Autopilot: Crashed at 40mph

[Tam]

keeping that following distance at 5 or 6 might have helped slow down sooner, giving her a chance to react like the car in front of her did. The data never lies, follow the facts. We don't know, but Tesla does know how her car was configured, and if she was following too close at too high a rate of speed and not being fully aware of her surroundings or upcoming traffic (e.g. other cars traffic lights signalling a slowdown or obstruction in the road), then yes it may have been her fault, not the auto-pilots. It only does what it is told (and programmed to be capable of doing).

Her case is described in the manual very clearly:

"Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control can not detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles, especially in situations when you are driving over 50 mph (80 km/h) and a vehicle you are following moves out of your driving path and a stationary vehicle or object, bicycle, or pedestrian is in front of you instead. Always pay attention to the road ahead and stay prepared to take
immediate corrective action. Depending on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to avoid a collision can result in serious injury or death. In addition, Traffic-Aware Cruise Control may react to vehicles or objects that either do not exist or are not in the lane of travel, causing Model S to slow down unnecessarily or inappropriately."

The problem is who would want to read the manual?

 

[dhanson865]

Updated comments from the driver in WSJ:

Tesla’s Autopilot Vexes Some Drivers, Even Its Fans

Arianna Simpson, a venture capitalist in San Francisco, said the Autopilot in her Model S “did absolutely nothing” when the car she was following on Interstate 5 near Los Angeles changed lanes, revealing another car parked on the highway.

Her Model S rammed into that car, she said, damaging both vehicles but causing no major injuries.

Tesla responded that the April crash was her fault because she hit the brakes right before the collision, disengaging Autopilot. Before that, the car sounded a collision warning as it should have, the car’s data show.

“So if you don’t brake, it’s your fault because you weren’t paying attention,” said Ms. Simpson, 25. “And if you do brake, it’s your fault because you were driving.”

She doesn’t expect to use Autopilot much once her Model S is repaired, partly because she thinks she would constantly second-guess the automated-driving system.

And she is mostly right she just left a few details out.

If you are about to have a collision and you don't brake you may be at fault. Autopilot will not prevent a collision but the fault will be split between the human drivers as usual for all car accidents. You may or may not be solely at fault. Autopilot will not share in that fault.

If you are about to have a collision and you do brake and still have the collision you may be at fault. What Autopilot did before you disengaged Autopilot doesn't preclude your ability to prevent a collision. Autopilot will not share in that fault. Fault will be split between the human drivers as usual for all car accidents.

If you are not about to have a collision Autopilot will continue to be there for driver assistance. You aren't on the edge of a collision 24/7. Enjoy the times of normal driving, remember to be ready to take over.

I feel sorry for her if she thought Autopilot would save her the work of being alert when behind the wheel of a car. We aren't there yet. You can get that feature but it's called a chauffeur. I'm sure she can find a staffing agency to fill that technical requirement if she wants to not have to worry about when to press the brake pedal or not.

 

[bhzmark]

I am a pilot. . . .I think the Tesla AP should be treated similarly to the way professional pilots treat the autopilot.

You mean like this?

"Autopilot would also seem to free up a lot of time in the cockpit for pilots to, say, read a newspaper or watch a DVD on their laptop. And while nearly all airlines forbid such leisure activities in the cockpit (the only reading normally allowed in the cockpits is that of checklists and help manuals), one captain for a major U.S. airline-who prefers to remain anonymous-says the rules are regularly bent."

"Officially, we're not supposed to read [in the cockpit while flying]. But do I do it? Yeah," he says, "During a two hour flight, for about an hour and a half (when the plane is on autopilot) there's a whole lot of nothing going on. Hopefully I get along with the co-pilot and we have stuff to talk to about. But you run out of things to talk about. I'm in a hotel every night and they deliver a newspaper to my door, and if I'm sitting there on a two hour flight, I'm sorry, I know you're not supposed to, but I pull out the paper and read."

The anonymous pilot said he estimates about 50 percent of the pilots he flies with also pull out casual reading material to peruse once the autopilot has been switched on.

"And on a lot of airlines, their manuals are on laptops," he says, "On red-eyes from L.A. to New York in the middle of the night, I know those pilots are watching DVDs."

from: Who's Really Flying Your Plane?

 

[GlmnAlyAirCar]

You mean like this?

"Autopilot would also seem to free up a lot of time in the cockpit for pilots to, say, read a newspaper or watch a DVD on their laptop. And while nearly all airlines forbid such leisure activities in the cockpit (the only reading normally allowed in the cockpits is that of checklists and help manuals), one captain for a major U.S. airline-who prefers to remain anonymous-says the rules are regularly bent."

