Phantom Braking

[Knightshade]

Agreed. Same with steering wheel weights.

Someone needs to PROVE they are dangerous

Again you reply to me, about a thing I never said.

I'm sorry dude you're not my type, and stalking ain't attractive.

 

[sleepydoc]

If there's no accidents it's not a SAFETY problem. It's not DANGEROUS as some folks have said

Safety: the quality of averting or not causing injury, danger, or loss.

Dangerous: Able or likely to cause harm or injury

Note that neither of these words requires an actual injury to occur. Arguing that it’s not dangerous or a safety problem simply because no accidents have been documented is akin to arguing that you don’t need a baby gate on the stairs because your toddler hasn’t fallen down the stairs yet. I can hear the arguments in your household now:

Mrs. Knightshade: We need to get a baby gate for the stairs now that Junior is walking.
Mr. Knightshade: No we don’t need to.
Mrs. Knightshade: But it’s not safe!
Mr. Knightshade: Junior hasn’t gotten hurt so it’s not dangerous or a safety problem.

The absence of a bad outcome is not indicative of safety.

Beyond that, what’s the entire point of your argument? should we wait until there’s a documented accident to fix the problem because then it will be ‘dangerous?’ Or are you trying to argue that it’s not a problem at all because it’s not dangerous in your opinion?

 

[DrGriz]

Safety: the quality of averting or not causing injury, danger, or loss.

Dangerous: Able or likely to cause harm or injury

Note that neither of these words requires an actual injury to occur. Arguing that it’s not dangerous or a safety problem simply because no accidents have been documented is akin to arguing that you don’t need a baby gate on the stairs because your toddler hasn’t fallen down the stairs yet. I can hear the arguments in your household now:

Mrs. Knightshade: We need to get a baby gate for the stairs now that Junior is walking.
Mr. Knightshade: No we don’t need to.
Mrs. Knightshade: But it’s not safe!
Mr. Knightshade: Junior hasn’t gotten hurt so it’s not dangerous or a safety problem.

The absence of a bad outcome is not indicative of safety.

Beyond that, what’s the entire point of your argument? should we wait until there’s a documented accident to fix the problem because then it will be ‘dangerous?’ Or are you trying to argue that it’s not a problem at all because it’s not dangerous in your opinion?

If no baby ever in recorded history had ever fallen down the stairs, would the absence of a baby gate still be unsafe?

Please discuss.

Just kidding. Carry on.

 

[CyberGus]

If hard braking results in a collision, I would argue that the driver behind you is the unsafe one

 

[powertoold]

I get plenty of phantom braking with 10.69.2.2 on rural-type highways going 75mph+ when there are cars (esp. trucks) far away in front of me (at the limit of the visualization).

 

[drtimhill]

I get plenty of phantom braking with 10.69.2.2 on rural-type highways going 75mph+ when there are cars (esp. trucks) far away in front of me (at the limit of the visualization).

Dont any of you guys have cameras? Or phones with cameras? If it's as bad as you say it should be easy to capture the car showing a phantom pedestrian or similar popping up on the screen when the car brakes.

 

[DrGriz]

If hard braking results in a collision, I would argue that the driver behind you is the unsafe one

Certainly the one legally liable. But that's not really the question.

Thing is, whether it meets some threshold of safe or not, if it is happening irrationally and unexpectedly, then most (all?) of us would agree that PB is definitely an undesirable state.

Nobody wants PB. You can also say that when it occurs, the driver is no longer in control of their vehicle. One then has to regain control. That can't be acceptable.

 

[Knightshade]

Safety: the quality of averting or not causing injury, danger, or loss.

Dangerous: Able or likely to cause harm or injury

Note that neither of these words requires an actual injury to occur.

No, but they require evidence it's likely or able to cause harm.... or evidence it causes injury danger or loss


Of which 0 evidence has been presented despite 3 million plus of these cars on the road.

So 100% of available evidence suggests the "danger" is only in the mind of the person to whom the braking is unexpected, but does not actually cause accidents at all

This will be an ongoing thing with self driving cars of all ilk for a while- unexpected behavior will be perceived as dangerous even when demonstrably not. In contrast we have tons of evidence of Teslas systems preventing accidents by reacting faster than a human, or to things the human failed to perceive immediately.


I didn't bother replying to the rest of your silly rambling since it's more of the same (ie a baby gate makes sense because we have actual evidence babies fall down stairs-- if instead we have a history of millions (billions) of babies, and 0 of them ever had an accident due to a lack of a gate in all known records- then yes a baby gate WOULD be silly... but that's not the case at all)

 

[ApexProxy]

If you slammed on your brakes for no reason at all other than you felt like it on the freeway and you were hit, you would very likely be held liable as you created a hazard for no reason. Sure the other driver would likely be ticketed for being too close as well but you would likely be insurance liable since you were the direct cause. There are huge numbers of this exact scenario and result if you disagree, I watch a LOT of accident recordings (too many maybe).

