A Public Letter to Mr. Musk and Tesla For The Sake Of All Tesla Driver's Safety

[sillydriver]

In your post you include the phrase "fog line" twice. I don't know what that means.

I believe "fog line" is the correct name for the continuous white lines at the edge of a two lane road. I called them side lines in a post above.

 

[CuriousG]

You're not a fighter pilot or a race-car driver (apologies to any pilots or F1 drivers reading this) and you probably couldn't do what they do even if you trained like they did -- which neither you nor Pang have.

Meet the Gran Turismo Player Now Driving Race Cars for Real
Project Cars Inspired to Drive The Nicolas Hamilton Story - Inside Sim Racing

 

[bhzmark]

The car beeps if you open a door when it's not in Park (for example, if it's in Vehicle Hold, if you have the foot on the brake to keep it stopped, or if it's actually moving). I don't know what exactly is wrong with the benign, generous assumption that the driver was sitting in his seat very shaken up and then he or someone else opened the door; then he heard the beeps and shifted into Park.

I'm a little disturbed by the amount of scorn and innuendo heaped on Pang throughout this. Do I think he made a number of mistakes and poor choices, ultimately causing this crash? I think that is probably the case, yes. But I also think of how I would have felt if I ended up sitting by the side of the road next to the wreck of my beautiful new car like he did, and I find his letter and his point of view understandable. I think you're implying he was drunk. But I see no actual evidence for that, and I for one have driven around Montana very late at night, too fast, quite a few times in my life without being drunk. Ever run your car off the road? I have, and I did in fact sit there like a statue for at least a good solid minute wondering what the heck just happened.

I am also very, very aware of the vast difference between what we rationally decide we should do if some emergency happens in the future, and what we're able to actually do once the emergency happens.

So when I see people dumping on Pang for not instantly braking the vehicle to a halt as soon as the first impact occurred (and before swiping any more posts) I can only say "You know what? Go take a dirt track day in a beater car, let the passenger steer you into some bales, and see whether you can really do what you think he should have done." Because I bet you can't. Most people can't summon the right reaction in an unexpected crisis. You're not a fighter pilot or a race-car driver (apologies to any pilots or F1 drivers reading this) and you probably couldn't do what they do even if you trained like they did -- which neither you nor Pang have. This is in fact one of the great promises of automation -- once it gets there. Which today it's not.

My basic take on this is that the guy probably made a number of bad choices which led to the incident, but that once it started, he didn't really do any better or worse than most of us would have. And speculation about why he was on that road at that time of night is just that -- speculation, and probably wrong besides. Certainly it's unfair and unhelpful, and it is the kind of thing that alienates people who might otherwise be on our side of questions about Autopilot (where by "our" I mean "reasonable, responsible Tesla owners who want to keep using the automation features of their cars in a largely unimpeded way").

Again, put yourself in his shoes. How would you feel if you'd just wrecked your new car? Please, let's have a constructive discussion about what we can learn from this incident but keep that in mind.

It's not really about what he did to cause the crash.

It's really about the statements he made after the crash to try to shift blame from himself to Tesla.

Pang and his friend made it a public issue as to who was to blame -- so he should not be surprised that the public will join him in that discussion and debate. And he is now losing the fight that he started.

 

[tls]

Pang and his friend made it a public issue as to who was to blame -- so he should not be surprised that the public will join him in that discussion and debate. And he is now losing the fight that he started.

You know who's "losing the fight" when people here attack Pang?

We are, because those attacks make people we could otherwise persuade to see it in a reasonable way tune out and stop listening. Not cool.

I think the post to this thread from "TM Ownership" has it basically right. Stick to the facts, engage constructively, and leave what the upset guy with the wrecked car, its tone, etc. out of it. It might feel good to bash him but it just doesn't help -- in fact, the opposite. It hurts.

There's plenty to talk about and learn from this without dumping on Pang. Consider that he actually engaged with us directly, that this is a fascinating and useful conversation, and that we wouldn't be having it without him. The only things about this conversation that make us or the car or, by extension, Tesla, look bad are the harsh words directed towards the guy with the wrecked car. So I am suggesting that maybe that in particular is not a great thing to do.

 

[msnow]

The car beeps if you open a door when it's not in Park (for example, if it's in Vehicle Hold, if you have the foot on the brake to keep it stopped, or if it's actually moving). I don't know what exactly is wrong with the benign, generous assumption that the driver was sitting in his seat very shaken up and then he or someone else opened the door; then he heard the beeps and shifted into Park.

