First Tesla Autopilot death - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:08:01 am
content: http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12072408/tesla-autopilot-car-crash-death-autonomous-model-sLooks like this case will set the legal precedent for self driving vehicles, and more importantly...if the car manufactures can be sued!

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:21:17 am
content: Care to quote the story... I have no intention of signing up for that site,

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:26:44 am
content: I'm too lazy to even copy and paste, so here's a summary:Driver enabled autopilot and stopped paying attention. Car didn't see a truck crossing the highway and tried to limbo under it at full speed. Ex-driver.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:35:33 am
content: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-muskHere is another link, don't know if it is geo-locked though,Apparently the car failed to differentiate the trailer from a bright sky, what has me more curious is why the car crashed after continuing down the road, if it was only the windscreen up that was impacted, the ECU's should have still been operating, so this may also hint at another issue,

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:36:47 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on July 01, 2016, 02:21:17 amJust updated the link.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:38:31 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on July 01, 2016, 02:35:33 amWho knows what sort of structural damage it suffered from the impact. The entire chassis could easily have been warped by that. It's also possible the autopilot became disengaged and it coasted (or the pedal was held by what was left of the driver).

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:40:45 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 01, 2016, 02:38:31 amYep, especially if the car became partially lodged under the trailer for some time. I have witnessed some accidents that were VERY nasty because the driver hit a trailer an not another automobile.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:50:27 am
content: Either DUI or the autopilot was texting.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:54:37 am
content: QuoteDriver enabled AUTOPILOT and DARWINISM.Sounds like the world won overall.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 03:19:29 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on July 01, 2016, 02:35:33 amThe car's camera is in the top-middle of the windshield. So, missing the top half of the car would also eliminate the vision input that detects lane markers, road signs, etc. I don't know what else the software is programmed to do when it completely loses one or more input devices apart from alerting the driver to take over, which wasn't a viable option at that time.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 03:22:03 am
content: The driver was in the drivers seat, they could at any time have stopped the vehicle.Self driving cars are never going to be perfect, they don't have to be perfect, as long as they are no worse than humans (and that's not a high bar to set) that's fine as far as I'm concerned.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 03:57:02 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on July 01, 2016, 03:22:03 amWhile I would like to agree with you, there's one fatal flaw in that logic - and I would hazard a guess that this is exactly what killed the driver."... with a Volvo engineer saying the system "gives you the impression that it's doing more than it is." In other words, the car handles most situations so smoothly that drivers are lead to believe that the car can handle any situation it might encounter. That is not the case..."I have been mildly critical of several technological advancements in the auto industry because they take away some of the demands for awareness of the driving environment and limitations of both the car and the driver. "Lane departure" warnings are one. If you aren't aware you're drifting out of your lane, then you shouldn't be on the road. Certainly, there is an argument that this improves safety - but it continues the myth that technology is a panacea for all situations.It would seem our victim may well have succumbed to such a level of trust and forgotten:Tesla reiterates that customers are required to agree that the system is in a "public beta phase" before they can use it, and that the system was designed with the expectation that drivers keep their hands on the wheel and that the driver is required to "maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle."While these things may have their strong points, they are de-skilling drivers, which unnerves me no end. The result of which could easily be that the driver becomes so inexperienced in making decisions that, when the technology cannot cope, they are (1) unable to identify the problem situation in time and (2) unable to take the appropriate action.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 04:23:25 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 01, 2016, 03:57:02 amA similar problem with traction control, you can see people driving foolishly enough to engage the traction control on mildly wet tarmac and seeing it as normal. Without traction control you push too hard and lose traction at a lower speed with more chance for recovery, with traction control the driver will see no problem with driving faster and when they do lose control its at a higher speed with worse outcomes.In this region its an offence for me to loose traction on a wheel in my car without traction control, while its not an offence for someone with traction control to have it engage while they perform the same manoeuvre!

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 04:27:40 am
content: You bring up several valid points of concern, Brumby. I had similar thoughts back when we had the big brouhaha over Ford's SUVs rolling over. One of the reported causes for the incidents was that people were driving SUVs in the same manner as standard passenger cars despite the fact that their dynamics are quite different.That made me feel like drivers should be required to get certification for operating an SUV. It wouldn't have to be an entirely different license class such as for large trucks, just an add-on to an existing passenger car license. Of course, it'd probably never happen, but is similar to what you're saying about driver skills, education, awareness, etc.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 04:40:00 am
content: Sucks, but it just reminded me of how badly I want a tesla :/

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:05:49 am
content: From Tesla's blog:https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tragic-lossQuoteSounds a lot like a sun glare situation, neither the car's cameras nor the driver could see the white truck trailer against the sky.QuoteAlso this story which names the driver, and has links to his youtube channel etc.http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12072634/tesla-autopilot-crash-autonomous-mode-viral-video

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:07:07 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on July 01, 2016, 05:12:22 amCruise is nice but of course you still have to engage brain.Same as Autopilot, I had opportunity to see someone drive a Nissan with all sorts of driver aids, the speed with which she came to rely on them and not her own senses was quite scary.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:54:42 am
content: Oh no, not a dead autopilot!

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:02:43 am
content: Quote from: CJay on July 01, 2016, 06:07:07 amIt seems you have observed that which concerns me.Add several more such people on the roads at the same time - and it is, indeed, quite scary.I think I'll be looking at installing a 360º crash cam system .... Any recommendations?

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:14:16 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 01, 2016, 07:02:43 am360 is impossible on the cheap, and up until recently dashcam systems always had one nice tiny little camera and one bulky thing, but a company finally, finally came out with one that has a remote recording box and two cameras on wires, which I've wanted for ages.Two of those and a couple 32 gig SD cards and you are set. Techmoan did a review, although apparently there are some reliability issues I just noticed on the video which sucks.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:16:11 am
content: i find it highly unlikely that the Tesla's autopilot relies solely on optical sensors, even the human eye sometimes has problems in seeing things in certain conditions.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 01:42:31 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 01, 2016, 07:16:11 amIt also has radar and sonar.In one of the articles it was stated that it didn't detect the trailer because it looked like an overhead sign to the computer. Another difficulty was that the crossing was behind a crest, someone on reddit posted a streetview of the location, although the distance between the crossing and the top didn't seem that short to me.The trailer had no side guards, because for some reason they aren't mandatory in the USA. If it had guards or skirts, it would have probably been detected by the camera and/or radar. Probably wouldn't have avoided the accident, but maybe the car would have applied the brakes. Still, I still find it hard to believe the driver didn't see a trailer crossing the road.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 02:46:10 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 01, 2016, 07:02:43 amSome of the electronics was very useful and added features that stopped a driver becoming distracted, but I would agree, things like lane warning, automatic speed sign recognition, could all add up to a feeling of invulnerability and leave the driver 'disconnected'.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 04:34:53 pm
content: Quote from: rollatorwieltje on July 01, 2016, 01:42:31 pmMost likely he wasn't looking.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 04:37:03 pm
content: Quote from: rollatorwieltje on July 01, 2016, 01:42:31 pmThey both have low resolution compared to let's say 3D laser scanners. A laser scanner shouldn't have a problem distinguishing between a truck and an overpath. They are more expensive though and interfere with the aesthetic design of the car.http://youtu.be/dYCy7woAzs8?t=20sEdit: Musk hinting to the radar's low resolution: Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that the vehicle's radar didn't help in this case because it "tunes out what looks like an overhead road sign to avoid false braking events." Fromhttp://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12072408/tesla-autopilot-car-crash-death-autonomous-model-s

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 04:39:49 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on July 01, 2016, 04:34:53 pmIf the sun is directly in your face it is hard to see ahead. Also the truck driver may have been tired of waiting and suddenly pulled up to cross the highway while assuming the other traffic would stop / was far enough away to stop. If you look on Reddit you can find the link to the intersection where it happened. It is a pretty simple situation.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 05:10:51 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 01, 2016, 04:37:03 pmGoogle use lasers in their car, but lidar does not work in the rain.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 05:15:18 pm
content: Quote from: Rerouter on July 01, 2016, 02:35:33 amI would assume the sudden deceleration of the collision would deploy airbags and disable any kind of driver assist.If so, the car would coast. The same applies to a normal car. If you bump the steering wheel, or deploy the airbags, cruise control is disbled. If the driver is then unconscious or injured. Nothing stops the car.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 05:18:35 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on July 01, 2016, 04:34:53 pmI wonder if is is ok (legal) to text while driving in these cars?This will set this technology back years, so I will never be able to buy oneSomeone talked about side truck skirts like it is unusual not to require them. So do other countries require them? It would help (for radar) to have them but since we do not, I am sure we never will.Also I think there will be no lawsuit because of the disclaimers and I am sure Tesla will give the heirs a very good "settlement".

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 05:27:27 pm
content: Quote from: ez24 on July 01, 2016, 05:18:35 pmIt is not legal to text or do anything else in a Tesla. Autopilot is basically just advanced cruise control, it isn't fully autonomous at all. It will be legal when the steering wheel goes away would be my guess.Guards on the sides and back of trailers are mandatory in Europe sice the 80's. The side guards are mostly there to avoid other road users going under the wheels in a sideswipe collision. As a bonus they also reduce fuel consumption (when executed as skirts)..

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 05:28:49 pm
content: I think amyk is probably right, "Most likely he wasn't looking", I don't drive these day's as I was a crap driver and it's too expensive but at least I kept an eye on what was up ahead and behind. As regards sensors Omron have some high power pulsed IR LEDs specifically designed for time of flight distance measurement, I was looking to use then in a project. But I think anybody on the forum who has worked with image processing knows damned well how difficult it is even under artificial lighting conditions let alone real world lighting conditions. If you are going to use cameras to see what is up ahead you need at least two otherwise how the hell you get depth perception, and the car running "beta" software, how the hell is that legal.Today I read thet BMW and Intel looking into developing autonomous vehicles,, the roads are dangerous enough with bad drivers, but bad software driving you car

author: GreyWoolfe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 05:46:50 pm
content: I was reading about this on FoxNews.com and the article said that the driver was supposedly watching a Harry Potter movie. The truck driver told the Associated Press this, but nothing was mentioned in the initial police report so this information may have to be taken with grain of salt. Here is a snippet of the article:Frank Baressi, 62, the driver of the truck and owner of Okemah Express LLC, said the Tesla driver was "playing Harry Potter on the TV screen" at the time of the crash and driving so quickly that "he went so fast through my trailer I didn't see him.""It was still playing when he died and snapped a telephone pole a quarter mile down the road," Baressi told The Associated Press in an interview from his home in Palm Harbor, Florida. It was not immediately clear whether Tesla's systems would allow a movie to play while the car was being driven and there were no references to the movie in initial police reports.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 05:55:38 pm
content: They are claiming there was a portable DVD player:https://www.yahoo.com/news/tesla-shares-slip-following-fatality-damage-seen-limited-123836137--finance.html

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:03:05 pm
content: QuoteA wise caution, Fox News were reporting that we were leaving the UN the other day.

