Mobileye rips Tesla Autopilot, Chairman says it dumped Tesla

[lolachampcar]

I'm beginning to think we are not grown up enough to be trusted with any of this.

 

[mblakele]

My interpretation of statements by both NHTSA and Tesla to date is that final responsibility rests with the driver. Today's Tesla vehicles are L2, and by definition the driver must be ready to take over at any time. At the same time Tesla has some responsibility to make this situation clear to drivers, hence the need to present AP limitations and warnings clearly in the documentation and in the car's UI.

As we move from L2 -> L3 -> L4, responsibility will shift from the driver to the maker of the autonomous system. We aren't there yet.

 

[green1]

If you make a car that prevents 99.9% of collisions, someone will be that 0.1%, and the media will gladly blame Tesla for it.
There's no way of winning that one. you could save thousands and thousands of lives, but if you miss one, suddenly you're to blame even though that person would have died regardless, and you saved thousands of others.

Instead of accepting responsibility for that one you failed to save, you need to tell it like it is, and place the blame where the blame actually lies.

In EMS, when I'm on a call, and the end result is that the patient doesn't survive, I analyse what I did, but if I look at all of that and determine that the patient would have died regardless, I don't beat myself up and say it's all my fault. I don't tell the family and the media that the patient died because I failed. I tell it like it is, that I did my best to save them, but it just wasn't enough for the situation that they were in before I got there.

Tesla needs to take that same mindset, explain that they've done everything they can to save the people, but that it just wasn't enough for the situation that they put themselves in. There's nothing wrong with saying that your technology can't do that yet, especially when you've never claimed it could.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Except there is a crucial switchover - at the point where the manufacturer takes over responsibility from the driver.

With lawyers sharpening their pencils already my bet is this isn't going to happen soon, and when it does is will have to be regulator led.

The article Ampedrealtor posted goes into a discussion that this crucial switchover isn't as clean cut as we thought it would be.

The problem with a true Level 2 car is you're asking two conflicting things from the driver. You're saying you have to be responsible, but we're going to take away your situational awareness. We're going to take away the two major tools that you use to engage you with the road. This sets up the driver to fail especially if the driver is fairly new to driving, and doesn't have decades of experience.

Months before the death of Joshua brown he posted a video of a Tesla save, but what the video showed was Joshua brown allowing a bad situation to occur because he wasn't paying attention. Tesla used the video NOT to illustrate to owners the dangers of not paying attention, but instead used it to show how great an Autopilot save.

It's also important to point out that the NHTSA levels of automation were originally posted a long time before AP came around, and it wasn't till the Tesla AP that a car really matched Level 2. All the other cars are either so bad with lane-steering or limit it so much they barely even qualify.

When it comes to the Automotive world Tesla tends to break things.

Tesla broke the dealer model
The Model S broke the tool used to measure roof crush protection
The Model S broke the scale Car and Driver uses to measure how good a car is.
The Model S broke the NHTSA levels of autonomy when it came to separating responsibility at a clear defined level.

Tesla is also being sued because of AP. So the sharpening has already happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/b...volved-autopilot-government-tv-says.html?_r=0

 

[green1]

The problem with a true Level 2 car is you're asking two conflicting things from the driver. You're saying you have to be responsible, but we're going to take away your situational awareness. We're going to take away the two major tools that you use to engage you with the road.

I wasn't aware that level2 vehicles didn't have windows or drivers?

There's no conflict here, you're saying be responsible, and continue to drive, and we're going to help a bit. It's EXACTLY the same thing that happened when cruise control was introduced, and with automatic transmissions, and with power steering. None of these advances do anything to remove responsibility from the driver, none do anything to make them pay less attention, and all of them make driving easier. (and not a single one of these inventions, or the automobile itself for that matter, would have survived in today's media environment and with today's lawyers)

 

[rxlawdude]

If you make a car that prevents 99.9% of collisions, someone will be that 0.1%, and the media will gladly blame Tesla for it.
There's no way of winning that one. you could save thousands and thousands of lives, but if you miss one, suddenly you're to blame even though that person would have died regardless, and you saved thousands of others.

