I drove from LA to MD to NY to LA and virtually ALWAYS used TACC. Zero problems IF you understand the limitations of the system.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
If not tested/intended for city/traffic it is so simple to disable it with the speed below 45mph or so, do not confuse give false impression that will work in any situation. I wonder how many Tesla owners read whole manual? Option is also confusing it is sold as Autopilot, but it is not, it is just fancy CC.
edit
Please, please pay attention all time and in that case you will not need TACC, and this topic won't be necessary. If ready for every driver either reading whole manual or just few pages start selling this option but as TACC, not Autopilot do not confuse
Last edited:
How about this: you can not use it, and the rest of us can do as we please in an informed manner.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
People like to use TACC while paying attention all the time. The issue of whether it is necessary is not relevant. CC is not necessary but it makes driving better for a lot of people.
Just because some people don't follow instructions doesn't mean that we must all be subjected to the lowest common denominator by taking away helpful features that just require a little common sense.
I will not use TACC because I do not have it, but this whole thing is confusing starting from name Autopilot Convenience Features, but is just TACC, nowhere close to autopilot - system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. No wonder that Tesla owners are confused as in provided examples and unfortunately that is not a nonsense.
So you think people are turning on TACC then taking their hands off the steering wheel and accelerator then? If you think people are confusing TACC with true autopilot then that's what they would be doing. That's not what happened here. He turned on TACC and thought it was some strange hybrid of the two and didn't pay attention.
First, I'll note that I did not read this entire thread.
While any accident sucks, a few points about this one (OP):
It's people blaming the car for these types of things that are going to cause issues with the rollout of the more advanced autopilot features. If the car rear ends someone while using TACC it's because you weren't paying attention. End of story. If you weren't prepared to brake then you were not using the system appropriately and safely. As the driver, you should immediately know exactly when the car should normally be slowing for a car ahead, and if it is not you perform that crucial action.
So, while any accident taking out a Model S sucks, I don't really have any sympathy whatsoever because the driver is trying to blame TACC, sorry. Take responsibility for your screw up and move on.
While any accident sucks, a few points about this one (OP):
- This accident is the driver's fault. Period. The driver is responsible at all times.
- You should never expect the car to perform a safety related action and should always be monitoring the actions of the car.
- I personally brake and ignore TACC immediately when I feel it isn't braking as I would, either not soon enough or fast enough and have likely avoided collisions that would have otherwise occurred if I had just let the car continue to plow forward.
- TACC does not immediately detect vehicles ahead, and takes even longer to do so for stationary vehicles or vehicles traveling much slower in front when it doesn't already have a lock on the vehicle ahead.
- TACC limitations are pretty clearly described in the owner's manual.
- The emergency automatic braking system is NOT designed to *prevent* collisions, only reduce them when possible and unavoidable.
- This system relies on the same vehicle/object recognition as TACC. If TACC didn't slow down because it hadn't recognized what's ahead, neither will the auto braking.
- TACC is not designed for use on surface streets. It's really for highway use. Completely relying on it to come to a stop behind a car at a red light is just pure laziness, reckless, and quite frankly a bit stupid.
It's people blaming the car for these types of things that are going to cause issues with the rollout of the more advanced autopilot features. If the car rear ends someone while using TACC it's because you weren't paying attention. End of story. If you weren't prepared to brake then you were not using the system appropriately and safely. As the driver, you should immediately know exactly when the car should normally be slowing for a car ahead, and if it is not you perform that crucial action.
So, while any accident taking out a Model S sucks, I don't really have any sympathy whatsoever because the driver is trying to blame TACC, sorry. Take responsibility for your screw up and move on.
qwertzy
Member
TACC is a completely different system from Collision Avoidance, and is not designed to prevent collisions into stationary objects or cars. Its just designed to follow,keep distance and speed with the target car. People keep confusing the TACC or car has having Collision Avoidance. And right now the car does not have Collision Avoidance, only Collision Warning.
I don't think it has been posted here yet, but in the owner's manual it states that TACC isn't a Collision Avoidance system.
