auto-pilot malfunction (accelerated behind another car causing crash)

[eye.surgeon]

1. anyone who has 2 posts needs to provide some evidence when they claim AP caused an accident.

2. Autopilot can never cause an accident. never. You as the driver are always in charge of and responsible for the operation of the car at all times. AP is a driver's aid. you're the driver.

 

[bmah]

Slightly off topic, but do we have to have AP installed on the Model 3? The more I hear, the more I am deeply concerned. I like to drive my cars and be 100% in control, especially if AP can misinterpret what is going on and launch me and my family into the back of another vehicle.

Just like cruise control on a "normal" car, you don't have to use it. If you're not comfortable with the autosteering or TACC, don't turn it on (or if it turns out to be an option like on the Model S, don't configure it on your car).

Bruce.

 

[eloder]

Some on the forum don't understand that Tesla can't shield itself from all liability by using the word "beta" or saying you should be ready to take over at any moment.

Please name one lawsuit where cruise control caused an accident, and the driver wasn't responsible.

Exact same concept. Autopilot is not autonomous driving.

 

[ecarfan]

Slightly off topic, but do we have to have AP installed on the Model 3? The more I hear, the more I am deeply concerned. I like to drive my cars and be 100% in control, especially if AP can misinterpret what is going on and launch me and my family into the back of another vehicle.

AP will be an option on the Model 3 just like it is on the S and X. Or get the AP option but don't use it initially, wait for it to improve. You save $500 on the cost of the AP option if you configure your car that way at purchase. You can add it later but then it costs $500 more.

I'd hardly characterize stomping the accelerator in any Model S at 60 mph as resulting in extreme acceleration.

"Extreme" is a subjective term and different people will use it differently. In my opinion, when I floor it at 60 in my S85 the acceleration surprises most people because it is definitely stronger than the typical car, though I would not characterize it as "extreme".

 

[Michael128711]

There is a long sad history in the auto industry of people claiming "unintended acceleration" due to faulty engine programming or operation. Audi, Toyota and many others have had this claim made against them. After extensive investigation, all of these claims have been found to be false. They are usually due to "operator error". Mostly due to people hitting the accelerator rather than the brake. Some have been found to be compounded by cockpit problems such as car mats shifted out of position or, in the case of Audi, having narrow spacing between the brake and accelerator.
Most of these investigations have taken a lot of time and effort since there was no record of what actually happened. With Tesla, it is much easier since the car keeps a log of events and it is easy to see what exactly happened. In this case, Tesla says the log did not show any anomalous behavior on the part of the car.
It would be nice if there was a way for customers to get access to their car long without resorting to lawyers, etc. and I think that this is something Tesla should consider. Since it is likely to require effort and specialized knowledge to understand the log data, there would probably need to be some kind of "interpretation" fee associated with the log retrieval but this would be worthwhile in the rare event of a crash.

Just cause I'm really tired of some of the nonsense certain people are posting. Do you work for Tesla? Seriously - "Audi, Toyota and many others have had this claim made against them. After extensive investigation, all of these claims have been found to be false." I guess you forgot about that 1.2 billion dollar suit? Toyota to Pay $1.2B for Hiding Deadly ‘Unintended Acceleration’

 

[Mark Z]

What I have noticed when allowing AP or cruise control to affect speed is a possible issue that the driver must be ready for:

1. AP is set at 67 mph, I am in lane 2 of 3.
2. Car in front is driving at 60 mph, therefore, I am traveling at 60 mph.
3. Vehicles in lane 3 are moving by at about 64 mph.
3. Car in front moves over to lane 1, my car starts to speed up.
4. A vehicle in lane 3 passes me at 64 mph and pulls in front of me at the same time my car is speeding up.
5. I press the brake immediately to slow the car to avoid a fender-bender.

This has happened more than once, so watch for it. Keeping the distance setting at 7 should allow for more safety.

