Well, he was leaned over into the glove box upon the first collision. AP was probably already disengaged from the act of leaning over to the glovebox but if it wasn't, it surely would be upon impact....and then where do you suppose his feet were before the impact and where do you suppose they were after the impact? I'll bet one of them was on the accelerator as you struggled to get back up.
-
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
Well, he was leaned over into the glove box upon the first collision. AP was probably already disengaged from the act of leaning over to the glovebox but if it wasn't, it surely would be upon impact....and then where do you suppose his feet were before the impact and where do you suppose they were after the impact? I'll bet one of them was on the accelerator as you struggled to get back up.
The "autopilot" in an airplane doesn't do everything for the pilot. It won't take off and land for you or handle every unexpected situation. It takes over tedious tasks and corrections while in flight. We appropriately use the term autopilot for these aircrafts as thats how it has been defined.
Yet somehow, the general public seems to incorrectly assume that autopilot means fully autonomous driving even though in the aircraft industry, where the autopilot term is more commonly used, the term doesn't mean full autonomous flying for an aircraft.
Yet somehow, the general public seems to incorrectly assume that autopilot means fully autonomous driving even though in the aircraft industry, where the autopilot term is more commonly used, the term doesn't mean full autonomous flying for an aircraft.
Soolim
Member
I think Mobilleye calling it ADAS = Advanced Driver Assistance System is more appropriate and less misleading than AutoPilot,
False sense of security? I've only used an autopilot loaner for a few hundred miles, but it was evident from the first minute that it needed to be monitored closely. My basic self-preservation instinct said so. Plus the instructions that appear on the screen say just that -- keep your hands on the wheel and be ready to take over. Hard to argue that it is misleading or gives a false sense of security if you've actually used the system. Cannot imagine someone putting so much trust into it to open the glove box and start cleaning (I'm not sure I could lean over to the glove box without bumping the wheel). But perhaps Tesla needs to spell this stuff out during delivery, as some people seem to lack the sense to safely drive.
I find it interesting that some people use it and quickly decide it can't be trusted even on roads it was designed for, and others say it works amazingly well and they drive for miles and miles with their hands off the wheel.
I wonder if there is actual variation in the performance of the system in particular cars (maybe due to misaligned sensors, etc) or if it's some other factor.
I use it every day, no problems here. Likely because I, at all times, pay attention to the road. I have my hands on the steering wheel and usually turn it off in a situation where I'm unsure of its behavior.
Molthan told Bloomberg:
“I used Autopilot all the time on that stretch of the highway,” Molthan, 44, said in a phone interview. “But now I feel like this is extremely dangerous. It gives you a false sense of security. I’m not ready to be a test pilot. It missed the curve and drove straight into the guardrail. The car didn’t stop — it actually continued to accelerate after the first impact into the guardrail.”
Test pilot? Seriously? I really wish people like this would not use that term when discussing themselves. It pisses off the real test pilots. Where was he when" IT missed the curve"? He wasn't a test pilot. Test pilots pay attention. He was a passenger. Apparently there was no pilot on duty at the time. You would think that people capable of managing the purchase of not one, but two Teslas would, by now, be aware of the limitations and cautions in the manual concerning the AP. Or did I miss the part where it states that if it has traveled this stretch before with no problem, you are ok to do some housecleaning, check your email, and perhaps read the latest news on the Kardashians?
Nope, I just checked and my owners manual says:
"Warning: Autosteer is a hands-on feature. You must keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times" and
"Never depend on Autosteer to determine an appropriate driving path. Always be prepared to take immediate action. Failure to follow these instructions could cause serious property damage, injury or death."
I know one might be confused by the complexity of these statement, but I read it to mean that "You must keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times." And you should "ALWAYS be prepared to take immediate action". Even if the dashboard has collected some unsightly dust. But perhaps it could be understood differently.
The Test Pilot term does not apply to here. If you want something more in line with what you are thinking, try guinea pig. Unlike test pilots, guinea pigs can't read.
“I used Autopilot all the time on that stretch of the highway,” Molthan, 44, said in a phone interview. “But now I feel like this is extremely dangerous. It gives you a false sense of security. I’m not ready to be a test pilot. It missed the curve and drove straight into the guardrail. The car didn’t stop — it actually continued to accelerate after the first impact into the guardrail.”
Test pilot? Seriously? I really wish people like this would not use that term when discussing themselves. It pisses off the real test pilots. Where was he when" IT missed the curve"? He wasn't a test pilot. Test pilots pay attention. He was a passenger. Apparently there was no pilot on duty at the time. You would think that people capable of managing the purchase of not one, but two Teslas would, by now, be aware of the limitations and cautions in the manual concerning the AP. Or did I miss the part where it states that if it has traveled this stretch before with no problem, you are ok to do some housecleaning, check your email, and perhaps read the latest news on the Kardashians?