This situation had a lot of warning signs that should have told the driver not to just trust everything. Here are some off the top of my head from reading the story:
1. Bought through a middleman.
2. Foreign country.
3. Different signs/input that the software wouldn't necessarily recognize for what they are.
4. Family in the car, including a pregnant wife.
5. New car with new features that the driver is not used to.
I'm certain there are a lot more than just those but any one of them would give me enough reason to thoroughly test everything about the car before I got into the situation as described. Tesla is far down the list of being at fault in this situation.
1. Bought through a middleman.
2. Foreign country.
3. Different signs/input that the software wouldn't necessarily recognize for what they are.
4. Family in the car, including a pregnant wife.
5. New car with new features that the driver is not used to.
I'm certain there are a lot more than just those but any one of them would give me enough reason to thoroughly test everything about the car before I got into the situation as described. Tesla is far down the list of being at fault in this situation.
beeeerock
Active Member
As far as I'm concerned, TACC is simply a convenience to avoid having to tap the brakes or disengage cruise control with the steering column switch, in order to avoid running up the bumper of a car traveling ahead in your lane slower than you. It's intended to reduce the number of times you have to engage and disengage cruise control when traveling in traffic. It's not going to drive for you and it's not going to take the place of your own situational awareness. Expecting more of it would be extremely unwise.
DDotJ
Member
I think that everyone is up in arms about the fact that TACC is called an "Autopilot convenience feature" which is confusing users.
First of all, Autopilot is just a name that Tesla has given to their driver assist functionality. It's just an umbrella term that Tesla chose. And Tesla has made it clear that Autopilot != Autonomous Driving.
Autopilot on airliners is pretty much a fancy cruise control. It's so that the pilot doesn't have to hold onto the flight controls (joystick, rudders, yoke, etc) on long 13+ hour flights. All it does is that it holds speed, heading, altitude, and a few other minor functions (such as rate of ascent/descent). Just like cruise control on any car, it just holds a few variables constant (in TACC's case, speed and distance relative to the car in front). I've heard some folks mentioning "Autolanding". That is kind of misleading. It's not that a pilot just puts an airport into a nav computer and sits back while the plane brings it down onto the ground safely. The proper term is called an ILS approach (ILS stands for Instrument Landing System). It essentially is the computer using beacons on the ground to align itself with the runway and guiding the plane's descent at an optimal glide slope on final approach for landing. When the aircraft is close to the runway, the pilot guides it precisely to successfully complete the landing.
Autopilot is just assisting the pilot with the flight, not doing it for them. And there are certain conditions where Autopilot will disengage (usually due to weather) so that the pilot has to assume manual control. That's where Tesla came up with the term Autopilot, to acknowledge that the systems are just assisting the driver with their long journey, but the driver maintaining conscious awareness of what the computer is doing at all times and ready to intervene if things don't seem right.
Now just like the Asiana accident in SF, some pilots are becoming too complacent with the technologies and are forgetting basic flight knowledge to manually override the system if necessary. If the driver becomes overly dependent on these systems and start getting distracted, when the system is failing or doing an inadequate job and the driver fails to intervene to take corrective actions, it results in an accident. (*NOTE: not directed at OP or his friend, just speaking in general. Just a topic that comes up very frequently and should be clarified.) That's not to say that the fault lies with the computer, it is always the responsibility of the pilot. The NTSB isn't going after Boeing's system, the blame was placed on the pilots.
Therefore, in this case the TACC functionality was used in a manner that it was not designed for. It's like using a stove to heat your home. While it may work technically and you may get lucky where it does work temporarily without causing issues, doing so repeatedly is playing Russian roulette is hazardous to your life. Even if this happened on a freeway, it would ultimately be the user's fault for failure to intervene, although Tesla would in that case have to investigate what went wrong. But the fault is with the user.
So folks, when using TACC or eventually lane assist, be sure to be paying attention at all times. Don't start texting , playing around with the touchscreen, eating, applying makeup, practicing your saxaphone, etc. Always be alert and be the supervisor to what the computer is doing. And be ready to intervene at any time. If the car behaves in a way that you yourself wouldn't have done and it feels off, take control and be safe than sorry.
First of all, Autopilot is just a name that Tesla has given to their driver assist functionality. It's just an umbrella term that Tesla chose. And Tesla has made it clear that Autopilot != Autonomous Driving.