"Officially, we're not supposed to read [in the cockpit while flying]. But do I do it? Yeah," he says, "During a two hour flight, for about an hour and a half (when the plane is on autopilot) there's a whole lot of nothing going on. Hopefully I get along with the co-pilot and we have stuff to talk to about. But you run out of things to talk about. I'm in a hotel every night and they deliver a newspaper to my door, and if I'm sitting there on a two hour flight, I'm sorry, I know you're not supposed to, but I pull out the paper and read."

The anonymous pilot said he estimates about 50 percent of the pilots he flies with also pull out casual reading material to peruse once the autopilot has been switched on.

"And on a lot of airlines, their manuals are on laptops," he says, "On red-eyes from L.A. to New York in the middle of the night, I know those pilots are watching DVDs."

from: Who's Really Flying Your Plane?

As an ex-airline pilot, I can't disagree with what you wrote. However, you are talking apples and oranges. The altitude alerted will alert the pilot to an altitude deviation well before it becomes a factor with another aircraft. Turn a little off course in cruise? Perhaps an FAA enforcement action. But no danger to the aircraft or occupants. In cruise, the pilot has lots of time to recognize and responds to an autopilot issue (which is usually due to pilot error to begin with). During terminal operations and especially during approach and even landing, no one is reading the paper. Both pilots are monitoring the instruments. And, during the final approach and landing, hands are on the yoke and throttles.

Driving on AP, there is very little time to respond to an anomaly. Yes, wide open highway with light traffic and good markings allow me to take my hands off the wheel for significant stretches. But there is no time to permit distraction. If something goes wrong, it's going to happen fast, and you have to be ready for it. I find I actually pay more attention to the road, because a chunk of my brain isn't committed to physically driving.

 

[mach.89]

First off, +1 for the previous posts from professional pilots and how to monitor Tesla Autopilot. And even tho I'm a professional pilot as well, I also can become a little too relaxed in the right road/traffic conditions and have to remind myself to watch the autopilot closer.

But as far as the 40mph accident this thread references, I finally experienced a similar thing (incidentally on the same highway I think) from San Diego to LA yesterday. But for me, it was a pesky motorcycle that started the whole thing... I was moving along maybe 20-30 mph on autopilot in slow traffic with a following distance of 7 selected, so I had a pretty good space between me and the car I was following. Then a motorcycle split the lane to my right and passed me relatively slowly. I looked at my instrument cluster and noticed my AP saw him and locked onto him, no longer locked onto the car ahead that happened to be slowing more. Great, distance between me and motorcycle is getting larger, AP says lets go and accelerates a little, next thing you know car in front of me is coming to a stop and we're not because AP following a motorcycle that isn't planning on stopping! Thankfully I'm doing the right thing here and ready to takeover because I'm convinced I would have rear ended the car in front of me as the motorcycle disappeared between the cars late enough that doesn't give the AP enough time to re-lock onto the car in front of me and stop. I gave it as much time as felt comfortable with to see if AP would save the day and I still had to disengage AP and aggressively brake the car. 99% of my AP stop/slow-go traffic driving the AP works great, in fact it's my favorite aspect of semi-autonomous driving in the LA area. This is a limitation we all have to live with for now but I still love my car and AP after 7500 miles and tons of AP time.

Just wanted to give another example here of why to watch her closely, drive/monitor safely everyone!

 

[woof]

I've noticed several instances of drivers thinking that TACC is ON, when Tesla says it's OFF. Members have surmised the drivers must've caused the system to turn off by tapping the brake to disengage TACC, yet the drivers are under the impression they are still engaged.

What bugs me about this theory...while I don't have a TACC Tesla (mine's the old fashioned "classic" with plain old cruise control), once CC is disengaged, regen kicks in, HARD. I don't see how it's possible to believe the car is under TACC control at this point. When in an automatic transmission ICE if cruise is disengaged at high speed it will coast for quite some time, with minimal loss of speed. Under that condition I could see how one might think CC is still engaged. However, when a Tesla's cruise control is disengaged at high speed and the "go" pedal isn't depressed, it will slow down considerably, and quite noticeably.

So tapping the brake "lightly" enough to disengage TACC will cause hard deceleration. It's hard to miss that TACC is not engaged at that point.

 

[GoTslaGo]

The only thing I can think of is that because the regen kicks in, the driver thinks that tacc is working to slow/stop the car.

Still, at that point my foot is hovering over the brake.

 

[MP3Mike]

So tapping the brake "lightly" enough to disengage TACC will cause hard deceleration. It's hard to miss that TACC is not engaged at that point.

