Model X Crash on US-101 (Mountain View, CA)

[NeverFollow]

The SCI collapsing attenuator barrier can be used over and over...

I was on the impression that Caltrans delay to fix the attenuator was that some parts of the absorption mechanism have to be replaced.

Putting temporary barrels using a Clarklift would have not been difficult and would have been be a good way to mitigate the danger.

Putting two cones and a road sign (which was not stabilized with some sand bags and had collapsed on the floor) was useless.

IMO, repairing the attenuator, or installing a quick protection should have been a top priority.

 

[MP3Mike]

I was on the impression that Caltrans delay to fix the attenuator was that some parts of the absorption mechanism have to be replaced.

Nope, they said the delay was due to "storms".

 

[thegruf]

... Putting temporary barrels using a Clarklift would have not been difficult and would have been be a good way to mitigate the danger.

Putting two cones and a road sign (which was not stabilized with some sand bags and had collapsed on the floor) was useless.

^this, in the event that the barrier could not be immediately reset.

 

[bonnie]

Yeah, of course those are possibilities. I was just responding to a poster that said the evidence suggested he was not using AP. I think the evidence (particularly those texts) suggests that he probably was.

I was one of the posters who believe that it points to him not using AP. Texts sent after the fact are not evidence that he was or wasn't.

I'm not sure if you've used AP or not. Based on my own experience & that of others that I know using AP quite a bit, it just wouldn't make sense for him to continue using AP in that location without at least paying very close attention. If you've lost trust in AP under certain situations, you just wouldn't engage it & do other things. Disengaging if things are going wrong is as simple as steering the car in the direction you want it to go.

 

[Economite]

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.

It's not news when passive technology fails to save a driver from the driver's own mistake. Everyone understands that passive technologies can sometimes mitigate driver errors, but can't compensate for all driver errors. Plus, when AEB doesn't activate, it has no negative effect on the driver. The crash just occurs as if the car wasn't equipped with AEB.

When a technology causes an accident because the technology is making the main decisions on braking/steering, and the driver is at best a back up, that's a totally different situation. It's also something that is very new. That's why this is newsworthy.

 

[MXWing]

You have to remember, that guy got kicked off of a Bolt group because he is such an agreeable fellow.

That would be like Tesla throwing out Musk.

 

[mongo]

When a technology causes an accident because the technology is making the main decisions on braking/steering, and the driver is at best a back up, that's a totally different situation. It's also something that is very new. That's why this is newsworthy.

You are describing FSD. With Tesla Autopilot driver is in charge, not a back up. Same as cruise control and lane assist.

 

[kak1154]

I was one of the posters who believe that it points to him not using AP. Texts sent after the fact are not evidence that he was or wasn't.

I'm not sure if you've used AP or not. Based on my own experience & that of others that I know using AP quite a bit, it just wouldn't make sense for him to continue using AP in that location without at least paying very close attention. If you've lost trust in AP under certain situations, you just wouldn't engage it & do other things. Disengaging if things are going wrong is as simple as steering the car in the direction you want it to go.

The texts are evidence. They are information. IIRC, you cited them as "even more evidence he wasn't using AP." So, in your own words, they are evidence.

What weight you give this evidence is up to you, as well as the direction it leads you. I'm saying it leads me in the direction of Walter's frequent and continued use of AP at this location, and I've given my reasoning. You disagree. That's ok.

 

[bonnie]

The texts are evidence. They are information. IIRC, you cited them as "even more evidence he wasn't using AP." So, in your own words, they are evidence.

What weight you give this evidence is up to you, as well as the direction it leads you. I'm saying it leads me in the direction of Walter's frequent and continued use of AP at this location, and I've given my reasoning. You disagree. That's ok.

Sigh. I wasn't implying it was evidence to be used in court. Which is what I thought you were talking about. I was saying that if that were true, it was evidence that he was likely not using it, based on my own personal experience & that of others I know who use AP frequently. I don't know if the family remembers correctly or not. I don't know if it was actually navigation.

Not going to argue. You clearly have your opinion & I have mine. The facts will come out at some point. (But I am curious to know if you've actually used AP ... I think your opinion might be different if you used it daily.)

 

[SMAlset]

The texts from family to ABC7 while possibly important to the crash, still aren't an indication that he was actually using AP at time of the crash. So if not being used, not really evidence in that case or particularly relevant, right? I think people here are just not wanting to put the cart before the horse until more info comes out. I'm sure the family would like to feel that it was the car and not him that drove the car into the barrier. I can understand that and surely his recent experience would give them pause to think so. Still not necessarily evidence.

One of his friends who posted on here, hope I'm relaying what he said correctly, was that he knew Walter used AP and he in fact commented to him that he had noticed some issues with it at that point in his travels, but the friend even like others here have said, if you know there's been an issue for you in your car and don't feel comfortable about it, why would you continue to use it after that point? My husband and I were talking about this the other night because he has driven both of those EV lanes (85 and 101). On occasion he will use AP on certain roadways and he said when he doesn't feel comfortable with using it somewhere he disables it, or if he does use it in a new area, he said he is super vigilant while it's deployed.