Autopilot on airliners is pretty much a fancy cruise control. It's so that the pilot doesn't have to hold onto the flight controls (joystick, rudders, yoke, etc) on long 13+ hour flights. All it does is that it holds speed, heading, altitude, and a few other minor functions (such as rate of ascent/descent). Just like cruise control on any car, it just holds a few variables constant (in TACC's case, speed and distance relative to the car in front). I've heard some folks mentioning "Autolanding". That is kind of misleading. It's not that a pilot just puts an airport into a nav computer and sits back while the plane brings it down onto the ground safely. The proper term is called an ILS approach (ILS stands for Instrument Landing System). It essentially is the computer using beacons on the ground to align itself with the runway and guiding the plane's descent at an optimal glide slope on final approach for landing. When the aircraft is close to the runway, the pilot guides it precisely to successfully complete the landing.
Autopilot is just assisting the pilot with the flight, not doing it for them. And there are certain conditions where Autopilot will disengage (usually due to weather) so that the pilot has to assume manual control. That's where Tesla came up with the term Autopilot, to acknowledge that the systems are just assisting the driver with their long journey, but the driver maintaining conscious awareness of what the computer is doing at all times and ready to intervene if things don't seem right.
Now just like the Asiana accident in SF, some pilots are becoming too complacent with the technologies and are forgetting basic flight knowledge to manually override the system if necessary. If the driver becomes overly dependent on these systems and start getting distracted, when the system is failing or doing an inadequate job and the driver fails to intervene to take corrective actions, it results in an accident. (*NOTE: not directed at OP or his friend, just speaking in general. Just a topic that comes up very frequently and should be clarified.) That's not to say that the fault lies with the computer, it is always the responsibility of the pilot. The NTSB isn't going after Boeing's system, the blame was placed on the pilots.
Therefore, in this case the TACC functionality was used in a manner that it was not designed for. It's like using a stove to heat your home. While it may work technically and you may get lucky where it does work temporarily without causing issues, doing so repeatedly is playing Russian roulette is hazardous to your life. Even if this happened on a freeway, it would ultimately be the user's fault for failure to intervene, although Tesla would in that case have to investigate what went wrong. But the fault is with the user.
So folks, when using TACC or eventually lane assist, be sure to be paying attention at all times. Don't start texting , playing around with the touchscreen, eating, applying makeup, practicing your saxaphone, etc. Always be alert and be the supervisor to what the computer is doing. And be ready to intervene at any time. If the car behaves in a way that you yourself wouldn't have done and it feels off, take control and be safe than sorry.
Last edited:
Canuck
Well-Known Member
It's not "nanny state" if you have the option to disable it. It's only nanny state if the government doesn't allow it in the first place.
But I do get your point.
Next thing, Tesla will be adding Beta signs in their manuals, just as Google does with their services.
Last edited by a moderator:
DDotJ
Member
Tesla's Emergency Braking System has been reported by users that it does indeed bring the vehicle to a full stop. But I feel that Tesla only says this to cover their butts if the vehicle is unable to stop in time due to rain, snow, technical reason, space between cars, etc.
Mercedes describes their system in the same manner: https://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1210220-1-1210348-1-0-0-1210338-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html
And Volvo (Trucks): Error
VW: City Emergency Braking : Volkswagen UK
BMW: BMW i3 : Safety
Quoting EURO NCAP here: Euro NCAP | Autonomous Emergency Braking
Last edited:
A lot of people are suggesting he should not sue and will loose but I suspect a lot of people are making that judgement call as if this accident happened in their own jurisdiction. Now, I don't know Turkey's legal system at all but why would it be totally out of the question that Tesla has some legal responsibility under Turkish law?
mostly because he imported the car. Tesla didn't sell it to him in Turkey for use in Turkey. He could sue, and maybe Turkish courts would favor him (I doubt it but there might be a tiny possibility) but there is no way to extract judgment from Tesla and Tesla has no motivation to comply.
This discussion reminds me of the RV in Anchorman. "Oh, it's OK. I put it on cruise control."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUEDVMOMY24&t=1m56s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUEDVMOMY24&t=1m56s
Considering the role of islam in Turkey, such responsibility is not out of the question.
That does not make it legit though.
Driver is always responsible.
See the period?
Similar threads
