Yet another fatal Tesla Autopilot crash is under federal investigation
The NHTSA is now investigating a stunning total of 39 Tesla crashes.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Yet another, AP fatality under investigation
- Thread starter 2101Guy
- Start date
“The 39 crashes being investigated are only a small portion of those involving Autopilot. According to the NHTSA, 273 crashes involving Teslas running Autopilot occurred between July 20, 2021, and May 21, 2022.”
“Yes, we know, car crashes happen every day — but Autopilot promises to make roads safer, and thus far it’s proving to do quite the opposite.”
“Yes, we know, car crashes happen every day — but Autopilot promises to make roads safer, and thus far it’s proving to do quite the opposite.”
whoosierdaddy
FSD Supervisor
I’ll save my breath until we see if Autopilot was actually engaged or not.
“Uhh, yea! It was Autopilot’s fault and not mine! That’s what it was, yea!!”
“Uhh, yea! It was Autopilot’s fault and not mine! That’s what it was, yea!!”
If it has been added to the NHTSA’s investigation, I think that means they’ve already confirmed Autopilot was active.
From what I've seen of Ford's BlueCruise so far, that implementation is very effective in ensuring the driver's eyes are on the road, even with sunglasses on. That is superior to the Telsa hands on the wheel approach. This type of feature on pre-mapped highways is as far as it should go in my opinion. There's simply too many potential variables in driving.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Add first, verify later.
There are currently 48 ADAS cases being investigated. Three of those are clearly labeled as "Not in Autopilot" after the car logs come in.
The article seems very biased against AP and FSD. Simply confirming AP was engaged doesn’t make AP the cause of the crash.
The driver is responsible for the vehicle. The technology, as it is currently, is a driver assist system.
Tesla though would probably help itself by rebranding the technology as the name implies it is something it’s not.
The driver is responsible for the vehicle. The technology, as it is currently, is a driver assist system.
Tesla though would probably help itself by rebranding the technology as the name implies it is something it’s not.
Last edited:
And what is the statistics for other car crashes that involve human drivers in the same time frame?
I think I’m safer with AutoPilot than the morons on their phones with their non ADAS cars, but again AP or not I don’t play with my phone when I drive.
I think I’m safer with AutoPilot than the morons on their phones with their non ADAS cars, but again AP or not I don’t play with my phone when I drive.
It doesn't shift blame regardless, the NHTSA would be concerned with driver monitoring and why someone can be so checked out that they plow into a motorcycle.
The NHTSA doesn't expect the technology to flawlessly detect and respond to everything because they know it's nowhere near perfect, the idea is that the system can operate so long as the driver is sufficiently engaged with the dynamic driving task.
Regarding the naming, "Autopilot" is pretty problematic when you think of what people mean when they say something like "he's running on Autopilot" = not engaged, not thinking, just going through the motions without the requisite care or attention.
Tam
Well-Known Member
When I bought Autopilot/FSD, after listening to Elon Musk,I thought the technology would be here soon, and collisions would happen but very minimal and not fatal.
However, because I heard of this kind of case, it woke me up that collision avoidance technology in Tesla is still very far away.
There's value in learning what mistakes the driver made in this case so I won't fatally hit another motorcyclist in the future.
Pay attention. Just like AP says to do EVERY time you turn on autopilot.
Oh no, let's not follow directions or read important information which we must agree to before using the technology. That would be silly... But then again, humans are so good at logical thinking.
One issue I'd like the NHTSA to address in its investigation is accidental software bugs.
One version of FSD was quickly recalled because of dangerous braking, I think it was 10.3. This problem became public because of the "recall". Each version likely has its own set of good things and bad things, some of which may be called bugs that are capable of contributing to an accident.
If Tesla silently fixes most of these bugs (or doesn't) how can the software ever be forensically investigated? Bugs can appear under very specific conditions and be quite difficult to replicate. There are well-known cases of disasters caused by software bugs in history.
I guess I'm wondering, when the FSD software changes from each xx.xx version and even xx.xx.x version how anyone can prove that the software didn't have a problem when a driver or crash suggested the software contributed to the accident. There are just so many versions of unaudited code.
One version of FSD was quickly recalled because of dangerous braking, I think it was 10.3. This problem became public because of the "recall". Each version likely has its own set of good things and bad things, some of which may be called bugs that are capable of contributing to an accident.
If Tesla silently fixes most of these bugs (or doesn't) how can the software ever be forensically investigated? Bugs can appear under very specific conditions and be quite difficult to replicate. There are well-known cases of disasters caused by software bugs in history.
I guess I'm wondering, when the FSD software changes from each xx.xx version and even xx.xx.x version how anyone can prove that the software didn't have a problem when a driver or crash suggested the software contributed to the accident. There are just so many versions of unaudited code.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I think their goal is to keep the road safe, and it's up to manufacturers to comply with the agency's demand for the safety standard: Software, Hardware, bugs, or no bugs...
For example, if this driver was operating the phone and didn't see the motorcyclist, how can manufacturers make it safer?
Some solutions could be:
They can improve the nagging by activating the cabin camera even during Autopilot. Currently, only FSD beta has the strictest camera nagging, not AP, EAP, or public FSD)...
Yes I agree with improving the driver monitoring.
I'm suggesting that each manufacturer could be required to submit full code and "real and official" change documentation every time it's changed in any way. Not that it should be tested at all, that's up to the manufacturer, but that a record would be kept should there be an investigation later. The NTSB is better at that type of investigation.
Requiring full documentation would impress on manufacturers the seriousness of what they are doing, and would not take very much effort to implement. I think they are given too much leeway, and "PR change documentation" is meaningless information IMO.
johnmodely
Member
These articles are pointless without having relative data attached to it. 100s of thousands die in crashes each year, thousands will die even if AP is great.
Only thing that matters is relative safety. Its like these guys would rather you die under your own control than having a much less chance of dying with AP enabled, even if that means people will die with AP enabled regardless.
Only thing that matters is relative safety. Its like these guys would rather you die under your own control than having a much less chance of dying with AP enabled, even if that means people will die with AP enabled regardless.
Similar threads
