25 ms·

Third fatal Tesla Autopilot crash renews questions about system

182 points by SolaceQuantum 7y ago

azhenley 7y ago
It doesn't renew the questions. The questions started before there was ever a crash and continued without stopping!
GiorgioG 7y ago
Boeing should buy Tesla, they seem to be of the same mind as it pertains to safety.
tedsanders 7y ago
I don't understand why a person would say his cars will be fully self driving within a year when they still run into semi trailers. I guess it's because he wants people to give him money. It's sad from all directions. And let me pre-empt the replies by saying yes, what matters in safety is the statistics, not a single data point. And let me pre-empt the replies to the reples by saying yes, but the statistics on self-driving cars are not at all encouraging. I suspect Autopilot's running-into-semis rate is worse than humans', for three reasons: (1) Tesla has been cagey about their Autopilot safety stats. If Autopilot was clearly safer, I think they'd be less cagey. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is just speculation, of course. What concrete data they have shared is summarized here: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport Teslas with Autopilot on crash roughly once every 3 million miles. To their credit, that's really good! However, they don't say: (1) how often Teslas crash on freeways with Autopilot off, or (2) how often drivers have to take control to prevent Autopilot from crashing. (2) The fatal crash in 2016 was also with a semi trailer. 2/4+ fatal crashes having this failure mode suggests this failure mode is especially high for their vision based system. Not a good look. (3) Pretty much all self-driving companies have disengagement rates way worse than humans. Waymo is leading the pack - by far - at something like once every 10,000 miles in California. There are tons of caveats in interpreting these numbers, and they should probably be treated as an upper bound, since it's at the discretion of the company to only self-report disengagements that would have led to crashes, I believe. But human crash rates are something like once every 300,000 miles. So even lidar based systems are an order magnitude away from humans, by one super rough measure. Lastly, a small correction to the title: This is the third known US autopilot crash. I believe there was a suspected autopilot crash in China some years back as well, and I'm not sure about other countries.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  If they named 'auto pilot' 'auto driver' it would at least be possible to have a sane discussion about the extent of the gap between the name and the actual performance. Since they named it 'auto pilot' we can not have that discussion because 'auto pilot' is a term that applies to aircraft, not to vehicles and you can not expect your average driver to know what the auto pilot in an aircraft can and can not do. Presumably laypeople will assume that an auto pilot in a plane is more complex than one in a car because they perceive aircraft as more difficult to operate than vehicles (and rightly so).
- nick_kline 7y ago
  Apparently many or all of the current self driving cars don't do well when running into fixed (ie stopped) physical objects. It must mean somehow in the way that they detect things, they must have to discount stopped objects, and 'moving objects', like cars are detected in a different way. I'd love to hear more background about why this is the way it is. I agree that when you can't handle this kind of situation in a tesla it really challenges the idea that we'll have total self driving in a year. There must be a lot of software that is under testing that could be more reliable than what they have today, yet the issue is still there. The last part (5 or 10%) of regular software dev is really hard, and it should be even harder for self-driving, never yet approved or safe enough self driving software.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    I predict we won't have fully autonomous ("total") self-driving in the next 25 years. To think it will be out in the next year or even in the reasonably expected lifespan of currently shipping Teslas is utter folly, IMO.
    - flukus 7y ago
      When I see long haul trucks driving along highways with humans only taking over in the populated areas I'll believe full self driving may only be a decade away. Tackling the full self driving consumer market when there's lower hanging fruit makes no sense.
jannyfer 7y ago
I always wonder if the Autopilot software has an exception that lets it drive through white rectangular objects in the middle of the road, because tunnel exits can look like a white rectangle to a low dynamic range camera.
- kylecordes 7y ago
  I suspect the real problem will turn out to be extremely deep and difficult. That human drivers drive not only with great pattern recognition around shapes, but also with an actual understanding of the idea of a truck and the idea of a tunnel and the idea of a sign. There is a substantial chance that will turn out full self-driving is a fully general, human level AI problem. That said, even the existing partial self-driving is extremely useful. I would be hard-pressed to consider another brand of vehicle until the others catch up with this.
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  Good point. The difference in dynamic range between eyes and cameras is HUGE. Maybe partially an illusion because the point we happen to be looking at is recognizable, but in any case it works in practice.
Shivetya 7y ago
As an owner of a TM3 I have never believed any promises with auto pilot, full self driving feature. I did buy the upgrade to FSD when it became available for two thousand dollars as a hedge against resale value. I do believe their approach with a camera focuses system will work. however if video on youtube showing all cameras in action and that of our available dash cam is representative of the color richness it might be an issue where there is not differentiation to properly see all objects in some lighting conditions.
- lolc 7y ago
  You'll soon get an option to reclaim those 2000. Or the option to join a class-action suit seeking the same.
zaroth 7y ago
> The NTSB’s preliminary report said the driver engaged Autopilot about 10 seconds before crashing into a semitrailer, and the system did not detect the driver’s hands on the wheel for fewer than eight seconds before the crash. > Tesla said in a statement that after the driver engaged the system he “immediately removed his hands from the wheel. Autopilot had not been used at any other time during that drive.” It was obvious from the crash that autopilot was engaged and the driver was distracted. It’s heartwrenching to think the system had only just been engaged mere seconds earlier. It seems like the driver had something happen in that 10 seconds and thought they could attend to it with their eyes off the road. I hope one day they get the system to the point where it is intended to be used like that.
- dahdum 7y ago
  I’ve read many times Tesla owners saying the warnings pop up even if you have your hands on the wheel if you have a light touch. Has Tesla fixed this issue yet?
  - zaroth 7y ago
    On the Model 3 at least I believe the sensor is based on torque. You have to apply turning pressure to the wheel. Just enough so it knows you’re there, not too much to disengage AP. I find jiggling the volume wheel or the cruise speed wheel on the steering wheel up/down a click is more reliable because that won’t ever disengage AP. I have no idea what they mean “did not detect hands on the wheel” because it doesn’t detect your hands on the wheel at all. It detects steering input on the wheel.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      > I have no idea what they mean “did not detect hands on the wheel” because it doesn’t detect your hands on the wheel at all. It detects steering input on the wheel. Wow! Really?! That sounds like one hell of a lie on Tesla's part... cynical part of me wonders if they deliberately avoided trying to detect hands for liability reasons?
pwncake 7y ago
Every incident is obviously tragic, but statistically with the number of Teslas on the road is self-driving roughly on par with the number of expected deadly accidents with manually driven cars? This is still a nascent technology with a lot of promise and it is naive to expect that there will never be a fatality or issue.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  Of course. But there obviously is a real issue with overhanging obstacles, since there have been multiple of these crashes now. Do we really accept a known flaw just because it's still better than the alternative?
  - esyir 7y ago