 

[Electricfan]

There is a long sad history in the auto industry of people claiming "unintended acceleration" due to faulty engine programming or operation. Audi, Toyota and many others have had this claim made against them. After extensive investigation, all of these claims have been found to be false. They are usually due to "operator error". Mostly due to people hitting the accelerator rather than the brake. Some have been found to be compounded by cockpit problems such as car mats shifted out of position or, in the case of Audi, having narrow spacing between the brake and accelerator.
Most of these investigations have taken a lot of time and effort since there was no record of what actually happened. With Tesla, it is much easier since the car keeps a log of events and it is easy to see what exactly happened. In this case, Tesla says the log did not show any anomalous behavior on the part of the car.
It would be nice if there was a way for customers to get access to their car long without resorting to lawyers, etc. and I think that this is something Tesla should consider. Since it is likely to require effort and specialized knowledge to understand the log data, there would probably need to be some kind of "interpretation" fee associated with the log retrieval but this would be worthwhile in the rare event of a crash.

So, you don't think a car company has ever lied?

 

[Electricfan]

Just cause I'm really tired of some of the nonsense certain people are posting. Do you work for Tesla? Seriously - "Audi, Toyota and many others have had this claim made against them. After extensive investigation, all of these claims have been found to be false." I guess you forgot about that 1.2 billion dollar suit? Toyota to Pay $1.2B for Hiding Deadly ‘Unintended Acceleration’

I'm with you, but realize we're in the minority - people who understand Tesla is not perfect and EM does not walk on water. If you start a thread stating your car malfunctioned, you're going to get a lot of crap. I enjoy it, to some extent. Its funny how far some people here will go to defend Tesla. It would be really fun to start a thread with the most ridiculous defenses of Tesla, and rate them, but the mods wouldn't allow it. Killjoys.

 

[wycolo]

Either you stepped on the brakes or, instead, the accelerator. 'Intense' acceleration pretty much implies intense use of the accelerator.
[quote from me]

My old Teslas autonomously accelerate only during Cruise Control operation and this rate of acceleration is moderate and consistent between the MS and the Roadster. Occasionally one can be surprised by this ("Oh, CC is ON!") if the car has been going downhill for a while, but recovery is simple enough. So conclude that Tesla limits CC acceleration to a fixed maximum rate. I have not heard of any incidents where that fixed rate has been exceeded. I have zero experience with AP.

In the OP's case the acceleration is being described as 'intense', so way beyond that to be normally expected from either CC or AP. To describe the situation further perhaps the OP could advise if he was able to sense if his applying the brake did instantly stop the autonomous acceleration (and simultaneously begin Regen action) or did he feel like he was fighting that as well as trying to slow down the momentum of the car.

Teslas have (quite spectacularly) smashed into: a restaurant, a bank and also a Tesla sign in front of a Service Center, all presumably from confusion of the two pedals on the floor.

I would guess that AP is limited to the same acceleration max that limits CC (and TACC).
--

 

[Naonak]

1. anyone who has 2 posts needs to provide some evidence when they claim AP caused an accident.

2. Autopilot can never cause an accident. never. You as the driver are always in charge of and responsible for the operation of the car at all times. AP is a driver's aid. you're the driver.

You are 100% wrong. You, along with Max, do not seem to understand the difference between cause, effect, actors and those acted upon.

I will requote myself, because I'm tired of misinformed pedantry from the peanut gallery trying to deflect problems with false logic:

Assuming the OPs version of events are correct, he did not cause the collision. Autopilot caused the collision. There are many instances where you are not the CAUSE of an accident, but you are the one responsible or at fault. You seem to misunderstand cause, effect, actors and those acted upon. If autopilot was in control of the vehicle at the time, autopilot caused the collision. OPs failure to act such that intervention would prevent the collision makes him responsible, but it does not, under any sane interpretation, make him the cause.

 

[eye.surgeon]

It didn't make any sense the second time either.

 

[Naonak]

It didn't make any sense the second time either.

Then perhaps you should take a basic logic course and understand how the world actually works. I'm sorry you are unable to understand basic cause and effect.

Let me try to dumb it down a little for you:

Autopilot was in control of the vehicle. The vehicle crashed while autopilot was in control. Ergo, Autopilot is the cause of the crash. Arguably, OP was responsible for autopilot and is thus liable, but he is not the cause.

If you want to assign the cause to OP, you can easily make the following arguments as well:

The programmers of Autopilot are the cause of the crash for providing the feature.
The chip designers are the cause of the crash for providing the chips.
The miners are the cause for providing the raw material for the chips that controlled the computer that controlled the car that caused the crash.

