autopilot is a very different game. It works, except when it fails catastrophically. And we don't know when that will happen. And we don't know why that will happen. And it can be a bug in software, or a weird raindrop. And we have no way of knowing if it'll happen again.

Concrete dividers are weird. I'm sure if I were trusting of autopilots, and it beeped at me, and I looked, and I saw a clear lane ahead, I'd also let it be -- not assuming that it would miss the wide-open lane and hit an obvious giant concrete block.

So, my question is very much this. If autopilot isn't meant to work without an attentive driver, and autopilot knows when it needs help, then why doesn't it disengage completely, and gently apply brakes when it needs help? You know, the way just about any student or experienced driver does when something looks weird -- slow down and look longer.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

True. An Apple engineer would have no idea how fallible a computer is or how it works.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[stabiesoft]

Yes the barrier was down from the prior week, but we don't know why. Was there an accident between two cars that ended up in it?
Was there another car that caused a car to be forced into it?
Was the driver drunk?
Was the driver somehow otherwise impaired?

To your point of Tesla's pass by it everyday.
I'm not sure how that makes it better. So now we have a case of a clear day, and a version that does the right thing 99.99% of the time fails. Seems to me their algorithm/hardware has serious issues if it fails in a situation in a random manner. It really gets back to a point I have made before. Exactly how much testing goes on before a new version of auto-pilot is sent OTA? Who signs off on it? Are they licensed? Are they culpable?

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Cruise control maintains speed of the driven wheels. If there is a slippery patch and the wheels increase in speed, cruise will immediately *cut* engine power to reduce the speed. It's not some special safety feature that some cruise systems may be missing, it's literally how the system fundamentally works.

It's almost as if you didn't read the article he linked to in his post!

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[anegg]

Comparing it to cruise control is stupid. Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically.

Cruise control can fail catastrophically when driving on slippery roads (e.g., wet roads, icy/snowy roads). https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wild-when-wet/

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's important to be mindful with your terminology. Tesla's Autopilot is not a self-driving system. It is cruise control. Conflating terminology causes nothing but confusion and undue misconceptions about emerging technologies.

If people stop thinking about Autopilot as self-driving and start thinking about it as cruise control, it becomes immediately obvious that this is not a conversation about why the car did not dodge the obstacle, but rather a conversation about why the human looked away from the road while hurtling forward at great speed in a metal basket, long enough to travel at least 200 meters in distance.

I agree, but you know why people are thinking Autopilot is a self-driving system? Because it's called Autopilot!! As you say, conflating terminology causes confusion. Tesla should not call it Autopilot if it is just cruise control. They should call it Enhanced Cruise Control or Advanced Cruise Control, or whatever. Calling it Autopilot makes people think it flies itself. I know airplane autopilot does not avoid obstacles either, but that isn't something I expect general people to know.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[DontBeAMoran]

What's a computer? - Latest Apple ad.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[aaarrrgggh]

Thanks— would be interesting to see how many big reports they got for that location...

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do they say about software?

It says nothing about software, which is kind of a problem. If you need server hosting, and I say I have the hardware to host 500 virtual machines, would you not assume I also have a hypervisor installed? And if I didn't would you not consider my statement a bit misleading? If Tesla doen't have the software to make it work, why are they even mentioning "Full Self-Driving"?

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[anegg]

Because the technology is in it's infancy? To me it's the equivelant of saying "this medical student is able to treat patients as long as he/she is supervised by an experienced doctor". We don't conclude that to mean that the experienced doctor should sleep in a chair and everyone should fully trust the med-student. Ready for use with supervision, and ready to be trusted, are very different things.

Interesting point. To which I add the observation that software behaves differently than the "real world", including medical interns. This point was emphasized early and often in my Systems Engineering classes. Most engineers (non-software engineers) train in a world dominated by physics, where failures are usually gradual [not always, but usually]. Differential equations don't usually have step functions. The behavior of a medical intern might be characterized the same way. Software behaves differently, typically working right up to the point where it doesn't. Most people are experienced in the real world, and don't really expect a physical machine (like a car) to fail in the manner that software does, even though they have probably observed a computer crash first-hand. But a cyber-physical machine (like a Tesla Auto-pilot driven car) can fail dramatically in the fashion of software. Surprise!

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[ausekilis]

Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot? The term is clearly a marketing term that makes you think it is going to automatically pilot the car. Call it advanced cruise control, or lane assistance.

The terminology issue is a red herring.

No, it isn't. People have a conception that "autopilot" for aircraft means the computer takes over for the pilot, who can then take a nap or wander around the cabin. We as a society have used the prefix "auto-" to mean that a computer handles the whole process.

Second, the situation was entirely predictable. For at least a decade, people have warned that humans are likely to zone out in partial self-driving situations ... and someone died.

No amount of PR can fix dumb people and their misinterpretations of reality and Tesla has made it a big point to sell how "safe" their combination of technology they call "auotpilot" while not addressing any shortcomings. A car that can keep you in a lane and even follow curves, automatically brake for traffic/obstructions, and speed back up to follow traffic sure sounds like I don't have much to do behind the wheel.

I agree with you otherwise. Caltrans has some blame for failing to reset a safety barrier - they could have at least put up some water barrels or something. The driver is an idiot for trusting a system to do more than it can reasonably be asked to do (even if those shortcomings aren't well published). My biggest gripe is Tesla has made themselves the *only* place to get crash data. The fact that *every* crash involving one of their cars means having to trust their log data just doesn't sit will with me. Especially since they seem to have issues with build quality and upholding promises with their 3 series.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Viol8]

"You really think that 6 seconds is enough to context switch from seeing a movie, or reading a book, to avoiding an obstacle?"

You shouldn't be reading a fucking book or watching a film! You're in charge of the vehicle and you're supposed to be concentrating on the road ahead! Also autopilot bleeps if it has a problem - it takes tenths of a second to move your eyes.

"Get ready to receive your nobel prize if you have any evidence of this"

How about 30 years driving experience including Class 1 HGV? Will that do you?

I'm guessing you don't drive because the points you make are so utterly idiotic that you must be a kid.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[randallman]

I've owned an S for about 2 years now. I take over the instant I'm not comfortable with what autopilot is doing. Poorly painted or missing lines can cause some interesting reactions so I keep a hand on the wheel ready to take over. It holds to the center very, very well. The typical issues aren't wandering out of the lane, but rather not seeing or understanding the lanes. It does alert you with visual and audible cues when lanes aren't clear and has fallbacks such as following the car in front of you.

I took a 500 mile round-trip recently, mostly using autopilot. While cruising at interstate speeds and cresting a hill, traffic had come to a sudden stop. All of the SUVs in front of me were darting towards the median and before I could even move my foot to the brake, autopilot was braking hard. I immediately took over, checked my rearview for the chance of being rear-ended and managed the space I had left in front. Autopilot reacted more quickly than I could, may have managed the situation better, but I took over anyway and I'm pretty sure that's how it's designed.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot? The term is clearly a marketing term that makes you think it is going to automatically pilot the car. Call it advanced cruise control, or lane assistance.

I don't think the name of it would make a significant difference. As per the statement it seems that the driver knew exactly the (lack of) capabilities of the system, particularly where the accident occurred, yet he did it anyway. I think it's the same with any irresponsible driving behaviour. Statistically where there is even minimally risky behaviour, there are enough people doing it such that someone will eventually die.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[backwardsposter]

Human Developers are much more accurate at removing defects from code than current checkers are. However, current software standards show that using checkers in addition to humans nets you better code.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[tehcyder]

We have a name for the Tesla system. Adaptive cruise control with enhanced lane departure warning.

Here on slashdot we call that "AI".

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Autopilot in any other context (read: aviation) means hands-off the controls handled by autopilot. This can range from: simple wing-leveling, holding a heading, holding altitude -or- be all inclusive to handle auto-throttle and automatic approaches.

It is only when the controls reach certain thresholds (like full left aileron and the heading still changes) that the autopilot gives up and alarms.

It sounds like Tesla upsold the entire product as fully automatic when it is nothing more than the equivalent of a wing-leveler, requiring the pilot to continue to make course corrections.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[tehcyder]

I know people with auto pilots on boats and when engaged, they'll go downstairs and only pop their heads out of the cabin ever ten minutes or so. But otherwise they're watching movies or cooking or eating or using the toilet. Sometimes they'll even go to sleep if they're alone.

That's probably ok if you're in the middle of the ocean, but you wouldn't do it in a crowded harbour.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[neoRUR]

Maybe it was responding by going over to the side of the road, just happens that there was a big barrier there.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[djinn6]

Hitting an ice patch just means that when traction returns, cruise control tries to bring the vehicle back up to cruise speed. That's not a failing of cruise control. Its job is to keep the vehicle moving at the given speed. Steering is still the driver's job. The fact that driving too fast on icy roads makes it impossible to steer is not the cruise control's problem. Nor is failing to turn it off when the driver no longer wants it to drive at that speed (having discovered ice on the road).

That said, it's still a dangerous situation and manufacturers have came up with improvements and recommended against using it in bad weather, which is completely reasonable.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[tehcyder]

Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot?

I really get tired of this argument. Do you even know where the term Autopilot comes from or what it means?

From Wikipedia emphasis mine:

An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.

The autopilot in every fucking definition of the word, is an assist device for the pilot, not a replacement. It handles speed, heading, and in some cases altitude. It doesn't monitor other aircraft, it doesn't avoid collisions, it doesn't (endless list of pilot tasks).

It really, really, really doesn't matter what the technical description of "autopilot" is. In common usage, people think that it means a computer flies the plane, and Tesla deliberately use this ambiguity between literal truth and public perception for cynical marketing reasons.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet right on their web page https://www.tesla.com/autopilot, they have an amazing video of the car driving itself, and the driver does NOT have his hands on the wheel.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[edtice1559]

No but one of the interesting things about driving is that everybody thinks they are above average! And the best drivers do not have to be twice as good as average. That depends on how large the standard deviation is. If the average driving ability is 100 on some arbitrary scale, the best drivers could be 110 and the worst 90. Or the best could be 200 and the worst 0. Without a measure of deviation, we don't know this. Admittedly some of the drivers I see do seem like zeros.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[edtice1559]

You have a bright career in marketing ahead of you.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

But, just like a human driver who fails to do the right thing and is liable for deaths they cause, the Tesla engineer who failed to write the software so that it actually did its job as expected is also liable for those people her creation kills.

Ridiculous disclaimers don't shield entities from liability. If you put a product on the market and label them "jack stands" and they seem to look like jack stands are expected to look, putting a warning label on them saying "Do not get under vehicle while supported on these jack stands" won't insulate you very well from liability for deaths of people who were crushed when your "jack stands" crumpled.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron if you think the ONLY person to blame is the driver. People are a sum of their experiences. This person's experiences (and many people's experiences) have been heavily colored by Tesla's insane marketing efforts. If you don't agree then you are willfully ignorant. AVERAGE, SMART PEOPLE THINK TESLA'S CAN SELF DRIVE BECAUSE OF TESLA'S DECEPTIVE MARKETING. Wrapping it all up in technicalities and legal language doesn't change the fact that Tesla markets self driving as a feature. You can say that these people are morons who didn't read the warnings but if Tesla didn't create the false impression in the first place there would be no need to "figure out" that Tesla's are not "self driving".

I have clients worth millions of dollars who say "This drive sucks. I think I am going to buy one of those self driving Tesla's if I have to make this commute regularly." I stay quiet because I'm not willing to get in a debate about self driving with my client. So he goes on believing what Musk wants: that he can buy one of those self driving Tesla's. I am sure he will do it one day and then die. His death will be at least part Musk's for being a horrible deceptive human being and part mine for never speaking up.

This shit doesn't just "appear" in people's heads. It is a coordinated effort by Musk and his buddies in the media to portray the car as self driving but then walk back all of those statements in "warnings" that no one reads.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[BronsCon]

Admittedly some of the drivers I see do seem like zeros.

This is a supporting statement for my assertion; I thought it was obvious enough that I didn't need to state it outright.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[edtice1559]

On a scale of 100, if the worst drivers were 50, the best would only have to be 150 to balance it out. But I do agree with your point in general.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me when a gun manufacturer claims that their gun is smart enough to not kill people, and then we'll talk.

Say hello to my little friend!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

While we don't have all the details on why Caltrans hadn't reset/repaired the crash attenuator yet, it doesn't sound like they should bear much or any of the liability here.

The attenuator is a safety device that no one should have hit - it wasn't like a giant pothole in the middle of the road that people were swerving around and that Caltrans didn't fix promptly. Caltrans simply can't fix every such device immediately and keep the road closed until the repair is completed. They have some sort of policy on repair times and contingencies and if they followed the policy and the policy isn't irrational, they should be immune from lawsuits. They didn't cause this accident (the cause of this accident was some combination of Tesla and the driver) and Caltrans can't be liable for every time someone runs off the road and there isn't a giant airbag to catch them harmlessly.

At this particular location, to safely (for workers and motorists) repair/reset the attenuator, I think they would have had to shut down the left two lanes (the exit lane and the 'thru' lane) on a heavily traveled freeway while the repair was done (and by the "Caltrans is responsible" logic, UNTIL it is repaired - perhaps adding many hours before a crew can get to it). If so, just the act of shutting down these lanes for repair makes the road less safe for ordinary drivers who would never hit the barrier because of the extra merging and slowdown. To shut down those two lanes requires CHP and probably would need to start the process of "coning off" the lanes over a mile back. All of the activities would be more dangerous in the rain (both to workers and to motorists navigating the area) so it's understandable that Caltrans would delay this repair if needed to avoid rainstorms. It is also understandable that they would consider the primary purpose of the freeway -- to transport people and goods -- and try to minimize the impact on that use of the road (so, perhaps, do the repair at night when traffic is light and be least impacted).

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

"I turned on my cruise control at 55mph, and a few minutes later the car started to red line up to 100mph."

We're talking about Teslas, not Toyotas.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[nukenerd]

No but one of the interesting things about driving is that everybody thinks they are above average!

No they don't. I know several people who admit their driving limitations. My wife does not believe she is a particularly good driver, but in fact she is probably no worse than average, just more realistic.

It is a fact that both her and me are better than average in that neither of us has ever had an accident. Statistically, that is better than the average - if Mr Huang's accident were the only accident that had ever happened in the history of the world that would still undeniably true.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[dgatwood]

No, it isn't. People have a conception that "autopilot" for aircraft means the computer takes over for the pilot, who can then take a nap or wander around the cabin. We as a society have used the prefix "auto-" to mean that a computer handles the whole process.

Wouldn't matter. They could call it "Lane keeping and traffic-aware braking", and people who haven't driven the sorts of roads that cause it to freak out would still get used to not having to do anything, and would eventually stop paying attention. The problem is human nature. The naming might make the problem worse, or cause it to happen sooner, but it will still happen.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[nukenerd]

Cruise control is especially dangerous with rear wheel drive and powerful engines, like on a sports car or light truck. One wheel on a slick patch will cause the cruise control to open up the throttle and get the wheels spinning, when they finally find traction the vehicle might no longer be pointed in the desired direction of travel

Are you such an idiot as to sit back in cruise control doing nothing about it while your car is slowing, your wheels are spinning, your engine screaming, your direction wandering, and just wait for the wheels to grip again?

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Obfuscant]

So, it was an easily avoidable accident for a human driver... but we have an autopilot that couldn't do it, even though we claim it's twice as safe?

It's fun to mix anecdotal individual events with statistics, isn't it?

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[dgatwood]

The attenuator is a safety device that no one should have hit - it wasn't like a giant pothole in the middle of the road that people were swerving around and that Caltrans didn't fix promptly. Caltrans simply can't fix every such device immediately and keep the road closed until the repair is completed.

If you look at the Google Maps historical photos, you'll see that the attenuator at this spot is collapsed very frequently (several times per year). So leaving it collapsed for almost two weeks gives you a fairly decent chance of having a fatal crash.

The reset procedure takes half an hour, and requires replacing two sacrificial bolts. Numerous people who do that sort of work for a living in other parts of the country remarked that this sort of attenuator should have been reset within a day, give or take. So taking almost two weeks seems like a pretty serious lapse in safety to me.

As for the rain, even if it had been pouring down rain all day every day (and I'm pretty sure that was not the case), they could have easily dropped temporary sand barrels into that gore point (which should take seconds, can be done at any time of day or night, and doesn't require shutting down the road at all). That would have been far preferable to leaving it unprotected for so long.

Also, when the attenuator collapses, those lanes of the freeway are typically shut down anyway for the crash investigation, and there is a Caltrans depot three blocks away. Most of the time, when someone hits that attenuator, they should be able to get someone out there to reset it while the road is still shut down for the crash investigation and fix it before the police and emergency vehicles even leave the area. I find it alarming that the attenuator is ever in a collapsed state with cars on the road, much less in that state often enough to show up in Google Maps historical photos.

