Autopilot: Crashed at 40mph

[mspohr]

It is hard to keep track of them, but this thread is about the I5 incident where the driver didn't realize she had disengaged AP and AEB

My bad. Looks like I confused this thread with another.
Hard to imagine this person realizing that she needed to stop and avoid a crash but not applying the brake.
I have found the car works well in stop and go traffic but I'm always monitoring to make sure it slows down when it should.

 

[Electricfan]

It is hard to keep track of them, but this thread is about the I5 incident where the driver didn't realize she had disengaged AP and AEB

Not exactly, unless you think its ok to redefine what the thread is about as something different from what the OP put in the first post. I don't. The OP states AP was on.
Tesla states AP was off.

Believe who you will. I'll go the the person who was in the car vs the company with millions at risk if AP malfunctioned. Again, why does everybody think Tesla has such a halo? They're a profit centered capitalist organization. Just because you like EVs doesn't mean they are angels, folks...

 

[stopcrazypp]

Not exactly, unless you think its ok to redefine what the thread is about as something different from what the OP put in the first post. I don't. The OP states AP was on.
Tesla states AP was off.

Believe who you will. I'll go the the person who was in the car vs the company with millions at risk if AP malfunctioned. Again, why does everybody think Tesla has such a halo? They're a profit centered capitalist organization. Just because you like EVs doesn't mean they are angels, folks...

In the van crash, the owner said Tesla confirmed AP was on in the logs. So in this case, I don't see why we should chose to not believe what Tesla says is in the log by default, simply because it is unfavorable to the driver. If the owner decides to have a lawsuit it'll be subpoenaed anyways, so I don't see why Tesla would lie about it; rather if there was something Tesla would be legally liable for, Tesla would rather not comment on it (at least that's how lawyers typically work). Of course what you decide to do yourself is your own decision.

Ultimately it doesn't matter either way (in both of the cases), the driver is still the responsible party.

 

[Tam]

...In the van crash, the owner said Tesla confirmed AP was on in the logs...

In this thread's Lebec, CA case, the article relayed what Tesla said: At the moment of the crash, the log showed the AP was off. The cancellation of AP was a direct result from the driver's action of applying on the braking pedal.

In the other thread's Switzerland Van crash case. The owner indeed said that the log showed both AP & TACC were on.

However, the Switzerland owner admitted that he applied the brake because the car accelerated so it was too late to bring it to a stop.

It would be interesting to see what the actual Switzerland log would actually said at the moment of the owner's manual braking: Was the AP disabled at that time or was it still "on" at the moment of the crash.

 

[malcolm]

Quick follow-up, some more info on when AEB will not apply from the manual:



Note the 3rd point. If you press the brakes, that doesn't cancel AEB. Press and release of the brakes does.

Not sure that in an emergency situation I would have the presence of mind to release the brake pedal.

Does the AEB cancel with multiple inputs? Press brake + turn steering wheel + scream like a girl into the voice recognition system?

Or would that just provide a Taylor Swift accompaniment to my (slightly slower) crash?

 

[Ivo-G]

In this thread's Lebec, CA case, the article relayed what Tesla said: At the moment of the crash, the log showed the AP was off. The cancellation of AP was a direct result from the driver's action of applying on the braking pedal.

In the other thread's Switzerland Van crash case. The owner indeed said that the log showed both AP & TACC were on.

However, the Switzerland owner admitted that he applied the brake because the car accelerated so it was too late to bring it to a stop.

It would be interesting to see what the actual Switzerland log would actually said at the moment of the owner's manual braking: Was the AP disabled at that time or was it still "on" at the moment of the crash.

As per the design, hitting the brakes turns TACC and AP off. So it's all a matter of semantics, "AP was off" could mean "Off way before the accident" or "On until moments before the crash, turned off by Brake activation". Unless you have a detailed timeline of events (which Tesla has but doesn't release without court order) the statement about the AP's state made by the driver or Tesla might just as well have been uttered by Schrödinger himself.

 

[Electricfan]

Ultimately it doesn't matter either way (in both of the cases), the driver is still the responsible party.

People keep repeating this, but it is only conjecture at this point because no AP trial has happened yet. The truth is the courts will decide if Tesla's "beta" defense holds water one day. Until then, who's responsible is a matter of opinion. I hold Tesla responsible for a dangerous "beta" product, risking human lives before the technology is ready. Just my opinion.

