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

[Ivo-G]

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

The shoe must've fit...

Yes really, strength and courage to withstand relentless criticism and to get the other side of the story, or to get Tesla to give the other side of the story for all of us to hear. And I wish him that not because it's a noble act, but because I believe we all stand to benefit from his pursuit, even those who are hell-bent on criticizing him from wanting to know what happened and how to deal with situations like this in Tesla made cars in the future.

 

[JST]

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.
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.

Now that you mention it, if I were the other driver, I might be interested in seeing the logs. Not maybe in this accident, where no one was injured. But in an accident where there was a claim of whiplash? If you were the person who got hit, you might be interested in knowing whether it was the driver or the car that was at fault.

There are, of course, ways to demand the release of this information in litigation. I'm not suggesting Tesla should do that here (I agree that they probably shouldn't), merely observing that if the data exists someone may have a right to look at it at some point. It's something I hadn't thought about before.

As for my quote, above, I don't necessarily expect the system to work flawlessly. My question, given what some others have said, is whether the system is *intended* to stop the car, or just to slow it down.

Green1 and others have asserted that it is not intended to do so. Some others in the thread have said that it is, though it may not always do so.

I guess I still don't know the answer to my question, though that video with Elon in the car certainly suggests that the car *is* intended to be able to stop itself.

Anyway. Not sure I have anything more productive to offer, beyond scratching my head about why anyone would use this system at all.

 

[jeffro01]

Anyway. Not sure I have anything more productive to offer, beyond scratching my head about why anyone would use this system at all.

Dramatic much? Jeeze... I use the system all the time and it's worked every time. Have I had to slam on the breaks occasionally? Yes, but that's only been when I'm tracking a car and it changes lanes due to stopped, or severely slowed, traffic which the system is not designed to handle.

Jeff

 

[JST]

Dramatic much? Jeeze... I use the system all the time and it's worked every time. Have I had to slam on the breaks occasionally? Yes, but that's only been when I'm tracking a car and it changes lanes due to stopped, or severely slowed, traffic which the system is not designed to handle.

Jeff

Works every time, until it randomly doesn't. Sounds great.

 

[AWDtsla]

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.

AEB is about reducing crash velocity. Think about it as a virtual crumplezone.

They guy behind you is probably in for a bad time regardless.

 

[jeffro01]

Works every time, until it randomly doesn't. Sounds great.

Oh please... What a stupid thing to say. It doesn't randomly not work, your making stuff up in your head.

Jeff

 

[JST]

Oh please... What a stupid thing to say. It doesn't randomly not work, your making stuff up in your head.

Jeff

Ok, it doesn't "randomly" not work. It doesn't work based on a series of variables that are unknown and unknowable to the consumer, such as to present the appearance of randomness. Or is there some other way of interpreting OP's experience?

I will speak only for myself, but it's not a system I'd use.

 

[Andyw2100]

My question, given what some others have said, is whether the system is *intended* to stop the car, or just to slow it down.

Green1 and others have asserted that it is not intended to do so. Some others in the thread have said that it is, though it may not always do so.

I guess I still don't know the answer to my question, though that video with Elon in the car certainly suggests that the car *is* intended to be able to stop itself.

This is a pretty easy question to answer. The TACC is most definitely intended to be able to stop the car when the target car in front of it is slowing and stopping. There may be exceptions where it won't be able to, hence the disclaimers, but the intention is for the Model S to be able to maintain a safe distance behind the target car.

As proof of this fact one must only look at the language in the manual about TACC bringing the car to a stop, and then resuming:

--
When following a vehicle, Traffic-Aware CruiseControl remains active at low speeds, even if Model S comes to a standstill while following a vehicle. When traffic is moving again, Traffic Aware Cruise Control resumes operating at your currently set speed. However, if a pedestrian or object is detected in front of Model S, Traffic-Aware Cruise Control goes into a HOLD state and the instrument panel displays a message indicating that you need to resume cruise control. To resume, press the accelerator pedal or pull the cruise control lever toward you (see Canceling and Resuming on page 69).
--

If TACC was not intended to be able to completely stop the car, the language above about the HOLD state and the need to resume cruise control would not be necessary. There also wouldn't be the wording about the Model S coming to a standstill.

 

[Auzie]

In the absence of accident video record, it might be a fruitless exercise to speculate on endless possibilities of what could have caused it. I fully agree with Jeff that we have heard only one side of the story. Further, witnesses to any accident are not as reliable as a video camera, especially if such witnesses are right in the centre of the accident. Nothing personal in the preceding statement, just reflection on human traits that we all share.


The most interesting aspect of this thread to me is that it highlights the issue of car logs ownership, and the car owners ability to access that information.


I am not aware of any legislation that regulates this emerging area. Any corrections are appreciated.


My understanding is that Tesla sells cars, but not the data it collects on sold cars. That makes Tesla the sole owner of the collected data as they are doing collecting and storing.


If the above assumption is correct, Tesla is free to store collected data for any period of time they choose and to share it (within privacy restrictions) or not share it as per their respective business policies (doubt they have them yet).