Nope, I just checked and my owners manual says:
"Warning: Autosteer is a hands-on feature. You must keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times" and
"Never depend on Autosteer to determine an appropriate driving path. Always be prepared to take immediate action. Failure to follow these instructions could cause serious property damage, injury or death."
I know one might be confused by the complexity of these statement, but I read it to mean that "You must keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times." And you should "ALWAYS be prepared to take immediate action". Even if the dashboard has collected some unsightly dust. But perhaps it could be understood differently.
The Test Pilot term does not apply to here. If you want something more in line with what you are thinking, try guinea pig. Unlike test pilots, guinea pigs can't read.
The factor that is the problem is the humans doing the driving. They are so variable and unreliable. 50 years from now when all cars are fully autonomous people will marvel at the "olden days" when humans were allowed to drive vehicles.
Exactly right.
That's one reason why this Texas accident is interesting: with so many variables contributing, was the failure the human, Autopilot failing to see the bend in the road or the emergency braking system?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Really? A lawsuit will be thrown out based on hearsay evidence? That's news to me. And here I am thinking hearsay evidence is inadmissible in Court.
Really? So if Chubb gives me a replacement policy on a 1978 Toyota and it's totaled, they can go after the tortfeasor for a new Toyota whereas an insurer who doesn't offer replacement value can only go after the tortfeasor for actual cash value? That's news to me. I thought we had established principles of common-law that govern our law and the issue of insurance has no relevance in determining the quantum of damages.
It's amazing what you learn on the internet!
(By the way, it's called "subrogation" -- and as an insured who has been paid out on a property damage claim you have no choice as to whether to sue or not -- after paying a claim an insurer can sue in your name and you have no right to select counsel or determine the course of the litigation but you do have a duty to cooperate. In a motor vehicle accident, there is property damage and sometimes bodily injury. The article never mentions if the driver was injured other than a bloody nose -- and that's very important since that's the only lawsuit for which he has the deciding vote as to whether to sue, assuming he was paid out on the property damage claim by his insurer.)
Last edited:
Maybe the laws are different in Canada, but you might want to look into something called a "statement against interest."
Statement against interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whether the driver's statement is enough to "throw out" the case is hard to say, but the statement will be a central piece in any case that might come out of this.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Nope. The hearsay laws are generally the same in Canada as in the States. We follow the same English common-law. All evidence is subject to the test for admissibility and this is what you want admitted into evidence, from the article:
"Mark Molthan, the driver, readily admits that he was not paying full attention."
Now, how did this come about? It came about by the journalist writing down, or recording in some other manner, what he said he was told. That's classic hearsay and if it's denied we get into your exceptions to the hearsay rule that you pointed me to in the article to try to get it admitted (the first part of which deals with admissions in court - if a party admits in court he apologized it's not hearsay - that's why many jurisdictions have an Apology Act) But let's leave that aside since you don't need to try to get something into evidence that is admitted. The article lists the following hearsay exceptions:
Neither of these apply. Saying you were "not paying full attention" is not "so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else". At best, it may be somewhat contrary. But what is "failing to pay full attention"? We always have to pay full attention when driving or we are at fault? This is clearly not the type of admission that has "so great a tendency to invalidate" the claim. This exception is for when people admit something that completely invalidates claims. The issue of autopilot causing an accident for momentary lapses of attention is a real issue yet to be determined by the courts because of the novel technology.
The other exception applies to criminal law so it has no application.
As such, in my view, there's no way you would get that article admitted into Court even with exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Last edited:
Odebek
Don't Panic
We don't really know that that is what happened. We know that this is what the driver thinks happened; but it is more likely that the driver accidentally disengaged AP while leaning to reach the glovebox. Why not wait to get the actual assessment from analysis of the car logs vs manufacturing a story based on a single individual's recollection? Oh wait, I know! Because it makes it really hard to use conjecture and speculation in order to sensationalize a headline and story when you have mundane facts about what really happened...
It's not misleading. People are stupid and continue to use it improperly. You don't rename something because of stupidity, or if you are suggesting that, let's rename these reckless individuals from people to idiots and leave autopilot alone.
That's not the definition of beta. To assume alphas and betas or final products will not is a very dangerous assumption.
It's a product in development with changing features. No promises about death or destruction implied and you should pay attention if you value life and property.
K5ING
MegaMiler
Question... Does the Autopilot shut off if the sensors detect that no one is sitting in the driver's seat? I know there was an issue with people turning around when backing up and the car putting itself into park at low speeds. I also know that Tesla was the subject of criticism when a certain unnamed YouTube poster put up video of himself getting into the back seat while on Autopilot and the seat sensor allowing it. If Tesla corrected that, could it be that when the driver in the Texas crash leaned over to get something out of the glove box, the seat sensors thought there was no one in the seat and shut down the Autopilot?
Similar threads
