Consider that often the best response to disagreeable posts is the replies. That was the case here. The view expressed in the deleted post, and especially the views on the responses is a still intelligent discussion worth having and directly relevant to this thread.
-
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
Consider that often the best response to disagreeable posts is the replies. That was the case here. The view expressed in the deleted post, and especially the views on the responses is a still intelligent discussion worth having and directly relevant to this thread.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
As a frequent user of AP, I must politely disagree with your broad generalization.
Agreed...this can unfortunately happen when a follow-up post quotes the post being snipped. I actually thought your response was well-written...I recommend re-posting it without the quoted text (which is what I was trying to expunge from the thread).
Thanks,
Bruce.
The vehicle had been telling the driver to "Hold Steering Wheel" for 10 seconds prior to it following the wrong lane divider. It's ambiguous if this was because the driver had not been detected as holding the wheel for the timeout or if the car knew it was approaching a section that it would have trouble negotiating.
I'm sorry, I must disagree.
My point, in softer terms, is that even if you think you understand the risks rationally (which is impossible, as AP is a black box system with unknown, ever changing behavior) your body cannot do what is necessary to contain the risk.
Are you overweight? Ever have a cavity? A speeding ticket? Ever forget to go to the gym? Don't meditate for hours a day? Don't pop Ritalin like candy? Then you don't have what it takes to use Autopilot correctly.
Autopilot reminds me a lot of weight loss scams which promise you'll lose an impossible amount of of weight "or your money back." Only nobody receives their money back, because they didn't "comply with the program." The program, of course, makes starvation demands that most humans cannot meet. And yet the humans are blamed, never the impossible program (scam). People fork over their money thinking, "I can do that." Yet they cannot.
The rational mind lacks perfect control over the unconscious and reptillian modules of the brain. You may want to pay attention, but that does not always happen. In fact, you likely don't remember the cases when it fails. And with AP, the failures are catastrophic.
"Understanding" Autopilot is not sufficient. Perfect, unwavering execution by the driver is everything, and that is unreliable. That is what most AP users do not understand. That is the true risk of using Autopilot.
The wisest realize that their bodies are not perfect, and don't tempt fate by enabling AP. I'll take a little more exercise for my brain, or even a minor collision, to avoid a black swan failure which puts me in the morgue.
Last edited:
If one can't talk about a broad class of users, nor particular users, how can any discussion of human behavior proceed? And here, there is plenty of behavior to question.
I'm all for avoiding ad hominem attacks, but not as an excuse for selective enforcement against unpopular opinions.
Tam
Well-Known Member
The term Autopilot has been discussed so many times so it might be refreshing to review it again:
Just because it is "auto" like "AUTOmobile" that doesn't automatically mean human doesn't have to drive.
Should we ban the word "automobile" because it is misleading that most cars still need human to drive?
Some road signs even label "Auto" and "Trucks" to direct them to the correct lanes. Is that misleading the public too?
The term Auto-pilot was used by Chrysler/Imperial in 1958:
Was that misleading?
In aviation, the term "autopilot" has been used since the World Wars.
Commercially, "autopilot" requires at least 2, not just one, but two human pilots. Is that misleading?
If it is "auto" why do you need two human pilots?
Even with modern autopilot, airplanes can still crash. With all the modern radar, autopilot airplanes can still crash into mountain sides...
Some terminologies have its own meaning. "Hot dog" does not mean newly cooked dog meat. One needs to learn what it is before buying, eating, or using it!
When you have simple cruise control, the driver can easily predict exactly what the cruise control will do. If a cruise control doesn't do what is supposed to do (hold the set speed) it is defective and the driver can sue the manufacturer.
When you have Autosteer, the driver can't easily predict what AP will do, because AP's behavior is pretty complicated. Plus, AP's behavior shifts every time there is an OTA. It's not right to say AP can never be defective because "The driver is in charge."
This is incorrect.
The current technology IS NOT there so drivers can pay less attention.
Someday, yes, but not now. This is Tesla's biggest problem.
Second, thanks for sharing that video. Really scary.
To me, it appears that one of the two lines forming the median is extremely faded. The car, by my guess, saw the far one, leading it to follow it right into the concrete median.
"Hold Steering Wheel" is not a sign of asking driver to take over. So it should not be related to the car foreseeing any difficulty in following the lines.
The question is when "Hold Steering Wheel" is displayed, is the car in a "special state" that changes AP behavior? It is highly likely that the crashed X also was in this state, if such a state exists. A good test is for another volunteer to drive pass the same segment with "Hold Steering Wheel" triggered prior to approaching the split.
scottf200
Well-Known Member
Thanks for sharing that.
Various manufacturers are using 'pilot'ed systems now.
- 'Co-Pilot' (BMW),
- Co-Pilot360 (Ford),
- 'Piloted Driving' (Audi),
- 'Speed Limit Pilot sub-function' (Mercedes-Benz)
- 'Auto Pilot' (GM years ago) -- thread on this GM Auto Pilot -- 1956: A future vision of driverless cars
- 'Piloted Drive' (Nissan), and
- Pro-pilot (Nissan)
Most people are buying the car thinking that they can now text and the car will have their back. Otherwise they will be happy to leave the cell phone in the back seat.
Indeed. It would be a horrible design if AP used the same notification for "You haven't torqued the wheel in a while, so I'm afraid you might not be paying attention" and "I'm confused by the road and need for you to take over before I run into a concrete barrier or something." One warning should be subtle. The other should be a claxon. In this case, it seems like the only warning was the standard, you haven't orqued warning.
