17 ms·
Video of Tesla on Autopilot Crashing into Stopped Truck at 75mph
- rvz 5y agoProof that this system lacks night vision. No different to the video of the deer getting run over by another Tesla on autopilot [0] and the near miss that happened when the system malfunctioned and tried to hit another car [1] - both cases at night. Sounds like the risks in using both either autopilot or FSD systems at night is even more dangerous but very surprising that these systems still have no night-vision system. Shocking. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28732566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28732566 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29515784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29515784
- jeffreygoesto 5y agoActive sensing like Lidar is even better than night vision. The side view of a damaged truck is really hard to train as a relevant class reliably, even for Karpathy.
- Workaccount2 5y agoAll the data should be there for the computer to decide that yes there is a large object, yes it is in the road, and yes we are on track to hit it.
- jeffreygoesto 5y agoYou'd be surprised how much modeling is needed and how little the raw sensor data has to do with 'objects'.
- KaiserPro 5y agonot really, its a generic obstruction. You don't need to classify it as a car, just a generic object blocking the way.
- jeffreygoesto 5y agoWhat class are "generic" objects and what would be a typical representative? ;)
- KaiserPro 5y agoroad obstacles. rock fall, tree, building. Given that the road is occluded, this needs to be in the training data, if only for autonomous lane following.
- tyingq 5y agoWikipedia seems to indicate the car should have had front-facing radar. I'm curious why that appears to have not helped.
- camjohnson26 5y agoThe truck is more visible in the non-compressed video. https://twitter.com/haenschengross/status/1473326136755118085?s=20 https://twitter.com/haenschengross/status/147332613675511808...
- hindsightbias 5y agoPanel truck driving in the other lane didn't see it either, only braked after passing the wreck.
- pengaru 5y agoAs if their braking is a reliable indicator of precisely when they see what...
- bitshiftfaced 5y agoI think it can be, but for me it's more a question of whether the right-lane truck braked for the stopped truck or for some other reason.
- pengaru 5y agoNot only are they unpredictable humans in general, but truckers are often the most sleep-deprived inattentive drivers on the road. Having been personally involved in a collision with one where my vehicle ended up under their trailer at highway speeds, when the trucker abruptly swerved into my lane to avoid rear-ending another truck they were tail-gating without paying enough attention to brake in time, I find this thread of discussion patently absurd.
- seoulmetro 5y agoPeople don't realise how much "swerving to get out of the way of your own mistakes" costs the person you're swerving into. It's so sad to see it, but then they claim "oh but it was empty". People use it as their resort when following too closely, I wish they'd just accept their mistake and crash into the back of the car in front of them. But that would be too clean and logical.
- uptown 5y agoThe tweet mentions that it is a "radar-equipped car (but hw2.5 of course)" Does hw2.5 not use the radar data?
- jeffreygoesto 5y agoEven if... Tesla (like many others) suppressed Radar standstill targets to prioritize driving over stopping. Without another modality, they are indistinguishable from ground clutter in some scenes and who would want to full stop for a manhole cover every now and then... Elon maybe thought, getting rid of radar might solve that problem. It doesn't.
- tyingq 5y agoReading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Hardware_2.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Hardware_2.5 It seems like it does use the radar. The generation after 2.5 (3.0) did appear to improve the "frames per second" processing from ~110-200/sec to ~2300/sec. I'm guessing the comment means something like "if this was related to sensor processing throughput or latency, the 2.5 version might be meaningful".
- jeffreygoesto 5y agoThat is marketing blurb. The higher number stems from more cameras, not higher frequency or lower latency per camera.
- traceroute66 5y agoThe other question to ask is what was the Tesla doing bombing along in the outer lane when there was (seemingly) negligible traffic anywhere except the truck in the inner lane. Whilst its unlikely the Tesla autopilot would have fared much better in the centre lane, the impact could have been substantially less.
- allemagne 5y agoIt's in the outer lane because that's either where the driver turned autopilot on or told autopilot to switch to. On the other hand I think it's at least plausible that a human driver would have been able to notice the truck in time, even being in the outer lane.
- yalogin 5y agoDid Tesla respond to this? I am curious if this an algorithm issue or an issue with real time scheduling where the necessary signal did not arrive in time and so the whole system failed to react.
- ars 5y agoDid you watch the video? The truck is almost impossible to see it's so dark. However human night vision is much better than camera night vision, so I wonder what an actual human would have seen in that scenario. But it's certain the camera could not really see it.
