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

[Andyw2100]

The last sentence says it all... I'll simply stop there...

Jeff

The OP has taken responsibility.

Almost without exception, everyone commenting in this thread is in agreement that we must be diligent when using the driver assistance features.

But sillydriver makes some excellent points in this post:

While I cringe at the thought of diving into a divisive argument, I've changed my mind from the first post above: I am arguing that he does not have legal responsibility for his accident, Tesla does. I will assume the OP is reporting all the facts correctly. The situation was one where the car ahead was being followed by TACC, which began to slow when that car slowed. This is a situation of the kind where TACC is advertised to be usable. And now the service manager said that 'TACC performed as designed', meaning it was functioning, not impaired by a sensor problem, and not inadvertently disengaged thanks to driver error. If 'TACC performed as designed' and that led to a crash, then almost by definition there is a design error.

The OP deserves some sort of an explanation as to what actually happened. The TACC is not designed to allow the Model S to collide with the car it is tracking. Sure, Tesla explains we are still responsible, and we all get that. But I agree with sillydriver that the OP should be able to find out in more detail exactly what happened. Was TACC actually tracking a different car? Did the car in front slow down faster than TACC could slow the OP's car? (From the OP's report, this was definitely not the case, but I'm using it as an example of how TACC could function properly, theoretically, but still result in an accident.)

I think the OP deserves better answers from Tesla. Frankly I am interested in better answers. I want to know what really happened.

 

[bhzmark]

+1 above.

chatter about responsibility, RTFM, blah blah is all boring -- we all know all that from a hundred other posts making the same well-worn point.

What would be helpful and interesting are the specific facts and circumstances that led a TACC active Tesla to rear-end the car that it was apparently tracking.

OP, did the Tesla rep say anything about that? Can you ask them again for any details from the log?

Can you remember anything from your situation? Was the car in front changing lanes? in or out of your lane? were the lanes painted on the road screwed up? was it a construction zone? was the sun shining in the camera? Did a bird dive bomb the radar sensor? etc?

Anything that explains why the TACC did what it did?

 

[ecarfan]

Obviously TACC is "not designed to allow the Model S to collide with the car it is tracking", but the use of TACC does not guarantee that forward collisions will not occur. TACC is not perfect, nor does Tesla claim it is. All AP functions are an assist to the driver, not a replacement for the driver paying attention to the road and other vehicles.
I do not agree that the OP "deserves" a detailed explanation from Tesla as to exactly why his car hit the car in front of him beyond something like "In this case the driver failed to apply the brakes early enough to prevent a collision". That is the explanation. Assuming that TACC and AEB will always prevent forward collisions is a mistake. Tesla makes no such claim, only that those features can in most cases maintain a following distance and reduce the chance of a collision or the severity of a collision.
Too many people are putting to much reliance on AP features like TACC and AEB. In part I blame Tesla for this, as I think Tesla personnel have not adequately explained AP and cautioned Tesla drivers not to overly rely on it. In part I blame some Tesla drivers for not reading the owner's manual carefully enough.

 

[JST]

I generally agree with Andyw2100's post, above. If TACC is designed to stop the car, why didn't it stop the car?

If it's not designed to stop the car...why isn't it designed to stop the car?

I mean, a driver assistance feature that slows the car down but doesn't stop it might be the least useful thing I can think of. It's like a car with stability control that disengages in sharp corners.

 

[jeffro01]

I think the OP deserves better answers from Tesla. Frankly I am interested in better answers. I want to know what really happened.

What better answer would you like them to give? They said systems behaved as they should, the documentation provided over and over again in this thread, backs Tesla's findings up. Lastly, the ONLY person here that actually knows exactly what happened is the OP.

Why is it that you, and others, automatically take the OP at face value? There are three sides to every story, in this case there is the OP, Tesla, and the truth. No one here knows for sure whether or not the OP's story is 100% factual, there could be very important details left out intentionally or unintentionally, the point is we don't know.

Call me jaded if you will but something about the story doesn't fit, especially when you combine it with Tesla's supposed reply. Again, you're only getting ONE side of the story here, even Tesla's "side" is filtered through the OP.

