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

[Tam]

...The point of my original post is that #1 and #2 are both contentions that are frequently made in court during liability cases, often successfully...

Generically, claimants often tell the court how things should work because that's what they understood.

In this case, they thought they should not have to steer nor brake because they thought that's what they paid Autopilot for.

In the legal world, the legal definition is prioritized and not that from the claimants.

In the audio, they re-defined Tesla's design as "Tesla didn't know what are the glitches" which is contrary to what Tesla has listed many limitations in owner's manual.

They also re-defined the purpose of autopilot erroneously as "so that you don't have to put your hands on the steering wheel" which again is in conflict with owner's manual's as well the instrument clusters' instructions.

They seem to claim that Autopilot should be defined as self-driving as they erroneously define it with no need to shift the responsibility of braking and steering to a driver. "Autopilot driving for you."

It's just like when there's a disclosure that parking is free on Sunday only and a claimant says that he understood that it should be free on weekdays.

Just because he redefines the terms or he just misunderstands the disclosure, generically, the court would not uphold the definition from the customer and would uphold the company's terms.

Of course, there are rare cases that a claimant can win and get the parking rule to change to free parking everyday but that would be an exception.

 

[Ugly]

I treat ap like turning the family car over to my teenager the first time. But my experience is that ap is consistently correct more than I am. I would never use it in a construction zone.

 

[verygreen]

I treat ap like turning the family car over to my teenager the first time. But my experience is that ap is consistently correct more than I am. I would never use it in a construction zone.

try the Alcoa hwy towards downtown just past the construction zone, in left lane. It'll try to steer you into the divider...

Like this: green on Twitter

the maps in the area are way too wrong too so if you rely on NoA it will do some stupid stuff as well.

 

[daktari]

It will be good to have a court hearing conclusion on what to expect from EAP and FSD considering the kind of conflicting marketing and the owners manual anno 2017-8. One could be a bit confused maybe, and the design in Tesla is kind of "I'll take it from here mate" until it suddenly doesn't. That design gives a false impression of confidence imho.

To compare, Jaguars Steering Assist system is designed as a pure assistance system; you can overtake without disengaging, it will disengage without a notice, randomly and at challenging scenarios, so one learns early always to control it. You just never can take the eyes of the road in the I-pace. With EAP it is a start on the road to lvl 3/4 self driving, user interface also, and a as such lot of owners use defeat devices and have huge confidence in the system. Tesla could have designed it differently to keep drivers more aware.
We also have the "hold your wheel"-warning, but we all know it is just a proxy for really paying attention and also not always register even when paying attention.

 

[Saghost]

It will be good to have a court hearing conclusion on what to expect from EAP and FSD considering the kind of conflicting marketing and the owners manual anno 2017-8. One could be a bit confused maybe, and the design in Tesla is kind of "I'll take it from here mate" until it suddenly doesn't. That design gives a false impression of confidence imho.

To compare, Jaguars Steering Assist system is designed as a pure assistance system; you can overtake without disengaging, it will disengage without a notice, randomly and at challenging scenarios, so one learns early always to control it. You just never can take the eyes of the road in the I-pace. With EAP it is a start on the road to lvl 3/4 self driving, user interface also, and a as such lot of owners use defeat devices and have huge confidence in the system. Tesla could have designed it differently to keep drivers more aware.
We also have the "hold your wheel"-warning, but we all know it is just a proxy for really paying attention and also not always register even when paying attention.

So we're actually spinning it that a system that disengages without notice and gives the driver much less feedback about what the car is seeing or doing is a better system because drivers know they can't trust it?

Wow.

 

[tomas]

People want to be treated like adults until someone treats them like an adult. Then they act like a child.

 

[daktari]

So we're actually spinning it that a system that disengages without notice and gives the driver much less feedback about what the car is seeing or doing is a better system because drivers know they can't trust it?

Wow.

Yep, because the fact is EAP is not a bit more trustworthy that Jaguar's system (both level 2), EAP just pretends to be. That will make some drivers ignorant of the dangers so they look out the window for the 3 seconds it takes to crash.

The big question is why Tesla did not play it safer? Or do you think it is perfect from a safety point of view, negligent humans taken into consideration?

 

[Saghost]

Yep, because the fact is EAP is not a bit more trustworthy that Jaguar's system (both level 2), EAP just pretends to be. That will make some drivers ignorant of the dangers so they look out the window for the 3 seconds it takes to crash.

The big question is why Tesla did not play it safer? Or do you think it is perfect from a safety point of view, negligent humans taken into consideration?

What would Tesla "playing it safer" mean to you? How would the system behave differently?

 

[BigD0g]

What would Tesla "playing it safer" mean to you? How would the system behave differently?