- bitshiftfaced 5y agoThe truck still blocks the view of headlights of the traffic in the other lane. It also blocked view of the lights of the right-lane truck near the end. I don't know what the state of the art is like, but humans can tell something is "off" up ahead when they see this kind of "disappearing headlights" pattern. In any case, the tweet claims there was no braking of any kind, and I'd expect braking at least in the split second before the crash, where the truck is visible to the camera.
- jabedude 5y agoThe non-compressed video[0] is much clearer. I can clearly see the truck ~1s before the crash [0]. https://twitter.com/haenschengross/status/1473326136755118085?s=20 https://twitter.com/haenschengross/status/147332613675511808...
- pwillia7 5y agoYou can also see the system does apply brakes just before crash or before the system aborts if you frame by frame
- SilasX 5y agoI'm reminded of the time the Uber SDC hit the pedestrian. Uber initally released one camera's footage, where the ped wasn't visible until it was too late.[1] But then others drove the same path in the same lighting conditions and, even with their (unspecialized) dashcams it was clear you had plenty of time to see someone in the street -- and even that much is ignoring how humans see better at night than the dashcam would! (Oddly, I can't seem to find any such videos at the moment or know what terms I should be using to search, but I definitely remember people uploading such videos to YouTube.) [1] https://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/ https://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/
- kiba 5y agoAs a human, I would probably crash into it, depending on what I seen from non-compressed and compressed version. However, camera works differently from human eyes.
- ryanSrich 5y agoIdk. The non-compressed version makes it seem like the truck was very visible. I think any driver paying attention would have at least applied some braking.
- kiba 5y agoI watched the compressed version before seeing this non-compressed version, so I was primed to expect the black truck. Maybe I would have stopped. Maybe not.
- saalweachter 5y agoDerailing, I wonder how hard it would be to have emergency lights on a vehicle that trigger after an accident.
- jacquesm 5y agoThis is already present on many cars. After decelerating fast the alarm lights come on. For instance: https://www.volvocars.com/lb/support/manuals/s60/2015w46/starting-and-driving/brakes/foot-brake---emergency-brake-lights-and-automatic-hazard-warning-flashers https://www.volvocars.com/lb/support/manuals/s60/2015w46/sta...
- skhr0680 5y agoYou have to have at least one road flare in your car in Japan or it won’t pass inspection
- everforward 5y agoIt seems like it wouldnt be hard to have the hazard lights start blinking if the airbags deploy. I think the issue is that those lights are on the main power circuit, which shuts down if the user turns off the car. That appears to be what happened here, I don't see running lights or anything. I think the person turned their truck off. I honestly don't know if you're supposed to shut your car off after an accident to lower the fire risk, or leave it on to make the car more visible.
- nwvg_7257 5y agoThis is a black truck, facing sideways in a lane, with no reflective surfaces of any kind, at night. Why is it surprising that a car hit it?
- skhr0680 5y agoI counted three seconds from noticing the truck to hitting it. Three seconds of braking is a lot more than zero
- BitwiseFool 5y agoDevil's Advocate: You already knew what to look for* when you watched the video. I would say that a typical driver in the same scenario certainly wouldn't have had nearly as much of three seconds between noticing and collision. Edit: *Specifically, to be on the lookout for a black sideways truck on an unlit road directly in ahead of where the car is traveling.
- skhr0680 5y agoIf a kid running out to get their ball is a the standard example of a hazard that drivers should always be expecting on a residential road, I think a broken down vehicle is the standard example for a highway. Maybe a human could have braked even a little bit, but the autopilot didn’t brake at all. That’s a problem for advocates for it
- mikhailt 5y agoOkay, now imagine you're driving home after a long day at work and it is dark; you still think you will react fast enough?
- lab14 5y agoThis specific car has multiple laser vision cameras that detect objects from long distances, supposedly even at night.
- MPSimmons 5y ago
- MBCook 5y agoOk I’m no Tesla fan. Wow. I don’t know how anything without night vision wouldn’t have hit that. It’s practically invisible. I think it was a huge mistake for Tesla to remove radar from their vehicles but radar isn’t very good on stationary objects so not much help here. This must have been terrifying to be there for.