    Honestly? Yes. We take the best option available at current time, and simultaneously work on improvements.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      So... human drivers.
  - cjbprime 7y ago
    .. yes? I mean, it depends on what you mean by "accept", but yes we choose the option that has the least risk of killing people, even if it has "issues", because those issues are already encapsulated in the relative risk estimates. Airline flying is safer than driving even though planes have known issues too. Really struggling to find a logical point in here. Maybe some nuance I'm missing?
    - mikepurvis 7y ago
      Interesting that you would bring up airplanes. Because when the Max 8 is suspected to have a systemic problem which may repeatably cause crashes, the entire worldwide fleet of them gets grounded. No one makes the argument that a Max 8 with a faulty AOA sensor is still safer than driving your car so whatever.
SOLAR_FIELDS 7y ago
If Tesla backed down on the Autopilot branding and called the feature what it is, fancy cruise control (Cruise+ maybe?) they wouldn’t have to have a PR battle every time something like this happens. It’s way too late for that now though unfortunately.
- vl 7y ago
  Traditional autopilot is a fancy cruise control for the airplane, so name is actually pretty apt.
  - a_bonobo 7y ago
    I don't think this argument counts, drivers are not airplane pilots and don't know the airplane lingo
    - jonathankoren 7y ago
      Also, that's not what public perception of what "autopilot" means.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  It is ironic because autopilots on airplanes are actually really simple, but somehow when the term is applied to cars people expect abilities that airplane autopilots have never historically had.
  - mrob 7y ago
    From Wikipedia's "Autopilot" page: >In 1947 a US Air Force C-54 made a transatlantic flight, including takeoff and landing, completely under the control of an autopilot. Airplane autopilots are already at the fully autonomous stage. They have the advantage of air traffic control removing obstacles from their path, but IMO this just means ATC is part of the autopilot system. An autopilot is something that gets you from point A to point B with no input from the pilot/driver, and if it's not capable of doing that reliably then it's not an autopilot.
rayiner 7y ago
I find it amusing that in marketing Musk is always like the “hands on policy is just there to appease the regulators.” But after every fatal crash, the first thing in the press release is “the driver took his hands off the wheel!”
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Would you have a link on the first one? Would be nice to keep around for later!
  - Donald 7y ago
    This is precisely their messaging on the embedded vimeo video on https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons" https://i.imgur.com/74XHPiL.png https://i.imgur.com/74XHPiL.png In fact, the entire video shows the driver with their hands off the wheel.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - berberous 7y ago
      This is misleading. That video is demonstrating Tesla's "full self driving" feature, which is not yet launched. You can future proof your car by paying for it, but Tesla is clear the FSD is still forthcoming, and that their current cars are not fully autonomous. I think you can rightfully give them shit about calling the current gen "autopilot", and think their full of shit for claiming FSD is as close as it is, but this video is not intended to suggest you can operate the existing car in that manner.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Donald 7y ago
        You should look at things from the perspective of someone not familiar with Telsa's product line. Sure, if you own or interact with Telsas, the feature set of autopilot vs FSD is clear. But, if you're a newbie, you just Googled "tesla autopilot" and clicked on the first result. You see that tesla has the "future of driving" - that must be autopilot, right? You scroll down and watch the video. There's a notice that people are optional and a guy being driven around hands free. The messaging is painfully there - autopilot does not require hands and the feature set of FSD vs autopilot is conflated in a very misleading way on that page in general. If you scroll down (albeit a heading that describes FSD), you see "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat." Tesla's autopilot landing page is clearly designed to mislead unsuspecting consumers into believing that autopilot is a self-driving capability.
DeonPenny 7y ago
Insane how negative even this community is about this tech. Is coming regardless of regulation because whos going to tell tesla No once they add in lights and stop sign detection but still. Actually, don't they already do those things in beta for some users?
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  I've said it before. I'm negative because Tesla has a track record of killing people willingly. AP1's entire sensor suite was in other cars at the same time it was in Teslas. Other companies rightfully used those sensors for Lane Keep Assist, Adaptive Cruise Control and Automatic Emergency Braking. Lane Keep Assist does EXACTLY what it says on the tin. It ASSISTS in keeping a lane. It will not automatically center in a lane. It will not let you let go of the wheel. It WILL save you in 99% of situations where one may naturally be distracted, like drowsy driving. Adaptive Cruise Control, does EXACTLY what it says on the tin. It is cruise control... that adapts to traffic conditions. It will not stop the car by itself. It will not lull you into a false sense of safety by trying to claim it detects stopped objects. It will not give you the confidence to stare at your phone in traffic. Automatic Emergency Braking, does EXACTLY what it says on the tin. It's a backup that will only activate in a real emergency. It will precharge the brakes opportunistically, but it won't activate until the last moment possible. It instead alerts the driver BEFORE action is taken. AEB from Mobileye alerted me to an overturned box truck on an interstate in pitch darkness and heavy rain before I could visually confirm it. - Now you'll notice if you just take these building blocks, and increase how often they engage to continuous, you can lie and say you have a rudimentary self-driving car. I say lie because this level of autonomy is not what people have in mind when they say "self-driving car" And of course no one would do that. And certainly no one would do that and then call it AUTOPILOT. Except Tesla did. And people died. And they're still keeping up the charade. And that's (part) of why I went from a Tesla fanboy to a staunch hater of Tesla and what they represent.
  - _Microft 7y ago
    If a driver uses a system based on information from advertisements instead of reading the manual that comes with it, they might not be suited to drive any car either because using a safety-critical system without knowing what its limitations are is reckless and irresponsible.
thatoneuser 7y ago
How many millions of miles have these cars self driven and people lose their minds about a handful of deaths. I mean don't get me wrong - it's death and I'm atheist. It's a big deal. But how many deaths did people incur in the first years of cars? Hell you could die just from the crank on the front kicking back and crushing your skull - and that was just to turn the things on. People take risks when new tech comes out. If they wanna be the Guinea pig then let them do it. Everyone sees musk as two faced and playing both sides but honestly - if you're an adult paying for a tesla then I'm fine with it being in your hands to decide if you're willing to roll the dice. Marketing or not, no one should be stupid enough to think ANY device has a 0% chance of killing you, let alone a computer driving.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > Everyone sees musk as two faced and playing both sides but honestly - if you're an adult paying for a tesla then I'm fine with it being in your hands to decide if you're willing to roll the dice. It also has a chance of killing me, a non-Tesla driver. Where's my informed consent?
  - billions 7y ago
    It comes down to statistics. We deal with road raging, texting, drunk drivers on a daily basis. We know our risks each time we leave the house. Safety is exponentially better than what the past generation had to deal with.
    - raisedbyninjas 7y ago
      If the statistics showed that autopilot was safer than humans driving modern luxury sport sedans on the highway, then Elon would be blasting that out. So now drivers have to share the road with level 2 self driving cars sold to lay people as something more.
- raisedbyninjas 7y ago
