WARNING: I rear-ended someone today while using Auto Pilot in my brand new P90D!

[schonelucht]

The difference is one of us is actually using logical reasoning, the other is not. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which is which.

....

And again, the driver is in complete control of the vehicle at all times.

Maybe for now but not for much longer. In fact there is already the summoning functionality where the driver is not behind the wheel anymore. There will be time, and it is going to be really sooner rather than later where we can't reasonable continue to say that the car's behavior is the full responsibility of the driver.

 

[Max*]

Why do people write their name below their post? Where and Why is this a thing? Your name/account is CLEARLY indicated in the box to the left of the Post Window......

Shawn....................................................

I don't understand...

-Max

- - - Updated - - -

the sight of my misfortune apparently triggering a dopamine response of his own.

I can't stand people who enjoy others misery.

Sorry back on topic. Umn... umn... I got nothing else to add.

- - - Updated - - -

"I'm calling my cousin," he said, getting back into his car to escape the cold.

Did he want to call his cousin Jinny to come and break some kneecaps?

 

[edwolb]

A car crash is NOT an accident. Close to 99% are due to stupidity on the part of one or more people operating 4000 lb deadly weapons in an irresponsible way.

Each year in the U.S. nearly 5,000 people who are on foot are killed by people driving cars. 92% of these are completely the fault of the driver. Over 700 people riding bicycles are killed by people driving cars each year in the U.S. (about 55% are the fault of the driver, 20% the fault of the bicycle rider, and 25% no fault determined).

Today in the U.S. about 12 people will be killed by people driving cars. Should these drivers not beat themselves up over killing someone? Are we so callous that killing someone or their mother or their child is nothing to be concerned about? These are not accidents.

An "accident" simply means its unintentional. Most accidents are preventable, but it doesn't make them not accidents.

 

[Just a Reader]

There are a bunch of self righteous drivers here.
Everone else's tips ARE great, but when "some" belittle the guy like he's a child it gets a bit much.
TAKE THE OP's POST AS ITS MEANT.
The TACC in his case didn't work and it didn't emergency stop!!.. HEADS UP, it happened to him and it could happen to you.
Geez

Right. I certainly admire the saint-like patience and self-control of the OP in his responses to these posts.
Anyway, after reading this thread if I were a regulator I would consider banning these assistance systems. As the driver has to monitor the traffic as if he were driving himself these systems apparently only add another layer of distraction, as he has to monitor their operation as well. Then he is required to take over all of a sudden in a difficult situation.
Whatever Tesla may write in its instructions, real life doesn't work like that. Once people are familiar with the system and sufficiently confident that it works they will start to do other things: read books, yak on the phone, apply make up, rummage in some bag, whatever. Do I have to point out those pilots who both fell asleep on the flight deck during the flight?
Additionally, we may start to see drivers being less and less able to take over from the automatic systems. I've read about concerns that even commercial pilots are increasingly lacking confidence to fly an airliner manually. Think about those pilots who managed to crash an airworthy plane after the auto-pilot disengaged, e.g. the Air France flight from Brazil to Paris.

 

[Max*]

Right. I certainly admire the saint-like patience and self-control of the OP in his responses to these posts.
Anyway, after reading this thread if I were a regulator I would consider banning these assistance systems. As the driver has to monitor the traffic as if he were driving himself these systems apparently only add another layer of distraction, as he has to monitor their operation as well. Then he is required to take over all of a sudden in a difficult situation.
Whatever Tesla may write in its instructions, real life doesn't work like that. Once people are familiar with the system and sufficiently confident that it works they will start to do other things: read books, yak on the phone, apply make up, rummage in some bag, whatever. Do I have to point out those pilots who both fell asleep on the flight deck during the flight?
Additionally, we may start to see drivers being less and less able to take over from the automatic systems. I've read about concerns that even commercial pilots are increasingly lacking confidence to fly an airliner manually. Think about those pilots who managed to crash an airworthy plane after the auto-pilot disengaged, e.g. the Air France flight from Brazil to Paris.

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree.