- ironmagma 5y agoKeep in mind the human eye is very good at detecting low level lighting, better than a camera. Some studies say it can even detect a single photon. It was likely easier to see in person. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172
- hunterb123 5y agoSingle photon detecting eyes or not, most of us drive and know how hard that scenario would be to prevent. I doubt I would have seen it or reacted in time. There was a human in the Tesla that apparently didn't see it either. - edit - Sure... maybe a human could have "lessened the blow", maybe some humans, but now we're hindsight backseat driving and pulling things out of our ass. As a human there's a lot that goes into it, it depends on how long you were driving, your vision at the time, whether you were talking, your driving skills, your reaction time, your handling of accidents, knowing where you can swerve to. Some humans with full attention may have prevented it or weakened the crash, but that's a maybe, and assuming full attention. Many people in this thread who think they would have noticed the subtle lighting effects on a pitch black pickup in the middle of the road. I've nearly hit blacked out cars on the road, you don't see them. You could go back and probably see it in a dashcam, but you know it's there then. The uncompressed version you're still expecting a truck, it seems like it's much slower than what rounding a corner going 75mph on a freeway is, I don't think any of us could judge without being in the seat at the time. All in all, this is the most speculative thread I've ever seen on HN. Very reaching, but anti-Tesla is hot news here so... The big takeaway for me is how that Tesla just took that head-on collision at 75mph without compromising the cabin.
- 5y ago
- mensetmanusman 5y agoFor around $50 Million, someone could pay to have every truck add high visibility markers: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00012368/ https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00012368/
- torbTurret 5y agoShould be legally required tbh.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoMy emergency responder friend added this material to the bottom of his family vehicle as well as to the side. He has responded to so many night crashes where they have had trouble locating the vehicle, that he wanted to make the next emergency responder’s job easier by helping them see the flipped vehicle if that were ever to (unfortunately) occur.
- ck2 5y agoThe power-on screen for teslas should be required by law to show checkboxes: [ ] "YOU are the beta-test of all features including collision avoidance when using this vehicle" [ ] "YOU will be used to detect bugs before they can be fixed, including collisions at high speed" Because these things are assumed in a non-computerized car but the opposite when it's "gee-whiz". If your phone app crashes well you just reboot the phone. If the car has a bug, you crash and you reboot.
- skhr0680 5y agoIsn’t this the kind of situation where the autopilot is meant to slam your brakes on and make you think it’s magic?
- soheil 5y agoNo, but there are many adjacent cases where it does do that, however, due to selection bias you will never hear about them.
- skhr0680 5y agoA car’s autopilot braking in the nick of time to avoid an “invisible” obstacle is basically a perfect viral video, surely that would be a top post here and on Facebook and Reddit if it existed
- trompetenaccoun 5y agoAbsolutely right, this should be considered the bare minimum of driver assist, let alone "self driving".
- soheil 5y agoThat would be real magic. Magic is numerous cases where Autopilot does end up avoiding accidents in otherwise mundane situations that most people don't even think about, but over time does make a big dent in the number of fatalities.
- yumraj 5y agoAt this point it is very clear, to me, that anyone using FSD/Autopilot is risking their lives by trusting their lives on a beta, or perhaps even alpha product. It has issues during the day, at night it is downright dangerous. I do agree that while watching the video the stopped truck is not visible till very late and based just on the video it is not clear if a human would have done any better. However, I'm not sure we can make that call since it's not clear what the quality/aperture of the video is and what the human eye was able to see. Still, even then, a human would have slammed the breaks or swerved to the right to a free lane and depending on how good the Tesla breaks are, I don't own one, it may have stopped/slowed down substantially. EDIT: I think some people are underestimating their reaction time. I have had a case, once in my life, where I was driving on a Freeway at ~65 mph, 87 N for those from the Bay Area, and due to the curving of the Freeway I did not see the traffic stopped in front of me in the left most lane. It was very similar to this, but while the freeway was curving. I did not slam the breaks, but swerved to the right lane, which very luckily for me was empty till I could slam the breaks. It was purely reflex action driven, no thinking was involved. In this case there are two things: - human eye can see farther at night than a camera as others have also noted. - swerving would/could have prevented a head on collision since there was no traffic in the middle lane (though the stopped truck is occupying a bit of it) and would have hit the Tesla on the left side. Much better than a full head on collision.
- kybernetyk 5y agoI know too much about computer and software to trust any driving auto pilot. Heck, even normal adaptive cruise control makes me very nervous.
- yumraj 5y ago> even normal adaptive cruise control makes me very nervous Thank you, it seems I'm not the only one. My foot hurts much more when I'm using adaptive cruise control since it's always hovering over the brake but not touching it - unless there is absolutely not traffic whatsoever. Due to this, I almost never use it.