I actually did watch the whole thing. I know with the smaller target it didn't work, but that barrier is pretty big. I don't know that I'd say I'd "guarantee" it would work, but I think it'd stand a pretty good chance of at least slowing down if not completely stopping.
The stereoscopic system is good. Ours stopped for a deer and of course cars, etc. For a vision-only system, it is pretty impressive. It's routinely dismissed because of prejudices about the brand, but it really does work.
I guess the point with the Tesla is that it DEFINITELY WON'T STOP. In fact, I'd almost guarantee it WILL drive into the barrier. There's so many bogus assumptions that people make about AP that are dangerous, and one is that it has some magic emergency braking system that will brake for obstacles. It brakes for a vehicle ahead of you in your lane - that's it. It will hit a tower of cardboard boxes with a stuffed frog on top of it. It will hit a deer. It will hit a firetruck. It will hit a pedestrian.
Thanks for posting a link to this video. It's a great reminder that Autopilot is currently only as good as the lane markings (and sometimes the vehicles being followed), so if lane markings are missing or irregular, it's more likely that Autopilot might do something that you don't expect it to do while driving.
My experience (owning one of each Model X) has been that AP2 tends to be left-biased (or "left-handed", if you will) in the same location that AP1 tends to be right-biased (or "right-handed") when a single lane opens up into two lanes.
What do I mean by this? Let's look at Exit 23 off US-17 North in Campbell, California. If you engage Autopilot on the exit lane (before reaching the exit sign shown in Google Street View), then use the stalk to reduce maximum speed to 45 MPH (before the exit sign) and finally let Autopilot pick a lane when one lane opens up into two lanes, you'll find that AP2 picks the left-hand lane while AP1 picks the right-hand lane. (I don't recommend trying this, but if you do, disengage Autopilot well before the right-hand turn.)
Why does AP2 behave differently than AP1 here? I don't know, but I think it is interesting in light of the accident that started this thread, and the video from Chicago above per an article in Electrek today: Tesla owner almost crashes on video trying to recreate fatal Autopilot accident.
Note that there are many differences to this road from both the interchange in Mountain View, California and the interchange in Chicago, the least of which is that it's not an interchange, there is no gore area involved (just one lane widening into two lanes), there is yellow paint on the left lane marker, there are no adjacent lanes connected by a paved surface, and I'm reducing speed manually as it drives (so as not to go unusually slow in the exit lane).
Also, I'm certain you can find locations where AP2 is right-biased, so it's not always left-biased. In fact, if you take Exit 10 off I-280 North in Cupertino, California onto Wolfe Road with Autopilot engaged (again, reducing maximum speed using the stalk to around 45 MPH once on the exit ramp), AP2 will prefer the right lane instead of the left lane when the right-hand lane opens up into two lanes. (Here again, the road geometry is different with a dashed line on the left lane marker, a solid line on the right lane marker, and additional lanes to the left but not the right.)
Anyway, I find it useful to know that this behavior difference exists since I drive vehicles with both AP1 and AP2 frequently, so I really can't assume which lane Autopilot will take in these situations. (And this behavior could change in the future with a software update anyway.)
EDIT: following -> followed typo
Last edited:
Those who use AP in the way I described previously, it is not a black box.
The safest car on the road is a Tesla with drivers who understand that AP is a car-following and well-marked-lane-line-keeping tool and they understand the design and design limitations of the tool.
And they know to use the AP tool to make the minor adjustments in steering and accel but remain vigilant (and more so being relieved of the burden of those minor adjustments) for the driver need to make other major driving decisions and take other major driving actions.
The only explanation for such an incorrect view of how AP works in practice is by those who haven't used it, or those who simply can't adopt to new technology.
This doesn't make sense. I drive as normal, except allow AP to make minor adjustments. I still decide, or not, to make minor and major driving adjustments. No perfection of the body necessary. Indeed bodily imperfections are mitigated by allowing AP to make most minor adjustments, so that I can remain even more vigilant to make decisions.
Sometimes AP makes the right minor adjustments, yet occassionally, with decreasing frequency, it makes the wrong one and that is just when the driver has to make that adjustment.
If you drive AP with your hand resting on the wheel, and paying attention, AP is a godsend and so much obviously safer and makes driving less fatigueing. If some people just don't get it after trying, perhaps they shouldn't use it. But even first hand witnessed elderly and now tech savvy Tesla drivers drivestand what AP does and doesn't do and they see and use the benefit of it to have a safer drive.
If you don't or cant get it, then AP is probably not right for you. But it is right for the vast majority of others.
I think this accident shows that some drivers will not be vigilant and may use AP beyond it's design limitations and not pay proper attention to watch for the need, and to make, major driving decisions.
Last edited:
zmarty
Member
Here is what the NTSB report concluded:
PROBABLE CAUSE
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the San Jose, California, crash was the failure of the California Department of Transportation to properly delineate the crash attenuator and the gore area, which would have provided improved traffic guidance.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
You appear to have quite the window into the personal motivations of Tesla owners.
FlyF4
Son of a MX
Well, over my 40 year career as an engineer, I've learned that ANYTHING is possible.
I'm now hearing that AP was engaged at the time. Of course that doesn't mean it was the cause either. Clearly other factors can be involved. So to say it is no way that AP could do this is also bad speculation.
Similar threads
