Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Impressive video of Tesla safety features at work

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Happily. :)

Here is a dictionary definition of predicted: "Say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something" (quoted from define predicted - Google Search )

AP detected a car ahead rapidly decelerating (an event not detected by the Tesla driver). It then "estimated" that a "specific thing" (an accident") would "happen in the future" as a "consequence" of that estimation and it took action by braking.

And guess what? That "thing" did in fact "happen". Therefore, AP "predicted" that event.

Even if that line of thinking would hold, it very likely did not predict the accident that happened. I seriously doubt any part of the code in that Tesla determined two cars in front are going to collide... and hence the braking event.

No, I expect the Tesla simply reacted to slowing car in front of the lead car and started braking. It probably entered into a scenario it considered potential crash for the Tesla itself, but I doubt there was any scenario there predicting the collision of the two objects in front.

This is evidenced by the fact that the alarm came before the lead car was braking. Tesla simply reacted faster to the car in front of lead car braking than the driver in front did...

I doubt any part of the Tesla code paid attention to the relative trajectories of the two cars in front, but was probably watching them as quite separate things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andyw2100
Leave it to this forum to find away to take a great example of the car that presumably most of us own--or wish to own, doing something extremely impressive-that no other car on the road today can do, and by the fifth post turn it into a silly semantic debate over the word "predicted" Clearly, it "foresaw", "envisioned" or "predicted" a high potential for collision and took appropriate action. That is what we should be celebrating--rather than finding yet another way for a debate.
 
enjoy your fantasies, the car acted properly detecting the rapid deceleration of the vehicles ahead and slowed the car down. I am assuming that the driver took over and evaded the crash and brought his vehicle to a rapid stop.
did the AP system do ALL of this? IMHO the AP slowed the car down which assisted in evading the crash but to say that the AP predicted the crash is just pure fantasy.
 
Happily. :)

Here is a dictionary definition of predicted: "Say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something" (quoted from define predicted - Google Search )

AP detected a car ahead rapidly decelerating (an event not detected by the Tesla driver). It then "estimated" that a "specific thing" (an accident") would "happen in the future" as a "consequence" of that estimation and it took action by braking.

And guess what? That "thing" did in fact "happen". Therefore, AP "predicted" that event.

The Tesla did not predict the specific accident that occurred. It recognized the braking car or cars as a condition that could cause --AN-- accident, and took action to prevent the Tesla from being part of the possible accident.

Look at it another way. If the cars in front had not been braking, and the red car simply tried to pass the black car, passing too closely, clipping it, and causing an accident, the Tesla either would not have alerted at all, or would have alerted after impact. Please let me know when the system can predict the clipping in the absence of cars slowing down, and I will agree that the Tesla system is, at that point, predicting accidents and not just identifying conditions that could lead to an accident.
 
I'm sorry to report that there are numerous cars on the road today with similar and even better road event detection technology than the tesla has.

Not interested in getting into a semantic debate with someone who by your very own signature has issue recognizing reality. Let me assure you the Cubs ARE the World Champions, and the Tesla DID "foresee", "envisioned" or "predicted" a high potential for collision and took appropriate action.
 
Leave it to this forum to find away to take a great example of the car that presumably most of us own--or wish to own, doing something extremely impressive-that no other car on the road today can do, and by the fifth post turn it into a silly semantic debate over the word "predicted" Clearly, it "foresaw", "envisioned" or "predicted" a high potential for collision and took appropriate action. That is what we should be celebrating--rather than finding yet another way for a debate.

I have said in practically every post I have made on this how impressive the Tesla's actions were. My main point is that these actions should not be exaggerated, as there is simply no need for it. "electek" should simply report the actual facts, without hyperbole.The facts speak loudly and impressively and require no exaggeration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnxietyRanger
Leave it to this forum to find away to take a great example of the car that presumably most of us own--or wish to own, doing something extremely impressive-that no other car on the road today can do, and by the fifth post turn it into a silly semantic debate over the word "predicted" Clearly, it "foresaw", "envisioned" or "predicted" a high potential for collision and took appropriate action. That is what we should be celebrating--rather than finding yet another way for a debate.

We're just trying to cut through the hyperbole, which makes you believe stuff like that. There certainly are other manufacturers that do two-car frontal collision monitoring.

In fact, some of them use the same predictive hyperbole... ;)

Infiniti Predictive Forward Collision Warning | Infiniti USA

Just keep it real.

The reality is impressive enough.
 
Not interested in getting into a semantic debate with someone who by your very own signature has issue recognizing reality. Let me assure you the Cubs ARE the World Champions, and the Tesla DID "foresee", "envisioned" or "predicted" a high potential for collision and took appropriate action.

The claim by Electrek was:

"Tesla Autopilot’s new radar technology predicts an accident caught on dashcam a second later"

Let me assure you, there is no evidence that Tesla predicted the black and red cars in front colliding, which was caught on camera. (The Tesla did not crash.)

What it did was notice the black car slowing down, creating a likely crash scenario between the black car and the Tesla (not the red car), and acting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andyw2100
The reality is impressive enough.
I agree. What AP did in the situation being discussed was definitely impressive in part because it reacted significantly faster than the human driver because it could "see" a potential accident situation that the human driver failed to see as quickly.
 