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:05:55 pm
content: Please... Harry Potter...This has to be a hoax

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:07:40 pm
content: Side skirts are not mandatory here on articulated trailers, but rear underriders are. They can and do save lives in collisions of a car into the rear of a truck, often occurring in twilight or inclement weather, or with a truck that had broken down ( depressingly common in some places, where you will often find a truck broken down multiple times a day for fuel flow problems or overheating, due to operators either not replacing fuel filters when clogged or neglecting to drain water, along with poor maintenance in general and use of incorrect fuel) where the vehicle is severely damaged, but the occupants survive.I saw a graphic demo one evening travelling on a bus intercity. Station wagon came past in the mist doing close to Mach one, and I commented to the driver that we would see him soon again. Bus was doing a whole 20kph in the mist, and we had a long line behind us playing follow the leader. 10km later we stop for the mandated break, and 20 minutes later pull out to the long downhill pass section. A little down in the heavy fog ( mist on top of the mountain turned to fog on the way down) flashing blue lights and a traffic cop indicating to change to next lane. Carry on down another kilometre and more red and yellow lights, an ambulance and a tow truck, parked next to a sheet of what looked like crumpled white paper in the left of the road. another kilometre more and more blue lights, with a now convertible station wagon. Truck was 12km further at the bottom of the hill, he did not feel or hear the impact. No rear underrider, so the trailer bed cleaned the car off at door sill hight. No survivors there either, all 4 DOA.Underriders became a mandatory item on all new trailers later, but you still have older ones which have none, as they are grandfathered in and have not changed owner. They do save lives.As to drivers being stupid, I saw a guy one evening driving on the freeway, with a portable DVD player, playing a movie that would definitely " involve" the full attention of most regular men in it. He was doing 100 kph and not looking where he was going, except occasionally. I passed and got out of the way, as he was coming up to merge areas and a notorious accident section.

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:11:55 pm
content: QuoteI was reading something about this the other day, well months ago, I think it could well have been related to the Omron IR LEDs but they said it even worked in the rain or was it fog, damn I can't find the article now but I wasn't too surprised by this as many animals can see in IR, pirahas and goldfish can see in murky water for example but the particle size is a lot smaller, it's just a matter of scale or wavelength in that respect.I can sort of see, no pun intended, how lasers don't work in the rain or fog, a narrow band souce is going to generate a lot of interference patterns whereas a broadband souce like an LED will be less likely to generate interference patterns. Anyway, lasers and bad optics waste of time.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:14:59 pm
content: Maybe I'm looking at this in a too simple way, but if he followed Tesla's recommendation that you should keep your hands on the wheel and pay attention to the road he should have seen it coming and avoided the collision. If he did not see it coming then he would have crashed in any other car, and if he was watching a movie there's no way you can blame Tesla apart from giving the driver the false idea that the car would handle anything.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:16:53 pm
content: Side skirts are called "fietsenvangers" (cyclist catchers) here. To catch cyclist who insist passing/staying next to trucks who are turning.They are not intended to catch cars. They are made of aluminum bars which will bend.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:30:47 pm
content: Quote from: chris_leyson on July 01, 2016, 05:28:49 pmIf they manage to program it to indicate I'm all in favour of an autonomous BMW

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:40:09 pm
content: I’m not rich enough to afford a Tesla Model S but what exactly is the purpose of the autopilot? You have to keep your hands on the steering wheel all the time as if you were driving the car on your own, you have to carefully watch the traffic, you have to be alert to take control of the car if the system fails, every second. If it crashes, you are responsible. Sounds quite dumb to me, you would be better of if you just drive it yourself. My suspicion: Almost all “autopilot” drivers will lose concentration after a few minutes max and start on daydreaming, texting on their phones or watching Hairy Twatter movies. If something is going wrong and the autopilot fails it takes them 10 seconds to wake up and act. Sounds like an outrageous dangerous gadget to me. Wonder how something like this ever got street legal

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:50:06 pm
content: Autopilot in a traffic jam would be nice.

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:53:02 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on July 01, 2016, 06:30:47 pmZis is never going to happen

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 06:55:05 pm
content: I tend to see it the other way around: the less you need to concentrate on controlling the car the more you can concentrate on the other traffic. I very much like to use the cruise control on long stretches of road.@Continuo: that image is exactly the reason I'll never buy a BMW! No, I'm not kidding.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:11:17 pm
content: Autopilot is great for slow traffic, where you are bumper to bumper and moving at walking pace ( or slower, where an EV is most efficient at MPG figures over any other vehicle) for a few minutes. Higher speed on a good straight road as well, but there you need no sudden events like animals. Other times the technology is not yet right.On the gripping hand, i did see a Break My Window the other day using indicators to turn, but this could have been that the hazard lihts were on and the one bulb had burnt out. Common to see them with no lights at the rear and only the one headlight ( often only the bright) working.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:12:53 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 01, 2016, 04:37:03 pmFundamentally there is nothing they can do which a XBOX-One type depth camera can't (unfortunately only designed for small distances). It's just cheaper to design a laser scanner and do a high rep rate distance measurement than tape out a per pixel ToF determining ASIC ... also the laser scanner is old unencumbered tech and per pixel ToF is a patent minefield (Microsoft bought up most of the mines though).

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:13:12 pm
content: The driver in the fatal crash was the same guy who posted the video of his car avoiding a collision:In this one he said "I became aware of the danger when Tessy alerted me with the "immediately take over" warning chime and the car swerving to the right to avoid the side collision", you can also hear some audio either radio or a video.So it is highly likely he was watching a DVD and letting the car drive unmonitored.I guess one of the advantages of working in tech is also understanding the limitations. Interesting moral question for engineers, is it better to provide "autopilot" mode and save hundred smart people from a collision even if one careless user dies? Or not allow anyone to use it until it is perfect?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:23:12 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on July 01, 2016, 05:10:51 pmRain would make finding the right threshold for the measurement tricky I guess.If you used a pulse packet instead of a pulse or step though, you could use correlation to find the largest response though ... although that makes what I said above about being able to use an ASIC a lie, this is much more suited to doing serial measurements at high rep rates.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:24:07 pm
content: Quote from: continuo on July 01, 2016, 06:40:09 pmExactly, the responsibility with all of these assists... no matter how far they advance... will still be the driver's. When does it "cross over" to the point that driver's are not responsible? Ultimately, we are heading towards the autonomously piloting vehicle where passengers will have no control of the vehicle whatsoever. Only at that point will you be able to sit back, with no control, and pray the systems are all working properly. Much like when taking public transportation.Will these "transitory" technologies save lives? No doubt the stats are being gathered and we will know in a few years whether there is more benefit than harm. We know seat belts and airbags save lives. We also suspect that driver assist systems, given an ALERT AND AWARE DEFENSIVE DRIVER, save more lives because they fill in some of those "gaps" that sometimes still cause accidents. The key term is: "ALERT and AWARE DEFENSIVE DRIVER" + Driver assist = Save more lives than just ALERT and AWARE DEFENSIVE DRIVER *alone.But.... What we don't know yet is if driver assist systems cause too much "complacency" and therefore drivers will not be as focused and alert and defensive. That is:UNAWARE/BAD/DISTRACTED DRIVER + Driver Assist...is WORSE THAN...ALERT/AWARE DEFENSIVE DRIVER (with or without Driver Assist)The Driver Assist may cause increases in DISTRACTED DRIVERS. Especially now with all the tech in cars.We just got a 2016 Honda Pilot with Nav and it is full of technologies. However, I have tried to drive the thing and it is too distracting. The radio has 50 options, all ergonomically stupid. Touch-screen, buttons, menus all over, dozens of buttons on the steering wheel. It's barely usable when you are in park. Now imagine driving down the road at a high clip and trying to figure out something on the menu or navigation.And I'm not some old geezer (no offense to old geezers). I'm in my 40's and experienced with computers and programming and have multitasked my whole life. But the interfaces in cars really sucks. At least this Honda one. All of the assists, buttons, features, etc... have only added to the "feature sheet" and may be great in theory but when the average driver needs to go from A to B, this stuff seems to be just overkill.Compared to only a few years ago... My 2011 Honda CR-V (no Nav) has a simple radio system, no touch screen, no bluetooth, etc. I drive and listen to MP3's on USB or iPod hooked up to the USB input, or AUX in, Radio or CD Player or XM Radio. Very few buttons and options comparatively. I don't get distracted by a million tech features in the car.... And even then, I have to pay full attention to the road because driving these days in a major city requires a lot of attention.I feel like car companies have reached a limit on innovation on the mechanical/fuel efficiency side, or they feel the easiest way to get people to "upgrade" to a new car is by enticing them with technology improvements... since the cycle on tech is faster than the cycle on a car rusting or dying mechanically. Since most tech is deeply "built-in" to cars, it will be difficult to really upgrade a car with older tech. It is not easy to rip out the entire dash and fit in a new system. I'm going to stick to my basic few-distraction interior for now.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:29:25 pm
content: Florida Highway Patrol has published a sketch of the accident. Can't see any other possibility but driver distraction.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:34:05 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on July 01, 2016, 07:13:12 pmFor now you can simply use drive assist, where the car only partially intervenes in an emergency in a way which is still easily overcome by the active driver (ie. trying to steer away when you're cut off, resisting you when you try to cut someone else off). Making the driver do the work the rest of the time.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 07:39:10 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on July 01, 2016, 05:10:51 pmIn case of heavy rain there is plenty of time to safely transfer control to the driver. One of the jobs of the autopilot is to determine when it's unsafe.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 08:23:14 pm
content: Quote from: Maxlor on July 01, 2016, 07:29:25 pmLooks to me like the Tesla (V02) was coming up to an intersection and the truck (V01) was making a left turn coming in the opposite direction. The Tesla did not "see" the truck because it was a similar color/contrast to the sky and decided to proceed straight through the intersection, going under the truck and chopping off it's roof and likely the driver's upper body was severely injured. The car then continued off into the ditch and smashed through some other things.It does sound like a driver who wasn't looking ahead at the road.A normal driver coming up on an intersection where you see people are turning left usually will slow down, be cautious and ready to apply breaks if the idiot turning left decides to cut you off. Also, the lights sometimes are turning yellow then red.... People see yellow and assume you will stop, so they start their left turn in your path. Sometimes people try to beat the red and accelerate straight into the path of a left-turning vehicle.Either way, intersections demand WAY MORE attention than straight stretches of road. I can't see any fault of Tesla's either, except that they may have over-hyped the ability of these technologies. I am pretty sure there is a big warning screen that comes on when the car turns on that warns people though.If anything good should come out of this tragedy, it should be that his death will cause more people to pay attention to the road and not trust their cars so much to handle things. We need a wake-up call and shake people out of this false sense of security. Even the naming of these systems has to change.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 08:38:15 pm
content: As others have said, it sounds like these limited autopilots give people a false sense of security so that they stop paying attention. I think I would only be comfortable trusting a fully autonomous system (like the Google car) without any wireless networking that is connected to the autopilot computer (i.e. that can be hacked) and with a good track record for being safe (safer than a skilled human driver).

