These cars are dangerous, but seems Tesla is taking the Pinto approach- they aren’t going to fix it until enough people die. I was nearly rear ended at 60mph by a non-Tesla when the Y I was driving slammed on the brakes for no reason. My 2015 Model S literally never phantom brakes on autopilot/autosteer. Tesla tech is going backwards.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Phantom braking so bad I want to return my car
- Thread starter RHINO SKIN SOL
- Start date
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
AFAIK, the phantom triggering of AEB has neither injured nor killed anyone. Meanwhile, how many lives have been saved by correct usage of AEB? I'm guessing it's more than zero.
My guess is that Tesla focusing on FSD beta, on the assumption that PB will be resolved when autonomous features are integrated into a single stack.
I suggest using the “ignore” option available in the forum. With regards to that user in this forum, my blood pressure decreased significantly after I ignored them. There is no saving them; they are irredeemable.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
If you think Tesla is taking too long to resolve PB, then just wait until users can easily avoid it. The squeakiest wheels get the most oil.
Tesla could be avoiding the addition of "dumb cruise control" because:
- They would be admitting PB is a problem
- NSHTA would probably count it as a "recall"
- Plain-vanilla cruise control can also be dangerous, Tesla would be blamed if AEB failed to engage
I think you are confusing safety with driving dynamics. Safety is how safe the car is after it has been in a wreck. It doesn't look to see what caused the wreck.
its like you saying that you saved an old lady from getting hit by a car but not mentioning that you pushed the old lady to the middle of the road in the first place
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
AEB and phantom braking are generally separate phenomena. Neither is likely to injure anyone directly but it's the type of behavior that can cause accidents. If you're driving on a wide open road the car in front of you suddenly slams in its brakes for no reason you run the risk of being rear ended. Even If you're not rear ended, the erratic behavior causes other people to slam on their brakes and/or have to suddenly change lanes to avoid you which creates unsafe conditions for all drivers.
1. Tesla has admitted it's a problem.
2. Even though it's clearly a problem, I doubt it meets the threshold criteria for a recall.
3. If you're claiming plain vanilla cruise is dangerous then you're saying virtually every car on the road is dangerous. It's no more dangerous than having an accelerator.
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
Thank you - a lot of people don't get this distinction. The other point to make is just because the car does some things well, it doesn't excuse doing other things poorly. like I just wrote above, phantom braking and false AEB activations create unsafe traffic conditions that can indirectly cause accidents. Would you randomly slams on the brakes or aggressively slow down 10mph in the middle of traffic? Why not?I think you are confusing safety with driving dynamics. Safety is how safe the car is after it has been in a wreck. It doesn't look to see what caused the wreck.
its like you saying that you saved an old lady from getting hit by a car but not mentioning that you pushed the old lady to the middle of the road in the first place
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
Tesla issued a recall for fart noises. I think this would qualify.
The danger of cruise control is not the same as "an accelerator". The risk is the same as for all other L2 assist systems, wherin it can lead to driver inattention.
I'm not defending shitty PB behavior, lol. I agree it adds risk, but so far that risk has not translated into injury, certainly not enough to make it a priority for Tesla. I'm simply offering plausible reasons for the problem persisting when the consensus is that this is "easy to fix".
Maybe look in what they rate beside crash ratings and then comment?I think you are confusing safety with driving dynamics. Safety is how safe the car is after it has been in a wreck. It doesn't look to see what caused the wreck.
its like you saying that you saved an old lady from getting hit by a car but not mentioning that you pushed the old lady to the middle of the road in the first place
If they were looking at other things then why is there an ongoing investigation now on the phantom breaking?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
For #2 actually there are likely several reasons:
1) Mode confusion. People already sometimes get mode confusion from TACC and AP, where the car stops autosteering, but TACC is still on so the car is still controlling the speed. Adding a third mode may make things even more confusing (where the driver may expect the car to slow by itself and it doesn't).
This is obviously not an issue on cars with no AP or TACC at all. The stalk only controls CC and no other advanced mode. That's why there is zero concern with offering CC in those cars.
2) Marketing. Adding CC now essentially says that Tesla feels their TACC and AP suite is not adequate, and perhaps not going to be improved anytime soon. Keep in mind there was lots of similar complaints even back in AP1, which they addressed by using a whitelist system.
Tesla releases the details of its new radar processing technology: point cloud, 2-car ahead tracking & more
Then when AP2 came out, there were lots of complaints of how bad it was vs AP1. Over the years they improved it to the point where by most accounts it is as good if not better than AP1 (just purely talking about the base functions both support). Throughout this whole process they never once added regular CC back. Doing this now for AP3 suggests that they don't see a viable solution sticking with TACC or AP alone.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think the point is that for either, the risk of a fatal accident is very low, especially if your definition of "phantom braking" includes when the car doesn't actually brake (but rather slows down). However, on the flip side, there are plenty of fatal accidents from when Tesla's system failed to respond to trucks.
