3 ms·

> They said that the radar and camera detected the trailer but that it looked like an overhead sign and so was ignored. Has Tesla or NTSB actually said that?

• mikeash 10y ago
  Looking into it, Elon Musk said that the radar ignores overhead signs, but he didn't actually say that was what happened in this case: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/748625979271045121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/748625979271045121?ref_s... I don't think it matters much. The main thing is that the system didn't detect the trailer. Exactly why it failed to detect the trailer is interesting, but doesn't change anything about fault or responsibility. And if Tesla is still considering the possibility, then apparently it's hard enough to figure out that just releasing logs wouldn't help us.
  • etendue 10y ago
    > The main thing is that the system didn't detect the trailer. Has that information been made public? Unless it has, that statement would also appear to be speculative at this point. > Exactly why it failed to detect the trailer is interesting, but doesn't change anything about fault or responsibility. I would say that it is far too early to make that declaration, given that the investigation is ongoing.
    • mikeash 10y ago
      From Tesla's original post about the crash: "Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky" - https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss I have trouble imagining the underlying reasons for this being particularly interesting. I guess if the lighting was so bad that even the driver couldn't see the trailer then that would excuse him from fault, but I don't see how it changes Tesla's role in it.
      • etendue 10y ago
        Short of an unholy ritual involving the supernatural, Tesla PR or Musk can only guess as to what the driver noticed in this case, and neither can accurately speak to what the either the driver or car did or did not do until the investigation is completed. I think there's a lot to be concerned about wrt. AutoPilot and I plan on thoroughly reading the completed investigation reports.
        • madmax96 10y ago
          But Autopilot users are supposed to be watching the road. Assuming this is the case, if the user had seen the vehicle he ought to have applied the breaks.
          • etendue 10y ago
            As a famous engineer said, "and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." Something to consider is that a "good" risk analysis takes into account the foreseeable use and misuse of a product based on the information available. Given that it is no secret that AutoPilot users have used the system contrary to directions, it is reasonable to demand that the risk analysis be updated to account for this reality (assuming it did not account for this) as part of the continuous PLM process.
            • mikeash 10y ago
              The risk analysis certainly needs to account for misuse, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the product needs to be designed to prevent it. If cars were designed that way, they'd all be governed to 85MPH and refer the driver for mandatory training if they failed to signal for turns too frequently.
        • mikeash 10y ago
          The driver never braked. It's possible that he noticed the trailer and refrained from braking for some reason, but that would be really weird. I don't see why they have to wait for an investigation to talk about what the car did, nor about what the driver did with the car. They have all that information. The purpose of the investigation is to contextualize that information and incorporate external information like the speed and position of the truck in the time leading up to the crash.