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 08:51:11 pm
content: Not sure what the state of the art is now but a few years ago the RAF had trouble distinguishing between low flying helicopters and high flying trucks so if military grade equipment has problems how reliable will the sensors in cars be.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 08:51:46 pm
content: And a semitrailer is not going to cross the intersection very quickly. The Tesla driver could have seen the collision coming at least 5 seconds before it happened and then at least slow down or swerve if the autopilot missed the last point for coming to a full stop.A statement by Tesla sayd they ignore high obstacles, otherwise the car would stop for low road signs hanging over the road. Could it be that the radar, mounted in the front of the car I believe, is angled so only horizontal obstacles are registered? It's how I could see it missing a trailer.Are these car radars actually 2D, or just 1D strips? If the former, seems the problem would be fixable with some trigonometry in software. Otherwise, it'd be kinda hard to handle this situation, what with the camera apparently failing too due to lighting. Maybe with more situational awareness ("I just saw the tractor cross in front of me, chances are a trailer's following",) but things become really difficult there...

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 08:52:38 pm
content: This problem has been well-studied for decades, but the singularity zombies and trend hoppers don't study history, it's against their constitution.http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-death

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 09:02:05 pm
content: I would've thought the system would be restricted to lower speeds but it's apparently not. Maybe they will be forced to change that policy now.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 10:49:12 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 01, 2016, 06:55:05 pmThe actuaries in our insurance companies disagree. It cost more to insure an automatic car here, as they are statistically more lightly to have an accident.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 11:11:47 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on July 01, 2016, 10:49:12 pmI'm curious how they came up with that statistic, what with there being very little data on autopilot-controlled cars. Of course, it's an insurance's business to estimate risk even with little data to depend on, and the ones that get it right are the ones that grow. Still, maybe you can give some insight into the considerations?

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 11:21:45 pm
content: Quote from: edy on July 01, 2016, 08:23:14 pmAs in decapitated - at least he did not suffer. There should be a monument for him, for being the first. As someone said, seems there should be a speed limit on this technology for at least a few years (maybe 50).

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 11:27:39 pm
content: QuoteThat's where tesla's explanation so far is fishy.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 11:36:22 pm
content: Quote from: Maxlor on July 01, 2016, 07:29:25 pmMaybe but I'm wondering who caused the accident from a legal point of view. Over here (in the NL) you have to give way to vehicles which stay on the same road when taking a left turn. How is that in the US?

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 11:38:27 pm
content: Quote from: ez24 on July 01, 2016, 11:21:45 pmI disagree, because high speed roads (highways) are actually rather safe (not much in the way of intersections, and everyone's going roughly the same speed), usually well maintained, and monotonous, perfect conditions for an autopilot. I don't think speed should be the criterium, it should be complexity. If you need to have a rule, make it something like, say, switch to manual control 10 seconds before intersections.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 11:40:52 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 01, 2016, 11:27:39 pmSonar is probably short range, low speed, for parking. For the radar, because of the low resolution, they selected a threshold to ignore overpasses, otherwise it would trigger correctly on that truck.The public expects the machines to be perfect, not just same or better error rate than humans, and this can be expensive.Edit: Tesla web site says 'enable after delivery for $3000' so this is basically a software option on top of the car's standard hardware. With this pricing model its hardware its underlying hardware and sensors are very price sensitive.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 11:42:22 pm
content: In a way, this is like the incidents with navigation systems where people blindly followed the verbal instructions onto railroad tracks, into lakes and ditches, through roadblocks, etc. Many were up in arms about how "dangerous" nav systems were. Unfortunately, the problem is the driver. Yes, the tech can exacerbate the problem in many ways, but the driver is still in command and responsible.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2016, 11:46:51 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 01, 2016, 11:36:22 pmSame (although rules can be different per state). The vehicle turning across traffic must yield unless they have a green left-arrow light that indicates they may turn (and a corresponding red light is illuminated to oncoming traffic).

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 12:09:38 am
content: I think this ad that just started appearing on Australian TV's is oddly relevant,In it they do say the person that entered is at fault, but the other driver should still slowdown around intersections

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 12:13:30 am
content: Yes, quite relevant. Defensive driving is all about awareness and staying out of trouble, regardless who has the right of way or is at fault. It's better to be unharmed than legally correct.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 12:20:44 am
content: Quote from: Maxlor on July 01, 2016, 11:38:27 pmI agree with you. Make it manual when not on a freeway. This accident was not on a freeway. And it is on freeways that I wish I had something like this.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 01:34:03 am
content: Quote from: edy on July 01, 2016, 07:24:07 pmExcept there is still no academic consensus on this, so we don't know that it does save lives over a population without them. It will save some specific lives and is known to improve outcomes from identical crashes, but the overall effect is in debate. For instance increasing the safety of your vehicle has a negative safety outcome for all other people (not just other vehicles), but the relative rates of change are not accurately known and may vary with other factors.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 01:43:27 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 02, 2016, 01:34:03 amI don't see how safety improvements degrade the safety of others. Unless you're suggesting that with safety improvements, bad drivers are more likely to survive crashes and thus continue endangering others.

author: chicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 01:55:56 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 02, 2016, 01:34:03 amCitation needed.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 02:21:24 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 02, 2016, 01:34:03 amThe reason is the world is flat.

author: boz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 02:58:14 am
content: Lets face it driving a Tesla does not make you death-proof and however sad, more people are going to die in them in the future.After the hype dies down (and there will be more as the lawyers haven't even got involved yet!) some good should come out of it. Tesla and other automakers will learn from it (dont trust human drivers) and the idiots who think auto-pilot is actually more than just a fancy cruise control will hopefully start paying attention to the road again.I wont be refunding my model 3 deposit anytime soon as none of this changes the fact that the Tesla is still much safer and desirable than the average car.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 03:14:20 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 02, 2016, 01:43:27 amQuote from: chicken on July 02, 2016, 01:55:56 amSeatbelts are framed as reducing death or injury of occupants, which they do achieve. Governments have been very careful to stick to statistics which show progress and improvement so its hard to assemble data to show wider effects, but John Adams has been hard at it and came up with some damming evidence:http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/http://www.cycle-helmets.com/seatbelts_adams.pdfOr the famous US paper which realigned the effectiveness of seat belts:http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/341.pdfA statistically insignificant increase in non-occupant fatalities.In Australia the number of pedestrians fatalities or injuries each year is levelling off while vehicle occupant fatalities and injuries continue a slow drop, at the same time as pedestrian mode rates are dropping. The risk for non-occupants is increasing while vehicle occupants are safer. Data around the time of the introduction of seatbelt laws like above is patchy, but shows a strong reduction in total road deaths following mandatory seat belt legislation while pedestrian fatalities or injuries continued or possibly increased.

author: chicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 03:47:31 am
content: Correlation != causation. increased number of pedestrian deaths can probably be explained by increase in traffic and/or size of cars (i.e. SUVs).From a quick Google, seat belts and airbags reduced occupant deaths by 60-80%.

author: GEuser
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 04:11:40 am
content: Quote from: boz on July 02, 2016, 02:58:14 amFunny you should mention the first sentence , below is so true that you would not believe it so , and I'll wager its in nostudyeither .Being a motorcyclist for many years and still is btw and not just a fair weather weekend warrior or footpath bikie , when those Volvo's where being introduced as the "safest car in the world" back in the 80's THEY were the vehicle to really take a double look double alarm status if seeing one , see those occupants were so "safe" that i imagine that there were still in front of the TV in the lounge at home when driving with that same attitude ,yet still watching TVlooking out of the windscreen all isolated from the real world imo ..They were and was far far worse than Taxi drivers .The Volvo era passed over the years and i noticed or imagined most seemed to re-populate the Mercedes brand newer stuff so it was then "alarm" for the Mercedes .People that wear Hats in vehicles is another one , you would not believe the coincidence of it all ..

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 04:19:13 am
content: Quote from: chicken on July 02, 2016, 03:47:31 amWhich is why the data around the years of mandatory seatbelt laws being introduced are so important, the data being used to claim the effectiveness of seat belts focuses on occupant deaths in accidents, while not considering equally important data such as the total number of accidents, or total numbers of deaths.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 05:08:23 am
content: Quote from: chicken on July 02, 2016, 03:47:31 amWhat can you say to this kind of self-defeating argument? correlation not causation indeed.You can't have your cake and eat it too: either it makes sense to point to changes in fatalities after safety devices are introduced, or it doesn't. Selectively pointing to some changes and not others is a cognitive bias and a fallacy.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 06:01:09 am
content: Quote from: Maxlor on July 01, 2016, 11:11:47 pmI read that as Automatic -vs- Manualtransmission(i.e. gearbox).There are many decades of data on that.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 07:46:19 am
content: My only point of view towards manual vs auto is, with a manual its generally harder to accidentally enter reverse, whereas on a fair few autos you have to pass through reverse and neutral to enter drive, equally for a manual, your foot is right there on the clutch, ready to disengage the second something isn't right, as a fair few people when they panic push both feet down. (One of the systems i deal with reviews driver training to reinforce good behaviors for bus and truck drivers)As to a normal vs adaptive cruise control / self parking car, then yeah that is far harder to imagine them basing different prices on, they tend to be newer cars with accident avoidance systems, but on the flip side if people over depend on those systems, they them self can be considered more dangerous drivers. E.g. why check the mirrors in your friends cars when your used to having lane clear indicators on your car.I have also observed the flipside, many new trucks have most of these features, but almost all the experienced drivers (for the companies i deal with) turn them off because they don't feel they are in control of the vehicle, and long stretches of road bore them when they are not an interactive driver. a few even told me of times where using the cruise for too long led to there legs going numb and not being able to react as fast as they would have liked.That and i promise you, you don't want to know how much stupid stuff goes on, and is never reported, e.g. trailers unhitching, city moped drivers going under truck trailers, people brake checking at random, and wheels flying off, almost all of these things would be bloody hard for a human to expect let alone a bit of software without winding up the paranoia to 11,

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 08:30:06 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on July 02, 2016, 12:09:38 amIs that kind of T-junction/crossing common in Australia? I don't think we even have a handful of 100 kmh T/crossings left here (ignoring emergency ones and farmer crossings). They were too accident prone.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 09:15:59 am
content: Not sure if posted here yet:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-02/tesla-crash-dvd-player-found-in-car-florida-police-say/7562962

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 09:22:09 am
content: Is it bad that the first thing I drew from that was "Wait, it doesn't have a built in dvd player?"

