Automatic Emergency Braking Failure, the Movie

[Wingsy]

How did you determine this? I bet there were several warning signs that were passed while the OP was sleeping. There are 2 [Left Lane Closed] signs in the video. Probably at least one a large flashing "Left Lane closed ahead merge right" sign that was just passed and probably 2 or 3.

You would win that bet. There was adequate signage. I just didn't see it.

 

[McHoffa]

When this video (and the side view video) were posted on a few different Facebook groups, the poster said it was video of his father in law, who had fallen asleep after a long trip (all of the posts of it have since been taken down).

It doesn't matter how autopilot works, it's not meant to drive safely while you sleep. Luckily you only hit barrels and not a work truck or concrete barrier or something on the side of the road. Be thankful that it was in autopilot, or you would have just gone off the road or hit another car when you fell asleep.

 

[JulienW]

You would win that bet. There was adequate signage. I just didn't see it.

How can you FOREsee before the video starts?????

There could have been a circus tent with naked trapeze artist with LFFT LANE CLOSED tattooed on their naked ass in florescent paint and would NOT matter. The OP was asleep and construction companies are NOT required to install alarm clocks.

 

[Saghost]

How can you FOREsee before the video starts?????

There could have been a circus tent with naked trapeze artist with LFFT LANE CLOSED tattooed on their naked ass in florescent paint and would NOT matter. The OP was asleep and construction companies are NOT required to install alarm clocks.

You do realize that you're responding to the OP, who presumably has the video before this one or the earlier parts of this video, right?

 

[JulienW]

You do realize that you're responding to the OP, who presumably has the video before this one or the earlier parts of this video, right?

No and I did miss read. The OP is saying there WAS adequate signage. I see that now. Just wound up a little that others would assume that the construction compony didn't have the signage without any proof.

EDIT: Just to add worked early this morning and just woke upon from a nap. Takes a couple to get your bearings back and why we are still a good ways away from level 5 and sleeping.

Now I'm going to wash my 3.

 

[Paddy3101]

So, a couple of questions, worth thinking about, about how a 'real' driver would interpret/react to the scene (trying to avoid the use of hindsight)

How can you tell the difference between a situation where the left lane closes, and you have to merge right

And a situation where ALL the lanes move over one? e.g. all move right into a construction zone.

Visually, from the video..

In the second case you would expect the truck to follow the lanes to carry on straight and to allow.

Given this is on the brow of a hill, and the road goes left. The vanishing point closes as you go over the hill, and appears to be straight, but that is deceptive, and the original road goes to the left. The Modified road, appears to go straight.

You cant see where the right lane line goes, it could be deduced, that the whole carriageway goes straight, and you expect the truck to go straight also. The cones at about 4 or 5 seconds appear like a solid median going straight. Reinforced by the fact there appear to be vehicles in the lane ahead, going straight. (but are actually in a different lane at that point, and are in fact going to the left)

Its not til about 7 or 8 seconds in the video that you can see that the road actually goes left behind the cones, and what looked like a solid median now looks like cones, and the truck isn't going straight.

(And you have a semi-truck reversing down the road at 55mph hahaha, which probably has your focus at the time)

Looking at the video critically, you can see that this is a difficult situation to handle (by car or the driver), and either could be caught out with any kind of impaired vision/distraction.

In order to know what was going to happen, you probably would have needed to read the signs on the side of the road ahead of the time where you can see the closure, you probably couldn't have interpreted the scene just by reacting to the lines/cones/vehicles in order to avoid an emergency situation, and merge in behind the truck

Assuming NOA was enabled, and handles closures of lanes, in advance of being able to see the closure!!! BUT it's not possible to see that the lane is closed at the time the car had an opportunity to pull in behind the truck.

The Car/Driver could only have known that by actually reading the signs, much ahead of time, guessed that the closure happens before you clear the truck, and planned a route to slow and pull in behind the truck BEFORE there is an obvious need to do so from what you can see. That's quite some sophisticated, complicated tactical route planning that needs to go on there.

The Car doesn't read signs yet. The Driver was unable to read the signs.
QED. Something bad was guaranteed to happen at that point.

It's also quite possible that a human driver would gamble they would clear the truck before they got to an obstruction, and do exactly the same thing as the car did, even if they did read the signs.