  Musk does play both sides. After numerous crashes, Tesla blames the driver for not driving. However it's always a good time to tweet about FSD being just around the corner. Watch the video at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot. It immediately says the driver is only in the driver's seat for legal reasons. It should say he's there to wrest control from the car whenever it encounters the dozens of edge cases it fails to handle before it accelerates into a concrete barrier. It's probably more dangerous than a human driver because if they had stats showing otherwise they would have promoted them. Early drivers took risks on the first cars because moving away from horses revolutionized society. People turn on autopilot because they'd prefer to look at their phone instead of drive.
gibolt 7y ago
It doesn't seems to have been mentioned here that this happened over a year ago, in March 2018. I believe that the time between each crash is lengthening, even as the number of cars with AP balloons. This would speak to the regular improvement.
- spwmoni 7y ago
  > a fatal March 1 crash of a 2018 Model 3 Easy misreading to make, but this is a new crash. The March 2018 crash was a Model X.
- close04 7y ago
  Or that people are taking the “hands on wheel” recommendation seriously now that they know the AP might kill them. Since Tesla doesn’t say how many time drivers had to intervene and avoid a crash then we can have no relevant statistic.
  - kwhitefoot 7y ago
    How would they know?
    - close04 7y ago
      The same way they know the AP is safe over x billions of miles and saved lives of course. Both Tesla and Musk do everything in their power to overhyped the AP at any cost (for drivers). Between insisting it's overall safer than human drivers and Musk suggesting the driver supervision is only needed due to pesky regulations we can assume they already have all the needed supporting data. This means they know who was responsible for saving the situation each time. Which makes them not publishing any kind of data (beyond a report that was already refuted [0]) that much more telling. > The consequences of the public not using Autopilot, because of an inaccurate belief that it is less safe, would be extremely severe. [1] Supported by comparing the number of deaths between a fleet of new, modern cars driving almost exclusively on freeways in good(ish) weather and a fleet of random cars even decades old, in every possible road, traffic, and weather conditions. In the meantime Tesla AP is the only system that killed multiple drivers. An infinite times more than any other system if we make the statistic. Don't you think it's reasonable to assume it's because its capabilities are overhyped to the point where drivers are so confident they actually put their lives on the line? This isn't trying to say the AP is bad, just that Tesla and Musk created unrealistic expectations at the expense of people's lives. [0] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/05/sorry-elon-musk-theres-no-clear-evidence-autopilot-saves-lives/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/05/sorry-elon-musk-theres-... [1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week’s-accident https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week’s-accident
DannyBee 7y ago
"immediately removed his hands from the wheel." Tesla keeps saying this, but as far as i know, they can't actually detect that (because it's a torque sensor and can only whether they are moving the wheel). Does anyone have different info? You can even find plenty of reports that even light touching of the wheel causing it to issue warnings that hands are not on the wheel. They never have let one of the lawsuits get past discovery (AFAIK) before settling, and this would almost certainly come out there if true.
- simo_dax 7y ago
  True, but usually just the weight of your arms applied on the hand is enough to issue micro-turns to the wheel. I believe the detection relies on torque + angular position (the model S manual says it will sense resistance to wheel motion as well as motion itself), and the latter should be more more sensible because those mechanisms are usually made of encoder-motor-high ratio transmission-load, so a small turn on the load gets multiplied 10-100 times by the transmission before being sensed by the encoder. I guess the lack of precision comes from Tesla wanting to avoid false positives
- kolinko 7y ago
  I rented out Tesla S recently with my friends to try out - doing SF to Monterey and back. When I was driving, holding hands on a wheel all the time, the car kept giving me notices to put hands back on the wheel. After the third time it refused to reengage the autopilot. I guess my grip wasn’t strong enough for it to notice. On the way back my friend did a few short stretches letting go of the wheel completely (still fully alert and hands an inch away), and the car failed to notice.
  - taneq 7y ago
    It's based on wheel torque, not grip or anything. People have bypassed the check by wedging an orange in one of the gaps in the steering wheel (so its weight applies a constant torque to the wheel). (This based on /r/teslamotors so it could be out of date or wrong. >.> )
    - 7y ago
billions 7y ago
You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.
mouzogu 7y ago
Maybe I misunderstood but why was the vehicle doing 68mph on a 55mph road? Is that the driver's fault or autopilot? Perhaps they should rename it to assisted driving or something like that. I think I saw something about someone sleeping while on autopilot. There's only so much parenting the manufacturer of the car can do. The ethics of all this are much more complex of course - but perhaps the messaging needs to be clearer that autopilot is more akin to advanced cruise control as opposed to you can go to sleep, the car can drive itself.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  As an owner and autonomous driving fan I keep asking the same question. Will autonomous cars be legislated to always obey the law or will that still be a judgment left to the driver if the car can be driven either way. I am surprised there are not laws to have cars alert you to the fact your speeding for the systems that can read speed limit signs in addition to have current maps.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    It seems inevitable that autonomous vehicles will be required to obey speed limits in the future. The question in my mind is will it be the same speed limits as for humans?
    - tastroder 7y ago
      I don't see how that is even a question without 100% autonomy and proven above-human performance, human drivers on the same roads still have to react so different speed limits don't seem to make much sense.
      - nightski 7y ago
        Well seeing as you can get a ticket for going at or under the speed limit in some major cities because it is a hazard that might be interesting.
freddref 7y ago
How many Teslas are on the road, how many have been involved in fatal crashes, and for how many of those crashes was autopilot turned on?
- close04 7y ago
  How many times would the AP have crashed the car but the driver intervened? Are these instances showing up in any statistic? A student driver never crashed because the instructor is there to take over. Would you say student drivers are good drivers based on this?
  - Stubbs 7y ago
    and how many times has AP avoided accidents the driver wouldn't? The stats arn't that simple any more are they. There are plenty more news articles, especially in local news, about fatalities involving non autopilot cars, but they're not as interesting so don't get shared as often.
    - close04 7y ago
      Such stats are never simple. But when important data is withheld they definitely become irrelevant. They become more of a PR tool. Statistically speaking 100% of people are able to pilot a plane with their eyes closed and not crash it... as long as a qualified pilot is ready to take over at any time. Such a stat is only valuable if you want to show the standby pilot is useful. What would you base your assumption that AP saved even 1 life on when that data is not provided? All we know is that it crashed a number of times exclusively when it wasn’t supervised as required. The pragmatic conclusion is that it works because it’s supervised. I imagine Tesla would release more data if it supported the performance of the AP.
    - mrep 7y ago
      Here is a cool video in which shows a model 3 dodging a car in front of it [0] after it got rear ended causing it to jut forward. Owner says it wasn't him but autopilot that did it. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bl5pa9/tesla_model_3_saved_me/ https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bl5pa9/tesla_m...