I'm reminded of ISO levels for clean rooms. Each level from ISO 6 to ISO 1 is a 10-fold reduction in particulate matter. I would hope that if we're at 99.9% of collision avoidance at Level 2, Level 3 will be 99.99% effective, and Level 4 99.999% effective. Of course, that implies that there still will be accidents, just far fewer than fallible human drivers reasonably attain in the real world.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I wasn't aware that level2 vehicles didn't have windows or drivers?

There's no conflict here, you're saying be responsible, and continue to drive, and we're going to help a bit. It's EXACTLY the same thing that happened when cruise control was introduced, and with automatic transmissions, and with power steering. None of these advances do anything to remove responsibility from the driver, none do anything to make them pay less attention, and all of them make driving easier. (and not a single one of these inventions, or the automobile itself for that matter, would have survived in today's media environment and with today's lawyers)

Of those examples it's well known that drivers of automatic transmission vehicles are worse drivers than non-automatic transmission vehicles.

With ABS people did have to relearn how to brake, and this did change driver training. We adapted and moved on.

This also isn't the first time a manufacture was blamed unfairly. There was the Audi unintended acceleration that led to Audi being blamed, but it wasn't Audi's fault. But, as a result it's a well known UX issue.

As to Level 2 driving what I've read from various media sources, and from my own experiences point out that Level 2 driving does lead to less situational awareness. There are also studies showing an attention delay when something happens. There are also numerous studies done in aviation with autopilot, but they might not be directly applicable. I tend to glance over those.

I'm not even sure why you're making a point of disagreeing with me on this. We're both clearly want technology advancement as fast as possible. I just want us to do so with understanding human behavior. So maybe I have the pedal a little less down than you, but we still both have it down. Neither one of us wants to pause, and neither is all that happy about the added restrictions.

 

[green1]

Of those examples it's well known that drivers of automatic transmission vehicles are worse drivers than non-automatic transmission vehicles.

Do you have a proper study to back that up? If that's really the case, why haven't automatics been banned?

With ABS people did have to relearn how to brake, and this did change driver training. We adapted and moved on.

If that's the case, why wasnt' ABS banned? should we not have added restrictions that only enabled ABS under strict circumstances?

I'm not even sure why you're making a point of disagreeing with me on this. We're both clearly want technology advancement as fast as possible. I just want us to do so with understanding human behavior.

I disagree with anyone who makes a habit of blaming Tesla for something that they didn't do. Tesla has never misrepresented the abilities of their current system, they've always been very clear about it, and their system is better than anything else out there. Tesla should not be admitting fault when they don't have any. The goal should NOT be to go back to a time without it, the goal should be to continue forward.

So maybe I have the pedal a little less down than you, but we still both have it down. Neither one of us wants to pause, and neither is all that happy about the added restrictions.

Then please stop advocating FOR those restrictions!

 

[CSFTN]

H

Reader: you want facts? You want numbers?

Just look at this forum and count the % of folks gushing about AP - I would hazard a guess upwards of 95% of Tesla owners, green1 and golfingBuddha notwithstanding.

Look at another way, those who complain and nit pick over at this forum or on the blogosphere are over 99% of folks who don't own or driven AP at all (test drives don't count). And you fit that profile.

Step back. Take a deep breadth and start wondering why that is the case?

Or you can continue rambling on how Elon is deceiving and such. And you will get replies here. But that doesn't mean you are being taken seriously.

If Elon says AP is 3 times safer and turns out that it is only 1.1 times. I will take it.

AP plus human attention is undoubtedly safer then humans alone. There is no way around it.

How about a poll?

 

[msnow]

H


How about a poll?

If you do that, maybe a 1 to 10 would better than love, like, hate.

 

[Hota]

I do agree with part of Mobileye CEO complaint of Tesla. Tesla has not done a good enough job of emphasizing the limitations of their technology and instead they have been hyping it. And no, statements in the manual don't count. To be blunt, the guy in Florida might be alive today if Tesla had done a better job at emphasizing that you MUST be looking forward AT ALL TIMES. Their messages on this point have been mixed at best.