AP will save lives. People do stupid things while driving anyways -- ever seen people shaving? reading a newspaper across the steering wheel? putting on makeup? texting? turning around to pick up things for their kids? etc. etc. etc.

What do you think is safer in those situation? No AP or yes AP? Obviously if the person is doing those things anyways, AP is much safer. Major win for AP.

Now, lets look at the regular situation. A person gets complacent due to trusting AP too much. AP works 99.999% of the time, so in these cases if the person doesn't react fast enough he'll get into an accident. Minor loss for AP, because if AP didn't exist that person wouldn't have been complacent.

I'll take a major win over a minor loss everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. AP will never be perfect. Neither will autonomous driving. But AP will be better than most drivers. And autonomous driving will be better than AP. With each iteration approaching full autonomy, the number of accidents will decrease.


So yeah, I'll take a few additional potential accidents with AP, in order to save a lot of potential accidents with drivers doing stupid things without AP.

 

[scott jones]

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree.

AP will save lives. People do stupid things while driving anyways -- ever seen people shaving? reading a newspaper across the steering wheel? putting on makeup? texting? turning around to pick up things for their kids? etc. etc. etc.

What do you think is safer in those situation? No AP or yes AP? Obviously if the person is doing those things anyways, AP is much safer. Major win for AP.

.

. My bet is, people are NOT "already doing these things anyway." Or at least to a much lesser extent.
with AP, TACC and lets just throw in radar and scuba for fun, more WILL start doing things while driving in the car they haven't done before or to the same extent.

have a good weekend!

 

[MorrisonHiker]

That is helpful. I always thought it was Ms. Now=)

Dave

Same here! I always read it as Ms. Now until he signed his post Mike...so then I figured it was Mike Snow.

 

[jeffro01]

Right. I certainly admire the saint-like patience and self-control of the OP in his responses to these posts.
Anyway, after reading this thread if I were a regulator I would consider banning these assistance systems. As the driver has to monitor the traffic as if he were driving himself these systems apparently only add another layer of distraction, as he has to monitor their operation as well. Then he is required to take over all of a sudden in a difficult situation.
Whatever Tesla may write in its instructions, real life doesn't work like that. Once people are familiar with the system and sufficiently confident that it works they will start to do other things: read books, yak on the phone, apply make up, rummage in some bag, whatever. Do I have to point out those pilots who both fell asleep on the flight deck during the flight?
Additionally, we may start to see drivers being less and less able to take over from the automatic systems. I've read about concerns that even commercial pilots are increasingly lacking confidence to fly an airliner manually. Think about those pilots who managed to crash an airworthy plane after the auto-pilot disengaged, e.g. the Air France flight from Brazil to Paris.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong and I couldn't possibly disagree more than I do. I ride a motorcycle a lot in the summertime and in CA lane splitting is legal (riding between the cards down the lane markers) and the behavior I see on a daily basis would shock most people. I could go on and on but suffice to say there are a lot of drivers doing a lot of other stuff having nothing to do with paying attention to the road. Autonomous driving is the answer to this, the thousands and thousands of lives it'll save is more than worth a few hiccups along the way.

Driving a car is much easier technologically, than flying a plane. Since you brought it up, I would like to point out that modern avionics systems are more than capable of flying a plane from gate to gate without any human intervention whatsoever. Now, that's not the case for a number of reasons mostly due to politics and passenger comfort but to argue that flying is made less safe because of these systems is ludicrous. There will come a day where pilots no longer exist in the cockpit on commercial flights, it's simply much safer than a tired\impaired pilot.

Humans are flawed universally, machines are only as flawed as their software which can be adapted, changed, improved over time.

Jeff

 

[bhzmark]

Op. It sounds like tacc was disengaged somehow but you didn't know it. You might have bumped the brake or something. Good story telling and good humor also.

 

[jeffro01]

Why do people write their name below their post? Where and Why is this a thing? Your name/account is CLEARLY indicated in the box to the left of the Post Window......

Shawn....................................................

Why do you care? I have been posting online for a loooonnngggg time and since day one, well before there were forums like this, I have been signing my posts "Jeff". I do this everywhere and without exception unless I simply forget which is few and far between. Why? None of your business but since you decided to act like a complete ******* I'll answer, I have serious OCD and it's just a habit I have that I do and it just is a reflex.

