iqless
Member
AEB is not for detecting stationary non-car or pedestrian objects. It will literally run you into a wall
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Automatic Emergency Braking Failure, the Movie
- Thread starter Wingsy
- Start date
Your expectations should be based on reality, not on your baseless idea of what your car should do. Your assertion that because the car can recognize a pedestrian is should recognize a construction barrel is your extrapolation. The reality that AEB and auto steer is not suited for construction zones is clearly stated by Tesla. Therefore, yes, your expectations are unreasonable.
But the neural network was trained to react to humans. It was not trained to react to barrels of human size.
If you had hit a string of mannequins there might be a point to the argument about reacting to humans. As it is, there isn't.
Hopefully FSD cars will get a version that responds to objects on the road soon, but that hasn't happened yet.
jelloslug
Active Member
You post has been done here countless times since the AP and AEB first came out on the Tesla cars.
I also agree that this is at least a partially unreasonable expectation. I think there is enough slop in the manual to show that just because the car can or is capable to do something, that that doesn't mean that it will ALWAYS do that thing.
I will also say that in my opinion even if the car saw the barrels and initiated AEB, that you would still have either hit the barrels before you could have reacted(after being possibly woken up by the up to 15mph deceleration), OR you would have been woken up by the deceleration in time to react and still hit the barrels because you had nowhere to go, or you would have swerved into that truck that was about in your blindspot by then.
In summary, you still would have hit something no matter what...because you fell asleep. I am happy that it was not worse for you.
I do have a question though, did you get your car fixed? Were they able to fix the coolant line or do you need a new battery pack?
Edit: the post that happened while I was typing reminded me...a human is different than a barrel in that it is identified differently, it's not just "an object in the way". Rules are different based on what the object is, along with speed...etc.
It’s just a fairly brain dead L2 toy aid, billed as Auto Pilot with some features under the grandiose Full Self Driving label.
The fancy neural net can’t even understand what a traffic cone is so y’all who rely on that ridiculous toy are playing with fire.
The fancy neural net can’t even understand what a traffic cone is so y’all who rely on that ridiculous toy are playing with fire.
Burrito
Member
you and that other guy who falls asleep (happily it seems) can be friends! bob wilson or something like that
glad you didnt get more hurt, seems like you at least understand sleeping is something you shouldnt do while relying on autopilot
glad you didnt get more hurt, seems like you at least understand sleeping is something you shouldnt do while relying on autopilot
Glad your ok. Could have potentially been worse.
I don’t have FSD in my car but my girlfriends model 3 has FSD and she drives frequently through construction zones. She says that her car always alerts her construction detected whenever there are cones. I’m not sure if your situation was similar, but I wonder if your car made audible and visual alerts. Might be worth verifying while it’s in for repair.
I don’t have FSD in my car but my girlfriends model 3 has FSD and she drives frequently through construction zones. She says that her car always alerts her construction detected whenever there are cones. I’m not sure if your situation was similar, but I wonder if your car made audible and visual alerts. Might be worth verifying while it’s in for repair.
bwilson4web
hit the spot
Indeed, it was a happy outcome.
The technical term is "micro-sleep" and it is more common than many realize. If you'll review my link, I posted a lot of technical details in the thread about sleep disorders. That isn't meant as a diagnosis but just trying to raise awareness.
You don't need to volunteer but I use about 2 lbs of birdshot in a sock tied to the wheel for the 'nag.' Works great in the car but not so good in this forum . . . as you'll soon see.
GOOD LUCK!
Bob Wilson
Last edited:
@Wingsy I hope you were you arrested for that!!?
and lost your license I work on the highway / freeways and really WTF
glad no one else got hurt...you are well protected in a lethal weapon
and lost your license I work on the highway / freeways and really WTF
glad no one else got hurt...you are well protected in a lethal weapon
Last edited:
In my experience, construction detected alerts only occur when Navigate on Autopilot is active - and the car still won't respond to cones or barrels in the road then.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Can someone add a soundtrack to this? Maybe make the barrels explode? I feel like it needs some work before wide release.
bwilson4web
hit the spot
Had one stretch of road in Memphis where there was a line but the barrels were about 2/3ds on the traffic side of the line. I was amused to feel the car rocking in time to the barrels.
Bob Wilson
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
The system CANNOT reliably do this.
The more important point here is the system cannot reliably react to road obstacles of ANY form. Even pedestrians! Nor should you expect it to.
The system as currently implemented simply does not have this capability with a reliability which is useful for driving without full driver attention.
Barrels, humans, animals, cars, trucks, etc. - it simply cannot detect these reliably, at a level that would be useful for reliance upon the system, and the manual is crystal clear on this point.
We’ve also all seen videos every week demonstrating this “shortcoming.”
Does this mean that the safety systems are not useful? Of course not! They are extremely helpful and can help mitigate unintentional failures to observe obstacles, when paired with a fully attentive driver.
The more people who understand this, the better it is for everyone. It is really not that complicated.
Last edited:
Since you were using Autopilot (some combination of TACC + Autosteer + NOA) then the actions of AEB are irrelevant.
At that point, you are using the BETA autopilot software. How that functionality operates in relation to other safety systems isn't exactly clear, or defined.
So does AEB or Forward Collision Warning, LDA or ELDA even operate (independently) whilst in autopilot is engaged? Or are those all inputs to the decisions that the Autopilot makes? I don't think anyone can answer that? Possibly, not even Tesla, as it's BETA software.
Either way, Autopilot is engaged, so the operation of the whole car, is at that point BETA.
At that point, you are using the BETA autopilot software. How that functionality operates in relation to other safety systems isn't exactly clear, or defined.
So does AEB or Forward Collision Warning, LDA or ELDA even operate (independently) whilst in autopilot is engaged? Or are those all inputs to the decisions that the Autopilot makes? I don't think anyone can answer that? Possibly, not even Tesla, as it's BETA software.
Either way, Autopilot is engaged, so the operation of the whole car, is at that point BETA.
Msjulie
Active Member
Everybody is quick to attack the OP while also explaining away the limitations of the system as Should Have Known Better - it does have them, we all know that but why are we less vocal about the names chosen for these systems? Are the often exaggerated claims of what they are capable of not part of this problem?
The names (Auto Pilot in specific) seem to convey much greater capability than is currently implemented so I'd argue that even best intentions of people reading the manuals & disclaimers will still be surprised/caught out/disappointed when the high tech car isn't as high tech as perhaps they had come to believe.
Beware anyone who dares to share their experience with having believed/expected something in error after all the praise and claims..
The names (Auto Pilot in specific) seem to convey much greater capability than is currently implemented so I'd argue that even best intentions of people reading the manuals & disclaimers will still be surprised/caught out/disappointed when the high tech car isn't as high tech as perhaps they had come to believe.
Beware anyone who dares to share their experience with having believed/expected something in error after all the praise and claims..
Actually, I believe that the term 'Auto Pilot' is pretty accurate, and quite conservative compared to it's actual operation. Compared to an 'Autopilot' from Maritime and Aviation, where the term is borrowed from, it does quite a bit more.
Generally autopilot on both those cases, just follow a pre-planned route/heading and not much more. Anything out of the ordinary, and the 'Real' pilot is expected to take over. And in neither case, is responsibility handed over from the Pilot to the Autopilot. It's just a load-reduction tool
Msjulie
Active Member
@Paddy3101 Are you a pilot? If so I'd expect you to know that distinction but I feel like the message to the general population is quite a different one.. I agree, the current software is clearly assistive in capability and I wish the 'marketing' of the feature was more open about that..
Similar threads