While Elon has been working on a technology fix for this problem of people not paying attention (radar, better nags) maybe a blog post would be in order? After all, Elon, it might save someone's life.

I think it's pretty clear to Tesla owners that Autopilot is a driver assistance feature and that the driver must pay attention at all times. I think the fault in the system is that it works well enough that it's easy to become preoccupied with something else regardless of how clear the Tesla warning is.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I disagree with anyone who makes a habit of blaming Tesla for something that they didn't do. Tesla has never misrepresented the abilities of their current system, they've always been very clear about it, and their system is better than anything else out there. Tesla should not be admitting fault when they don't have any. The goal should NOT be to go back to a time without it, the goal should be to continue forward.

There is a big difference between blaming Tesla versus supporting the changes Tesla is making to address some of the AP related crashes that have happened.

There is also a big difference between blaming Tesla, and saying there are parts of the Autopilot package that are deficient for how it's being used. You say Tesla has the best system out there, but the Autopilot package is a compilation of different things. Why do you think it has truck lust? It has truck lust because the side monitoring sensors can't always detect a semi-truck next to it. It only happens when it loses sight of the line, and side monitoring system misses the truck due to the height. The truck lust wouldn't happen if the side monitoring system wasn't one of the worst systems on the market that can't be fixed through firmware. So Tesla has to fix truck lust a different way. You also can't claim the Tesla system is better than anything else when a lowly Subaru has a better AEB systems than a Tesla (as of 7.1).

I'm supportive of what Tesla is doing with Version 8.0 because they seem to be addressing all the major bullet points that have come up with AP (that I know of). In being supportive I'm not saying it's Tesla's fault for the AP related accidents, but that they could enhance the system to prevent those types of accidents. In enhancing it they're not admitting fault.

So now we get down to the crux of the issue, and what really matters to you. I don't think you really care about the above.

What you care about is the dreaded restrictions.

Neither of us feels like the restrictions being implemented really demonstrate that the driver is engaged.

We both feel as if the restrictions are a step backwards,

The difference is I feel as if it's necessary due the scrutiny Tesla is under both from regulatory bodies and from the Media. I'll update despite my dislike of the restrictions because I feel like the gain far out gain any loss of freedom with the new restrictions.

Is that difference really worth more dislikes from you than anyone else? Isn't that a big weird since I tend to say things off the cuff without backing it up? The part about the manual driving I thought was true, but it turns out it wasn't. It wasn't true because manuals lose their safety gain in attention because manual drivers tend to be male risk takers. Oops!!

 

[somnambule]

Looks like I was on the right track when I said the following a few days before the public accusations started flying:

I'm also skeptical about Mobileye's stated reasons for parting ways with Tesla: "simply providing technology and not being in control of how it is being used". No sane business walks away from a high-profile customer for that, especially when that is the norm for component providers. I think Mobileye walked away because they didn't want to appear to be supportive of moving away from a vision-centric approach and risking their other customers also going down that path. Plus, Tesla has been hiring lots of chip designers lately. They are very likely planning on making their own chips and replacing some of the externally-sourced IP with internal designs in the longer run. Knowing they would lose Tesla as a customer in the long run makes Mobileye's decision make even more sense.

 

[somnambule]

In any case Mobileye probably feel that they taught Tesla how to do this and now Tesla's gone on to do their own thing; Mobileye is p'd off, as most people would be in that situation.

Well, that's what IP protection and innovation is for. You protect your intellectual property (patents) and innovate like crazy to stay ahead. If others can get around your patents and you stagnate (or slow down or rest on your laurels) to the point where others can catch up and do better, you have every right to be p'd off but not much else.

 

[thegruf]

this is quite a good article of the Mercedes Drive Pilot for comparison, and highlights the exact same issues all these systems have.
Must say on reading the review I am very happy to have the Tesla Autopilot, the Merc sounds terrifying in comparison.