 

[Tam]

...I hold Tesla responsible for a dangerous "beta" product, risking human lives before the technology is ready...

There's already a thread on Lemon lawsuit claiming that "Auto Pilot in the rain is extremely dangerous."

Elon said Autopilot is “twice as good as a person” which is far from a perfect 100% foolproof.

Even though the technology is not ready, it is worse to delay its introduction such as Google who would not release its Accident Avoidance Technology until they will perfect it.

I would rather take what partially or "beta" the technology is right now and grow with it or otherwise who knows how many more years will we have to wait.

 

[stopcrazypp]

People keep repeating this, but it is only conjecture at this point because no AP trial has happened yet. The truth is the courts will decide if Tesla's "beta" defense holds water one day. Until then, who's responsible is a matter of opinion. I hold Tesla responsible for a dangerous "beta" product, risking human lives before the technology is ready. Just my opinion.

Tesla doesn't need a "beta" defense. The situations described here are no different from ACC based crashes and ACC has been around for a long time (as has cruise control). All autopilot did was add autosteer, but that doesn't suddenly raise the liability bar for Tesla (neither of the crashes here involved steering).

We won't reach that point until we reach level 3 or level 4 autonomy, while Tesla is very adamant they are purely level 2 (they insist people keep their eyes on the road ready to take over and even tell people to keep their hands on the wheel).
Autonomous car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[brianman]

... for the info relevant to our discussion ...

Thanks! I'll try to look in depth once I have some time.

 

[Spidy]

Tesla doesn't need a "beta" defense. The situations described here are no different from ACC based crashes and ACC has been around for a long time (as has cruise control). All autopilot did was add autosteer, but that doesn't suddenly raise the liability bar for Tesla (neither of the crashes here involved steering).

We won't reach that point until we reach level 3 or level 4 autonomy, while Tesla is very adamant they are purely level 2 (they insist people keep their eyes on the road ready to take over and even tell people to keep their hands on the wheel).
Autonomous car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many manufacturers called ACC Autopilot?

 

[davidc18]

Classic cruise control, TACC, AutoPilot ... it does not matter - in all cases at all times the driver is responsible for the safe movement of the vehicle. The failure is with the driver.

I have always thought that Tesla needs to do a great deal more to explain the limitations of TACC and Auto Steering. I do think that they significantly over promise on the systems abilities.

That being said, the driver is always responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. If the technology is confusing, then do not use it.

 

[Az_Rael]

I have always thought that Tesla needs to do a great deal more to explain the limitations of TACC and Auto Steering. I do think that they significantly over promise on the systems abilities.

I think this is what will get them in trouble in the end - the marketing of Autopilot. I suspect people don't know they are confused about how the system works until they get into trouble. It seems very simple on the surface - the car can drive itself on the freeway in traffic.

I do wonder if adding Autosteer does affect people psychologically more than just TACC would. Since TACC is available on lots of cars without lots of problems, I think people understand it's just a fancier cruise control, but should still be treated like cruise control (overridden in dicey situations). But you add in the Autosteer lane keeping and lane changing ability, and suddenly the car seems much smarter than it is.

 

[malcolm]

...the statement about the AP's state made by the driver or Tesla might just as well have been uttered by Schrödinger himself.

Ah yes. An AP system that is both Aut-ON-omous and Aut-OFF-omous at the same time.

Gives you matching Fuzzy Logic and Dice. You can roll with either. Nice. ;-)

 

[davidc18]

I think this is what will get them in trouble in the end - the marketing of Autopilot. I suspect people don't know they are confused about how the system works until they get into trouble. It seems very simple on the surface - the car can drive itself on the freeway in traffic.

I do wonder if adding Autosteer does affect people psychologically more than just TACC would. Since TACC is available on lots of cars without lots of problems, I think people understand it's just a fancier cruise control, but should still be treated like cruise control (overridden in dicey situations). But you add in the Autosteer lane keeping and lane changing ability, and suddenly the car seems much smarter than it is.

+1 - Well said

 

[Electricfan]

All autopilot did was add autosteer, but that doesn't suddenly raise the liability bar for Tesla..."

Well, at least we've found the exact point on which we don't agree. I can't understand how anyone would think adding autosteer doesn't raise the liability bar, but now at least I understand you and why you think the driver is responsible if AP wrecks the car.

