Autopilot punishment

[alcibiades]

So other than to punish the driver, has anyone come up with a justification for this? I get that you all have been arguing over whether or not you are inconvenienced by pulling over to the shoulder, to McDonalds, or whether you are fine just driving without AP. But absolutely zero of those have to do with justification of locking a safety feature.

 

[McRat]

some people have gotten hung up on the pulling onto the shoulder concern, people should be aware that it is possible to find safe places to stop on a highway, think exit ramps, rest areas and other possibilities. the couple of times I've exceeded 90 mph and got locked out I drove without the AP (horrors) until the opportunity to safely stop and reset the system.

People pull over to the shoulder for non-emergencies. It would be nice if folk understood the risk better, but they don't.

 

[oktane]

I just read this thread.

First it was described as an emergency acceleration to over 90 MPH.

Then it was revealed it was an acceleration to pass a car going 85. There was the question of how much of a speed increment necessary to pass a car, 15% was suggested. This implies it was on a 2 lane road, so the increment is necessary to minimize time spent in the opposing traffic lane. If on a multilane divided highway, there's little need for the 15% speed increment over the vehicle being passed.

Then there was the post about exceeding the speed limit is OK to pass a slow moving vehicle. I wouldn't consider 85 MPH to be slow moving so that bit seems nonhelpful to me.

Why would someone need to pass a vehicle doing 85 on a 2 lane road? If you are passing, isn't that an elective procedure rather than an emergent one. Short of someone shooting at you or perhaps eluding capture after a bank heist, I'm not sure I see the passing of a car doing 85 on a two lane road as an emergency.

If one contemplates the pass, there should be time to flick off the Autopilot. If one doesn't contemplate the pass, there are a Pandora's Box of other concerns

The car isn't inflicting punishment. You exceeded the parameters set for it. It might be proactively assumed by the programmers that if there had been one out-of-parameters episode on this trip, there might well be other upcoming episodes, so it probably isn't the ideal trip for use of a their beta release automatic car control program. The car didn't interfere with the maneuver, it just exercised an option not to be a autopilot participant for the remainder of the Trip. The software programmers didn't label you as a bad driver and they are allowing you to again use the autopilot on your next trip. Even when Autopilot was disabled, the car still works, you just have to actually drive it after an out of parameters event. To me, that just doesn't seem like that much of an imposition.

If I were one of the programmers responsible for providing this software and doing everything I could to keep its users safe, I think I might do the same thing.

This wasn't personal. You were not singled out. The car has no sentient mind so cannot decide to punish. It is just software. You exceeded the parameters so a variable somewhere was set so the Autopilot would remain nonfunctional until that variable was reset.

That programmer team didn't ride with you. They have no idea how the car will be driven nor the expertise of the drivers. They have no idea whether you have a skillset of a Formula One driver or are a 15 year old, car borrowing joyrider. The only thing they know is that the operator exceeded 90 and the operator did it with their software in use. They know there is no public road in the US that allows a speed of 90 or greater so the car is at the very least being operated in an illegal manner. They felt the need to proactively establish general parameters and if one violates these parameters, they simply want their software to opt out and stay opted out until that trip is over.

There is no punishment, no drama, just a conservative programming decision.

I just don't see a problem.

Best,
David

Your characterization of the reason I had to accelerate is inaccurate, but the reason is honestly irrelevant. The car should not be policing or punishing the driver. It should simply disengage AS if accelerator is pushed, just like it would if the brake is depressed.

Your argument that this is in fact a feature based on a "proactive assumption" by the programmers is the crux of the problem. You know what happens when people ASS-U-ME.

 

[LosAltosChuck]

So other than to punish the driver, has anyone come up with a justification for this? I get that you all have been arguing over whether or not you are inconvenienced by pulling over to the shoulder, to McDonalds, or whether you are fine just driving without AP. But absolutely zero of those have to do with justification of locking a safety feature.

Fom my own experience building autonomous systems for vehicles: we monitor certain parameters as formal safety limits of the autonomous system. If those parameters are observed to go out of range, the autonomous system enters a safe state (gracefully shuts down) and remains disabled until a proscribed external event re-enables the system.

I expect this is the approach Tesla has taken. Sensors can fail. For all the system knew, the tire rotation sensors were misreporting the speed.

The requirement for the system to be reset by stopping the vehicle is not unreasonable from a safety engineer's perspective.

So by intentionally speeding, you unintentionally violated one of the system's safety goals. Apparently Tesla's reaction to such a system goal violation is reset from Park.

That isn't a driver penalty. I assume it is a formal safety mitigation.

Note I do not work for Tesla or work on Tesla's systems. This is based on my own experience and work.

