5 ms·

I have no opinion on Tesla or their autopilot system, but this is a poorly researched article even for wapo. It's focusing on the wrong thing in this particular

I have no opinion on Tesla or their autopilot system, but this is a poorly researched article even for wapo. It's focusing on the wrong thing in this particular case. Even normal collision avoidance systems cannot easily detect a semi truck sideways, because semi trucks and trailers in NA aren't required to have side skirts and protection bars. This won't happen in EU because all their trucks have mandated side skirts and bars. So when the car hits it the occupants are protected through the air bags and crumple zones. The objective should be to prevent severe bodily harm or loss of life to the occupants in the event of a collision, with/without an avoidance system. Find out why trucks in NA don't have mandated side skirts. Who's lobbying against it ? If they really want to talk about lack of proper safeguards in autopilot they could've investigated many other reported scenarios like Teslas suddenly steering into the opposing lane, dividers. There are also reports of their system behaving erratically when the road slopes up into the horizon.

nullindividual 3y ago
Adding those rules in the US has been tired more than once. https://www.truckinginfo.com/10138132/underride-legislation-calls-for-side-front-guards https://www.truckinginfo.com/10138132/underride-legislation-...
- vsskanth 3y ago
  It seems to have gone nowhere, I suspect due to lobbying.
iudqnolq 3y ago
You seem to be conflating impact mitigation with obstacle detection
- vsskanth 3y ago
  I'm focusing on neither. I'm saying there should be regulations to prevent loss of life even when impact happens, especially when other regions have implemented known solutions.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    I see. I missed that because it's quite tangential. WashPo didn't miss the point by not talking about it.
lolinder 3y ago
> Even normal collision avoidance systems cannot detect a semi truck sideways because semi trucks and trailers in NA aren't required to have side skirts and protection bars. You know what can detect a semi truck sideways? Human eyes. Collision detection systems are meant to trigger far later anyway, potentially after it's already too late. Side skirts would be helpful for sure in reducing fatalities in the event of a collision, but better still is avoiding the collision in the first place. This kind of response is extremely condescending: "this is a poorly researched article because it didn't focus on the aspect of the story that I find most important." It's a perfectly valid approach to focus on the fact that Tesla's marketing of their "fancy cruise control" (their lawyer's words) causes people to trust it with their lives in unsafe ways, even when it's apparently incapable of something as simple as seeing the broad side of a semi truck. If you think the lack of side skirts is such an important issue, write your own article on it, don't cast aspersions on someone else's article.
- kiba 3y ago
  The lack of side skirt is an important issue, though human eyes are certainly more important. We do not just rely on just one system to keep us safe on the road, but multiple systems. Road design, trucking regulations, the software or lack thereof, human elements, all contribute to our safety.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Right, but it's completely unfair of OP to say that the article is poorly researched because it doesn't touch on something tangential. Tesla has marketing materials that say "the person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons", while their lawyers in court say it's "basically just fancy cruise control". That's the story wapo chose to tell, and it's a perfectly legitimate story. I'm sure there are plenty of other things we can learn from this incident, but they're not lazy for not focusing on them in this piece.
    - judge2020 3y ago
      Legal reasons include a big popup gating access to the autosteer feature, as well as active driver monitoring to ensure you're watching the road. It's not "only there for legal reasons" and I don't see any marketing material that implies as such [0]. 0: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
mannykannot 3y ago
It does not focus on the wrong thing. The relevant fact here is that the system failed in a very straightforward and important obstacle-detection-and-avoidance case, and this fact cannot be waved away by supposing that the driver would have survived if the truck had been better designed (and neither can it be waved away by blaming either diver.) The article also focuses on the irresponsible mixed messaging coming from Tesla.
usea 3y ago
> Even normal collision avoidance systems cannot easily detect a semi truck sideways, because semi trucks and trailers in NA aren't required to have side skirts and protection bars. This sentence seems to be saying that skirts and protection bars are the reason that self driving cars cannot see these vehicles. Is that really true? Is it a conclusion you've come to on your own, or is it some kind of research or something? It seems like the crux of your whole post, but is absent.
- vsskanth 3y ago
  So by "normal", I meant the radar-based systems in normal cars, also known as AEB. They are usually mounted low on the front fenders or grille. Semi truck trailers are tall, have a huge empty gap between them and the road, and just high enough to not be seen by the radar. From the radars POV it appears like the road is unobstructed. Obviously this isn't hard to detect with full LIDAR systems in self driving cars because they are on the roof and you have full depth information. This is why I do not mention "self driving cars" in my parent comment.
  - aaronbeekay 3y ago
    Do you have a source for this? There’s a gap between semi wheels, sure, but the deck height of a semi trailer in North America is about 48”. If automotive radars weren’t able to detect objects above this height, they would miss a lot of obstacles… One automotive radar I’m familiar with, the Bosch MRR [1], lists a vertical FOV of ±15 degrees, and a 300 m maximum detection range. Assuming the sensor is mounted perpendicular to the ground at 0.5 m high, it should be able to see the top of a 13’6” semi trailer from ~15m away all the way up to its full range. Teslas don’t have radar anyway, so of course this wouldn’t have helped, but an AEB radar that can’t see the top of a semi truck isn’t very useful. [1] https://www.bosch-mobility.com/en/solutions/sensors/front-radar-sensor/ https://www.bosch-mobility.com/en/solutions/sensors/front-ra...
    - vsskanth 3y ago
      Radars are usually tuned to ignore them because they don't have the fidelity to differentiate between a trailer on it's side and a tunnel and it leads to phantom braking.
katbyte 3y ago
Normal collision detection systems don’t try to use cameras. Radar will have no issues in an instance like this if the detection zone is vertical enough
- vsskanth 3y ago
  This particular Tesla was pre 2021 so it should have both radar and cameras.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - daveguy 3y ago
    So after 2021 Tesla got even more irresponsible?
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  The detection zone is not vertical enough. Radar is tuned to mostly ignore overhead objects otherwise you’d have phantom emergency braking whenever entering a tunnel, parking garage or going through a pedestrian crossing. It wouldn’t normally have enough accuracy to distinguish between that, and the 1.5m high side of a semi truck. Modern tech is changing that, but most collision prevention systems of today will not prevent this type of accident. Yet another reason to make guards mandatory. There are thousands of underride crashes and hundreds of deaths yearly, you only hear about the “automated driving” ones because it brings more clicks.
  - katbyte 3y ago
    I tried but found nothing to verify your claim most collision avoidance systems do not sense veritable enough, nor anything discussing them plus truck guards outside Tesla failing. Can you please provide some sources for your claims?
    - ricardobeat 3y ago
      That was just off the top of my head, but here are some links I found: https://www.ti.com/lit/wp/spry312/spry312.pdf https://www.ti.com/lit/wp/spry312/spry312.pdf shows how 24ghz radar, the most common until recently, has resolution measured in half-meter increments https://www.kiforte.com/fca_radar-656.html https://www.kiforte.com/fca_radar-656.html Kia manual showing how the radar cone only covers a height of 1.2 meters in front of the car These radar sensors project a very wide beam, they can't see much right in front of the car. For example, there was a car reviewer on YouTube that recently put ultrasonic parking sensors against a camera-based Tesla, and they perform about the same, with the camera slightly better in some situations because it's looking from above - the bumper-mounted radar cannot see objects in the ground right beneath it. Honda also just added a camera in their latest generation collision avoidance system, to cover a wider range of situations.

