Seems like the most likely source of excessive vampire drainA buddy of mine has long suspected that his MS sneaks out of the garage at night to meet other MS's at the local drag strip just to hang out and lay a little rubber and then sneaks back home before he gets up in the morning. Now we have proof that is possible.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
goneskiian
Active Member
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I don't know but my guess is that there is no physical movement of the pedal. But I didn't view his question in relation to the mechanical or physical movement of the pedal, since he specifically asked about the pedal being electronically controlled:
"I am waiting to hear from Tesla whether the accelerator pedal can be depressed by the car electronically..."
Moreover, if his wife never touched the pedal, she'd have no idea if it physically moved, unless she was looking directly at it, which again makes no sense. Thus, what's the difference between physical movement by being mechanically controlled, or no movement by being electronically controlled? Again, this just shows that he is is being disingenuous in his question to Tesla on this issue, at least in my mind.
I just tried setting my X into cruise control and AP and it won't do it below 18 mph. So even if she did accidently hit the stalk it shouldn't have turned on CC or AP when she was traveling at 6mph.
deonb
Active Member
Well, his full quote is:
Which is relevant, because if the accelerator pedal is physically depressed via electronic control (like in my old Toyota), then a log entry which shows whether the accelerator is pressed wouldn't be terribly useful - since cruise control could be the one pressing it.
In that case you would need to know instead whether cruise control wasn't engaged. However, that would be saying: "We have NO log entry showing that cruise control was engaged", rather than saying: "We have a log entry showing the accelerator was pressed".
However, a "NO log entry" is a problem, since a software bug can cause a missing entry. That's why the positive log entry is much better - it would be darn unlikely for a software bug to create phantom log entries.
Since Tesla was stating that they do indeed have a positive log entry showing that the accelerator was moved, the guy had a right to ask if there are non-human forces that can move the accelerator.
I don't think there is (I think cruise control don't physically move the accelerator), but it would be nice if Tesla were to reply officially.
I'm pretty sure the pedal does not move with the TACC. I have to press the pedal varying amounts depending on the speed to smoothy transition out of TACC. I wouldn't have to press the pedal if it was already depressed by TACC according to the speed.
aesculus
Still Trying to Figure This All Out
I saw this too but then the highlighted statement gave me pause. If they were standing by how could they see what the accelerator pedal was doing? I would be hard pressed to see it as the driver. All they really saw was the car accelerate. No smoking gun here.
Just more proof that brings the Autopilot claim to question:
Good that Tesla is specifying that AP was off in the time leading up to the crash as well as just at the time of the crash itself. The latter leaves open the speculation that AP was engaged leading up to the crash, put the car on a crash trajectory, and then disengaged.
WABarb
Member
A test- anecdotal evidence that shows that the AP and CC will not engage below 18mph.... good thinking @madodel - hope you were doing this in an area that was safe in the event that it did engage!
....So the theory that AP or CC pressed the gas is unlikely.
Also - I really respected the wording of Tesla's statement. IMHO.. Tesla was very careful to avoid harsh accusatory wording when talking about what the recording showed. I know it is in their best interest but I think this shows Tesla's consumer centric POV. They had a choice in the wording of their response and they chose a more neutral tone vs an accusatory one. Especially given the statements aimed at Tesla by the husband. This is a highly emotional situation - it is unlikely that it was done on purpose by the wife (unless the husband was actually standing in front of the car...
). A very unfortunate accident that had a relatively good ending - given that no one was seriously hurt. I know.. we are all cringing at the wrecked X... but it is just a car... Granted a VERY special car.Just my2cents...
alseTrick
Active Member
Agreed. That's the one issue I'm taking away from most of these accidents lately. Why is the braking not preventing them? Or at least preventing a slow-moving car from smashing its windshield into a parked trailer, and an out of control X from "nailing" the side of a building.
The sensors in the front of the car will miss an object like that (in the case of the windshield into a parked trailer). That case was also a user error...but to think the car can see absolutely anything and everything is unreasonable. There are limits to technology.
See this for a better perspective...
alseTrick
Active Member
I'm sorry, but it is completely reasonable to expect the car to see another vehicle directly in front of you and stop, especially when your car is driving at such a slow speed with ample time and warning to prevent a collision.
At a train crossing or drawbridge crossing, when those gates are lowered, I expect a vehicle to be able to detect the bar and not smash into it.
A car can park itself but it is blind to anything at windshield height that is about to smash into it? Makes no sense.
If you have set cruise or AP, and then touch brakes, disabling it, then pull stalk toward you to resume, I believe that will operate regardless of speed.A test- anecdotal evidence that shows that the AP and CC will not engage below 18mph.... good thinking @madodel - hope you were doing this in an area that was safe in the event that it did engage!
So the theory that AP or CC pressed the gas is unlikely.
Also - I really respected the wording of Tesla's statement. IMHO.. Tesla was very careful to avoid harsh accusatory wording when talking about what the recording showed. I know it is in their best interest but I think this shows Tesla's consumer centric POV. They had a choice in the wording of their response and they chose a more neutral tone vs an accusatory one. Especially given the statements aimed at Tesla by the husband. This is a highly emotional situation - it is unlikely that it was done on purpose by the wife (unless the husband was actually standing in front of the car...
