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."
[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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.