That being said, just because it has never happened before is the worst possible logic for it not being possible. The world is full of firsts. I'd rather my car not try it's best to be the first.

 

[rjpjnk]

Safety: the quality of averting or not causing injury, danger, or loss.

Dangerous: Able or likely to cause harm or injury

Note that neither of these words requires an actual injury to occur. Arguing that it’s not dangerous or a safety problem simply because no accidents have been documented is akin to arguing that you don’t need a baby gate on the stairs because your toddler hasn’t fallen down the stairs yet. I can hear the arguments in your household now:

Win (so far)

 

[2101Guy]

No, but they require evidence it's likely or able to cause harm.... or evidence it causes injury danger or loss


Of which 0 evidence has been presented despite 3 million plus of these cars on the road.

So 100% of available evidence suggests the "danger" is only in the mind of the person to whom the braking is unexpected, but does not actually cause accidents at all

This will be an ongoing thing with self driving cars of all ilk for a while- unexpected behavior will be perceived as dangerous even when demonstrably not. In contrast we have tons of evidence of Teslas systems preventing accidents by reacting faster than a human, or to things the human failed to perceive immediately.


I didn't bother replying to the rest of your silly rambling since it's more of the same (ie a baby gate makes sense because we have actual evidence babies fall down stairs-- if instead we have a history of millions (billions) of babies, and 0 of them ever had an accident due to a lack of a gate in all known records- then yes a baby gate WOULD be silly... but that's not the case at all)

Nope. As much as I hate to admit it, sleepydoc won this one. You lost.

Try again on another topic.

Next!

 

[Knightshade]

Nope. As much as I hate to admit it, sleepydoc won this one. You lost.

Try again on another topic.

Next!

Your agreeing with him is perhaps the surest possible guarantee I was right, thanks!

 

[CyberGus]

If you slammed on your brakes for no reason at all other than you felt like it on the freeway and you were hit, you would very likely be held liable as you created a hazard for no reason. Sure the other driver would likely be ticketed for being too close as well but you would likely be insurance liable since you were the direct cause.

For once, California and Texas agree on something:

If I get into a California rear-end collision with another vehicle, and the other vehicle is the one that rear-ended my car, is there anyway I could be found at fault?

Under California law, if someone hits you from behind, the accident is virtually always that driver's fault, regardless of the reason you stopped.

www.blanelaw.com

In Texas, Is a Rear-End Accident Automatically the Fault of the Driver Who Hit the Other?

Find out how fault is determined in rear-end accidents. Let Anderson Injury Lawyers help determine fault in your case to recover compensation. Call 817-294-1900 today.

maafirm.com

I can find no references where the front vehicle was found liable in a rear-end collision simply for braking.

 

[drtimhill]

This is same as those who allege steering wheel weights cause deaths when used with AP.

Show the evidence of that, too.

Irrelevant and totally different. The point with PB is that a whole bunch of people (including me) are using AP/TACC/FSDbeta without PB being a problem. Those who are seeing PB claim (a) its happening a LOT, (b) its very aggressive and (c) that its therefore very dangerous. Since it's these people making a claim, it is for them to back this up with evidence. This evidence may well exist, and they may indeed be right. However, I've not seen much, if any, evidence presented here. If PB is so violent and so common, where are the YouTube videos? What, quantitatively, is the occurrence of these issues across the fleet? What percentage of the PB events are truly phantom, versus the car spotting something the human missed?

Let's face it, people exaggerate, or engage in (possibly unintentional) confirmation bias, or try to extrapolate from an isolated case to an entire class. I'm not saying anyone is doing that here, but if PB was indeed as widespread as some of the posters here claim we very probably WOULD have seen a LOT of crashes caused by PB. And to @Knightshade 's point, where are they all?

Of course, when there is a possible danger, you DO lower the bar of evidence since safety comes first .. but the bar isnt so low that you rush into panic action based on a few unresearched claims.


The case of steering wheel weights is of course very different. Here, someone had MODIFIED the car to change its behavior, with an implicit claim that it was safe to do that. It is up to the person making that claim to prove that the modification is safe.

 

[drtimhill]

If you slammed on your brakes for no reason at all other than you felt like it on the freeway and you were hit, you would very likely be held liable as you created a hazard for no reason.

This is very dubious reasoning, and in most jurisdictions that is not the case. The reasoning is very simple. The LAST thing you want is to make a driver NOT slam on the brakes when they think they should .. such a split-second pause cause be very dangerous. Sure, brake-checking is abominable, and when clearly deliberate the perpetrator should be charged. But as others have noted in ALL cases the assumption is that you should always be far enough back from anyone so that you CAN stop in time. (And isnt that what AEB is precisely for???).

