11 ms·
Government investigation finds Tesla FSD engaged during the Bay Bridge pileup
- dekhn 4y agoFunny how Musk doesn't come out with a tweet saying "we checked the logs and Autopilot/FSD wasn't enabled" any more. And this is FSD, not Autopilot.
- labster 4y agoElon is too busy with Twitter to pay any attention to Tesla or SpaceX. SpaceX keeps going just fine without him, but Tesla, well…
- yumraj 4y agoHe’s busy selling Tesla stocks..
- stjohnswarts 4y agothrowing out the baby (tesla) with the bathwater (twitter)
- olliej 4y agoWeren’t they also found to be disengaging so/fsd seconds prior to impact and reporting it as driver error (because of their BS “driver must always be ready to take control”, with a more rapid response than we expect from trained pilots)
- raisedbyninjas 4y agoTBF, this is what level 2 and 3 are supposed to do. It's a shade more driver friendly than driving headlong into an obstacle and hoping the driver wrests control away from the computer.
- kube-system 4y agoLevel 3 is supposed to be smart enough to disengage and ask the driver to drive. Level 2 is not required to be that smart, and most level 2 cars are not.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- drewg123 4y agoI thought FSD applied only to uncontrolled access surface roads, and the bay bridge would be simply autopilot. I know that in my car, the FSD stuff ends and regular autopilot takes over on highways and other controlled access roads. I've never driven the bay bridge in my Tesla (since I live thousands of miles away), but I remember it being a controlled access highway, so I assume it was the AP logic, not the FSD logic that was in control.
- elif 4y agoCorrect. On the highway, every tesla would be on the old 2016-born autopilot stack, not the FSD model. the only cars that have v11 fsd highway stack are internal tesla test cars.
- LadyCailin 4y agoDoes autopilot change lanes? What’s the difference between autopilot and fsd?
- dekhn 4y agoI was curious about this and could not find an authoritative answer- it appears that there was a Lane Change feature in Autopilot that got moved to FSD, and autopilot shouldn't auto-change lanes at all. But I see lots of conflicting information. Some articles mention FSD, others just say "driver assist". I can't find the SCI on the NHTSA site.
- dekhn 4y agoI came back to re-read this post and since I'm unable to find any real corroborating information, I'm inclined to agree that it makes much more sense it was on Autopilot. (I also haven't seen any commentary from musk, but it's hard to search twitter)
- nullish_signal 4y agoMuch as Teslas navigate through "un-occluded space" I wonder if they do not sufficiently factor in their own Occlusion (blocking) of space. What kind of idiot STOPS ON A DIME with speeding cars hot on his tail? Only a Computer... It's unfortunate that the Driver did not have the sense to Slam on the Gas -The idea of "Slow == Safe" can be disastrous...
- nullish_signal 4y agoAs an aside, I wish that Stoplights would factor in Aggregate Kinetic Energy of the Traffic they manage. I feel a bit bad every time my Single Stopped Car gets a Green, causing a group of 10 Cars at 40 mph to Stop, then later Re-Accelerate. If the stupid Junction had waited some time, the 10 Cars would happily carry their 40 mph through, allowing me to go once the Large Kinetic Energy Traffic had passed uninterrupted.
- jeffbee 4y agoThe aggregate kinetic energy of any number of stopped cars is zero so I don’t see how your algorithm will work.
- tzs 4y agoFor simplicity lets assume all the cars in this discussion are the same mass and travel at the same speed except when they slow and stop for a traffic light or are accelerating back up to speed after the light changes. Let E be the kinetic energy of each car when it is not dealing with a traffic light. Let's assume no regenerative braking. Let's assume that a car idling at rest uses R energy So we have 1 car that approaches the light, gets a red, and stops. It has to shed E kinetic energy. Then 10 cars approach the intersection on the perpendicular road. Before they reach it the light changes and they all have to stop, shedding 10 E kinetic energy. The first car resumes its journey. The light changes again and the other 10 resume. The net result is that encountering the intersection caused this 11 car system to shed 11 E kinetic energy more and to consume 11 R idling energy more than would have been consumed if the intersection had not been there (e.g., if the crossing had been an overpass). What he's proposing is that some sort of smart traffic light system could notice the 10 approaching cars and hold their green a little longer so that the 10 cars do not have to stop. Suppose it has to hold the light long enough that car 1 has to wait twice as long. The energy cost of the intersection on the 11 car system under that scenario is E shed kinetic energy and 2 R idling energy. That's going to be much less that 11 E + 11 R.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI don't know why Tesla etc are not required to report the number of crashes per 1000km in different modes publicly. Until those numbers are available none of us can really judge, least of all based on single incidents...