Unless they have the regen option set to low, in which case it won't cause hard deceleration. I'm not sure if the creep option would add any additional confusion into the mix.

 

[SR22pilot]

A lot of systems don't even apply max braking. This is to prevent getting rear ended. The idea is that the car starts braking and the driver takes over. Some of the MB Distronic Plus systems are this way.

 

[Ivo-G]

I've noticed several instances of drivers thinking that TACC is ON, when Tesla says it's OFF

This is a case of legal semantics IMO.
As soon as the driver realizes an accident is imminent and touches the brake, TACC is turned off, so yes, at the moment of the accident, it is indeed off. Tesla will always say "at the time of the accident", but what about right before? This way Tesla is always covered, cause if you don't disengage AP / TACC you're at fault for not taking over, and when you do take over after the system's put you in the situation, the systems are turned off, leaving you to fend for yourself and absolving Tesla as "the systems weren't on at the time of the crash".

 

[SR22pilot]

This is a case of legal semantics IMO.
As soon as the driver realizes an accident is imminent and touches the brake, TACC is turned off, so yes, at the moment of the accident, it is indeed off. Tesla will always say "at the time of the accident", but what about right before? This way Tesla is always covered, cause if you don't disengage AP / TACC you're at fault for not taking over, and when you do take over after the system's put you in the situation, the systems are turned off, leaving you to fend for yourself and absolving Tesla as "the systems weren't on at the time of the crash".

I'm confused over what you want the system to do. All auto braking systems I know of disengage when you touch the brakes. At least one version of MB's Distronic Plus only applies 40% braking until the driver takes over. No one says these systems eliminate frontal collisions but they do mitigate them. I just posted this on another thread:

Important safety notes

WARNING

DISTRONIC PLUS does not react to: • people or animals • stationary obstacles on the road, e.g.
stopped or parked vehicles • oncoming and crossing traffic As a result, DISTRONIC PLUS may neither give warnings nor intervene in such situations.

There is a risk of an accident.

Always pay careful attention to the traffic situation and be ready to brake.

WARNING

DISTRONIC PLUS cannot always clearly identify other road users and complex traffic situations.

In such cases, DISTRONIC PLUS may: • give an unnecessary warning and then brake the vehicle
• neither give a warning nor intervene • accelerate unexpectedly There is a risk of an accident.

Continue to drive carefully and be ready to brake, in particular when warned to do so by DISTRONIC PLUS.

WARNING

DISTRONIC PLUS brakes your vehicle with up to 40% of the maximum braking force. If this braking force is insufficient, DISTRONIC PLUS warns you visually and audibly. There is a risk of an accident.

In such cases, apply the brakes yourself and try to take evasive action.​

 

[woof]

Unless they have the regen option set to low, in which case it won't cause hard deceleration.

A valid point, but it still slows down, nothing like cruising along thinking TACC is still in control.

This is a case of legal semantics IMO.
As soon as the driver realizes an accident is imminent and touches the brake, TACC is turned off, so yes, at the moment of the accident, it is indeed off.

True enough, however I'm not questioning what Tesla said (well, see below)...I'm questioning the posters who are speculating (in several instances) that the drivers disabled TACC with a brake touch, but weren't aware of it. I just don't see how that can apply to all the reports we've read about.

As for Tesla playing semantic games...certainly they could. They could claim the logs said anything, with no one to dispute them. They could make the logs say anything they want if asked to produce them. Even if a third party pulls the logs directly from the car, it doesn't mean Tesla didn't doctor them on the car earlier (which we know is possible; see wk057's thread where Tesla employees accessed his car remotely and changed things). At some point you have to have trust, faith even. So perhaps the cult of Elon has brainwashed me, but I just don't accept they would play such games. We have at least one instance where Tesla did say AP was ON, and a fatality occurred. If they admitted to it being ON in that situation, then I don't see why they would play semantic games in lesser incidents.

So it's an interesting quandary. Either

• Tesla is lying/playing semantic games saying TACC or AP is OFF when it was ON just before the crash yet didn't react.
• The drivers are lying to cover their error.
• The drivers really think AP/TACC was ON when it really was OFF for some time before the crash.

It would be an interesting poll question. I don't think Tesla bothers to play games (call me brainwashed). I don't think ALL the drivers are lying (some probably are). I don't think it's possible to drive for some distance with AP/TACC off and not be aware of it due to regen--even when regen is low.

So, what's the fourth option?

 

[Ivo-G]

A valid point, but it still slows down, nothing like cruising along thinking TACC is still in control.