So no, this failure by Caltrans really isn't understandable. It's baffling, and far too many people who do that sort of thing for a living have said the same.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Swave An deBwoner]

Interesting. And the text at the beginning of the video states: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF.".

I.e., take a nap, we'll arrive at your destination in 23.5 minutes. Oops. A very, very long nap.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point?

Why didn't his take over and see the barrier and apply the breaks? Why did his fail to do what you claim your does with ease. Interesting.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Obfuscant]

You CANNOT provide a product for which the PRIMARY purpose is to prevent the user from needing to pay attention,

Well then, Tesla is off the hook because that is not the primary purpose of their Autopilot.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Obfuscant]

But otherwise they're watching movies or cooking or eating or using the toilet. Sometimes they'll even go to sleep if they're alone.

The first time their autopilot is off course by 30 degrees and they wind up further from shore than their remaining fuel supply will take them, they'll stop doing that.

The first time their autopilot is 5 degrees off course and they run into a rocky cliff, they won't get a second chance.

Yes, people do stupid things. Not paying attention to what an autopilot is doing when you know it can fail and you are being told to pay attention BY THE AUTOPILOT is a stupid thing.

I don't think we need more handholding along the lines of the safety warnings not to use a toaster while in the bathtub or not standing on the very top of a step ladder.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[baerd]

Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically. In hilly terrain it might go slightly too slow or too fast, but it doesn't put you in a dangerous situation.

Incorrect, cruise control systems are constantly failing, the one in my old Mazda has a defect where it can cause your speed to surge so the speed keeps increasing making you drive at an unsafe speed unless you cancel it. If you aren't paying attention using cruise control you are a fool. If you aren't paying attention using autopilot you are also a fool.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[blindseer]

You didn't read the article I linked to, did you? I'm quite certain you haven't otherwise you would not have made that comment.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Swave An deBwoner]

Or in this case, "Bug report AaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaGgggggggggggHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!"

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[david_thornley]

Cruise control measures the car's speed by how fast the tires are going, not by any external measure.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he was an idiot not paying attention.

Autopilot is so you can more safely glance at your phone while driving, or change the radio station. It is not so you can jack off in the back seat to VR porn.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Irrelevant, that isn't the definition that people actually USE

99% of people are not pilots, as far as they are concerned something called AUTOPILOT controls the vehicle safely while you don't pay attention

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[Anonymous Coward]

From the current website:

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

(emphasis mine)

To the layman, what the hell do you think "full self-driving capability" means?

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[flygeek]

The barrier at the intersection in question is quite hard to see from far enough away; it's the vertical edge of a concrete highway barrier contrasted against some concrete highway infrastructure. If the gore point barrier had been in place the Tesla probably would have easily seen it and avoided the crash, or at least braked. (I've driven past the intersection many times, including a drive just two hours before the crash in question.)

A local news station also reported that the human driver that destroyed the barrier two weeks before the Tesla crash was confused by the lane markings on the road, which (still) visually lead you to believe that you are in fact in a lane when you are actually between lanes and on a collision course with the barrier. The lane markings leading to the barrier are supposed to be cross-hatched but they are not, or at least they weren't the last time I went by.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[dbeachy1]

No software is perfect, including autopilot software: Tesla is very clear about that. Granted, the term "autopilot" is a poor naming choice for a feature that is not an autopilot ("driver assistance" would be a better label IMO), but that is not a legal issue. As Tesla stated, "The fundamental premise of both moral and legal liability is a broken promise, and there was none here." In other words, Tesla does not market its cars as self-driving, and it is very clear that the autopilot is just there to _assist_ the driver, not *replace* the driver.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[chakan2]

"Autopilot is advertised to stay in the lane and maintain speed like adaptive cruise does. "

Autopilot has never been advertised like that. Ever...Every time I've heard it mentioned, it comes with the disclaimer that the car maker expects you to be attentive in case the car veers out of the lane or unexpected road conditions happen (like construction crews screwing up the painted lines).

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[HornWumpus]

In older cars, always on the transmission, before the diff. Some aftermarket cruise controls had you epoxy magnets to your driveshaft and install sensors. Those sucked, but they were still reading the driveline speed. If your wheels spun, the cruise control lifted off throttle. If your wheels locked, you were on the brakes and the cruise control did nothing.

Newer cars will have ABS and traction control watching every wheel.

I actually own one of the very first American cars with a factory cruise control, 1960. It's really cool. It pushes up from under the gas pedal. You have to keep your foot on the gas, but it manages the throttle. Problem is, if it breaks, you have to manually retract it to get full throttle. You could stomp it and force it down, but worm gear, no ballscrew, bad idea. Easy enough to spin though. Pretty reliable.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[HornWumpus]

They've always lifted off throttle when you went overspeed.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[WinstonWolfIT]

Definitely not always. My Chevy S-10 didn't. My 2006 (Australian) Falcon definitely didn't. Speaking about on downgrades of course. Modern cruise controls handle downgrades very well.

Re: Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[HornWumpus]

Every cruise control I've ever owned did. Including one 46 years older than your 2006.

Re:Sounds like a CYA distraction statement

[KingBenny]

mh ... thats like a cop complaining to get shot at for doing something other than tracking down pirate servers. Assuming the dude knew what he was getting into, not being forced, not drunk or doped and not being manipulated in any way or lied to i don't see why there is need for the usual piss pot contest on "it wasnt me" ... thats valuable time wasted NOT fixing the underlying problem i thought that was a hellgian thing --

Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

the crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road

...and if autopilot wasn't either....

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Kristoph]

I own an Tesla S. I use autopilot daily, itâ(TM)s awesome.

However you do have to know what it is and what it is not capable of and you do have to be attentive because it can get itself into trouble ( today, for example, it didnâ(TM)t want to let a bus into my lane - the bus came in anyway )

All that said calling the thing autopilot is what gets Tesla in trouble. Itâ(TM)s more of a âco-pilotâ(TM)

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[fluffernutter]

That sounds stressful to me, not awesome.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you don't know what a co-pilot or autopilot is then, since you have that the opposite way around.

And this is I think the problem, on each of these stories someone always chimes in on what autopilot on planes does and how that is very similar to what tesla's does. It should however be totally clear to tesla that what probably started out as a cute term from marketing is actually not the common understanding, they should come up with a new, clearer name.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't have let the bus in either!

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you haven't used it.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I own an Tesla S. I use autopilot daily, itâ(TM)s awesome.

However you do have to know what it is and what it is not capable of and you do have to be attentive because it can get itself into trouble ( today, for example, it didnâ(TM)t want to let a bus into my lane - the bus came in anyway )

All that said calling the thing autopilot is what gets Tesla in trouble. Itâ(TM)s more of a âco-pilotâ(TM)

I hear this argument a lot. Do you really think naming something different is going to make a difference? If you named it "at your own risk assist," there would still be people who don't pay attention, because people don't pay attention. I don't know of anyone who thinks, "Oh, it's called autopilot, so therefore I can stop thinking and paying attention based upon that name." If you know someone like that, the problem is the person, not the name of the tool.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

You are still supposed to monitor an aircraft on autopilot, not go sleep in the back.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Cochonou]

Yet the environment in which an airplane autopilot operates is very different from the environment in which a car "autopilot" operates. When monitoring an aircraft autopilot and something goes wrong, you have dozens of second (if not minutes) to react. For instance, after AF447 autopilot disengaged, the fall of the aircraft lasted for about 3 minutes and 30 seconds, and the situation could have been recovered during most of them. In a car, the problem is very different - you only have a few seconds to react before you run into a wall or drive over someone. This is why comparisons with airplanes are not so much relevant.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[drinkypoo]

All that said calling the thing autopilot is what gets Tesla in trouble. ItÃ(TM)s more of a Ãco-pilotÃ(TM)

Why is it the Apple users who can't figure out how to get their browser to send what they type who can't figure out the difference between an autopilot and a copilot? An autopilot is an assistive system which will fly you straight into a mountain if you use it incorrectly. A copilot is an additional pilot whose responsibility is to take over for the primary pilot and actually fly the plane, preferably not into a mountain. The system is nothing like a co-pilot, and it is entirely like an autopilot. You literally could not be any more wrong.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Cederic]

I used to let buses pull out ahead of me all the time. Common courtesy for other road users.

Then councils started implementing bus lanes all over the place. So fuck 'em, no bus gets in front of me if I can help it.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[edtice1559]

In many states, you are required to yield to buses coming back into traffic.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[edtice1559]

The other thing with aircraft auto-pilot is that you have air traffic controllers controlling the airspace. You're never close to another plane except during "critical operations" (i.e. takeoff/landing). If airplanes flew as close as cars drive, their autopilots would be borderline useless.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to post or get modded down.

Re: Tesla autopilot unable to autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds stressful to me, not awesome.

It would have happened either way. In a regular car, you either gun it to pass the bus, or hit the breaks to let him in. With autopilot, you either gun it to pass the bus or hit the breaks to let him in.

Blame game engaged!

[Entrope]

Tesla blames dead driver. Dead driver's family blames Tesla. Who is really at fault here?

I think the four-year-old girl is right: Why not both?

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Maxo-Texas]

Because "perfect" is too high a standard.

"Better" is still preferable to "40% more accidents but at least it was at human hands!".

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Entrope]

I'm not asking for perfect. If visibility was as good as Tesla says it was, why couldn't the car stay in its lane, and why did it steer into an obstruction?

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good question. Now I have another for you:

If the guy had complained to Tesla that the car failed the exact same way several times before in that location, why was the feature engaged and why wasn't he paying attention to what was happening when he knew it was an issue?

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Maxo-Texas]

Are you seriously saying you only care about this one edge case and not the 40% less accidents?

Yes, it's terrible. Yes, they should fix it. But, already automated cars are safer than human drivers.

There will be other edge cases. Even when automated cars are reduce accidents by 99%, there will still be over 54,000 crashes with over 3,000 people dying *per year*. At 99.9%, it'll be 300 people and still tragic. At 99.99% it'll be 30 people and still tragic. At 99.999%, it'll still be 3 people a year.

And folks will feel bad about when one of those fatalities occur and say the technology needs to be better. But at some point, you hit a limit. You just can't predict sudden sink holes, for example. You can't predict a piece of wrought iron fencing falling out of the truck ahead of you and literally spearing thru your engine compartment and missing killing you by a couple inches (happened to someone I worked with). You can't predict rode debris blowing a tire out and sending your car flipping into surrounded traffic.

But again, yes I absolutely agree with you that Tesla (and automated car people) should address these situations as they are identified. Probably... when people don't respond to requests to grab the wheel... at some point Tesla is going to slow down and pull over. It just seems like the most likely response.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[rtb61]

Perhaps because the US has 3rd world road markings. How much street view of the US do you have to see with extremely worn line marking, often missing completely and very often, the only markings left, is those right out of actual wheel tracks. Offramp markings are really bad, there is sufficient gap between worn divergent lines to create the impression of a traffic lane between the divergent lines. with one route only possible.

The are standards for road marking, how visible and of what quality. Divergent road lines should be filled with angled warning lines and roughened road surfaces, alert the driver and provide maximum traction. 'D' grade infrastructure also means really poorly maintained road markings, some places missing entirely. Do no expect good results with vehicles trying to scan for road markings of that poor quality keep in mind breaks in quality likely to trigger scanning for traffic markings and picking wrong.

Likely a algorithm needs to be added in, 'Warning road markings of unreliable quality, auto pilot not possible at this time. Fault with road forward to regulatory agency, also why not send in reports of pot holes whilst you are at it'. Scan the road, see the if markings adhere to stated standards, fail, sue the state.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Entrope]

I'm seriously not saying that, and have no idea where you got that strawman. Also, the US currently has on the order of 35000 traffic fatalities per year. A 99% reduction would leave 350 deaths per year, not 3000.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Entrope]

Judging from photos of the crash, the actual lane markings in question are reasonably well-maintained -- complaints about the overall state of lane markers in the US are not very relevant. Beyond that, the car did not merely run off the road; it ran into a concrete barrier. If visibility was as good as Tesla claims, why didn't the car find a path that did not involve driving into a fairly tall object?

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Maxo-Texas]

math error.

okay 99% would be 350.
So 99.9 would be 35. and 99.99 would be 3.5. One of them would be half dead.

In the data I was looking at the figure was 32,700 so they were only a quarter dead.

Anyway, your focus on this particular error case struck me that way.

The joy of text communication.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Entrope]

I think the driver was fatally stupid for ignoring warnings and for being inattentive on a stretch of road where he knew the Autopilot feature was error-prone, and I'm glad he didn't get anyone else killed. I think Tesla is skirting the boundaries of irresponsibility by aggressively deploying that feature when everyone else in the auto industry thinks the technology isn't quite ready yet, and in not doing things like coasting to a stop as soon as the driver lets go of the wheel (or something).

In this particular case, the driver is more at fault, but Tesla also needs to do more because even partial responsibility for 60% of crashes translates to a heavy total responsibility.

(Also, a 40% reduction in crashes could probably be achieved without the Autopilot feature, just by combinations of driver assistance tech like adaptive cruise control, lane maintenance, attention monitoring, wheel grip detection, and so forth. We don't have to pick exactly one of "Autopilot" or "baseline crash rate".)

Re:Blame game engaged!

[AmiMoJo]

This statement is an admission of guilt. Driver took his hands off the wheel for 6 seconds and the car did nothing to avert the accident. Didn't stop, didn't go nuts with flashing lights and warning sirens, just drove straight into the barrier.

If you create a system that requires the driver to pay attention at all times, where 6 seconds of inattentiveness can result in death, then you have a legal liability to make sure it is safe.

The fact that the system trained the driver to trust it and not pay attention over countless hours just makes it worse, and the fact that it used to let you go for much longer without touching the wheel and they already reduced the time before the warning is displayed is proof that they knew of this flaw and had taken some inadequate steps to fix it.

And the absolute worst part is that this accident seems to be the result of a software update. Recent versions of the Tesla software have developed "barrier lust", so while it might have worked flawlessly thousands of times before one day they pushed an update with vague "makes AP better" change log and it killed the driver.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[gnasher719]

This statement is an admission of guilt. Driver took his hands off the wheel for 6 seconds and the car did nothing to avert the accident. Didn't stop, didn't go nuts with flashing lights and warning sirens, just drove straight into the barrier.

That's what most cars would do. The Tesla did better: It warned the driver to put his hands on the steering wheel. Mine wouldn't do that. No admission of guilt here whatsoever.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "perfect" is too high a standard.

"Better" is still preferable to "40% more accidents but at least it was at human hands!".

Still need to put blame on someone, otherwise those numbers will keep getting worse instead of better.
Ideally we want Tesla to improve their driver, not the human to use it less.
For best long term result, blame Tesla.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[AmiMoJo]

What evidence is there of a warning? Why didn't Tesla cite this evidence already?

All they said was that there multiple warnings that day, but not specifically in the six seconds before the crash when he had his hands off the wheel. It's a classic misleading statement.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also potentially the highway agency to blame. The Tesla hit a crash attenuator which had already been hit a few days before and not repaired yet. That meant the crumple zone normally there didn't exist. If it had been repaired before the crash then the collision would have still happened but he would probably have survived. It might also be that its damaged state is what confused the 'autopilot' (something that needs to be corrected for in a level 3 system but Tesla is only level 2).

There were factors on many sides.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[scottrocket]

I'm not asking for perfect. If visibility was as good as Tesla says it was, why couldn't the car stay in its lane, and why did it steer into an obstruction?

I could be mistaken, but after that one Tesla drove into a tractor-trailer, wasn't Tesla very clear that autopilot was not the same as an sdc, and that the driver of a Tesla should always be attentive, with hands on the wheel? From that point forward, I wouldn't drive a Tesla hands-free (that's an oxymoron). Or sleeping.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[scottrocket]

What evidence is there of a warning? Why didn't Tesla cite this evidence already?

All they said was that there multiple warnings that day, but not specifically in the six seconds before the crash when he had his hands off the wheel. It's a classic misleading statement.

If I receive multiple warnings during the day, I would be white-knuckled on that steering wheel for the rest of my trip. I'm sorry for the family's loss, but keep your hands on the *$#@! wheel (especially if you're in front of me, or coming towards me in the other lane). Autopilot, imo is a work in progress, and should not be fully, or even mostly trusted. Condolences to the family.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Anonymous Coward]

If my hands always must be on the wheel and my attention on the road, what, exactly, is the point of these "autopilot" cars? Why not just use cruise control?

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm leaning towards an insurance payout to the driver's family? 'IF' it all went down as Tesla is claiming, then it is possible that the driver knowingly and deliberately allowed the car to 'autodrive' into the obstacle. It wouldn't be the first time someone has killed themselves for the later payoff to family.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I think that anything based on the idea that the computer will do the driving, with the human sitting idle and monitoring, ready to take over at (often) a split second notice is broken by design.

Humans are incapable of doing that. You might as well design a plane such that in any emergency the pilot has to generate lift by flapping his arms.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[goose-incarnated]

Are you seriously saying you only care about this one edge case and not the 40% less accidents?