I'm a little disturbed by the amount of scorn and innuendo heaped on Pang throughout this. Do I think he made a number of mistakes and poor choices, ultimately causing this crash? I think that is probably the case, yes. But I also think of how I would have felt if I ended up sitting by the side of the road next to the wreck of my beautiful new car like he did, and I find his letter and his point of view understandable. I think you're implying he was drunk. But I see no actual evidence for that, and I for one have driven around Montana very late at night, too fast, quite a few times in my life without being drunk. Ever run your car off the road? I have, and I did in fact sit there like a statue for at least a good solid minute wondering what the heck just happened.

I am also very, very aware of the vast difference between what we rationally decide we should do if some emergency happens in the future, and what we're able to actually do once the emergency happens.

So when I see people dumping on Pang for not instantly braking the vehicle to a halt as soon as the first impact occurred (and before swiping any more posts) I can only say "You know what? Go take a dirt track day in a beater car, let the passenger steer you into some bales, and see whether you can really do what you think he should have done." Because I bet you can't. Most people can't summon the right reaction in an unexpected crisis. You're not a fighter pilot or a race-car driver (apologies to any pilots or F1 drivers reading this) and you probably couldn't do what they do even if you trained like they did -- which neither you nor Pang have. This is in fact one of the great promises of automation -- once it gets there. Which today it's not.

My basic take on this is that the guy probably made a number of bad choices which led to the incident, but that once it started, he didn't really do any better or worse than most of us would have. And speculation about why he was on that road at that time of night is just that -- speculation, and probably wrong besides. Certainly it's unfair and unhelpful, and it is the kind of thing that alienates people who might otherwise be on our side of questions about Autopilot (where by "our" I mean "reasonable, responsible Tesla owners who want to keep using the automation features of their cars in a largely unimpeded way").

Again, put yourself in his shoes. How would you feel if you'd just wrecked your new car? Please, let's have a constructive discussion about what we can learn from this incident but keep that in mind.

The reasons why people here jump on almost any post from people who have had an AP accident is because they see anything but a clear and unequivocal admission of fault as "blaming" AP which most of the people that post the most vociferously about this topic believe hurts the development and adoption of this technology. This is primarily because the media picks up these comments and it is currently under regulatory review. There's also the understandable desire from technical enthusiasts to speculate and try and figure it out. But people should be careful to avoid personal attacks.
I have noticed that the people that are the most rabid posters about this strongly outnumber those that think AP still needs a lot of work. But I think the later is really the silent majority.

 

[Max*]

I have noticed that the people that are the most rabid posters about this strongly outnumber those that think AP still needs a lot of work. But I think the later is really the silent majority.

I think AP does an amazing job. I think AP needs a lot of work.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[msnow]

I think AP does an amazing job. I think AP needs a lot of work.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

I'd say it's amazing in the sense that it's cool, interesting and fun to test. I would not say it works amazingly well because it needs a lot of work. I'm not sure if that's different from what you're saying but I feel it is. Is it?

 

[sillydriver]

I'd say it's amazing in the sense that it's cool, interesting and fun to test. I would not say it works amazingly well because it needs a lot of work. I'm not sure if that's different from what you're saying but I feel it is. Is it?

Between the two ways of saying it I agree exactly with yours.

 

[Max*]

I'd say it's amazing in the sense that it's cool, interesting and fun to test. I would not say it works amazingly well because it needs a lot of work. I'm not sure if that's different from what you're saying but I feel it is. Is it?

No, I think it does an amazing job. I use it on long drives all the time. In 99% of the situations it works exactly as performed.

99% = amazing job
1% = needs work

"amazing job" & "needs work" are not mutually exclusive.

Now if you want to argue that the specific use cases where it needs work are mutually exclusive from the amazing use cases, sure, I'd agree with that. But we're talking about AP as a whole here. And AP as a whole is both amazing at what it does when it works correctly, which is 99% of the time (or more), and needs work when it doesn't work correctly (the other 1% of the time or less).

 

[ecarfan]

But it doesn't shift to park if the seat belt is buckled does it? Maybe Pang wasn't actually in the drivers seat?

There is another possible scenario. After the car hit the posts and the right side was heavily damaged and the car came to a stop (essentially), the passenger exited and went around to the drivers side. The driver was still in his seat with his seat belt on. Perhaps he was in a state of semi-shock and didn't fully comprehend what had happened. He had not put the car into Park but it likely wasn't moving forward significantly anyway because of the damage. The passenger then opened the drivers door (from the outside) and either he or the driver then put the car in Park and the driver exited the vehicle.