Some of the replies in this thread are boarder line irrational, like the post from someone (can't remember who) who commented that this incident may cause them to delay ordering an AP car (or something like that, I am very generally paraphrasing). Really???

At some point you just have to take a step back and breathe...

Jeff

 

[woof]

The situation was one where the car ahead was being followed by TACC, which began to slow when that car slowed.

As I said above, my i3 will continue to track the original car that moved to the right rather than the car that has become directly in front quite predictably. So most likely the situation was NOT one where the car ahead was being followed by TACC, but the car that previously was ahead is being followed instead.

So my conclusion is that i must not have realized i wasn't tracking the car in front of me.

Mine as well.

I doubt the logs would show that. Everyone who uses TACC/Autopilot should get a dash cam if they want visible proof of what's going on. Or just accept the shortcomings and enjoy the ride.

 

[Andyw2100]

What better answer would you like them to give? They said systems behaved as they should, the documentation provided over and over again in this thread, backs Tesla's findings up. Lastly, the ONLY person here that actually knows exactly what happened is the OP.

Why is it that you, and others, automatically take the OP at face value? There are three sides to every story, in this case there is the OP, Tesla, and the truth. No one here knows for sure whether or not the OP's story is 100% factual, there could be very important details left out intentionally or unintentionally, the point is we don't know.

I'd like Tesla to provide information along the lines of:

--our logs show TACC was functioning until 2.4 seconds before impact, at which time the driver disengaged it by stepping on the brake. (This would indicate TACC had been disengaged.)

or

--or logs show TACC was tracking a car that wound up in the adjacent lane at time of impact. (This would indicate TACC was tracking a different car.)

or

--our logs show that the car was decelerating and started accelerating again .7 seconds before the driver began braking. (This would indicate TACC was tracking a different car.)

or

--our logs show TACC was not tracking any car at the time of the accident. (This would indicate that TACC had been tracking a different car, but had not yet picked up as a target car the car that the OP rear-ended.)

or

--our logs show that TACC engaged maximum braking for 1.2 seconds, slowing the car from 25 MPH to 6 MPH, but was still unable to prevent impact. (This would indicate the OP was not accurately describing the situation at all, and that the car in front had come to more of an emergency stop that TACC could not match in time.)


I am not in any way suggesting that Tesla has done anything wrong, or that TACC failed. I'm also not in any way absolving the OP of any responsibility. All I'm saying is that something was different about this. Something took place that allowed the accident to happen when we know that normally TACC would not function this way. Tesla has stated that TACC was functioning at the time of the accident. I had made two guesses initially. One was that the driver had inadvertently disabled TACC, but if the information he received from the service manager is correct, then that is not the case. The other was that the TACC was tracking another car. It sounds like the service manager left that possibility open.

After reading everything written in this thread, if I had to take a guess as to what happened, my guesses, in order, would be:

1) TACC wasn't tracking the stopped car for some reason, with the most likely reason being the OP failed to notice (as he acknowledges he may have, though he doesn't think he did) that the car the TACC had been tracking had left the OP's lane, leaving the stopped car directly in front of the OP's car, but not yet tracked.

2) TACC had inadvertently been disengaged by the OP, most likely by a light application of the brake pedal. It could have been a "brushing" of it, or perhaps even a subconscious, light tapping of it at some point when the OP's instincts reverted to a time before TACC existed, since he spent most of his adult life driving without TACC. He may not have realized that he instinctively had lightly touched the brake at some earlier point, to slow the car, because that's what he had been doing forever.

I think we could all benefit from knowing what really happened.

 

[jeffro01]

I'd like Tesla to provide information along the lines of:

--TACC was functioning until 2.4 seconds before impact, at which time the driver disengaged it by stepping on the brake

or

--TACC was tracking a car that wound up in the adjacent lane at time of impact (this would indicate TACC was tracking a different car)

or

--our logs show that the car was decelerating and started accelerating again .7 seconds before the driver began braking (this would indicate TACC was tracking a different car)


I am not in any way suggesting that Tesla has done anything wrong, or that TACC failed. I'm also not in any way absolving the OP of any responsibility. All I'm saying is that something was different about this. Something took place that allowed the accident to happen when we know that normally TACC would not function this way. Tesla has stated that TACC was functioning at the time of the accident. My initial guess was that the driver had inadvertently disabled TACC, but if the information he received from the service manager is correct, then that is not the case.