Just my2cents...
mobe
Member
Nope. Not unless; a) you are moving faster than 18 mph or b) the tacc is locked onto the car in front of you. ( it can be locked onto the car in front of you (by activating it with the stalk), if you are both stopped at a red light and will then accelerate to set speed IF the car that it locks onto accelerates).
cool story. Don't buy one then.
You can wait till a fully autonomous car comes in in 5 years...till then, this is what you have. If you don't think the technology is good enough, again....don't buy one.
To earlier comments: Any touching of the brake disables any inputs to the accelerator whether manual or electronic. So in order to accelerate, the driver must not have been touching the brake at all and the foot only on the accelerator.
I thought someone had ran into, and tested, that if you apply the brakes and then press the accelerator that the car will accelerate against the brakes. (But if you go the other way around it stop accelerating.)
HookBill
Member
Stopped by this morning to actually look at the accident site and took a few pictures. They are attached below with a few comments about what I saw first-hand. Since I did not view the accident happen nor was I involved in the Q&A with the driver/husband or any eye witnesses, any comments made are purely speculative and based upon assumptions.
The first file (0424) shows the accident scene as one approaches it from afar. I imagined the car heading towards the accident site based upon comments made in the thread earlier where husband noted that the tires were turned slightly to the left which indicates to me that the driver was either preparing to turn left (where the dark van is located) or getting ready to pull into a vacant parking stall that is occupied by the white Toyota in the photos. Notice the parking lot driveway is off-center from the stall itself so the driver would have probably aligned themselves to set up for a turn or stall pull-in.
The second file (0423) is a little closer look as one approaches the building. Note the rocks in the planter area just left of the damaged wall. On closer examination, the rocks did not appear to show any damage so I will assume the MX either passed over the lowest part of the rocks or stayed just to the right of them.
The next file (0425) shows tire marks just inside and outside the planter area. My guess is these were left during the MX removal process as there is mud on the tracks shown in the pavement. It should give you a bit of an idea though of the direction the car may have taken just before it hit the building. Please note that no actual skid marks where seen so it did not look like the brake was used in a last minute attempt to stop the vehicle.
The final picture (0426) shows both tire marks left in the planter, again probably left during the MX removal process.
After looking at the site, and reading what had already been posted in the thread, I came away with the following theories. The car was slowly driving through the lot (6 miles/hr per Tesla) and approached this parking lot intersection. (1) The driver was either going to turn left or veered left as a set-up to enter the parking stall occupied by the Toyota. The driver was still rolling when perhaps another driver appeared either from the left or right causing the driver to attempt to stop. While attempting to apply the brakes they accidentally hit the accelerator pedal thus launching the car forward. Or, (2) everything remains the same but the car did what the owners said it did.
Please note I am not siding with either the owners or Tesla on this but simply going off of what I have read and seen so far. The final outcome will be determined in a court of law or insurance companies, but if I was a betting person, and I do like watching Forensic Files BTW, I might lean towards siding with Tesla on this one.
The first file (0424) shows the accident scene as one approaches it from afar. I imagined the car heading towards the accident site based upon comments made in the thread earlier where husband noted that the tires were turned slightly to the left which indicates to me that the driver was either preparing to turn left (where the dark van is located) or getting ready to pull into a vacant parking stall that is occupied by the white Toyota in the photos. Notice the parking lot driveway is off-center from the stall itself so the driver would have probably aligned themselves to set up for a turn or stall pull-in.
The second file (0423) is a little closer look as one approaches the building. Note the rocks in the planter area just left of the damaged wall. On closer examination, the rocks did not appear to show any damage so I will assume the MX either passed over the lowest part of the rocks or stayed just to the right of them.
The next file (0425) shows tire marks just inside and outside the planter area. My guess is these were left during the MX removal process as there is mud on the tracks shown in the pavement. It should give you a bit of an idea though of the direction the car may have taken just before it hit the building. Please note that no actual skid marks where seen so it did not look like the brake was used in a last minute attempt to stop the vehicle.
The final picture (0426) shows both tire marks left in the planter, again probably left during the MX removal process.
After looking at the site, and reading what had already been posted in the thread, I came away with the following theories. The car was slowly driving through the lot (6 miles/hr per Tesla) and approached this parking lot intersection. (1) The driver was either going to turn left or veered left as a set-up to enter the parking stall occupied by the Toyota. The driver was still rolling when perhaps another driver appeared either from the left or right causing the driver to attempt to stop. While attempting to apply the brakes they accidentally hit the accelerator pedal thus launching the car forward. Or, (2) everything remains the same but the car did what the owners said it did.
Please note I am not siding with either the owners or Tesla on this but simply going off of what I have read and seen so far. The final outcome will be determined in a court of law or insurance companies, but if I was a betting person, and I do like watching Forensic Files BTW, I might lean towards siding with Tesla on this one.
Attachments
Similar threads