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 09:31:16 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on July 02, 2016, 09:22:09 amMy thought too

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 09:41:24 am
content: Quote from: Marco on July 02, 2016, 08:30:06 amYes, but mainly on more rural areas, where almost all the roads are point to point at 100 Km/h, many don't even have a turning lane, There are still major highways on routes between main city centers, but rural roads where done to a cost, so you leave your driveway, enter your street, follow that to the main road t section, stop, look and if clear and accelerate onto the main road up to 100km/h, i will say in almost every case you have about 2km visible both ways, so even trucks can get up to speed with minimal speed change to other drivers.Its not too different to the shoreline roads i encountered in New Zealand's south island. the roads where 100km/h but to a person not familiar with the roads the twisting turns made it feel closer to a 60 zone,There are also through very rural central Australia 100km/h dirt roads, with limited signage until you get close to a town, however there are also more major routes in, but depending on how your heading to the location could take a big enough detour that some will avoid.

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 09:51:42 am
content: The build in one is probably disabled during driving for a reason, so he just got a portable player would be my guess. That's the problem... There might be gazillions of disclaimers and warnings you have to click away but in the end the cars ends up in the hands of regular dumb people who do all sorts of irresponsible things the test drive engineers never thought of, because they just read "autopilot" and think they are now proud owners of KITT

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 10:00:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 02, 2016, 09:31:16 amHooray! We are both terrible people!

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 10:31:08 am
content: Quote from: XOIIO on July 02, 2016, 10:00:56 amIt's disabled when the vehicle is in motion, but there might be ways to hack it.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 02:32:54 pm
content: In a related news: "Woman killed in crash believed to be 1st bike-sharing death in U.S.". If you are using a technology, make sure it already killed somebody, just to be on the safe side.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-female-bicyclist-critically-injured-in-traffic-crash-on-northwest-side-20160701-story.html

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 03:51:36 pm
content: There are also several incidents with autopilots in planes.Eastern Air Lines Flight 401Aeroflot Airbus A310-304Air France Flight 447, which is most applicable. A faulty speed sensor feeding bad information to the (auto)pilot.1999 South Dakota Learjet, although here the autopilot continued working until all fuel was consumed.Probably more.There were also suggestions of implementing take-over autopilot if the pilot was intendedly creating or ignoring an obvious dangerous situation. As with Germanwings Flight 9525.This topic will lead to discussion. But it's not the first industry dealing with such high risk software.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 04:03:47 pm
content: Correct me if I'm wrong -- but as I understand it, the requirements of an autopilot in an aircraft are extremely different to those of an autonomous car. Even with a flight director engaged, I'm not aware of any collision avoidanceactionsan aircraft's autopilot can take. It just follows set altitude, speed and direction objectives, trimming the aircraft when it senses it is travelling outside the defined parameters.A car travelling on a road is a far more challenging exercise.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 04:23:24 pm
content: Quote from: Rerouter on July 02, 2016, 09:41:24 amGermany and France are also littered with that kind of roads with a speed limit of 90km/h or 100km/h and yes on some of these roads I wonder how to get even close to the speed limit.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 04:42:27 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 02, 2016, 04:03:47 pmThat's changing with the transition to ADS-B and automatic traffic avoidance. Avoiding traffic in an aircraft is relatively simple, just use a different flight level depending on your heading so a plane at a different heading than you will also be at a different altitude. More complicated avoidance is required around airports, but ground control is expected to take over in those situations.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_flight_(air_traffic_control)

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 05:11:10 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 02, 2016, 04:23:24 pmI don't know... There are quite a few of these T-crossings around my place here but they are all speed limited to 70 km/h in the intersection area. Especially dangerous ones with short line of sight (due to forest) are limited to 50.

author: digik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 06:01:36 pm
content: Elon Musk is a PIECE OF SHIT!

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 06:04:09 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 02, 2016, 04:03:47 pmIt is very complicated. But we humanity is lazy, so we'll be inventing autopilot cars.Tesla are some of the first to do this, then automatically, they are the first to have some failures.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 06:10:03 pm
content: Speaking of aircraft, I'm thankful that flying cars for everyone is not a reality. It's scary enough what happens out there in only two dimensions.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 07:24:25 pm
content: Quote from: bitseeker on July 02, 2016, 06:10:03 pmMore dimensions are are actually easier to avoid collisions.

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 08:00:03 pm
content: Quote from: digik on July 02, 2016, 06:01:36 pmAnd what have you done with your life?

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 09:13:27 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 02, 2016, 07:24:25 pmNot the way a lot of people drive.It's more ways for them to get into trouble.

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2016, 10:38:55 pm
content: QuoteYou're right man, it's probably still very simple to hack car electronics and there are companies, many of them Chinese, that sell after market display drivers that let you drive your NAV screen from a video source. I should know I've designed hardware for this sort of stuff.BMW use CAN bus everywhere, they may give it different names like I-bus or I-drive for example in the 7 series, but it's easy to hack and intercept. NAV displays are driven SERDES again very easy to intercept. In the BMW Mini you just need to cut one wire to enable video on the NAV screen when it's in motion, you could buy an after market box to do as well, yep I designed that as well, probably the worlds most pointless PCB with random components like a few resistors and diodes just to make it look like electronics. I wonder if the PCB prototyping company still got the Gerbers for thatIn the context of electronics, car manufacturers are really stupid, is it COTS hardware or COTS designers, who knows. They do it as cheap as they can and don't even consider security. I'm not having a rant at Tesla but I know BMW havn't got a clue about electroics and security.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 03:24:02 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 02, 2016, 04:03:47 pmYou are correct, an aircraft autopilot "simply" follow the flight plan that was previously entered into the FMS (Flight Management System).In a light aircraft, a simpler autopilot will just follow a heading and maintain the altitude.There is no collision avoidance of any sort.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 04:35:02 am
content: Yep, they still live up to their title, Pilot in Command.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2016, 09:29:57 am
content: It seems to me like a classic case of PEBCAK.Alexander.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2016, 01:00:45 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 02, 2016, 04:03:47 pmI'm pretty sure the A380 can respond to resolution advisories (RAs) on autopilot.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2016, 10:26:03 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on July 01, 2016, 10:49:12 pmAny citation for that?All I could find is a study showing automatic has improvement in older drivers, but no difference for younger drivers:Quotehttp://casr.adelaide.edu.au/rsr/RSR2011/2APaper%20130%20Falkmer.pdf

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 12:37:51 am
content: Do Tesla actually market this option as an "AutoPilot" system? (As opposed to Advanced Cruise Control or somesuch...)

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 12:44:17 am
content: See second heading, "Autopilot":https://www.teslamotors.com/models

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 03:25:47 pm
content: I love the way EVERYONE is jumping on the bandwagon here and BLAMING THE VICTIM.This crash was notcausedby the Tesla driver or Elon Musk and his engineers.There WAS a human that made a very bad decision that day - the truck driver turning across oncoming traffic.I fail to see how this crash (not an accident) could have happened if this truck driver had followed the rules of the road and given way to oncoming traffic.If the vehicle that the truck driver drove in front of to cause this crash was any other car than a Tesla (and I see no reason to believe this outcome couldn't have happened in a manually operated vehicle), we wouldn't be having this conversation and everyone would have just said "stupid truck driver, I hope he gets what he deserves".Legally, there is a responsible party, can we please remember that salient fact?

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 03:33:05 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 03:25:47 pmThere is also the small matter of the victim watching a DVD whilst driving....

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 03:44:10 pm
content: Another autopilot accident?http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2016/07/05/southfield-art-gallery-owner-survives-tesla-crash/86712884/Quote

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 03:45:04 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on July 06, 2016, 03:33:05 pmThat has yet to be proven beyond doubt - despite so-called "news" articles.Has anyone considered the possibility that the audio allegedly heard was an AUDIOBOOK?Nevertheless, this does NOT absolve the ultimate cause - the truck driver.Why is no one asking the question as to whether or not the truck driver was distracted? Clearly the truck driver did NOT have the sun in his eyes, so why did he fail to see the Tesla?

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 03:51:46 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 03:25:47 pmI don't think it's that simple.Was the Tesla driver observing the speed limit? (The truck driver claimed that the car was speeding.)Could the truck driver even see the Tesla when he began his turn?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 03:52:49 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on July 06, 2016, 03:33:05 pmAnd the system doesn't alert him that something is wrong.Products that require driver continuous attention should not be called driverless car or auto pilot, it creates over expectations. Lane Assistant or something like that would be a safer name.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 03:54:59 pm
content: Quote from: edavid on July 06, 2016, 03:51:46 pmOf course the truck driver is going to make specious claims - he knows he killed someone and wants to deflect the blame away from him.And the media is fuelling that speculation - which simply would not happen if this vehicle wasn't a Tesla.This truck driver is NOT squeaky clean:"Baressi (the truck driver) is the owner of Okemah Express, a trucking company with one truck and one driver, himself. Federal records don't identify drivers by name, but they show Okemah and its driver were cited for seven violations during four traffic stops over the past two years. The most serious violation was in January when a Virginia state inspector ordered the driver off the road for being on duty more than the legal limit of 14 hours in one day. The driver was also cited for ignoring a traffic-control device in March and an improper lane change in December. An inspection last year found the truck's tires were going bald."Some random assessment of the crash location - and based on google street view, I concur:"That road looks as flat as any with AT LEAST 1/2 mile of clear visibility. So assuming the Tesla was driving 80MPH and 1/4 mile out, the truck would have at least 11.25 seconds to cross the traffic lanes. Assuming 90MPH, 10.0 seconds.Driving home yesterday, I watched a couple trucks make turns at traffic lights (so not exactly the same, but timing should be similar) and most made the turn in about 5 seconds. So assuming the truck would take 5 seconds after entering the oncoming traffic lanes to get to the point of being in front of the Tesla, I would expect the Tesla was under 1/8th mile of the intersection and most definitely would have been visible from the truck."So why did the truck driver claim on video that he never even saw the Telsa?Was the truck driver driving while distracted - or fatigued?Or did he actually see the Tesla, but was fed up waiting for the road to clear? Was he in a hurry and simply asserted his size assuming he'd force the Tesla driver to slow down and let him cross?I hope this truck driver is charged with and convicted of vehicular manslaughter.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 06:01:21 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 03:25:47 pmThe thing is, part of surviving in traffic is in your own hands as well. The accident could have been unavoidable by the Tesla driver, but his death probably was, if only he hit the brakes. The thing people are upset about is that the Tesla driver litterally made no attept at all to avoid the collision. The trailer was mis-identified by the car as an overhead sign, so it must have been quite far into the crossing and visible to the Tesla driver, yet he never touched the brake at all.Being in the right is useless when you're dead.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 06:09:59 pm
content: Quote from: rollatorwieltje on July 06, 2016, 06:01:21 pmWould you say that to a murder victim's family?Also, remember that we apparently only have one living witness to this event - the guy that caused it.Are we going to take what he says as being absolutely true?Someone who is clearly in the wrong and is likely to lose his business? And perhaps even face some prison time?How do we know that he didn't turn directly in front of the Tesla and yet the Tesla driver DID stand on the brakes - the antiskid would have prevented any skid marks - but the distance and time available to him was simply insufficient to reduce the speed enough to avoid a fatal collision? From what I've read it's just speculation that the Tesla driver was completely passive in this event - do we actually know that for sure? Do we have some data from the Tesla's onboard electronics that tell the real story?If so, I'd like a link (and not to media speculation).How about we wait a few months for the actual investigation to sift through all this media hyped bullshit?