- 5y ago
- a_square_peg 5y agoVisibility of the stopped truck aside, one could see even in the non-compressed version of the video how the truck obscures headlights of on-coming vehicles. Human drivers can pick up on that contextual information to see that something might be there to obscure the light even if it's not clearly visible on its own.
- animal_spirits 5y agoI think this is one of the big points about humans vs. computers for complicated problem solving like this: context. The autopilot's job is to drive the car safely when it can. It's job isn't to pick up the tiny minutia of offputting sensory input like obstructed headlights - it isn't programmed to _reason_ about things like that, something that would raise the hairs on a human and cause them to double check what's in front of them.
- a_square_peg 5y agoYeah, I think this is really fascinating and challenging aspect of AI and self-driving. We have a model of the world in our brain and we're constantly evaluating what ought to be there or not and checking consistency between all the sensory information we receive but don't think AI is quite there yet.
- animal_spirits 5y agoI think that in our constantly changing world AI will never be able to "catch up" with us. It might be able to have some ability to "catch up" to where humans are now, but that will take many decades, and by that point there will be new obstructions and different things to watch out for and it will need new training again. I have an intuition that these machines will always be lagging behind. But maybe I'm wrong.
- mbg721 5y agoThere's a legitimate fear that AI will be just good enough to be the scapegoat for bad or lazy decisions that devastate people's lives. To some extent that's already here, but imagine widespread drone policing, social credit, or nanny-state appliances.
- soperj 5y agoI love all the other people saying that they wouldn't have been able to avoid it, but the many people who were actually driving on the road managed that just fine.
- hunterb123 5y agoYou mean the truck who braked only after passing it? The video shows noone else in the lane, who are you saying avoided it? That truck in the road was a recent wreck, its most likely the Tesla was the first to come upon it.
- mikhailt 5y ago> but the many people who were actually driving on the road managed that just fine. How do you know when the crash occurred? How do you know for sure other people managed to do just fine? Watch the video; there was no other car in that lane for 10s at the very least.
- cryptonector 5y agoThe first accident seems to have been very fresh. This Tesla may have been the first car to happen upon it. Though at least from TFT we can't be certain.
- rootsudo 5y agoPickup truck, crashed on the highway, and the tesla cabin looks pretty good. Scary, but it happens all the time to humans too. I'm more impressed how the Tesla looked at that 75mph accident, the cabin really was not compromised at all. Wow.
- jacquesm 5y agoI'd hate to have been in that crash though. 75mph to zero in a couple of milliseconds is not something that is good for your system.
- analyte123 5y agoMany people would have hit the pickup. But some would have been able to respond and manually brake before impact, and this is the exact sort of collision that Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) is supposed to mitigate, and there are dozens of cars of different makes that have it installed [1]. It's not like Tesla is the only car on the road with sensors. This is a failure. The fact that a radar-equipped "full self-driving" car doesn't even tap the brakes in the two seconds before hitting a unavoidable solid object in the middle of the road is a travesty. [1] https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/most-new-cars-have-aeb-safety-tech-that-prevents-crashes-a4660106723/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/most-new-cars-hav...
- extropy 5y agoAll radar based braking systems in the market filter out stationary objects because too many false positives. To my knowledge there is no AEB system in production that could reliably avoided this.
- xuhu 5y agoSccessful AEB test with stationary object: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y agoUnsuccessful one, by Volvo too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBCr-XBWZaQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBCr-XBWZaQ
- cbg0 5y agoThe Volvo system is based on radar + camera and it's pretty obvious that that is the rear of a vehicle in front of the truck. It might not necessarily pick up every kind of stationary object.
- kwhitefoot 5y agoImpressive but not really comparable. How would it perform at 75 mph?
- clavicat 5y agoFSD = Filming Sudden Death
- neogodless 5y agoI don't know how much is from knowing there was a truck in the road, but I noticed in my first viewing how something was blocking oncoming headlights. If you're going 75mph, that should really get your spidey-sense tingling. At least let off the accelerator/cancel cruise control. Be prepared to brake. Once you're closer and lined up, it's harder to tell there's anything going on because you're no longer approaching a bend with headlights on the other side of the truck, so by then it's too late. But this is, again, all hindsight talking. In the moment, it's much harder to assess how a "typical human" might have reacted, if at all.
- jazzyjackson 5y agoHad the same feeling, incoming headlights are not visible = obstruction. pity the car has nothing that could be called intelligence. I’ve spent a lot of time staring at the road thinking how I’d write a program to do it. Main thing I’d do differently is provide visual feedback of confidence. Having the autopilot disengage when it gets confused isn’t good enough, I want to know when the system is losing confidence /before/ it disengages, and I need it to let me know that it’s not 100% sure the next thousand feet of road is actually clear. Tesla seems to drive unperturbed until its classifier recognizes an obstacle.