Your argument is just plain dumb. OP did not swerve into a vehicle by placing his hands on the wheel and directing it into another object. The computer did that. Therefore, the computer is the cause of the crash. OP is still likely responsible for that, as he should have intervened, but he is not the CAUSE.

Just stop while you're ahead. Your argument is invalid. Don't keep trying to prop it up.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

My biggest concern with this is the rate of acceleration because I've never experienced a rate of acceleration from Autopilot that would exceed my own ability to brake it quickly. I do recommend always taking over control when someone cuts in front of you because the sensors might not see it in time. But, that's only to reduce drama in dealing with that situation. I also recommend turning off the overtake acceleration, but I don't have any experience with it. I simply turned it off since I didn't want to add to what the car did, and I've left it off for the entire time it's been a feature.

If I was you or your insurance company I'd continue to push Tesla for data to determine if the rate of acceleration was within spec. Now they might not have this data because the car can only report the amount the system expected to accelerate at, and not what was actually delivered.

On a car with adaptive cruise control a defect in the system could cause a high rate of acceleration with very little time for the drive to react. Trying to say it's the drivers fault is like saying it's a drivers fault for getting into an accident because they were unable to deal with a sudden unexpected airbag deployment. Which that does happen from time to time, but luckily never on a Tesla.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Teslas have (quite spectacularly) smashed into: a restaurant, a bank and also a Tesla sign in front of a Service Center, all presumably from confusion of the two pedals on the floor.--

Earlier on the Model S had a pedal placement that contributed to unintended acceleration, and then they fixed the problem by vertically aligning them differently. But, for some reason they didn't go back and retroactively fix any in the field. At least thats what i'm lead to believe from what I've heard.

I was worried about this when I got my Tesla 70D, but after driving it for 20,000 miles I've never had any unintended acceleration as a result of pedal placement. To me it's pretty much impossible. In fact the only thing unintentional is braking. There have been times where I have hit the brake pedal on the way down. It hits first and I have huge feet.

My feeling is most of the unintended acceleration situations are actually people physically not capable of driving an extremely fast car like the P90D. They don't have the reaction time or capability to deal with how quickly it can accelerate if you hit the go pedal.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Then perhaps you should take a basic logic course and understand how the world actually works. I'm sorry you are unable to understand basic cause and effect.

Let me try to dumb it down a little for you:

Autopilot was in control of the vehicle. The vehicle crashed while autopilot was in control. Ergo, Autopilot is the cause of the crash. Arguably, OP was responsible for autopilot and is thus liable, but he is not the cause.

If you want to assign the cause to OP, you can easily make the following arguments as well:

The programmers of Autopilot are the cause of the crash for providing the feature.
The chip designers are the cause of the crash for providing the chips.
The miners are the cause for providing the raw material for the chips that controlled the computer that controlled the car that caused the crash.

Your argument is just plain dumb. OP did not swerve into a vehicle by placing his hands on the wheel and directing it into another object. The computer did that. Therefore, the computer is the cause of the crash. OP is still likely responsible for that, as he should have intervened, but he is not the CAUSE.

Just stop while you're ahead. Your argument is invalid. Don't keep trying to prop it up.

If you swapped autopilot for cruise control, and you feel like you can still make the same argument for example "cruise control caused the accident" then it might make sense. But in many people's book, cruise control can't "cause" an accident since the driver is still ultimately in control of the vehicle, same with autopilot.

The cause of a collision with autopilot on would be because the driver didn't pay enough attention. By your standard, any accident with autopilot on, it would be the "cause," which doesn't make any sense.

Of course there are exceptional conditions, for example if the system malfunctioned and ignored driver input or did something that didn't allow any chance for driver to react. That latter case is what the OP was arguing happened.

 

[wycolo]

". . . something that didn't allow any chance for driver to react. That latter case is what the OP was arguing happened." [stopcrazypp]

I've never heard of CC or TACC ever doing such a thing. Has anyone?