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 06:38:57 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 06:09:59 pmYes. You won't get the person back. There's no sensible compensation for a death. In most places you'll have right to some temporary income loss compensation, that's about it. In the best case you'll maybe get a million of your currency, does that make you feel happy again? Doubt it.QuoteIt's literally on the Tesla website:https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tragic-lossQuoteandQuote

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 07:00:00 pm
content: Quote from: rollatorwieltje on July 06, 2016, 06:38:57 pmAnd how have Tesla come to that determination?Just because some PR hack at Tesla motors has said something doesn't necessarlly make it true.Have Tesla released any hard data from the onboard sensors confirming this "story"?If not, then why not?Nope, this story is being made bigger than it really deserves to be - a truck driver fucked up and killed someone. How many times a day does this happen? So why does everyone seem to insist that Tesla should be able to abrogate the laws of physics and prevent such things from happening?I have yet to see ANYTHING stating for a fact that even a fully aware, switched on and alert driver - in full manual control of the vehicle - had enough time to reduce their speed enough to prevent the fatal severity of this crash. All this speculation "that since the Tesla driver 'apparently' wasn't paying attention" then he has himself to blame is simply wrong.Mr Baressi is to blame.Most of this thread is victim blaming and if the victim was a rape victim, people wouldn't be going around saying "she had herself to blame because if she was paying attention she wouldn't have been raped".

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 07:00:23 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 06:09:59 pmBad argument. He didn't say it to the driver's family either.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 07:06:27 pm
content: I think it is a mistake on Tesla's part to market this system as an "Autopilot". That is just asking for the intellectually-challenged to take it as "the car drives itself, I don't have to pay attention any more!"

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 07:13:38 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 06:09:59 pmMaybe you should take your own advice

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 07:19:17 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 07:00:00 pmI tend to trust Tesla has based it's claim on the car's black box data otherwise they will have to take it back/rectify their story causing a shit storm of epic proportions. The fact the sensors didn't sense the truck make it very likely that the visibility for the driver was also extremely poor so the driver may not have seen the truck in time to brake as well.I'm inclined to put part of the blame on the truck driver. He shouldn't have turned with traffic coming up ahead (which I could clearly see because of the left turn he was making to cross the road). Maybe the Tesla driver had his dash cam running during the accident and if so the footage should shed some light on what happened.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 07:21:13 pm
content: Quote from: edavid on July 06, 2016, 07:13:38 pmI'm not the one offering opinions, guesses and other wild arsed speculation and in so doing impugning the victim of this crime but presenting it all as an incontrovertible fact.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 07:25:14 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 06, 2016, 07:19:17 pmSo if you were empanelled on the jury to prosecute this truck driver for vehicular manslaughter, are you saying that you'd aquit?Do you not have 'give way to oncoming traffic when turning left'lawswhere you are?Quote from: nctnico on July 06, 2016, 07:19:17 pmWhy bother, apparently everyone knows exactly what happened already.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 07:40:37 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 06:09:59 pmWhat we know by the sketch the police released is that the truck made a left turn, and the first half of the truck had already cleared the car's lane. It takes several seconds for a truck to get that far from a standstill, and while the white trailer might have been invisible due to inconvient lighting, I very much doubt the same applies to the tractor part (if lighting was indeed *that* bad, he should have slowed way down to begin with. You need to be able to see where you're going!) How long would it take the driver to get that far? Based on the 5 seconds mentioned earlier, maybe 4 seconds?4 seconds is enough (including some reaction time) to come from highway speeds to a full stop. And it takes less time to at least slow down enough for the crash to no longer be fatal. And he wouldn't have needed to come to a stop either, just slow down enough so that he would arrive at the intersection a second or two later and thus avoid the truck.If the driver did actually brake, he did so so late that the car still had enough energy to pass under the truck despite the severe impact and continue on for quite a bit. Can't have been for more than a second I reckon.The truck driver might have technically cut off the car, but I still think the tesla driver had many seconds to react yet didn't for whatever reason. A semitrailer truck is not a fast vehicle, and a left turn across an intersection isn't a sudden maneuver. So the tesla driver being surprised through no fault of his own? No, I don't buy it.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 07:55:53 pm
content: If he was EXPECTING the autopilot to slow him down, and then it didn't - I can see that as being quite a surprise. That there was NO apparent reaction at all by the driver, then he was just being an idiot and not paying attention. It may not have prevented a collision, but had he been paying attention and taken over once he realized the autopilot wasn't slowing him, he might still be alive.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 08:05:37 pm
content: Quote from: Maxlor on July 06, 2016, 07:40:37 pmAs to the potential charge of vehicular manslaughter -Guilty or not guilty?Who had the right of way?Because this IS all that matters - we live in nations of laws and when people die due to a law being broken, there should be consequences.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 08:07:21 pm
content: Quote from: Maxlor on July 06, 2016, 07:40:37 pmAnd do we know he was at a standstill? The truck just as easily could have been cruising along and hung a left in front of the Tesla without stopping. Trucks and buses do that shit all the time, and they get T-boned because of it all the time.The truck driver is at fault, plain and simple. When somebody breaks a traffic law this clearly, they are at fault. It doesn't matter if the other car could have maybe stopped in time if X, Y, or Z. If I illegally take a left in front of oncoming traffic and get hit, nobody goes around checking traffic cams to see whether the driver of the car that hit me was watching the road or fiddling with their stereo, it's my fault, easy as that.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 08:32:51 pm
content: I don't think that it has been in dispute anywhere in this thread whether the truck driver is at fault? It seems likely. But that wasn't really the point for most of the discussion!

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 08:45:11 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on July 06, 2016, 08:07:21 pmWhy do you say it was an illegal turn? What if the Tesla was going too fast? (What was the speed limit on the road?)Has the truck driver been ticketed?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 08:51:15 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 07:25:14 pmYes. But things might be different if the truck stood still because for whatever (technical) reason. In that case the Tesla driver hit a stationary object on the road. In the NL there has been a long legal battle started by a cyclist who hit a car which was parked on the bicycle lane. The final verdict is that the cyclist should have watched out and is to responsible for the damage to the car. If the car would have moved (even at snail speed) then the driver of the car would be at fault.What I'm saying is that at this point there isn't enough information to put the blame entirely on one party involved in the accident. If I where investigating or prosecuting this accident I'd definitely put the truck driver's actions under a magnifying glass as well.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 09:00:11 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 06, 2016, 08:51:15 pmIF the truck was stationary at the time of the collision, how did it end up fifty meters or so down the road he was turning into (according to the police report)? Was it moved AFTER the collision? Or is it more likely that the truck was moving at the time of the collision?Your theory seems highly implausible. But sure, grasp at straws if you want to avoid the obvious.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 09:02:00 pm
content: Quote from: edavid on July 06, 2016, 08:45:11 pmFrom what I understand, the Tesla autopilot will not allow you to go more than 5 mph over the posted speed limit:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-autopilot-idUSKCN0UO0NM20160110

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 09:05:12 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 09:00:11 pmSorry but you are clearly not reading what I'm writing; you just read what you want to read and put words in my mouth I have never written. Unfortunately that makes it impossible to have a sensible conversation.

author: Augustus
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 09:06:33 pm
content: Just curious: Isn't there any "partial blame" concept implemented in the US? Like the truck driver gets 60% of the blame because he turned without paying enough attention to the oncoming traffic and the Tesla driver gets the other 40% because he (for example) was speeding and not paying attention as well. It's very common over here

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 09:16:22 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 06, 2016, 09:05:12 pmBullshit.You offered some wild arsed guess of a hypothetical that would absolve the truck driver of responsibility and I simply demonstrated a fatal flaw in your argument based on the actual police report showing the disposition of the vehicles after the crash.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 09:31:45 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 06, 2016, 09:16:22 pmNow you are doing it again! From a legal standpoint you have to look at all the possibilities. The fact the trucked stopped in a different position than where the accident happened does not imply the truck was moving during the accident.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 09:53:01 pm
content: Quote from: Augustus on July 06, 2016, 09:06:33 pmYes, certainly.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 09:57:08 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 06, 2016, 09:31:45 pmThis truck driver has had quite some time to provide some form of excuse as to why this death occurred. The best he has offered so far is he did not see the Tesla until it was under his truck and that the Tesla driver was watching a Harry Potter movie.He must be really stupid (or at least very forgetful) to not have mentioned to the policeand the mediathat he was STATIONARY at the time of the collision.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 10:13:09 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on July 06, 2016, 08:07:21 pmTruck and bus drivers do that either way. Many years ago, I was driving on the right lane of a four-lane road (two lanes in each direction) toward a T-intersection where a bus to my left had the only stop sign. After stopping at the intersection, the driver decided to pull out across three lanes and then into my lane to cut in front of me.He had the lane next to me to complete his turn.Fortunately, I stopped in a cloud of smoke just inches from slamming into the side of the bus. What an idiot!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 10:38:03 pm
content: Bus drivers are required to undergo a lobotomy before they are allowed to drive a bus! Last week I nearly saw 2 busses crash into eachother on an intersection. Where I live the busses have a seperated road system through the city so they don't have to expect any other traffic at all -they think-.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 10:50:21 pm
content: It would be interesting to see how Tesla marketed this feature.Regardless of its warning or beta States, I would argue that if this feature is marketed as an "auto pilot", it is false advertising and it failed to meet its basic merchantability as such.The fact that Tesla admitted it's inability distinguish between white sky and a white truck only adds to that argument.This " auto pilot" seems more like a vision impaired driver who has no business on the road.I would certainly consider legal action, against Tesla and the government (for essentially granting this "auto pilot" a driver's license), if I were the family.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2016, 11:00:27 pm
content: So far we are just speculating based on the limited information available. I am sure our resident Tesla expert will be able to fill in the gaps, once the legal eagles have finished extracting their pound of flesh.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 12:40:51 am
content: Oh, FFS people ... CHILL!!!Quote from: Maxlor on July 06, 2016, 08:32:51 pmThis is the only comment I have found on the latest back-and-forth that has actually nailed the real issue.Unless there were other traffic controls in effect,OF COURSEthe truck driver was at fault.... BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE at the heart of this discussion!This discussion is about the Tesla Autopilot technology - and the relationship with its human driver. Hazardous situations like this WILL occur and the reaction of the technology and interaction with the driver is what we're really looking at here.YES, the TRUCK caused the accident - but the lack of any reaction by the technology and the driver of the Tesla S contributed to the death. A normally driven vehicle would have had some braking applied - and possibly some evasive manoeuvres taken - (even if late) possibly resulting in a less severe outcome.YES, the TRUCK is at fault, but if driverless vehicles are to develop further, they MUST become more reliable in dealing with such situations ... and until they do, drivers must NOT become complacent.

