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."
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.
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?
[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.
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
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
Tesla blames driver for using the Autopilot in exactly the way you'd expect 90% of Autopilot users to use it.
I stole this Sig
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)
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!
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.
I stole this Sig
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?
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.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
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.
That sounds stressful to me, not awesome.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
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.
Teslas don't have lidar. Your thinking of Google cars.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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......
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?
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.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Too many people take 'Autopilot' literally.
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.
it's statistically safer than non-autonamous driving.
i could live a little longer in this prison
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It is very clearly an AI. Just not a good attempt, at least not yet.
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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
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.