 

[Electroman]

I said manual corrections too. The speed exceeding in this case came from OP manually correcting AP.

You think the more you exaggerate, the more forceful your argument is?

Manually increasing the speed DOES NOT disengage AP, except when you go over 90 mph.

 

[Electroman]

I'm complaining that this "punishment" by AP2 does nothing to promote safety

I am confused. Which is unsafe - using AP or not using AP?? You seem to be claiming both.

You have been hyperventilating all along that AP will kill you (although I am a little disappointed that it hasn't succeeded yet in your case), and now you are angry that unable to use AP will kill you.

Make up your mind.

 

[David.85D]

I thought it just mailed you a summons to traffic court when you tried to exceed 90 mph with autopilot. This is way better!

 

[D.E.]

So other than to punish the driver, has anyone come up with a justification for this? I get that you all have been arguing over whether or not you are inconvenienced by pulling over to the shoulder, to McDonalds, or whether you are fine just driving without AP. But absolutely zero of those have to do with justification of locking a safety feature.

Someone is driving over 90 MPH with the car's control system steering, running a tempory beta version of a car steering program. I'd be hard pressed to refer to that as a "safety feature".

If someone is going 90 on a public road, they should be doing the steering and paying very close attention to where the car is going. That car is going from the goal line to the 44 yard line in one second. In 3 seconds, it is through the opposite goal line and into the stands. That isn't the time for beta software version 2017.28 c528869 to display one of its little programming hiccups.

Suppose you are going the other way and here comes nearly 2 1/2 tons of Autopiloted Tesla coming at you at 90 MPH running an old beta version of software, the driver's hands nowhere near the steering wheel. Let's make it a 2 lane road. He's on your side, he's passing a car doing 85. Do you want your family with you?

Finally, consider an accident. They pull the records, of course. It indicates the driver's hands weren't on the steering wheel. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, sometimes the car doesn't properly sense us holding the wheel. Officially, though, the driver wasn't touching the wheel. So this guy got multiple warnings to hold the steering wheel. Then they see he's exceeded 90 MPH several times causing the Autopilot's "safety cutout" to activate, and each time he immediately just reactivated it. Think there is a little liability there?

I don't think the trip lockout was put there to punish Oktane or anyone else. I think it is there because it it wasn't, there'd be some difficult questions for Tesla to address. You know with all the cars they sell, sooner or later someone is going to crack one up at high speed with the Autopilot engaged.

If you have not read the Florida report, it is a real eye opener as to what this car is recording. It is recording Autopilot activation, speed, TACC speed setting, constantly whether it senses hands on the steering wheel, it documents every one of those "hold the steering wheel" warnings, along with a constant record of your speed, accelerator position, brake activations, and the flavor of the toothpaste you used this morning.

Tesla isn't punishing anyone. They know the days are coming where they have to justify in court that if the 90 MPH Autopilot limit is exceeded, that they took reasonable steps to keep a driver from easily doing it again and again.

So if you are going to drive over 90, switch off the Autopilot. If you don't turn it off for some reason, you'll just have to steer it yourself until your next stop.

This seems reasonable to me. I still don't see the problem.

 

[oktane]

I am confused. Which is unsafe - using AP or not using AP?? You seem to be claiming both.

You have been hyperventilating all along that AP will kill you (although I am a little disappointed that it hasn't succeeded yet in your case), and now you are angry that unable to use AP will kill you.

Make up your mind.

I don't think that was me. But yes, if you don't pay attention and intervene, there is a high likelihood of serious accident or death when utilizing Tesla's AP2 system, since it doesn't always work reliably. That is unsafe. When I use AP2, I keep my hands on the wheel and watch it like a hawk.

I never stated Tesla's speed disabling of AP2 was unsafe, simply that it was ill-conceived, annoying, and doesn't help safety. Therefore, unless there is a good reason for it, it should be removed.

@LosAltosChuck - an interesting theory, but I doubt this has anything to do with corrupt sensor data. If corrupt sensor data was suspected, not sure why parking the vehicle should re-enable AP2. Only a trip to the SC should allow it to be used again.

Rather than this lockout, Tesla should make their system work safetly at higher speeds. Driving at 90MPH is trivial for most of us "humans". I'd love to see what a computer can do. It other parts of the world 90MPH is not the speed limit. There was a time in Montana that highways didn't have speed limits either. It wasn't until 1999 that Montana enacted daytime speed limits.

 

[alcibiades]

Someone is driving over 90 MPH with the car's control system steering, running a tempory beta version of a car steering program. I'd be hard pressed to refer to that as a "safety feature".