author: BillWojo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 03:00:23 am
content: Vehicles on auto pilot scare the hell out of me. They should be mandated to have flashing beacons on all four corners of the car high up on little poles to alert other drivers that a driverless car is in the vicinity. And yes, it is a driverless car, once the driver starts relying on the auto pilot he will tend to drift off and do something else besides looking at where he or she is going. It will become like a drive in a taxi cab.Rich people will buy these for the kids and the kids will never learn any driving skills. They will never have a clue what to do in an emergency situation.Years ago my then girl friend was learning to drive. It happened to snow one day so I took her out into a big mall parking lot with about 6" of fresh slippery powder covering the lot. I taught her how to slide the car and she had a blast running ovals around two widely spaced light poles getting the car all crossed up. Today she can handle a car in almost any situation.Heck, if a giant like Microsoft has bugs in it's software.......Billwojo

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 03:49:32 am
content: I wholeheartedly agree.When my kids were learning to drive I told them I knew they were going to hoon around - but that they should pick their time and place. The purpose of this was twofold.First was that I made it clear to them that they were to take on the responsibility of their own actions - and, hopefully, self regulate ... rather than risk preaching at them from on high and having them give me the proverbial finger.Second was that when a vehicle was taken outside normal parameters, they had a feel of what it was like and how to deal with it.Add to that some mechanical understanding - and I feel a whole lot better about them driving on our roads.Just last week, one of my sons was talking to me about a situation where his Landcruiser got out of shape and he wondered why he didn't panic and dealt with it safely. I told him.But, back on topic....One further issue I have with complete handing over to automation is the removal of 'outside the box' alternatives. For example, say you were about to slam into the rear of a vehicle and had time for only one simple manoeuvre... To the side of the road is a corn field with just a light fence and no major obstructions. A human driver could direct their vehicle into the corn field, with the only casualty being some panel damage and a couple of bushels of corn.I would be very surprised if a Tesla S would go there.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 04:51:16 am
content: Quote from: BillWojo on July 07, 2016, 03:00:23 amWhen those ugly and noisy contraptions known as horseless carriages first appeared on the roads, some jurisdictions required by law that they be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag.The sooner we retire ALL the truck drivers - especially owner drivers - and replace those 50+ ton death machines with automation, the better.And this WILL happen, because it will save the corporates money - and that is all that matters to them.In the interim, at the very least trailer side guards should be made mandatory:http://bgr.com/2016/07/05/tesla-model-s-crash-truck-design-europe/

author: jh15
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 04:58:37 am
content: Ethics in software design.Related to the above cornfield vs rear-ending, There has been discussion recently on Twit Security Now pod cast just in the last weeks. I'll edit show(s) date later.Scenario:A lady with a stroller and a flock of kids and another chasing a ball suddenly appears in front of the vehicle.Car in the near future which may come sooner than we think.--The choice for the driver or car who can't possibly stop in time is to run them over or slam into a utility pole.If the car chooses the pole, the driver could die.Should the software protect the family and kill the driver (software user)?Who makes the choice?Instant statistical computation? Percent likelihood of pole causing driver death for example.Sounds like some interesting new job fields coming up for the new players in programming.Oh,and will I be able to set my own preferences? pole vs. ball

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 05:25:40 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 07, 2016, 04:51:16 amNewer generations ot truck drivers aren't that bad. they signal you that they have seen you so you can get into the road from an intersection, hell they even started using the turn signal so you know what the fuck they are going to do in highways and roundabouts!

author: XOIIO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 05:28:42 am
content: Quote from: jh15 on July 07, 2016, 04:58:37 amCount the people, and I'm sure it can easily identify the rough shape of a stroller.Use weight sensor to see how man are in the car (or at least front seats)If # of people in front of car > #of people in the car, choose pole.If # people in front of car < # of people in the car, choose people.If # of people in front of car = # of people in the car, use Tesla Quarterflip™ system.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 05:54:27 am
content: Quote from: jh15 on July 07, 2016, 04:58:37 amWhy should the driver be penalised for other people's mistakes?No fancy decision making algorithms weighing up the values of the lives at stake are needed, the automatic system only needs to stop as soon as possible - maximum braking effort short of skidding and to not steer toward any other obstacles. If there is an out - an empty lane or road edge, then some limited avoidance action makes sense - as long as it doesn't reduce braking effectiveness, since the front tyres can't stop AND steer simultaneously.But expecting an automated system to potentially sacrifice the driver (and occupants) to protect a pedestrian is silly.People making bad decisions need to be accountable for their actions.And children do not deserve special treatment - they need to be trained from a very early age to NOT PLAY ON THE ROAD.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 06:07:50 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on July 07, 2016, 05:01:32 amThanks for the link. Great series.

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 07:09:19 am
content: In all the time i've driven i've never scratched a car. Self driving cars take all the fun away and doesnt stop idiot drivers who drive really badly and wont even use the autopilot.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 12:36:20 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 06, 2016, 10:38:03 pmIf a bus or a truck is involved in an accident, I would say 95% chance the bus or truck driver was at fault. You know, they feel invincible, they control huge vehicles, that they dont understand where the boundaries are. They drive 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. You cannot concentrate for that time. And they have priority in all conditions, because if you dont like it, just crash into them, that costs zero to them, yearly salary (or your life) to you. Their motto: "I'm going this way, I dont care, you have breaks."

author: GEuser
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 02:22:05 pm
content: Typing about Truck drivers , they were (the scientists) flogging off new "scientific technology" awhile back on TV for truckies , Glasses that monitor eye movements/heart rate and maybe more and could tell if the driver was getting tired or sleepy and something beeped (i don't recall it well) or whatever .Straight away being skeptical i knew that in a few generations of that device due to "Failures" (read as accidents) that device would end up providing a electric shock to notify the driver its getting sleepy and temporarily waking it up , I'm not kidding , the way things are going is just unreal imo . SkyNet .Stuff like that and this thread reason is totally taking away the responsibility of the operators and what would be called just life , the world is full of morons and the morons want electronics or devices to blame or control them as they they cant be a moron and its the "scientists fault" not theirs , there is no Law against/for moron .No responsibility of Nature , exempt of natures basic instincts like getting tired or sleepy , its Natures fault .Even the fact that people? are discussing it or the ideas just show how Doomed your Species are Ha Ha Ha , and that is Guaranteed in where no one needs a computer or calculation of devices to come up with a scenario to say otherwise ..Doomed !imo of course

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 02:22:31 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on July 07, 2016, 12:36:20 pmNo trucks, no new Teslas.

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 02:25:21 pm
content: Hi! Professional truck driver here.Here's a video that shows how much time it takes for a semi-trailer truck to complete a left turn.My guess is that the truck driver saw the Tesla coming from down the road and nonetheless, he carried on with the left turn, expecting the Tesla driver to slow down and let him pass.This might sound bad, but is pretty much standard operation when driving a truck.A semi needs a 10+ second gap in the oncoming traffic to make a clean left turn. On roads with medium to high traffic, you won't find such a gap, no matter how long you wait. So you start the maneuver when you find an 8 second gap and expect the other drivers to slow down for you.In that scenario, in most jurisdictions, you are completely at fault if you crash into the broad side of the truck, especially if you hit it past the center point, towards the rear. This shows that there was ample time to slow down but you didn't.Of course very little information has been released about the specifics of the accident, but it wouldn't come off as a surprise if the truck driver is cleared of all charges and the Tesla driver found completely at fault.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 03:07:55 pm
content: Quote from: fubar.gr on July 07, 2016, 02:25:21 pmSo rather that willingly break the law - to fail to yield to traffic that has the right of way, perhaps the truck driver in that scenario should continue along the road until he finds a controlled intersection - a set of traffic lights - or perhaps a roundabout - which will enable him to turn left LEGALLY and SAFELY?So it adds a mile or two to the trip length? So what.This excuse "everyone else does it" is pathetic.BUT - your explanation is founded on the premise that the road involved in this crash had a level of traffic that prevented the truck driver from finding a suitable gap. IF this was the case, why does it appear that there aren't any other vehicles involved - no other witnesses in other vehicles who saw the event?Could it be that your scenario didn't happen - that in this case, there were only two vehicles on that road (at that time), the truck and the Tesla? It would be hard to argue that the truck driver couldn't have waited until AFTER the Tesla cleared the intersection if there wasn't any other traffic of significance.Nevertheless, I still think you might be right - the truck driver deliberately made the turn in front of the Tesla, fully expecting the Tesla to yield (even though the Tesla had the right of way and was the only car there) - in other words, the truck driver drove like an entitled asshole and FORCED his way into a section of road he had no legal right to enter.And he did this because 'everyone else does it'.Quote from: fubar.gr on July 07, 2016, 02:25:21 pmInteresting.Is Florida one of those jurisdictions?If so - if the truck driver was convinced he was "in the right" and wasn't doing anything wrong, why did he state that he did not see the Tesla until it was under his trailer? If he did pull out in front of the Tesla with the expectation that if the Tesla hit him, it would be the Tesla's fault (and the legal system would absolve the trucker), why this story about the Tesla speeding so fast it wasn't seen? (Since January this year, Tesla's cannot go faster than the posted speed limit plus 5mph when on autopilot)Nope. I'm not buying it. This truck driver knowingly fucked up and he's lying to try to cover his arse.BTW, I'd like to see the actual wording of the road rules/laws/regulations that legally enable truck drivers to cut into oncoming traffic. Surely this isn't some word of mouth thing that truckers tell each other so they can drive like assholes guilt free, is it?

author: macboy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 05:00:47 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on July 07, 2016, 12:36:20 pmThat's a laugh... a 40 hour work week for a truck driver? Double that and it would be closer to the truth. Of course that strengthens your point.

author: Augustus
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 05:07:16 pm
content: Quote from: macboy on July 07, 2016, 05:00:47 pmDon't worry Sir, we're from the EU. There's a regulation, of coursehttp://wikipedia.qwika.com/de2en/Lenk-_und_Ruhezeiten

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 05:28:19 pm
content: Quote from: fubar.gr on July 07, 2016, 02:25:21 pmOr suppose the speed limit was 35MPH, and he saw the Tesla 500 feet away... he would think he had the 10 seconds, but if the Tesla was actually going 70MPH...

