S4WRXTTCS
Well-Known Member
That means it includes stuff like seat belt pretensioners
They better not.
It's just spirited driving when the seatbelt hugs you.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That means it includes stuff like seat belt pretensioners
The car has cameras built into it....Because I am not a YouTuber and am not going to record, edit and post. Tesla knows about the issue. I don’t see it as my responsibility to put myself in harm’s way to record for folks online. I just don’t use it if there are no cars around. For me, phantom braking only occurs when there are no cars around and the Tesla has to rely 100% on its own “vision” with no “help” from other objects.
The seat belt pretensioners are explosive devices and need to be replaced after being used. Different than whatever the mechanism is that locks the belt during hard braking.They better not.
It's just spirited driving when the seatbelt hugs you.
As another pointed out the seat belt pretensioners are part of the crash module, the triggers are not the same as the ones that pull the belt in for sporty driving (I don't think that Tesla has that function anyways, my Model 3 certainly doesn't).They better not.
It's just spirited driving when the seatbelt hugs you.
Not really, speeds below 15mph have low risk. They increase rapidly after that.I like how everyone quotes one part of my post without quoting the other part which quotes exactly what you're quoting. You are correct of course, there is a narrow set of cases where a seatbelt pretensioner will go off. but not airbags. But just like Tesla says, this is about 12 MPH- Plenty of accidents occur when the vehicle velocities are below this, and serious damage occurs at this velocity (especially if what you hit was a person).
Well the argument is over if the report data includes rear end accidents (no matter the cause), and it clearly does. Sure, it doesn't break down the exact cause, but we don't really need to know that, given no matter the reason (whether from AP false positive or not), the prevalence of accidents overall is way lower than the NHTSA average (which may be underreported in the first place). Plus as a sanity check, the overall prevalence of rear end accidents according to NHTSA is around 32-33% of all accidents (depending on year), so it's not like Tesla's data is an outlier in terms of ratio to other accidents.Cool. So they should be able to tell us why those rear end accidents happened. But they don't, so we have no idea one way or another.
But now I am really interested what passive devices deploy when a Tesla is rear-ended.
And I'm reminded that when a Tesla on AP gets into an accident, we blame the driver for not paying enough attention, and we should all know it needs constant monitoring to avoid accidents, everyone knows that because the manual says so. But then when we suggest it could cause an accident, it's dismissed.
Actually it says all these are D (bold emphasis mine):All I know is that that NHTSA's ISO 26262 FHA for braking systems assigns ASIL-D (literally the most severe level) to unintended braking (page 49) but I guess we should dismiss those safety experts, clearly it's no big deal, it just startles people. When Tesla does it, it's level QM because the manual says pay attention.
Ahh, the scientific Forbes article that says it's "low" with no numbers at all. The title is kind of hilarious for your argument as well- "In Crashes, Low Driving Speed Can Cause Serious Injury and Death to Pedestrians, Report Finds"Not really, speeds below 15mph have low risk. They increase rapidly after that.
It's not.the prevalence of accidents overall is way lower than the NHTSA average (which may be underreported in the first place)
Did I say it was only unintended deceleration?Actually it says all these are D (bold emphasis mine):
This is kind of a hilarious defense of a immature system. Tesla still doesn't trust forward facing cameras as much as radar, but they might be using a rearward facing, monocular camera to decide if they should brake for an estimated forward collision in case it may cause a rear end accident? Yet they can't avoid summoning of a ledge?That's why there's the discussion above about if Tesla is using the rear facing cameras to detect if there is a risk of being rear ended.
I'm just pointing out an example, there are other papers you can find with more detailed data if you look for it. And this is straying very far from the original topic, which is serious injuries/damage from phantom braking. I think it's be sufficiently demonstrated that the AP data Tesla has published so far is enough to cover that. I don't really think there are many if any scenarios where phantom braking will cause you to hit a pedestrian below 12mph.Ahh, the scientific Forbes article that says it's "low" with no numbers at all. The title is kind of hilarious for your argument as well- "In Crashes, Low Driving Speed Can Cause Serious Injury and Death to Pedestrians, Report Finds"
Are you willing to let someone hit you with a car at 15MPH?
There's discussion elsewhere, but one big difference with Tesla's AP is that it can be used (and is regularly used) on all roads, not just highways. It's not like ones like Supercruise that lock you to specific roads.It's not.
Tesla compares cars on AP (which are on the highway) to the overall rate of all cars on all roads.
