Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

3 day old import P85D crashed while using TACC

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
A sad story, but the most important thing is, nobody got hurt!

Bravo for the enthusiasm to import a Tesla car, even though the owner was certainly aware of the troubles he could get into.

Very sad that he had to learn the hard way, that all those systems, not only in Tesla, are just a help for the driver and not a replacement for the driver and have to be used only in the appropriate manner. I think the Tesla manuals are very clear at that point.

What to do now?
Of course don't sue anybody, but work with them.
Talk to Tesla, ask to which Service center you could ship your car.
Talk to your insurance ask them to pay for the shipping to a Tesla Service center.
Hope that Tesla finds the car can be repaired and that the insurance will pay for it.

Good luck and I hope your enthusiasm doesn't get lost with this really unfortunate accident!
 
3 day old import P85D crash because of ACC.

If anything this shows that Tesla is appealing to a broader demographic. A demographic that has less experience with common car technology and hasnt bothered to RTFM. Sayeth Elon and team in the manual:

"Warning: Traffic-aware cruise control may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles, especially in situations when you are driving over 50 mph (80 km/h) and a vehicle you are following moves out of your driving path and a stationary vehicle or object is in front of you instead.
Always pay attention to the road ahead and stay prepared to take immediate corrective action. Depending on TrafficAware Cruise Control to avoid a collision can result in serious injury or death."

I believe the reason for this is that the software uses the target's prior relative speed to determine if this is a car in front of me vs a stationary object on the side of the road.

If you're driving along and a car is parked on the side, the distance to the object will change exactly proportional to your speed. If it's a car in your lane, there will be a delta because the car is moving.

In the situation where a moving car in front of you moved out of the way, exposing a new stationary target, the software has no way of discerning a stopped car from a parked one. The radar is not that directional. This is where stereoptic cameras comes into play. In time the software should be able to use that sensor to discern the difference.
 
I'm glad everyone's ok following this unfortunate event.

I don't see any grey area here as some posters mentioned. If you are wondering if you should take over and hit the brake, then the answer is yes. If you would be slowing down in a certain situation but the car is not, take over. Always and without hesitation.
 
To the Crash Test Dummy: Pray:
1. that the wife and kid(s) ever get in a car again with you driving.
2. that the other driver or the police don't charge you with criminal negligence, which your posting appears to substantiate.

To all drivers of a new-to-you vehicle: Affix a virtual L PLATE to the rear of your vehicle and for the next 20-30 hours of operation BEHAVE ACCORDINGLY ! !
--
 
Sorry to hear of this.

However, the video that was posted up-thread of the car not coming to a stop, and likely this accident, are not due to bugs or improper testing. They are simply limitations of the current state of the technology (short of having tens of thousands of dollars of hardware for driver assistance onboard). Unfortunately, too many drivers believe the technology used in production vehicles is further along than it really is.

In the video posted above and likely the OP's situation, the car performed exactly how the system is expected to work. This is *not* a failure in TACC. It's a failure in the driver's understanding of the capabilities of the system.

1) The car had acquired a radar target and was tracking the vehicle in front of it. When the car has a lock on a radar target, it prefers to keep a lock on that vehicle, under the assumption that you are following it. (After all, it's intended for highway use, in which you typically follow the car in front of you).
2) The car cannot assume that what is directly in front of the car will be the path of the vehicle. (Two examples illustrating why are below).

When the car being tracked in the video above veered to the right, the car expected the driver to follow it. (After all, the system is designed for highway travel, in which you follow the car in front of you). If stationary objects directly in front of the car's current path of travel were to cause braking, it would be horrible. That would mean that every time the road has a curve, and there's a stationary object on the side of the road on the outside of the curve (a sign, pole, tree, etc.) the car would initiate a braking maneuver.

As a result of (2), the car *must* inherently ignore stationary objects in that situation to avoid undesired braking maneuvers.