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 05:36:25 pm
content: Somebody clearly hates truckers.Put them in the driver's seat of an 18 wheeler for 3 months and see if they are a saint.Trucks, especially things like a semi or B-double, aren't the sort of vehicle you can duck up a side road and do a quick U-turn to come back to the turn-off you needed. They also get jammed up by car drivers that have no appreciation for the size and weight of them - and the increased distances and times involved in stopping and turning.fubar.grhas highlighted just one of the many considerations that should be afforded to trucks, but are often not.But again I say - let's NOT get into the argument about blame!Things go wrong - and it's up to the driver to be able to adapt and deal with the situation safely ... and if it has to be that you slow down for a truck who's pushing his way through, then for crying out loud LET HIM THROUGH!!! Curse and swear if you must, but don't take on a truck (that could weigh as much as a several DOZEN cars) with your comparably flimsy sedan. You aren't going to win.I would like to think that an 'Autopilot' system would be able to make such a judgement - rather thandemandthe right of way.'Here lies the body of William JayWho died maintaining his right of way -He was right, dead right, as he sped along,But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.'

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 06:06:09 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 07, 2016, 05:36:25 pmWhy?We have LAWS and REGULATIONS that dictate how EVERYONE is supposed to behave when using the public road system.And here's a surprise - these laws are ALSO applicable to truck drivers - whether they are running late or just too precious to wait their turn.If what you say has ANY merit whatsoever, then why isn't this behaviour you advocate codified in any law?Since you're Australian, you full well know as well as I do that this nonsense that "if a truck turns in front of you and you hit it then it's your fault" is not applicable in Australia. But it seems to me that you advocate that truck drivers should drive as if that is the case?Truck drivers have enough lobby power that such alterations to the law to suit themselves CAN happen - witness the 'do not overtake turning vehicles' rule. IF there is merit in what you say, why hasn't this happened?Nope, I shall continue to assert the right of way when I have it, but even as a mere car driver, when I cannot turn right (which is the equivalent of a left for people in some countries) safely, ie when there is no gap in traffic or I cannot confirm the road is clear - in other words - when I do NOT have the right of way - I have done and will continue to do three lefts, or detour via a set of traffic lights rather than force my way in and risk a collision.This is how the system is designed to work and sometimes the worst thing you can do is to forgo your right of way. Youtube is full of videos of someone foolishly thinking they'll be nice by waving someone else on, only for this other person to collide with someone who is actually following the rules of the road.What you are advocating is one step short of anarchy, and just because a truck WILL win the damage game is no justification for them to try.BTW, I do not hate truck drivers, but I do hate ALL drivers who drive like arseholes - especially when that arsehole driving results in death of others. (Arseholes who only kill themselves get all my support.)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 06:19:36 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 07, 2016, 06:06:09 pmYield or die ... your choice.BUT - please GET OFF this high horse!This is an ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS FORUM.This thread is to discuss the TECHNOLOGY of the Tesla S - and any other potential candidates - and to assess the issues and performance of that system,NOTto debate the legality or otherwise of any actions taken by other users of the road.In this discussion, the truck was a hazard - andfor the purposes of discussion of the technology, the WHY IS UNIMPORTANT.If you really want to take up this soap box - START YOUR OWN THREAD. Get out of this one.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 06:25:11 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 07, 2016, 06:06:09 pmPlease - DON'T get a job writing software for these vehicles. I don't want you're attitude forcing my car into a situation where I die.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 06:27:37 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 07, 2016, 06:06:09 pmYour epitaph is already written... (it's been around for years)'Here lies the body of William JayWho died maintaining his right of way -He was right, dead right, as he sped along,But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.'I don't want it to be mine.I want my 'Autopilot' vehicle to safely deal with someone else being a dickhead.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 06:45:22 pm
content: There is an editorial in today's nytimes about requiring a license for "auto pilot", a point I raised yesterday.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 07:23:01 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 07, 2016, 06:19:36 pmAre you saying NOT ?Learned some HTML

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 07:31:47 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 07, 2016, 06:27:37 pmI see it's OK for you to offer your flawed opinions about truck driving and how hard done by those precious snowflakes are and why all us evil car drivers should kowtow to their ability to kill us and get out of the way.But when I demonstrate how flawed your thinking is, all of a sudden, this thread isn't for that discussion at all.Hypocrisy much?Your opinion (as butthurt as it seems to be) has been noted.And discarded (but not without a chuckle).

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 07:36:08 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 07, 2016, 06:27:37 pmUnfortunately this will not happen in our lifetimes. The only way is for the dickhead to also have Autopilot and that he cannot override it. So no human interaction.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 07:49:37 pm
content: What I see in this incident is that it took 130 million miles before somebody, somewhere, FINALLY found a corner case that caused the Tesla autopilot system to not react when it should have. As a result, the entire industry has been made fully aware that this can happen, and as a result it will likely never happen again. A system that wasalready saferthan manual control will become safer yet.There is no evidence that the outcome would have been any different had the system reacted or had the driver taken control, but either way, the software will be modified so it doesn't happen again. That's the point of beta testing.

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 09:23:28 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 07, 2016, 07:31:47 pmcimmo, your views have been well documented in this thread, and are starting to go off topic. It sounds more like a personal rant, and your not very receptive to hearing other (equally valid) opposing viewpoints. If you want to continue ranting, start a new thread. This has nothing to do with the ethics of trucking and/or how they SHOULD drive. How they SHOULD drive is purely hypothetical. Very few people are debating that, but you are going off the deep end and masking massive assumptions. For the time being, self driving car systems will have to deal with how truck drivers DO drive. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.Quote from: suicidaleggroll on July 07, 2016, 07:49:37 pmExactly.Plus, this may be the basis for a new legal precedent.....we will certainly see how it unfolds.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 10:06:28 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 07, 2016, 05:36:25 pmNo thank you. I also don't clean toilets after others, dont inspect tickets or teach children, fly a commercial airplane or do a brain surgery. Guess what? other jobs can be stressful. Even mine is stressful sometimes, you know, deadlines and mismanagement. On the other hand I don't start braking laws and endanger (or outright kill) people when I'm stressed out or tired.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2016, 10:47:21 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on July 07, 2016, 07:49:37 pmThe rate of fatalities per 100 million km is around 0.5 globally:https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/International_Comparisons_2013_Web.pdfSo on just those numbers its hard to prove that its safer than a human driver.

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 02:05:50 am
content: to those hating truckers at least watch top gear about it, they have it difficult (despite all the jokes made). There are 2 types of truckers, independent or hired (i.e. dedicated as part of a company).It seems like no matter you go asians still drive terribly. here in the UK the brit drivers will always stop for me to cross the road but the asian drivers wont. In asia they dont even stop at the zebra crossing for you to cross not even if its a place like the hospital.Lets hope whoever made the autopilot software wasnt asian.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 02:51:50 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on July 07, 2016, 07:36:08 pmNow that we are back on topic, I would like to clarify this a bit more.When I say 'safely deal with' I mean to be able to take the best option out of all the actions possible to minimise the risk to life and limb - with the objective that an accident could be avoided. If the physics of the situation preclude that outcome, then that the injuries are as minor as possible.I do realise that"the best option out of all the actions possible"is not a simple matter - but it should be a key objective, IMHO.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 03:54:19 am
content: Quote from: iampoor on July 07, 2016, 09:23:28 pmAh, another one who wants to control the discussion.Nope, not your forum.All I am doing is putting some perspective in to this discussion - when other posters say uninformed rubbish like "this accident wouldn't have happened if the Tesla driver was paying attention" which completely ignores the elephant in the room - the truck driver's actions (and apparent lying after the event - which most people seem to take on face value - especially if the media reports it as "fact"), then I will correct those flawed characterisations of this event.Then I have some clowns trying desperately to find some reason why the truck driver was as innocent as the falling snow.Why should I let those opinions go unchallenged?Those other posters were just as "off topic" as I, so as the self declared forum cop, why did you remain silent then?Also, when another poster declares that there is a LAW that enables a truck to do as this truck did, should I take that as granted, or am I permitted to ask for documentary evidence of this alleged "law"?Apparently almost everyone here is quite OK with literal shitposts like "Elon Musk is a PIECE OF SHIT!"Why did YOU let that slide?I am not the one advocating that the rule of law is optional, I'm not the one advocating that the biggest and deadliest vehicles on the road AUTOMATICALLY have the right of way and I'm not the one saying threatening and anarchic rubbish like "yield or die" (if that poster drives a truck with an attitude like that, he needs to have his heavy vehicle licence revoked).But apparently, you don't care when other people on this very thread want the public roads to resemble the set of a Mad Max movie.Anyway, since there ARE some people on this thread who will need to assuage their bruised ego by having the last word, I shall leave this thread so that these other off-topic snarks, ad-homs and probable insults can happen uncontested, but I will leave with these final comments -The fact of the matter is that this crash was NOTcausedby the Tesla, it's systems or the Tesla driver (or even that piece of shit, Elon Musk). Those factors may have been contributory - maybe not, but we simply do not know how close the Tesla was to the truck when the truck commenced the turn, nor how fast the truck was going when it commenced its turn and therefore we do not know how much time was available to the Tesla's driver or its automatic systems to avoid or reduce the inevitable. I can fully visualise a nearly identical scenario involving some mundane car being driven the old fashioned way (and quite possibly at a much higher speed than the Tesla, since the Tesla is not capable of significant speeding in autopilot) resulting in an identical outcome.Or probably a lot worse.And for all we actually know about all those distances and timings I have just mentioned, even a perfectly operating self-driving car (without the sensor/software limitations of the current Tesla) could still have impacted this truck with enough speed to result in the death of the occupants. Perhaps slightly slower - but is severity of death a criterion worth measuring?No, we do not need to have automatic cars be able to (magically?) avoid edge case scenarios like this - we need automatic TRUCKS to prevent scenarios like this. Prevention is always better than a cure. The sooner that obviously overworked and underpaid poor diddum truckers are put off the road and replaced by machines that are programmed to follow the rules - the better. Especially owner drivers (such as the driver of this truck) who have a documented history of bending or flat out ignoring the rules because they 'need' to. But apparently having that opinion makes me a 'trucker hater'.If truckers (such as Mr Baressi) insist on driving like entitled arseholes, then they deserve the hate - and need to be replaced with tech that knows the road rules and is programmed to adhere to them - even if this means the robo-truck has to wait all day until the road is clear of traffic that has the right of way.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 04:13:56 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 08, 2016, 03:54:19 am

author: GEuser
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 04:29:16 am
content: The FUture .All truckies all taxi's fully automated , now off to find them another job .