- dkonofalski 5y agoAs someone who is a decent-ish programmer that's recently worked on recognition from videos, I would be totally lost trying to figure out how to handle a situation like this. As a human person (I swear!), I could see in the video that the headlights were being obstructed by something but, as a human programmer, I'm completely at a loss for how I would even determine if the headlights are blocked by something up close vs. far away using just the camera's view. Headlights get blocked by things all the time. How in the hell would you figure out that that's what's going on just by the visual? In other words, it's a good thing I don't make this stuff. My car would be phantom braking every 10 seconds, especially at night.
- a_square_peg 5y ago
- cblconfederate 5y agohow many human drivers crashed on the same car?
- vb6sp6 5y agoin this case? 0
- trompetenaccoun 5y agoIn this case 1. Unless it's a ghost Tesla that travels the highways on its own?
- cblconfederate 5y agohe wasnt driving
- aaomidi 5y agoWhen your car is so smart it forgets to do emergency breaking. This literally feels like spy kids 2, this watch can do everything except show the time.
- soheil 5y agoSure radar would have detected that, but even with naked eyes you cannot see the black crashed car against pitch black background without any lights emitting form it.
- NewEntryHN 5y agoComparison with human ability aside, this would most definitely not have happened with Lidar. Musk's argument has always been that you don't need Lidar because humans don't need Lidar, but since the goal is to do better than humans this might not really work out in the end.
- dkonofalski 5y agoAgreed wholeheartedly. This is a perfect example of why computers should be assisted by things that humans aren't.
- soheil 5y agoPlease try not to draw general conclusions from specific examples. First we need to know what percentage of crashes are due to lack of lidar/radar instead of looking at anecdotal cases.
- trompetenaccoun 5y agoApart from the higher price why would you not want additional sensors like radar and lidar? If all human driven cars were already equipped with radar and emergency stop systems, mass pileups would be a thing of the past. Obviously there are situations where cameras or our eyes simply won't be able to see enough. Dark unlit objects at night aren't exactly an obscure edge case scenario, the crash from the video is something we already see on a regular basis with human driven cars, sadly. And even if not, I'd rather pay $1000 or so extra to protect me from that freak scenario that's likely never going to happen. Until it does. I also have airbags in my car although I never needed them.
- animal_spirits 5y agoThis is incredibly terrifying. I hope the person driving and behind the truck holding the flash light is okay.
- ChildOfChaos 5y agoHow is this worrying? You basically cannot see it until it's too late. No issue here, any other car on the road would of crashed into the truck as well.
- mdoms 5y agoWatch the uncompressed footage. The truck was clearly visible for multiple seconds before the impact. https://streamable.com/7ixg7l https://streamable.com/7ixg7l
- stunt 5y agoNext time you drive at night time, compare what was visible to your eyes to what your dashcam captured. Then upload the video on Twitter, and compare it again. Same video, without Twitter compression https://streamable.com/7ixg7l https://streamable.com/7ixg7l Watch it full screen on your desktop monitor (still wouldn't be as good as human field of vision) and remember this was recorded by an average quality dashcam, not a high-end camera.
- onphonenow 5y agoThe tesla safety story should be whole system. My question - how did the driver do in this crash? This isn't super clear cut, the vehicle was unlit in fast lane on the freeway. That could be a tough for a number of drivers. That said, one lidar sensor maybe? Just to let at least brakes come on?
- BurningFrog 5y agoAn alternate take is that black cars should not be allowed to drive at night.
- davesque 5y agoHonestly, my take away from this as a pedestrian and a driver is that I should keep a very close eye on Teslas driving around me. How could I not do that after seeing this footage? I don't think it's a stretch to say that we have Elon Musk's ego to thank for this. A radar-equipped car that purports to be self-driving should not have hit a solid object in the middle of the road without so much as tapping the break. There are many other car manufacturers that ship this kind of emergency breaking functionality for which this accident wouldn't have occurred because they simply have a tighter QA process for car features.
- asow92 5y agoTo be fair, I think I'd hit it too; didn't even see it in the video until it was too late.
- 999900000999 5y agoThis is why you get flairs, hazards or something. I know most people would of probably hit that truck. Don't blame Tesla here. The uncompressed video is slightly better, but unless you get lucky your still hitting that truck.