nullindividual 3y ago

Adding those rules in the US has been tired more than once. https://www.truckinginfo.com/10138132/underride-legislation-calls-for-side-front-guards https://www.truckinginfo.com/10138132/underride-legislation-...

vsskanth 3y ago
It seems to have gone nowhere, I suspect due to lobbying.

iudqnolq 3y ago

You seem to be conflating impact mitigation with obstacle detection

vsskanth 3y ago
I'm focusing on neither. I'm saying there should be regulations to prevent loss of life even when impact happens, especially when other regions have implemented known solutions.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  I see. I missed that because it's quite tangential. WashPo didn't miss the point by not talking about it.

lolinder 3y ago

> Even normal collision avoidance systems cannot detect a semi truck sideways because semi trucks and trailers in NA aren't required to have side skirts and protection bars. You know what can detect a semi truck sideways? Human eyes. Collision detection systems are meant to trigger far later anyway, potentially after it's already too late. Side skirts would be helpful for sure in reducing fatalities in the event of a collision, but better still is avoiding the collision in the first place. This kind of response is extremely condescending: "this is a poorly researched article because it didn't focus on the aspect of the story that I find most important." It's a perfectly valid approach to focus on the fact that Tesla's marketing of their "fancy cruise control" (their lawyer's words) causes people to trust it with their lives in unsafe ways, even when it's apparently incapable of something as simple as seeing the broad side of a semi truck. If you think the lack of side skirts is such an important issue, write your own article on it, don't cast aspersions on someone else's article.

