SF Bay Accident Surveillance Footage

Exclusive: Surveillance Footage of Tesla Crash on SF’s Bay Bridge Hours After Elon Musk Announces “Self-Driving” Feature — The Intercept

Musk has said Tesla’s problematic autopilot features are “really the difference between Tesla being worth a lot of money or worth basically zero.”

apple.news

 

[Matias]

Yes. Was the driver sleeping?

Edit; if AP would have disengaged because of no input from the driver, I guess the hazard signal would be on?

But I don’t understand why the driver doesn’t do anything.

 

[Matias]

“ He was driving V-1 on I-80 eastbound in FulSelf Driving Mode Beta Version traveling at approximately 55 miles per hour.Priorto the Yerba Buena Islnd tunnel entrance 10 V-1 moved from the #1 lane to the #2 lane. When V-1 was in the tunnel, V-1 moved from the #2 lane into 11 the #1 lane and started slowing down unaccountably. When V-1 was about 20 miles per hour, he felt a rear impact.”

Edit; I removed the line numbers (9 and 12) from the copy paste.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Tbart66]

No idea regarding the details as it is being investigated. They do no it was on AP, but so agree why didn’t the driver take over. Phantom braking has happened to me but I immediately take over and hit the accelerator.

 

[LoudMusic]

Exclusive: Surveillance Footage of Tesla Crash on SF’s Bay Bridge Hours After Elon Musk Announces “Self-Driving” Feature — The Intercept

Musk has said Tesla’s problematic autopilot features are “really the difference between Tesla being worth a lot of money or worth basically zero.”

apple.news

"Musk has said Tesla’s problematic autopilot features are “really the difference between Tesla being worth a lot of money or worth basically zero.”"

Correction: The difference between a lot and zero lies squarely with Musk's ability to shut his mouth.

 

[Tbart66]

V9 Beta?? V9 goes back to August 2021.

 

[Matias]

V9 Beta?? V9 goes back to August 2021.

Sorry, I made a mistake when copy pasting. 9 is line number in the file. I remove it.

 

[RTPEV]

V9 Beta?? V9 goes back to August 2021.

"9" was just the line number from the document

 

[Dewg]

“ He was driving V-1 on I-80 eastbound in FulSelf Driving Mode Beta Version traveling at approximately 55 miles per hour.Priorto the Yerba Buena Islnd tunnel entrance 10 V-1 moved from the #1 lane to the #2 lane. When V-1 was in the tunnel, V-1 moved from the #2 lane into 11 the #1 lane and started slowing down unaccountably. When V-1 was about 20 miles per hour, he felt a rear 12 impact.”

Edit; I removed the line number (9) from the copy paste.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

23 P-1 stated V-1 was in Full Self Driving mode at the time of the crash, I am unable to verify if V-1’s Full
24 Self-Driving Capability was active at the time of the crash. On 11/24/2022, the latest Tesla Full Self
25 Driving Beta Version was 11 and is classified as SAE Intenational Level 2. SAE International Level2 is
26 not classified as an autonomous vehicle. Under Level 2 classification, the human in the driver seat must
27 constantly supervise support features including steering, braking, or accelerating as needed to maintain
28 safety. If the Full Self Driving Capability software malfunctioned, P-1 should of manually taken control of
29 V-1 by over-riding the Full Self Driving Capability feature.

This is the crux of the matter - curious how this statement in the officer's report will affect the outcome.

 

[RTPEV]

Thing is, if this had been a non-Tesla vehicle that had some kind of emergency (blown tire) and needed to stop in a hurry in the same type of fashion, would this have made the headlines that it did?

I'm not trying to give FSD a pass here if it did do something stupid (although the driver, who failed to take evasive action should be held accountable), but it also seems that the following cars also bear some of the responsibility as well for not being able to stop in time (acknowledging that yes, we all drive like that these days).

 

[Tam]

Thing is, if this had been a non-Tesla vehicle that had some kind of emergency (blown tire) and needed to stop in a hurry in the same type of fashion, would this have made the headlines that it did?

I'm not trying to give FSD a pass here if it did do something stupid (although the driver, who failed to take evasive action should be held accountable), but it also seems that the following cars also bear some of the responsibility as well for not being able to stop in time (acknowledging that yes, we all drive like that these days).

I think it has something to do with money.

If I pay for a run flat tire, but it is doesn't act like one, that's problematic.

Similarly, I paid for Swiss cheese and it has absolutely no holes!

Same scenario for paying FSD and it just keeps doing things that could get owners into troubles.

If there’s no FSD to pay, then there would not be a headline.

 

[Enginerd]

Driver was responsible for controlling the vehicle. Stopping from highway speed, in the middle of a lane change, in a dark tunnel... is a pretty despicable move.

 

[2101Guy]

Thing is, if this had been a non-Tesla vehicle that had some kind of emergency (blown tire) and needed to stop in a hurry in the same type of fashion, would this have made the headlines that it did?

I'm not trying to give FSD a pass here if it did do something stupid (although the driver, who failed to take evasive action should be held accountable), but it also seems that the following cars also bear some of the responsibility as well for not being able to stop in time (acknowledging that yes, we all drive like that these days).

