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

[bhzmark]

releasing a product in an unsafe form.

Your comments are continually question-begging. You are continually assuming that AP is "unsafe" "unacceptable" etc. This is a relatively simple empirical question: are there more or less collisions (and more or less serious injuries etc.) with or without AP? Even in its current state of development?

Just because AP is merely L2, and thus still requires constant driver attention and occasional driver action, doesn't mean that it is "unsafe" or "unacceptable".

The issue is: even given APs current state of development, and Tesla's current efforts (or lack thereof) to educate and train Tesla drivers on its use, are there more or less accidents when AP is available to drivers?

Even with the distressingly wide variability of Tesla drivers to comprehend the appropriate use and limitations of driver assistance tools, the statistics for AP1 cars, as published by NHTSA was that AP1 reduced air bag deployments by 40%. Now that AP2 is firmly surpassing AP1, that likely is causing an even further reduction.

So stop stating that AP is "unsafe" or unacceptable" based on this one corner/perfect storm case, until you get some facts and evidence lined up supporting your words. Right now the best evidence is against you quite substantially. More people are alive and had more mere close calls, or totally missed accidents because of the overall aggregate safety improvements of Tesla's AP.

 

[McRat]

Let's get a few facts straight. The accident where the pedestrian was struck and killed was an Uber test car NOT Tesla. The so called safety driver was clearly not doing his/her job. The Uber car was using LIDAR a technology that Tesla does not support. Tesla was faced with a dilemma in the Model X crash. Wait for the complete government evaluation to come out months from now while its reputation is sullied in the press or release the data that Tesla had which showed the person behind the wheel did not respond to the system prompting him/her to take control. I think is was short sighted on the NTSB's part to sideline Tesla and their expertise in this investigation. No one can point their car on dumb cruise control at a concrete wall, not steer away and not expect a bad outcome. The first person killed in a Tesla on AP allegedly had posted multiple YouTube videos of him letting the car "drive itself" while he watched movies, etc. We all have to take final responsibility for a car's behavior at least for now. Musk said autopilot, like everything in the real world, will never be perfect.

Are you sure? IIRC, the Uber AV was doing an experiment to see if it could run without it's lidar. The car had the system installed, it just was not active, or it was programmed terribly bad. Lidar would have 'seen' the pedestrian from 1000' away. It actually works better at night. Unlike the hype video Uber released, the road in that area was well lit, modern, with great visibility. You can tell the video was inaccurate just by looking at the headlight pattern of the car. No modern car has headlights that awful. Once information was discovered that indicated Uber was at fault, Uber promptly STFU.

If the Uber situation has changed, could you point me in the right direction?

 

[P85ATL]

In reply to Economite reference to professionals doing the testing, is he referring to the Uber "safety driver" who was clearly texting or surfing the web at the time of impact? If we follow such logic we would all be drinking cold coffee because one person out of a billion burned themselves. Now we only have to read the inane warning "hot coffee may burn". Tesla in its owner manual adamantly and repeatedly informs the driver who plans to use AP that they still need to monitor road condition. Those who choose to do otherwise do so at their own peril and that of others. Any car can kill as thousands of drunk drivers have shown. In the final analysis, until FSD is approved if ever, the driver has to take responsibility. You cannot say "the car made me do it". Or as a recent acquaintance postured, "the car made it easier for it to happen". I was rear ended a year ago by a driver who was trying to run a light, he hit us at approximately 40mph while we were stopped. Fortunately other than mild whiplash to me my daughter and I were not seriously hurt. Our car was totaled. Would his car having emergency braking have made a difference we'll never know.

 

[mongo]

I was rear ended a year ago by a driver who was trying to run a light, he hit us at approximately 40mph while we were stopped. Fortunately other than mild whiplash to me my daughter and I were not seriously hurt. Our G37 was totaled. Would his car having emergency braking have made a difference we'll never know.

Sorry to hear of your crash. Regarding the what if, AEB (at least on Teslas) is disabled by pressing the accelerator more than 90%.
I gotta know though, how the heck does someone try to run a red with a stopped car in front of them?

 

[NerdUno]

I can tell if I'm out of my lane while looking in the rear view mirror. It's pretty obvious.

I think we can safely conclude that eyes were not on the road. People are now dying in greater numbers due to texting than drunk driving.