 

[Daniel in SD]

So, a couple of questions, worth thinking about, about how a 'real' driver would interpret/react to the scene (trying to avoid the use of hindsight)

How can you tell the difference between a situation where the left lane closes, and you have to merge right

And a situation where ALL the lanes move over one? e.g. all move right into a construction zone.

Visually, from the video..

In the second case you would expect the truck to follow the lanes to carry on straight and to allow.

Given this is on the brow of a hill, and the road goes left. The vanishing point closes as you go over the hill, and appears to be straight, but that is deceptive, and the original road goes to the left. The Modified road, appears to go straight.

You cant see where the right lane line goes, it could be deduced, that the whole carriageway goes straight, and you expect the truck to go straight also. The cones at about 4 or 5 seconds appear like a solid median going straight. Reinforced by the fact there appear to be vehicles in the lane ahead, going straight. (but are actually in a different lane at that point, and are in fact going to the left)

Its not til about 7 or 8 seconds in the video that you can see that the road actually goes left behind the cones, and what looked like a solid median now looks like cones, and the truck isn't going straight.

(And you have a semi-truck reversing down the road at 55mph hahaha, which probably has your focus at the time)

Looking at the video critically, you can see that this is a difficult situation to handle (by car or the driver), and either could be caught out with any kind of impaired vision/distraction.

In order to know what was going to happen, you probably would have needed to read the signs on the side of the road ahead of the time where you can see the closure, you probably couldn't have interpreted the scene just by reacting to the lines/cones/vehicles in order to avoid an emergency situation, and merge in behind the truck

Assuming NOA was enabled, and handles closures of lanes, in advance of being able to see the closure!!! BUT it's not possible to see that the lane is closed at the time the car had an opportunity to pull in behind the truck.

The Car/Driver could only have known that by actually reading the signs, much ahead of time, guessed that the closure happens before you clear the truck, and planned a route to slow and pull in behind the truck BEFORE there is an obvious need to do so from what you can see. That's quite some sophisticated, complicated tactical route planning that needs to go on there.

The Car doesn't read signs yet. The Driver was unable to read the signs.
QED. Something bad was guaranteed to happen at that point.

It's also quite possible that a human driver would gamble they would clear the truck before they got to an obstruction, and do exactly the same thing as the car did, even if they did read the signs.

One thing you can see in the video is that all the barrels were upright and undisturbed before OP hit them. You can also observe that there were many vehicles driving on the road. From this information you can assume that other drivers were on the road and did not hit the barrels.
Also note that the construction zone is visible in the first frame of the video and OP doesn't hit the cones until 8 seconds later. At 70mph that is a distance of 821 feet. The Model 3 can stop from 70mph in 180ft.

 

[Paddy3101]

One thing you can see in the video is that all the barrels were upright and undisturbed before OP hit them. You can also observe that there were many vehicles driving on the road. From this information you can assume that other drivers were on the road and did not hit the barrels.

Exactly

Watch this truck, ahead, which appears to be in the same lane. (but isn't)

Now, the vehicles appear to be driving straight on to the right

In this frame at about 4 seconds, the truck, and car next to it appear to be going straight, to the right of the edge of the road.
The road looks like it is going straight or right here, and the barrier is coming out to the right, and the lane is going to the right, where the truck is.

The semi appears to be in the same lane as the black car.

It's actually just a vanishing point illusion.



It's not until about 6 seconds into the video, when the truck ahead starts to go behind the barrels that you can see over the hill, and the road goes left, not right.

It's still not entirely clear that the barrels come out to meet the white lines though, as the barrels curve round to the left, behind themselves, and the white line is still further to the right.

If you had been tracking that truck, from way back, you may have seen it wasn't in front of you, it was the lane over. But because the vanishing point is messed up because of the hill, and the cones, it (can) appear as if it's in front, in your lane.

It's difficult identify if your lane is narrowing from the vanishing point, because of the hill, or actually, because it is narrowing. Until quite late on. And at that point, the car is already by the side of the backwards semi.

Not excusing, anybody, or anything. Just pointing out that it's quite a difficult scene to analyse and judge, when you look at it in detail.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Not excusing, anybody, or anything. Just pointing out that it's quite a difficult scene to analyse and judge, when you look at it in detail.