- elif 4y agothey've reported them since 2016 tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
- culi 4y agoThey have never published any data. Also, those number are also obviously misleading. Comparing my 2008 extended van I bought for $5k to a luxury vehicle is obviously pointless and useless In addition, those "safety reports" continue to spout misinformation that the National Transportation Safety Board is currently suing Tesla for
- epgui 4y agoYou’re commenting on a literal publishing of data. Just because the data doesn’t look the way you want doesn’t mean it’s not data. (Edit: if you’re going to downvote me, please explain how a literal interpretation of exactly what I wrote is technically incorrect.)
- shafyy 4y agoThis post doesn't link to a source. Is there an official statement somewhere?
- ajross 4y agoIt's been floating around for few days. No major media has picked up the story. This seems very fake, yeah. FWIW: the original Klippenstein story was sourced only from 2-3 sentences in the police report too (a report that was explicit about its inability to verify the claim, no less). The fact that an eyeball-driving story like this has gone this long with so much as an on the record quote from the driver... My original intuition looking at this was "Autopilot doesn't have this behavior", and the longer this goes the more convinced I am that the driver just fibbed to the cops. This absolutely looks like a classic distracted driving accident, and if it were any other vehicle, even ones with assistive technology, no one would think otherwise.
- vagrantJin 4y agoMeh. I think criticism/public outcries of self driving is neccessary. Needs tight regulations because as much as I think self driving is entirely moronic, it is becoming reality, and that reality needs a way for the law and justice systems to be able to deal with it acccordingly. The tech itself is impressive but not really a leap forward for humanity or transportation. More sideways meamdering than anything.
- hbarka 4y agoIt’s relatively easy to take over the controls which instantly disengages FSD or Autopilot. Why this Bay Bridge driver didn’t do that just boggles me. It’s almost like these drivers have lost or no sense of a mechanical aptitude and so when something like this happens they freak out and freeze. No mechanical sense at all and just stays there to get rear ended. No athletic sense either. Driving school ought to incorporate playing tag or pushing around a grocery cart in a supermarket for a day and equate all that you do as an analog to driving mechanics and athleticism. (Just don’t use IKEA carts or you’ll go mad.) It’s really easy to step on the accelerator or brake or turn the wheel which instantly makes the car human operated again.
- ragebol 4y agoTo start doing that, a driver needs situational awareness. Getting that takes time. If you truly believe it's fully self driving, you think you can afford to look away and loose that awareness. This gap between 'sometimes needs attention' and 'never needs attention' is hard to bridge and very dangerous, obviously
- hbarka 4y agoI’ve seen the video. This driver had Autopilot on and experienced “phantom braking”. If you drive a Tesla you’ll have experienced phantom braking at some point, a false positive condition when the Autopilot cameras thinks there’s a wall up ahead, for example if going under an overpass. It will literally brake. You step on the accelerator and cuss once or twice at Elon and you’re good to move on. This Bay Bridge driver could not make a decision and let the car brake to a stop. It’s not uncommon. Anecdotally I would say Teslas get rear-ended quite often.
- n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago>“If you drive a Tesla you’ll have experienced phantom braking at some point, a false positive condition when the Autopilot cameras thinks there’s a wall up ahead, for example if going under an overpass. It will literally brake. You step on the accelerator and cuss once or twice at Elon and you’re good to move on. This Bay Bridge driver could not make a decision and let the car brake to a stop. It’s not uncommon. Anecdotally I would say Teslas get rear-ended quite often.” This level of apologism is shocking. “Everyone knows Teslas emergency brake to a stop in the middle of highway traffic randomly, bro. Just gotta be ready for it! No biggie!” Yikes. Ever considered rental cars? Borrowing a friend’s car that you’re not familiar? Or just 100+ years of automotive history in which random no-input braking was considered completely unacceptable and not even a thing?
- redox99 4y ago> The accident in the Bay Bridge tunnel has occurred with Tesla's Full Self-Driving Beta mode active indeed, just as the driver claimed. This is almost certainly false. This kind of highway uses Autopilot, not FSD beta. In fact in the tweet that they show that simulates that same drive you can see on the screen that it's using Autopilot, not FSD beta.
- bobkazamakis 4y agothis is the exact kind of bullshit that corporations have gotten away with for too long. As a consumer, I do not give one flying fuck what the new hip-slang for computer vision is, call it "put your life in the hands of a company run by the most burned out divorced dad person of the year".
- yreg 4y agoOne claim is completely different than the other one and the truth is important here.
- boucher 4y agoNot really. In this scenario there's no functional difference between these two supposedly distinct products.
- yreg 4y agoThey are two different products with two different tech stacks.
- lovich 4y agohaving "self driving" in the name is probably the cause of the confusion. As far as non technical people are concerned, tesla soft ware for driving the car engaged. Whether it was one product or another is immaterial to the fact that tesla software caused the crash