The problem is that the NHTSA report implied that the reduction was due to autopilot, not AEB which should have been active all along, but never quite worked right.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The problem is that the NHTSA report implied that the reduction was due to autopilot, not AEB which should have been active all along, but never quite worked right.
Anyway, as I've said before, Tesla should have developed an effective AEB instead of wasting time on FSD which will never happen with AP2. That would have resulted in real accident reductions, instead of accident increases due to autopilot.
IIRC in the AP1 days, autopilot was the suite that included AEB and the optional TACC and AutoSteer.
Since the report is for an AP1 car, it seems to me that use of autopilot already means what you wish it said.
My expectation is that technology learning's from FSD also apply to AEB.
Tam
Well-Known Member
My guess is:
The investigation yielded facts or reasons such as: No brakes were applied by the driver and the car continued toward the collision course.
It cleared the automation system because of its limitations and also because the burden of proper driving fell on the driver.
So what caused the driver to abstain from an evasive maneuver or braking?
Could it be because of the movie Harry Potter? Medical condition?...
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
I'm not sure it's really a vote, but more of a formality of accepting the conclusions of the investigation. It offers an opportunity for dissenting opinions if one or more of the board members feel the investigation and its conclusions are inaccurate. That has happened before, and sometimes the dissenting board member(s) is/are allowed to add his/their opinion statement(s) to the final investigative docket as an appendix.
All the joking about alternative facts aside, I think voting in such instances is simply a reflection of the elusiveness of the facts. The real world actually is quite ambiguous, no matter the present-day tendency of gravitating towards black and white.
We don't always know, even after a best effort, so differences of view and interpretation remain. As a board (like a court) needs to reach a conclusion, I can see them voting in case such differences remain.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I don't think I am.
Sometimes (most of the time?) what we've got are observations and they may be limited. Determining facts can thus lead to disagreements over whose observation is considered the closest to fact... Even science, after all, is constantly reinventing itself as our observations get better and better... But a finding of a board or a jury doesn't have the luxury of keep going and going, so at some point they'll make a determination, and that determination may require voting. No?
It is interesting how long it took to get to this point. I wonder how many schools could have been built with the money.
Car runs broadside into an object blocking the road in good weather during daylight hours. No evidence of the car taking evasive action or braking. Car was exceeding posted speed by 12%.
Truck driver failed to yield. Likely that the driver misjudged the oncoming car's closing rate when he began his turn due to the influence of marijuana. However, the distance and speeds involved allowed adequate time for the oncoming car to take evasive action.
Both drivers were to blame, however, one driver certainly was not paying attention to the roadway or traffic. While both drivers could have been ignoring traffic, the collision itself was the oncoming car hitting the truck even though there was adequate reaction time available.
The scenario is a "what if" kind. If the truck broke or dropped out of gear during the turn, would the accident have happened? Yes. If the oncoming driver was watching the road, would there be a collision? No.
Car runs broadside into an object blocking the road in good weather during daylight hours. No evidence of the car taking evasive action or braking. Car was exceeding posted speed by 12%.
Truck driver failed to yield. Likely that the driver misjudged the oncoming car's closing rate when he began his turn due to the influence of marijuana. However, the distance and speeds involved allowed adequate time for the oncoming car to take evasive action.
Both drivers were to blame, however, one driver certainly was not paying attention to the roadway or traffic. While both drivers could have been ignoring traffic, the collision itself was the oncoming car hitting the truck even though there was adequate reaction time available.
The scenario is a "what if" kind. If the truck broke or dropped out of gear during the turn, would the accident have happened? Yes. If the oncoming driver was watching the road, would there be a collision? No.
Last edited:
Tam
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is a waste of time and money to keep this case publicized because it might save someone else's life.
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
But that's the point of a comprehensive investigation -- uncovering nuances and root causes that are not at all obvious from a cursory examination of the available evidence.
The NTSB was responsible for discovering a highly unusual failure mode of the Boeing 737 rudder hydraulic servo valve assembly that ended up being the root cause of three commercial aircraft incidents (Eastwind Airlines 517 - no fatalities, United Airlines 585 - 25 fatalities, USAir 427 - 132 fatalities). How many other fatalities would have occurred without this root cause discovery?
Perhaps if all three were CFIT you'd have a point.
Hardware failure that overrides the control redundancies isn't the same as setting your altimeter wrong and "almost" clearing a mountain.
The driver set his car to "drive itself into a mountain".
Similar threads