What other carmaker is bragging as much about how great and safer than humans their driver assist features are?

What other car makers CEO is on twitter being political and possibly quietly angering regulators who are on the left and like fauci for example.

These things and more…are the answer to your question.

 

[ElectricEel]

I hope this is it. I hope this is the fire that lights tesla ass to fix phantom breaking. I feel awful for the people that were injured but thankfully no one is dead and I hope none of the injuries are life long. For whatever reason Tesla didn’t feel the need to fix phantom breaking and from reports of “vision only” it’s only worse.

 

[helvio]

23 P-1 stated V-1 was in Full Self Driving mode at the time of the crash, I am unable to verify if V-1’s Full
24 Self-Driving Capability was active at the time of the crash. On 11/24/2022, the latest Tesla Full Self
25 Driving Beta Version was 11 and is classified as SAE Intenational Level 2. SAE International Level2 is
26 not classified as an autonomous vehicle. Under Level 2 classification, the human in the driver seat must
27 constantly supervise support features including steering, braking, or accelerating as needed to maintain
28 safety. If the Full Self Driving Capability software malfunctioned, P-1 should of manually taken control of
29 V-1 by over-riding the Full Self Driving Capability feature.

This is the crux of the matter - curious how this statement in the officer's report will affect the outcome.

This. Everything else is FUD.

 

[Mardak]

“He was driving V-1 on I-80 eastbound in Full Self-Driving Mode Beta Version traveling at approximately 55 miles per hour. Prior to the Yerba Buena Island tunnel entrance V-1 moved from the #1 lane to the #2 lane. When V-1 was in the tunnel, V-1 moved from the #2 lane into the #1 lane and started slowing down unaccountably. When V-1 was about 20 miles per hour, he felt a rear impact.”

If this was indeed on FSD Beta, I'm not surprised by the slowing down. Eastbound traffic is on the lower deck of the tunnel, and there's multiple roads on the island surface that cross and line up with this interstate traffic:

Notably, the T-intersection at Forest Rd has a stop sign, so FSD Beta slowing down for a potential intersection to confirm visually if there's actually traffic control. Probably doesn't help that GPS in the tunnel/underground is probably inaccurate, so normally on the interstate, it's legacy Navigate on Autopilot stack, but if it believes it was on the surface city street, it would have switched to FSD Beta.

Of course, the driver should have overridden the slowdown as it's just a driver assistance system.

 

[Mullermn]

What other carmaker is bragging as much about how great and safer than humans their driver assist features are?

Statistics fail. It’s entirely possible for Tesla assistance features to be massively safer than human drivers and cause a crash.

How many human drivers do you think caused crashes on the day this one happened?

 

[RTPEV]

Statistics fail. It’s entirely possible for Tesla assistance features to be massively safer than human drivers and cause a crash.

How many human drivers do you think caused crashes on the day this one happened?

This is an important consideration, as is the number of accidents that were actually AVOIDED because of Tesla driver assistance features. We obviously don't get reports on those non-incidents.

 

[Mardak]

Curiously, the Summary/Cause section mentions:

In any event, V-1’s left signal activated, V-1’s brakes activated and V-1 moved into the #1 lane slowing to a stop. P-2 observed V-1 stopping and applied V-2's brakes. V-1 made an unsafe lane change (21658(a) California Vehicle Code) and was slowing to a stop directly into V-2's path of travel.​

So it seems like if FSD Beta was active, its maneuver presumably resulted in a ticket for unsafe lane change 21658(a):

21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:​

(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.​

I suppose was it "unsafe" because it resulted in a crash before the vehicle completed the lane change? Although looking at the turn signal, it seems to have been ended before the impact as the vehicle had already crossed the dashed dividing line, so the lane change itself was completed safely although with unnecessary slowing down:

 

[Tam]

I suppose was it "unsafe" because it resulted in a crash before the vehicle completed the lane change?

That is obvious. If the driver was wreckless in a lane change but was able to maintain the traffic flow speed, there would be no accident and there would be no accusation of "unsafe" lane change.

Although looking at the turn signal, it seems to have been ended before the impact as the vehicle had already crossed the dashed dividing line, so the lane change itself was completed safely although with unnecessary slowing down:

There's an argument that as long the car in front is entirely within the lane (after a wreckless lane change), it's the fault of others who could not brake in time as presented by the New York Times (Paywall):

Can Tesla Data Help Us Understand Car Crashes?

This is today in https://www.nytimes.com/ Video : https://vp.nyt.com/video/2022/08/16/101991_1_tesla-crash-hp-promo_wg_720p.mp4 We had a similar situation with our Model Y. While in Self Driving on I95 in South Carolina, the car braked hard because there was a car stopped on the left grass...

teslamotorsclub.com

However, I still would argue that's an unsafe lane change because the lane-changing car disrupted the traffic flow of that destination lane which is no different from brake checking. In the New York Times case, the traffic flow was 77 MPH and the Tesla Auto Lane changed out of then into that lane and slowed down to 55 MPH and resulting in a rear-end collision.