There isn't a "40% less accidents". If there was I'd care, but there isn't.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[drinkypoo]

All they said was that there multiple warnings that day, but not specifically in the six seconds before the crash when he had his hands off the wheel. It's a classic misleading statement.

Your objection is wholly irrelevant. He had to sign a paper saying he understood that he had to remain alert with his hands on the wheel to even get the feature turned on, and he was reminded of that obligation several times during the trip. It completely and totally does not matter whether the vehicle warned him in the six seconds prior to the collision. He was warned repeatedly, and before he even used the feature once he agreed that he understood his responsibilities.

Tesla is actually less at fault here than when some old guy puts on cruise control in his RV and goes back to make a sandwich. That guy hasn't had to sign a paper saying he understands that cruise control is not a replacement for a driver.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame the government for not making road markings that ML can read then.
If so, Tesla has no business making these cars, that can't drive on legal roads.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla blames dead driver. Dead driver's family blames Tesla. Who is really at fault here?

The driver. Because his hands were off the wheel for 6 seconds prior to the crash and he was clearly not paying attention to the road. Just like blame would be assigned if Autopilot wasn't a thing. "Both sides are bad" won't work here, sweet summer child.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[drinkypoo]

Fault with road forward to regulatory agency, also why not send in reports of pot holes whilst you are at it'.

They already know where all the potholes are. If you want a pothole fixed, spraypaint a penis around it. I'd pay considerable extra for a car that would do that automatically.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[edtice1559]

I think the argument goes something like this. The Tesla feature is 40% safer if and only if the driver is attentive. If more than 40% of drivers become less attentive due to use of the system, then overall safety is actually compromised. For a system to be an actual (rather than theoretical) improvement, the benefit of the system has to overcome the "moral hazard." It's not clear that the Tesla system does this. And there's no reason to believe that it is even close to achieving this. Especially because it is called "autopilot" which is misleading and (whether it should or not) causes people to try to read the newspaper or watch movies while driving.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[thegarbz]

Tesla blames dead driver. Dead driver's family blames Tesla. Who is really at fault here?

I think the four-year-old girl is right: Why not both?

Telsa blames dead driver. Dead driver's family blames Tesla while admitting the driver knew what he was doing could cause an accident even right at that location

That's why not both. We don't hold gun manufacturers accountable for suicide either.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[tehcyder]

If you want a pothole fixed, spraypaint a penis around it.

You learn something new every day!

Re:Blame game engaged!

[tehcyder]

He had to sign a paper saying he understood that he had to remain alert with his hands on the wheel to even get the feature turned on

If Tesla just admitted up front that you had to drive with your hands on the wheel and remain alert at all times, that would be fine. It is the way they simultaneously try to sell it as practically self driving while denying legal liability that is so annoying.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[Anonymous Coward]

If that section of road gets hit often enough for accidents to happen in-between repairs, the fault should lie with the engineers who designed that section of road and the government who built/maintains it.

Re:Blame game engaged!

[dbeachy1]

Because no software is perfect, including Tesla's autopilot software, and Tesla is very clear that the autopilot is only to assist the driver. Human beings write software, and we aren't perfect at it.

Big Tesla is Watching

[Only Time Will Tell]

I'm less concerned whether the "autopilot" was the cause of the crash than the fact Tesla knows all about your driving habits. I think it is super creepy if the car company knows when your hands are on the wheel or not.

Re:Big Tesla is Watching

[Anonymous Coward]

A previous article on this accident mentioned that Tesla obtained the driving records from a black box recovered from the wreckage, which is far less creepy.

Re: Big Tesla is Watching

[Anonymous Coward]

Many cars do this now. My Subaru comes up with a âoeKeep hands on steering wheelâ If I have cruise control on and I donâ(TM)t move the wheel every 20 seconds or so. Itâ(TM)s easy for a power steering sensor to tell if movement isnâ(TM)t coming from the steering wheel.

Re:Big Tesla is Watching

[drinkypoo]

A previous article on this accident mentioned that Tesla obtained the driving records from a black box recovered from the wreckage, which is far less creepy.

Which, by the way, is a feature of every single vehicle sold in the USA since 1996, since it's part of the SRS controller. The vehicle will attempt to store at least 30 seconds of sensor data both before and after airbag deployment. This includes throttle position and brake switch status.

Re:Big Tesla is Watching

[Anonymous Coward]

Another previous article mentioned a Tesla owner who got a phone call from Tesla telling him to stop trying to hook his PC up to the ethernet jack in the glove compartment...

Suicide by Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Very strange. Specifically that

Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location

[Emphasis mine] Hands not on the wheel, a clear day with plenty of warnings to pay attention it's like he purposely wanted to crash.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[alvinrod]

I doubt that he wanted to crash. However, I suspect he wanted to text someone or check something on his phone (it'll only take like 10 seconds after all) more than he wanted to not crash (apparently his ability to estimate the likelihood of this outcome was about as terrible as most people) though.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[Entrope]

More likely, he had a false impression that something really bad could never happen to him -- that bad luck is something that happens to other people. It's the same reason that people text while driving. They are confident in their own situation and their own ability to handle dangerous conditions, and sometimes they end up being wrong.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[HornWumpus]

He was a geek. He was testing an edge case. He had told Tesla about his test results, they logged them as complaints. This time, the barrier was damaged, the autopilot went straight in. He wasn't expecting that.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[ravenshrike]

No, he had complained about the autopilot swerving towards this exact area more than once before. The probability that he just happened to take his hands off the wheel when he would have known the divider was coming up is rather suspect. Personally I'd want his internet search history for the three weeks or so before the crash.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[ravenshrike]

No, the barrier was damaged the entire time. That's why the autopilot was failing.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[whoever57]

Also, the markings on the road were poor.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[Maxo-Texas]

Friend of mine was hit by an SUV going over 60mph in the HOV lane from behind. It smashed the rear of her car flat against the front seats (if you'd been in back- you were dead paste.)

He dropped his cell phone and bent over to pick it up. At 70mph you travel over 450 feet in 5 seconds. He didn't see the entire lane was stopped ahead of him. She can't drive in the HOV lane any more.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[AmiMoJo]

The hands-on-wheel warnings are only every few minutes. If his hands were off the wheel for just 6 seconds then there would have been no warning at all.

Note that Tesla doesn't say there was a warning either, which they would surely have mentioned if there had been. They said there were multiple warnings that day, but not at the time of the crash, which is consistent with the behaviour of their software. The fact that the car had already had to warn him multiple times but was apparently happy to carry on driving at speed in an area known for forcing the driver to take control is pretty damning.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly That. Some people are wired up (upstairs) so that they mistakenly believe that having an actual crash will make a point in their argument about something not being safe.

Didn't work out this time though if that was the case.

The guy possibly deserves a Darwin award. And is fortunate to not have hurt others.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a tech, most likely his instincts leaned toward exposing technical flaws, which often are intolerable for techies.
Death by beta-testing for Tsl4.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

The deceased complained about the divider to Tesla 7-10 times IIRC.

The video of the second driver who attempted the area shows the lines are not well painted, with paint on one side of the divider being almost completely faded and the other side appearing fresh, probably contributing to the confusion of the lane keeping system and why it beeped at the second driver telling him/her to take over.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[strikethree]

[Emphasis mine] Hands not on the wheel, a clear day with plenty of warnings to pay attention it's like he purposely wanted to crash.

Almost as if he knew the autopilot would fuck up there and thought the great safety of the car would keep him from dying and keep him alive enough to sue for multimillions. Almost.

Almost.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is he took his hands off at that point for the same reason I always hit the same pothole. I always forget about it until it's too late to avoid it.

Remember, the most obvious answer is probably the right answer.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[thegarbz]

that bad luck is something that happens to other people

Reality distortion affects Apple engineers too.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

He crashed into something. Even if the AI got confused because of crappy lines, it should have detected a big old barrier there. Would it assram a stopped car? It should have item detectors scanning for its likely paths (as well as escape routes) so it knows where not to drive and where it can swerve if necessary.

Apparently it can't even tell if it needs to swerve to avoid something stopped.

Re:Suicide by Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it not illegal to drive and text in California? People do it here (Ontario) but there is a hefty fine associated with it ($490) and 3 demerit points.

"Autopilot" is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that the general public can be given a system like "autopilot", and be expected to maintain sufficient focus at all times to regain control at a moment's notice is utterly ridiculous. This system should not be on the road. Tesla is mostly to blame here, though an Apple Engineer should know better. This is not the self-driving car I'm looking for.

Re:"Autopilot" is ridiculous

[fluffernutter]

I don't think Musk cares how ridiculous it is. He cares that it absolves him from any legal responsibility.

Re:"Autopilot" is ridiculous

[kiminator]

Absolutely. The system actively encourages the driver to pay less attention by its very design.

Re: "Autopilot" is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it like an airplane's autopilot. You still need pilots to keep track of the plane's position and be ready to take over at a moment's notice. It's basically like advanced cruise control with steering and braking capability.

Re:"Autopilot" is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no problem with auto pilot. In fact there has never been a single problem with any Tesla car ever.

Roads are less safe

[Anonymous Coward]

At least humans slam on the brakes before they hit you. The last two autopilot accidents were full speed, no braking.

It makes me far less likely to assert any right of way as a pedestrian.

Re: Roads are less safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there has never been an accident involving a human driver failing to brake ever? It happens every day.

Re: Roads are less safe

[fluffernutter]

So we need more? Self-driving is clearly not helping the situation. If they say they will save lives, they had better start explaining how and when this is going to happen. The current state of things today doesn't look good.

Re:Roads are less safe

[HornWumpus]

It makes me far less likely to assert any right of way as a pedestrian.

Then something has been gained.

We need more autonomous car testing around critical mass rides! Particularly Uber, but all should participate, no matter how poorly funded and/or engineered. We should see at least a few pigeons driving heavy trucks.

Re: Roads are less safe

[pezpunk]

please cite a statistic that shows autopilot creating more accidents than there otherwise would have been. Tesla claims autopilot is statistically 40% safer than a human driver. do you have actual evidence to the contrary, or just overreaction to a hamdful of incidents (among literally millions of drivers and tens of thousands of non-headline human accidents)

Re: Roads are less safe

[fluffernutter]

You are quoting an invalid statistic. The 40% one has been debunked many times. The point is there are *no* statistics.

Clear day

[110010001000]

"The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead"

And yet your "AI" crashed and killed someone. What idiots. Enough with the AI BS. It ain't happening.

Re: Clear day

[c6gunner]

And yet your "AI" crashed and killed someone. What idiots. Enough with the AI BS. It ain't happening.

You're the only one stupid enough to all it an AI. Tesla has been very clear about their softwares abilities and limitations.

Re:Clear day

[arth1]

Tesla's autopilot doesn't use human eyes. If I understand it correctly, it has a monochrome camera and a forward facing radar. If there is not enough monochromatic contrast between an object and its surrounding, the camera won't detect it, and if the object is at an angle and composition where it cannot return radar signals directly back to the car, the radar won't detect it.
How good the visibility is only affects the human, who is the one with the driver's license and the responsibility that goes with it.

Re: Clear day

[Entrope]

It is very clearly an AI. Just not a good attempt, at least not yet.

Crashing into inanimate objects

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you don't give half-assed "self-driving" features to the public and honestly it is completely ridiculous self driving mode can't even keep a vehicle from crashing head on into an inanimate object. There is simply no excuse for this level of incompetence.

Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as Tesla calls it "Autopilot (tm)" they have all the blame because it is not autopilot as people generally understand it.

Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[technosaurus]

Auto-copilot would be more appropriate for the way Tesla documents its functionality. As with any slashdot topic, naming can be the hardest part. Autopilot may sound better, but its deceptive.

Re:Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[110010001000]

Or just call it "driver assist", but that wouldn't be flashy enough for those types of companies.

Re:Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking more of a support than any of "auto" or "pilot"

Re:Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[HornWumpus]

It's nothing but smart cruise control and lane assist (that kills you).

Established car companies have both available. Not so much the 'that kills you', but after enough miles, you can bet it has.

Re:Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[SvnLyrBrto]

Not really. "Autopilot" has never meant fully-autonomous computer control with no supervision from the pilot. In fact, the first Sperry autopilot's debut was at the Paris Air show in 1914; back when a "computer" was a person whose job was to do arithmetic by hand. It was a simple gyroscopic affair that enabled forward progress in a straight line and... well... nothing else. Rather, an autopilot is, and always has been, merely a tool to reduce the pilot's workload. It still requires preparation, programming, supervision, and attention.

tl;dr: "autopilot" is 100% appropriate to Tesla's usage and not deceptive at all.

Re: Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Re: Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[dunkelfalke]

As long as the driver doesn't need to be type rated for driving a Tesla car the comparison is not appropriate at all.

Re:Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what kind of car will crash after 6 seconds with no input? A car with no electronics at all. What the hell is Autopilot for if it can't manage a mere 6 seconds on its own? And why is it _still_ called Autopilot if it's the exact opposite of that?
The problem with these AI's (deep learning) is they have no common sense. Maybe some people in charge at Tesla don't, either.

Re:Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Autopilot" has never meant fully-autonomous computer control with no supervision from the pilot.

Yes it has. In every movie where an auto pilot was ever mentioned.

Tell me, how to you think the rate of pilots to TV watchers are among Tesla customers?

Re:Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[drinkypoo]

Auto-copilot would be more appropriate for the way Tesla documents its functionality. As with any slashdot topic, naming can be the hardest part. Autopilot may sound better, but its deceptive.

No, absolutely not. You have this 100% backwards. A copilot actually has responsibility for taking over if you have a heart attack, or are distracted. An autopilot is a device which will fly (or sail) you right into a mountain if you don't pay attention. That doesn't make it a great name, because people know fuck-all about autopilots, which is the impression I get about you when you post that auto-copilot would be a better name than autopilot.

Re:Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

"Autopilot has never meant fully-autonomous computer control"

Yes it does. Autopilot means Automatic Pilot or "a device for keeping an aircraft on a set course without the intervention of the pilot" Noticed the definition "WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF A PILOT" Tesla is misleading customers by calling it autopilot, period. I am going to sell you an "autoparachute", and when you die I'll just simply say "it never meant fully-autonomous" you have to pull the cord.

Simply renaming the stupid feature will save lives.

Re:Auto-copilot would be more appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a word from the wise for you. When you have to argue "technically correct", your argument is crap. Especially when dealing with language. You want to know what a word or phrase means? Whatever it's colloquially known to mean. Whatever society generally thinks it means, that's what it means. It's like the idiots who try to correct somebody who "misuses" the phrase "begs the question". They'll say "when the phrase originally came in to use 3000 years ago, it meant this other thing, so you're using it wrong", which is all well and good, but language is defined by what the majority of people think it means, regardless of how many history books or technical manuals you have to support your argument. Language constantly evolves, and in the every day use, the current state is all that matters, no matter how much you may dislike it. Literally being redefined to mean figuratively annoys the piss out of me, but welcome to language.

Fact is, I don't give a shit what an "autopilot actually is", what I care about is what the lay person thinks an autopilot actually is. That's what's important, that's what matters. That's how language works. And Tesla can try to argue they're "technically correct" all they want, but if I were a juror, I'd explain to them how language actually works, and bitch slap them with a massive settlement. Especially since their webpage on autopilot makes mention of self driving.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[whoever57]

People die while driving to work. Using your argument, no one would ever get into a car.

Yes, Tesla's Autopilot isn't perfect, and its capabilities may be exaggerated, but I believe that, overall, drivers using Autopilot are less likely to get into an accident. Isn't that the real measure?

Tesla's crash rate dropped 40 percent after Autopilot was installed, Feds say

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[CityZen]

I agree that this is not autopilot and that Tesla is on shaky grounds for naming it as such. Here's a feature that invites distraction, and yet being distracted can lead to death.

I also fail to understand why any system that sophisticated would let you crash right into a non-moving object straight in front of you. Seems broken.

Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT".

All "AUTOPILOT" does is conjure up images of planes flying themselves while pilots LEAVE THE FUCKING COCKPIT to go to the bathroom.

If Tesla's stupid fucking AI can't avoid a fucking highway divider in broad daylight, what the fuck is it even worth? There are tons of videos on youtube of this behavior. They shouldn't even be allowed to call this assisted driving, let alone "AUTOPILOT".

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[c6gunner]

All "AUTOPILOT" does is conjure up images of planes flying themselves while pilots LEAVE THE FUCKING COCKPIT to go to the bathroom.

No pilot would ever do that exactly because the autopilot is just a simple program which only controls speed and heading. In the sky, with very few aircraft around you, it would be much safer to leave the controls than it would be in a car, on a highway, and yet aircrew always make sure that there is at least one pilot monitoring the controls at all times. If you hear "autopilot" and think "well, no humans required!" then you are badly misinformed.

Re:Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[stabiesoft]

Or go for a quickie. There was a pilot's program at my school and I knew several peoplein the program to join the mile high club. Autopilot was doing the flying.

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[larryjoe]

If you hear "autopilot" and think "well, no humans required!" then you are badly misinformed.