The primary benefit of this, to me, is that although I might see brake lights two or three cars ahead, it takes me some time to decide that they are braking heavily / emergency-braking - in particular if the car in front of me shows no brake lights (not working, driver not paying attention, driver not fully appreciated the gravity of situation in front of his/her car). My car jumping on the brakes for me, because it can assimilate much faster than I can that the closing-distance is shrinking too rapidly to be safe, is a huge benefit.
 
The claim by Electrek was:

"Tesla Autopilot’s new radar technology predicts an accident caught on dashcam a second later"

Let me assure you, there is no evidence that Tesla predicted the black and red cars in front colliding, which was caught on camera. (The Tesla did not crash.)
What it did was notice the black car slowing down, creating a likely crash scenario between the black car and the Tesla (not the red car), and acting.

It's a matter of semantics, it in all likelihood isn't programmed to predict an accident involving other vehicles, but that's easy enough to do if Tesla really wanted. So yes, it didn't predict the particular accident that happened, but as @ecarfan mentioned it did predict a potential future collision with the Tesla and the SUV in front of the red car and sounded the alarm. As humans we can also predict that if the Tesla would have maintained course and speed, then it surely would have been involved in the accident.
 
I agree. What AP did in the situation being discussed was definitely impressive in part because it reacted significantly faster than the human driver because it could "see" a potential accident situation that the human driver failed to see as quickly.

Part of why I am being so persistent in not wanting to see this exaggerated is that the "electek" headline almost caused me to miss what really happened. I know what the Tesla's systems can and can't do better than the average Joe on the internet who might read about this, and even so, initially I was confused. I'll explain.

When I watched the video the first time, because of the headline, I actually thought the Tesla system had identified the angle the red car was taking to pass relative to the black vehicle's location, and had, in fact, predicted the clipping and the resulting accident. My initial thought was, "Wow! That is some crazy new sophistication in the system. How is that even possible?"

I then watched the video again, pausing it just after the alert started. It was only then that I noticed the brake lights, and the fact that the red car had not yet started to move right to attempt to pass. The headline actually did mislead me. One could argue that if the system really was anticipating collisions based on cars' angles, there would probably be a lot of false alarms, which could be seen as a negative. In that respect, what the system really did--identify a car or cars slowing dangerously, alerting, and braking--was more impressive, and far less open to any sort of criticism.
 
  • Love
Reactions: deonb
The primary benefit of this, to me, is that although I might see brake lights two or three cars ahead, it takes me some time to decide that they are braking heavily / emergency-braking - in particular if the car in front of me shows no brake lights (not working, driver not paying attention, driver not fully appreciated the gravity of situation in front of his/her car). My car jumping on the brakes for me, because it can assimilate much faster than I can that the closing-distance is shrinking too rapidly to be safe, is a huge benefit.
Agree, I do not slam on my brakes every time I see brake lights. It takes some time for me to determine if I should apply them at all (unless I hear tires screeching).

After thinking through what happened, was that action precipitated by any AP functionality or was it all handled by the Emergency Braking System? Wouldn't any Tesla have acted the same, AP enabled or not?
 
Last edited:
Strait from the horses mouth (aka the Owners Manual) :

The forward looking camera and the radar sensor monitor the area in front of Model X for the presence of an object such as a vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian. If a collision is considered likely unless you take immediate corrective action, Forward Collision Warning is designed to sound a chime and highlight the vehicle in front of you in red on the instrument panel:

BTW to be exact AP does not have to be active, but you do need an AP equipped car for this to work. Even if AP was not engaged, the Collision Detection would still work. This happened to me the other day, but I do not have a dash cam to prove it and there was no accident by any cars but it was close. The Tesla definately deflated the possible chain of events that probably would have occurred in a non collision avoidance car.
 
Part of why I am being so persistent in not wanting to see this exaggerated is that the "electek" headline almost caused me to miss what really happened. I know what the Tesla's systems can and can't do better than the average Joe on the internet who might read about this, and even so, initially I was confused. I'll explain.

.
therein lies the basis for the criticism of the post. it is all hyperbole and misleading to those who are not well versed in the tesla AP experience.
look how many newbies who thought AP was an actual auto pilot and the damage that those videos of stupid tricks like sitting in the back seat did to the perception of what the AP was about.
let the value of the system stand on it's own without these misleading hyperbolic posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andyw2100
Strait from the horses mouth (aka the Owners Manual) :



BTW to be exact AP does not have to be active, but you do need an AP equipped car for this to work. Even if AP was not engaged, the Collision Detection would still work. This happened to me the other day, but I do not have a dash cam to prove it and there was no accident by any cars but it was close. The Tesla definately deflated the possible chain of events that probably would have occurred in a non collision avoidance car.
Ahhh... I was not sure if the radar was involved in emergency collision detection and braking. Assuming AP equipped implies hardware, I'm back to thinking EAP not worth the money (at this point). There's still time for Tesla to convince me.