True enough, however I'm not questioning what Tesla said (well, see below)...I'm questioning the posters who are speculating (in several instances) that the drivers disabled TACC with a brake touch, but weren't aware of it. I just don't see how that can apply to all the reports we've read about.

As for Tesla playing semantic games...certainly they could. They could claim the logs said anything, with no one to dispute them. They could make the logs say anything they want if asked to produce them. Even if a third party pulls the logs directly from the car, it doesn't mean Tesla didn't doctor them on the car earlier (which we know is possible; see wk057's thread where Tesla employees accessed his car remotely and changed things). At some point you have to have trust, faith even. So perhaps the cult of Elon has brainwashed me, but I just don't accept they would play such games. We have at least one instance where Tesla did say AP was ON, and a fatality occurred. If they admitted to it being ON in that situation, then I don't see why they would play semantic games in lesser incidents.

So it's an interesting quandary. Either

• Tesla is lying/playing semantic games saying TACC or AP is OFF when it was ON just before the crash yet didn't react.
• The drivers are lying to cover their error.
• The drivers really think AP/TACC was ON when it really was OFF for some time before the crash.

It would be an interesting poll question. I don't think Tesla bothers to play games (call me brainwashed). I don't think ALL the drivers are lying (some probably are). I don't think it's possible to drive for some distance with AP/TACC off and not be aware of it due to regen--even when regen is low.

So, what's the fourth option?

I'm not saying that Tesla ARE playing games.
What I'm saying is that technically the systems are off AT THE MOMENT OF THE ACCIDENT if you so much as touch the brakes or steer the wheel yourself. It's the moments before disengaging that I want to focus on.
In my incident, AP was on until I started to brake myself. So technically it was off at the time of the crash. But it was also the AP system that got me in the critical situation in the first place, albeit "my own stupid fault" for having activated and relied on it in the first place, I should not have seen Tesla's promotion of the systems and AP's performance 99,9% of the time as being foolproof.

 

[Ivo-G]

I'm confused over what you want the system to do. All auto braking systems I know of disengage when you touch the brakes. At least one version of MB's Distronic Plus only applies 40% braking until the driver takes over. No one says these systems eliminate frontal collisions but they do mitigate them. I just posted this on another thread:

Important safety notes

WARNING

DISTRONIC PLUS does not react to: • people or animals • stationary obstacles on the road, e.g.
stopped or parked vehicles • oncoming and crossing traffic As a result, DISTRONIC PLUS may neither give warnings nor intervene in such situations.

There is a risk of an accident.

Always pay careful attention to the traffic situation and be ready to brake.

WARNING

DISTRONIC PLUS cannot always clearly identify other road users and complex traffic situations.

In such cases, DISTRONIC PLUS may: • give an unnecessary warning and then brake the vehicle
• neither give a warning nor intervene • accelerate unexpectedly There is a risk of an accident.

Continue to drive carefully and be ready to brake, in particular when warned to do so by DISTRONIC PLUS.

WARNING

DISTRONIC PLUS brakes your vehicle with up to 40% of the maximum braking force. If this braking force is insufficient, DISTRONIC PLUS warns you visually and audibly. There is a risk of an accident.

In such cases, apply the brakes yourself and try to take evasive action.​

I don't want the system to do anything it can't do. But it fools you into thinking it can, as do Tesla in their communication (not including the manual, that's not communication but just reference material).

Oh and quoting other manufacturers and citing from their manuals is utterly pointless in this debate, as they aren't selling cars based on this technology not are they touting it as one of their premier features. And most of all, they're not the brand being discussed here in the first place. So a moot point really.

 

[trils0n]

Oh and quoting other manufacturers and citing from their manuals is utterly pointless in this debate, as they aren't selling cars based on this technology not are they touting it as one of their premier features. And most of all, they're not the brand being discussed here in the first place.

Before Tesla had Autopilot, many people would post in the forums: "Well, I'd buy a Tesla, but they don't have the safety / driver assist features like adaptive cruise control, forward collision warning, auto emergency braking, etc. that other brands have". These features certainly sell other cars, and in the past provided differentiation enough to make certain customers choose those vehicles over Tesla. At least here in the US, those safety features are pretty heavily advertised. It's not just Tesla touting their driver assistance tech.

 

[X Yes?]

I'm not saying that Tesla ARE playing games.
What I'm saying is that technically the systems are off AT THE MOMENT OF THE ACCIDENT if you so much as touch the brakes or steer the wheel yourself. It's the moments before disengaging that I want to focus on.
In my incident, AP was on until I started to brake myself. So technically it was off at the time of the crash. But it was also the AP system that got me in the critical situation in the first place, albeit "my own stupid fault" for having activated and relied on it in the first place, I should not have seen Tesla's promotion of the systems and AP's performance 99,9% of the time as being foolproof.