 

[sleepydoc]

If no baby ever in recorded history had ever fallen down the stairs, would the absence of a baby gate still be unsafe?

Please discuss.

Just kidding. Carry on.

It's a valid question - the main point I was making was that absence of injury does not prove safety. Note that the converse is also true - an accident is not proof that something is unsafe. Safety is not a black or white condition. It's an assessment of risk, the degree and severity of the likely outcomes, and the alternatives. As another example, Evil Knievel jumped snake canyon and lived. Does that mean it was safe?

if you extend my baby gate analogy, this would be the equivalent of seeing the baby toddling close to the edge on several occasions and a parent intervening before anything happened. No the baby didn't fall down the stairs but it was close and something would have happened without intervention. Would you consider it prudent to continue without a baby gate in this case?

If hard braking results in a collision, I would argue that the driver behind you is the unsafe one

This is very dubious reasoning, and in most jurisdictions that is not the case. The reasoning is very simple. The LAST thing you want is to make a driver NOT slam on the brakes when they think they should .. such a split-second pause cause be very dangerous. Sure, brake-checking is abominable, and when clearly deliberate the perpetrator should be charged. But as others have noted in ALL cases the assumption is that you should always be far enough back from anyone so that you CAN stop in time. (And isnt that what AEB is precisely for???).

In general the driver of the rear car is at fault, but in most states, brake checking is also illegal as is unnecessarily driving less than 45 MPH on an interstate. If you needlessly slow down for no reason you could also be charged with creating a hazardous condition. The point and concern here is that phantom braking is a defect in Tesla's adaptive cruise control system that needlessly creates an unsafe situation with the potential to cause accidents, even if they are technically the other driver's fault.

 

[sleepydoc]

No, but they require evidence it's likely or able to cause harm.... or evidence it causes injury danger or loss


Of which 0 evidence has been presented despite 3 million plus of these cars on the road.

So 100% of available evidence suggests the "danger" is only in the mind of the person to whom the braking is unexpected, but does not actually cause accidents at all

This will be an ongoing thing with self driving cars of all ilk for a while- unexpected behavior will be perceived as dangerous even when demonstrably not. In contrast we have tons of evidence of Teslas systems preventing accidents by reacting faster than a human, or to things the human failed to perceive immediately.


I didn't bother replying to the rest of your silly rambling since it's more of the same (ie a baby gate makes sense because we have actual evidence babies fall down stairs-- if instead we have a history of millions (billions) of babies, and 0 of them ever had an accident due to a lack of a gate in all known records- then yes a baby gate WOULD be silly... but that's not the case at all)

Actually, there are several first hand reports of imminent collisions that were averted by the Tesla driver intervening. You choose to ignore them because they don't support your case but they are clear evidence. Beyond that, 'evidence' is not required to say something is unsafe. What is required is critical thinking. I'm a physician. If one of my patients is injured because I didn't take a prudent precaution and I tried to justify my inaction by saying "there were no reports of injuries" do you really think any sane jury would fall for it?

again, you failed to answer the final point of my previous post:

What’s the entire point of your argument? should we wait until there’s a documented accident to fix the problem because then it will be ‘dangerous?’ Or are you trying to argue that it’s not a problem at all because it’s not dangerous in your opinion? Or are you just so fixated on being right about it not 'causing' an accident that other facets of the problem have fallen by the wayside?

 

[Knightshade]

It's a valid question - the main point I was making was that absence of injury does not prove safety.

But the absence of accidents does.

Especially across millions of cars, driven billions of miles.

We know flying is the safest way to travel by comparing the rate of accidents to other forms of travel.

This specific thing we're discussing appears to have caused zero accidents

Which is kind of the opposite of dangerous.

Actually, there are several first hand reports of imminent collisions

And zero... ever...of actual collisions

If it was actually dangerous there would be accidents

I'm not sure where you're getting lost on this fact.

. If one of my patients is injured

Except nobody has been injured.

Ever.

Again which part of that do you not understand?

What’s the entire point of your argument?

That the only place the danger exists is in yours (and several others here) imagination.

All actual evidence available shows no support for this nonsensical claim.

You'd think as a "doctor" you'd care about empirical evidence...but apparently not so much.

 

[Mark II]

If PB is so violent and so common, where are the YouTube videos?

Did you actually go to YouTube and type in "Tesla Phantom Braking"? I see *many* videos dating back *many* years.

Here is one with an accident:

PB + rain = accident.

This one the person starts recording to show the problem, wait less than 2 minutes before it happened again:

 

[CyberGus]

Smoke alarms can alert when there’s no fire, burglar alarms can go off when there’s no burglar, and AEB can brake when there’s nothing there. These systems are not defective, they are experiencing false triggers. Every detection system is susceptible to them.

Tesla can and should make incremental improvements to reduce the error rate, but the only way to eliminate PB 100% is to cover all the cameras with tape.