Local CBS story, Tesla in autopilot mode hits fire truck

[Pruitt]

My AP1 is rock solid. I know what it can do, and I know what it can't do.
When on the Interstate, I'm much more relaxed with AP on with it off, but I don't hand the driving over to the car and zone out.
I don't turn my brain off, but I do relax and keep a light hand on the bottom of the wheel. That keeps the nags away, and it allows me to adjust quickly if AP loses a line and shifts towards or away from the other one.
I frequently glance at the instrument panel to make sure I know how well AP is seeing the road.
I watch the road, albeit more casually than when the car is not steering, because it doesn't see either road damage like potholes, or obstructions like cement blocks or stopped fire trucks.
I can't comment on AP2 because I haven't used it. But AP1 is perfectly safe if you understand its limits and don't try to exceed them.

 

[Canuck]

But AP1 is perfectly safe if you understand its limits and don't try to exceed them.

So a vehicle that will drive you into a parked vehicle while on AP is "perfectly safe"? I don't see much in this world as "perfectly safe". Today's AP, regardless of version, doesn't even make it close to my "perfectly safe" list. I note you say you can relax and you infer, without actually saying it, that you pay less attention while driving. That's the trap it lulls you into because you should be paying the same attention as if driving.

My AP1 is rock solid. I know what it can do, and I know what it can't do.

Famous last words.

 

[philgrocks]

This reminds me is how far away is FSD :-(.

 

[Barklikeadog]

My AP1 is rock solid.

heh

 

[Pruitt]

So a vehicle that will drive you into a parked vehicle while on AP is "perfectly safe"?

Yes it is, as long as you don't try to make it do what it wasn't designed to do.

I note you say you can relax and you infer, without actually saying it, that you pay less attention while driving.

No you inferred it. I didn't even imply it.

That's the trap it lulls you into because you should be paying the same attention as if driving.

Yeah sure. The car tries to trap you.
I'm also more relaxed if I'm wearing my seat belt. By your logic, the seat belt must be trying to trap me too. I KNEW those things were out to get me!

Relaxed driving doesn't mean inattentive driving. In fact, by being more relaxed the drive is less stressful and so less tiring on a long trip. So there's less chance of a fatigue-induced lapse in concentration, falling asleep or developing "highway hypnosis."

 

[animorph]

So a vehicle that will drive you into a parked vehicle while on AP is "perfectly safe"? I don't see much in this world as "perfectly safe". Today's AP, regardless of version, doesn't even make it close to my "perfectly safe" list. I note you say you can relax and you infer, without actually saying it, that you pay less attention while driving. That's the trap it lulls you into because you should be paying the same attention as if driving.

Regular cruise control will run into parked vehicles but is considered safe, though maybe not "perfectly".

This reminds me is how far away is FSD :-(.

Assuming FSD is built on top of EAP and not something totally different.

 

[bhzmark]

Some people will just never get it. At least they won't get it without trying it for any length of time. Even some will try it and still not get it.

Some people still use typewriters and fountain pens.

If you dare to try it, don't think of it as autopilot. Think of it as a tool that maintains a distance behind the moving car in front of you, and makes the small adjustments to the steering stay between well marked lane lines. That's all it does. Don't try to make it do anything else. Relieved of the burden of making the small accelerator and steering adjustments to follow the car in front and stay in the lanes will free up cognitive and attention resources to be more alert to activity farther down the road or from approaching on ramps etc. It is more relaxing and safer.

But no doubt some people just won't get it. But their kids will.

So a vehicle that will drive you into a parked vehicle while on AP is "perfectly safe"?

you pay less attention while driving. That's the trap it lulls you into because you should be paying the same attention as if driving.

 

[buttershrimp]

This thread is like poo to the negative nancy tesla dung beatles.... Looking forward to the next leap in AP so I can go a day on TMC without reading the cacophony of mmmmmm where's my FSD daddy?

 

[Hornedfrog1]

The driver was either zoned out completely, distracted by texting, or maybe tapped the brakes when they saw the fire truck which of course disengaged the entire AP feature.

 

[phaduman]

Lets hope we can hear from the driver. Who knows he/she might be a regular here? with all the chrome delete, blacked out Tesla, I would think that person would be at least semi-regular in TMC. Mistakes happen to all - glad no one got hurt. Tell us your side of the story buddy!