I think we could all benefit from knowing what really happened.

Understood, but I think you have to realize that you're never going to know what really happened. Your only window into this situation is through the OP, and because of that, you're simply never going to know for sure. Look at it this way, who's to say Tesla didn't tell the OP exactly what you want to know but that wasn't relayed to this thread? To be clear, I'm not accusing the OP of intentionally withholding information or providing false information, I'm merely pointing out the reality that is your only reading one side...

From what I've seen of TACC in my car to date, and I said this early on in the thread I believe, something just doesn't quite jive here.

Jeff

 

[bhzmark]

What better answer would you like them to give?

A description of the relevant specifics of the situation that explain why it didn't stop.

Then I can better predict when TACC will stop the car and when it won't -- such as in the case where the tracked car changes lanes out of my lane revealing an already stopped car in front of me -- TACC is now much better, but still not perfect, so i am extra alert for that situation. What other situation should I also be extra alert for?

I'm not content to just say "TACC is inconsistent magic quantum indeterminacy -- sometimes it stops and occasionally it doesn't -- be prepared to take over!"

 

[dsm363]

I generally agree with Andyw2100's post, above. If TACC is designed to stop the car, why didn't it stop the car?

If it's not designed to stop the car...why isn't it designed to stop the car?

I mean, a driver assistance feature that slows the car down but doesn't stop it might be the least useful thing I can think of. It's like a car with stability control that disengages in sharp corners.

It's not designed to completely stop the car as I understand it because if there was a false positive would you want your car slamming the breaks on the highway?

 

[Andyw2100]

Understood, but I think you have to realize that you're never going to know what really happened. Your only window into this situation is through the OP, and because of that, you're simply never going to know for sure. Look at it this way, who's to say Tesla didn't tell the OP exactly what you want to know but that wasn't relayed to this thread? To be clear, I'm not accusing the OP of intentionally withholding information or providing false information, I'm merely pointing out the reality that is your only reading one side...

From what I've seen of TACC in my car to date, and I said this early on in the thread I believe, something just doesn't quite jive here.

Jeff

I understand what you are saying about never being able to know for certain, since we can't know that the OP is being 100% truthful.

That being said, based on what the OP wrote initially, everything he has written since, the responsibility he has taken, and his general attitude, I am inclined to believe that he is attempting to be as truthful as he can be, within the limitations of his own memory of the situation. On the other hand, it just doesn't seem like we have all the information that it might be possible to obtain from Tesla.

 

[AWDtsla]

Driving a car is much easier technologically, than flying a plane.

This must be some sort of joke, or clearly you haven't thought about the problem set hard enough.

The first airplane autopilot was developed in 1912. It took another 100+ years to get a commercial automobile to drive itself.

- - - Updated - - -

The last sentence says it all... I'll simply stop there...

Jeff

If a team of lawyers could make autopilot work, you'd have a point.

 

[theslimshadyist]

Is there a system on the newer Teslas that is designed to automatically stop the car instead of letting the car hit something?

The all new 2016 Toyota Prius can even perform this task.

2016 Toyota Prius with Toyota Safety Sense Systems - YouTube

 

[sandstruck]

+1 above.

chatter about responsibility, RTFM, blah blah is all boring -- we all know all that from a hundred other posts making the same well-worn point.

What would be helpful and interesting are the specific facts and circumstances that led a TACC active Tesla to rear-end the car that it was apparently tracking.

OP, did the Tesla rep say anything about that? Can you ask them again for any details from the log?

Can you remember anything from your situation? Was the car in front changing lanes? in or out of your lane? were the lanes painted on the road screwed up? was it a construction zone? was the sun shining in the camera? Did a bird dive bomb the radar sensor? etc?