If it is a safety feature before he hits 90, it is a safety feature when he comes back below 90. I'm not sure you realize what the discussion is.

If someone is going 90 on a public road, they should be doing the steering and paying very close attention to where the car is going. That car is going from the goal line to the 44 yard line in one second. In 3 seconds, it is through the opposite goal line and into the stands. That isn't the time for beta software version 2017.28 c528869 to display one of its little programming hiccups.

Again, where is this coming from?

Suppose you are going the other way and here comes nearly 2 1/2 tons of Autopiloted Tesla coming at you at 90 MPH running an old beta version of software, the driver's hands nowhere near the steering wheel. Let's make it a 2 lane road. He's on your side, he's passing a car doing 85. Do you want your family with you?

Huh?

I don't like that people drive that fast. I'm a total chicken and a nanny.

That said, I don't see a legitimate reason that AP should not become available again after disengaging. In every other disengagement that I know of, AP becomes available again without turning the car off.

If your point is that EAP is not a safety feature, I kinda get your point.

 

[D.E.]

Your characterization of the reason I had to accelerate is inaccurate, but the reason is honestly irrelevant. The car should not be policing or punishing the driver. It should simply disengage AS if accelerator is pushed, just like it would if the brake is depressed.

Your argument that this is in fact a feature based on a "proactive assumption" by the programmers is the crux of the problem. You know what happens when people ASS-U-ME.

I apologize for any mischaracterization of your reason for acceleration. Was there truly an emergency requiring you to reach a speed of greater than 90 MPH?

I do not argue that this was one of the programmers general assumptions. It just seems reasonable that it might have been. I'd probably figure someone that goes over 90 once with the Autopilot on might do it again.

 

[oktane]

I apologize for any mischaracterization of your reason for acceleration. Was there truly an emergency requiring you to reach a speed of greater than 90 MPH?

I do not argue that this was one of the programmers general assumptions. It just seems reasonable that it might have been. I'd probably figure someone that goes over 90 once with the Autopilot on might do it again.

Yes, in order to avoid collision, my judgement as "driver in command" was that it was the correct approach.

It remains unclear what relevance, if any, there is to autopilot and going over 90mph. If AP2 can't handle speeds above 90MPH, it should simply disengage at that point. I don't see any benefit to requiring pulling over and parking before re-enabling autopilot. That is the crux of this entire thread.

Thanks

 

[JonathanD]

I'm assuming it has to do with them not wanting the AP system to be constantly turning on and off due to crossing speed thresholds. It opens Tesla to potential liability and could be confusing or distracting for a driver. They addressed the issue with a blanket solution that if you are driving more than 90mph, chances are you're on the highway and will probably do it again, and therefore it shuts off AP for that trip. As one of the non-AP peasantry, trust me you'll survive

 

[D.E.]

If it is a safety feature before he hits 90, it is a safety feature when he comes back below 90. I'm not sure you realize what the discussion is.

Again, where is this coming from?

Huh?

I don't like that people drive that fast. I'm a total chicken and a nanny.

That said, I don't see a legitimate reason that AP should not become available again after disengaging. In every other disengagement that I know of, AP becomes available again without turning the car off.

If your point is that EAP is not a safety feature, I kinda get your point.

I'm not sure Autopilot is a safety feature at its current stage of development. Do you have data that it is?

As far as I know the discussion is about the perception that the trip lockout is seen as a form of punishment. The discussion is not that it is seen as a lost safety feature. You've just introduced that aspect. Does that sum up my understanding the gist of the discussion for you?

The football analogy is simple math, 60 MPH is 88 feet per second. It should be accurate as described. It was meant as a concrete illustration of the speed. I'd do the thing about 90 MPH being equivalent of a fall from so many feet but I'm not smart enough to get it right. I think it is pretty high up.

I'm with you about the nanny bit. The energy involved goes up as the square of the speed. High speed accidents are devastating. People just aren't built for the deceleration forces involved. Commonly the aorta rips free of the heart, that never goes well.

Please understand that I didn't create this lockout. They didn't call me, they didn't write, they didn't email, they didn't ask me at all. I'm merely speculating why they might have done it. And I don't see it as the punishing inconvenience that others see. I don't see the programmers as a petty vindictive bunch out to punish speeders by depriving them of Autopilot for an hour or two. I think they like beer like I do. I think they are probably a fun group. Oh, sure, there's probably one, the vindictive programmer, the guy who's been there forever and just can't get another job, he's married to a shrew that makes his home life a living henpecked hell. Also keep in mind my car will do it too, my car is just as evil as the rest of them, it is ready to punish me as well. Well, I think it will, I haven't tried it But now I know that if I do go over 90 I should flick off the Autopilot so I don't actually need to steer the car between now and the next charging stop. What's that, 2 hours? If I forget, I can steer that long. No problem. And I can do it safely. If I can't, I'll stop for a cup of coffee and I'll put it in park, that'll fix it. I know deep down if they wanted to punish me, they'd turn off the air conditioner. Or make the stereo only play those tinny hits from the 1930's. But turning off Autopilot for an hour or two isn't punishment. I even like steering it.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Your fight is not with me, my friend, you can certainly choose to disagree with me.