 

[unbelievable]

Wou

Lets hope we can hear from the driver. Who knows he/she might be a regular here? with all the chrome delete, blacked out Tesla, I would think that person would be at least semi-regular in TMC. Mistakes happen to all - glad no one got hurt. Tell us your side of the story buddy!

As much as I would also like to know the details, for legal reasons that probably wouldn't be wise at this stage.

 

[Exiom]

So a vehicle that will drive you into a parked vehicle while on AP is "perfectly safe"?

For the purpose of this example in this story... said vehicle DID NOT drive anyone into a parked vehicle while AP is active. The truth is said driver drove said vehicle into a parked fire truck.

At no point did the system claim that it can drive and navigate and relief it's human driver of all driving duties.

So had it's driver been paying attention like he is otherwise driving manually, because he is actually driving the car. With or without AP, he still IS driving the car. So I don't know why so many people lay blame to the vehicle and not the driver.

IT IS A BETA FUNCTION, at no point was using AP compulsory, the driver elected to use it and ignored the warnings and instructions.

On an aircraft where it's 3D and has more space (which allows for slower reaction), using Autopilot doesn't relief the pilot of his full attention. So I actually don't understand why people expect a car which navigates in 2D and in close proximity to other cars and things, with a beta function, to drive itself and allow for less than full attention from the driver.

And when the car crashes... "Oh the car is dangerous."

No the car is not dangerous... the DRIVER is dangerous

 

[ricebucket]

Comments like "Yes it is, as long as you don't try to make it do what it wasn't designed to do." seems to be really missing the big picture here.

It's a sorry excuse for a huge deficiency in the system.

I work in computer software, and this is a common response engineer have when they meet bugs; they'll say that something might be inconvenient, but it is "as designed." But any good program manager would push back and say that if something is counter-intuitive or difficult to use, then it should NOT be the design. Most users would agree here. For example, let's say there is a big button that wipes your hard drive with one click. Whoever put it there might say that it is designed to do that, and that there's no bug because the button does exactly what it's intended to do. But this shouldn't be the point; most people with common sense would say that it should never be so easy to wipe your hard drive.

Similarly, if you survey 100 drivers (drivers in general, and not 100 Tesla owners who have read the manual in detail*), I'm pretty sure almost all would agree that slamming into a truck or wall is not what AP should be doing. If Tesla "by design" made AP slam into stationary objects, then they really really need to redesign this feature, because someone is clearly not thinking here.

I recognize that corner cases like stationary trucks might be harder than the common case. But in the real world, mistakes/bugs/accidents almost always occur because of corner cases. e.g. it might be easy to drive in good weather, but you're far more likely to get into an accident in bad weather. Therefore, you can't say that you've solved a problem unless you've solved the really hard corner cases.

Regarding my point (*): some of you might ask why it's relevant surveying 100 drivers instead of only drivers who read the manual. The answer is simple, because ANY driver can use this feature, not just drivers who read the manual. Driving is hard and it's easy to hurt people if you do not do it correctly. That's why there's a driving test and a driver's license is required to operate. But there's no barrier to entry for AP, and I think it is Tesla's intention that AP (even if it's only level 2 autonomy) be easy enough to operate without a lot of prior study. If so, then the feature needs to be more robust, more intuitive, and more foolproof. This is not like incorrectly operating the radio; a mistake here can be fatal. Unless some of you believe that there should be an "autopilot driver's license" too?

 

[Pruitt]

You make some good points, ricebucket, but I don't think I'm missing the big picture.

I doubt seriously that "...Tesla 'by design' made AP slam into stationary objects..." If so, then the majority of folks using AP have a system that isn't doing what it's designed to do, because their cars haven't slammed into stationary objects.

By far the biggest deficiency in the system is the person using it without knowing its limitations.

Tesla isn't claiming they've solved all the problems with automated driving. If so the cars would already have full self-driving capability. They've designed systems into the cars whereby the car will steer itself and maintain a safe distance from traffic ahead within a very limited set of parameters. Using the system outside of those parameters is inviting problems or tragedy. To be fair, Tesla isn't always as clear as they should be on what those parameters are.

Driving is hard and it's easy to hurt people if you do not do it correctly.