Anything that explains why the TACC did what it did?

i do want to reiterate how frustating it was to speak to TM service manager. There was no curiosity on his part as to what may have gone wrong. To be honest, he was kind of a prick. He kept referring to "our car," as in "our car" performed like it was supposed to. I reminded him the car belonged to me.

I did ask if MY car was tracking the car it collided with and he told me the logs couldn't give that information. He told me the logs "simply give a series of data points." He explained that the emergency stop alarm emplyed as it should and i hit the brakes a second later.

Again, my intention in posting this to begin with (and to continue to post) is to try to warn people to not be complacent and to figure out what went wrong (besides not being careful enough and relying too much on the system). I could really care less if i'm criticized. I truly can"t remember if (or when) a car may have come into my lane or switched out of my lane preceeding the collision (sorry).

Finally, i'm as suscetible to a conspiracy theory as the next person, but i feel Tesla isn't hiding anything. I think once the engineers determined the sensors and cameras were operating normally, the case was closed. It was my fault, they determined. Case closed

 

[Ivo-G]

Lots of people in this thread need to get of their "Holier than thou" preaching stool and check themselves.

1. Elon Musk himself has demonstrated driving a vehicle hands-free, foot-free, and it coming to a full stop while on AP/TACC. Tesla Test Drive: Model P85D, Autopilot, Zero to 60 - YouTube at the 2:00 mark he explains how it works, and even points out after the car coming to a full stop that he had nothing to do with that himself as a driver at the 2:30 mark.
If even the CEO and biggest marketeer/salesperson for the car and it's features "sells" you this as a feature, why is it that when said feature doesn't seem to have worked properly, people immediately condemn the user of said sold feature for using it in the same manners demonstrated by the CEO himself?

2. If the feature works different than "sold" by the CEO in this video for instance, then Tesla needs to address that, by telling current and future owners of AP/TACC enabled cars how it actually does work then, if at all, unequivocally, and should stop advertising it in such ways that make it sound better than they've managed to make it. Everybody is making guesses now as to how they THINK the systems work, but none of those have to be the actual fact.

3. What if there IS a problem with the AEB (note that I'm not referring to AP or TACC here), how many accidents and possibly lives would it take to convince Tesla of an issue? We had 1 person in NL reporting a seat belt issue, and they checked ALL their cars. Why won't they provide the OP with a solid fact-based answer other than "It wasn't me"? I mean, if the facts are there to back it up, why not say exactly what went down from the black box point of view?

4. People keep confusing and mixing AP, AS, TACC, and AEB. Autosteer and Traffice Aware Cruise Control are parts of the Auto-pilot family of features. Automatic Emergency Braking is a safety feature, much like ABS, airbags, etc. In my opinion, and that's based on what the manual says, the safety features (and AEB specifically) are independent from AutoPilot, as was recently shown in a picture of a hidden app to toggle the autopilot and safety features on or off. In my understanding and opinion, AEB should have tried to stop the car.

5. Tesla told the driver that the systems did detect an imminent collision, and that he tried to fix it himself 1 second later. But what I'm missing here is: was the system going to act, only to be interrupted by the driver in an ultimately insufficient manner? In other words, should the driver have done nothing and allow AEB to handle things? If on the other hand the AEB is merely a warning, a loud beep telling you there's going to be a loud crash, then THAT'S what the manual and Elon should be saying an demoing.
We all need to know whether we should let the car handle the crash prevention attempts, or need to distrust Elon and Tesla in their advertising of the AEB safety feature and keep driving the world's most sophisticated cars like it's 1972.

6. Before throwing the stone, ascertain yourself of your own innocence first. I think you'll come to see that it could've happened to anyone, even if you keep distance setting at 7, or even weren't on AP or TACC. A car or other obstacle could very easily appear all of a sudden in your lane, despite your distance-keeping, speed-limit-keeping, both-hands-on-wheel-driving by the driver. The AEB system is advertised as being able to help mitigate such forward collisions, and that's what most buyers expect. Many times I have touted the AEB as described and demoed by Elon as one of the Model S' strongest safety features (by showing this video for instance), but I guess from now on I'll have to take it with a grain of salt.

