4 ms·

Wow, the autopilot failed spectacularly there. This really is something that is should have caught, IMO. It doesn't even seem to have tried to avoid it, even

Wow, the autopilot failed spectacularly there. This really is something that is should have caught, IMO. It doesn't even seem to have tried to avoid it, even once it got very close. Even if you consider it a co-pilot, unless someone is paying as much attention as if they were really driving and was right in position to take control, I don't think they could have done much to mitigate this. At best, they might have jerked the car into the next lane, but even that could cause a fatal crash of that car or surrounding cars.

spuz 10y ago
There's no evidence that Autopilot was enabled. It won't perform any avoiding action if it is not enabled.
- the-dude 10y ago
  There is no evidence that Autopilot was disabled either.
  - Cshelton 10y ago
    No. But it is misleading for media to report "autopilot" caused a crash when we don't know yet.
    - the-dude 10y ago
      Which media did ?
    - whamlastxmas 10y ago
      They did the same thing when a woman plowed into the side of the building at 30MPH. Obviously Tesla said it wasn't enabled, but reporters didn't wait to hear back from Tesla.
mikeash 10y ago
Inability to reliably detect completely stationary objects is a known and documented deficiency of the system. Not making excuses, just saying it's not a big surprise. My experience with the system is that it actually allows you to be more aware of things like this, because you can devote all of your attention to scanning the road far ahead, instead of switching between the distance and nearby details like where you are relative to the lines. However, that requires using the system in a way that understands and accommodates its limitations, which not everybody does.
- efraim 10y ago
  Then they should really design the system with the limitations in mind so that it can only be used like that. It seems like it allows for too much time without hands on the wheel with only a warning that can be ignored.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I agree that it would be great if the system could only be used that way, but I don't see how that could be accomplished. Having your hands on the wheel has almost no correlation with paying attention to the road. I frequently watch the road carefully without touching the wheel, and it's easy to hold the wheel while staring at the clouds or with your eyes closed.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Eye tracking? It's rather good nowadays.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  > Inability to reliably detect completely stationary objects is a known and documented deficiency of the system. Are you for real? Subaru's Eyesight would have detected this, and it is much less sophisticated than Autopilot (just two visible light cameras). In the first crash Tesla explained how it occurred (strong sunlight blocked the visible light camera, and radar failed since the truck appeared to "hover" over the road) but they haven't explain this crash. Why didn't the visible cameras cause auto-breaking? Breaking for stationary objects is the PRIMARY purpose of auto-braking systems.

spuz 10y ago

There's no evidence that Autopilot was enabled. It won't perform any avoiding action if it is not enabled.

the-dude 10y ago
There is no evidence that Autopilot was disabled either.
- Cshelton 10y ago
  No. But it is misleading for media to report "autopilot" caused a crash when we don't know yet.
  - the-dude 10y ago
    Which media did ?
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    They did the same thing when a woman plowed into the side of the building at 30MPH. Obviously Tesla said it wasn't enabled, but reporters didn't wait to hear back from Tesla.

mikeash 10y ago

Inability to reliably detect completely stationary objects is a known and documented deficiency of the system. Not making excuses, just saying it's not a big surprise. My experience with the system is that it actually allows you to be more aware of things like this, because you can devote all of your attention to scanning the road far ahead, instead of switching between the distance and nearby details like where you are relative to the lines. However, that requires using the system in a way that understands and accommodates its limitations, which not everybody does.

efraim 10y ago
Then they should really design the system with the limitations in mind so that it can only be used like that. It seems like it allows for too much time without hands on the wheel with only a warning that can be ignored.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I agree that it would be great if the system could only be used that way, but I don't see how that could be accomplished. Having your hands on the wheel has almost no correlation with paying attention to the road. I frequently watch the road carefully without touching the wheel, and it's easy to hold the wheel while staring at the clouds or with your eyes closed.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Eye tracking? It's rather good nowadays.
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
> Inability to reliably detect completely stationary objects is a known and documented deficiency of the system. Are you for real? Subaru's Eyesight would have detected this, and it is much less sophisticated than Autopilot (just two visible light cameras). In the first crash Tesla explained how it occurred (strong sunlight blocked the visible light camera, and radar failed since the truck appeared to "hover" over the road) but they haven't explain this crash. Why didn't the visible cameras cause auto-breaking? Breaking for stationary objects is the PRIMARY purpose of auto-braking systems.