You're looking at blurry compressed Youtube video. In real life it is not hard to see barrels 1/4 mile away.
Also note the flashing arrow pointing to the right less than 1 second into the video.

 

[L@urens]

This is what I'm saying, and I'll say it again: I expect AEB to recognize something the size of a 50-gallon drum when it can recognize something the size of a small human. THAT is what I expect.

It may recognize a drum or small human - even at speed - but disregard it as a false positive because of the speed?
There are many stationary objects that it must disregard. If you hit 0 mph traffic jam while speeding over a crest, it may not brake because it is is labeled as false positive. There is something about this in the manual too, I believe. It would be nice to let Tesla comment on the case, but I think you said they wouldn't?

 

[Paddy3101]

You're looking at blurry compressed Youtube video. In real life it is not hard to see barrels 1/4 mile away.
Also note the flashing arrow pointing to the right less than 1 second into the video.

It's quite hard to see them if you are asleep!

Also difficult to see them, if they are over the horizon, due to the hill, and the car doesn't read signs flashing arrows (yet).

 

[Daniel in SD]

It's quite hard to see them if you are asleep!

Also difficult to see them, if they are over the horizon, due to the hill, and the car doesn't read signs flashing arrows (yet).

If you can't see an object 3 feet tall with enough time to stop then you're driving to fast for the road. I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. It's an interstate highway and is designed with shallow enough grades that you can see barrels with plenty of time to stop at highway speed. You can't see the barrels in the first frame of the video because there's not enough resolution.

 

[lolder]

The lane change dictated by the barrels is very quick for a highway.

 

[Paddy3101]

If you can't see an object 3 feet tall with enough time to stop then you're driving to fast for the road. I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. It's an interstate highway and is designed with shallow enough grades that you can see barrels with plenty of time to stop at highway speed. You can't see the barrels in the first frame of the video because there's not enough resolution.

I'm not actually arguing, i'm almost entirely agreeing with you.

Just going through the scene with an eye to see how difficult it is to analyse the scene, in real-time.

In order for the Car to handle this well (i.e. not do an emergency stop when it gets to the barrels) it would need to be already moving out of the lane it's in, at the start of the video (or before), which is about 8 seconds before the actual obstruction (880ft), before it got to the Semi. That's what an attentive, experienced driver would be doing.

I don't believe you can see the barrels at that point. Look at big arrow sign on the left, I don't think you can see it's base, and as you get closer, it appears to get taller. And see the trees come into view, from over the horizon, behind it?

Even if the barrels are above the horizon, at 880ft away (268ft) they are beyond the range of the main forward camera, and radar, and still just beyond the range of the narrow forward camera (if it is being used at the moment?).
Autopilot

Using the main forward camera, the barrels would begin to be in range until 4.4 seconds before impact, which is already pretty late to be able to slow, and get in behind the Semi. (Given it's got to Check Hands, Alert, Signal, Wait, Maneuver).

So realistically, the only way the car can deal with this, is if it could read and understand the signs, before it gets to where the video starts.

 

[Saghost]

I'm not actually arguing, i'm almost entirely agreeing with you.

Just going through the scene with an eye to see how difficult it is to analyse the scene, in real-time.

In order for the Car to handle this well (i.e. not do an emergency stop when it gets to the barrels) it would need to be already moving out of the lane it's in, at the start of the video (or before), which is about 8 seconds before the actual obstruction (880ft), before it got to the Semi. That's what an attentive, experienced driver would be doing.

I don't believe you can see the barrels at that point. Look at big arrow sign on the left, I don't think you can see it's base, and as you get closer, it appears to get taller. And see the trees come into view, from over the horizon, behind it?

Even if the barrels are above the horizon, at 880ft away (268ft) they are beyond the range of the main forward camera, and radar, and still just beyond the range of the narrow forward camera (if it is being used at the moment?).
Autopilot

Using the main forward camera, the barrels would begin to be in range until 4.4 seconds before impact, which is already pretty late to be able to slow, and get in behind the Semi. (Given it's got to Check Hands, Alert, Signal, Wait, Maneuver).