paulsutter 7y ago
What about those non-autopilot vehicles? - Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day - An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled From https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/ https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/
- dunkmaster 7y ago
  There are way more non-autopilot vehicles than autopilot
- camjohnson26 7y ago
  This idea gets brought up every time autopilot is discussed here but it’s not really relevant. If autopilot were safer than human drivers there would be an argument for allowing it, but there’s no evidence that it is. Sure Tesla claims that it is based on very specific, cherry picked internal metrics, but independent analysis shows there’s just not enough data to say. Also the class of errors that autopilot makes is completely different than a human. Most human car crashes are preventable, either driving under the influence or distracted driving. I would much rather be in a crash with a drunk driver where liability was clear than have my car drive underneath a tractor trailer in the middle of a clear day just because I hit some neural network edge case.
  - Faark 7y ago
    > I would much rather be in a crash with a drunk driver where liability was clear than have my car drive underneath a tractor trailer in the middle of a clear day just because I hit some neural network edge case. Preferring to die by human error instead of shitty software doesn't make logical sense to me and feels like your trying to justify something irrational. Autopilot either drives safer than me or doesn't. And I wouldn't let a drunk friend drive me either. > but independent analysis shows there’s just not enough data to say Do you link a trustworthy analysis? I can't remember reading one that wasn't from a highly polarized source.
    - nscalf 7y ago
Roark66 7y ago
I suggest people watch the actual Tesla autopilot in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk0eZRVw9x4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk0eZRVw9x4 before making definite judgements. I watched this video, and I counted at least 3 situations where the car would've had a minor crash and one situation where the crash could be head on collision as the car couldn't detect wavy lanes properly without road markings. The technology Tesla is using in the autopilot is pretty cool, but the feature definitely has a wrong name. It should be called something like Driver Assist Plus etc. Oh, and there is no way in hell they'll have functioning robotaxis outside predetermined geographic areas in one year's time. I'll print this post and eat it if they do!
- kohtatsu 7y ago
  Define "functioning".
  - nolok 7y ago
    "Doesn't kill people in case where it shouldn't that they then end up calling << autopilot is not an autopilot ! everybody knows that, except when we say otherwise when selling it or to our investors, also the name is just a coincidence ! >>" ? I think the point parent was making was that Tesla was playing fast and lose with what they define as what is full auto pilot and what is merely driving assistance, especially by changing their wording depending on who they're facing, but it's mostly been able to go along because so far they're still in enhanced driving assistance and it's a gray area despite all the existing rules. But robotaxi is much clearer: at no point can you make it a requirement / way out that whoever was having a ride should have driven the car 100% of the time at 100% attention. And that's basically how they got out of every single one of their major crash.
- notaki 7y ago
  The entire video is Autopilot in city driving. Autopilot, at this time, is only for "driving on dry, straight roads, such as highways and freeways. It should not be used on city streets."
  - 7y ago
josefresco 7y ago
I drove this morning, a new car with adaptive cruise control. Having never experienced this tech before, it was pretty amazing. It makes the cruise control in my own vehicles seem crude and dangerous by comparison. I venture to guess, if standard cruise control was introduced today, it would be rejected by the public as too dangerous. Is there any data on how many accidents occur with standard (non adaptive) cruise activated?
- rodeoclown 7y ago
  Part of the safety of standard cruise control is the fact that it is clearly crude and dangerous - it keeps the driver engaged.
  - shereadsthenews 7y ago
    The things that actual “autopilot” does in aviation are also crude and dangerous: hold this heading forever, change flight level without regard to ground level, etc.
  - josefresco 7y ago
    Good point. It was my first time, and as a result was very engaged. But I could imagine as I got used to and depended on the feature, how I could lose some of that attentiveness. It was my first experience with lane departure warnings as well which was pretty neat but soon became a small distraction. I could see myself turning that off, if it was my daily driver. The best feature of adaptive cruise control is how it keeps you a safe distance from the car in front (about 4 seconds) - whereas if I was using my own judgement, the spacing would probably be halved.
miguelmota 7y ago
Elon needs to turn it down a notch on marketing the autopilot system as a full self-driving option or he risks becoming seen as the Theranos of automobiles
- mimixco 7y ago
  And of space exploration, transit tunnels, lithium batteries, and solar panels!
  - neural_thing 7y ago
    He already is the Theranos of solar panels. Promised a fake product (solar roof) to bailout himself and his family out of a failed company.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      Except that they have actually installed solar roof on a few dozen houses as test cases while they continue to refine their product. Theranos never had a functioning product, they used tradition equipment secretly behind the scenes. Is this house secretly using solar panels? https://youtu.be/zMR10vbo3A0 https://youtu.be/zMR10vbo3A0 Tesla wants to iterate on Solar Roof a few more times to increase yield and performance before they install it on 10,000 houses with a Lifetime glass warranty and a 30 year weatherization warranty.
      - neural_thing 7y ago
        The value proposition is fake, not the technology. Solar roof tiles have been commercially available since 2005, they are just too expensive. Musk promised that their roof tiles will be cheaper than regular roofs. I have seen zero evidence of that. The roofs on houses you mention cost WAY more than regular roofs.
        unityByFreedom 7y ago
        Precisely. Musk is a con artist, none of his businesses are or ever will be profitable. He exists to facilitate the flow of money from middle class to the powerful few.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Was there a whitelisted billboard in the vicinity?
pooya13 7y ago
I think it is an amazing achievement by Tesla that these hit pieces cannot find more than a handful of incidents going back 3 years while there are half a million Tesla’s out there. Their quarterly safety statistics is a great strategy to counter the propaganda that “Tesla cars are unsafe” or that “Tesla cars caught fire more often”.
- Fins 7y ago
  If only Teslas killed fewer people than cars that sell in many millions. But alas...
DavideNL 7y ago
Somewhat related... in The Netherlands the police tried to stop a man in a Tesla tonight, who fell asleep drunk while driving on the highway in his Tesla with the autopilot enabled: (translated from Dutch to English) https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnos.nl%2Fartikel%2F2285141-politie-wekt-beschonken-tesla-bestuurder-op-a27-met-sirene.html https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u...
scotty79 7y ago
Does autopilot beep annoyingly when you take the hands of the wheel just like any car when you forget to fasten your seat belt? And if not, why not?
notaki 7y ago
I wonder how many people see this headline but don't realize this happened over year ago when they also saw a similar headline for the same accident. Combine that with constant headlines about Tesla vehicle fires, financial troubles, production problems, and Elon's tweets, and you end up with a terribly misinformed, skeptical public, hesitant to embrace the technology and company the world desperately needs.
- Fins 7y ago
  Sorry, but why does the world need, let alone desperately, any company? Let alone as questionable an enterprise led by a dishonest sociopath as Tesla? Unless Elon is going to release Real Soon Now super-special spectacles that let you really see those reptiloid shortsellers from Nibiru that are conspiring in their reptiloid lairs against all that is good (for Elon)? Maybe bundles them with those flamethrowers?

