Upto 90 mph. And, it asks you to put your hands on the steering wheel more frequently than when you are not flooring it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model X Crash on US-101 (Mountain View, CA)
- Thread starter mookhead
- Start date
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Good for the local law enforcement. People like that can ruin it for the rest of us. I'm glad they suspended his license (along with community service and a fine).
A friend sent me pictures from a similar accident. Needless to say, the driver didn't survive.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
I don't really think there is outrage with the Model X crash.
Instead there is an unknown, and where there is an unknown people tend to get rather combative. Where they try to defend some position where regardless of which side there isn't a whole lot of evidence.
The way Tesla handled the incident is also to blame for fanning the flames, and not fully revealing the data for the reported AP1 safety statistics didn't help matters. The timing certainly didn't help because there was already quite a bit of animosity towards Elon/Tesla in the media due to the reports about covering up injuries at the factory.
All the articles I read about the Model X accident tended to be rehashes where the authors didn't bother to investigate if similar accident were happening with other L2 systems. I'm extremely critical of Tesla's implementation of Autopilot, but I wouldn't go writing an article without backing up my assertions with comparisons to other makers. To see what was working, and what wasn't working statically speaking across all makes of ADAS systems.
So it all seemed like lazy reporting well before we really had anything to go off of. The only people who really had much to argue about were those trying to defend positons of significant bias. Some of it was understandable because non-owners greatly outnumber owners. Where non-owners came across like they were trying to take away something from us that they didn't understand. Where we're like "we can use it as intended so please go away".
I don't think anything is really going to come from it. Not because there aren't faults with the implementation, but that the car industry in general has serious issues in quantifying, and qualifying these systems not to mention a complete inability to train the drivers on what to expect from these systems.
The cardboard box guy a page up or so obviously has no clue how the Tesla AEB systems works. But, he's far from alone on that topic.
Last edited:
Is there any evidence that this accident had anything to do with an AP-like system? It looks like a driver (presumably drunk or impaired) was driving on the wrong side of the highway and slammed into a wall. Hard to blame that on the manufacturer.
Yes, some people are wondering why AEB apparently didn't activate in Mountain View. But the main thing causing public concern in the Mountain View incident is the AS factor, which doesn't seem to be present in this other accident. The AEB question is something that's come up in this thread, not the wider reporting.
Autosteering should not allow driving the wrong way down the freeway. Just sayin'.
The AS factor isn't what's causing public concern. I really wish that were the case because at least then they'd focus on ALL L2 systems on the road.
Instead they're concerned about Autopilot.
That it should be turned off
That it should be greatly limited
That drivers aren't to be trusted
The 3+ year old name confuses people because people won't bother reading the manual/disclaimer/etc.
Blah, Blah, Blah
So I think the OP's remark was simply to ask what about ALL cars.
Why is someone allowed to drive a car drunk?
Why aren't we outraged that car manufactures aren't forced to protect us against the drunks?
The simplest answer is it would inconvenience the masses for the mistake of a few. Of course we don't want our car analyzing our breath/blood/etc before it will turn on. That would be really annoying.
We don't want our cars turning into nanny's that won't let us going anywhere if we're drunk/drugged/texting/etc. We accept responsibility when we get behind the wheel.
So why can't people put that level of responsibility on the driver of an AP enabled Tesla?
Or at least wait until the facts come out before coming to conclusion that somehow AP acted as the Grim Reaper, and murdered him.
Oh, great.
Now someone is going to go try it to see if it will allow for that.
My bet is it will.
When the public says "Autopilot" they nearly always mean the TACC + AS mode. That's why I was asking about AS. TACC (and similar advanced cruise controls) don't really cause the same safety concerns when used alone (ie without steering assist), since they really don't enable the same level of driver distraction and require actual constant driver input (via steering).
When I say L2 systems I'm referring to TACC+AS.
There is a handful of manufactures that have them.
If NHTSA finds that Tesla's implementation of TACC + AS is defective (because it has bad instructions or allows too much routine unsafe use), that will wind up affecting all similar lane keeping implementations on other cars. Not sure why you think Tesla is being singled out. NHTSA and NTSB just look at the accidents/potential crash patterns that they know about, and the results affect all similar systems.
Unless I missed a news bit, I don’t think the NHTSA is looking into this, just the NTSB. That is relevant because the NHTSA is the one with power to force Tesla/automakers to make a change. The NTSB can recommend the NHTSA act, but NHTSA often doesn’t implement their recommendations (see: NTSB recommendations for better side and rear bars for semi-trucks to prevent folks from getting killed from going under the trailer - NHTSA never implemented them)
I agree that Tesla isn’t being singled out. NTSB is also investigating Uber for their system on the Volvo’s they use.
DanCar
Active Member
You can find a list here:
Lane centering - Wikipedia
I am very concerned about accident. I don't think Tesla has done enough to warn people about the dangers. I think it should publish video on its site of every autopilot accident that occurs each week.
Only if every other OEM does the same for their cars... Tesla's driver's assistance features, while not perfect, prevent more accidents than other car's lack of DA.
Agreed that NHTSA has not opened a formal defect investigation into AP as a response to the Mountain View accident. However, they continuously monitor trends, and could open a defect investigation at any time. Furthermore, they have said that they intend to review the results of the NTSB investigation (when available) to determine if a defect action may be warranted based on NTSB's conclusions.
The side and rear truck bars aren't actually a good example here. That was a case where NTSB recommended that NHTSA adopt a new safety regulation. NHTSA is generally slow to enact regulations that require new features on vehicles.
By contrast, while NHTSA might recommend a new regulation here, it is more likely that, if they find that AP was a cause of the accident, they will find that the implementation of TACC+AC was insufficiently safe or overly prone to dangerous "normal misuse" (ie use on inappropriate roads, no-hands use, or inattentive use). In that event, NTSB would consider whether TACC+AP is "defective." The likely result of such a defect investigation would be NTSB arm twisting Tesla to either turn off some AP features, add more software-based limitations on use of features, or change the instructions for use of AP.
For NHTSA, the "defect" process is a different process than the "regulation" process. In practice it is much less formal, and generally resolves with a manufacturer making "voluntary" repairs/modifications, under the implicit threat that NHTSA will order such action by the manufacturer if he manufacturer doesn't do them voluntarily.
That's not a complete list.
It does remind me once again that I really want to try a Kia Stinger. It's not electric, but damn it seems like a nice car.
Just realized that I reversed the agencies in the second to last paragraph of my last post. I meant to say
"By contrast, while NTSB might recommend a new regulation here, it is more likely that, if they find that AP was a cause of the accident, they will find that the implementation of TACC+AC was insufficiently safe or overly prone to dangerous "normal misuse" (ie use on inappropriate roads, no-hands use, or inattentive use). In that event, NHTSA would consider whether TACC+AP is "defective." The likely result of such a defect investigation would be NHTSA arm twisting Tesla to either turn off some AP features, add more software-based limitations on use of features, or change the instructions for use of AP."
"By contrast, while NTSB might recommend a new regulation here, it is more likely that, if they find that AP was a cause of the accident, they will find that the implementation of TACC+AC was insufficiently safe or overly prone to dangerous "normal misuse" (ie use on inappropriate roads, no-hands use, or inattentive use). In that event, NHTSA would consider whether TACC+AP is "defective." The likely result of such a defect investigation would be NHTSA arm twisting Tesla to either turn off some AP features, add more software-based limitations on use of features, or change the instructions for use of AP."
Similar threads
