GlmnAlyAirCar
Active Member
To make the video easier to view, I sent the masters out to the production department (a.k.a., my teenage son) to combine all four camera outputs into a single view.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately you didn't have the visualization (and even if you did, it wouldn't show it AFAIK) but could it be that it predicted that the truck might cross your path (as turning into a driveway, than going in the path it ended up with)? That would also be another possible explanation.
Overall it seems Tesla has tuned their system (even with TACC/AP) to be very skittish with trucks (probably because of several well publicized crashes involving them, some fatal).
Also would be interesting to see if it applies any logic in terms of cars coming from behind. I proposed that a long while back, on the phantom braking. If they can put that as part of probability for deciding to brake, that might make things safer (if it knows no cars are following behind, the risk of rear collision from an unnecessary brake application is much lower or non-existent). Not sure if they already have this in AP or not.
Comparing the investigation population, of the 416k subject Tesla vehicles there were 354 complaints, but zero complaints that involved crashes, injuries or fatalities. For Honda's investigation of the 1.7 million, there were 278 complaints, but 6 that involved crashes or injuries. Scaling it down, you would expect 1-2 cases that involved crashes or injuries related to Tesla phantom braking from the same population. If you include all other Teslas (including the ones not under investigation) there should have been even more. Maybe Tesla is already using the rear cameras?
But like 2/3rds of the Tesla complaints came after a media blitz about phantom breaking, that included information about filing a complaint. I don't think there was any media reporting of the Honda issue until recently. So if they had the same reporting there would probably be a lot more complaints filed. (And people that had a crash are more likely to file a complaint.)
So I don't think you can glean any useful information to compare the two systems from the number of complaints.
Last edited:
scottf200
Well-Known Member
Curioiusly, it did end up going wide 'around' the mailbox. Doesn't seem likely that FSD anticipated that tho.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't really care about the total number of complaints (for which the above things you mentioned plays a factor), but more about the ones that involved crashes or injuries. Honda had 6, Tesla had zero. Scaling the numbers you would expect Tesla to have 1-2. If a crash happened due to phantom braking, I think the likelihood it gets reported to NHTSA (and for Tesla, the media, given they are a media favorite) is much higher.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Its possible FSD thought the truck was coming into your lane - possibly to go around something - so wanted to give it more space, so went back. Then as the truck "returned" to its lane, FSD just drove forward.
As they say - monitor what FSD is doing and intervene when it does something wrong and report. Thats the point of testing.
PACEMD
Active Member
Who takes reports or complaints about broken phantoms anyway? Is there like a BCB, Better Casper Bureau or something?
Last edited:
PACEMD
Active Member
Tangentially related because I found the videos informative:
www.cnbc.com
Tesla fired an employee after he posted driverless tech reviews on YouTube
John Bernal was a Tesla employee who showed FSD Beta to the world on his YouTube channel, AI Addict. He was fired in February.
www.cnbc.com
EVNow
Well-Known Member
All companies have policies around social media posting .... no idea why someone would so blatantly flout them.Tangentially related because I found the videos informative:
Tesla fired an employee after he posted driverless tech reviews on YouTube
John Bernal was a Tesla employee who showed FSD Beta to the world on his YouTube channel, AI Addict. He was fired in February.
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
There are supposedly 2,000 Tesla employees with FSD beta. It's not surprising that one of them didn't read the company's social media policy.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I'm sure all 100k employees have to go through training ... and specifically employees with FSD would have been emailed clearly not to post on social media.
I think its more a case of .... "they can't possibly find out who I am" than ignorance.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
I know many of us liked the videos from AI Addict. Well, Tesla fired the employee who was the creator of the AI Addict youtube channel and removed his access to FSD Beta.
www.cnbc.com
Tesla fired an employee after he posted driverless tech reviews on YouTube
John Bernal was a Tesla employee who showed FSD Beta to the world on his YouTube channel, AI Addict. He was fired in February.
www.cnbc.com
I know many of us liked the videos from AI Addict. Well, Tesla fired the employee who was the creator of the AI Addict youtube channel and removed his access to FSD Beta.
Tesla fired an employee after he posted driverless tech reviews on YouTube
John Bernal was a Tesla employee who showed FSD Beta to the world on his YouTube channel, AI Addict. He was fired in February.
When he hit the bollards, my first reaction was that he should have taken over way before that collision, and it was totally avoidable. To me, he wasn't using FSD beta safely. It created unnecessary negative press. Now, there are tons of videos showing FSD failing with drivers using the system appropriately. So FSD beta can justifiably create negative press for itself. But this one was unwarranted. And that it came from a self-declared Tesla employee, I can see why Tesla fired him.
He also said something dumb, like "This is the first time in half a year of using FSD that I hit something," as if to say he was a safe tester. (don't remember the exact quote; it's been a while). Well, that's not really a good track record. Ideally I don't want to be getting into collisions with anything at a half-year basis.
According to the article they were fully aware of his youtube channel, and fully aware of what he was doing with his channel.
His ignorance was thinking he could post something negative when employed by an Elon Musk company.
Personally I think we live in a fire happy culture. I would have just told him to stop posting videos due to a conflict of interest, and that would have been the end of it.
Firing someone just makes the whole issue blowup even more.
Terminator857
Active Member
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I didn't dig, but I always assumed anyone posting that said they were a Tesla employee at one point, would be a former employee, not a current one. I'm surprised there's a current employee that would be posting such videos on their own time. Seems like too much of a risk of insider information being leaked (even if not on purpose, it would bleed into any analysis you do). Would be a different case if Tesla had an "ambassador" type of employee (many companies do this), but Tesla does not.Tangentially related because I found the videos informative:
Tesla fired an employee after he posted driverless tech reviews on YouTube
John Bernal was a Tesla employee who showed FSD Beta to the world on his YouTube channel, AI Addict. He was fired in February.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Ah, I never connected the dots. This makes a lot of sense if he was the same person that was the first to post a public crash with the system. I don't recall back then anyone in the media suggesting he was an employee though.
Similar threads