"On a car with adaptive cruise control a defect in the system could cause a high rate of acceleration with very little time for the drive to react." [s4wrxttcs]

My guess is that the system used by TM inherently limits accel to that safe level we experience everyday under CC (and TACC): a fixed moderate acceleration. Sort of like the knob having a stop at 3 so nothing can ever jump it up to 11.


"Autopilot was in control of the vehicle." [Naonak]

AP might have been ON, but the driver was 'in control of the vehicle', or should have been.

Are we going to have to start worrying about drivers who jump into their 2nd car and then forget that they are not in their new AP'd Tesla?
--

 

[msnow]

If I was you or your insurance company I'd continue to push Tesla for data to determine if the rate of acceleration was within spec. Now they might not have this data because the car can only report the amount the system expected to accelerate at, and not what was actually delivered.

I remember another post several months ago here where a driver rear ended another car and felt the emergency braking feature or TACC failed and asked for the logs from Tesla. They didn't give him the logs but because air bags deployed they had the entire event logged and summarized what happened in his case which, as I recall, said he didn't have TACC turned on and should have braked himself. The collision avoidance didn't work because he was under its speed threshold. I think the lesson here is it's not real easy to get these logs from Tesla and I'm sure it would overburden them providing this constantly while possibly dragging them into every fender bender lawsuit.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

". . . something that didn't allow any chance for driver to react. That latter case is what the OP was arguing happened." [stopcrazypp]

I've never heard of CC or TACC ever doing such a thing. Has anyone?


"On a car with adaptive cruise control a defect in the system could cause a high rate of acceleration with very little time for the drive to react." [s4wrxttcs]

My guess is that the system used by TM inherently limits accel to that safe level we experience everyday under CC (and TACC): a fixed moderate acceleration. Sort of like the knob having a stop at 3 so nothing can ever jump it up to 11.


"Autopilot was in control of the vehicle." [Naonak]

AP might have been ON, but the driver was 'in control of the vehicle', or should have been.

Are we going to have to start worrying about drivers who jump into their 2nd car and then forget that they are not in their new AP'd Tesla?
--

This is the first time I've heard of an adaptive cruise control system causing a high rate of acceleration. I do think we should limit the discussion to just adaptive cruise control on electric vehicles. Every type of system has potential failure points, and I don't want to introduce things that can happen on ICE car, or that can happen on an electric car but not an ICE car.

Normally in electronics you have systems in place to prevent a single fault failure from causing a critical error. Like lets say you were designing a computer controlled resistive heater. You wouldn't just use a single mosfet to turn on/off the heater unless there was no danger in the heater being left on. The computer could easily lose control of the heater if the mosfet fails in a way that keeps the circuit closed.

I am curious about what back ups the Tesla has in case of a fault. We are dealing with electronics after all, and they're well known for having gremlins. Especially if you've ever owned a VW.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I am curious about what back ups the Tesla has in case of a fault. We are dealing with electronics after all, and they're well known for having gremlins. Especially if you've ever owned a VW.

Elon touched on this in regards to the falcon wing doors, basically with the computer able to make the decision to ignore sensors that are giving signals that are clearly wrong. I would presume autopilot would have something similar.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I remember another post several months ago here where a driver rear ended another car and felt the emergency braking feature or TACC failed and asked for the logs from Tesla. They didn't give him the logs but because air bags deployed they had the entire event logged and summarized what happened in his case which, as I recall, said he didn't have TACC turned on and should have braked himself. The collision avoidance didn't work because he was under its speed threshold. I think the lesson here is it's not real easy to get these logs from Tesla and I'm sure it would overburden them providing this constantly while possibly dragging them into every fender bender lawsuit.

Everyday that you're driving S90D you're providing Tesla with information. They aren't just logging information while AP is driving, but also when you're driving. They're using their customers to provide data to them. This is extremely useful to Tesla because it allows Tesla to enhance their technology. It's useful to us because it allows the system to evolve in ways it wouldn't normal be able to. In fact this same kind of thing happens with Google, Facebook, etc.

I think it's only fair for Tesla to provide logs back to us when we request them. Or they should have a system in place to get them. I have no issues getting the logs for my DJI Phantom 4 because DJI has a way to download them. The Tesla Model S has no way to download logs to a USB drive.

I'm not sure if any of the CAN loggers are capable of logging commands regarding throttle.