182 points by SolaceQuantum 7y ago

azhenley 7y ago

It doesn't renew the questions. The questions started before there was ever a crash and continued without stopping!

GiorgioG 7y ago

Boeing should buy Tesla, they seem to be of the same mind as it pertains to safety.

tedsanders 7y ago

I don't understand why a person would say his cars will be fully self driving within a year when they still run into semi trailers. I guess it's because he wants people to give him money. It's sad from all directions. And let me pre-empt the replies by saying yes, what matters in safety is the statistics, not a single data point. And let me pre-empt the replies to the reples by saying yes, but the statistics on self-driving cars are not at all encouraging. I suspect Autopilot's running-into-semis rate is worse than humans', for three reasons: (1) Tesla has been cagey about their Autopilot safety stats. If Autopilot was clearly safer, I think they'd be less cagey. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is just speculation, of course. What concrete data they have shared is summarized here: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport Teslas with Autopilot on crash roughly once every 3 million miles. To their credit, that's really good! However, they don't say: (1) how often Teslas crash on freeways with Autopilot off, or (2) how often drivers have to take control to prevent Autopilot from crashing. (2) The fatal crash in 2016 was also with a semi trailer. 2/4+ fatal crashes having this failure mode suggests this failure mode is especially high for their vision based system. Not a good look. (3) Pretty much all self-driving companies have disengagement rates way worse than humans. Waymo is leading the pack - by far - at something like once every 10,000 miles in California. There are tons of caveats in interpreting these numbers, and they should probably be treated as an upper bound, since it's at the discretion of the company to only self-report disengagements that would have led to crashes, I believe. But human crash rates are something like once every 300,000 miles. So even lidar based systems are an order magnitude away from humans, by one super rough measure. Lastly, a small correction to the title: This is the third known US autopilot crash. I believe there was a suspected autopilot crash in China some years back as well, and I'm not sure about other countries.

jacquesm 7y ago
If they named 'auto pilot' 'auto driver' it would at least be possible to have a sane discussion about the extent of the gap between the name and the actual performance. Since they named it 'auto pilot' we can not have that discussion because 'auto pilot' is a term that applies to aircraft, not to vehicles and you can not expect your average driver to know what the auto pilot in an aircraft can and can not do. Presumably laypeople will assume that an auto pilot in a plane is more complex than one in a car because they perceive aircraft as more difficult to operate than vehicles (and rightly so).
nick_kline 7y ago
Apparently many or all of the current self driving cars don't do well when running into fixed (ie stopped) physical objects. It must mean somehow in the way that they detect things, they must have to discount stopped objects, and 'moving objects', like cars are detected in a different way. I'd love to hear more background about why this is the way it is. I agree that when you can't handle this kind of situation in a tesla it really challenges the idea that we'll have total self driving in a year. There must be a lot of software that is under testing that could be more reliable than what they have today, yet the issue is still there. The last part (5 or 10%) of regular software dev is really hard, and it should be even harder for self-driving, never yet approved or safe enough self driving software.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I predict we won't have fully autonomous ("total") self-driving in the next 25 years. To think it will be out in the next year or even in the reasonably expected lifespan of currently shipping Teslas is utter folly, IMO.
  - flukus 7y ago
    When I see long haul trucks driving along highways with humans only taking over in the populated areas I'll believe full self driving may only be a decade away. Tackling the full self driving consumer market when there's lower hanging fruit makes no sense.

jannyfer 7y ago

I always wonder if the Autopilot software has an exception that lets it drive through white rectangular objects in the middle of the road, because tunnel exits can look like a white rectangle to a low dynamic range camera.

kylecordes 7y ago
I suspect the real problem will turn out to be extremely deep and difficult. That human drivers drive not only with great pattern recognition around shapes, but also with an actual understanding of the idea of a truck and the idea of a tunnel and the idea of a sign. There is a substantial chance that will turn out full self-driving is a fully general, human level AI problem. That said, even the existing partial self-driving is extremely useful. I would be hard-pressed to consider another brand of vehicle until the others catch up with this.
ahartmetz 7y ago
Good point. The difference in dynamic range between eyes and cameras is HUGE. Maybe partially an illusion because the point we happen to be looking at is recognizable, but in any case it works in practice.

Shivetya 7y ago

As an owner of a TM3 I have never believed any promises with auto pilot, full self driving feature. I did buy the upgrade to FSD when it became available for two thousand dollars as a hedge against resale value. I do believe their approach with a camera focuses system will work. however if video on youtube showing all cameras in action and that of our available dash cam is representative of the color richness it might be an issue where there is not differentiation to properly see all objects in some lighting conditions.

lolc 7y ago
You'll soon get an option to reclaim those 2000. Or the option to join a class-action suit seeking the same.

zaroth 7y ago

> The NTSB’s preliminary report said the driver engaged Autopilot about 10 seconds before crashing into a semitrailer, and the system did not detect the driver’s hands on the wheel for fewer than eight seconds before the crash. > Tesla said in a statement that after the driver engaged the system he “immediately removed his hands from the wheel. Autopilot had not been used at any other time during that drive.” It was obvious from the crash that autopilot was engaged and the driver was distracted. It’s heartwrenching to think the system had only just been engaged mere seconds earlier. It seems like the driver had something happen in that 10 seconds and thought they could attend to it with their eyes off the road. I hope one day they get the system to the point where it is intended to be used like that.

dahdum 7y ago
I’ve read many times Tesla owners saying the warnings pop up even if you have your hands on the wheel if you have a light touch. Has Tesla fixed this issue yet?
- zaroth 7y ago
  On the Model 3 at least I believe the sensor is based on torque. You have to apply turning pressure to the wheel. Just enough so it knows you’re there, not too much to disengage AP. I find jiggling the volume wheel or the cruise speed wheel on the steering wheel up/down a click is more reliable because that won’t ever disengage AP. I have no idea what they mean “did not detect hands on the wheel” because it doesn’t detect your hands on the wheel at all. It detects steering input on the wheel.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    > I have no idea what they mean “did not detect hands on the wheel” because it doesn’t detect your hands on the wheel at all. It detects steering input on the wheel. Wow! Really?! That sounds like one hell of a lie on Tesla's part... cynical part of me wonders if they deliberately avoided trying to detect hands for liability reasons?

pwncake 7y ago

Every incident is obviously tragic, but statistically with the number of Teslas on the road is self-driving roughly on par with the number of expected deadly accidents with manually driven cars? This is still a nascent technology with a lot of promise and it is naive to expect that there will never be a fatality or issue.

mikepurvis 7y ago
Of course. But there obviously is a real issue with overhanging obstacles, since there have been multiple of these crashes now. Do we really accept a known flaw just because it's still better than the alternative?
- esyir 7y ago
  Honestly? Yes. We take the best option available at current time, and simultaneously work on improvements.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    So... human drivers.
- cjbprime 7y ago
  .. yes? I mean, it depends on what you mean by "accept", but yes we choose the option that has the least risk of killing people, even if it has "issues", because those issues are already encapsulated in the relative risk estimates. Airline flying is safer than driving even though planes have known issues too. Really struggling to find a logical point in here. Maybe some nuance I'm missing?
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    Interesting that you would bring up airplanes. Because when the Max 8 is suspected to have a systemic problem which may repeatably cause crashes, the entire worldwide fleet of them gets grounded. No one makes the argument that a Max 8 with a faulty AOA sensor is still safer than driving your car so whatever.

