The AP2 is not the "pilot in command". The full self driving (AP5) is.You can most certainly blame AP (assuming it was on in this crash). The driver should be alert at all times with eyes on the road, but when you are given the impression your car car drive by itself for stretches (Who would ever get that impression after activating a feature called "Autopilot"?) you are likely more prone to let your attention wander compared to someone driving manually. About 5 seconds of distraction was probably all that was needed to allow this crash to happen.
Plenty of blame to pass around (including Caltrans, the driver), but to simply dismiss Tesla has any responsibility because no one "should" ever get in an accident with AP is pretty silly.
-
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
You can most certainly blame AP (assuming it was on in this crash). The driver should be alert at all times with eyes on the road, but when you are given the impression your car car drive by itself for stretches (Who would ever get that impression after activating a feature called "Autopilot"?
Plenty of blame to pass around (including Caltrans, the driver), but to simply dismiss Tesla has any responsibility because no one "should" ever get in an accident with AP is pretty silly.
Bro - get back in your Bolt. You'll never have to worry bout NTSB taking Chevrolet autonomy seriously.
Do you think your Lane Keep Assist system is actually worth anything?
The responsible parties will be paying money here. How much is coming from Tesla?
Yeah.. I thought so.
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
I'm guessing you don't have or use AP. At least a 98% chance that you don't.You can most certainly blame AP (assuming it was on in this crash). The driver should be alert at all times with eyes on the road, but when you are given the impression your car car drive by itself for stretches (Who would ever get that impression after activating a feature called "Autopilot"?
Plenty of blame to pass around (including Caltrans, the driver), but to simply dismiss Tesla has any responsibility because no one "should" ever get in an accident with AP is pretty silly.
100% chance not even owning a Tesla. More fun to troll TMC than hang out with GM-Volt drivers that no one cares about so it never makes the news.
NeverFollow
Active Member
I thought Caltran would have pu immediately after a crash some those big crash guard barrel full of sand or water!
jeewee3000
Active Member
Couldn't have said it better myself. My condolences to the family of the victim of the accident, but I find it infuriating how much coverage this accident is getting in the media.
A fatal crash makes the local news, but the brand of the car is never mentioned. You will never read an article about a deadly crash involving say a BMW, blaming the company.
The 'news' stories about the Model X crash exist of 5 % fact ("there was a fatal accident at this location"). The other 95 % is built upon a foundation of pure lies and misdirection, such as "Autopilot is to blame", "Autopilot is flawed", "Autopilot should function perfectly", "Tesla knew about this and did nothing", etc. I haven't read one article stating the official Tesla warnings regarding the use of the beta software Autopilot.
Again, I am deeply sorry for the family of the victim but am appalled by the obvious deliberate FUD-spreading about Tesla.
EDIT(S): grammar.
The brand/design of the car is relevant here for three reasons:
(i) The battery-sled design confused firefighters (who weren't sure how to put out the fire) and there was a need for firefighters to remain on the scene for an extended period of time to monitor the battery for flare ups before it could be safety moved; and
(ii) It is very possible that AP (which is marketed by Tesla as a unique system and, even if not unique, is a type of autosteer system-- autosteer being a relatively new technology that is not that common) was involved in the crash; and
(iii) By Tesla's own admission, systems of the car were still "in Beta", a status that (a) is very unusual for a passenger car, (b)
makes the car different from virtually all other cars on the road; and (c) essentially admits that the car deserves more intense scrutiny than cars that use proven technology.
If Tesla doesn't want its cars to be singled out for scrutiny, maybe it shouldn't spend so much time trying to convince the world that its cars are uniquely advanced and are developed and engineered in a novel manner. Since it does deviate from the norm, it has to expect more scrutiny.
This isn't unique to Tesla.
If a Toyota Corolla gets into a relatively rare type of serious crash, it's hardly important that the car involved was a Toyota Corolla. On the other hand, if an experimental Toyota model gets into such a crash, the type of car is newsworthy. That's just the way it is. Plus, public apprehension about advanced vehicles is high as a result of the Uber incident.
In terms of scrutiny it's a byproduct of it's popularity. It's a little hard for Tesla to go under the radar when there is a Tesla Roadster out there in space orbiting around the sun.
From the NTSB's perspective it's a pretty straight forwards investigation, and is extremely important because EV are getting more popular. They absolutely have to investigate it as a way of learning the best ways to handle an EV accident. In fact I would say the investigation itself is proof that Tesla won.
