Model X Crash on US-101 (Mountain View, CA)

[bhzmark]

It's part of City Safety which is driver assistance package. Here's more information on the sensor on the S60.

City Safety – Laser sensor

Interesting it's from 2016 and they seem to have dropped it since then?

sensor
City Safety™ is a support system designed to help the driver avoid low speed collisions when driving in slow-moving, stop-and-go traffic.

 

[mongo]

I fully understand it is not suppose to cross by any driver whether it is computer assisted or not and I have no expectation or demands.

This is just my observation and let myself and others to know the behaviors, let say if someone expect the AP will exit highway for you safely (which it doesn't) and there may be scenario that it finds the latest gap and trying to turn. The more I am familiar with the behavior, the more I know when I can trust it and when I need to be cautious or avoid using it

That is one thing, but the video title seemed to indicate the behavior was wrong 'bug'. If you are in Texas, the solid white line is legal to cross. So the car started the lane change that was requested.

I also would like it be more situation aware. That will happen via vision system and better maps, but for the time being, it mostly just does what you ask it to.

 

[cbdream99]

That is one thing, but the video title seemed to indicate the behavior was wrong 'bug'. If you are in Texas, the solid white line is legal to cross. So the car started the lane change that was requested.

I also would like it be more situation aware. That will happen via vision system and better maps, but for the time being, it mostly just does what you ask it to.

Certainly I like to see it to be the system obeys traffic rules and situation to make the right decision, but Tesla can decide this is work as design but I will leave for them to make the decision. I am in software industry, I don't mind others to open bug report and I will not feel offended by it. If it is a current limit or work just as designed then so be it, but I will not be picky on how a customer classified an issue

 

[AudubonB]

on "Crossing White Lines":

Those of you who are arguing the above - I do not know what California statues are, but I can authoritatively state that in some U.S. states, crossing into the gore is absolutely prohibited.

Another way of stating this is that not all white lines are created equal.

The sub-discussion of this would be greatly improved were someone to cite Chapter & Verse from the California code.

 

[mongo]

on "Crossing White Lines":

Those of you who are arguing the above - I do not know what California statues are, but I can authoritatively state that in some U.S. states, crossing into the gore is absolutely prohibited.

Another way of stating this is that not all white lines are created equal.

The sub-discussion of this would be greatly improved were someone to cite Chapter & Verse from the California code.

Didn't I already? California vehicle code has no mention of solid white lines or gore points (named as such). The California Driver Handbook says

Solid white lines mark traffic lanes going in the same direction, such as one-way streets.

 

[TaoJones]

So you would be happy, but does does that make it accurate? Nautical AP is purely heading, no lane following, no collision avoidance. Airplane is heading and altitude, no lane following, no collision avoidance. And in both cases, the base version only handles the craft heading/pointing direction, not the actual ground track.

It would reduce confusion to those who don't know what the term means, but is catering to the minimum the best route? One might make the reverse case that people who are used to Tesla AP may expect too much from their future plane or boat systems. My boat ran over a boat, what kind of AP is this?

In no particular order:

Marine AP systems of today, and even 20 years ago although not in as spiffy an integrated manner, absolutely offer collision alarms based upon radar - see any Furuno system for that. And as far as collision *avoidance* goes, I'm not sure that's the sharpest tool in the shed given recent events. I certainly don't trust my car to avoid a collision. My previous car, maybe - but that was an AP1 car and we all saw that nifty video of an AP1 car avoiding an encroaching work truck. AP2? Not so much yet. But that's not the point.

As the market transitions from early adopters to the masses, designing for the LCD (lowest common... not liquid crystal...) is indeed necessary.

Think of it this way - had AP been called Driver Assist from the get, and had FSD been called AP, again from the get, who would have complained?

In a perfect world, we'd give credit to people for not being, to channel Ren & Stimpy, eeeeeediots. And I understand Elon's rationale for calling AP AP. I just don't think that was or will be, in hindsight, his best decision.

 

[FlatSix911]

I drove this section of Hwy-101 southbound to the Hwy 85 left HOV flyover exit and found that the inertia barrier had been repaired.
I believe CalTrans knows they are in hot water with their lax maintenance standards and poor response times and they made this a priority.