What a completely useless and stupid post.

Jeff

 

[Max*]

. My bet is, people are NOT "already doing these things anyway." Or at least to a much lesser extent.
with AP, TACC and lets just throw in radar and scuba for fun, more WILL start doing things while driving in the car they haven't done before or to the same extent.

have a good weekend!

You're joking, right?

Maybe not in Indiana, but everything I listed I have seen within the last few months in the DC area. Texting while driving I see EVERY day. Makeup is at least once a week. Shaving and newspaper reading are rare, but those weren't one time things.

 

[jeffro01]

You're joking, right?

Maybe not in Indiana, but everything I listed I have seen within the last few months in the DC area. Texting while driving I see EVERY day. Makeup is at least once a week. Shaving and newspaper reading are rare, but those weren't one time things.

When I tell people what I see and experience riding my motorcycle in traffic their jaws drop... I have seen so many things that it's hard to say what's the worse, all of which I haven't only seen once, or twice... They occur regularly...

Jeff

 

[stevezzzz]

After reading (or at least skimming) every single post in this thread, I would like to suggest that the OP only share the information he gets back from TM Engineering concerning the performance of his driver assistance systems to those who agree not to comment on his ​performance.

It could work, right? :wink:

 

[ecarfan]

. My bet is, people are NOT "already doing these things anyway." Or at least to a much lesser extent.
with AP, TACC and lets just throw in radar and scuba for fun, more WILL start doing things while driving in the car they haven't done before or to the same extent

It's not as simple as people are already doing crazy things like shaving and applying makeup while talking on their cell and eating, which of course many drivers do regularly. More importantly, people are also subject to frequent mental distractions that take their focus off the road. I long ago lost track of how many times I thought I had made eye contact with another driver at an intersection only to discover a moment later that they clearly had not seen me because of what they proceeded to do. And of course I have also many times lost my focus on the road because I got distracted with my own thoughts. Of course that doesn't happen with software.
Overall AP and AEB seems very likely to decrease accidents.

 

[CHGolferJim]

Very useful thread, excuse me while I dash out to the garage to crank up my TACC setting and double-check that the 7.1 download didn't change any others.

 

[woof]

I remember that the car I was following switched lanes, and apparently my car picked up the scent of the unfortunate victim. His car gradually slowed, and I gradually slowed, until we were traveling at around 10 MPH. I remember his car stopped, my car slowed but didn't stop

This is an interested point. In my i3, which has ACC (also by Mobileye), when the car in front moves to the right lane, it keeps tracking the right lane car and takes it's sweet time in switching back to cars in the correct lane. I see this every day when traveling in the right lane and the car in front moves to the right to exit. The i3 will slow, matching the speed of the exiting car. It's so predictable I just know to override with the accelerator.

I speculate that your car "gradually slowed" NOT because the car in front of you slowed, but because the car that was previously in front of you, but now on the right, slowed.

 

[Just a Reader]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong and I couldn't possibly disagree more than I do. I ride a motorcycle a lot in the summertime and in CA lane splitting is legal (riding between the cards down the lane markers) and the behavior I see on a daily basis would shock most people. I could go on and on but suffice to say there are a lot of drivers doing a lot of other stuff having nothing to do with paying attention to the road. Autonomous driving is the answer to this, the thousands and thousands of lives it'll save is more than worth a few hiccups along the way.

Driving a car is much easier technologically, than flying a plane. Since you brought it up, I would like to point out that modern avionics systems are more than capable of flying a plane from gate to gate without any human intervention whatsoever. Now, that's not the case for a number of reasons mostly due to politics and passenger comfort but to argue that flying is made less safe because of these systems is ludicrous. There will come a day where pilots no longer exist in the cockpit on commercial flights, it's simply much safer than a tired\impaired pilot.

Humans are flawed universally, machines are only as flawed as their software which can be adapted, changed, improved over time.

