6 ms·

Lawsuit: Autopilot didn't prevent Model 3 from driving under semi at 68 MPH

38 points by lukewrites 7y ago

NextHendrix 7y ago
gdpr-walled in europe
- alexjm 7y ago
  What about this archived version? https://web.archive.org/web/20190803003025/https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/delray-beach/fl-ne-tesla-autopilot-lawsuit-20190801-zokyrcqxz5cn7jpjeenaoud6iy-story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190803003025/https://www.sun-s...
mikeash 7y ago
Ten seconds from engaging Autopilot to ramming a truck, and he didn’t see it before he engaged Autopilot?
- zaroth 7y ago
  Ten seconds from engaging AutoPilot on a drive where AutoPilot had not been used at all previously prior to that point. I don’t know how long the drive was, or how long the car had been on the highway up until that point. But this is somewhat suggesting that the driver Jeremy Banner may have activated AutoPilot in this case to deal with something else going on in the car at the same time, and was not looking out the window as the Tesla approached and ultimately crashed under the tractor-trailer. I think we do know that there was no attempt by the driver at all to brake or steer leading up to the crash. There is a physical camera above the rear-view mirror, but past statements by Tesla (which have been corroborated by Tesla owners who have jailbroken their cars and analyzed the software) is that the “selfie” camera is not even initialized and never records footage, so while there may be footage of the approach and crash, there likely does not exist footage inside the vehicle. I read in a different article that the plaintiff is seeking discovery of this footage claiming it does exist. The stated purpose of the camera is in the future when the car is being used as a RoboTaxi.
- danso 7y ago
  The article doesn't say anything about the truck being in front of the Tesla's path for 10 seconds: > The crash in west Delray Beach happened four months ago when a tractor-trailer pulled out in front of a bright red Tesla Model 3 driven by 50-year-old Jeremy Banner.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Excerpt of the police report from the scene; “Vehicle 1 (V-1) was a tractor/trailer combination vehicle traveling eastbound on the driveway access to 14095 SR 7 (Pero Farms) preparing to turn left onto SR 7. Vehicle 2 (V-2) was traveling southbound on SR 7 within the outside lane approaching Pero Farms. After V-1 came to a brief stop at a stop sign, V-1 entered the southbound lanes of SR 7 pulling into the path of V-2. V-2 struck the driver side of V-1’s trailer resulting in the roof being sheared off as it passed underneath the trailer. V-2 continued southbound and came to a final rest approx 3/10th of a mile south of the collision. The driver of V-2 was pronounced deceased on scene.” The preliminary NTSB report [2] does not provide any more precise detail of the timeline, except to acknowledge that front facing video does exist, and that neither AutoPilot or the driver attempted to stop or evade the tractor-trailer. As the Tesla approached the private driveway, the combination vehicle pulled from the driveway and traveled east across the southbound lanes of US 441. The truck driver was trying to cross the highway’s southbound lanes and turn left into the northbound lanes. According to surveillance video in the area and forward-facing video from the Tesla, the combination vehicle slowed as it crossed the southbound lanes, blocking the Tesla’s path.... Neither the preliminary data nor the videos indicate that the driver or the ADAS executed evasive maneuvers. [1] - https://electrek.co/2019/03/01/tesla-driver-crash-truck-trailer-autopilot/ https://electrek.co/2019/03/01/tesla-driver-crash-truck-trai... [2] - https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/hwy19fh008-preliminary-report.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/hw...
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Neither did I! But it surely had to be a visible threat. A road where you can drive 68MPH is going to have enough visibility that you’ll see a truck that might cross your path at least that far in advance. Especially in flat-as-a-pancake Florida.
belltaco 7y ago
Asking for damages of only $15,000 ? That seems quite low, are they hoping Tesla will just settle without fighting it since the plaintiffs know their case is weak?
- calny 7y ago
  The plaintiffs allege "more than" $15,000 in damages. The $15,000 figure is likely just a jurisdictional minimum. In other words, they need to allege damages over that amount in order to stay out of small claims court or something similar (am a lawyer--never practiced in Florida, but this would make sense). It's almost certainly not their full request, and they'll ask for much more at trial.
  - rhacker 7y ago
    I hope so. When I read that steam came out of my ears. All I could think was the Hulk Hogan got $140M for.. cheating (yeah I know it's more complicated than that) and here we have this poor family that is only going to get $15k. Just... not sure where this world is heading.
- danso 7y ago
  The article says that the family is seeking "more than $15,000 in damages", and does not mention a cap. $15,000 is the threshold for a civil suit in Florida to move beyond small-claims court: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/297256-ron-desantis-signs-bill-upping-county-lawsuit-threshold https://floridapolitics.com/archives/297256-ron-desantis-sig...
- robbrown451 7y ago
  That struck me as weird as well. The article should have clarified it, since for all intense and purposes it is "unspecified damages." Their legal fees alone will probably be at least 10 times that.