In terms of beta I'm afraid that if you want a high tech car with OTA updates that it's always going to be in some form of beta whether a manufacture uses that terminology or not.
Subaru's initial eyesight system had issues with false braking due to shadows. They never called their system as being in beta. Clearly it was despite all the validation testing.
Volvo improved their own system through a software update to detect large animals. They evolved it, and I imagine they'll make further tweaks to it.
None of these technology is fool-proof. That's why they need to evolve, and change.
In fact MB claims they dumbed down their system to make it less likely that a driver would grow too comfortable with it. Obviously it's pretty easy to release something as not beta when you have such a small goal on the deliverables.
The only company I'm even aware of that REALLY went through a lot of work to get their system solid was GM with the SuperCruise system. They delayed it well over a year for validation/verification. What you get is a system that works great over white listed roads. The reason it can work so well is because of the limitations placed on where it can operate. It's a truly hands free system so it makes total sense for it to work the way it does.
Autopilot is really hard for a lot of people to wrap their heads around. It is because it's not a system set in stone.
It's this evolving thing that changes over time.
You pay for it before it is ever done, and it's always late. Heck Tesla might as well sell it on Kickstarter.
Things are added to the neural net it uses for vision detection (lines, cars, pedestrians. etc)
Things are subtracted out
Algorithms are tweaked
Massive amounts of data is analyzed
Critical systems such as AEB are validated using Shadow mode on the entire fleet. This reduces the chance of a false positive because the car can compare it's desire to do an emergency stop with what the driver did.
It's constantly loading AP tiles, but doesn't tell you anything about the status of them.
The hardware changes and then you find yourself looking for posts verygreen to see what changed, and he doesn't even have a Tesla anymore (apparently not just the software was beta on his car).
It's is extremely controversial because two statements are true at the same time
Releasing AP2 among the masses in such an alpha form like it used to be (before this fatality) was completely irresponsible.
AP2 will reach a much higher level of driver safety than it would have achieved had Tesla only tested it in house. Of course it was because they made their customers the testers.
To Tesla the most shameful outcome of this accident isn't if this driver was using AP, but if the driver wasn't. If it was just another accident that happened due to driver inattention/distraction. I generally dislike lane-keeping/steering/departure-warning systems (for lots of reasons), but even I have to admit they save lives.
When I drive my moms Subaru I turn off the lane departure system, and I never use the lane-keeping ping-pong assistance thing. I do because their both lame.
When I first got my Tesla I turned off the lane-departure warning because it was pretty lame.
The closest thing to actually liking/using aside from TACC was AP. This is extremely important because to save lives people have to use the system. I hope by the time Tesla makes it to a full EAP system that it will be good enough for me to use it.
jeewee3000
Active Member
This argument has nothing to do with Tesla. The media could mention there was confusion among firefighters because it was a BEV, cause any BEV fire would have required knowledge about batteries. Battery fires are not new however, so questions should be raised about the lack of proper training and schooling of firefighters regarding certain fires. Tesla showed good spirit helping out and advising firefighters, but any negative remark towards Tesla because of this is out of line.
In any 'one vehicle'-crash (assuming the vehicle was not hit by another vehicle, the possibility still exists) this argument could be made about any part of the vehicle. Were the brakes flawed? The engine computer? etc.
Many cars have automatic emergency braking. I guarantuee you that these systems cannot prevent this crash, as the vehicle is driving at 60-70 miles per hour at one moment, whilst the next moment it is steered into a barrier. No system would react in time.
Emergency braking systems however do not guarantee perfect safety. Neither does AP. But we only hear about the latter.
So basically the argument becomes: "the vehicle had a function (AP) that was not only passively flawed (like emergency braking can be) but also actively flawed (as AP presumably steered the vehicle into the barrier, which is unproven).
The argument still does not hold up, though. The beta status is known very well by any Tesla owner. We are talking about a contract between Tesla and a consumer. The contract says "this is beta software - use at your own risk and ALWAYS pay attention and keep your hands on the weel". If you knowingly turn on AP and disregard your contractual obligations you cannot claim any liability of the other contract party.
Tesla doesn't "spend so much time trying to convince the world that its cars are uniquely advanced". Tesla merely talks about its vision regarding future developments. At no point did they claim that they have reached autonomy of any kind. This argument clearly shows bias against Tesla.
