The term is absolutely misleading and needs to be changed. It's a great marketing tool, but it's clearly contributing to the false sense of security. Frankly, unless you've completely downed liters of the Tesla Kool-Aid, I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise. Yes, we should all be vigilant on AP at all times, but this is a mass market vehicle with a brand new technology. Different standards should apply, especially for a company like Tesla which prides itself on meeting or exceeding safety benchmarks.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Bloomberg Tesla Autopilot Accident Story Today
- Thread starter Lightmatrix
- Start date
The term is absolutely misleading and needs to be changed. It's a great marketing tool, but it's clearly contributing to the false sense of security. Frankly, unless you've completely downed liters of the Tesla Kool-Aid, I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise. Yes, we should all be vigilant on AP at all times, but this is a mass market vehicle with a brand new technology. Different standards should apply, especially for a company like Tesla which prides itself on meeting or exceeding safety benchmarks.
To be honest, I don't think it matters what you call it. If you demonstrate a machine that does something "right" 99 out of 100 times but on that other 1 time does something disastrously wrong, some people will be tempted to believe it to be better than it really is, and be lured into a false sense of security.
That's the fundamental human-behavior problem Tesla is struggling with right now. Humans tend to know when they're doing something bad (whether it's texting and driving, consuming too much alcohol / smoking, eating unhealthy foods, or not paying attention when Autopilot is active), but do it anyway, and still want to be entitled to acting like the victim when something bad happens.
Can someone please explain to me why Autopilot drove into the guardrail multiple times and it didn't stop after the first impact???
With all the sensors it has, it should slow down on the bend to avoid hitting the guardrail. If it's really unavoidable, it should slow down to stop after the first impact.
With all the sensors it has, it should slow down on the bend to avoid hitting the guardrail. If it's really unavoidable, it should slow down to stop after the first impact.
My initial assumption there is that Autopilot likely disengaged in the chaos and some of the characterization is unreliable witness testimony. Even in the Joshua Brown case a bystander claimed the car continued to accelerate after the impact when the NTSB said the car shut off after the impact and was coasting.
I thought the article was reasonable and balanced. The author also interviewed a Model X owner who credited AP with avoiding a collision and noted the recent incident where a man in acute medical distress credited AP with helping him get to the hospital faster than if he had waited for an ambulance.
Because AP disengages on impact and because no doubt the driver also disengaged it by belatedly grabbing the wheel and hitting the brakes. You seem to think that AP capabilities are far beyond where Tesla clearly states they are.
What I would like to know is why using three question marks [???] is better than a single question mark. It's not.
I will not answer that question, as you did not use the proper 3 question mark punctuation...
"The car didn’t stop -- it actually continued to accelerate after the first impact into the guardrail."
Unbelievable. What was the driver doing? Even after impact he doesn't bother to take over and hit the brakes?
I knew a kid in high school who wrecked his car when reaching over for something on the passenger side, so this type of crash isn't new to autopilot. It just makes the news now, where you'd never read about the dumb driver before.
Unbelievable. What was the driver doing? Even after impact he doesn't bother to take over and hit the brakes?
I knew a kid in high school who wrecked his car when reaching over for something on the passenger side, so this type of crash isn't new to autopilot. It just makes the news now, where you'd never read about the dumb driver before.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Chubb may sue because Chubb is one of the few that offers a stated value policy (Allstate is another). With such a policy, if totaled, they cut a check to the insured for $120K or whatever the invoice and aftermarket amounts come to.
They are, potentially, more exposed, in other words.
Not saying that the car above is a total loss. Still reading the article.
They are, potentially, more exposed, in other words.
Not saying that the car above is a total loss. Still reading the article.
Maybe the point was that people are human and we tend to make patterns where patterns may not exist, so this situation could happen to anyone (and maybe we should be more sympathetic). The driver did admit his wrongdoing, but was obviously shaken by the experience and noted the human psychology factor here: it gave him a false sense of security.