I do think autopilot means no human intervention required, and I would be badly misinformed, but I would also be representative of the majority of people. That last point is the most important one. It's the point that makes Tesla's branding effective.

We're talking about branding and marketing. The dictionary meaning or the "real" meaning is irrelevant. Only what the majority of potential buyers think is important. That these explanations about the "real" meaning are necessary strongly indicates that the majority of people do not share these perceptions about what the word "autopilot" means.

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[Anonymous Coward]

Good god you are stupid. Equivocating and idiotic. If you actually think this god help you.

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[houghi]

That dies not stop people from thinking it. People also think hackers ad bad people. The drivers are not trained like pilots, as so many people think that autopilot means that the car needs no human, than that is what it means for non-pilots.
If it would mean the same, people using one in acar should follow similar lesssons as pilots do before using one.

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[CRC'99]

Not only do we make sure there is always one pilot monitoring (the Pilot Flying - or PF), if the pilot not flying (PNF) needs to exit the cockpit, a hostie with basic training will replace the PNF in the cockpit. This ensures there are always two people at the controls.

When the PNF returns, they replace the hostie.

We also have a rule that if the PF doesn't react to verbal or aural cues after 3 tries - the PNF takes over the aircraft. This includes both actual pilots, or the hostie with basic training.

Trying to compare a car to an aircraft is a bad idea - we have procedures for all of this stuff - and most procedures exist because people have died.

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[Anonymous Coward]

> but I would also be representative of the majority of people
And thank God you and all those idiots will be receiving Darwin awards in the new world controlled by tech.
I really don't get why we are supposed to tailor the world to the dumbest person.
That way we would never make any progress.

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[Anonymous Coward]

The dictionary meaning or the "real" meaning is irrelevant.

Well in that case, the movie Idiocracy really was a documentary sent back from the future. Thanks for helping us all get there.

Meanwhile, some of us would prefer that facts and logic remain immutable to the whims of morons.

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[edtice1559]

Right so if you don't want somebody to think you are a bad person, don't introduce yourself as a hacker!

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do we make sure there is always one pilot monitoring (the Pilot Flying - or PF), if the pilot not flying (PNF) needs to exit the cockpit, a hostie with basic training will replace the PNF in the cockpit. This ensures there are always two people at the controls.

That's got nothing to do with "AUTOPILOT" you fucking idiot with a CPL.
That was the safety protocol enacted in wake of 2015 Germanwings 9525, where the mentally disturbed co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked the cockpit door, and crashed the airliner on purpose.

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[Anonymous Coward]

This same scenario has been in the news all over the place. These people are tech savvy enough to own a Tesla. They hear the news and the conversations at work. Self driving cars get into fender benders. They have accidents. If you are in a car with that feature, and turn it on and proceed space out, that is entirely your own fault. Hearing about these accidents is all but unavoidable and I imagine if you own a Tesla you hear it constantly. This guy even knew the very spot he would have trouble, and did it anyway. At what point do people take responsibility for their own actions? At what point do we stop blaming everyone but the person who chose to do something they KNEW was dangerous? I don't believe claiming the "I thought autopilot meant it did everything for you" excuse works anymore. I could understand it for the first accident ever (maybe). The problem is, I can't imagine that Tesla did not throw dozens of disclaimers and special notes their way to explain the limitations of the tech they were buying. Why would there be alerts to make you pay attention and put your hands on the wheel... if you didn't NEED to?

If this was a situation where an alert driver had the wheel wrestled from their grip by the computer, and slammed into another car or object I would be 100% behind their case. This is definitely nothing like that.

Re: Then they should stop calling it "AUTOPILOT"

[larryjoe]

I see a parallel between cigarettes and Tesla Autopilot. For both, the manufacturers know that there is a danger in the way the the products are likely to be used. Warnings are issued, and branding/advertising are used to contradict those warnings. There is no question that the consumers behaved in a way that directly led to bad health and death. The question is whether the companies have any liability in the way that they brand and market their products, or do the legal warnings absolve them of all liability.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[FFOMelchior]

I don't know, I've seen Telsa autopilot reaction videos on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjGe0GiiFzw), and when they're right, they're dead on right. Their instant reaction is so fast, to human perception it's as if they're predicting the future. I'm positive there are already cases where autopilot has prevented deaths. Unfortunately, I do see the argument that -- both legally and morally -- if you save 100 lives but are at fault for 1, you're still at fault for 1. Tricky situation.

lol

[Hugh Jorgen]

Guess he wasn't well Haung. Seriously stop solving problems that do not exist.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[fluffernutter]

You may believe it, but there are ultimately no stats to show it. And on the other hand, it may just kill you.

Why it can't check driver alertness?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

We know if 100 years since the days of steam locomotives. Drivers, if they don't have to steer. They miss signals, fall asleep. They invented a variety of deadman switches to check for driver alertness. They do it even now in diesel and electric locomotives.

Tesla should be issuing challenges and driver should respond correctly, if not it should pull the car over and stop.

If alert driver is a necessary requirement for safety, the system should check for alertness and stop the car safely if the driver is not alert. It is weaseling out if it allows the car to stay on auto pilot even after its request for manual take over is not honoured. But it knows the appeal of auto pilot will be greatly reduced if it enforces alertness rules

This is why I did not order autopilot when my Model 3 offer came through last Sunday. I am a great supporter of Tesla but the auto pilot is misnamed, and promotion of its use is not correct.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[WinstonWolfIT]

Kind of like a dead man's switch on a train or a tram.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[whoever57]

This is why I did not order autopilot when my Model 3 offer came through last Sunday.

Completely unrelated to the $8k cost of full Autopilot ($5k + $3k), I am sure.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[pezpunk]

i own a Tesla. it bings at you if you're not holding the wheel, and WILL eventually shut off autopilot, but bringing the car to a stop is inherently dangerous.

ultimately, the driver of any vehicle is responsible for following the instructions for operating that vehicle.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Anonymous Coward]

They invented a variety of deadman switches to check for driver alertness

Congrats on your reading comprehension skills.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Anonymous Coward]

It should never be dangerous to slowly come to a complete stop unless you stop on train tracks. If someone hits you, it'd be their fault for driving dangerously.

Tesla knows the driver isn't paying attention and knows autopilot isn't good enough to control the car by itself. Shutting off autopilot while it's known the driver is distracted is the worse possible option. They should be slowing and stopping sooner rather than later. When the driver isn't paying attention a critical component of autopilot isn't functioning so Tesla should take approach action. They don't, so for that they should be held at partial fault for all such crashes.

For a feature which is supposed to keep you in the lane and not hit the car in front of you, you'd expect it to not leave the lane and run straight into a solid object. That's the complete opposite of what it's supposed to do. The guy was an idiot for not paying attention while driving, but so it Tesla.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[MrL0G1C]

Except the technology is woefully inadequate, so it can't safely 'pull over and stop'. It should not be called autopilot.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If the autopilot determines the driver is not paying attention, it should go to a safe mode. Decelerate to some safe speed and pull over at the first available opportunity. It should have a few levers and buttons and ask the driver to press yellow button or pull the blue lever once in a while. It could also ask the driver to turn the a/c on of off, open and close the windows, etc. It can have a driver monitoring camera detecting duration of blinks, and ask the user to look left or right, or read out a high speed limit sign coming in.

If driver attentiveness is a critical part of auto pilot, it should have self checks.

Who are we kidding, Tesla knows this more than you and I. If it bugs the driver with as many checks, they would rather drive than demonstrate their attentiveness. I am an ardent supporter of Tesla, and I am buying the Tesla I can afford. But auto pilot is a distraction. I want it to concentrate on bringing down battery prices. Find a use for depleted auto batteries and increase the residual value of batteries coming off the cars. That would bring down the price of electric cars.

Range is no longer the issue with electric cars. Price is. I would like Tesla to concentrate on this central issue instead being distracted by auto pilot.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[drinkypoo]

It should never be dangerous to slowly come to a complete stop unless you stop on train tracks. If someone hits you, it'd be their fault for driving dangerously.

I can see why you didn't log in. Highways and freeways have minimum speed limits for a good reason, and that reason is that if traffic is moving too slowly, it presents a hazard to traffic which is moving at legal speeds. You are obligated to exit the roadway if your vehicle should experience a failure. You are also obligated to exit the roadway if you plan to take a nap.

For a feature which is supposed to keep you in the lane and not hit the car in front of you, you'd expect it to not leave the lane and run straight into a solid object.

That's not what it's supposed to do. It's supposed to help you stay in the lane and not hit the car in front of you. You still have responsibility for not doing those things. The car will help you, not do it for you. Just like the autopilot on a plane or a boat, it will run you into an obstacle if you use it incorrectly. That's why it's a perfectly descriptive name for the feature. Before autopilot is even made available to drivers, they have to attend a safety lecture and sign an acknowledgement that they have certain responsibilities.

The driver in this incident knew beyond any reasonable doubt that he was responsible for keeping his hands on the wheel and staying alert. Case closed.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla would issue the challenges on the touch screen, so the result would be that the attentive driver is forced to look away from the road instead of the opposite.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Entrope]

Tesla's software is what steered the car into the barrier. Case closed.

CalDOT did not repair a crash barrier as required by law, causing a probably unnecessary fatality. Case closed.

If the driver is not attentive or interacting enough, the car could have turned the driver assistance features off. If Tesla didn't want to do that because it wanted to look high-tech and smart, the car could decelerate to the minimum of the posted speed limit or 40 mph -- most drivers will re-engage pretty quickly if they're going that slowly on a highway.

There are a lot of ways the car could have reacted safely in these conditions. It carried out what was probably the least safe practical option.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[drinkypoo]

Tesla's software is what steered the car into the barrier. Case closed.

The driver was responsible for steering the car, not Tesla, and they went so far as to sign paperwork declaring that they understood that in order to get autopilot activated. The vehicle reminded them of that fact both when they activated it, and at several other times during the journey. You're being ridiculous.

CalDOT did not repair a crash barrier as required by law, causing a probably unnecessary fatality. Case closed.

Drivers are responsible for not driving too fast or otherwise dangerously for conditions, regardless of what those conditions are. You're being ludicrous.

If the driver is not attentive or interacting enough, the car could have turned the driver assistance features off.

Doing that while the driver is clearly already not paying attention is hazardous.

If Tesla didn't want to do that because it wanted to look high-tech and smart, the car could decelerate to the minimum of the posted speed limit or 40 mph -- most drivers will re-engage pretty quickly if they're going that slowly on a highway.

The vehicle will do this eventually. It didn't have time, because he made sure to take his hands off the wheel as he approached the area that he knew (and was thoughtful enough to leave evidence telling us he knew) caused problems with the system. Barring an astronomically unlikely poorly-timed seizure, stroke, or similar insult, we know that he willfully removed his hands at that time. As others have stated in this thread, it is very like he was attempting to commit suicide. Or, more likely, he thought the safety features in the vehicle would protect him even if he got into an accident, and then he would get into the news.

He got into the news, all right.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Entrope]

None of that is how legal or moral liability works in the United States generally, or in California specifically.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[drinkypoo]

None of that is how legal or moral liability works in the United States generally, or in California specifically.

We won't know how it works until it actually goes to court, because the law is applied differently in every case and justice frequently fails to make an appearance. But this was a case of a highly educated, informed, and notified driver who apparently made a deliberate choice to abuse the technology and paid the price for hubris. They chose to willfully endanger the lives of others by continuing to use a technology in a way that they knew was dangerous, and they recorded evidence of this fact themselves so that there is no confusion about whether they knew what they were doing — willfully endangering themselves, and the general public.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Entrope]

We won't know how it works until it actually goes to court

You are arguing a contributory negligence theory, which only applies in four states. California has adopted "pure" comparative negligence, which would allow the driver's estate or family to seek damages from Tesla (but I would guess not California, due to sovereign immunity).

Conceivably, the courts could change how they rule starting with this case -- but I am pretty sure they won't.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Anonymous Coward]

ultimately, the driver of any vehicle is responsible for following the instructions for operating that vehicle.

Not when the instructions fail to take reality into account, and expecting the driver to sit idle but still be attentive is at conflict with reality. People get bored, stop paying attention, play with their phones, etc.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[jabuzz]

Stopping without due course on a Controlled-access highway (seems to be the none local term for a motorway/freeway) is in most jurisdictions illegal. There was a recent case where a lorry/truck/HGV (take your pick) who did that on a motorway in the UK is now serving a very long sentence in prison.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[drinkypoo]

You are arguing a contributory negligence theory, which only applies in four states. California has adopted "pure" comparative negligence, which would allow the driver's estate or family to seek damages from Tesla

They can seek them, but that doesn't mean they're going to get them. And they certainly don't deserve them in this case. And I'd actually argue that he did it not just incorrectly, but deliberately. He acted with willful disregard for both his own safety, and that of others. The state of California should really be prosecuting him for intentionally causing the accident and costing us all a lot of money.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Cederic]

Highways and freeways have minimum speed limits for a good reason, and that reason is that if traffic is moving too slowly, it presents a hazard to traffic which is moving at legal speeds. You are obligated to exit the roadway if your vehicle should experience a failure. You are also obligated to exit the roadway if you plan to take a nap.

A car with nobody in control is even more fucking dangerous than one slowing down until control is regained.

I can cope with the car in front of me gradually braking to a complete halt. It's when it crashes into a lane divider and ricochets back into the road that I'm going to have problems.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Anonymous Coward]

It should safely bring the car to a stop instead of simply switching off at speed. Other cars are responsible for responding to the situation in front of them and following at great enough distance to allow for this.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, no one calls it "CalDOT", it's "Caltrans" or "California Department of Transportation".

Second, what law do you claim required Caltrans to repair or reset the crash attenuator in a particular period of time? Go ahead, here is a link to the California codes. Provide a cite or a link to support your claim.

The fact that Caltrans is responsible for maintaining some roads (including 101) does not mean they are legally required to repair every condition instantly or within some specific time period. Caltrans did not cause this accident -- the driver and Tesla did. It sounds like Caltrans has a policy that applies to repairs of this sort and it includes discretion (the safety of drivers and work crews in "cone zones" is presumably a major consideration) to account for inclement weather.

The situation would be quite different if, for example, there were a giant pothole in traffic lanes on a freeway and it was a danger to drivers who were driving responsibility. They DO shut down a freeway DURING RUSH HOUR from time to time for such conditions. However, repairing a crash attenuator that no one is supposed to hit and that is not impinging on the roadway is not something that would likely justify shutting down a freeway during any high traffic period as it's not a high priority repair.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Anonymous Coward]

And, allowing the car to stop illegally would be a violation that the driver (not Tesla) would be charged with.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that California is crazy (I live there so see it first hand), but even they don't prosecute dead people.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[pezpunk]

if you can't follow the instructions for operating a vehicle, then don't operate it. it's pretty simple. it's not the car's fault if you are garbage at driving it.

Re:Why it can't check driver alertness?

[dgatwood]

California has adopted "pure" comparative negligence, which would allow the driver's estate or family to seek damages from Tesla (but I would guess not California, due to sovereign immunity).

Sovereign immunity only applies if the state was not grossly negligent and was not required by law to do those sorts of repairs in a timely manner. IMO, it isn't a given that the state would be protected, given the circumstances.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[whoever57]

No stats? Didn't you see the link I put in my post?

several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Balial]

"The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead," ... which makes you wonder how the hell the computer missed a farking wall in the middle of the road.

Re:several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Bruce Perens]

Because it did not receive good radar reflections, and to lidar the barrier looked like more road.

Re:several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Balial]

Tesla has LIDAR now?

Re:several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[HornWumpus]

Teslas don't have lidar. Your thinking of Google cars.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Bruce Perens]

I don't know for sure. It is likely however that concrete rebar or whatever other kind of railing there was edge-on to the radar.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Balial]

A quick google search shows you're making things up.

But that's the whole point. If a person can see the barrier, the computer should, too. If it can't see a fixed barrier on a freeway, it will kill people. That's not fit for the roads.

Re:several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

It should, especially since there are cheap semiconductor LIDAR that could ring around the damn car, but Musk is a fucking greedy bastard who won't add it to the design.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla thinks LIDAR is for the weak-minded.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Bruce Perens]

Sigh. If you're going to post on Slashdot, you need to learn the difference between argument and mere contradiction.

After you do that, you will need to consider that you are speaking with people who understand computers, radar, and other technology underlying the subject at hand. We obviously know that if a person can see a barrier, a computer will not naturally and obviously see it, because computers do not see the way people see at all, and most importantly: they can't think. If you believe otherwise, you might need to be informed that the "AI" you've been hearing about is not in any way "intelligent".

Neither the sensors that Tesla cars are equipped with, nor the way that they process what they sense, are particularly like the way that humans process vision, nor will they be able to achieve that in the near future

At that point, we need to consider how the Tesla computer senses objects and processes what it senses. The radar is the most important, and in this case there is not getting a good radar reflection. Radar senses metal much better than it senses concrete, because metal reflects RF. Thus, the rebar within the concrete is important. Ultrasonic is out of range until too late. The remaining sensors are optical (not LIDAR, but multi-position cameras that can produce a 3D image when they're close enough), and they aren't getting anything that looks different from an empty road ahead of them.