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    I just noticed that I wrote "intents" incorrectly and it is too late to edit it. Uggh. Please forgive me.
danso 7y ago
As the article notes, the driver killed in this case died in circumstances to similar to the very first driver killed using Autopilot in 2016 [0]: driving into the side of a tractor trailer. However, back then, Tesla implied that the Model S cameras may not have seen the tractor trailer because of the lighting conditions: > Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. The trailer in this recent case was also white (not sure what the lighting conditions were). Regardless of whether it is legally the driver's fault, how can AP be making what seems to be the same exact error 3 years ago when Musk says Telsa's full self-driving will be ready in 2020? White trailers are not exactly an edge-case on U.S. roads. (worth noting that in 2016, Tesla's AP was built by Mobileye; now it is in-house) [0] https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss
- zaroth 7y ago
  It’s a broad side of the trailer which is a challenge. Tesla will stop for the rear-end of a trailer, but may disregard the broad side of a trailer stretching across the highway because it looks too much like an overpass. Definitely corner cases like the broad side of a tractor trailer stretched across the highway will prevent FSD from being remotely possible in 2020. Complex traffic light arrangements in multi-lane intersections, unprotected left turns, even driving over a lane marker to avoid a fixed obstacle are still TBD features in the AutoPilot code base. Those are the features they will be adding in 2019/2020 to get what Musk is calling “feature complete” but regardless of what he has claimed, from personal experience, I do not see how the cars could operate without any human driver in 2020 except under highly constrained conditions like “in parking lot not to exceed 3mph” and even that I think will expose corner cases with cars getting stuck and needing driver assistance. What I do think we will see in 2020 is a respectable percentage of trips being completed start-to-finish with AutoPilot engaged the entire time. However, then and now, the driver absolutely, positively, must always be looking out the window when operating AutoPilot.
  - i_am_proteus 7y ago
    So Tesla's autopilot has no history or world model? If you approach a truck from the rear, you have a rear aspect on it before having a side aspect on it. If you have overtaken by a truck, you have a front aspect on it before having a side aspect on it.
abalone 7y ago
Let's analyze Tesla's statement here, because it's useful training in intellectual self defense: "Our data shows..." Note the use of the keyword data. This appears frequently in Tesla statements. It implies certainty and technical understanding. "...that, when used properly by an attentive driver who is prepared to take control at all times..." Interesting condition. "...drivers supported by Autopilot are safer than those operating without assistance" This is garbage logic. It's just saying any errors that aren't corrected by the driver are cases of "not using it properly." Of course the "data" will show improved safety if you exclude all the accidents.
- judge2020 7y ago
  Tesla is facing a lawsuit (well, many lawsuits). They obviously aren't going to put out any sort of public statement that would show there's a chance Tesla is at fault. This is PR for PR's sake.
- kazinator 7y ago
  Is it garbage logic? Dev: "The compiler's automatic error checking didn't catch the array overrun in my code, resulting in a costly security breach!" Compiler Vendor: "Our data shows that compiler diagnostics, when used by a skilled and conscientious programmer who is prepared to review and test his or her code, reduce software defects compared to no diagnostics, making software development safer."
  - babyloneleven 7y ago
    Your examples are garbage logic because array overruns are so harmful that they should be hard errors. Of course, this requires a runtime cost, that can be elided in most cases by the compiler's optimizer. But even low level languages nowadays can be safe by default (see Rust) - the unsafe behavior should always be a conscious, well studied decision by the developer.
  - abalone 7y ago
    You’re comparing getting decapitated by a truck to an array overrun, which might be a sign your analogy is strained.
a3n 7y ago
They really should stop calling it "auto pilot." Because it isn't fit to be used as autopilot in its environment, yet people use it as such.
- bigkm 7y ago
  It does exactly what autopilot does in a plane. Which will slam into anything in its path.
siliconc0w 7y ago
Driver facing camera has to become standard for systems like autopilot that are still 80% solutions so they can disengage when drivers invariably start leaning on the system too much and start using it inappropriately.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
Unless the autopilot sped up the vehicle, it sounds like the driver was going at least 13 mph over the speed limit. By speeding, the human driver increased the danger to himself and everybody around him. I truly am sorry he died. But I don't think Tesla should be on the hook for the scenario he seemingly created.[1] [1] In my ethical framework, adults are responsible for their choices, and in a functioning democracy, for obeying even laws they don't personally like. I realize I'm in the minority on this.
- jmpman 7y ago
  I don’t think it was the 13mpg over which killed him. It was the lack of braking before impacting the semi.