How about starting with not trying to sell a feature before it’s done? I mean it’s great and all that we’ve been alpha testing since April 2017 with this thing, but sheesh how about not selling cars are features that don’t exist and are not ready in any sense of the word. To, get me wrong I feel horrible for the people that died, but that’s on them, nobody should trust this system at all, and if you do you should also be a candidate for a Darwin Award.

Sell cars based on features you “have” not what you “aspire” to have and it will go a long long way....

 

[daktari]

What would Tesla "playing it safer" mean to you? How would the system behave differently?

(New name, Different marketing.)
More frequent nagging.
Bigger tolerance for driver input, ie no disengaging when steering together with the system.
No auto-lane change, but driver changes lanes without disengaging the system.
More frequent warnings in IC and disengaging for low system confidence or high risk areas like sharp turns, gore points, entry's and exits, crests and more.
No torque sensor but hand proximity sensor.
To sum up: let the driver understand they control the car always when assisted, the car do not take over driving for you.

Back to you then, "Or do you think it is perfect from a safety point of view, negligent humans taken into consideration?"

 

[AWDtsla]

More frequent nagging.

If autopilot miles are really safer than non-autopilot miles, then more frequent nagging means I just don't use it, and I'm sure the same will goes for other people. Self-defeating safety.

Nags are just dumb. People who don't pay attention crash, ruin it for the rest of us.

If nags are really the right way, get a virtual ex-wife to yell at you while you are driving. Far superior to tugging on the wheel.

 

[Saghost]

"Or do you think it is perfect from a safety point of view, negligent humans taken into consideration?"

Self evidently the system isn't perfect for safety, so far. No system is completely foolproof, and it's unlikely that any system ever will be - we keep inventing better fools.

If it was going to remain a Level 2 system indefinitely, I think the hand proximity sensor would be a nice minor improvement, but it's not really a safety thing. The car already does event based prompts or even disengagements when it isn't confident. Those have become less common of late presumably because the system has become more confident.

I'm not convinced any of your other suggestions will actually improve safety. Tesla is kinda trying to give you the both driving together option with the lane departure prevention and emergency lane departure prevention options in the latest firmware - but they choose to do both together when you're driving instead of when it is.

 

[Jamiek]

As a comparison, given the much longer history, curious to hear from any airline pilots...if the AP in the plane failed to operate as expected would the NTSB fault/blame the AP system or the "pilot error" for not taking over?

As PIC it is our responsibility to fly the airplane. Loss of control due to autopilot is a pilots lack of ability to stay in control of the airplane

 

[Enginerd]

The NTSB has issued a recommendation as they continue to work on the final report for this accident. This is really Captain Obvious kind of stuff, about CalTrans not leaving crash attenuators... attenuated. The government may be slow, but in this case, appear to be moving in the right direction.
1. Press release
2. Full text

 

[Cosmacelf]

The NTSB has issued a recommendation as they continue to work on the final report for this accident. This is really Captain Obvious kind of stuff, about CalTrans not leaving crash attenuators... attenuated. The government may be slow, but in this case, appear to be moving in the right direction.
1. Press release
2. Full text

I'm disappointed the NTSB didn't also make mention of the fact that the paved gore area did not have chevrons painted on it. If it had chevrons, the likelihood is that Autopilot would not have entered the gore area in the first place.

 

[miimura]

I'm disappointed the NTSB didn't also make mention of the fact that the paved gore area did not have chevrons painted on it. If it had chevrons, the likelihood is that Autopilot would not have entered the gore area in the first place.

There is also no audible feedback when you drive into that area. There are long stretches on the 101 south of Salinas where they have cut a repeating line pattern into the edge of the pavement so it makes a loud humming noise when you drift out of the lane toward the median. That would get the attention of an inattentive driver should they wander into the gore area, regardless of whether AP is involved or not.

 

[MP3Mike]

I'm disappointed the NTSB didn't also make mention of the fact that the paved gore area did not have chevrons painted on it. If it had chevrons, the likelihood is that Autopilot would not have entered the gore area in the first place.

Actually that was two of their four recommendations:

 

[TEG]

I'm disappointed the NTSB didn't also make mention of the fact that the paved gore area did not have chevrons painted on it. If it had chevrons, the likelihood is that Autopilot would not have entered the gore area in the first place.

Note, it has chevrons there now. All the press from this "event" seemed to have caused Caltrans to respond by improving the markings somewhat.

But having better policy for all locations in the future would be good. Instead of just responding one by one after the fact.

 

[Economite]

Actually that was two of their four recommendations:
View attachment 453759

Those four recommendations were part of a prior report on different accident. Only the one recommendation (about timing of repairs) is new for the Tesla accident. The older report was an exhibit to the new report.

 

[FlatSix911]

Bottom line... CalTrans is still an accident waiting to happen. The worst management and accountability in the nation.