Not exactly. Tesla has acknowledged it happens (including in the manual itself), but they are saying it is expected behavior of the system. NHTSA is opening an investigation, but Tesla has made no statements yet admitting it is a problem. The closest thing was the recall for FSD when it led to mass AEB activations (that was from an actual fixable bug), but they have made no admissions about general phantom braking complaints.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. You can see the Emergency Light Detection update as an example. Tesla was immediately investigated for it.
Tesla's Emergency Light Detection Update Investigated
And if you look at the recent recalls, NHTSA is putting a lot of pressure on Tesla. The threshold for a recall may be a lot lower for Tesla than for other manufacturers. They definitely are scrutinizing updates and something like reverting back to regular CC (when they have not done so for years) can easily be a red flag for them.
I don't think he is saying it is "dangerous" overall, just more dangerous than ACC/AP. Of course, there's not much stats on this, and the safety stats (Tesla or otherwise) and studies are disputed anyways (as there are lots of variables).
From a quick search, people using ACC are more likely to speed, and study from AAA says they are more likely to be distracted. But "analyzing insurance claims data showed that ACC might actually lower the risk of a crash, and other studies demonstrate these drivers using greater following distances and fewer lane changes than drivers in cars without it".
https://murrayandmurray.legalexaminer.com/transportation/does-adaptive-cruise-control-make-roads-more-dangerous
The gist I get is that ACC makes you more likely to speed and be distracted, but because it makes you use greater following distances and fewer lane changes (plus the fact most of the time the system brakes for you automatically even if you are distracted) the actual risk of a crash may go down regardless.
Last edited:
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
but the fart noise recall not for the noises directly, it was because it disabled another required system. I agree, we don't know.
That still makes no sense, though. Adaptive cruise is more likely to lead to inattention than 'plain' cruise, so if you're trying to argue that inattention is the problem then adaptive cruise is worse.
understood- and no one knows what Tesla is thinking. The 'plain cruise' question is clearly not a technical reason, especially since it used to exist. They could easily have a setting switch like they do other features. I think the reason is more likely a 'soft' one.
As for adaptive cruise, clearly it is more complex and difficult to fix, yet the majority of carmakers do it significantly better than Tesla. I have no idea why but it's not something that no one or only one or two makers have managed.
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
yes - one works reliably and one doesn't. That's the problem. if I'm using cruise control, by I don't care about the cars behind me (unless they're about to rear end me because my car suddenly braked.) I'm also watching traffic because I'm driving, so worrying about the car in the lane next to me really gives me nothing and if it's making the system unreliable it's giving me less than nothing.
We're not taking FSD here, were talking cruise control. I'm totally fine with FSD having bugs and not being perfect, but adaptive cruise should work.
If you don’t like how the system works then contact Tesla! Let them hear feedback.
Oh, I agree. Putting a certain group of people on ignore would be the easy solution... but watching people talk just to hear themselves can be amusing at times. And who knows? To mix metaphors perhaps the horse will eventually learn to sing. Perhaps when his/her Tesla starts to malfunction in a way that he/she doesn't like? PB doesn't affect this group so they feel free in saying (depending on which one is talking) that it either doesn't exist and is FUD spread by short sellers, or that it is a minor thing that isn't bothersome or (my favorite) Tesla's have always had PB, you should have expected that when you purchased... I will have much schadenfreude when Tesla does something that annoys the crap out of anyone in this group... and when dealing with Tesla that is almost inevitable.
Keith
PS: Best part is when different varieties of PB deniers give opposite reasons for why those of us annoyed by PB are wrong. Do the "PB is FUD" people argue with the "PB has always existed just accept it plebe" people in the background?
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
EAB will engage even if you have your foot to the floor on the accelerator, PB will never occur if you have your TACC speed set to 20 mph and are controlling vehicle speed at 60 mph with the accelerator pedal. EAB engagement is not the phantom braking most people are experiencing. You can turn off EAB (I tried this once, driving very attentively) and you will still have numerous PB events when driving at night on a two lane highway, and a few if driving in daylight conditions.
The TACC system is not a safety feature, it is a convenience feature. PB (not related to EAB) is common and inexcusable. PB that is full on EAB engagement is much more rare, and at least has the excuse of being a safety system that could save your life. I have never experienced an EAB braking event.
Having dumb cruise as an option is NOT removing a safety system.
The early Tesla model 3's that came without Auto Pilot and have dumb cruise STILL HAVE EAB!
Keith
Similar threads