So realistically, the only way the car can deal with this, is if it could read and understand the signs, before it gets to where the video starts.

Three front cameras, remember?

The barrels are visible in this, the middle camera of the three, within the first second of the video, though they're not really recognizable as what they are due to the resolution and contrast in the YouTube video.

But they are in line of sight and near the center - the long range camera should have a good chance of recognizing them at that point, provided the car is watching for them. Not something you should expect today, but certainly something that should be in reach of FSD when they get the nets tuned for it.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I'm not actually arguing, i'm almost entirely agreeing with you.

Just going through the scene with an eye to see how difficult it is to analyse the scene, in real-time.

In order for the Car to handle this well (i.e. not do an emergency stop when it gets to the barrels) it would need to be already moving out of the lane it's in, at the start of the video (or before), which is about 8 seconds before the actual obstruction (880ft), before it got to the Semi. That's what an attentive, experienced driver would be doing.

I don't believe you can see the barrels at that point. Look at big arrow sign on the left, I don't think you can see it's base, and as you get closer, it appears to get taller. And see the trees come into view, from over the horizon, behind it?

Even if the barrels are above the horizon, at 880ft away (268ft) they are beyond the range of the main forward camera, and radar, and still just beyond the range of the narrow forward camera (if it is being used at the moment?).
Autopilot

Using the main forward camera, the barrels would begin to be in range until 4.4 seconds before impact, which is already pretty late to be able to slow, and get in behind the Semi. (Given it's got to Check Hands, Alert, Signal, Wait, Maneuver).

So realistically, the only way the car can deal with this, is if it could read and understand the signs, before it gets to where the video starts.

I'm sure from the raw camera feed you can see the barrels in the first frame of the video. I can see them at 1 second in from this super compressed video. The feed the car is using is much higher resolution and does not have compression artifacts.
Obviously the car will need to be able to read and respond to signs in order to actually be FSD.

The lane change dictated by the barrels is very quick for a highway.

It doesn't look unusual to me. Also, the line to right is dashed which allows one to change lanes before the barrels.

 

[VQTRVA]

Federal regulations require proper signage be posted. You are the one "blaming" and now you say that since I can't produce proof of proper signage it MUST have been missing.???? Unless YOU can prove the required signage was missing we MUST assume it was there.

EDIT: Will also add that your assertion that "...the construction company which set the cones in a short & quick merge configuration." is wrong. There were 5 barrels before it even reaches the lane. They also appear to be almost 100' . Plus they don't go far out into the lane for a LONG ways.

View attachment 433590

As I said before, I've encountered situation like this where a short merge with very little warning requires quick evaasive maeuvers.

Gimme the math then on how fast 5 barrels is @ hwy speeds.
1 sign in pic. Shortly before merge. What other sign? You are assuming again. No pic no proof.

 

[JulienW]

As I said before, I've encountered situation like this where a short merge with very little warning requires quick evaasive maeuvers.

Gimme the math then on how fast 5 barrels is @ hwy speeds.
1 sign in pic. Shortly before merge. What other sign? You are assuming again. No pic no proof.

READ what the OP said......and that should be PROOF enough and END of debate.

You would win that bet. There was adequate signage. I just didn't see it.

 

[Daniel in SD]

As I said before, I've encountered situation like this where a short merge with very little warning requires quick evaasive maeuvers.

Gimme the math then on how fast 5 barrels is @ hwy speeds.
1 sign in pic. Shortly before merge. What other sign? You are assuming again. No pic no proof.

Look at first frame of video and you will see:

• 8 seconds and 820 feet from first hit barrel at 70mph.
• Flashing sign with arrow pointing right.
• No vehicle to the right.
• 8 SECONDS TO CHANGE LANES!
• If it takes you 8 seconds to perform a "quick evasive maneuver" then you should not be driving.

I can't believe we're still debating this. haha.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

As I said before, I've encountered situation like this where a short merge with very little warning requires quick evaasive maeuvers.

Gimme the math then on how fast 5 barrels is @ hwy speeds.
1 sign in pic. Shortly before merge. What other sign? You are assuming again. No pic no proof.

Yes, can we stop debating this? It is SO well signed. Everything is visible 800 feet away, no problem. I have marked up the FIRST frame of the video.