 

[TEG]

Yes, we saw that they were out there first thing Monday after the weekend had passed.
I think it has been confirmed that they left it collapsed for 11 days prior to the Tesla crash, but fixed it basically 3 days later (once the situation hit the news.)

Also, old street view pictures suggest that it could have been left collapsed much longer than 11 days (maybe even months) sometimes.

 

[mongo]

In no particular order:

Marine AP systems of today, and even 20 years ago although not in as spiffy an integrated manner, absolutely offer collision alarms based upon radar - see any Furuno system for that. And as far as collision *avoidance* goes, I'm not sure that's the sharpest tool in the shed given recent events. I certainly don't trust my car to avoid a collision. My previous car, maybe - but that was an AP1 car and we all saw that nifty video of an AP1 car avoiding an encroaching work truck. AP2? Not so much yet. But that's not the point.

As the market transitions from early adopters to the masses, designing for the LCD (lowest common... not liquid crystal...) is indeed necessary.

Think of it this way - had AP been called Driver Assist from the get, and had FSD been called AP, again from the get, who would have complained?

In a perfect world, we'd give credit to people for not being, to channel Ren & Stimpy, eeeeeediots. And I understand Elon's rationale for calling AP AP. I just don't think that was or will be, in hindsight, his best decision.

I dig. He's a engineer, technically right is the best kind of right even if it's problematic.

Our sailboat had autopilot: an electric linear actuator that attached to the tiller and you set a heading on the spin knob. No radar. LCD planes with autopilot have no radar either.

Maybe instead of a warning screen, the car should give a quiz on what it does and doesn't do before you can use the features....

 

[TEG]

on "Crossing White Lines":
Those of you who are arguing the above - I do not know what California statues are, but I can authoritatively state that in some U.S. states, crossing into the gore is absolutely prohibited.
Another way of stating this is that not all white lines are created equal.
The sub-discussion of this would be greatly improved were someone to cite Chapter & Verse from the California code.

I posted a bunch about white line crossing myths, regulations and superstitions back here:

Model X Crash on US-101 (Mountain View, CA)
Model X Crash on US-101 (Mountain View, CA)
Model X Crash on US-101 (Mountain View, CA)
Model X Crash on US-101 (Mountain View, CA)

Including these links:
Can you cross a solid white line on a California road? – The Mercury News
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?...tent_en/dmv/pubs/dl603/teen_htm/drivingskills
Unsafe Lane Change Defense, VC 21658(A)
Wayback Machine

 

[Bladerskb]

The AP detected something abnormal and warned the driver for 5 seconds,
but the driver did not took control during the time where a sonor and a flashing warnings were emitted.

So, who is at fault?

BTW, do we know what the AP find abnormal to trigger a warning signal?

No AP didn't find anything abnormal and DIDN'T trigger ANY warning.
There were no warning. Reread tesla statement again and this time try to weave through their specially crafted sentence

 

[TEG]

http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/rese...reliminary_investigation_12-12-13_revised.pdf

...Section 2E.37 of the MUTCD, “Exit Gore Signs,” defines the gore as “the area located between the main roadway and the ramp just beyond where the ramp branches from the main roadway.”1 The exit gore sign indicates the exiting point, or place of departure from the main roadway. The MUTCD further specifies that an exit gore sign “shall be located in the gore and shall carry the word EXIT or EXIT XX (if interchange numbering is used) and an appropriate upward slanting arrow.”...

The south end of the 101/85 splits used to have one of those:

Are they out of "compliance" now because they don't have one of those at either end?

I wonder if they changed the regulations/guidelines recently to no longer require those "on the gore" signs... The study document above mentions wanting to just use overhead signs instead so that Caltrans workers don't have to spend time in the roadway repairing those "on gore point" signs.

But this brings up the point that it would be harder for a driver (and autopilot camera) to identify the actual gore point if they stopped putting risen, uniform signs on them like we see in that picture above.

I think maybe that bus crash broke the sign off, and they never replaced it...