Considering how many folks here have admitted to reading/checking e-mails, etc while on AP, I am sure many of them are also driving around with a false sense of security. I know if AP is behaving well while I am driving it, I might be tempted to do something rash, like take a few seconds to read a text message when it beeps on my phone. I won't perceive that action as rash and dangerous - but it is.
The question then becomes - is Tesla responsible for mitigating the human psychology factor that seems to be resulting from this technology? For another example that doesn't involve Tesla: is Jeep responsible for mitigating the human psychology factor of their shifter design that has caused several roll-away accidents? Some may argue no, those folks driving those Jeeps just need to know to be careful when putting their car into park.
I think in the end Tesla will have to take some action to address the psychology factor (just like Jeep did). I don't know what form it will take, but I am guessing AP will become more limited than it is now.
Last edited:
CuriousG
Active Member
Gizmotoy
Active Member
I don't have Autopilot, but I find this infuriating.
THEN WHY DID YOU USE A BETA FEATURE WHERE YOU SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO BE A "TEST PILOT"?!?!?
THEN WHY DID YOU USE A BETA FEATURE WHERE YOU SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO BE A "TEST PILOT"?!?!?
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Probably because there's a difference between alpha and beta.
Alpha = test pilot.
Beta = consumer-ready, with non-lethal implications.
People who pilot floaty things or flying things tend to understand what autopilot is and is not. More importantly, it is ingrained in us to never rely upon a single source for navigation, and that in the end, we as captains/pilots are responsible for getting from point A to point B without loss of life, injury, or property damage.
With no disrespect to the public at large, but if you put 100 people off the street into a room and ask them the difference between autonomous, autopilot, and driver assist features, y'all will get a lot of blank stares. When they look up from texting, that is.
Change the damn name to DriverAssist. You can bet Ford or Subaru or somebody will. Thing is, Tesla can't now because they're already committed. And with credit to Tesla, they have led the way with the long view. Remember that in barely 5 years, the entire driving landscape will have changed. Remember JohnnyCab from Total Recall? Well, it's coming.
SW2Fiddler
We Are Cognitive Dissidents
Gizmotoy
Active Member
Not really sure I agree. Those are basically just statements about how you interpret those two labels. Like I said, I don't have an AP car, but I have seen the warnings and statements you have to agree to when enabling AP. They DO NOT state that there is no danger in using the software, as you claim Beta implies.
Indeed, one stated requirement is that you have to keep your hands on the wheel. The name of the feature doesn't change the fact that the driver agreed to test and use a feature that's still under heavy development, before it was ready and out of beta, and then later complained that he didn't want to be a beta tester for that feature. The mind boggles.
Still, for the sake of argument, had Tesla called it Alpha instead of Beta with literally everything else the same, do you think we'd be in the same situation here? I do. He ignored the warnings and agreements required to enable AP. Do you think seeing Alpha instead of Beta would have stopped him?
I suspect this comes down to informed consent. Can people really give informed consent by clicking a button a screen that this feature might kill them if they use it improperly? What about other drivers of the car? If I enable AP on my car, but then my husband borrows it and tries out AP, he didn't have to sign or read anything. Is that my responsibility to fully educate all drivers of my vehicle about the risks of the beta feature that I enabled? I think it is, but I am not sure that agree button fully conveys the level of responsibility you are accepting.
Tesla is breaking new ground here with beta testing something that you can be killed in. It probably should be controlled more like a medical trial consent than an iPhone software beta consent.
Very simple. He plans to buy a Mercedes with DrivePilot and not plan to use that feature because he knows it is crappy it will always fail.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
They just want to blame someone or something for their mistake. If anyone who drives a Tesla with AP believes the term AutoPilot is a blank check for not paying attention, then they aren't smart enough to be on the road. Maybe they should stick to bicycles in the park
Sure it is. Anyone reaching WAY over to the glove box could easily snag the wheel and cause autopilot to dis-engage. I'd bet good money this is exactly what happened(as already suggested).
Similar threads