Jeff

You are at liberty to disagree with me all you like, that doesn't make me wrong. Aircraft may be complex to operate, but they operate in a highly controlled environment. They don't share their airspace with all sorts of other craft of varying sizes and speed that operate in their direct vicinity, cross their paths or may even approach at high velocity travelling in the opposite direction, plus animals and stationary objects like trees etc. etc.
Sorry, anyone can drive a car down a California highway. The challenge of doing so is basically nil.
Yet, what do you believe is a bigger challenge for automation; flying an unmanned plane from e.g. L.A. to Chicago or to give an unmanned vehicle the task to cross e.g. Paris at normal speed, across the Place de la Concorde, with speeding drivers, unmarked lanes, pedestrians, motorcycles, police cars squeezing past, stationary vehicles blocking parts of the road, rain, short term traffic deviations, tunnels, wet cobblestones etc. etc.? Given the chaotic environment human drivers are operating in, they make surprisingly few mistakes.

 

[supratachophobia]

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree.

AP will save lives. People do stupid things while driving anyways -- ever seen people shaving? reading a newspaper across the steering wheel? putting on makeup? texting? turning around to pick up things for their kids? etc. etc. etc.

What do you think is safer in those situation? No AP or yes AP? Obviously if the person is doing those things anyways, AP is much safer. Major win for AP.

Now, lets look at the regular situation. A person gets complacent due to trusting AP too much. AP works 99.999% of the time, so in these cases if the person doesn't react fast enough he'll get into an accident. Minor loss for AP, because if AP didn't exist that person wouldn't have been complacent.

I'll take a major win over a minor loss everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. AP will never be perfect. Neither will autonomous driving. But AP will be better than most drivers. And autonomous driving will be better than AP. With each iteration approaching full autonomy, the number of accidents will decrease.


So yeah, I'll take a few additional potential accidents with AP, in order to save a lot of potential accidents with drivers doing stupid things without AP.

Correction, driver assistance will save lives. Blind spot, auto-braking, collision warning, those are the things that will save us. Autopilot, I have my doubts.

 

[Max*]

Correction, driver assistance will save lives. Blind spot, auto-braking, collision warning, those are the things that will save us. Autopilot, I have my doubts.

Correction, I meant what I said.

 

[jeffro01]

You are at liberty to disagree with me all you like, that doesn't make me wrong. Aircraft may be complex to operate, but they operate in a highly controlled environment. They don't share their airspace with all sorts of other craft of varying sizes and speed that operate in their direct vicinity, cross their paths or may even approach at high velocity travelling in the opposite direction, plus animals and stationary objects like trees etc. etc.
Sorry, anyone can drive a car down a California highway. The challenge of doing so is basically nil.
Yet, what do you believe is a bigger challenge for automation; flying an unmanned plane from e.g. L.A. to Chicago or to give an unmanned vehicle the task to cross e.g. Paris at normal speed, across the Place de la Concorde, with speeding drivers, unmarked lanes, pedestrians, motorcycles, police cars squeezing past, stationary vehicles blocking parts of the road, rain, short term traffic deviations, tunnels, wet cobblestones etc. etc.? Given the chaotic environment human drivers are operating in, they make surprisingly few mistakes.

It's easily flying an unmanned plane from LA to Chicago, it's not even close. While they may fly in an somewhat controlled environment, highly controlled is a stretch, the challenges they face are far greater than ground based transportation, specifically during takeoff and landing. Regarding the scenario you mention, in an autonomous world, all the cars are communicating with each other leaving the only real wild card to be pedestrians and while that wildcard is not to be overlooked, it is addressable. Again, this is software we're talking about. The simple fact that you admit that humans "make surprisingly few mistakes" pretty much validates the entire point around autonomous driving. Machines don't make mistakes, the software is their limiting factor and it can be improved upon and corrected quickly and easily.

And yes you are wrong, whether you understand or agree with my conclusion matters not. Luckily for us you aren't responsible for making policy decisions. Humans are deeply flawed and deeply inconsistent from one human to the next. Machines are not. Granted their software is their limiting factor but that shouldn't be seen as a negative as software is binary and fixable. Humans aren't.

Jeff