Again, most Tesla customers WANT to be a beta tester instead of having to wait years for the final release. Those that do not want to beta test don't use AP. Simple as that. No one is forced to use AP. No one is told AP in its current state is safe on its own. There is no irresponsability from Tesla.
See above: let's say the driver was not using AP and dozed off behind the wheel, resulting in a steering manoeuvre into the barrier, then the car is suddenly thrust into the barrier at a speed FAR too great for the emergency braking system to react. These systems are far from fail-safe and every car manual admits this. The argument above is therefore flawed: with or without AP, Tesla has no responsability for what happened.
A shame to see even TMC filled with FUD-spreaders.
LKA works most of the time. Sometimes it doesn't.
BUT GM doesn't market LKA as some kind of autonomous self driving tech. It does....exactly what the name says, ASSIST in keeping the car in the lane. No one is gonna rely on LKA keeping their car in the lane while they send a text message or play with the center display.
LKA is marketed as just that, a driving assist. GM markets the feature properly; Tesla does not do the same with AP. It's a driving feature that, despite the billion warnings that may be displayed, some people associate with being able to drive itself for periods of time.
The responsible parties WILL be paying money, and if AP is found to have been active at the time of the crash, Tesla will likely be one of them.
And as far as your comment about GM autonomous tech? Here's some reading for you: GM, Waymo Lead in Self-Driving Cars
I would imagine that if it had been a Chevy Bolt that caused the same issue, the media would have been trumpeting that it was a Chevy that caught fire, and would also mention GM's ignition recall/scandal in the same segment. When a couple of early Volts caught fire, the media was all over that and mentioning the make/model even tho the fires were caused by the same things that cause regular cars to catch fire.
Volvo was also heavily mentioned in the Uber self driving crash. Especially since Volvo sells a system that is supposed to prevent hitting pedestrians and is also a company that advertises its safety heavily.
So I don't think the issue is unique to Tesla. We all remember Toyota and their unintended acceleration issues, Ford Explorers that had underinflated tires and could flip, etc, etc. It is just the nature of media today.
jeewee3000
Active Member
You make a good point and I agree it is not unique to Tesla.
However, I still feel that the degree of slander towards the car brand is extremely high in this particular case.
Tesla isn't alone in receiving bad press about self driving. Just look at UBer.
And literally every time a Cruise Bolt AV gets into some kind of fender bender, it is reported en mass. I mean they even reported about a Cruise Bolt getting a TICKET for crying out loud. A self-driving car was ticketed in San Francisco, but GM-owned Cruise says it did nothing wrong
Tesla gets the most negative press because their accidents are usually spectacular in nature (plowing into side of tractor trailer, into a fire truck, and/or resulting in death).
RedOctober
Member
Very well said. Thanks for taking the time to explains each point.
X Fan
Active Member
"Tesla gets the most negative press because their accidents are usually spectacular in nature (plowing into side of tractor trailer, into a fire truck, and/or resulting in death)
Geez, you're spewing nonsense.
There were over 6M accidents last year with approx. 40K fatalities. The super-majority of these were non-Teslas and Tesla had very few of the fatalities.
I was speaking about autonomous vehicle news. Tesla isn't unfairly singled out like people are saying. Pretty much any AV incident gets plastered all over the news, regardless of brand. It just happens Tesla incidents seem to be the most high profile.
I thought Caltran would have pu immediately after a crash some those big crash guard barrel full of sand or water!
Members here have mentioned that these aren't used as much any more. Reasons brought up that I recall included: the fact that if sand-filled, the resulting explosion of sand all over the roadway becomes a traction issue on the surface (especially for motorcycles) and it's messier and time-consuming clean up; cost was another as when damaged they're disposed and need to be replaced.
The SCI collapsing attentuator barrier can be used over and over and more importantly slows the car down before coming to a dead stop which is important in high speed impacts (kind of like AEB on a car). I think the fact that the Prius owner who crashed into the same barrier 11 days earlier than our Tesla owner did at 70mph and survived with lacerations and pain (certainly expected), shows that if properly maintained can really save lives.
The usual physical cost to reset the SCI attenuator barrier is only $2 in bolts for each repair, and even side impacts tend not to affect the barrier's usefullness. I know I'm missing some of the other reasons given by SCI but when you factor in reusablity, nominal cost to repair, repair crew only needs to bring 2 bolts with them and some tools, and the ability to control the speed of the crash impact, it really is a better solution than the barrels...if maintained.
Last edited:
Similar threads