 

[msnow]

No, I think it does an amazing job. I use it on long drives all the time. In 99% of the situations it works exactly as performed.

99% = amazing job
1% = needs work

"amazing job" & "needs work" are not mutually exclusive.

Now if you want to argue that the specific use cases where it needs work are mutually exclusive from the amazing use cases, sure, I'd agree with that. But we're talking about AP as a whole here. And AP as a whole is both amazing at what it does when it works correctly, which is 99% of the time (or more), and needs work when it doesn't work correctly (the other 1% of the time or less).

Well there you go, surprise surprise there are different opinions on this. For me it's still squirly and not relaxing which sounds much different than 99% amazing.

 

[Max*]

Well there you go, surprise surprise there are different opinions on this. For me it's still squirly and not relaxing which sounds much different than 99% amazing.

I guess it depends on where/how it's being used. I don't much it much in the city (unless I engage it at a red light to umn... you know), or on windy roads. But when I do use it, on long stretches of boring interstate travel, with many well marked lanes, going many many thousands of miles on AP so far, it's worked near flawlessly.

 

[Vip]

There is another possible scenario. After the car hit the posts and the right side was heavily damaged and the car came to a stop (essentially), the passenger exited and went around to the drivers side. The driver was still in his seat with his seat belt on. Perhaps he was in a state of semi-shock and didn't fully comprehend what had happened. He had not put the car into Park but it likely wasn't moving forward significantly anyway because of the damage. The passenger then opened the drivers door (from the outside) and either he or the driver then put the car in Park and the driver exited the vehicle.

If it did happen that way then why wouldn't Pang just state that (nothing wrong with that happening so no need to lie). Pang said they ran away from the car and then returned to put in park. I think something more nefarious was happening that Pang is not revealing or lying about.

 

[msnow]

I guess it depends on where/how it's being used. I don't much it much in the city (unless I engage it at a red light to umn... you know), or on windy roads. But when I do use it, on long stretches of boring interstate travel, with many well marked lanes, going many many thousands of miles on AP so far, it's worked near flawlessly.

In Southern Cal (L.A./Ventura County area) apparently the roads and conditions are not as good and since we've both been using it since day one maybe that's the difference. There is one 30 mile stretch between my house and Santa Barbara where I feel AP works very well about 75% of the time but it's not the norm.

 

[Max*]

In Southern Cal (L.A./Ventura County area) apparently the roads and conditions are not as good and since we've both been using it since day one maybe that's the difference. There is one 30 mile stretch between my house and Santa Barbara where I feel AP works very well about 75% of the time but it's not the norm.

For reference, I go up and down the east coast. I've used AP between DC and NY many times, DC and MA many times, and DC and SC once. On I-95/I-270/etc. it's been near flawless day or night.

 

[Naonak]

That's why I asked if he hit the brakes at that point. The car dips just as it exits the unpaved patch and almost at the same time veers to the right. Coincidence?

I did not hit the brakes. You can hear the bong-bing of AP disengaging a fraction of a second before the impact

 

[bhzmark]

plenty to talk about and learn from this without dumping on Pang. Consider that he actually engaged with us directly, that this is a fascinating and useful conversation, and that we wouldn't be having it without him. The only things about this conversation that make us or the car or, by extension, Tesla, look bad are the harsh words directed towards the guy with the wrecked car. So I am suggesting that maybe that in particular is not a great thing to do.

He didn't "engage with us directly" He made numerous false statements. He lied.

He stated:

"the car suddenly veered right and crashed into the safety barrier post."

"It happened so fast, and we did not hear any warning beep."

"we did not hear any warning beep before the crash, and the car did not slow down either."

"Autopilot did not slow down at all after the crash, but kept going in the original speed setting and continued to crash into more barrier posts in high speed."

"the sound was the engine were still running in high speed."

"Apparently the autopilot system malfunctioned and caused the crash."

"Tesla autopilot did not slow down the car at all after the intial crash."

"autopilot continued to drive the car with the speed of 55 to 60 mph, and crashed another 11 posts. "

"Even after I stopped the car, it was still trying to accelerate and spinning the engine in high speed. "

"Tesla never contacted me after the accident. "

"Tesla is using all Tesla drivers as lab rats."

In fact what the logs show is:

Logs show: "after you engaged Autosteer, your hands were not detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes."