SOLAR_FIELDS 7y ago

If Tesla backed down on the Autopilot branding and called the feature what it is, fancy cruise control (Cruise+ maybe?) they wouldn’t have to have a PR battle every time something like this happens. It’s way too late for that now though unfortunately.

vl 7y ago
Traditional autopilot is a fancy cruise control for the airplane, so name is actually pretty apt.
- a_bonobo 7y ago
  I don't think this argument counts, drivers are not airplane pilots and don't know the airplane lingo
  - jonathankoren 7y ago
    Also, that's not what public perception of what "autopilot" means.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
It is ironic because autopilots on airplanes are actually really simple, but somehow when the term is applied to cars people expect abilities that airplane autopilots have never historically had.
- mrob 7y ago
  From Wikipedia's "Autopilot" page: >In 1947 a US Air Force C-54 made a transatlantic flight, including takeoff and landing, completely under the control of an autopilot. Airplane autopilots are already at the fully autonomous stage. They have the advantage of air traffic control removing obstacles from their path, but IMO this just means ATC is part of the autopilot system. An autopilot is something that gets you from point A to point B with no input from the pilot/driver, and if it's not capable of doing that reliably then it's not an autopilot.

rayiner 7y ago

I find it amusing that in marketing Musk is always like the “hands on policy is just there to appease the regulators.” But after every fatal crash, the first thing in the press release is “the driver took his hands off the wheel!”

mehrdadn 7y ago
Would you have a link on the first one? Would be nice to keep around for later!
- Donald 7y ago
  This is precisely their messaging on the embedded vimeo video on https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons" https://i.imgur.com/74XHPiL.png https://i.imgur.com/74XHPiL.png In fact, the entire video shows the driver with their hands off the wheel.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - berberous 7y ago
    This is misleading. That video is demonstrating Tesla's "full self driving" feature, which is not yet launched. You can future proof your car by paying for it, but Tesla is clear the FSD is still forthcoming, and that their current cars are not fully autonomous. I think you can rightfully give them shit about calling the current gen "autopilot", and think their full of shit for claiming FSD is as close as it is, but this video is not intended to suggest you can operate the existing car in that manner.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Donald 7y ago
      You should look at things from the perspective of someone not familiar with Telsa's product line. Sure, if you own or interact with Telsas, the feature set of autopilot vs FSD is clear. But, if you're a newbie, you just Googled "tesla autopilot" and clicked on the first result. You see that tesla has the "future of driving" - that must be autopilot, right? You scroll down and watch the video. There's a notice that people are optional and a guy being driven around hands free. The messaging is painfully there - autopilot does not require hands and the feature set of FSD vs autopilot is conflated in a very misleading way on that page in general. If you scroll down (albeit a heading that describes FSD), you see "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat." Tesla's autopilot landing page is clearly designed to mislead unsuspecting consumers into believing that autopilot is a self-driving capability.

DeonPenny 7y ago

Insane how negative even this community is about this tech. Is coming regardless of regulation because whos going to tell tesla No once they add in lights and stop sign detection but still. Actually, don't they already do those things in beta for some users?

BoorishBears 7y ago
I've said it before. I'm negative because Tesla has a track record of killing people willingly. AP1's entire sensor suite was in other cars at the same time it was in Teslas. Other companies rightfully used those sensors for Lane Keep Assist, Adaptive Cruise Control and Automatic Emergency Braking. Lane Keep Assist does EXACTLY what it says on the tin. It ASSISTS in keeping a lane. It will not automatically center in a lane. It will not let you let go of the wheel. It WILL save you in 99% of situations where one may naturally be distracted, like drowsy driving. Adaptive Cruise Control, does EXACTLY what it says on the tin. It is cruise control... that adapts to traffic conditions. It will not stop the car by itself. It will not lull you into a false sense of safety by trying to claim it detects stopped objects. It will not give you the confidence to stare at your phone in traffic. Automatic Emergency Braking, does EXACTLY what it says on the tin. It's a backup that will only activate in a real emergency. It will precharge the brakes opportunistically, but it won't activate until the last moment possible. It instead alerts the driver BEFORE action is taken. AEB from Mobileye alerted me to an overturned box truck on an interstate in pitch darkness and heavy rain before I could visually confirm it. - Now you'll notice if you just take these building blocks, and increase how often they engage to continuous, you can lie and say you have a rudimentary self-driving car. I say lie because this level of autonomy is not what people have in mind when they say "self-driving car" And of course no one would do that. And certainly no one would do that and then call it AUTOPILOT. Except Tesla did. And people died. And they're still keeping up the charade. And that's (part) of why I went from a Tesla fanboy to a staunch hater of Tesla and what they represent.
- _Microft 7y ago
  If a driver uses a system based on information from advertisements instead of reading the manual that comes with it, they might not be suited to drive any car either because using a safety-critical system without knowing what its limitations are is reckless and irresponsible.

thatoneuser 7y ago

How many millions of miles have these cars self driven and people lose their minds about a handful of deaths. I mean don't get me wrong - it's death and I'm atheist. It's a big deal. But how many deaths did people incur in the first years of cars? Hell you could die just from the crank on the front kicking back and crushing your skull - and that was just to turn the things on. People take risks when new tech comes out. If they wanna be the Guinea pig then let them do it. Everyone sees musk as two faced and playing both sides but honestly - if you're an adult paying for a tesla then I'm fine with it being in your hands to decide if you're willing to roll the dice. Marketing or not, no one should be stupid enough to think ANY device has a 0% chance of killing you, let alone a computer driving.