kiba 3y ago
The lack of side skirt is an important issue, though human eyes are certainly more important. We do not just rely on just one system to keep us safe on the road, but multiple systems. Road design, trucking regulations, the software or lack thereof, human elements, all contribute to our safety.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Right, but it's completely unfair of OP to say that the article is poorly researched because it doesn't touch on something tangential. Tesla has marketing materials that say "the person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons", while their lawyers in court say it's "basically just fancy cruise control". That's the story wapo chose to tell, and it's a perfectly legitimate story. I'm sure there are plenty of other things we can learn from this incident, but they're not lazy for not focusing on them in this piece.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Legal reasons include a big popup gating access to the autosteer feature, as well as active driver monitoring to ensure you're watching the road. It's not "only there for legal reasons" and I don't see any marketing material that implies as such [0]. 0: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

mannykannot 3y ago

It does not focus on the wrong thing. The relevant fact here is that the system failed in a very straightforward and important obstacle-detection-and-avoidance case, and this fact cannot be waved away by supposing that the driver would have survived if the truck had been better designed (and neither can it be waved away by blaming either diver.) The article also focuses on the irresponsible mixed messaging coming from Tesla.

usea 3y ago

> Even normal collision avoidance systems cannot easily detect a semi truck sideways, because semi trucks and trailers in NA aren't required to have side skirts and protection bars. This sentence seems to be saying that skirts and protection bars are the reason that self driving cars cannot see these vehicles. Is that really true? Is it a conclusion you've come to on your own, or is it some kind of research or something? It seems like the crux of your whole post, but is absent.

vsskanth 3y ago
So by "normal", I meant the radar-based systems in normal cars, also known as AEB. They are usually mounted low on the front fenders or grille. Semi truck trailers are tall, have a huge empty gap between them and the road, and just high enough to not be seen by the radar. From the radars POV it appears like the road is unobstructed. Obviously this isn't hard to detect with full LIDAR systems in self driving cars because they are on the roof and you have full depth information. This is why I do not mention "self driving cars" in my parent comment.
- aaronbeekay 3y ago
  Do you have a source for this? There’s a gap between semi wheels, sure, but the deck height of a semi trailer in North America is about 48”. If automotive radars weren’t able to detect objects above this height, they would miss a lot of obstacles… One automotive radar I’m familiar with, the Bosch MRR [1], lists a vertical FOV of ±15 degrees, and a 300 m maximum detection range. Assuming the sensor is mounted perpendicular to the ground at 0.5 m high, it should be able to see the top of a 13’6” semi trailer from ~15m away all the way up to its full range. Teslas don’t have radar anyway, so of course this wouldn’t have helped, but an AEB radar that can’t see the top of a semi truck isn’t very useful. [1] https://www.bosch-mobility.com/en/solutions/sensors/front-radar-sensor/ https://www.bosch-mobility.com/en/solutions/sensors/front-ra...
  - vsskanth 3y ago
    Radars are usually tuned to ignore them because they don't have the fidelity to differentiate between a trailer on it's side and a tunnel and it leads to phantom braking.

katbyte 3y ago

Normal collision detection systems don’t try to use cameras. Radar will have no issues in an instance like this if the detection zone is vertical enough

vsskanth 3y ago
This particular Tesla was pre 2021 so it should have both radar and cameras.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- daveguy 3y ago
  So after 2021 Tesla got even more irresponsible?
ricardobeat 3y ago
The detection zone is not vertical enough. Radar is tuned to mostly ignore overhead objects otherwise you’d have phantom emergency braking whenever entering a tunnel, parking garage or going through a pedestrian crossing. It wouldn’t normally have enough accuracy to distinguish between that, and the 1.5m high side of a semi truck. Modern tech is changing that, but most collision prevention systems of today will not prevent this type of accident. Yet another reason to make guards mandatory. There are thousands of underride crashes and hundreds of deaths yearly, you only hear about the “automated driving” ones because it brings more clicks.
- katbyte 3y ago
  I tried but found nothing to verify your claim most collision avoidance systems do not sense veritable enough, nor anything discussing them plus truck guards outside Tesla failing. Can you please provide some sources for your claims?
  - ricardobeat 3y ago
    That was just off the top of my head, but here are some links I found: https://www.ti.com/lit/wp/spry312/spry312.pdf https://www.ti.com/lit/wp/spry312/spry312.pdf shows how 24ghz radar, the most common until recently, has resolution measured in half-meter increments https://www.kiforte.com/fca_radar-656.html https://www.kiforte.com/fca_radar-656.html Kia manual showing how the radar cone only covers a height of 1.2 meters in front of the car These radar sensors project a very wide beam, they can't see much right in front of the car. For example, there was a car reviewer on YouTube that recently put ultrasonic parking sensors against a camera-based Tesla, and they perform about the same, with the camera slightly better in some situations because it's looking from above - the bumper-mounted radar cannot see objects in the ground right beneath it. Honda also just added a camera in their latest generation collision avoidance system, to cover a wider range of situations.