Fixing this is potentially a really hard problem because it's really a problem for strong AI, which doesn't exist and we don't know how to make it.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we'll all just have to die in a car crash probably then, since we can't drive our own cars anymore and they end up killing everybody!

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[HornWumpus]

At 25k$/unit it's kind of a deal breaker.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Joey Vegetables]

I've had near-misses involving obstacles that were the same color as the road, including road barriers in unexpected/odd places. But they were near-misses, rather than wrecks, because I had the experience to drive more slowly and cautiously when I could not be assured that the road is entirely clear, including when I'm driving in an area I haven't been before, or when there is construction nearby. Perhaps that kind of judgment can be improved on in the future? Also as mentioned by others, barriers in unexpected places might be painted so as to be maximally noticeable by humans and perhaps even by radar. The bar today is that a self-driving vehicle needs to work with unmodified roads, but I would recommend that future road design and maintenance take self-driving vehicles into account and to make it as easy as possible for them to know if they are at risk of driving into something they shouldn't.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Understood. I am sure that there will be hardware breakthroughs in the future that will bring that down. In the meantime, Musk needs to stop claiming that the hardware he sells today will eventually support full autonomy. I do not believe it, and we should not let companies sell products on the basis of completely unsubstantiated claims like this. We are far too tolerant of manipulative companies in this countries. We need to have a lower bar on claims of fraud. The free market only works when buyer and seller are equally well informed.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Green Mountain Bot]

Neither the sensors that Tesla cars are equipped with, nor the way that they process what they sense, are particularly like the way that humans process vision, nor will they be able to achieve that in the near future

...

Fixing this is potentially a really hard problem because it's really a problem for strong AI, which doesn't exist and we don't know how to make it.

This seems like a really good argument that this feature should not be allowed on public roads until the problem is solved.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Green Mountain Bot]

That sounds really expensive.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Joey Vegetables]

I don't know. Anything that wants to survive our winters needs to be coated or painted anyway, as do lane markings, etc., so I'm guessing it's just a question of reformulating the paint so as to be more easily detectable by sensors. Keep in mind that over time autonomous vehicles are expected to replace manually driven ones, so I likewise expect the street and road infrastructure to adapt over time.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[Bruce Perens]

This seems like a really good argument that this feature should not be allowed on public roads until the problem is solved.

That just means it won't be allowed on roads at all, because it is most likely that strong AI will never be developed.

It is, however, possible that a non-intelligent system will develop to the point that it is a more reliable driver than a human being.

Re: several hundred feet of visibility ahead

[HornWumpus]

Load the paint with Beta emitters. Bonus: nuclear waste is now a resource.

Safety record

[fluffernutter]

.... and not Tesla's safety record will go up. Not because Autopilot works, but because people are shit scared their vehicles could kill them.

Auto Shmauto

[Anonymous Coward]

I am quite happy using my own hands, my own awareness and my own common sense and consideration when Driving. I also like using a key. If people are incapable of doing these simple things then stay the fuck off the road...and if tech companies want to sell us bullshit tech to make us lazier then at least name it appropriately rather than selling us one thing dressed as another. Tesla make beautiful looking cars, but fucked if they are getting one cent from me. Especially if they toe the "blame the dea" line. No thanks.

Summary

[quantaman]

Tesla blames driver for using the Autopilot in exactly the way you'd expect 90% of Autopilot users to use it.

Re:Summary

[thegarbz]

Tesla blames driver for using the Autopilot in exactly the way you'd expect 90% of Autopilot users to use it.

Using it in an area the driver knows it tried to steer into a divider in the past, has demonstrated to his wife that it steers into the divider in the past to the point where she said she knew exactly her husband was involved when she heard a car steered into a divider, and then ignoring warnings to put your hand on the wheel because the system could potentially steer the car into a divider?

I know a lot of Tesla drivers, but 90% of them are not suicidal Darwin award hopefuls.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla blames driver for using the Autopilot in exactly the way you'd expect 90% of Autopilot users to use it.

To me this only implies that 90% of drivers are idiots that shouldn't be driving at all. Based on how many people I see holding up phones while driving, drifting into bike lanes, etc., 90% seems a reasonable figure.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

You expect drivers to notice that a particular barrier confuses the autopilot. Continue to use autopilot on that section of road. Demonstrate to their wife that the barrier confuses the autopilot. And then be surprised when the barrier confuses the autopilot and crashes into it.

I mean I realize that 50% of the population is dumber than how dumb the average person it, but to say 90% of the population has a death wish is pushing credibility. You are referring to the mainland USA not Guantanamo, right?

I'm surprised airlines keep putting 2 pilots on flights considering what people expect from autopilot. They would save a ton of money if they could cut 1 or even 2 pilots from flights.

Tesla informs the drivers of what the autopilot can and cannot do. They even have active systems to keep drivers from, well, not driving. I think it is a tough sell to say they are negligent about how people might use the features they include.

If hands-on is a requirement then...

[NewtonsLaw]

Surely if Tesla demands that drivers keep their hands on the wheel at all times that the autopilot is engaged then they should have a sensor for this and disengage the autopilot whenever the driver releases the wheel -- as a safety measure.

The fact that they don't do this is a clear indication that they really do expect people to take their hands off the wheel and use autopilot as if it were perfect. Stop passing the buck Tesla!

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[Blue23]

Surely if Tesla demands that drivers keep their hands on the wheel at all times that the autopilot is engaged then they should have a sensor for this and disengage the autopilot whenever the driver releases the wheel -- as a safety measure.

Turning off autopilot when the driver releases the wheel AS A SAFETY MEASURE? If you were in a car in motion, which do you think is safer for the driver and others nearby: an automated co-pilot with a safety track record better than humans or an uncontrolled car in motion?

The sensors alert the driver to put their hands back on the wheel instead of turning the car into an large, fast, uncontrolled missile.

Re: If hands-on is a requirement then...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty much what Honda, Nissan, and every other car manufacturer is doing with lane-keeping.* Tesla is just more arrogant; there is no proof that their implementation is better.

* Detected by looking for occasional torque input on the steering column, just like Tesla's.

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf "track record better than humans" are you talking about? Are you making things up again?
Citations please!

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[AmiMoJo]

They use a torque sensor to see if force is being exerted on the wheel by the driver's hand. It's not very reliable - a light grip or momentary movement of the hand will cause it to detect the wheel being released. It's also easy to fool - wedging some fruit in the wheel or just resting your hand on it while you text or take a nap works just fine.

Because of that they have to build some delay in, to prevent the warning going off all the time. Other manufacturers, like Nissan, have the alarm kick in after a few seconds. With Tesla it can take a few minutes.

GM has a much better system that uses eye tracking to make sure the driver is looking at the road. As well as a warning sound the seat also vibrates.

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[thegarbz]

The fact that they don't do this

They do do this. Your agurment is completely invalid. Not as soon as the driver releases the handwheel because that would be dangerous and stupid, but after the driver fails to heed the warnings to put their hands on the wheel.

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[Anonymous Coward]

I take my hands off the wheel when driving sometimes, and I do NOT have a tesla or any autopilot features. The fact that the vehicle does not suddenly go into the ditch is indication that car manufacturers expect me to drive no hands all the time.

(ok,ok, I only take both hands off occasionally when the road is clear ahead and behind me. Posting AC for obvious reasons).

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[Green Mountain Bot]

an automated co-pilot with a safety track record better than humans or an uncontrolled car in motion?

Tesla's autopilot feature is neither an automated co-pilot nor does it have a track record better than humans.

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely if Tesla demands that drivers keep their hands on the wheel at all times that the autopilot is engaged then they should have a sensor for this and disengage the autopilot whenever the driver releases the wheel -- as a safety measure.

The fact that they don't do this is a clear indication that they really do expect people to take their hands off the wheel and use autopilot as if it were perfect. Stop passing the buck Tesla!

Tesla does turn off the autopilot after you have your hands off the steering wheel for 15 seconds or more. It warns you more and more, telling you, "Hey you fucking moron, put your hands on the wheel and pay attention within 5 seconds or I will deactivate and it will be like you not having your hands on the wheel in a regular car".

You have to have your hands on the wheel to use autopilot. This kid took his hands off the wheel within 15 seconds of impact specifically to test to see if auto pilot would react to it, before it turned off due to inattention.

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually... this already exists.

The timeout is currently set to 2-minutes, but the functionality is there.

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[Blue23]

Wtf "track record better than humans" are you talking about? Are you making things up again?
Citations please!

You sure had an extreme reaction, have you already made up your mind? Posting an an Anonymous Coward makes thinks you have.

http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesl...

And even if you don't accept that it's better than a human, wouldn't you still say it's better than being uncontrolled?

Re:If hands-on is a requirement then...

[Blue23]

Tesla's autopilot feature is neither an automated co-pilot nor does it have a track record better than humans.

You didn't post an an anonymous coward, I'm going to assume that you're saying this in good faith.

Let's take a look at your two assertions.

Not an "automated co-pilot". Well, it does steer the car, navigates, attempts to avoid pedestrians, vehicles and other hazards, stays in lane and controls speed. Can you elaborate why that does not qualify as driving the vehicle? (The co- part is because it does require the human to stay ready and keep their hands on the wheel - it's not doing it all by itself. I didn't think that was the bone of your contention.)

As for the track record, I was going off the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's findings. Here's one article about it:
http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesl...

However, I see that there are articles out there that look at other statistics and don't have the same conclusion, so I'll agree that's debatable.

Would you be satisfied if I changed that part to just "better than an uncontrolled car in motion" and cut out the part about a better safety record?

Safe degradation

[MichaelSmith]

If the autopilot is unsafe around barriers like that, it should refuse to operate around those barriers. If it can't be made to recognize those situations, it should not be used at all.

Re:Safe degradation

[gnasher719]

If the autopilot is unsafe around barriers like that, it should refuse to operate around those barriers. If it can't be made to recognize those situations, it should not be used at all.

It can't just refuse to operate. It can tell the driver to take over, but if that doesn't happen, the autopilot must go on as well as it can. What's the alternative?

Re:Safe degradation

[MichaelSmith]

It can tell the driver to take over

Thats what I mean.

Re:Safe degradation

[Cederic]

Stopping the car.

Of course, that'll get Tesla in trouble for building cars that cause congestion, but at the moment they're only avoiding that by putting their customers' lives at risk, so I'm kind of comfortable either way.

Re:Safe degradation

[Anonymous Coward]

An alternative would be to disable autopilot the next time the car is stopped. To reenable it, require that the car be brought to a service center where the owner must take a safety course (for which there may be a charge) and sign an agreement that they will not let anyone drive the car who is not trained in autopilot limitations and safety procedures and that they indemnify Tesla for any claims resulting from their failure to do so. This would be reasonable since, obviously, the owner let someone drive the car (perhaps themselves) that lacked the specialized training and judgement required to safely use autopilot.

AutoPR?

[quantaman]

Does anyone know if Tesla is using a bot to write their Press Releases as well?

The following:
The reason that other families are not on TV is because their loved ones are still alive.

Does not sound like something a human PR Professional would write.

Re:AutoPR?

[thegarbz]

Does not sound like something a human PR Professional would write.

Sounds like even PR people are getting sick of appeasing the media who hype up shit to no end. At least the TV news used to split up stories about the world going to hell with a story of a fluffy kitten beating cancer or some shit like that. Even that seems to have stopped now.

EVERYTHING sucks. Be outraged 100% of the time, and above all remember that they are ALWAYS out to get you. News at 9.

Re: Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot

[c6gunner]

It seems to me that the only point of having an autopilot would be so that you could take your hands off the wheel and not pay attention to the road. This is sorta-kinda-an-almost-but-not-quite autopilot that works ok most of the time but has failure modes involving death and / or dismemberment. Who the hell would sell a half-assed, half-baked "feature" like this?

It seems to me that the only point of having cruise control would be so that you could take your feet off the pedals and not pay attention to your speed. This is sorta-kinda-an-almost-but-not-quite cruise control that works ok most of the time but has failure modes involving death and / or dismemberment. Who the hell would sell a half-assed, half-baked "feature" like this?

In other news - Tesla autopilot can't handle 6 sec

[sinij]

In other news - Tesla autopilot can't handle 6 seconds of autonomous driving on a clear day on a clear highway without causing fatal wreck.

I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[DanDD]

I'm a pilot, been flying for 30 years, and I've flown with other pilots with varying skill and experience levels.

The most experienced pilot I've flown with never took his left hand off the control yoke. I watched him for hours while I was in the co-pilot and jump seats. He'd visit, configure radios, adjust power, but if his left hand ever came off that yoke it went right back on it as soon as the immediate task was done.

I'll drive my Tesla autopilot the same way that gray haired old pilot flew an autopilot, and with any luck I'll live to be just as old.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

The most experienced pilot I've flown with never took his left hand off the control yoke.

That's the exact work reduction autopilots are designed to enable.
Your so called "most experienced pilot" (*cough* MORON) had just defeated the exact purpose of autopilots.
This guy might as well fly with the autopilot off.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[nnull]

The problem I see here is that Tesla has been basically advertising a fully automated car to us for years where you can just fall asleep in your car while it's on the move. This advertisement has been going on for years. This was the impression people got from those video demonstrations and this is why a lot of people wanted one. Now they're telling us that we should always keep our hands on the wheel and blame the drivers for accidents for not doing so.

It's not like they haven't posted videos before it on youtube. We have them showing a Tesla dropping off the driver in front of work and finding its own parking spot (Removed from Tesla's own channel), we have videos of them driving the car fully autonomous on wild roads. They've been promising these auto driving features in updates with tons of people waiting anxiously. Now since the criticism and accidents, they've clamped down on it and they've been removing any videos that advertised "Fully autonomous vehicle", but you can still find the reposts of them.

Now the only videos of their vehicle advertisement they have on their channel is just basically showing off a regular sedan basically with road/lane assistance. They took down all their videos of the car driving without a driver.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I don't trust the autopilot in my plane for all things, but heading control is nice (when it works). I guess that I can make money off of Tesla stock by shorting it for the near term.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[pezpunk]

no, they haven't. they have never done that. i am a Tesla owner and everything Tesla has written about the current technology in cars says the driver must keep one hand on the wheel and remain alert and attentive. your post is flat wrong.

Re: I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[houghi]

That is nice. Was the test to be a pilot the same as being a driver? If nit, there is no reason to compare the two.
Maeketing companies are well aware how every word will be interpreted. They called it autopilot, knowing people would interpret it as hands-off-self-driving.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

That pilot seems like a faggot to me. Real men let machines do the driving and thinking for them. I will gladly submit my personal agency to a nameless code or algorithm written by and Indian in Mumbai and hosted on a server in Omaha. It is the new way. To think otherwise is racist.

Only creepy homophobic faggots insist on driving or thinking for themselves. I will accept 100% of the blame when things do go wrong. I have absolute responsibility and absolutely no say in my life. Governments, bureaucrats, and corporations are my master. I am just a data point on their plan.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[drinkypoo]

The problem I see here is that Tesla has been basically advertising a fully automated car to us for years where you can just fall asleep in your car while it's on the move.

That is a lie, and you are a liar. The commercial explicitly states that autopilot assists the driver, and the disclaimer that comes with it explicitly states that the driver must remain alert with their hands on the wheel.

Now since the criticism and accidents, they've clamped down on it and they've been removing any videos that advertised "Fully autonomous vehicle", but you can still find the reposts of them.

Put up or shut up. They have advertised level 5 is coming, and they have advertised assistance features, and Elon has even claimed publicly that they would have level 5 in 2019. But they've never advertised the shipping autopilot as fully autonomous, only claimed that they had enough hardware in the car to do it (which they probably don't.)

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[CRC'99]

I've got a CPL - and in all my training - one thing that always stood out is that I never fully trusted the autopilot.

There's a great video that was done in 1997 called "Children of the Magenta" that seems to ring true with everything I hear about Telsa issues like this.

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

Aircraft, cars, the lessons are the same.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[CRC'99]

The most experienced pilot I've flown with never took his left hand off the control yoke.

That's the exact work reduction autopilots are designed to enable.
Your so called "most experienced pilot" (*cough* MORON) had just defeated the exact purpose of autopilots.
This guy might as well fly with the autopilot off.

You are the kind of guy I do not want to be my captain or co-pilot.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

"Truth in Adversising? Special Report at 11!"

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

are you stupid ?
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot?redirect=no

        Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

        All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[nnull]

Do you work for Tesla? Some sort of PR firm?

"Put up or shut up."
Ok!
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot?redirect=no

"All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."