That's a pretty reckless assertion because of the implication that this was a texting while driving situation. Based upon the fact that this individual had driven this stretch of road with mixed AP2 results many times, I think the likelihood that he was texting is highly unlikely. For all we know, the person was experiencing a stroke or heart attack. I think we all owe it to the family to keep these types of comments to a minimum until the actual facts surrounding the accident have been released.

 

[Az_Rael]

My speed on the initial straight section was about 40mph, in a 65mph zone. (It may seem faster in the video, only because traffic on the main freeway to the left is almost stopped.) There was a car directly ahead of me, and I assumed AP would be able to track it properly and decelerate to match its speed around the curve. Instead, AP lost track of that car and accelerated into the curve, nearly losing control. (I'm pretty sure it would have if I hadn't yanked the steering wheel.) Evidently the AP thought the speed limit was still 65mph through the curve, despite the clearly posted 20mph limit sign, despite the fact that the road lines curved way too strongly to be driveable at 65mph (or even 40mph), and the fact that the nav was programmed to take this sharp curve.

I plan to try again (carefully) on this road with the latest AP software update and see if the behavior is any different.

You may need to wait until they turn on speed limit sign reading for AP2. AP1 has it, so we have to assume it’s coming for AP2 as well. That is the last feature I need that will bring my 3 up to par with our AP1 car.

 

[greghanssen]

I think just about everyone agrees that more-or-less passive safety systems, such as Automatic Emergency Braking, Lane Departure Warning and the like improve vehicle safety. These systems leap in when the driver has made a mistake.

Although Tesla has kind of made some safety claims with respect to Autosteer, I don't think anyone has really proved that Autosteer (as implemented) actually improves safety. I view it as more of a convenience feature. If most of the crashes that it avoids are crashes that a human driver would also have avoided, but it is causing serious crashes that occur when it makes a mistake, but the driver fails to correct the mistake, then I think it is hard to justify AS as safe. We don't really have the data on this. It's something NTSB should look at.

Also, if a safety feature has elements that, as designed, are making the safety feature less safe than it would be if the elements were eliminated or modified, those elements should really be eliminated/modified ASAP, not on Elon Standard Time.

This is an interesting point.. Yes many of these systems increase safety in that they may jump in and save the human when the driver looks like they may be about to leave the lane or hit a (moving) vehicle in front of it. But if these very same systems actually encourage the driver to be less attentive?

I found the GM ACC/LKA system allowed me to get a tad sloppy.. Didn't have to worry about the car in front of me or take as much care to stay centered in the lane as the LKA would kick in and silently nudge the car back if I got too close to the edge.. Not sure if the NET result was safer or not..

Of course we're only human and we can't be 100% alert all the time even though we should be. For occasional lapses with an otherwise attentive driver these systems probably vastly improve safety.

Autosteering on the other hand introduces new frontiers in both vehicle lane centering consistency and also the possibility of completely inattentive users.. Net improvement? This depends on the human psychology as much as the technology..

Friday night I was completing a long drive through Los Angeles after driving home from Mammoth Lakes 5+ hrs away. I was tired and it was late.. I found the energy required to monitor auto steering was a good deal less than actually driving the car myself. But if I had been allowed to tune out completely the situation may have been dramatically different.

P.S. Although if the lane markings were clear there is of course the chance I might have just ended up in Mexico

 

[Doug_G]

We? Don't speak for me, please. I'm not going to jump to conclusions because I wasn't there. My entire post was critical of jumping to conclusions. You can't say at this point that thedriver was irresponsible. If there is evidence proving this than so be it. All of us check our mirrors or look over our shoulders at splits and merges. We take our eyes off the road (ahead) for 3 to 5 seconds. Not everyone has your magic third eye. All I am saying is do not assume the driver was irresponsible. Or do you have evidence otherwise?

That's a pretty reckless assertion because of the implication that this was a texting while driving situation. Based upon the fact that this individual had driven this stretch of road with mixed AP2 results many times, I think the likelihood that he was texting is highly unlikely. For all we know, the person was experiencing a stroke or heart attack. I think we all owe it to the family to keep these types of comments to a minimum until the actual facts surrounding the accident have been released.

Of course we have to wait for the results of the investigation. But regardless of whether he was texting or not I would give high odds that prolonged driver inattention was a major factor. Having a heart attack just at a particularly dangerous moment is possible but statistically very unlikely.

 

[NerdUno]

Of course we have to wait for the results of the investigation. But while we're waiting we might as well drag the deceased through the mud just for fun.

You really ought to consult an attorney about defamation by implication since you didn't take the more subtle hint.