Logs show: "the vehicle again alerted you to put your hands on the wheel."

Logs show: "No steering torque was then detected until . . . "

Logs show: "Autosteer was disabled with an abrupt steering action."

Logs show: "Immediately following detection of the first impact, adaptive cruise control was also disabled, the vehicle began to slow,"

Logs show: "the rotating motors may have been disconcerting, even though they were only powered by minimal levels of creep torque."

And Tesla did contact him numerous times.

It isn't his mere negligence in causing his own accident that is really blameworthy.

It is his repeated and obvious and self-serving lies that are truly blameworthy.

In his own words: Mr. Pang should stand up as a man, face up the challenge to thoroughly understand his own negligence in the cause of the accident, and take responsibility for his own mistakes. Mr. Pang, you should immediately stop trying to cover up your own negligence and blame the technology that you misused.

 

[Dangerous Fish]

I did not hit the brakes. You can hear the bong-bing of AP disengaging a fraction of a second before the impact

That's fine, so there's a dip after the unpaved section and I'm wondering if that and the loss of road markings together caused AP to get confused. Some others have said that uneven roads cause AP to act strangely.

Do you have air suspension?

 

[Odebek]

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that Autopilot is so good, that over a period of time that users begin extrapolating its capabilities in all conditions, to rely on it in situations that they should not, in fact situations that they would not have relied on it earlier in their own personal "test" cycle. Once you have driven 10,000miles in AP with no issues, it is hard to not start thinking that the edge cases will never happen and start taking more risks.

Also, it is clear that people will not take accountability for their own actions and inactions, regardless of how many dialog boxes they are presented with, and that they can talk themselves into believing that facts are 100% different from reality.

My own wife swears that she didn't run a red light as she was making a right hand turn, but I have the red-light camera evidence... She is genuine in her disbelief in the video, which shows the power of the mind to warp reality.

I am 100% sure that the logs are correct in this instance and that the driver truly believes that their (incorrect) perception is real. I am not sure what the fix is to that, ultimately we need to get humans comfortable with the AI driving, but right now it seems like that the human mind, with its ability to change cognitive perception is not a fit for a semi-autonomous state, maybe tesla should include dash cam video of drivers actions synced to logs, and use the inside video for eye-tracking or alertness monitoring?

 

[msnow]

He didn't "engage with us directly" He made numerous false statements. He lied.

He stated:

"the car suddenly veered right and crashed into the safety barrier post."
How do you know he didn't veer right and crash? It's obvious he crashed

"It happened so fast, and we did not hear any warning beep."

How do you know what he didn't hear?

"we did not hear any warning beep before the crash, and the car did not slow down either."

How do you know what he didn't hear?

"Autopilot did not slow down at all after the crash, but kept going in the original speed setting and continued to crash into more barrier posts in high speed."

"the sound was the engine were still running in high speed."

Tesla confirmed motors were running because creep mode was on.

"Apparently the autopilot system malfunctioned and caused the crash."

"Tesla autopilot did not slow down the car at all after the intial crash."

"autopilot continued to drive the car with the speed of 55 to 60 mph, and crashed another 11 posts. "

"Even after I stopped the car, it was still trying to accelerate and spinning the engine in high speed. "

"Tesla never contacted me after the accident. "

They made attempts but couldn't reach him according to Tesla.

"Tesla is using all Tesla drivers as lab rats."

Hyperbole but his opinion

In fact what the logs show is:

Logs show: "after you engaged Autosteer, your hands were not detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes."

Logs show: "the vehicle again alerted you to put your hands on the wheel."

He says he didn't hear it (see letter)

Logs show: "No steering torque was then detected until . . . "

Logs show: "Autosteer was disabled with an abrupt steering action."

Logs show: "Immediately following detection of the first impact, adaptive cruise control was also disabled, the vehicle began to slow,"

Logs show: "the rotating motors may have been disconcerting, even though they were only powered by minimal levels of creep torque."

This shows he was exaggerating but not "lying" motors were running

And Tesla did contact him numerous times.

Attempted

It isn't his mere negligence in causing his own accident that is really blameworthy.

It is his repeated and obvious and self-serving lies that are truly blameworthy.

In his own words: Mr. Pang should stand up as a man, face up the challenge to thoroughly understand his own negligence in the cause of the accident, and take responsibility for his own mistakes. Mr. Pang, you should immediately stop trying to cover up your own negligence and blame the technology that you misused.

Your argument would be sounder if it was objective without the spin.