38 points by lukewrites 7y ago

NextHendrix 7y ago

gdpr-walled in europe

alexjm 7y ago
What about this archived version? https://web.archive.org/web/20190803003025/https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/delray-beach/fl-ne-tesla-autopilot-lawsuit-20190801-zokyrcqxz5cn7jpjeenaoud6iy-story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190803003025/https://www.sun-s...

mikeash 7y ago

Ten seconds from engaging Autopilot to ramming a truck, and he didn’t see it before he engaged Autopilot?

zaroth 7y ago
Ten seconds from engaging AutoPilot on a drive where AutoPilot had not been used at all previously prior to that point. I don’t know how long the drive was, or how long the car had been on the highway up until that point. But this is somewhat suggesting that the driver Jeremy Banner may have activated AutoPilot in this case to deal with something else going on in the car at the same time, and was not looking out the window as the Tesla approached and ultimately crashed under the tractor-trailer. I think we do know that there was no attempt by the driver at all to brake or steer leading up to the crash. There is a physical camera above the rear-view mirror, but past statements by Tesla (which have been corroborated by Tesla owners who have jailbroken their cars and analyzed the software) is that the “selfie” camera is not even initialized and never records footage, so while there may be footage of the approach and crash, there likely does not exist footage inside the vehicle. I read in a different article that the plaintiff is seeking discovery of this footage claiming it does exist. The stated purpose of the camera is in the future when the car is being used as a RoboTaxi.
danso 7y ago
The article doesn't say anything about the truck being in front of the Tesla's path for 10 seconds: > The crash in west Delray Beach happened four months ago when a tractor-trailer pulled out in front of a bright red Tesla Model 3 driven by 50-year-old Jeremy Banner.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Excerpt of the police report from the scene; “Vehicle 1 (V-1) was a tractor/trailer combination vehicle traveling eastbound on the driveway access to 14095 SR 7 (Pero Farms) preparing to turn left onto SR 7. Vehicle 2 (V-2) was traveling southbound on SR 7 within the outside lane approaching Pero Farms. After V-1 came to a brief stop at a stop sign, V-1 entered the southbound lanes of SR 7 pulling into the path of V-2. V-2 struck the driver side of V-1’s trailer resulting in the roof being sheared off as it passed underneath the trailer. V-2 continued southbound and came to a final rest approx 3/10th of a mile south of the collision. The driver of V-2 was pronounced deceased on scene.” The preliminary NTSB report [2] does not provide any more precise detail of the timeline, except to acknowledge that front facing video does exist, and that neither AutoPilot or the driver attempted to stop or evade the tractor-trailer. As the Tesla approached the private driveway, the combination vehicle pulled from the driveway and traveled east across the southbound lanes of US 441. The truck driver was trying to cross the highway’s southbound lanes and turn left into the northbound lanes. According to surveillance video in the area and forward-facing video from the Tesla, the combination vehicle slowed as it crossed the southbound lanes, blocking the Tesla’s path.... Neither the preliminary data nor the videos indicate that the driver or the ADAS executed evasive maneuvers. [1] - https://electrek.co/2019/03/01/tesla-driver-crash-truck-trailer-autopilot/ https://electrek.co/2019/03/01/tesla-driver-crash-truck-trai... [2] - https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/hwy19fh008-preliminary-report.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/hw...
- mikeash 7y ago
  Neither did I! But it surely had to be a visible threat. A road where you can drive 68MPH is going to have enough visibility that you’ll see a truck that might cross your path at least that far in advance. Especially in flat-as-a-pancake Florida.

belltaco 7y ago

Asking for damages of only $15,000 ? That seems quite low, are they hoping Tesla will just settle without fighting it since the plaintiffs know their case is weak?

calny 7y ago
The plaintiffs allege "more than" $15,000 in damages. The $15,000 figure is likely just a jurisdictional minimum. In other words, they need to allege damages over that amount in order to stay out of small claims court or something similar (am a lawyer--never practiced in Florida, but this would make sense). It's almost certainly not their full request, and they'll ask for much more at trial.
- rhacker 7y ago
  I hope so. When I read that steam came out of my ears. All I could think was the Hulk Hogan got $140M for.. cheating (yeah I know it's more complicated than that) and here we have this poor family that is only going to get $15k. Just... not sure where this world is heading.
danso 7y ago
The article says that the family is seeking "more than $15,000 in damages", and does not mention a cap. $15,000 is the threshold for a civil suit in Florida to move beyond small-claims court: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/297256-ron-desantis-signs-bill-upping-county-lawsuit-threshold https://floridapolitics.com/archives/297256-ron-desantis-sig...
robbrown451 7y ago
That struck me as weird as well. The article should have clarified it, since for all intense and purposes it is "unspecified damages." Their legal fees alone will probably be at least 10 times that.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  I just noticed that I wrote "intents" incorrectly and it is too late to edit it. Uggh. Please forgive me.