 

[JRP3]

Of course we have to wait for the results of the investigation. But while we're waiting we might as well drag the deceased through the mud just for fun.

You really ought to consult an attorney about defamation by implication since you didn't take the more subtle hint.

People are allowed to speculate freely. Get off your high horse.

 

[mongo]

Of course we have to wait for the results of the investigation. But while we're waiting we might as well drag the deceased through the mud just for fun.

You really ought to consult an attorney about defamation by implication since you didn't take the more subtle hint.

If a lawyer was consulted, they would say you can't defame the dead.
Can the Estate of a Dead Man Sue for Slander?

 

[TEG]

 

[NerdUno]

If a lawyer was consulted, they would say you can't defame the dead.
Can the Estate of a Dead Man Sue for Slander?

Probably not a good idea to rest your legal expertise on LegalZoom.

Defaming The Dead | FindLaw

 

[TEG]

http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/rese...on_for_freeway_interchange_modeling_w_cvr.pdf

 

[TEG]

Dangerous area...

Mapping 10 Years of Fatal Traffic Accidents

 

[mongo]

Probably not a good idea to rest your legal expertise on LegalZoom.

Defaming The Dead | FindLaw

You are entitled to your own interpretation and feelings regarding other's posts. However, your line of civil defamation liability is not well grounded.


I find your referencing of hypothetical cases regarding the publishing of a theory that LBJ killed JFK not relevent (especially since the potential courses of action listed are Infliction of Emotional Distress Actions, economic damages arising from an injurious falsehood, and civil action based on a criminal defamation statute)

Defamation in California - Brown & Charbonneau, LLP

Opinion. If statement is an opinion as opposed to a fact, there is no defamation. This distinction often depends upon the context of the statement being made, who made it and whether the community would perceive that person to be in a position to know it as fact. For example, a statement by your spouse or family member that you engaged in an act is far less likely to be considered opinion than a person’s statement who just met you.
Fair Comment. Similar to opinion, if a fair comment on a matter of public interest is made, then the person making the statement is not likely to be liable for defamation. For example, citizens discussing the allegations surrounding a local political scandal are likely exercising a free comment on the public situation.

Do You Have A Case For Defamation?

 

[TEG]

Using that traffic fatality mapping site, I looked around the state, and noticed another dangerous looking intersection which seems to be 405/22 interchange down in Seal Beach area. It seems to have a similar characteristics of a dual freeway split that was recently expanded / redone in the past decade.
Here it was in 2011 when they first had sand barrels (which you can see had been impacted) and they had put orange plastic poles in place to better warn drivers of that gore area:

Then same location, totally reconstructed with new type of crash cushion and chevrons painted on the gore area:

I don't know why the Mountain View location never has had painted chevrons or plastic poles there. It seems common to use those in freeway splits like this.
Also, there seem to be a variety of crash attentuator types devices they can use to protect the gore point. I am not sure what decision process was used to put a smart cushion in Mountain View instead of the barrel like things they have at this 22/405 location.

 

[TEG]

This site is informative too:

TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System

Here is an 11-14-2015 fatality listed in the same Mountain View location where the X hit the gore point:

And 7-8-2012:

11-21-2012:

They don't have 2018 data there yet...



It is hard to know how many more of these incidents / dots were related to the gore area / gore point, since I think they are filed with an estimated distance from "the intersection". Did the person filing the report mark the distance as being from where the gore area marking started? Distance from the Shoreline/101 onramp? I suspect many of these "hit a fixed object" in that area could be related:

 

[Ugliest1]

Are you sure? IIRC, the Uber AV was doing an experiment to see if it could run without it's lidar. The car had the system installed, it just was not active, or it was programmed terribly bad. Lidar would have 'seen' the pedestrian from 1000' away. It actually works better at night. Unlike the hype video Uber released, the road in that area was well lit, modern, with great visibility. You can tell the video was inaccurate just by looking at the headlight pattern of the car. No modern car has headlights that awful. Once information was discovered that indicated Uber was at fault, Uber promptly STFU.

If the Uber situation has changed, could you point me in the right direction?

The recording I saw of the Uber accident was split screen, one showing the video out front of the car and the other showing the driver. The driver was CLEARLY reading something on his phone, and had a complete surprised (and horrified) reaction at the split-second of the accident.

 

[JTseng]

http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/rese...on_for_freeway_interchange_modeling_w_cvr.pdf

View attachment 294459

I have personally witnessed case #3 in front of me. The driver's last second decision blinded him from checking the surrounding upcoming traffics.