I don't think I can explain my views in a clearer or more concise manner so I don't see a need to restate parts of it. You've already noted my post was long enough. Adding more won't be helpful.

I fully understand both sides. I disagree with you, that's all.

I have no problem with length of messages, so you probably misunderstood my reference. Your message consisted IMO mostly of points related to issues not really pertinent to how I perceive OP's point.

For example you spend a lot of time on OP's driving event example and his use of the words vindictive and punishment (his perceived reaction to the car's actions). IMO you misunderstood OP there. Those are irrelevant to the point and just cloud the issue (as do most responses that concentrate on OP as a poster or his style). The relevant point from OP clearly was that lockout is the wrong reaction to a single 90+ mph event. OP framed it colorfully, obviously he does not think the car is out to get him.

For a reason you offered merely the vague notion that if this happens once, maybe something else is going on and AP has a legtimiate conservative reason to react. Yet at the same time you suggest driving 90+ mph while AP is off should not result in the same conclusion by the car. This makes no sense.

AP disengagement would take care of both single and repeated excesses in manual control or correction speed. In both cases the driver clearly is in control. They would also be consistently in line with what happens when AP is disengaged from the switch.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

My God, man, at no time did I entice anyone to pull over onto the shoulder to reset their car. That would be dangerous. It would also be counterproductive for the person intent on rapid travel. Just drive the car. The thing needs to be recharged every so often anyway, much sooner with high speed driving. So reset it then.

The question is: What are the consequences of this lockout policy - are they grounded in great reasoning and increases safety or not.

IMO it is not hard to see that knowledge of the lockout can lead to unnecessary consciousness of manual speed corrections, starting to fiddle with AP controls or slowing down when speeding up instead would be the safe or otherwise better choice. As you admit, the car has no understanding of the driving scenario, yet it is interjecting - in effect (I know cars have no opinions) - its view on what is OK and what is not.

Humans are humans. We react and learn to react when we know something causes a reaction. The programmers (or more likely lawyers) behind this reasoning may even mean well, but that does not mean it can't have unintended and unwanted consequences.

Same with pulling on to the curb. Obviously this will encourage it.

Just to clear, IMO lockouts are perfectly fine for not reacting to nags. That is a completely different scenario and one with grace. This speed lockout happens with one single "slight" of the accelerator pedal...

Excessive reaction from the car.

 

[bonnie]

I think the lockout is probably the result of a safety-motivated decision within the engineering team & wouldn't be surprised to see it changed in some future release.

It doesn't seem like the best implementation for safety reasons. But is it really that big of a deal? Really?

I've had it happen & while I would have liked autosteering available, it wasn't enough of an issue at the time to cause me to pull over and reset it. So I'm missing the reason for all the angst here.

edit: For those of you who claim to be upset by this, how many of you have let Tesla know?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I'm assuming it has to do with them not wanting the AP system to be constantly turning on and off due to crossing speed thresholds. It opens Tesla to potential liability and could be confusing or distracting for a driver. They addressed the issue with a blanket solution that if you are driving more than 90mph, chances are you're on the highway and will probably do it again, and therefore it shuts off AP for that trip. As one of the non-AP peasantry, trust me you'll survive

Our "survival" is irrelevant when discussing the merits of a policy.

As I said, if the point is: yes this policy sucks, but lawyers made it - what you gonna do... fine. Most of us would probably agree with something like that and move on. World is filled with such examples and that least there would be the acknowledgement that this is inane...

But that is not the point this thread is circling around.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

So I'm missing the reason for all the angst here.

For me the biggest reason is that OP IMO pointed out a flaw in Tesla's thinking and implementation - for me it's consequences are sort of irrelevant, even though I too have noted some potential ones. L

The point is the reaction is excessive and I am having a hard time finding legitimate justifications for it. So the policy seems suspect and that alone IMO is enough to critically discuss it.

Tesla reads this forum, so now they know.

 

[Electroman]

But is it really that big of a deal? Really?

Apparently it is for OP that strongly believes AP is out to kill him and this lock-out is another reason that proves AP is a scam.

If that sounds screwed up convoluted logic, yes it is.