In the case of the X crash, I think the only gore warning sign was very "close to the pavement", somewhat damaged, and the pavement markings are faded/worn out. There were also numerous old (no longer relevant) signs in the area that added to "visual clutter". Also questions if there were adequate lane delineators in the first place.

My sense is there is a tendency to favor road worker safety over driver safety as these things get redesigned. Sometimes you can help both, but sometimes there are trade-offs.

 

[power.saver]

The EXIT gore signs are required.

From the California MUTCD Section 2E.37 Exit Gore Signs:

Standard:


02 The gore shall be defined as the area located between the main roadway and the ramp just beyond


where the ramp branches from the main roadway. The Exit Gore sign shall be located in the gore and shall

carry the word EXIT or EXIT XX (if interchange numbering is used) and an appropriate upward slanting

arrow. If suffix letters are used for exit numbering at a multi-exit interchange, the suffix letter shall also be

included on the Exit Gore sign and shall be separated from the exit number by a space having a width of

between 1/2 and 3/4 of the height of the suffix letter. Breakaway or yielding supports shall be used.

 

[22522]

I drove this section of Hwy-101 southbound to the Hwy 85 left HOV flyover exit and found that the inertia barrier had been repaired.
I believe CalTrans knows they are in hot water with their lax maintenance standards and poor response times and they made this a priority.
View attachment 291620

I agree with TEG... there needs be a tall sign in the age of SUVs.

Just put a vertically oriented Class 3 receiver on the front of the inertial barrier and drop an aluminum post with a green sign on it before you leave.

Incremental risk to the crew is less, because the tall sign does not sneak up on people like a submarine/sub hood surface inertial barrier - at least to SUVs and trucks. Recall, the barrier remnants were not even tall enough to wrinkle the hood!

 

[TEG]

http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/rese...reliminary_investigation_12-12-13_revised.pdf

 

[mongo]

I posted a bunch about white line crossing myths, regulations and superstitions back here:

The first item in the last image is wrong, it is only double white lines that are non-crossible (per the right side references). The third item even states that single white lines can be crossed.

 

[T34ME]

2) Medium to light rain at night: Because of water reflection and angles, I couldn't clearly see some lane markings but Autopilot has been doing very fine.

I haven't experienced dense fog but for light fog, I still use Autopilot but I do slow down so I can see what's ahead.

As a former, long time resident of the San Joaquin Valley, I am familiar with Tule Fog. (When 21 y.o., I had a minor collision in the fog going 25 mph on a road posted at 65 mph. Even though the vehicle I struck was making an illegal U-Turn in the middle of a busy highway and I hit it in the rear fender, the CHP said I was at fault because I must have been going too fast for the conditions if I couldn't stop in time!!!!!!!!! The other driver was cited for drunk driving.) Anyway, my question to you is, in the conditions you describe above, would you set your AP following distance to "minimum", or "maximum"? I know what I would have it set on in those conditions.

 

[buttershrimp]

As a former, long time resident of the San Joaquin Valley, I am familiar with Tule Fog. (When 21 y.o., I had a minor collision in the fog going 25 mph on a road posted at 65 mph. Even though the vehicle I struck was making an illegal U-Turn in the middle of a busy highway and I hit it in the rear fender, the CHP said I was at fault because I must have been going too fast for the conditions if I couldn't stop in time!!!!!!!!! The other driver was cited for drunk driving.) Anyway, my question to you is, in the conditions you describe above, would you set your AP following distance to "minimum", or "maximum"? I know what I would have it set on in those conditions.

I just made the horrifying mistake of seaching you tube for video of accidents. FSD can't get here fast enough.

 

[Doug_G]

I would appreciate a better understanding on this.

The system only shows an idealized version of where it thinks the lines are.

It will also show you car icons (that look like Teslas) of where the car in front of you is, and maybe the next one further up the lane. (AP1 also differentiated between trucks and cars, and would show you vehicles ahead of you in the adjacent lanes.)

 

[dgatwood]

Didn't I already? California vehicle code has no mention of solid white lines or gore points (named as such). The California Driver Handbook says

Article I section 21651 of the California vehicle code makes it illegal.