- Philip-J-Fry 5y agoIt's a camera based autonomous driving system. One with some really low quality cameras that can barely see in the dark. I would not trust this thing with my life. They are gambling on the ability for AI to "just sort it out". Even if the system can drive in the dark, you can bet it's mostly just looking at white lines 10 ft ahead. It's not looking for obstacles or anything like that, it can't even see them. So dangerous. A complete black box where every second of driving you never know whether there's an obscure edge case where the car decides today is your final day and it drives off the side of a cliff because the image processor saw something it didn't understand.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y agoRemember that how it looks on a dash cam isn’t going to be nearly what it looks like for a person. Our eyes will effectively have much higher dynamic range (can see brighter details and darker details at the same time). Think about the times you've taken pictures on your phone at night and the clearly visible background details render as nearly invisible on camera. I’d bet that truck was much more visible in person than it is in the video.
- encoderer 5y agoYou don’t need LIDAR to notice the speed at which this thread is dropping in the HN ranking.
- MerelyMortal 5y agoGeez, out of curiosity I went back to check, and it's now #120 (page 5).
- drcongo 5y agoI'm disappointed that this post doesn't have the usual Musk apologists defending everything he or his cars do. Is the tide turning, even on HN?
- modeless 5y agoTesla's cameras are just not good enough. A camera with a clean lens and better dynamic range would have made the truck much more visible. But also the software approach needs to change. The current approach cannot use cues like headlights or lane lines being occluded or the reflection of lights in the side of the black truck to infer the presence of an object. To enable approaches that can do this, the compute hardware needs to be much faster. I believe cameras and software can drive cars safely. But these cameras and this software can't.
- thinkski 5y agoUnfortunate that the truck was at an angle — much of radar likely bounced off to the right rather than returning back. The color of the truck provided little contrast, probably wasn’t resolved by the sensor, which has a dynamic range of 115dB, low compared to ~160dB of human eye, and 1MP (before debayering), again low compared to human eye at the center of vision.
- areyousure 5y agoIn case anyone is curious, the following disturbing video provides some data on how human drivers would do in the same situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9yqXzZ16ns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9yqXzZ16ns In this video, the reporter attempts to illuminate the car so that it is more visible.
- EForEndeavour 5y agoHorrifying. My nervousness about highway driving in the dark just got worse.
- hungryhobo 5y agoOne thing we need to remember is we are seeing the scene from a recorded video. Our eyes have much better dynamic range so a person would have much better grasp on what the road is like behind the wheels than what they can see from the recorded video.
- jmartrican 5y agoMaybe lidar is a good idea.
- codeddesign 5y agoTwo black cars and no overheard street lights..craziness
- mikewarot 5y agoYikes - I thought it was going to hit the semi-truck on first viewing. Title should be changed to Crashed Truck, not stopped/parked truck. So many questions 1> Why isn't the back corner of the pickup truck reflecting any light? Were the reflectors somehow tinted? 2> Was there still power in the truck? The hazard blinkers weren't on. 3> How sure are we there is zero latency between the UI and the frames as they roll in from the camera? 4> Does Tesla have a red team working to generate/test these type of corner cases? If not, why not? 5> Does Tesla FSD actively watch for mammal eyes at night in the country, like Deer, Moose, Bear, etc? If not, why not? I likely would have been following the semi in his lane, as is my habit at night. I assume they have a better view, younger eyes, and they'll hit deer, etc. so I don't have too. If I was driving in that lane, I would probably have hit it, if I hadn't noticed the occlusion.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- morpheos137 5y agoIt is clear to me that the tractor trailer truck to the right spotted the vehicle and engaged in evasive action. Seeing the truck engage in evasive action would have stimulated me to be cautious as a human driver. Second, in the video the range of the low beams on the tesla seems absurdly short.
- tablespoon 5y agoExplain to me why camera-only self-driving cars is a good idea again? That wreck was basically invisible except as an intermittent silhouette against traffic in the other direction. "Full self-driving" cars should be far safer than human-driven cars, and data from sensors with no human equivalent seems like a good way to get that in situations like this. Also, how hard is Tesla training their object-detection models for things that are only an intermittent silhouette against opposing traffic? I'm guessing not at all.
- dver 5y agoHad this happen, freeway speed, car stopped no lights. I managed to get on the brakes but slammed into the vehicle still. (Was in my 20's, so still youthful reaction times, drove lot, did SCCA events so at least an avg driver)
- stunt 5y agoIronically software programmers have least trust in autopilot for obvious reasons.