That's for sure! In 2017, just a few shy of one thousand people died on the roads - just in South Carolina! No doubt some of the idiots that cause highway fatalities own Teslas - and most likely some of them use autopilot unwisely and wind up having accidents as a result. And everyone starts screaming that AP has a problem, not the person operating the car.

How do you make sure only those who understand AP functionality and limitations use AP? Well...

• AP could only be enabled on cars when the purchaser passes some sort of training class in proper AP use.
• Or limit the speed of the vehicle under AP control to the speed limit - period. That wouldn't eliminate all incidents, but it would reduce their severity.
• Or have the car flash up a multiple choice question about how AP operates when one turns on the car. Don't answer, or answer wrong, and AP is disabled until the car turns on the next time (and another question pops up).

The first is probably impractical to implement, and the second would draw outrage from far too many owners. The third would be irksome to operators, to say the least. Maybe there are other, better solutions. Expanding the parameter set under which AP functions safely is probably the best one, and Tesla is doing that. Meanwhile, maybe they should disable AP entirely, leaving only TACC functional.

 

[Phillip L]

Ricebucket. You are basically saying that AP should be FSD or it is defective. But that is not what it is or claims to be. I don’t care what kind of product you have made, there will always be people who misuse it, like this driver. That is why we have ridiculous warnings not to put the plastic bag that your new appliance came in over your face, or to not eat the silica gel bag. To blame this accident on the car is not right. Either because of drunkenness or lack of attention the driver screwed up. He or she misused the device.

 

[mrElbe]

Latest news story claims that the driver was DUI quite a bit over the legal limit and is using Autopilot as an excuse.

 

[mmmk]

Comments like "Yes it is, as long as you don't try to make it do what it wasn't designed to do." seems to be really missing the big picture here.

It's a sorry excuse for a huge deficiency in the system.

Exactly. I'm also a senior dev and I agree entirely. Put plainly this safety feature is not s advertised. It's not represented accurately by sales reps, musk or the Tesla documentation that changes constantly (see countless screenshots of the double talk coming from the websites sales tile for FSD and EAP). They need to do better or people will begin to leave the brand due to lack of trust. That's why I stopped buying GM. I don't trust them. It'd be a big disappointment if I ended up feeling the same about Tesla.

This thread is like poo to the negative nancy Tesla dung beatles.... Looking forward to the next leap in AP so I can go a day on TMC without reading the cacophony of mmmmmm where's my FSD daddy?

To this comment... right how dare people complain about things they were sold that haven't been delivered upon.... what? This is belittling and overtly dismissive of valid criticisms. Give us all our money back for EAP and FSD and you wouldn't hear a peep. Until then expect noise, people have been sold pipe dreams. Every time I'm in the local gallery I hear 'oh FSD is coming don't worry', BS.

Bottom line is the snake oil sales are turning people off to the brand. And if you BS long enough it will catch up with you, like avoidable accidents, being rated last in the industry for FSD progress, and angering your own customers over misleading or flat out fraudulent product claims. This will lead to less cars sold. If a new competitive EV comes out they will lose market share, a lot. I was the biggest Tesla fanboy in the world, now after owning one for a year I feel much less loyal to the brand because of my first hand experiences as an owner. If someones brand loyalty goes in the tank after they actually buy your product something is not right.

 

[bhzmark]

counter-intuitive or difficult to use, then it should NOT be the design

It isn't at all counter intuitive to me. I didn't read the manual, but instinctively processed what the car was doing and not doing. I got it. Some people don't.

Ricebucket. You are basically saying that AP should be FSD or it is defective.

Exactly. Some people can use a band saw as a tool. Some people will cut their fingers off. Understand your tools and their limits. It's really not that hard.

AP is a car-following and lane-keeping tool. That's all. I love it.

 

[mmmk]

Latest news story claims that the driver was DUI quite a bit over the legal limit and is using Autopilot as an excuse.

Do you mind posting your source? Most recent articles I see don't mention a DUI suspicion. Tesla Driver Slams Into Fire Truck At 65 MPH, Blames Autopilot but if that's the case it's worth knowing as a fact.

 

[mrElbe]

Story here:
A Tesla owner’s excuse for his DUI crash: The car was driving | Toronto Star