I'm sure that link will be removed soon too, because you can't even get that video from Tesla's own youtube channel anymore, other than reposts.
But hey, go ahead and call me a liar! As if none of these videos ever existed.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[nnull]

I'm not wrong. They may state that in their owners manual to try to avoid liability, but what they have been posting videos of from years past is contrary to that, encouraging people to drive hands free.

The whole excitement about Tesla's vehicles people have over it, is not that it's just an electric car, but people have the impression (Thanks to Tesla's own PR) that it's a fully autonomous electric vehicle. Admit it, you didn't buy a Tesla because it was just an electric sedan.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the kind of guy I do not want to be my captain or co-pilot.

Hey wait a minute, aren't you that fucking idiot with a CPL who claimed a two person cockpit was to have two people monitor the "AUTOPILOT", when in fact it was a safety protocol guarding against lone pilot with suicidal tendencies like Andreas Lubitz of Germanwings 9525?

I'm sure there are lots of people who are just lining up to fly with you huh?

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[drinkypoo]

"All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."

Your logical fallacy is moving the goalposts. You claimed that you could demonstrate that they are selling the vehicle as self-driving, when in fact they are selling it as having the hardware to do self-driving someday in the nebulous future. Now, I happen to think that claim is also nonsense, but it's not the claim you were attacking and it's not the claim I was defending, either.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[david_thornley]

Certainly, if they had the capability, they'd be advertising the capability, not the hardware.

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[Swave An deBwoner]

If you go to https://www.tesla.com/models/design and click the boxes to buy a Tesla Model S, you get to click this box:

Full Self-Driving Capability

This doubles the number of active cameras from four to eight, enabling full self-driving in almost all circumstances, at what we believe will be a probability of safety at least twice as good as the average human driver. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat. For Superchargers that have automatic charge connection enabled, you will not even need to plug in your vehicle.

All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say anything, the car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination or just home if nothing is on the calendar. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigate urban streets (even without lane markings), manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at high speed. When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on your phone summons it back to you.

Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval. Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year.

$44 /mo.

$4,000 after delivery

Requires Enhanced Autopilot

Re:I'm a pilot, and have a real autopilot

[ebvwfbw]

Depends. I have a stec-20. I have to hold on because it doesn't have altitude hold. If it had that, I could eat a ham sandwich and relax. Just listen for ATC.
The more lazy you are the better the pilot.

I wouldn't trust the tesla autopilot at all. Not just no but hell no. It's not even up to a student driver yet. Just look at the complaints on Teslas sometime. You might be better off with a Pinto. Save your money for a real auto pilot like the one in the new Caddy.

What's the point of semi-autonomous driving?

[markjhood2003]

To me it has to be either autonomous or not. If semi-autonomous driving requires you to be engaged and alert with both hands on the wheel, ready to take control at any time, then what's the point? How is it different from regular non-autonomous driving? Can anyone share their experience?

Re:What's the point of semi-autonomous driving?

[PastTense]

The semi-autonomous driving is simply an additional safety feature--it will catch certain driving problems which you miss--for example the driver in the car in front of you slams on his brakes--and the semi-autonomous feature notices it a half-second before you do.

Re:What's the point of semi-autonomous driving?

[Blue23]

To me it has to be either autonomous or not. If semi-autonomous driving requires you to be engaged and alert with both hands on the wheel, ready to take control at any time, then what's the point? How is it different from regular non-autonomous driving? Can anyone share their experience?

Two ways.

First, it has a better track record then your average human driver so it can help avoid accidents that the human may not.

Second, like an aircraft autopilot, it can handle routine matters but there are still times during an emergency or an unusual situation that it needs someone who can handle what it can't.

Think like this. Both human and Tesla's autopilot have a high overlap in what they can handle. There are some things the autopilot handles better just due to reaction time and 360 vision. There are some things the human driver handle better because of our adaptability. Together they can handle more than either separately and are much safer.

Re: What's the point of semi-autonomous driving?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's less fatiguing, I think, but that is mostly adaptive cruise control.

Re:What's the point of semi-autonomous driving?

[pezpunk]

it's statistically safer than non-autonamous driving.

Re:What's the point of semi-autonomous driving?

[Anonymous Coward]

The most annoying part of driving is in a traffic jam. It can handle that part very well, but as soon as the jam is over you should be alert and ready to take over.

Might even be good for following other cars. But driving alone in an area where it known to be inaccurate for one reason or another *and* not paying attention? That's just asking for trouble.

Re:What's the point of semi-autonomous driving?

[drinkypoo]

To me it has to be either autonomous or not. If semi-autonomous driving requires you to be engaged and alert with both hands on the wheel, ready to take control at any time, then what's the point?

Ask anyone who's ever used cruise control. That requires you to be alert and engaged with your feet at the pedals so that you can override the automatic speed control. Every so often someone sets it and tries to take a nap or make a sandwich, but we don't blame cruise control. We rightly call that person a colossal idiot. Now here you are blaming cruise control 2.0 for accidents. That's not how it works. It's the driver's responsibility, they signed that they knew it was their responsibility, they get a warning that it's their responsibility every time they turn it on. They have actually been made more aware of the limitations of the system than purchasers of vehicles with cruise control.

Re:What's the point of semi-autonomous driving?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that it has a better track record?

Humans drive in all conditions on all roads (or off roads) and are from all parts of society. The autopilot in Tesla cars does not cover that range by a long shot.

So if you want to compare track records, you need to do this between Tesla cars with autopilot and without autopilot in areas where autopilot can be used

Poor AI

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is hiding behind Google's self-driving cars. Theirs aren't as intelligent.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[fluffernutter]

There are all kinds of issues with that stat. Look back to the last chain on Tesla, lots of problems with their test data. Anyway, it wasn't a study that was meant to show the safety of Tesla; they were investigating the first Tesla accident.

What do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

These incidents will effectively end their plans, even one more death will be too many. Regardless of how these incidents came about, it's becoming clear the technology is nowhere near ready for mainstream use. Do you think an egomaniac like Musk is going to accept responsibility? Not likely. We will probably never have fully autonomous cars but for specialized and very controlled uses, and that's just that.

Re:What do you expect?

[pezpunk]

non-autonomous vehicles have fatal collisions at much higher rates than autonomous vehicles do. i guess that technology is even further from being ready for prime time.

Re: Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot

[bestweasel]

I pointed out the problems with the name Autopilot at the time of some previous crash. If a geek like poor Mr Huang can be fatally wrong about its limitations (assuming that geeks are less likely to blindly trust technology) what chance do mere mortals have?

Totally agree that Autopilot is broken if it ignores a lane divider. If I had a Tesla I'd keep my hands on the wheel, my feet over the pedals and my eyes on the road.

Then after 10,000 miles I'd think, "Hey this Autopilot is pretty good" and trust it more and more until one day I'm doing 50, looking in the glovebox for my favourite Barry Manilow CD, well we all know what happens then.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[slack_justyb]

Yeah the name autopilot is one of the things that kills me about what they are truly selling. Tesla's cars are at best a level two self driving car, that is hands off only. You have to have eyes on and you have to give continual input to the system. It is adaptive cruse control, lane keeping, and auto parking. It has some guidance from GPS and on-board software, but the production car that you buy is nowhere near this crap. That video is clearly showing a level three car and the car is handling cleared intersections easily, something the current level twos would be suicide if you tried.

The autopilot is anything but. I'm totally pro-self driving cars, but folks need to know what they are buying and not have a hyped up product sold to them and they think it will do something it won't. Tesla cars are a hands off only car, period, the end. You have to keep eyes up, no matter what. Additionally, you need to know the absolute limits of camera/radar combos, that's right Teslas do not have LiDAR. Radar requires a calculation between differences in order to work. If traffic is stopping up ahead and the car in front of you that your Tesla is tracking suddenly pulls out of the lane to expose a car up ahead at a complete stop, your Tesla is going to ram full speed into that stopped car if you don't do something. That's because radar was tracking something and now it's not there. So the machine needs to recalculate everything, which if you're going highway speeds, you're going to end up dead before the car figures it out.

The cars need to see lines on the road. If the lines are iffy, you're going to end up dead. Traffic needs to follow a pace, it doesn't matter if it is start and stop, or if cars gracefully merge in and out of your lane. It just needs to follow a smooth flow to things and you slowly build up a feel for what's gradual enough and what isn't. If you don't pay attention to that, you're going to end up dead. If you are coming up on a change in the road's shape, like where two highways split off and you're in the lane closest to the split, you need to turn off autopilot and handle it yourself. Most of these kinds of things have really crappy indicators on the road that a split is happening and if you don't, you are going to end up like that dude. Dead.

Now if you think that level two automation is a half baked idea, that's cool. It sort of is, which is why everyone is aiming for that holy grail of level five. So perhaps maybe sit the sidelines till we get there? If what you are comparing to is level five, you're right, this shit is beta-level crap on crap. If you're talking about actual level two automation, the Tesla and all the other cars that offer level two are pretty solid. But people need to understand what they are getting themselves into and if that's not what you were expecting, then yeah, you shouldn't buy one. However, I also fault Tesla, since they post up videos like that one I linked and people buy their cars thinking, that's what they are getting which it isn't.

waiting for the data

[Anonymous Coward]

As tempting as it is to weigh in on today's [not] self-driving vehicle story, I think I will withhold judgement until another dozen people are killed by this technology. I think that will show us a little more about all of the unexpected problems faced by the industry. It shouldn't take too long, considering how eager the industry has been so far to get its cars on the road.

We need a meaningful sample of dead bodies.

In other words.

[Trogre]

In other words:

"The victim was using cruise control. Our Tesla is not a self-driving car. Stop calling it that. Reliable self-driving cars do not exist."

Do. Not. Exist.

Re:In other words.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

"The victim was using cruise control. Our Tesla is not a self-driving car. Stop calling it that. Reliable self-driving cars do not exist."

Why would someone think an "autopilot", a word already used to describe a device that makes a plane self-flying, would be self-driving?

I think Tesla should change the name until they are willing to stand behind it as self-driving..

Re:In other words.

[Stoo]

"The victim was using cruise control. Our Tesla is not a self-driving car. Stop calling it that. Reliable self-driving cars do not exist."

Why would someone think an "autopilot", a word already used to describe a device that makes a plane self-flying, would be self-driving?

I think Tesla should change the name until they are willing to stand behind it as self-driving..

I think this is the biggest problem. The general public think the autopilot on a plane is a magical box that does everything, leaving the pilots to sit back drink coffee and chat. That's not the case. Most autopilots are pretty basic, they can track a course, hold altitude, maybe handle a constant rate or constant speed climb, but not much else.

Plane autopilots can also kill you in many ways. Put in a higher climb rate than the plane can handle and it'll continue pitching the plane up more and more until it stalls it. Put in a course that goes into a mountain, and it'll happily fly you right into that mountain. Pilots are always monitoring the autopilot to make sure it's doing what they expect, which is exactly how drivers should be behaving around the Tesla autopilot.

Re:In other words.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Most autopilots are pretty basic, they can track a course, hold altitude, maybe handle a constant rate or constant speed climb, but not much else.

In fairness, that's all I think flying is (outside of taking off/reaching altitude/taking off). I don't expect the autopilot to avoid a mountain, but I also expect it to be easy to plot a course that avoids it.

Re:In other words.

[pezpunk]

i suggest you ask a pilot how autopilot works. they're expected to remain alert and ready to take control at any moment. it's an accurate description, and Tesla takes pains to tell the driver (and repeatedly warn the driver) how autopilot is intended to be used.

in fact, nobody who uses autopilot is unaware that their vehicle wants them to remain alert, and keep a hand on the wheel. the car has multiple alerts and alarms both visible and audible intended to ensure the driver follows that instruction. anyone who drives with their hands off the wheel or doesn't pay attention is willfully ignoring active warnings on the car's part.

Re:In other words.

[OrangeTide]

In the movies the pilot flips a switch, a red light comes on, and he goes to the back of the plane to fight hijackers or have a smoke.

I think it's a poor choice of terminology because there are so many misconceptions about what autopilot is for aircrafts that it's difficult to shift the metaphor to a car.

Having to hold the wheel and pay attention is less useful than cruise control. At least with cruise control I can take my foot off the gas pedal.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the problem is that the general public is ignorant. Being honest, it is their choice to be ignorant.

Re:In other words.

[drinkypoo]

In the movies the pilot flips a switch, a red light comes on, and he goes to the back of the plane to fight hijackers or have a smoke.

Sure, you can do that, if all goes well. People who think they are characters in a movie, though, are spectacular idiots. Life doesn't have a script.

Having to hold the wheel and pay attention is less useful than cruise control. At least with cruise control I can take my foot off the gas pedal.

Yeah, and put it on the brake. Which is where you should have it when it's not on the accelerator. If you're not doing that, you're not using cruise control correctly.

Re:In other words.

[Daralantan]

In the movies the pilot flips a switch, a red light comes on, and he goes to the back of the plane to fight hijackers

I can't wait to turn the auto pilot on in my Tesla and then have a rooftop fight with a hijacker as we blast down the highway at 75mph.

Re:In other words.

[Cederic]

Put in a course that goes into a mountain, and it'll happily fly you right into that mountain.

I broke a fully hydraulic Tornado simulator on an operational RAF base like this.

Not on purpose, I just didn't have much flight experience in ground attack aircraft when i was 14.

Re:In other words.

[OrangeTide]

Sure, you can do that, if all goes well. People who think they are characters in a movie, though, are spectacular idiots. Life doesn't have a script.

My Presidents says he can fight gunmen with his bare hands.

Yeah, and put it on the brake. Which is where you should have it when it's not on the accelerator. If you're not doing that, you're not using cruise control correctly.

If you're riding the brakes then your mechanic must really love all the work you create for him. And if you're holding down the gas pedal you can't also have the same foot hovering over the brake, unless you're doing the 2-foot race driver technique. Myself I don't like replacing brake pads, or overheating my brakes to the point where they don't function. (I drive down steep grades a lot, where cruise control is off and I'm just coasting and trying not to overuse my brakes while also keeping my speed down)

Re:In other words.

[OrangeTide]

The sudden lane changes will make that scene much more dramatic.

Re:In other words.

[Green Mountain Bot]

In the movies the pilot flips a switch, a red light comes on, and he goes to the back of the plane to fight hijackers or have a smoke.

It's not that simple - you have to be prepared to reinflate the autopilot from time to time.

Re:In other words.

[drinkypoo]

If you're riding the brakes then your mechanic must really love all the work you create for him.

I am my mechanic, my brakes last basically forever because I know how to carry speed through a corner by following a line, and if you can't put your foot on the brake pedal without pushing down on it then you shouldn't be driving.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[Mistlefoot]

The quote from Musk and the graph both reference accident reductions with Autosteer. Neither call it Autopilot.

Tesla offers, per their manual:

Autopilot Tech Package:
• Traffic-Aware Cruise Control
• Autosteer
• Auto Lane Change
• Autopark
• Auto High Beam

Why is Musk and the graph specifically referencing Autosteer? I never trust data fully when specific and unexpected words are used. The omission of the word Autopilot implies......

It should be 100% driver or 100% autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words autopilot destructs drivers attention to the road more than a regular mobile phone, so it should be banned. So lets say autopilot assisted driving should be banned for sure. So it should be 100% driver or 100% autopilot

Re: Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot

[msauve]

"...one day I'm doing 50, looking in the glovebox for my favourite Barry Manilow CD, well we all know what happens then."

You want to kill yourself, and let the car help?

Full Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Straight from the horses mouth Full AutoPilot
This reminds me of the area of "unlimited" data.
Tesla clearly advertise this as "Full", as in it needs no more AutoPilot to make it drive around on AutoPilot. AutoPilot is done, settled.
I believe they should be forced to say "Semi" AutoPilot. And cut the crap that it's 100% American Beef when sure, the beef that is in there is 100% but dam that other stench makes up the 90% bullcrap.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If you call it autopilot, it should be an autopilot. If it's a warning system, call it something else. Words mean things.

Fuck Tesla and Fuck Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn liars.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you save 100 lives but are at fault for 1, you're still at fault for 1. Tricky situation.

That Apple engineer truly deserve his Darwin award

If the accident happened to someone who does not know that the autopilot of his car has problems, perhaps Tesla should bear some responsibility

But this idiot already knew --- and had file several complaints on --- his car's autopilot, and yet, for the critical 6 seconds when the alarm sounded and dashboard flashing, that idiot made the decision to *NOT* place his hands on the driving wheel , as though he had a DEATH WISH

How can any one blame Tesla for the fateful action of an idiot with a death wish?

No, I am not associated in any way with Tesla. Heck, I don't even own a Tesla !

Elon MIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk MIA as per usual when bad news is around leaving it to faceless PR drones. Can't wait to see him stutter through a senate hearing after autopilot is invariably responsible for a tragedy.

What's the point?

[superdave80]

Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel.

I already have to do that. What's the point of buying this autopilot-that-isn't-really-an-autopilot?

Re:What's the point?

[pezpunk]

you clearly don't know what an autopilot in a plane does. ask a pilot.

but as someone who has used autopilot many times -- it makes long trips far less taxing, and it makes heavy traffic far less nerve wracking.