Some businesses are willing to provide limited personal data on request, and may charge to cover the administrative costs of the process. Some businesses only provide data under court order.


There are many downsides but also upsides to giving people access to their car logs. One obvious downside is that someone has to spend their time to extract the data, clean it up and put it in a format that can be easily understood by anyone. Likely, explanatory write-up might be required. This might be quite time-consuming = costly to Tesla.


I am curious about people's views on this issue.

 

[Andyw2100]

The most interesting aspect of this thread to me is that it highlights the issue of car logs ownership, and the car owners ability to access that information.


I am not aware of any legislation that regulates this emerging area. Any corrections are appreciated.


My understanding is that Tesla sells cars, but not the data it collects on sold cars. That makes Tesla the sole owner of the collected data as they are doing collecting and storing.


If the above assumption is correct, Tesla is free to store collected data for any period of time they choose and to share it (within privacy restrictions) or not share it as per their respective business policies (doubt they have them yet).


Some businesses are willing to provide limited personal data on request, and may charge to cover the administrative costs of the process. Some businesses only provide data under court order.


There are many downsides but also upsides to giving people access to their car logs. One obvious downside is that someone has to spend their time to extract the data, clean it up and put it in a format that can be easily understood by anyone. Likely, explanatory write-up might be required. This might be quite time-consuming = costly to Tesla.


I am curious about people's views on this issue.

There are a number of ways to log at least some of the information available from the cars. Some of those might have provided some insight into what happened had they been in use.

As an example, I recently started using TeslaLog. It's still a free service. (Thread here: TeslaLog.com - Your hosted Tesla Data Logger - Announcement / Support threads)

If the OP had been using that service at the time of the accident, it --MIGHT-- have been possible to have more insight into what happened. For example, if his speed log showed that he was slowing down, and then briefly showed that he was accelerating, just before slowing down again before impact, that would be pretty strong evidence that the TACC had been tracking a different car, and had started to accelerate when the other car left the lane. (Correct TACC operation.)

These services don't provide direct access to what the safety systems are doing, but depending on the situation, at times things may be able to be inferred from the data that is being recorded.

 

[Krugerrand]

I am curious about people's views on this issue.

My thought is: BIG OLE CAN OF WORMS!

Separate thread on the topic might be good.

 

[SmartElectric]

the biggest frustration i had with Tesla's service manager, besides his repeating over-and-over that i bore all responsibility for the accident (i never once claimed otherwise and at one point i asked him not to keep saying it)

You never claimed otherwise to whom? Tesla or to others? There is at least one time...as per below.

Surveying the damage to his rear bumper, visibly annoyed, he said, "You were texting or something?"

"No, absolutely not. Actually...and you're probably not going to believe this, but it was the car's fault! This is a brand, new car, and I was using this Auto Pilot feature, and it was working perfectly fine, but then it just stopped working."

Good fortune on repairing your car. Safe travels.

 

[Auzie]

There are a number of ways to log at least some of the information available from the cars. Some of those might have provided some insight into what happened had they been in use.

As an example, I recently started using TeslaLog. It's still a free service. (Thread here: TeslaLog.com - Your hosted Tesla Data Logger - Announcement / Support threads)

If the OP had been using that service at the time of the accident, it --MIGHT-- have been possible to have more insight into what happened. For example, if his speed log showed that he was slowing down, and then briefly showed that he was accelerating, just before slowing down again before impact, that would be pretty strong evidence that the TACC had been tracking a different car, and had started to accelerate when the other car left the lane. (Correct TACC operation.)

These services don't provide direct access to what the safety systems are doing, but depending on the situation, at times things may be able to be inferred from the data that is being recorded.

Thanks for the link Andy.

My comment refers to customers' requests directed to Tesla staff to provide additional data to what is already available. My impression from reading some posts is that some customers have expectations that Tesla will provide data related to their car, on request.

My thought is: BIG OLE CAN OF WORMS!

Separate thread on the topic might be good.

But these are soooo delicious, it's worth opening it

 

[Norbert]

I think that the intent of the write-up in the Manual was to indicate that AEB action (whatever it might be) is prevented in situations when driver is taking action to avoid a potential collision. The sample list of such actions includes breaking and *releasing* the brake because this could be interpreted as driver *not* taking action to avoid collision, while according to the Tesla AEB algorithm it *is* considered a sign of such action, so to eliminate ambiguity they listed such "press and release" action by driver explicitly. It seems that driver pressing and holding brake pedal, on another hand, unambiguously means that he is taking action to avoid collision, so it was not included in the list of examples.

That's also how I interpreted it the first time I read it. In the sense of: the automatic functions will remain disengaged even if the brakes are released again. This would be something worth finding out if there are doubts. I'd guess that may also be what the engineers were trying to convey from the log: that applying the brakes disengaged the automatic functions. At least that's what I get from reading this thread so far.