 

[MXWing]

The texts are evidence. They are information. IIRC, you cited them as "even more evidence he wasn't using AP." So, in your own words, they are evidence.

What weight you give this evidence is up to you, as well as the direction it leads you. I'm saying it leads me in the direction of Walter's frequent and continued use of AP at this location, and I've given my reasoning. You disagree. That's ok.

Evidence is not the best choice of word here - I would use indication instead.

Amateurs and problem causers get hung up on semantics of language.

Professionals and problem resolvers look at the context and bigger picture.

You didn’t even answer a question on your AP experience which indicates towards none.

Bottom line is Mr. Huang’s totallity of responsibility, whatever that may be is not changed at all whether AP is engaged or not.

 

[Economite]

Bottom line is Mr. Huang’s totallity of responsibility, whatever that may be is not changed at all whether AP is engaged or not.

Perhaps... But Tesla's responsibility is highly dependent on whether AP was engaged.

 

[MXWing]

Perhaps... But Tesla's responsibility is highly dependent on whether AP was engaged.

How so? It’s a driver assistance tool. A much more advanced version of Chevy Lane Keep Assist but not legally distinguishable.

I would have wiped out half of Orange County by now if I just drove a loaded Semi and let that lane keep assist “do it’s thing” without complete control of the vehicle.

Pick any other autonomy system that’s not Tesla so I’m not just picking on Chevy.

Also exclude Waymo because cars that look like Ecto 1 from Ghostbusters doesn’t count.

 

[Economite]

You are describing FSD. With Tesla Autopilot driver is in charge, not a back up. Same as cruise control and lane assist.

Realistically, while autosteer is activated, the driver is the backup except during lane changes. Autosteer controls steering and speed; with the goal of keeping the car in lane. As long as the driver does not want to change lanes, his or her only real role is to standby to take over control if he or she belives that AP is making a mistake at its lane keeping function. That makes the driver functionally a backup with respect to the lanekeeping function; even if legally he or she is responsible for AP's failures (and even if he or she is the one who bears the risk of inury death in a crash).

 

[JRP3]

Perhaps... But Tesla's responsibility is highly dependent on whether AP was engaged.

It shouldn't be, any more than if cruise control was engaged.

 

[thegruf]

Perhaps... But Tesla's responsibility is highly dependent on whether AP was engaged.

No

 

[singal3]

The one place I typically disable AP is when I am switching highways or at off ramps. I thought this was common practice, do many of you keep AP engaged at these points?

 

[MXWing]

It shouldn't be, any more than if cruise control was engaged.

Too much common sense for this thread. You need to leave.

 

[mongo]

Realistically, while autosteer is activated, the driver is the backup except during lane changes. Autosteer controls steering and speed; with the goal of keeping the car in lane. As long as the driver does not want to change lanes, his or her only real role is to standby to take over control if he or she belives that AP is making a mistake at its lane keeping function. That makes the driver functionally a backup with respect to the lanekeeping function; even if legally he or she is responsible for AP's failures (and even if he or she is the one who bears the risk of inury death in a crash).

The driver should be actively monitoring speed, position, and environment. The driver should be adding brake, accelerator, and steering inputs as needed. The driver is not judging AP, the driver is controlling the car. Driver is always primary.

 

[kak1154]

Sigh. I wasn't implying it was evidence to be used in court. Which is what I thought you were talking about. I was saying that if that were true, it was evidence that he was likely not using it, based on my own personal experience & that of others I know who use AP frequently. I don't know if the family remembers correctly or not. I don't know if it was actually navigation.

Not going to argue. You clearly have your opinion & I have mine. The facts will come out at some point. (But I am curious to know if you've actually used AP ... I think your opinion might be different if you used it daily.)

Oh sorry, no I definitely didn't mean court evidence. Just a little nugget of information. To answer your question, I've only used Tesla's AP on test drives. I can't say for sure how my opinion might change once I get my X in June. (Canceled 3/20 delivery and re-ordered for new MCU. )

Evidence is not the best choice of word here - I would use indication instead.

Amateurs and problem causers get hung up on semantics of language.

Professionals and problem resolvers look at the context and bigger picture.

You didn’t even answer a question on your AP experience which indicates towards none.

Bottom line is Mr. Huang’s totallity of responsibility, whatever that may be is not changed at all whether AP is engaged or not.

Haha, really? I don't think passive-aggressive name-calling is necessary, sheesh. There was an attempt to invalidate my post/opinion using semantics, and I defended it. Sorry if you don't like it, but I'm going to defend myself. "Evidence" wasn't my choice of word, anyway.

I'm not trying to make any "bottom line" points, and I don't disagree with yours. Someone said "I think X suggests Y," and I said "I think X suggests Z." It's a tiny subset of the overall conversation. Don't ascribe extra meaning to it.