Re:What's the point?

[Cederic]

Heavy traffic isn't nerve wracking, and is also when I need the fewest reasons to lose concentration.

If the traffic is light I'll be going fast, and that immediately raises my concentration levels anyway. I don't use cruise control at high speeds because it's easier to just drive.

Re:What's the point?

[Stan92057]

Pilots wont get a 6 second warning before impact either..Cars should not have hands off autopilot function at ALL. A plane has miles of space between it and another plane. Cars have FEET space far too close to warn the driver who not really paying attention because autopilot does allow for hands off, attention away from driving functionality. its not safe its not reliable as at least 10 people have died so far with a tiny amount of cars being tested. The industry need top stop pretending people will use the car on AUTOPILOT and remain hands on and paying full attention its just not going to happen..Cars should be AI assisted to stop a car when the texting jackasses are texting, maybe prevent some deaths..

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know. Airlines are stupid to put this autopilot-that-isn't-really-an-autopilot system in their planes. The two (2!) pilots already have to fly. If they really have autopilot I want my ticket price to be cheaper, and not pay for 2 highly paid pilots when I've already paid for a ticket on a plane with autopilot. Also stewardesses, should be replaced with a perfectly capable safety video and vending machines!

Re:What's the point?

[superdave80]

you clearly don't know what an autopilot in a plane does. ask a pilot.

You clearly don't know that we are talking about cars, not planes. And cars don't require highly trained pilots. What's your point?

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel.

I already have to do that. What's the point of buying this autopilot-that-isn't-really-an-autopilot?

What's the point of cruise control if you still have to have your feat on the pedals?

Re: Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never had a situation where the cruise control radically changed speeds by itself. For all intents, if I wish to remain at that speed, I do not have to keep my foot on the accelerator. It works perfectly.

Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Public transportation - it could've been so good. No car insurance, no car payments, no dui's... Why does everyone need their own personal shuttle?

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[Tom]

That is the point.

1.25 million people die on the road every year, world wide (number from 2013, had it in my head due to unrelated research).

If Tesla has one millionth of the car market, expect on death per year. That would be statistical normality.

The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own words

[catchblue22]

The family admits that the driver had had issues at that exact location. Why on earth would he use it there then? Why wasn't he paying attention near that spot? Why did he ignore the warnings? He was a programmer. He should have known.

Tesla need to change the name.

[bonedonut]

Too many people take 'Autopilot' literally.

Re:Tesla need to change the name.

[pezpunk]

actually it's the opposite. too many people don't know what an aircraft's autopilot does. it doesn't do a lot more than maintain a heading. pilots are expected to remain alert and be prepared to take the yoke at any time.

Re: Is it just me or is this just not an autopilo

[peppepz]

Not an appropriate analogy. Cruise control does the one thing you command it to do, that is to keep the speed constant, and it will do it perfectly and with no exceptions, because that function is well-defined and is better done by a machine than a human. You needn't worry about maintaining the speed when cruise control is engaged.
On the other hand, you command the "autopilot" to take full control of the car without causing accidents, which is an undefined problem (and Tesla is very careful about not defining explicit boundaries), and then it might fail to do that even in the most favourable conditions, such as a straight motorway with perfect visibility. When the "autopilot" is engaged, you need to be constantly wary about the possibility of it doing an abrupt and incomprehensible manouver that might result in your death and the passengers' (this is what Tesla themselves are stating in their public statement when they blame the driver). It's not even remotely in the same domain of dangerousness as cruise control.

Well shit.

[Bobrick]

It's 2018. If you rely on your car's computer to keep you alive, you're a fucking idiot. You don't deserve to die, of course, at all, but don't be so stupid that you expect 2018 tech to work like it's 2040 already.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you call it autopilot, it should be an autopilot. If it's a warning system, call it something else. Words mean things.

Well, plane autopilot will successfully crash the plane if airspeed sensors will malfunction. Check Air France Flight 447 incident. This is exactly same case, autopilot steered the car according to sensors, which have malfunctioned due to unexpected environment situation (bad lane markings). Driver did not pay attention and as a result, crashed straight into concrete pole. I highly doubt pilots are allowed to let autopilot fly unattended.

It was that guy over there

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not our killer cars.

Re: Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot

[thegarbz]

This is sorta-kinda-an-almost-but-not-quite cruise control that works ok most of the time but has failure modes involving death and / or dismemberment.

Well when you list the negative features and ignore the positive you could come up with that. Did you post that on your energy wasting home heating desk box, or on your radiation emitting fragile money wasting glass slab which rings during meetings?

Why would you own things like that?

'Huang'... Hmm... Asian name...

[Anonymous Coward]

And we all know about Asian drivers.

Tesla took a gamble and lost

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla needs to disable the feature.

Not dangerous

[Daralantan]

Wasn't this one of the cases from last week where it said the autopilot was actively steering people towards concrete divider barriers? Where Tesla's response was: "There's nothing unsafe about this at all"?

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[yabos]

It's not even a hands off car since they require you to hold the wheel. Otherwise it'll start yelling at you. They do market it to be capable of more than it really is. They talk about AI and self driving but it's not reliable to be marketed like that yet.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[Daralantan]

Tesla's cars are at best a level two self driving car, that is hands off only.

Tesla cars are a hands off only car, period, the end.

"Tesla sent Dan Noyes a statement Tuesday night that reads in part, "Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel... " Not according to Tesla!

Ability to self assess

[DrYak]

If the AI system doesn't think it can manage things anymore and the user is not responding to input, it should throw the hazard lights on and make an emergency stop.

The first problem is at the "if".
Seems that in some cases, the "Autopilot" is completely persuaded that it is on the correct course.
It genuinely thinks that "straight ahead" is the 100% correct answer to the problem.
In that case it will never fail the driver "Hey, I need help".

Again, it's an "autopilot" (see planes, boats, etc.) just a thing that automatizes some low-level work. The captain of the aiplane/boat/tesla should still keep focus and check that everything goes as it should (it's a "level 2" autonomy. The human is still constantly in charge 100% of the time. Simply the human doesn't *need* to actually interact with the controls 100% of the time. Most of the time, the vehicle could control itself on it own, BUT NOT unattended, human overwatch is mandatory).

And that's what Tesla is arguing.
Not paying attention "just because" autopilot is on, is almost Darwin-award-worthy (just as in a plane or a boat).

Though one might argue that Tesla isn't insisting clearly enough in their marketing material (cue in Elon making a presentation about dreaming that within a coujple of year you could summon your car to come to you)
and/or people make wrong assumption when they see the word "autopilot" (they don't think plane / boat with a captain still in charge, but somewhat think Knight Rider or other Sci-Fi setting).

Then the second problem :
Why the fuck didn't the car see the a huge block of concrete on its course ?
This thing should (probably have) a nice radar signature.
Most of the much more primitive FCAS currently on the street would probably see it and slowdown/stop or ring alarm/hit the break.

Some weird interaction is happening.
Some filtering gone wrong ? (radar system ignoring objects not moving relative to the street, in order to not over-react on each single guardrail ?)
Some precedence conflict ? (the camera system not seeing the lane diverging and overriding "No it's safe, I don't see an obstacle" ?)
That's an error on Tesla's side.

If this is a repeated problem, the system should disable the auto-pilot feature and refuse to let the driver use it. If they want it turned back on, they can write to Tesla and explain why they think that they should be allowed to be a colossal moron with a quarter million joules of kinetic energy.

At some point in time, we might see tiered driving license appearing, with a separate module to train drivers how to use driving assistance tools properly.

Re:Ability to self assess

[Cederic]

the "Autopilot" is completely persuaded that it is on the correct course.

Until it can reliably be right about that, it should know for fucking certain that human oversight is required and safely bring the car to a halt if the human is not providing it.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[drinkypoo]

Yeah the name autopilot is one of the things that kills me about what they are truly selling. Tesla's cars are at best a level two self driving car, that is hands off only. You have to have eyes on and you have to give continual input to the system.

That sounds exactly like autopilot. If you're in a plane using an autopilot, you are legally obligated to remain alert and present. If you are on a boat using autopilot, if you don't remain alert, you will probably sail right into a rock or another vessel. What was your complaint again? Autopilot is exactly like an autopilot? Okay then! Moving on.

However, I also fault Tesla, since they post up videos like that one I linked and people buy their cars thinking, that's what they are getting which it isn't.

Should have linked it again, I'm not going back through your posting history to find it.

Self-Conflicting Statement

[Anonymous Coward]

"Tesla confirmed its data shows Walter Huang was using Autopilot at the time of the crash, but that his hands were off the wheel for six seconds right before impact. "

Tesla sent Dan Noyes a statement Tuesday night that reads in part, "Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel..."

How was the car on autopilot right before the crash if it REQUIRES the driver's hands to be on the wheel, and the driver's hands were not on the wheel? How was the driver using autopilot when he wasn't meeting the basic requirements to us it?

Sounds like there is a fatal bug in Tesla software that allows autopilot to be used with the hands off the wheel. If that is the case then this crash is clearly Tesla's fault.

Six Nominations to the Darwin Award !

[Anonymous Coward]

As I am typing in this comment, 242 others had already commented

Of the 242 comments there are 6 nominations for that dead driver for the much coveted Darwin Award

Perhaps someone should mention this on the igNobel Award ceremony later this year

If only you knew what your iPhone was capable of..

[Anonymous Coward]

If only you knew what your iPhone was capable of and what it's not capable of, you would learn to type propper punctuation.

Re:The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own wo

[mjwx]

The family admits that the driver had had issues at that exact location. Why on earth would he use it there then? Why wasn't he paying attention near that spot? Why did he ignore the warnings? He was a programmer. He should have known.

The car was on Autopilot... You know A-U-T-O-Pilot. The car should have driven itself whilst the attendant sat back watching movies on their phone.

That is the logic you can expect from end users. Warnings are just something to be ignored or at the very worst summarily dismissed. Autonomous cars are something that has been sold to them as a magic bullet to their driving woes. The end user fully believes that their time having to pay minimal attention to the road is at an end and that the car will automatically handle everything for them. Also it's going to eliminate congestion because they can go eleventy bajillion leptons per microfortnight whilst bumper to bumper and there will never, ever be any collisions.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[fluffernutter]

But they don't have anywhere close to one millionth the car market. Furthermore, they don't have anywhere close to one millionth miles driven.

Driver assistance NOT driver replacement

[sjbe]

What good is it even if they say you need to keep your hands on the steering wheel? It doesn't sound very auto to me.

So unless it completely takes over operation of the vehicle you think it is worthless? That's not what the system does.

Per wikipedia it is described as follows: "advanced driver-assistance system feature offered by Tesla that has lane centering, adaptive cruise control, self-parking, ability to automatically change lanes without requiring driver steering, and enables the car to be summoned to and from a garage or parking spot." Note that NOWHERE does it say it drives the vehicle for you or that it is a hands off system. The key words there are DRIVER ASSISTANCE. It is not a driver replacement.

Frankly I pretty much assumed that there would be some Darwin award submissions by idiots who can't figure out that they still need to drive the vehicle.

Sounds like a stupid comment by Tesla.

[Sqreater]

It is a totally unrealistic requirement that one be fully attentive while on autopilot. It is impossible and moots autopilot completely. This argument is just another step toward allowing machines to kill people. Musk knows this. He is not unintelligent, thus, he must be deliberately agitating for machines to be allowed to kill people so he can sell more machines. What do they call a callous, remorseless, conscious-less, manipulative person? This is the same guy who wants to send people to Mars to die for the greater glory of Elon Musk. You know what to call such a person.

Cruise control failures

[sjbe]

Comparing it to cruise control is stupid. Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically.

Tell you what. You get on the highway and put on a non-adaptive cruise control like the one in my car and let it maintain your speed while traffic slows in front of you. Let me know how that didn't "fail catastrophically" when you are done rear ending the car in front of you.

Every accident with the Tesla autopilot I've seen has been idiots relying too heavily on the system thinking it replaces the driver instead of assisting the driver. While it's a capable system, the person behind the wheel still has to use their brain and pay attention and take control of the car.

Re:Cruise control failures

[Cro Magnon]

Cruise control does one thing: maintain speed. Even adaptive CC just does speed. It's obvious, even to a total idiot, that he can't just take his hands off the wheel to play Angry Birds. "AutoPilot", OTOH, appears to allow that - until it doesn't.

Re:Cruise control failures

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it not maintain your speed? That IS the purpose of cruise control after all, so you can focus on more important things, like steering and avoiding other objects...

Re:Cruise control failures

[tehcyder]

Comparing it to cruise control is stupid. Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically.

Tell you what. You get on the highway and put on a non-adaptive cruise control like the one in my car and let it maintain your speed while traffic slows in front of you. Let me know how that didn't "fail catastrophically" when you are done rear ending the car in front of you.

Every accident with the Tesla autopilot I've seen has been idiots relying too heavily on the system thinking it replaces the driver instead of assisting the driver. While it's a capable system, the person behind the wheel still has to use their brain and pay attention and take control of the car.

The point is that you are not lied to and told that your non-adaptive cruise control will magically slow you down if something gets in the way, so you keep watching the fucking road.

It is a fundamental flaw to have a system where you can sort of half watch the road most of the time and probably not have much of an accident unless you're unlucky.

With normal driving, you basically have to concentrate 100% of the time. A self driving car would mean you had to concentrate 0% of the time. It is absurd to have something in between.

Re:Cruise control failures

[Obfuscant]

"AutoPilot", OTOH, appears to allow that - until it doesn't.

No other "autopilot" in any other transportation system allows that. Every other autopilot requires operator attention, even if it is just supervision. That is specifically because of the "until it doesn't" part of the system. Everything can fail. And it did for Mr. Huang.

Re:Cruise control failures

[Obfuscant]

It is a fundamental flaw to have a system where you can sort of half watch the road most of the time and probably not have much of an accident unless you're unlucky.

Except that's the system we have today. Human drivers can already take their eyes off the road for significant* periods of time and probably not have much of an accident. When I drive on the interstate I can see the traffic ahead of me, that the road is straight, and know I can look away to do something else for a short period. I don't need 100% eyes-on just in case a car that isn't there suddenly stops in front of me, or the road that was straight when I last looked at it suddenly leaps out of its bed and makes a 90 degree turn.

With normal driving, you basically have to concentrate 100% of the time.

When you've done it a bit longer, you'll learn when 100% is not necessary. While you still have your learner's permit you probably should concentrate.

* significant doesn't mean 50%, or even 20%. But it is significantly less than 0% you are claiming is necessary.

Please specify

[DrYak]

it should know for fucking certain that human oversight is required and safely bring the car to a halt if the human is not providing it.

So your proposed solution is that if the car detects an unattentive human it should engage automatic emergency slow-down procedure (as if there's an obstacle) ?

Re:Please specify

[Cederic]

No. Emergency stops incur a number of risks that would be unnecessary in this situation. A controlled and steady slow to a halt would suffice.

Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

Who will purchase if the company doesnt cover their product or got the customers back?

Re: The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own w

[saloomy]

No! Your the fucking asswipes that don't get it. It's got AUTOPILOT, not Chauffeur. When you go into an airplane, the pilots sit in front, don't sleep, and watch the skies, the instrumentation, and the aircraft handling, the pilots are paying attention! That is how you operate with autopilot, you don't see the pilots both taking a nap or coming back to schmooze with the flight attendants.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[edtice1559]

And the number of boaters who end up in accidents with their auto-pilot is enough evidence that Tesla is being negligent by using the term.

Read more carefully

[sjbe]

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

Did you read that? It says "HAVE THE HARDWARE" (emphasis mine). It doesn't say it is a functional self driving vehicle or that they have the software to make it work. Now granted someone who isn't reading carefully might be confused but that is clearly NOT a claim that they have a self driving system that is functional today. They just said they put the hardware necessary for that function into the car presumably to be enabled at a later date.

The driver is responsible

[sjbe]

More fundamentally to me is the issue that said car should not drive straight into a wall at full speed without trying to slow down.

Wrong. The DRIVER should not drive straight into the wall without slowing down. It's not the responsibility of the car. The driver/pilot is the one responsible for its safe operation of a moving vehicle. Always. If they abdicate that role for any reason then the driver/pilot is the one who is negligent.

What blows my frigging mind though is that the car will drive into a stationary object with high contrast safety striping without attempting to brake.

Why should that blow your mind? Sensors are not infallible. Neither are people and humans do EXACTLY the same thing with some regularity.

Their "neural net" doesn't seem to be learning some important lessons quickly enough.

Here's a hard truth for you. Safety systems get improved by people getting hurt. it's unfortunate but true. Airplanes are very safe today but the reason they are safe is because a lot of people died to learn the lessons necessary to make them so. Cars are not any different in that respect. People will die to make driverless cars a reality. Many of those lessons are not obvious until after the accidents. As the saying goes the rules are written in blood. The real tragedy would be to not learn from these accidents so that we don't repeat them.