It will be interesting to see if Tesla uses this defense in the latest Model X crash in PA. I don't think it helps them to claim the system was off, when the driver brakes (and disengages the system) to try to avoid an accident.

 

[SR22pilot]

I don't want the system to do anything it can't do. But it fools you into thinking it can, as do Tesla in their communication (not including the manual, that's not communication but just reference material).

Oh and quoting other manufacturers and citing from their manuals is utterly pointless in this debate, as they aren't selling cars based on this technology not are they touting it as one of their premier features. And most of all, they're not the brand being discussed here in the first place. So a moot point really.

Mercedes is making a big deal their system and even comparing the latest version to Tesla. Subaru has ads on TV showing frontal collision protection as does Hyundai. Hyundai placed an AEB ad in a Super Bowl a couple of years ago.

As far as the brand under discussion comment, if people criticize Tesla for something and aren't willing to criticize the same issue on another brand then I wonder what their agenda is. If Tesla is inferior then that is a different issue.

 

[neroden]

Its manual explains this kind of collision very clearly.

This is a completely irresponsible way to design "automatic emergency braking".

In railroad trains, the rule is that every train must maintain an absolute safe distance behind the train in front of it -- it must be able to stop before reaching the train in front of it. If the train in front stops dead on a dime (perhaps because a bridge fell on it or it hit a boulder from a rockslide), the train behind it will hit the brakes and stop before colliding with anything. The automatic braking systems -- which are now mandated! -- do exactly this.

This is the rule I follow when driving. Always assume that the car ahead of you could stop completely still at any time and be prepared to brake to a dead stop without hitting it. This saved my life once, driving on an HOV lane in California with concrete barriers on each side at 70 mph, when a turn revealed a car which was completely stopped. I slammed on the brakes and stopped ~1000 feet behind it. If I had been tailgating like *almost everyone else on the road*, there would have been a nasty crash.

I only drove an AP car for one day and one the most difficult things for me to get used to was the way it slowed down when traffic came to a stop (not soon enough!). I don't know if that can be changed in the settings. I tried a number of different settings, car lengths, etc. but no matter what it doesn't slow down until it gets too close for my comfort to the vehicle ahead.

This is Tesla's fault. The TACC is not driving safely. Sure, most drivers don't drive safely *either*, but for guys like me and Canuck, the Autopilot is simply worse than a human. This is not a good design.

 

[neroden]

Before Tesla had Autopilot, many people would post in the forums: "Well, I'd buy a Tesla, but they don't have the safety / driver assist features like adaptive cruise control, forward collision warning, auto emergency braking, etc. that other brands have". These features certainly sell other cars, and in the past provided differentiation enough to make certain customers choose those vehicles over Tesla. At least here in the US, those safety features are pretty heavily advertised. It's not just Tesla touting their driver assistance tech.

I honestly think this is the only reason Tesla even implemented this stuff.

 

[woof]

It's the moments before disengaging that I want to focus on.
In my incident, AP was on until I started to brake myself. So technically it was off at the time of the crash. But it was also the AP system that got me in the critical situation in the first place

I may have missed all the details, but reading back through your previous posts to piece together your "incident" it seemed to be the TACC thinking the road was clear ahead yet it then accelerated right into stopped traffic, giving you little time to react. Interestingly, this seems to be shortcoming of MobilEye based systems which seem to follow the front car as it changes lanes and is slow to switch to the car that's now actually in front, and not tracking very slow or stopped vehicles directly in front. I can also add (based on my BMW i3 experiences with MobilEye based ACC) it'll false positive (start to slow or just give up in confusion) on shadows from bridges and overhead road signs on a bright day. I've seen it not detect large dark colored trucks directly in front if their tail lights aren't working. All these errors I've experienced, and yet, even with all these shortcomings, I still use and enjoy the i3's ACC, and am looking forward to using TACC on a new Tesla one day. Perhaps it's my geek mindset: I'm fascinated with how well MobilEye works, and also how "stupid" it can seem at times when it doesn't.

I'm very sorry you discovered the shortcomings the "hard" way, and congratulate you for trying to educate others to learn from it. They won't, but it doesn't hurt to try. As for Tesla's marketing and spin on TACC/AP, I hear you and wish they would tone it down as well, yet I can tell you it's no worse than BMW's ACC literature, which suffers the same underlying weaknesses of the sensor systems. Cold comfort, I know.