5 ms·

The IIHS does all sorts of autonomous braking test scenarios involving pedestrians - https://youtu.be/TJgUiZgX5rE https://youtu.be/TJgUiZgX5rE A pedestrian dar

by kbos87 6y ago

The IIHS does all sorts of autonomous braking test scenarios involving pedestrians - https://youtu.be/TJgUiZgX5rE https://youtu.be/TJgUiZgX5rE A pedestrian darting out from behind a car is known to be a tricky scenario, but some systems handle it at least some of the time. This scenario looked like the pedestrian was unobstructed and traveling in a predictable direction, so it’s pretty unnerving if it’s real. Long story short, even in Teslas, even just autonomous braking and crash avoidance is a great extra safety layer, but far from something that should be relied upon. Tesla is reckless for selling it as something that can be relied upon to successfully pilot a car.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
This is a common issue across all vehicles with radar AEB systems, and the problem isn't vehicle manufacturers but the general public in the belief that these systems are more robust than they are (pedestrian collision avoidance). To your point about Tesla, they vigorously communicate that you (as do other manufacturers) as the driver are responsible at all times. We can go roundabout like we always do about this, but regulators have continued to allow these systems to be marketed and sold, and they're the authority. Why are we blaming automakers for garbage drivers? The driver is who you sue when they hit a pedestrian. > To understand the strengths and weaknesses of these systems and how they differ, we piloted a Cadillac CT6, a Subaru Impreza, a Tesla Model S, and a Toyota Camry through four tests at FT Techno of America's Fowlerville, Michigan, proving ground. The balloon car is built like a bounce house but with the radar reflectivity of a real car, along with a five-figure price and a Volkswagen wrapper. For the tests with a moving target, a heavy-duty pickup tows the balloon car on 42-foot rails, which allow it to slide forward after impact. > The car companies don't hide the fact that today's AEB systems have blind spots. It's all there in the owner's manuals, typically covered by both an all-encompassing legal disclaimer and explicit examples of why the systems might fail to intervene. For instance, the Camry's AEB system may not work when you're driving on a hill. It might not spot vehicles with high ground clearance or those with low rear ends. It may not work if a wiper blade blocks the camera. Toyota says the system could also fail if the vehicle is wobbling, whatever that means. It may not function when the sun shines directly on the vehicle ahead or into the camera mounted near the rearview mirror. > The edge cases cover the gamut from common to complex. Volvo's owner's manuals outline a target-switching problem for adaptive cruise control (ACC), the convenience feature that relies on the same sensors as AEB. In these scenarios, a vehicle just ahead of the Volvo takes an exit or makes a lane change to reveal a stationary vehicle in the Volvo's path. If traveling above 20 mph, the Volvo will not decelerate, according to its maker. We replicated that scenario for AEB testing, with a lead vehicle making a late lane change as it closed in on the parked balloon car. No car in our test could avoid a collision beyond 30 mph, and as we neared that upper limit, the Tesla and the Subaru provided no warning or braking. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-features-automatic-braking-system-tested-explained/ https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-featu...
- pc86 6y ago
  > Why are we blaming automakers for garbage drivers? Because most people are bad drivers, most of those people realize it whether they'll admit it or not, and I truly believe that deep down most people recognize that they are one inattentive moment away from killing someone. There is a desperate desire to be able to offload that responsibility onto someone or something else. "They came out from behind that car" instead of "I shouldn't have been going 45mph next to a row of parked cars." "They stopped short" instead of "I was tailgating." If we can offload the responsibility it becomes someone else's problem and we don't need to change our habits of driving too fast, not paying enough attention to the road, and being too distracted.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- kbos87 6y ago
  I really have to push back against your point that Tesla “vigorously communicates” that driver attention must be maintained at all times, when in fact, they really seem like they want to occupy a gray space in-between: - They advertise and sell full autonomy under the name “autopilot”, which carries all sorts of connotations - Correct me if I’m wrong, but they don’t actually prevent a driver from falling asleep behind the wheel, even if they vibrate the steering wheel. New Subarus have driver eye tracking built in - it would be trivial for Tesla to make sure the driver is paying attention, but they don’t really want to. It might say it somewhere in the manual to cover them legally, but all signs point to them wanting the market to think their cars drive themselves.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    You're pushing back against the wrong part of my comment. You don't believe Tesla is meeting some sort of bar (re: your reference to Subaru), but regulators have approved of Tesla's continued approach regarding driver awareness (periodic steering wheel torque dead man switch versus requiring eye tracking). So what evidence are you using that your approach should be required and would be superior? Drowsy and intoxicated people still drive every day, killing innocent people, without driver assist systems (roughly 100k accidents a year are from drowsy driving, and about 10k people a year are killed due to drunk drivers). You cannot mitigate away personal responsibility failures with technology bandaids. At some point, the buck must stop with the operator. (On my large shop equipment I let others use in my workshop, there are large stickers that very loudly proclaim "Not only will this kill you, it will hurt the whole time you are dying").
dralley 6y ago
Nissan performed quite well in those tests, I'm impressed.