The driver is at fault

[sjbe]

Tesla blames dead driver. Dead driver's family blames Tesla. Who is really at fault here?

Unless there are facts we are unaware of the blame is clearly the driver in this case. He failed to control his vehicle. It doesn't matter what the Autopilot system did or did not do. The driver is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. Tesla's autopilot system is a driver assistance system, not a driver replacement system. The difference between those is not trivial.

Re:The driver is at fault

[dgatwood]

Let me turn that around. Some company builds a car seat, and designs it to withstand collisions at 35 MPH and under. They make it very clear that you are not to use it on highways, but someone does, and a child is killed.

Under your legal theory, the parent is at fault, because the child seat was labeled as being unsuitable for highway use. In practice, the car seat maker loses badly, because it is reasonable to assume that no matter how many warnings are on the box, the owner of such a car seat has a reasonably high chance of choosing to drive at speeds above 35 MPH anyway.

So IMO, the questions that will determine liability in this case are whether it is possible for people to remain as vigilant while their car is steering for them as they would while doing the work themselves, whether the lack of vigilance is something that could have been reasonably predicted by the manufacturer, and whether they took adequate steps to detect a lack of vigilance and disable the feature.

Wrong question

[sjbe]

I'm not asking for perfect. If visibility was as good as Tesla says it was, why couldn't the car stay in its lane, and why did it steer into an obstruction?

While that is a question it is not the important question. The question is why the DRIVER didn't direct the vehicle to stay in its lane and avoid the obstruction. The tool is not at fault here and it seems clear he relied upon it inappropriately. While it seems clear that the autopilot system may have had a flaw of some description the responsibility is still on the driver to steer the vehicle in a safe manner.

Not the fault of the tool

[sjbe]

It's nothing but smart cruise control and lane assist (that kills you).

Regular cruise control will kill you just as dead if you fail to operate the vehicle in a safe manner. It's a driver assistance system not a driver replacement system. It did not kill the driver. The driver's stupid and careless behavior killed the driver.

Re:Not the fault of the tool

[Green Mountain Bot]

Cruise control will kill you, sure, but it will do so by doing exactly what it claims to do: by keeping your speed steady. Forgetting the debate about what "autopilot" means to the public and what it means for real, once thing it is definitely supposed to do is keep you in your lane, and stop the car before you run into something. In this case, it failed spectacularly on both counts.

software guy

[Anonymous Coward]

never think their shit can break. Let's hope they get sued into oblivion

So, it's still in early stage testing

[MerlinTheWizard]

and we already can't determine responsibilities when an accident happens? How is that ever supposed to work out on a large scale? Seriously?

Will companies selling autonomous cars try to put the responsibility on a passenger if they happen to have a driver's license? Again, how a machine is supposed to be deemed responsible? And of course the manufacturer will always try and find ways of proving this is not an autopilot default. What does that change? This is not what responsibility is about. Who cares if you did everything "right"... when you're responsible of something, you're accountable. Period. Who will be responsible?

You can't really compare this to autopilots in commercial planes either, for several reasons. First, the pilot IS responsible in all cases, and an plane's autopilot is NOT supposed to be left unattended. Second, planes' autopilots are not designed to make planes avoid obstacles, but just to follow a programmed route and keep the plane flying at a specified speed and altitude. That's all it does. Autonomous cars have new challenges, both technically and in terms of responsibility, that no one actually knows how to deal with as of now.

Will autonomous cars' victims be considered as just collateral damage?

Re:So, it's still in early stage testing

[david_thornley]

It's because we're in the early stages of testing that there's confusion about liability. Once self-driving cars are reasonably common, to the point where people know what to expect, and a dozen people have died, the liability issues will be mostly sorted out.

Re: The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own w

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was smelling paycheck ....

Re: The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own w

[mlyle]

Look, human beings suck at vigilance tasks. "This is almost always OK, detect the one time in an hour that it's not"-- no one can muster the attention. X-ray screeners use something called the "Threat Image Protection System" which shows them pictures of bombs and guns and keeps them alert (it lets them know it's a test, but helps keep their mind in the "where's the gun in THIS one?" mode instead of "oh, look, another suitcase probably without a gun"). Even S&R dogs find trainers even in the middle of a search else they grow bored with the task.

Autopilots in transport aircraft come with a big master warning and caution system that lets you know about most of the classes of developing problems and are loud about it instead of relying on a flight crew to spot them, because even highly trained, professional flight crews are shitty at detecting changes in something that almost never ever changes. Having a system that avoids steering for the guardrail 99.99% of the time is a recipe for disaster, because it will build confidence and train people not to pay attention.

Bad Marketing "AutoPilot"

[Anonymous Coward]

I always point people to this SAE Autonomy Levels Which roughly explains expected automation and control for a given level.
L0 No Automation
L1 Drive Assistance "Hands On"
L2 Partial Automation "Hands Off"
L3 Conditional Automation "Eyes Off"
L4 High Automation "Mind Off"
L5 Full Automation "Steering Wheel Optional"

People see the word AutoPilot and think at least Level 4-5. In a perfect world auto companies would standardize what their cars can do ex. (SAE Levels) and educate the public. But no one wants to admit their car isn't as good as a competitors. Granted this technology is advancing at a breakneck pace, I would rather see it be figuratively vs literally.

Pay Attention

[Anonymous Coward]

He said PAY ATTENTION.

Death is terrible, and Huangs loss of life is Terrible.

But in a lighter note let me demonstrate how this is not Tesla's fault:

It is against the law to text or otherwise fiddle on your cell phone and drive, because the thinking and intention of the law is that if you are texting, you are not paying enough attention to the automobile or your surroundings, which could be dangerous for yourself and for others.

Now lets move to the Autopilot: If the captain of an airplane with 100 passengers on board has his plane on auto pilot, and has to take a piss, when he leaves the room he makes sure the co pilot is 'watching the road'. If the pilot or the co pilot see a mountain approaching, they would bypass the auto pilot and pull back on the stick. If The captain and co pilot were both texting and not paying attention, everyone would die.

Mr Huang was the captain of that Tesla. He put his airplane on autopilot, and then otherwise appeared to have not been paying attention or may have been distracted from the mountain approaching.

Mr Huang's death is sad, but it is not Tesla's fault.

Not even if the AI driver or autopilot is not quite 'the jetsons'. Tesla pretty explicitly makes it clear, you should PAY ATTENTION!

So Many Tesla Fanboys Here

[Anonymous Coward]

"Autopilot doesn't mean it automatically pilots your car. What are you a fucking moron. Obviously Tesla can't be wrong or be blamed for anything."

I can't wait to see the opposite reaction when it happens in a Chevy.

captcha: evasive (like Tesla, but not like Autopilot)

Re: The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own w

[sabri]

No! You're the fucking asswipes that don't get it. It's got AUTOPILOT, not Chauffeur. When you go into an airplane, the pilots sit in front, don't sleep, and watch the skies, the instrumentation, and the aircraft handling, the pilots are paying attention!

I was going to comment the exact same thing. I happen to be a pilot, albeit for fun only. When I fly my little single engine plane with auto-pilot, it keeps me straight and level, and on the heading that I choose. It does not look out for other airplanes, and I definitely don't have an Ground Proximity Warning System, or a Traffic Collision Avoidance System. So I look around and pay attention, as I should when flying VFR.

Auto-pilot is the same thing. It is a driver assistance function, not an autonomous vehicle function. As sad as this accident is, in my humble opinion the driver earned himself the Darwin Award for not paying attention at a spot where he knew that the function was unreliable AND disregarded signals from the function to take manual control.

That is, unless there were underlying medical conditions that prevented him from doing so. He wouldn't be the first "pilot" to have a heart attack behind the wheel.

Re: The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own w

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem about the term "autopilot" as used by Tesla is that it implies something that it is not. All the verbiage in the owner's manual or displayed when you engage the feature isn't going to overcome this implication (consumers don't read all that stuff any more carefully than they read the TOS on websites they sign up for or the software license agreements).

Most people are probably familiar with term "autopilot" from its use in the context of aircraft or boats/ships. In its primitive form in those contexts, "autopilot" allows you to safely not pay close attention to maintaining heading and altitude and generally allows the human pilot to pay little attention (barring sudden failure of some sort) to what is happening in the next 10 seconds. This allows the pilot to allow themselves to be "distracted" by longer term tasks - is there turbulence ahead and should I fly around it, how's the fuel balance, what are the odds that ORD is on a weather delay, etc. This works in the the sky and water because there are not a lot solid objects, moving or stationary, nearby to run into for much of the trip and the stationary ones are on the charts and taken into account long before they are encountered.

Automobiles are quite different, in fact almost completely opposite... Virtually everything (drunk drivers, road debris, concrete barriers, stopped fire trucks, stalled cars) that the driver needs to worry about is just a few seconds away. Tesla's "autopilot" doesn't allow you to safely apply most of your attention to longer term tasks - instead, virtually all of your attention is still needed on the road to "double check" what "autopilot" is doing every 100ms. So, Tesla's "autopilot", used correctly, really doesn't allow you to do hardly anything different when it is on then when it is off - where is the "auto" in that?

Tesla: JUST STOP CALLING IT AUTOPILOT, call it 'safety assist' or 'collision avoidance' or 'deathguardian' or "grimreaper" -- almost anything but "autopilot". Also, be much more aggressive about making sure the driver IS engaged -- such as hands off the wheel for ANY period of time results in very loud warnings and almost immediate slowdown with hazards coming on and "autopilot" can then not be engaged again for 4 hours. (And maybe a small "stupid light" should be added that is visible to other drivers while you are in "safety assist" timeout to shame drivers who don't use the feature safely - social shaming goes a long ways and also warns others to be careful around your car because you're obviously an unsafe driver).

Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

This is 100% the driver's fault.

When have you heard people blame the autopilot of an airplane because the pilot wasn't paying attention and crashed? You don't, because pilots are generally not idiots who happened to have a license to operate the vehicle fall on their lap.

Not a replacement for driver attention

[sjbe]

The point is that you are not lied to and told that your non-adaptive cruise control will magically slow you down if something gets in the way, so you keep watching the fucking road.

Show me where Tesla has lied about the capabilities of their system. I've never once seen them make the claim that the driver wasn't responsible for watching the road and taking control if the autopilot functions fail for any reason. If the system doesn't kick in early enough the driver should take control. Tesla has been quite unambiguous about this.

It is a fundamental flaw to have a system where you can sort of half watch the road most of the time and probably not have much of an accident unless you're unlucky.

Fortunately no such system is on the road in a production vehicle to my knowledge. The fact that Darwin Award candidates attempt to use them in such a fashion does not change that fact.

With normal driving, you basically have to concentrate 100% of the time. A self driving car would mean you had to concentrate 0% of the time. It is absurd to have something in between.

Anyone who believes these driving aids are a substitute for paying attention is mistaken. The purpose of driving aids is so you can focus your attention on what is critical to pay attention to and to help you do it better or with less effort. It also can provide an additional layer of security in case the driver misses something or becomes distracted. It is NO different than autopilot in a plane. The pilot still has to fly the plane - the autopilot system just helps them do it a little more effectively by partially automating certain tasks. But make no mistake the driver is 100% responsible for controlling their vehicle.

Re: Not a replacement for driver attention

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Tesla, they are never at fault. It's always the drivers fault.

Show me one case where they took responsibility? Just one. I'll wait.

Re:Not a replacement for driver attention

[Swave An deBwoner]

Show me where Tesla has lied about the capabilities of their system. I've never once seen them make the claim that the driver wasn't responsible for watching the road and taking control if the autopilot functions fail for any reason. If the system doesn't kick in early enough the driver should take control. Tesla has been quite unambiguous about this.

OK, here you go:

The text at the beginning of the video at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot states: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF.".

Nothing in that video states that the driver is responsible for anything. He's "ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS".

And he exits the vehicle whereupon the car parks itself; potentially running over a baby crawling in the road perhaps?

Re:Not a replacement for driver attention

[flygeek]

That's a demo of the full self-driving capability, which is also the title of the web page. That is *not* AutoPilot, and it is not currently available. Neither is self-parking after you get out of the car, unless you use the phone app to move the car into a tight space, in which case you have to be standing next to it or it won't work.

Re: Is it just me or is this just not an autopilo

[Anonymous Coward]

A fair point. New tech like this scares the shit out of people, it's always been that way. Consider distrust of the 'horseless carriage,' or really any number of hundreds of human technology advancements.

Thing that cracks me up most about your cruise control analogies is that cruise control is pretty damned dangerous. If you've ever used it in a rural hilly area or through mountain passes on a long drive, even modern systems will absolutely gun it up hills and fail completely to slow at the crest as you come down the backside at a very steep angle. There may even be a sharp turn down there, and at that point you could be going 10 or 15 over the set point.

My guess is people are just used to it, and they realize it's 100% their own responsibility to maintain control of the vehicle when cruise control is engaged. It doesn't have that 'magic AI guardian angel' feel to it. In fact sometimes it straight up feels like it's *trying* to kill you ;)

Re: Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... "Barry Manilow" and "CD"... I'd say you're probably more likely to die of old age while driving than from "autopilot" letting you down.

Programmer != smart 100% of the time

[lamer01]

I mean, please, look around.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the machine needs to recalculate everything, which if you're going highway speeds, you're going to end up dead before the car figures it out.

Well, not always dead -- sometimes you just end up sitting red-faced in your totaled Tesla wondering how much your insurance company is going to have to pay for the scratch on the corner of the bumper of a bright red fire truck.

Re: The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own w

[Swave An deBwoner]

sabri writes:

Auto-pilot is the same thing. It is a driver assistance function, not an autonomous vehicle function.

Tesla however writes:
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

"Full self-driving" sounds an awful lot like an "autonomous vehicle function" as you phrased it.

Clear Tesla Failure

[Bitbeard]

At some point, the car should have realized it was about to collide with something and applied the brakes. It did not. Fault = Tesla.

Apparently this is not on the programming flowchart: Not Crashing > Staying in Lane.

Re: The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own w

[Obfuscant]

"Full self-driving" sounds an awful lot like an "autonomous vehicle function" as you phrased it.

Context: they're talking about the hardware. Software isn't there yet.

Also, "substantially greater" isn't "perfect".

Re: Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Cruise control is so you don't have to keep a foot on the gas pedal if you know you aren't in stop and go traffic. It's to help fatigue. It's not so you can stop paying attention to speed. Obviously if you have to slow down you put your foot back on the brake. This is not Tesla's problem with calling it "AutoPilot" or with what it does. This is entirely people being lazy with their own safety and others around them. If you own a Tesla, then you are not living in a pre-technology box. You have a reasonably high income and are most likely aware of things going on around the brand. You will have heard of other instances of people getting into accidents due to ignoring autopilot warnings. If you then get into an accident for the exact same thing, that is YOUR fault.

Calling it a version of cruise control is exactly right. You still have to be aware, but don't have to continuously move the wheel, brakes and accelerator on your own. AutoPilot in a plane does not "automatically fly the plane". It helps you stay on a course and level. In nowhere else in life can you claim ignorance and get away with it. This is no exception.

Re:Is it just me or is this just not an autopilot?

[Tom]

Let's do the math. Let's focus on the USA, numbers are easier to get and Tesla has most of its business there:

Number of cars on the road:
https://www.statista.com/stati...

Number of road deaths:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

2015 Numbers:
35,485 deaths from 263,610,220 cars.
1 death per 7.429 cars.

Did Tesla have more than 7429 cars on the road in 2016 in the USA?

According to this source:
https://cleantechnica.com/2016...

They sold (in the US) 26,566 cars in 2015 alone, and 18,480 the year before. So even by a conservative estimate, Tesla had at least 40,000 cars on the road in 2015.

Statistically speaking, 5 people should have died in Tesla cars in 2015 in the US alone.

If I remember correctly, either one person or no person died in 2015 (the first fatal crash was 2016, but I could be mistaken). In either case, that is far below the statistically expected value.

Q.E.D.

Re:The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own wo

[Anonymous Coward]

The car was on Autopilot... You know A-U-T-O-Pilot. The car should have driven itself whilst the attendant sat back watching movies on their phone.

Well if you want to play that game on the wording, then it is still NOT what you said. Auto-pilot doesn't mean auto-avoid-accident. It is simply something that keeps going in motion. The only correct thing from you is that humans tend to misinterpret the meaning of words.

Re: The lawsuit is likely doomed by family's own w

[The123king]

The hardware is there, the software isn't. Everyone has enough hardware to fly to the moon in their pocket. I doubt they have the software required though.

Foolish

[Anonymous Coward]

Naming the system auto pilot, giving it auto pilot like functionality, and then expecting people to maintain alertness while it is in use is unreasonable. In air & space there's a notion, and I forget what it's called, but basically the intent is to engineer systems that are safe while taking into account human factors that are likely to occur despite training. What Tesla is doing here is a recipe for deaths to happen, I'm a pilot, I'm more mindful behind the wheel I suspect than most, and I'm not sure I could do it, if it works 99% of the time it's just going to be too tempting to loose focus.