FireBeyond 7y ago
> Everyone sees musk as two faced and playing both sides but honestly - if you're an adult paying for a tesla then I'm fine with it being in your hands to decide if you're willing to roll the dice. It also has a chance of killing me, a non-Tesla driver. Where's my informed consent?
- billions 7y ago
  It comes down to statistics. We deal with road raging, texting, drunk drivers on a daily basis. We know our risks each time we leave the house. Safety is exponentially better than what the past generation had to deal with.
  - raisedbyninjas 7y ago
    If the statistics showed that autopilot was safer than humans driving modern luxury sport sedans on the highway, then Elon would be blasting that out. So now drivers have to share the road with level 2 self driving cars sold to lay people as something more.
raisedbyninjas 7y ago
Musk does play both sides. After numerous crashes, Tesla blames the driver for not driving. However it's always a good time to tweet about FSD being just around the corner. Watch the video at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot. It immediately says the driver is only in the driver's seat for legal reasons. It should say he's there to wrest control from the car whenever it encounters the dozens of edge cases it fails to handle before it accelerates into a concrete barrier. It's probably more dangerous than a human driver because if they had stats showing otherwise they would have promoted them. Early drivers took risks on the first cars because moving away from horses revolutionized society. People turn on autopilot because they'd prefer to look at their phone instead of drive.

gibolt 7y ago

It doesn't seems to have been mentioned here that this happened over a year ago, in March 2018. I believe that the time between each crash is lengthening, even as the number of cars with AP balloons. This would speak to the regular improvement.

spwmoni 7y ago
> a fatal March 1 crash of a 2018 Model 3 Easy misreading to make, but this is a new crash. The March 2018 crash was a Model X.
close04 7y ago
Or that people are taking the “hands on wheel” recommendation seriously now that they know the AP might kill them. Since Tesla doesn’t say how many time drivers had to intervene and avoid a crash then we can have no relevant statistic.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  How would they know?
  - close04 7y ago
    The same way they know the AP is safe over x billions of miles and saved lives of course. Both Tesla and Musk do everything in their power to overhyped the AP at any cost (for drivers). Between insisting it's overall safer than human drivers and Musk suggesting the driver supervision is only needed due to pesky regulations we can assume they already have all the needed supporting data. This means they know who was responsible for saving the situation each time. Which makes them not publishing any kind of data (beyond a report that was already refuted [0]) that much more telling. > The consequences of the public not using Autopilot, because of an inaccurate belief that it is less safe, would be extremely severe. [1] Supported by comparing the number of deaths between a fleet of new, modern cars driving almost exclusively on freeways in good(ish) weather and a fleet of random cars even decades old, in every possible road, traffic, and weather conditions. In the meantime Tesla AP is the only system that killed multiple drivers. An infinite times more than any other system if we make the statistic. Don't you think it's reasonable to assume it's because its capabilities are overhyped to the point where drivers are so confident they actually put their lives on the line? This isn't trying to say the AP is bad, just that Tesla and Musk created unrealistic expectations at the expense of people's lives. [0] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/05/sorry-elon-musk-theres-no-clear-evidence-autopilot-saves-lives/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/05/sorry-elon-musk-theres-... [1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week’s-accident https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week’s-accident

DannyBee 7y ago

"immediately removed his hands from the wheel." Tesla keeps saying this, but as far as i know, they can't actually detect that (because it's a torque sensor and can only whether they are moving the wheel). Does anyone have different info? You can even find plenty of reports that even light touching of the wheel causing it to issue warnings that hands are not on the wheel. They never have let one of the lawsuits get past discovery (AFAIK) before settling, and this would almost certainly come out there if true.

simo_dax 7y ago
True, but usually just the weight of your arms applied on the hand is enough to issue micro-turns to the wheel. I believe the detection relies on torque + angular position (the model S manual says it will sense resistance to wheel motion as well as motion itself), and the latter should be more more sensible because those mechanisms are usually made of encoder-motor-high ratio transmission-load, so a small turn on the load gets multiplied 10-100 times by the transmission before being sensed by the encoder. I guess the lack of precision comes from Tesla wanting to avoid false positives
kolinko 7y ago
I rented out Tesla S recently with my friends to try out - doing SF to Monterey and back. When I was driving, holding hands on a wheel all the time, the car kept giving me notices to put hands back on the wheel. After the third time it refused to reengage the autopilot. I guess my grip wasn’t strong enough for it to notice. On the way back my friend did a few short stretches letting go of the wheel completely (still fully alert and hands an inch away), and the car failed to notice.
- taneq 7y ago
  It's based on wheel torque, not grip or anything. People have bypassed the check by wedging an orange in one of the gaps in the steering wheel (so its weight applies a constant torque to the wheel). (This based on /r/teslamotors so it could be out of date or wrong. >.> )
  - 7y ago

billions 7y ago

You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.

mouzogu 7y ago

Maybe I misunderstood but why was the vehicle doing 68mph on a 55mph road? Is that the driver's fault or autopilot? Perhaps they should rename it to assisted driving or something like that. I think I saw something about someone sleeping while on autopilot. There's only so much parenting the manufacturer of the car can do. The ethics of all this are much more complex of course - but perhaps the messaging needs to be clearer that autopilot is more akin to advanced cruise control as opposed to you can go to sleep, the car can drive itself.

Shivetya 7y ago
As an owner and autonomous driving fan I keep asking the same question. Will autonomous cars be legislated to always obey the law or will that still be a judgment left to the driver if the car can be driven either way. I am surprised there are not laws to have cars alert you to the fact your speeding for the systems that can read speed limit signs in addition to have current maps.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  It seems inevitable that autonomous vehicles will be required to obey speed limits in the future. The question in my mind is will it be the same speed limits as for humans?
  - tastroder 7y ago
    I don't see how that is even a question without 100% autonomy and proven above-human performance, human drivers on the same roads still have to react so different speed limits don't seem to make much sense.
    - nightski 7y ago
      Well seeing as you can get a ticket for going at or under the speed limit in some major cities because it is a hazard that might be interesting.

freddref 7y ago

How many Teslas are on the road, how many have been involved in fatal crashes, and for how many of those crashes was autopilot turned on?

close04 7y ago
How many times would the AP have crashed the car but the driver intervened? Are these instances showing up in any statistic? A student driver never crashed because the instructor is there to take over. Would you say student drivers are good drivers based on this?
- Stubbs 7y ago
  and how many times has AP avoided accidents the driver wouldn't? The stats arn't that simple any more are they. There are plenty more news articles, especially in local news, about fatalities involving non autopilot cars, but they're not as interesting so don't get shared as often.
  - close04 7y ago
    Such stats are never simple. But when important data is withheld they definitely become irrelevant. They become more of a PR tool. Statistically speaking 100% of people are able to pilot a plane with their eyes closed and not crash it... as long as a qualified pilot is ready to take over at any time. Such a stat is only valuable if you want to show the standby pilot is useful. What would you base your assumption that AP saved even 1 life on when that data is not provided? All we know is that it crashed a number of times exclusively when it wasn’t supervised as required. The pragmatic conclusion is that it works because it’s supervised. I imagine Tesla would release more data if it supported the performance of the AP.
  - mrep 7y ago
    Here is a cool video in which shows a model 3 dodging a car in front of it [0] after it got rear ended causing it to jut forward. Owner says it wasn't him but autopilot that did it. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bl5pa9/tesla_model_3_saved_me/ https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bl5pa9/tesla_m...