by kbos87 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago

This is a common issue across all vehicles with radar AEB systems, and the problem isn't vehicle manufacturers but the general public in the belief that these systems are more robust than they are (pedestrian collision avoidance). To your point about Tesla, they vigorously communicate that you (as do other manufacturers) as the driver are responsible at all times. We can go roundabout like we always do about this, but regulators have continued to allow these systems to be marketed and sold, and they're the authority. Why are we blaming automakers for garbage drivers? The driver is who you sue when they hit a pedestrian. > To understand the strengths and weaknesses of these systems and how they differ, we piloted a Cadillac CT6, a Subaru Impreza, a Tesla Model S, and a Toyota Camry through four tests at FT Techno of America's Fowlerville, Michigan, proving ground. The balloon car is built like a bounce house but with the radar reflectivity of a real car, along with a five-figure price and a Volkswagen wrapper. For the tests with a moving target, a heavy-duty pickup tows the balloon car on 42-foot rails, which allow it to slide forward after impact. > The car companies don't hide the fact that today's AEB systems have blind spots. It's all there in the owner's manuals, typically covered by both an all-encompassing legal disclaimer and explicit examples of why the systems might fail to intervene. For instance, the Camry's AEB system may not work when you're driving on a hill. It might not spot vehicles with high ground clearance or those with low rear ends. It may not work if a wiper blade blocks the camera. Toyota says the system could also fail if the vehicle is wobbling, whatever that means. It may not function when the sun shines directly on the vehicle ahead or into the camera mounted near the rearview mirror. > The edge cases cover the gamut from common to complex. Volvo's owner's manuals outline a target-switching problem for adaptive cruise control (ACC), the convenience feature that relies on the same sensors as AEB. In these scenarios, a vehicle just ahead of the Volvo takes an exit or makes a lane change to reveal a stationary vehicle in the Volvo's path. If traveling above 20 mph, the Volvo will not decelerate, according to its maker. We replicated that scenario for AEB testing, with a lead vehicle making a late lane change as it closed in on the parked balloon car. No car in our test could avoid a collision beyond 30 mph, and as we neared that upper limit, the Tesla and the Subaru provided no warning or braking. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-features-automatic-braking-system-tested-explained/ https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-featu...

pc86 6y ago
> Why are we blaming automakers for garbage drivers? Because most people are bad drivers, most of those people realize it whether they'll admit it or not, and I truly believe that deep down most people recognize that they are one inattentive moment away from killing someone. There is a desperate desire to be able to offload that responsibility onto someone or something else. "They came out from behind that car" instead of "I shouldn't have been going 45mph next to a row of parked cars." "They stopped short" instead of "I was tailgating." If we can offload the responsibility it becomes someone else's problem and we don't need to change our habits of driving too fast, not paying enough attention to the road, and being too distracted.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kbos87 6y ago
I really have to push back against your point that Tesla “vigorously communicates” that driver attention must be maintained at all times, when in fact, they really seem like they want to occupy a gray space in-between: - They advertise and sell full autonomy under the name “autopilot”, which carries all sorts of connotations - Correct me if I’m wrong, but they don’t actually prevent a driver from falling asleep behind the wheel, even if they vibrate the steering wheel. New Subarus have driver eye tracking built in - it would be trivial for Tesla to make sure the driver is paying attention, but they don’t really want to. It might say it somewhere in the manual to cover them legally, but all signs point to them wanting the market to think their cars drive themselves.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  You're pushing back against the wrong part of my comment. You don't believe Tesla is meeting some sort of bar (re: your reference to Subaru), but regulators have approved of Tesla's continued approach regarding driver awareness (periodic steering wheel torque dead man switch versus requiring eye tracking). So what evidence are you using that your approach should be required and would be superior? Drowsy and intoxicated people still drive every day, killing innocent people, without driver assist systems (roughly 100k accidents a year are from drowsy driving, and about 10k people a year are killed due to drunk drivers). You cannot mitigate away personal responsibility failures with technology bandaids. At some point, the buck must stop with the operator. (On my large shop equipment I let others use in my workshop, there are large stickers that very loudly proclaim "Not only will this kill you, it will hurt the whole time you are dying").

dralley 6y ago

Nissan performed quite well in those tests, I'm impressed.