Mercedes’s New E-Class Kinda Drives Itself—And It’s Kinda Confusing

 

[X Yes?]

The decision to allow "hands free" driving likely sold many cars. But the negative publicity, accidents and lawsuits threaten the company. All of these systems currently offer a false sense of security, encouraging drivers to distract themselves from paying attention and driving.

 

[roblab]

The problem with a true Level 2 car is you're asking two conflicting things from the driver. You're saying you have to be responsible, but we're going to take away your situational awareness.

I can't buy into this mindset. Tesla did not take it away. I drive with AP, and my situational awareness is on. What's not on is the constant muscular redirectioning of my car, and the intent focus down the road two cars ahead, trying to be aware of the traffic flow. If someone wants to turn off their mind while driving with AP, it can be done, maybe, but the chances go up, don't they?

Any time you get into a car, the chances go up. No one can blame Tesla. Of course, there are lawyers who will try, but the final blame lies on the driver. Always. Even L4, if you are using it contrary to directions.

 

[int32_t]

... You also can't claim the Tesla system is better than anything else when a lowly Subaru has a better AEB systems than a Tesla (as of 7.1). ...

Would really really like to watch an uninhabited Subaru attempt to avoid a restaged mockup of the Florida event. Pretty sure the outcome would be stunningly similar to the first. You say it's better, I wonder how ...

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Would really really like to watch an uninhabited Subaru attempt to avoid a restaged mockup of the Florida event. Pretty sure the outcome would be stunningly similar to the first. You say it's better, I wonder how ...

When I say it's better I'm referring to the following.

It has Stereo cameras, and the Tesla currently only has one camera. The Tesla does use the radar in conjunction with the camera though.

The Subaru system states that it can stop completely when the speed differential is 30mph or less. The Tesla AEB (in 7.1) is really only meant for a crash mitigation system, and doesn't really elaborate on the speed differences it can handle. It does say it can reduce the speed by 25mph.

The Subaru system has pre-collision braking. The Tesla doesn't (in 7.1)

The Subaru system has pedestrian detection, and the AEB system activates to stop for pedestrians. The AEB system in the Tesla is supposed to detect pedestrians, but it's never been demonstrated to stop for them. The forward collision warning does sound for a pedestrian though so we at least have that, and that has saved at least one Tesla driver from hitting a pedestrian. The AEB probably didn't activate because the radar and the camera didn't agree because the radar can't see pedestrians.

This is how the Eyesight system compares to other cars, but sadly the Tesla isn't included.
Subaru EyeSight crash avoidance system beats Volvo, Mercedes-Benz | CarAdvice

To my knowledge the Tesla AEB system has never been seriously tested independently of the testing Tesla does.

As to the AP accidents with the Tesla there have been a bunch of them. The biggest limitation seems to be the inability of the AEB system to detect stalled traffic. The problem with stalled traffic in the 7.1 firmware is the radar doesn't pick it up. It's designed for moving cars, and not stopped cars. A stereo camera should have no issues detecting a stopped car. As to detecting cross traffic like what happened in the Florida accident I have no idea. I still don't know if the trailer had the proper 3M reflective tape.

EVERYTHING that I just wrote changes with the Version 8 firmware. Tesla fixed pretty much everything I disliked about AEB. My only concern now is whether we're going to experience more false positives. I've had zero false positives with Version 7/7.1 in over 20K miles.

The hard part about an AEB system is you can't really call it effective if it has false activations. That's why the camera+radar worked well to minimize false positives, but then it left a lot of situations where it failed to activate. So like Elon said it's a balancing act.

 

[Electroman]

. All of these systems currently offer a false sense of security, encouraging drivers to distract themselves from paying attention and driving.

Really? You say that with some authority. So I guess you would have raked in may be 10k miles with AP? 5k? At least 500 miles? 10 miles?

People who have no experience on using a product, should at least have the discipline and maturity to listen and learn from those have.

Why don't you leave this to the adults here and enjoy from the sidelines ?