Tesla provides the data with AP off also and it's significantly lower than the NHTSA average (which given we know the rear end proportions are basically the same 35% vs 32-33%, we know the rear end prevalence is also just as low by the same proportion). That shows AP doesn't push the rear-end risk average over the general average from NHTSA stats. Sure, it'll be nicer if Tesla breaks down the data further by road type, but for this particular discussion it's not necessary.We have zero data on Tesla on AP to Tesla's not on AP in exactly the same conditions, which is the only data that matters.
You didn't, but you said it was the "highest rating" so it's misleading to not point out other factors, which Tesla may be balancing also.Did I say it was only unintended deceleration?
Well we don't know that at the moment. People haven't pointed out if they were following a car or not or if a car was following them or not. As for trusting a particular camera, as we saw in the previous discussions it's all a matter of range and confidence levels, it's not an on/off determination (same with the amount of deceleration being applied, there are different amounts that can be applied, that can be adjusted based on detection: it's not an on/off thing). For the front, the car has to also determine if there is any object or barrier that it might hit (not just cars), for the back it only has to determine if there is a car approaching, so the task is not the same.This is kind of a hilarious defense of a immature system. Tesla still doesn't trust forward facing cameras as much as radar, but they might be using a rearward facing, monocular camera to decide if they should brake for an estimated forward collision in case it may cause a rear end accident? Yet they can't avoid summoning of a ledge?
The clear reason it doesn't brake in traffic (if true at all) is that it locks on the car ahead, it has nothing to do with a car behind.
So strange that everyone is having different experiences. My vision Y picks up pedestrians quickly, not sure about bikes. And in about 1500 miles, mostly on freeway, I haven't had any phantom breaking that couldn't be explained by a car merging in while I was in the slow lane. I wonder if there is some kind of HW variation, or the cameras aren't aligning correctly in some cars.I will say my no radar Y rarely shows cyclists or pedestrians. My radar X is MUCH better at that. Even when someone stands right in front of the car, the Y takes a long time to show them. Very unsettling.
I will say my no radar Y rarely shows cyclists or pedestrians. My radar X is MUCH better at that. Even when someone stands right in front of the car, the Y takes a long time to show them. Very unsettling.
There's got to be something else going on here that is either being missed or not reported.So strange that everyone is having different experiences. My vision Y picks up pedestrians quickly, not sure about bikes. And in about 1500 miles, mostly on freeway, I haven't had any phantom breaking that couldn't be explained by a car merging in while I was in the slow lane. I wonder if there is some kind of HW variation, or the cameras aren't aligning correctly in some cars.
I agree, that's why I'm wondering if there is enough variation in the HW or camera calibration to explain it. Some report lots of issues, and other none. It seems like there's no middle ground. Normally only see this when there are variations in how the HW is setup or the how the user uses it (I'm a software engineer in Aviation).There's got to be something else going on here that is either being missed or not reported.
Just seems odd to have such diverging experiences.
And this is why Neural Networks non-observable code are such a hot topic in aviation. They're very hard to understand where small variations cause big changes.I'm a software engineer in Aviation
I wouldn't think it would be possible, just the no dead code would probably prevent it. I'm amazed at what they have been able to do so far, and hope they can reach L4 (I don't think L5 will be possible in the near future).How would you go about certifying Tesla Vision to DO-178 DAL B?
It will be very interesting to see how Tesla and the rest of automotive goes and demonstrates these safety critical, ASIL-D (DAL-A) systems are acceptably safe, while having to use a completely new path, since as you say, historical methods won't work. It's going to be such an enormous leap from L2 to L3+, and there isn't a lot of data that Tesla's following any kind of structured development path that is focused on proving acceptable safety. The constant changes in vehicle configuration show a very early stage of development in this area.I wouldn't think it would be possible, just the no dead code would probably prevent it. I'm amazed at what they have been able to do so far, and hope they can reach L4 (I don't think L5 will be possible in the near future).
Agreed, and that's the part I don't see them getting. I think there will always be some corner cases that aren't covered, but hopefully I'm wrongit's just more areas where the vehicle can go autonomously
some training we all got at work was iso26262 and the asil ratings. there's at least one person in our extended group who has many years of doing safety critical analysis of car designs. and we rely on that person a lot, since most code writing engineers know only a little about this safety coding stuff.It will be very interesting to see how Tesla and the rest of automotive goes and demonstrates these safety critical, ASIL-D (DAL-A) systems are acceptably safe, while having to use a completely new path, since as you say, historical methods won't work. It's going to be such an enormous leap from L2 to L3+, and there isn't a lot of data that Tesla's following any kind of structured development path that is focused on proving acceptable safety. The constant changes in vehicle configuration show a very early stage of development in this area.
which is an issue in Germany as the competition has no issues running their lane-keep assist up to 180kmh (or even higher)...Actually the AP/FSD in Europe is limited to 150 km/h