7.What if the first Model S' to catch fire were simply condemned by so many as being the driver's fault, and Tesla saying "works as designed"? Instead Tesla rose to the occasion and redesigned parts, to prevent potential issues down the road. In this case, I feel they need to publicly disclose and discuss what happened here, with data and facts, to either refute there was a technical failure and educate us, and / or to claim responsibility for fixing or improving this going forward (not for the actual accident per se).

Sandstruck, I wish you lots of strength and courage, but please do pursue the understanding of the facts and the truth, for you, for me, and for every other person who might be involved in a similar situation in the future, as the driver or the 'victim'.

 

[AWDtsla]

The AEB system is advertised as being able to help mitigate such forward collisions, and that's what most buyers expect.

It's only advertised as reducing crash velocity, not preventing crashes. For good technical reason I think, otherwise false positives would activate AEB often.

TACC on the other hand should not let you crash.

 

[jeffro01]

This must be some sort of joke, or clearly you haven't thought about the problem set hard enough.

I'll simply say that I respect your decision to disagree with me, your welcome to do so but I stand by what I said and am not going to explain myself any further.

Jeff

- - - Updated - - -

i do want to reiterate how frustating it was to speak to TM service manager. There was no curiosity on his part as to what may have gone wrong. To be honest, he was kind of a prick. He kept referring to "our car," as in "our car" performed like it was supposed to. I reminded him the car belonged to me.

Sounds like you weren't exactly the friendliest customer on the phone either... You reminded him the car belonged to you??? Why? It's clear from the conversation he was speaking in general terms and not in possessive terms. Then to come here and call the guy a name? Why???

Jeff

 

[JST]

It's only advertised as reducing crash velocity, not preventing crashes. For good technical reason I think, otherwise false positives would activate AEB often.

TACC on the other hand should not let you crash.

I don't get this; if the car is going to slow way down anyway, why not just stop if it sees a stopped car in front of it? It's that initial deceleration that's going to cause a potential problem for the cars behind.

 

[ecarfan]

I generally agree with Andyw2100's post, above. If TACC is designed to stop the car, why didn't it stop the car?... If it's not designed to stop the car...why isn't it designed to stop the car?

It is not as simple issue as you seem to expect. TACC and AEB have to analyze multiple inputs and use complex algorithms that attempt to analyze a rapidly changing environment around the car and then make decisions in fractions of a second. AP will attempt to avoid collisions or mitigate the force of a collision. Tesla makes no guarantee that AP will always prevent a collision, and specifically states that it is a driver assist tool that does not replace the driver's judgement and experience.

The all new 2016 Toyota Prius can even perform this task.

interesting that you conclude from a video of a single instance of a Prius stopping before hitting an obstacle that there all Priuses with that feature will achieve the same result over many thousands of times in varying environments.
There have been many TMC posts about Tesla drivers using TACC where it has significantly slowed without hitting a car in front of it. In the incident the OP described it did not. TACC is not yet "perfect" nor does Tesla claim it to be. No surprise there. The driver is responsible for the safe operation of the car and should always be prepared to take over.
--------------------
Some participants in this thread appear to want Tesla to provide a detailed timeline of this incident, practically by the millisecond, of what every relevant system on the car was doing and what actions the driver took.
Tesla is not going to do that. It would set a precedent for people to demand the public release of such information for every accident a Tesla was involved in.
According to the OP, Tesla informed him that a review of the logs determined that the car's systems performed nominally (to borrow a word from the world of rocketry), and that he applied the brakes too late to prevent impacting the car in front of him. I believe that is all that Tesla is going to say publicly about this incident. And in this litigious world that is all I would expect them to say.

 

[jeffro01]

Lots of people in this thread need to get of their "Holier than thou" preaching stool and check themselves.

Sandstruck, I wish you lots of strength and courage, but please do pursue the understanding of the facts and the truth, for you, for me, and for every other person who might be involved in a similar situation in the future, as the driver or the 'victim'.

I think you should take your own advice.

Strength and courage??? Really??? That's quite the statement, you act as if OP has done something noble... You are never going to get the "facts and the truth" when your getting your information from one side of the story.

Jeff