Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
``OK, so ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, yeah?''
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.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.