Another example: Suppose you're on a divided highway traveling 65 mph and there's a shallow curve to the left (consider 2 lanes in your direction of travel, and you're in the right lane). On the shoulder of the highway (outside of the curve and midway through it) is a disabled vehicle. As you enter the curve, your car may be pointing toward that stopped vehicle on the shoulder and, from the car's perspective, heading right for it. But you do *NOT* want the vehicle to start braking here, thinking that the car is a collision target, because then you'll get inadvertent braking, and a car following you (which is sadly most likely tailgating) will likely slam into you. In reality, you'll be passing next to that vehicle. This is why stationary objects like this are filtered out as radar targets--so we don't experience a whole bunch of inadvertent braking, which would undoubtedly cause more accidents.

Driver assistance technologies such as TACC almost require some sort of special training--not because they are particularly difficult to use or understand, but because their capabilities and behaviors are often greatly misunderstood by the drivers that use them.

To the OP's post, I'm very sorry that this happened--but most likely the system was functioning 100% correctly (and Tesla likely has record of this, as the car probably uploads its black box log whenever it experiences a significant accident). This is just an unfortunate case of a driver either misunderstanding the system, or not using it correctly (driver was inexperienced with the system). It's a shame that it happened, but be thankful nobody was hurt. Take some time to sort through it, and get back in a Tesla as soon as you can.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. This is not a Tesla/TACC weakness. It's just a limitation based on the hardware available on the car or *ANY* production car. Stopping for those stationary objects would cause the car to brake hard on highways all over the place for no reason, as I explained just above.

I agree with you to a great extent but there is one caveat I have to point out and that is that just with using our eyes we are able to handle a situation with a car in front of us changing lanes. When this happens we don't slam on our brakes and we certainly don't slam on the accelerator either. Perhaps we slow down a bit until we see what is in front of the car that is changing lanes ahead of us. Perhaps TACC can and should do the same thing. It seems the current Autopilot implementation is too dependent just on a radar lock without combining that data with a visual representation of the world around it with the camera.

Perhaps this is partly due to the current forward looking camera being monocular which lacks depth perception. I think binocular vision is coming to the Model S soon and this should help the sensor array be more robust.

As for the example with the parked cars again if you combine the radar signatures with visual cues of the street, lanes markers (if any), and a stationary cars parked along the side of the road along with the steering angle of the car that should provide necessary context to go around a curve.

The bottom line is this accident was entirely the fault of the driver. However Autopilot software needs to and I am certain it will evolve so that even in the hands of someone reckless it will be safer than it is today. Handling the situation with a car in front of you changing lanes and then not hitting the car in front of that can be fixed with software if the radar data is used with the information from the camera. Our brain does this every day without the benefit of radar and just using visual cues and TACC should be able to do the same.
 
Last edited:
Hi Emir,

I feel for you and the family impacted. It's a gut wrenching story, and a reminder to us all that assisted modes of operation can be dangerous and we have a long way to go to get to autonomous vehicles and skynet.

The fact that it accelerated in this situation is quite scary.

And you're right, some responses here have been overly judgmental. Something like this could happen to anyone who just received a new toy that's not well understood. You're dealing with a crisis, and you're looking for advise.

I think the best advise given was to contact Tesla. I don't know how helpful they will be on the money side of things, but there is valuable diagnostic information available in the vehicle, which they can use to determine what happened, and whether it's a feature or a bug. Regardless, they can use your case to improve the system.
 
To the Crash Test Dummy: Pray:
1. that the wife and kid(s) ever get in a car again with you driving.
2. that the other driver or the police don't charge you with criminal negligence, which your posting appears to substantiate.

To all drivers of a new-to-you vehicle: Affix a virtual L PLATE to the rear of your vehicle and for the next 20-30 hours of operation BEHAVE ACCORDINGLY ! !
--

I had to google that one. I had no idea what you meant.