No, adding autosteer dramatically raises the liability for Tesla, and they know it. That's why they put "beta" on AP, and that's what they're going to use to try and deflect responsibility in the event of a death caused by AP. We'll see if it works, but I doubt it will.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Well, at least we've found the exact point on which we don't agree. I can't understand how anyone would think adding autosteer doesn't raise the liability bar, but now at least I understand you and why you think the driver is responsible if AP wrecks the car.

No, adding autosteer dramatically raises the liability for Tesla, and they know it. That's why they put "beta" on AP, and that's what they're going to use to try and deflect responsibility in the event of a death caused by AP. We'll see if it works, but I doubt it will.

Other manufacturers had auto-steer also, but it is just that Tesla's is the best out there. The increase in liability is related to steering related accidents, however, neither of these accidents are steering related.

Both of these are exactly the same braking/acceleration rated accidents as would happen with ACC. And at least in the van incident, it was exactly the situation described in practically every ACC manual as something the system can't handle reliably (a stationary vehicle). I have not seen a successful lawsuit against automakers for crashes related to ACC (perhaps if you have, you can point out some examples) despite the existence of ACC for at least a couple of years.

 

[Cosmacelf]

I think this is what will get them in trouble in the end - the marketing of Autopilot. I suspect people don't know they are confused about how the system works until they get into trouble. It seems very simple on the surface - the car can drive itself on the freeway in traffic.

I do wonder if adding Autosteer does affect people psychologically more than just TACC would. Since TACC is available on lots of cars without lots of problems, I think people understand it's just a fancier cruise control, but should still be treated like cruise control (overridden in dicey situations). But you add in the Autosteer lane keeping and lane changing ability, and suddenly the car seems much smarter than it is.

Yeah, the fact that it works really well for long stretches of freeway, and then suddenly fails for a variety of reasons, is the real problem. It really does lull you into complacency. It is all very nice to get up on your high horse and say that people who don't monitor the road when AP is running are losers, stupid and deserve to die. Our brains, though, are wired to adapt to situations. When you drive 100 trouble free miles, it is human nature to get sloppy.

I suspect that is why other automakers have decided to be much more cautious than Tesla when rolling out AP. This version requires constant vigilance, and that's too much to ask of the average driver. Note that even Mobileye's CEO characterized Tesla's AP as very aggressive.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yeah, the fact that it works really well for long stretches of freeway, and then suddenly fails for a variety of reasons, is the real problem. It really does lull you into complacency. It is all very nice to get up on your high horse and say that people who don't monitor the road when AP is running are losers, stupid and deserve to die. Our brains, though, are wired to adapt to situations. When you drive 100 trouble free miles, it is human nature to get sloppy.

I suspect that is why other automakers have decided to be much more cautious than Tesla when rolling out AP. This version requires constant vigilance, and that's too much to ask of the average driver. Note that even Mobileye's CEO characterized Tesla's AP as very aggressive.

What I don't get is how is it any worse than ACC or other ACC/autosteer systems? The burden on the brain is even less than in ACC (now you don't even have to do steering adjustments). Why is it suddenly because it is "AP" some people's brains turn into mush (according to arguments here)?

The fact of the matter is that the system requires your attention, just like other ACC/autosteer, ACC only, or cruise control systems. What is that so hard to accept? If you treat it the same way as cruise control, I don't see how it is such a big deal, but rather drastically reduces fatigue.

 

[Tam]

...Why is it suddenly because it is "AP" some people's brains turn into mush (according to arguments here)?...

If you are Chuck Yeager who signed up for Test Pilot position, you would have to go through a very strict screening process and you would know for sure what it is about.

Chuck Yeager suffered a few near misses that almost costed his life. For example, the Lockheed NF-104 aircraft crashed and he got injuries but he wouldn't sue for all those mishaps (depicted in the movie "The Right Stuff.")

It goes with the territory. You signed up for it and it's on you.

With Autopilot, people don't understand that the $2,500 they pay is for the privilege of being a "Test Pilot."

There's no strict screening process here but the act of paying is an active process that buyers should learn why they paid for the optional Autopilot.

They don't understand that there are limitations including the rain that the Lemon Lawsuit complained.

They don't understand that the manual says very clearly that you cannot rely on Tesla ABE because it is not designed to brake to a stop but only to reduce the speed and then let the brakes go free again but people still have misconception that it's a last ditch emergency braking system that would save the day.

Chuck Yeager could have sued for being used as a Guinea Pig but that only slowing down the problem solving process.

The productive way in these cases is to learn how accidents happen and learn to operate within its current limitations until an improvement can be made.