 

[Scotty]

I thought about the Tesla rep stating the Tesla engineers perused and analyzed the 'logs', and this started me thinking about EDR's. Quick points include 96% of new cars have them, and while they are not mandated to be installed in cars, if they are, they must record certain data. The data is also OWNED by the owner of the car, although data retrieval can be difficult and/or expensive. Most EDR's are accessed by the retrieval system made by Bosch. I very much doubt that Tesla adheres to this system. Might be interesting in talking to one of the nationally/internationally recognized EDR data analysis companies.

Why am I looking into this, when the OP says he accepts responsibility for the accident? Because everyone, including the OP, Tesla, and most of the commenters are saying its his responsibility too. However, just for a second, consider one other possibility that I don't recall seeing brought up.

Since this is a new vehicle, with only a few days use on it, COULD this have been a case where a hardware malfunction exacerbated the situation? There certainly could be the possibility that there was/is a hardware problem in this new Tesla? If you think this is far-reaching, please keep in mind there have been more than one instance where a pilot has turned off the fuel feed to a failed engine, and it has turned off the fuel to the remaining running engine.

Another comment. I love my Tesla, and stand up to criticism from those who would rant and rave against one, while not owning one. Most posters on TMC appear to be owners, and I support the theory that if you have some 'skin' in the game, you are entitled to your opinions, and have the right to post those opinions. I also appreciate comments and criticisms that informed and objective people make. I also believe, as wk057, and others have stated, that the legal owner not only owns the Tesla, but they also own the data, and have the right to monitor operational data that the system generates.

Finally, Tesla is certainly pressing forward with advancing technology in the automotive world. I believe that Tesla follows this forum, and that it is not in their best interests to either state directly, or via an owners post, that their product experienced a malfunction. Nor am I aware of anyone who is able to refute the 'conclusions' and statements of the Tesla rep.
Do we all think that Tesla will broadcast negative information? I don't believe that we should just assume that Tesla has the individual's and the general populations bests interests in mind, over their own, including their stock, investors and shareholders. I do think that if there was a failure in hardware or software, there's a bit of midnight oil burning trying to 'fix' the problem.
I do think that insurance companies might be interested in EDR data, as well as Tesla logs, this, if not in this situation, that there will be additional instances in the future. That, of course, is 'nother can o' worms.

 

[green1]

COULD this have been a case where a hardware malfunction exacerbated the situation?

That's easy to answer. Nope.

The worst it could possibly be is a case of the hardware not making the situation better. It certainly didn't make it worse.

 

[SABoyce]

You could not imagine how may lurkers (and poster) are impressed with your attitude. It is impressive and I'm not sure many could do it.

At least one appreciative lurker confirmed. I started reading through the TMC forum last Oct. when I added the MS to my Potential Next Vehicle list. I've always loved joining online automotive communities like this one because of the sharing of knowledge and passion for a particular car as well as the camaraderie born from it. That said, I figured I'd make my first post a "thank you" to sandstruck for sharing his experience and adding to the massive amount of great information on the forum. I'm glad the damage was minimal and no one was injured.

Quite a few times using autopilot the car would be heading towards a vehicle ahead faster than I would be doing...My golden rule with all of the driver assistance features has been pretty sound: If the car is doing anything I wouldn't do in the same situation, take over. Plain and simple. Even if it's something minor, best to just handle it to be safe.

Great advice for any car with driver assistance features. I practice the same in my current vehicle, a 2013 Chrysler 300 SRT8 with Adaptive Cruise Control and Forward Collision Warning System. I use ACC almost every day during my 25 mile commute to/from the office. While it works great, on more than one occasion it's gotten confused when a car in front of me performed a lane-change, resulting in hard braking or following more closely than I'm comfortable with.

The FCWS fires off frequently. While mostly due to my "spirited" driving style (it doesn't know I'll switch lanes before plowing into the a**hole doing 15 under in the hammer lane), it also seems to pick up the occasional reflective sign or marker. Unlike the Forward Collision Warning system in the MS, there is no setting to adjust sensitivity/timing of the notification. Any chance that setting would affect AEB?

(This may be an outdated screenshot - my apologies, if so.)

Sorry if some people think my warning was irresponsible or rash...Maybe i was too impulsive and should have waited for the results.

Don't let the trolls get to you. Your original post was simply you sharing concerns over a potential issue. At a minimum, you've helped others set more realistic expectations for AP. Thank you again for sharing.

 

[green1]

. Any chance that setting would affect AEB?

That setting only affects the warning, which is completely separate from AEB

 

[Scotty]

That's easy to answer. Nope.

The worst it could possibly be is a case of the hardware not making the situation better. It certainly didn't make it worse.

If I'm being too blunt, I apologize, but I'd love to hear about the technical information that supports your singular answer.

I hope that it wasn't, but then again, hardware failures occur, and it would possibly be comforting to know (but obviously not from a litigation perspective).

 

[dhanson865]

Dramatic much? Jeeze... I use the system all the time and it's worked every time. Have I had to slam on the breaks occasionally? Yes, but that's only been when I'm tracking a car and it changes lanes due to stopped, or severely slowed, traffic which the system is not designed to handle.

Jeff

You are the most dramitic person in this thread. Maybe you should just take a few days off and let the rest of the world have an opinion.