danso 7y ago

As the article notes, the driver killed in this case died in circumstances to similar to the very first driver killed using Autopilot in 2016 [0]: driving into the side of a tractor trailer. However, back then, Tesla implied that the Model S cameras may not have seen the tractor trailer because of the lighting conditions: > Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. The trailer in this recent case was also white (not sure what the lighting conditions were). Regardless of whether it is legally the driver's fault, how can AP be making what seems to be the same exact error 3 years ago when Musk says Telsa's full self-driving will be ready in 2020? White trailers are not exactly an edge-case on U.S. roads. (worth noting that in 2016, Tesla's AP was built by Mobileye; now it is in-house) [0] https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss

zaroth 7y ago
It’s a broad side of the trailer which is a challenge. Tesla will stop for the rear-end of a trailer, but may disregard the broad side of a trailer stretching across the highway because it looks too much like an overpass. Definitely corner cases like the broad side of a tractor trailer stretched across the highway will prevent FSD from being remotely possible in 2020. Complex traffic light arrangements in multi-lane intersections, unprotected left turns, even driving over a lane marker to avoid a fixed obstacle are still TBD features in the AutoPilot code base. Those are the features they will be adding in 2019/2020 to get what Musk is calling “feature complete” but regardless of what he has claimed, from personal experience, I do not see how the cars could operate without any human driver in 2020 except under highly constrained conditions like “in parking lot not to exceed 3mph” and even that I think will expose corner cases with cars getting stuck and needing driver assistance. What I do think we will see in 2020 is a respectable percentage of trips being completed start-to-finish with AutoPilot engaged the entire time. However, then and now, the driver absolutely, positively, must always be looking out the window when operating AutoPilot.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  So Tesla's autopilot has no history or world model? If you approach a truck from the rear, you have a rear aspect on it before having a side aspect on it. If you have overtaken by a truck, you have a front aspect on it before having a side aspect on it.

abalone 7y ago

Let's analyze Tesla's statement here, because it's useful training in intellectual self defense: "Our data shows..." Note the use of the keyword data. This appears frequently in Tesla statements. It implies certainty and technical understanding. "...that, when used properly by an attentive driver who is prepared to take control at all times..." Interesting condition. "...drivers supported by Autopilot are safer than those operating without assistance" This is garbage logic. It's just saying any errors that aren't corrected by the driver are cases of "not using it properly." Of course the "data" will show improved safety if you exclude all the accidents.

judge2020 7y ago
Tesla is facing a lawsuit (well, many lawsuits). They obviously aren't going to put out any sort of public statement that would show there's a chance Tesla is at fault. This is PR for PR's sake.
kazinator 7y ago
Is it garbage logic? Dev: "The compiler's automatic error checking didn't catch the array overrun in my code, resulting in a costly security breach!" Compiler Vendor: "Our data shows that compiler diagnostics, when used by a skilled and conscientious programmer who is prepared to review and test his or her code, reduce software defects compared to no diagnostics, making software development safer."
- babyloneleven 7y ago
  Your examples are garbage logic because array overruns are so harmful that they should be hard errors. Of course, this requires a runtime cost, that can be elided in most cases by the compiler's optimizer. But even low level languages nowadays can be safe by default (see Rust) - the unsafe behavior should always be a conscious, well studied decision by the developer.
- abalone 7y ago
  You’re comparing getting decapitated by a truck to an array overrun, which might be a sign your analogy is strained.

a3n 7y ago

They really should stop calling it "auto pilot." Because it isn't fit to be used as autopilot in its environment, yet people use it as such.

bigkm 7y ago
It does exactly what autopilot does in a plane. Which will slam into anything in its path.

siliconc0w 7y ago

Driver facing camera has to become standard for systems like autopilot that are still 80% solutions so they can disengage when drivers invariably start leaning on the system too much and start using it inappropriately.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

Unless the autopilot sped up the vehicle, it sounds like the driver was going at least 13 mph over the speed limit. By speeding, the human driver increased the danger to himself and everybody around him. I truly am sorry he died. But I don't think Tesla should be on the hook for the scenario he seemingly created.[1] [1] In my ethical framework, adults are responsible for their choices, and in a functioning democracy, for obeying even laws they don't personally like. I realize I'm in the minority on this.

jmpman 7y ago
I don’t think it was the 13mpg over which killed him. It was the lack of braking before impacting the semi.