L-plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
It seems like there is way too little discussion of the fact that Tesla clearly states TACC is not for use on surface streets. Freeways/motorways only. If one chooses to use TACC in ways Tesla says not to, there is no assurance it will work. It doesn't seem more complicated than that. I use TACC extensively on city streets with that understanding. Glad you weren't hurt.
 
It seems like there is way too little discussion of the fact that Tesla clearly states TACC is not for use on surface streets. Freeways/motorways only. If one chooses to use TACC in ways Tesla says not to, there is no assurance it will work. It doesn't seem more complicated than that. I use TACC extensively on city streets with that understanding. Glad you weren't hurt.

This is really irrelevant considering the fact that some of the traffic patterns you'd encounter on what you call "surface streets"" could occur on an interstate. Interstate traffic can also vary from 0 up to a several miles over the speed limit repeatedly. On an interstate someone in front of you can switch lanes revealing a car in front of that person and TACC should be smart enough to not slam into that car.

I get it that some of you are defending Tesla and I have also said that the ultimate fault is with the driver. However imagine if you were on a 2 hour journey some place and you have been using TACC for a while and have gotten comfortable with and complacent with it as just about any human being would be after a while. Now imagine for a few seconds your attention was elsewhere, could happen even if you were paying attention otherwise and then the car in front of you changed lanes. Would you not be upset if you get into an accident with your family in the car?

As I've said earlier just with the visual cues, our eyes in a similar situation can avoid an accident and I think this particular situation can be fixed with software if the TACC software uses the steering angle to determine that unlike the car in front of you that is going sideways, you are still going on a straight line. As the car in front of you moves away and it exposes you to a vehicle ahead and you are headed directly towards it maybe the vehicle should slow down. This exact same situation can occur on an interstate or a "surface road."

Now if this accident was caused due to a situation on a surface road that would not occur on an interstate I can understand your logic but this could have happened on an interstate just as easily and it might have happened with you and your family in the car.
 
How do I edit the title? The owner wants to remove suing part as people figured it was a bad idea. This is a very very bad day for us, you can understand the frustration coming from it. We should seek logical advice and help from anyone instead of being all so offensive.

Esegin kuyrugunu kalabalikta kesme, kimi urzun der kimi kisa (sorry...no Turkish keyboard here).
 
I get it that some of you are defending Tesla and I have also said that the ultimate fault is with the driver. However imagine if you were on a 2 hour journey some place and you have been using TACC for a while and have gotten comfortable with and complacent with it as just about any human being would be after a while. Now imagine for a few seconds your attention was elsewhere, could happen even if you were paying attention otherwise and then the car in front of you changed lanes. Would you not be upset if you get into an accident with your family in the car?

I'd be upset, but are you implying fault on TACC? If I wasn't paying attention, it would be my fault. If the other car cut in front of me without giving me room to stop, it would be the other driver's fault.
 
I get it that some of you are defending Tesla and I have also said that the ultimate fault is with the driver. However imagine if you were on a 2 hour journey some place and you have been using TACC for a while and have gotten comfortable with and complacent with it as just about any human being would be after a while. Now imagine for a few seconds your attention was elsewhere, could happen even if you were paying attention otherwise and then the car in front of you changed lanes. Would you not be upset if you get into an accident with your family in the car?

Of course. The same thing happens every day with regular cruise control. And without using cruise control at all. Someone glances down at their phone to read a text, and wham. Happens all the time, and of course the driver would be upset.

This is not about defending Tesla, for there is nothing to defend. The system operated as intended, and the manual clearly mentions this situation explicitly.

If a pilot puts a plane on autopilot, then becomes complacent, lets his/her attention lapse, and slams into another aircraft, that is not the fault of the aircraft or autopilot system manufacturer. (Unless the system is expicitly stated to handle that situation). Nobody would claim that it is, so why should Tesla have to defend anything about this accident?

Yes, incorporating camera info to handle this situation is doable, but the point is that it isn't in there yet, and Tesla does not claim that it is. It's unfortunate because this is ultimately the responsibility of the driver. It sucks, and I feel for the OP. It could happen to anyone with a new car and not familiar with its systems.