paulsutter 7y ago

What about those non-autopilot vehicles? - Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day - An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled From https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/ https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/

dunkmaster 7y ago
There are way more non-autopilot vehicles than autopilot
camjohnson26 7y ago
This idea gets brought up every time autopilot is discussed here but it’s not really relevant. If autopilot were safer than human drivers there would be an argument for allowing it, but there’s no evidence that it is. Sure Tesla claims that it is based on very specific, cherry picked internal metrics, but independent analysis shows there’s just not enough data to say. Also the class of errors that autopilot makes is completely different than a human. Most human car crashes are preventable, either driving under the influence or distracted driving. I would much rather be in a crash with a drunk driver where liability was clear than have my car drive underneath a tractor trailer in the middle of a clear day just because I hit some neural network edge case.
- Faark 7y ago
  > I would much rather be in a crash with a drunk driver where liability was clear than have my car drive underneath a tractor trailer in the middle of a clear day just because I hit some neural network edge case. Preferring to die by human error instead of shitty software doesn't make logical sense to me and feels like your trying to justify something irrational. Autopilot either drives safer than me or doesn't. And I wouldn't let a drunk friend drive me either. > but independent analysis shows there’s just not enough data to say Do you link a trustworthy analysis? I can't remember reading one that wasn't from a highly polarized source.
  - nscalf 7y ago

Roark66 7y ago

I suggest people watch the actual Tesla autopilot in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk0eZRVw9x4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk0eZRVw9x4 before making definite judgements. I watched this video, and I counted at least 3 situations where the car would've had a minor crash and one situation where the crash could be head on collision as the car couldn't detect wavy lanes properly without road markings. The technology Tesla is using in the autopilot is pretty cool, but the feature definitely has a wrong name. It should be called something like Driver Assist Plus etc. Oh, and there is no way in hell they'll have functioning robotaxis outside predetermined geographic areas in one year's time. I'll print this post and eat it if they do!

kohtatsu 7y ago
Define "functioning".
- nolok 7y ago
  "Doesn't kill people in case where it shouldn't that they then end up calling << autopilot is not an autopilot ! everybody knows that, except when we say otherwise when selling it or to our investors, also the name is just a coincidence ! >>" ? I think the point parent was making was that Tesla was playing fast and lose with what they define as what is full auto pilot and what is merely driving assistance, especially by changing their wording depending on who they're facing, but it's mostly been able to go along because so far they're still in enhanced driving assistance and it's a gray area despite all the existing rules. But robotaxi is much clearer: at no point can you make it a requirement / way out that whoever was having a ride should have driven the car 100% of the time at 100% attention. And that's basically how they got out of every single one of their major crash.
notaki 7y ago
The entire video is Autopilot in city driving. Autopilot, at this time, is only for "driving on dry, straight roads, such as highways and freeways. It should not be used on city streets."
- 7y ago

josefresco 7y ago

I drove this morning, a new car with adaptive cruise control. Having never experienced this tech before, it was pretty amazing. It makes the cruise control in my own vehicles seem crude and dangerous by comparison. I venture to guess, if standard cruise control was introduced today, it would be rejected by the public as too dangerous. Is there any data on how many accidents occur with standard (non adaptive) cruise activated?

rodeoclown 7y ago
Part of the safety of standard cruise control is the fact that it is clearly crude and dangerous - it keeps the driver engaged.
- shereadsthenews 7y ago
  The things that actual “autopilot” does in aviation are also crude and dangerous: hold this heading forever, change flight level without regard to ground level, etc.
- josefresco 7y ago
  Good point. It was my first time, and as a result was very engaged. But I could imagine as I got used to and depended on the feature, how I could lose some of that attentiveness. It was my first experience with lane departure warnings as well which was pretty neat but soon became a small distraction. I could see myself turning that off, if it was my daily driver. The best feature of adaptive cruise control is how it keeps you a safe distance from the car in front (about 4 seconds) - whereas if I was using my own judgement, the spacing would probably be halved.

miguelmota 7y ago

Elon needs to turn it down a notch on marketing the autopilot system as a full self-driving option or he risks becoming seen as the Theranos of automobiles

mimixco 7y ago
And of space exploration, transit tunnels, lithium batteries, and solar panels!
- neural_thing 7y ago
  He already is the Theranos of solar panels. Promised a fake product (solar roof) to bailout himself and his family out of a failed company.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Except that they have actually installed solar roof on a few dozen houses as test cases while they continue to refine their product. Theranos never had a functioning product, they used tradition equipment secretly behind the scenes. Is this house secretly using solar panels? https://youtu.be/zMR10vbo3A0 https://youtu.be/zMR10vbo3A0 Tesla wants to iterate on Solar Roof a few more times to increase yield and performance before they install it on 10,000 houses with a Lifetime glass warranty and a 30 year weatherization warranty.
    - neural_thing 7y ago
      The value proposition is fake, not the technology. Solar roof tiles have been commercially available since 2005, they are just too expensive. Musk promised that their roof tiles will be cheaper than regular roofs. I have seen zero evidence of that. The roofs on houses you mention cost WAY more than regular roofs.
      - unityByFreedom 7y ago
        Precisely. Musk is a con artist, none of his businesses are or ever will be profitable. He exists to facilitate the flow of money from middle class to the powerful few.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Was there a whitelisted billboard in the vicinity?

pooya13 7y ago

I think it is an amazing achievement by Tesla that these hit pieces cannot find more than a handful of incidents going back 3 years while there are half a million Tesla’s out there. Their quarterly safety statistics is a great strategy to counter the propaganda that “Tesla cars are unsafe” or that “Tesla cars caught fire more often”.

Fins 7y ago
If only Teslas killed fewer people than cars that sell in many millions. But alas...

DavideNL 7y ago

Somewhat related... in The Netherlands the police tried to stop a man in a Tesla tonight, who fell asleep drunk while driving on the highway in his Tesla with the autopilot enabled: (translated from Dutch to English) https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnos.nl%2Fartikel%2F2285141-politie-wekt-beschonken-tesla-bestuurder-op-a27-met-sirene.html https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u...

scotty79 7y ago

Does autopilot beep annoyingly when you take the hands of the wheel just like any car when you forget to fasten your seat belt? And if not, why not?

notaki 7y ago

I wonder how many people see this headline but don't realize this happened over year ago when they also saw a similar headline for the same accident. Combine that with constant headlines about Tesla vehicle fires, financial troubles, production problems, and Elon's tweets, and you end up with a terribly misinformed, skeptical public, hesitant to embrace the technology and company the world desperately needs.

Fins 7y ago
Sorry, but why does the world need, let alone desperately, any company? Let alone as questionable an enterprise led by a dishonest sociopath as Tesla? Unless Elon is going to release Real Soon Now super-special spectacles that let you really see those reptiloid shortsellers from Nibiru that are conspiring in their reptiloid lairs against all that is good (for Elon)? Maybe bundles them with those flamethrowers?