But that doesn't change the fact that this accident was not a fault of the car's systems.

As for those referring to unintended acceleration, that's what happens when you have a set speed higher than your current speed and the slower target that the car was following is no longer being tracked.
 
This is really irrelevant considering the fact that some of the traffic patterns you'd encounter on what you call "surface streets"" could occur on an interstate.
That twisted logic is what's going to delay driver assist technology by 10 years. Manufacturers can't trust consumers to grasp the limitations of the technology even when it's explicitly spelled out and lawyers are eagerly waiting to parse logic as you are doing to go after them.
 
Cihan bey geçmiş olsun öncelikle.

Hello,

Firstly sorry my bad English. I hope you can understand.

I 'm living in Turkey, and I following Tesla Forums(Turkish and English). He bought the Tesla, shared us and he started the blog. He mentioned-updated the v6.2- a little problem in his article. I think you understand this picture.

5d9e2aa4baf4127c87dba8f040433195-720x340.jpg


Briefly, I think the car's system not perfectly working and this was not completely his fault.
 
I have never liked cruise control and never used it in the cars I have driven, and I doubt it would be otherwise in Tesla, whether it is automatic or not ...

+1
IMHO, a useless accessory.
I am the active component that pilots my cars. I can't ever imagine a machine ever having the perception of the human pilot.
Yep, there are individuals that may find cruise control an aid for their physical limitations.
Yep, drivers do make mistakes and if the car can alert the driver of a pending situation with a heads up display it might be of some assistance rather than just another distraction.
As distractions are the real problem.
Driving is serious stuff and if you don't want to die you'll pay attention!!
I also find it easier to be in control 100% of the time rather than splitting the collision duties with the machine.
For me, it is easier to let off the throttle when approaching traffic than touching the brakes and there is no hesitation from my eye to my right foot.

However, I will welcome Automatic Emergency Braking if it does not cause too many false braking events.

As for TACC: Model S Owners Manual: Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control has limited deceleration ability and may be unable to apply enough braking to avoid a collision if a vehicle in front slows suddenly, or if a vehicle enters your driving lane in front of you. Never depend on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to slow down the vehicle enough to prevent a collision. Always keep your eyes on the road when driving and be prepared to take corrective action as needed. Depending on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to slow the vehicle down enough to prevent a collision











 
That twisted logic is what's going to delay driver assist technology by 10 years. Manufacturers can't trust consumers to grasp the limitations of the technology even when it's explicitly spelled out and lawyers are eagerly waiting to parse logic as you are doing to go after them.

Not sure about the twisted logic remark as I was merely stating in the case of a vehicle in front of you changing lanes, that scenario could happen on an interstate or what you call a "surface road."

It seems when TACC is engaged you have to be extra careful in situations where the car in front of you changes lanes as it seems in certain situations TACC is not aware of the vehicle in front of the vehicle that changed lanes until it is too late.

Apparently the new Infinity Q50 can detect what is happening with the vehicle in front of the car that is ahead of you. Would Tesla need additional sensors to offer what is demonstrated in the following advertisement or can they do that with software using the currently available sensors?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4I8icB4Q8
 
Cihan bey geçmiş olsun öncelikle.
... I think you understand this picture.

View attachment 80517

Briefly, I think the car's system not perfectly working and this was not completely his fault.

If that picture is taken before the accident, then driver is 100% at fault, he drove it knowing something was wrong.

If that picture is taken after accident, doesn't mean anything, as during the accident could have broken any number of the car systems.
 
I can't ever imagine a machine ever having the perception of the human pilot.

Well. People said the same about playing chess. And welding. And a bunch of other things. Free your imagination, it is just a matter of time. A machine can percept things that a human simply cannot. And have reactions speeds that are magnitudes better than a slow human being. It doesn't mean they will be perfect, but very soon machines will outperform even the best human pilots for a wide range of relevant tasks, by a wide margin.