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 06:06:05 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 08, 2016, 03:54:19 amNever made either of those claims. I posted this thread, and was hoping to gain a better understanding of the possible failings of the technology and potential legal implications of this accident. Many posts were very helpful and educational.Your posts on the other hand, are arguing something that the majority of us agree with (Yes, we know the truck driver most likely should have not turned). It doesnt matter. He did. This is apracticalissue that must be solved with these systems. Your point makes sense, but it doesnt have anything to do with what already happened.Coming into a thread with a poor attitude, shoveling shit on a group of people you apparently dont like is a great way to get a thread locked. If you want to rant about your issues with truck drivers, make a new thread.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 03:26:11 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on July 07, 2016, 10:47:21 pmThose results are misleading, because their "average" of various countries was not weighted by distance traveled. They weighted iceland's rate of .54 with only 3185 km traveled as equal to the US's rate of .68 with nearly 5 million km traveled. When you total the deaths and the distance traveled to get the actual average, you get a rate of .65 deaths per 100M km, which comes out to 1 death per 95M miles, which is comparable to other results I've found.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 05:40:44 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on July 07, 2016, 07:49:37 pmThis is an impressive stats and is better than human drivers' stats but it may also be biased. The Autopilot (and I presume similar technologies from other companies) is used on 'easy' miles with good weather conditions, non too dense traffic, highways stretches, etc, and with well maintained expensive new cars.To do a proper comparison with human drivers, the other variables must be controlled.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 07:00:47 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 08, 2016, 05:40:44 pmThat is true, it's hard to make an accurate comparison when the autopilot is only used in certain conditions and only with certain vehicles. I do challenge your argument of them being "easy" miles though. While yes it should be safer since it's in good clear weather, my gut tells me that's actually whenmorefatal accidents happen. After all, when the weather is poor, visibility is bad, or traffic is dense, the average vehicle speed is significantly slower. So while the risk of an accident might be higher, I'd argue that the risk of afatalaccident would potentially be lower than when the conditions are clear. After all, every fatal accident I've seen or heard of in my local area (as far as I can recall) has always been when the sun is shining and the birds are chirping, and somebody does something stupid. There are plenty of fender-benders when the snow comes out, but nobody is driving fast enough for serious injury.What's actually more impressive to me though is not the fatal accident rate, but the overall at-fault accident rate. In the US, as far as I can tell the average accident rate is about one per 200-500k miles (some sources say 160, some say 250, some say 500, let's go with 300k). Assuming the average number of vehicles involved in each crash is 3 (it's probably closer to 2, but this will make the numbers more conservative), one of which is at-fault, that means on average there is one at-fault accident per million miles or so. The Tesla autopilot has racked up 130M miles, and as far as I can tell from the research I've done, still has zero at-fault accidents. It's only on the highway, sure, but still impressive.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 10:48:40 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on July 08, 2016, 07:00:47 pmThis one came out yesterday:Could this be the first?Second Tesla autopilot crash under federal scrutinyhttp://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/autos/tesla-autopilot-accident/The same article is publishing the following:Federal data shows that human error is responsible for 94% of the 35,200 traffic fatalities last year. That works out to 1.12 deaths for every 100 million miles driven.Tesla says its owners have driven more than 130 million miles using autopilot. The one fatality works out to 0.78 fatalities per 100 million miles.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 10:52:38 pm
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on July 08, 2016, 10:48:40 pmI saw that too. Another article I was reading on it said the guy claimed he was using autopilot, but the detailed logs from the car weren't transmitted to Tesla after the accident, and they've tried to call him three times with no answer or reply, so nobody really knows yet.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2016, 11:02:43 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on July 08, 2016, 07:00:47 pmThe fatal crash from May 7th, there was an obstruction on the road (at this point it does not matter if it is a truck or a dead cow).Did the Tesla "autopilot" applied the brake?Did the Tesla "autopilot" tried to stop or veer off course?If the Tesla "autopilot" kept the car on course and did not try to stop; I would presume that the Tesla "autopilot" is at-fault in this particular case.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 03:16:15 am
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on July 08, 2016, 11:02:43 pmThese are the type of questions that need to be asked.... and answered.

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 10:49:44 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 07, 2016, 03:07:55 pmWhat I described in my previous post is neither necessarily illegal or unsafe and doesn't count as failure to yield, as long as the other car is far away enough to slow down safely.In that case, the law says that you have to yield for vehicles already in the intersection, even if you have the right-of-way.You seem to operate under the assumption that as long you have the right of way, no one else should even dare to inconvenience you by getting in your way, even if this is done in a safe manner, and all you have to do is slow down.It doesn't work that way. Roads are a shared commodity and everyone has a right to use them. You must always drive in a manner that allows slower vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, etc to share the road with you.So the real question is this: Did the truck cut the Tesla off? Or was the truck for long enough in the intersection for the Tesla driver to see it and slow down?This is where the point of impact matters. If the Tesla had hit the front of the truck, then one could argue that the truck cut the Tesla off and there was not enough time to avoid the accident.But the Tesla hit the truck at the gap between the trailer wheels.That's right in the middle of the whole truck length. Trucks aren't particularly fast, so that means it was for quite some time in the intersection. In that case the Tesla driver had to yield.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 11:41:35 am
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on July 08, 2016, 10:48:40 pmThis is a fine example of statistics turned into lies. First of all you need to break down on what kind of roads (inner city, rural, highway, etc) the autopilot has been used and compare statistics for each type of road to human drivers versus autopilot. In general the fatalities per distance on a highway are 20 times LESS than inside a city. So if the autopilot is mostly used on highways this will bias the statistics heavily in favor of the autopilot.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 12:22:58 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 09, 2016, 11:41:35 amPerhaps drivetimemight be a more appropriate measurement.After all, as you say, a mile in city traffic represents a much greater risk than a mile on a clear highway - but an hour on each would, I suggest, provide more comparable risks. Speed then becomes a simple parameter, rather than a fundamental component in the definition of the frame of reference.In Australia, we have a "Stop. Revive. Survive" campaign that gets rolled out, especially during holiday periods. One of the basic recommendations is to take a break every two hours. Although implied, they don't make any specific distinction whether it's city traffic or open freeway.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 12:29:10 pm
content: The official statistics work per distance so that seems to be the agreed upon measure.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 12:58:10 pm
content: Doesn't make it the best measure.It is, however, the easiest ... which provides a convenient and consistent measure - which is important in itself.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 01:58:22 pm
content: QuoteWhether such a comparison is valid depends on what you are trying to compare. Two factors should be considered:1) any fatality is a combination of vehicle safety + driver behaviors. Take Volvo cars for example. Because of its safety reputation, safety conscious drivers tend to buy them. Those drivers are less aggressive and are less likely to get involved in accidents -> lower fatality. When you condition the fatality rate on the number of accidents those vehicles are involved in, Volvo actually has one of the highest fatality rates -> it doesn't do a good job in protecting its occupants -> true measure of safety.In this case, comparing fatality rates without controlling other factors will assume that the drivers are the same (I would argue that tesla drivers tend to be less aggressive than the average driver on the road), driving conditions are the same (I would argue that the auto pilot is engaged more likely in open high way driving -> safer than in-town driving), vehicles are comparably maintained (I would argue that given their newer age and more affluent ownership, a tesla is better maintained than average cars on the road), ...2) confidence level / sample size / unobservable variables: it is hard to comparable two statistics from two vastly different sample size: 1 tesla vs. hundreds of thousands of other vehicles over decades of operations. The confidence range for the tesla fatality rate must be pretty wide, rendering the point estimate unreliable.

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 02:24:37 pm
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on July 08, 2016, 10:48:40 pmThis doesn't instill much confidence. According to these numbers, the autopilot is marginally better than a human driver.Also, asnctnicopoints out, if those miles are mostly done on highways, where accedents are an order of magnitude fewer, this makes the Autopilot actually perform worse than a human driver.On the other hand, since there are too few Teslas on the streets, statistically speaking these numbers are meaningless. The Autopilot could be much much safer in reality than a typical human driver. Only time will tell.My only fear is that regulators might have a knee-jerk reaction and axe this system completely. This would be a pity because it looks really promising.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 02:52:49 pm
content: I'm very sure auto pilot systems will not be axed. Even before Google even thought about making a self driving car many research institutes have been experimenting with this technology for decades. Over a decade ago I worked for such an institute and experienced a demo of a car in which you only had to stear. It did throttle and brakes itself based on data coming from the cars in front.The biggest advantage is that self driving cars can talk to eachother and get data from sensors in the road. The way we humans drive is insanely inefficient and bad. If you sit next to a highway and watch the traffic you'll notice traffic flow isn't continuous but cars come in (accident prone) packs. Just look at how some people like to drive behind another car so they have a tail to follow (just like elephants do). Also one slower driver is enough to cause a major traffic jam during rush hour. Not to mention the utter chaos caused by an accident. All in all autonomous cars are very necessary to increase the throughput of the infrastructure.Still you can argue whether Tesla introduced their system too early or has been too confident people wouldn't abuse it.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 03:04:00 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on July 09, 2016, 01:58:22 pmI find that hard to believe (source?)The Volvo XC90 has a zero death rate, and both Volvo and Saab are really heavily built cars.The consistently get top results in crash worthiness, so to suggest that such a metric is misleading is odd.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 03:24:00 pm
content: Volvo's have not been safer or better than any other car for a long time. Volvo has been owned by Ford so you are basically buying a Ford with a Volvo badge.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2016, 04:14:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 09, 2016, 03:24:00 pmFord Motor Company bought it in 1999Geely Holding Group bought it in 2010so it's Chinese now, like a lot of companies.but yeh, most of production is based on the Ford EUCD platform, which still does well in the NCAP tests regardless of whether it's a rebadged Ford or not.

author: CentralServices
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 10, 2016, 02:56:00 pm
content: Sorry to hear that Murphy was his uncle

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2016, 03:35:39 pm
content: Quote from: fubar.gr on July 09, 2016, 02:24:37 pmPerhaps the real point is that the autopilots are already good enough to debate whether they are better or worse than human operators. There is every reason to believe that the autopilots will get better over time, while there is little reason to believe that human operators will significantly improve after over 100 years of practice. That observation applies over both the easy and difficult driving situations.The only real question is whether economics and law will allow autopilots (or possibly require) to be as good as they can be.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2016, 06:55:02 pm
content: It would be interesting to watch development of liability question for accidents.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2016, 08:53:05 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on July 10, 2016, 06:55:02 pmwouldwill.Won't be long until the first big court cases now.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2016, 08:58:12 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on July 10, 2016, 06:55:02 pmThat depends on how the legal framework is setup around responsibilities for accidents with vehicles. Over here the owner of a vehicle is responsible for any damage caused by the vehicle no matter who drives it. Therefore all car owner are required by law to have a liability insurance. It is up to the owner of the car, or more precise: the insurance company to claim the damages from a third party.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2016, 09:12:43 pm
content: QuoteAbsolutely. The whole auto-driven car thing is a hype, driven by people naive enough to believe it (both users and investors). It wouldn't surprise me that there are big lawsuits down the road. And how the insurance companies approach it would be quite interesting as well.It is not just a technology thing (if anything, tech is the least interesting thing about the whole story).

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2016, 10:54:19 pm
content: BTW, Tesla is being investigated by the sec for disclosures surrounding it's autopilot accident.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2016, 02:44:18 pm
content: Another accident claimhttps://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/my-friend-model-x-crash-bad-on-ap-yesterday.73308/Edit: from that link "Also, it is not a divided highway, so it is not a good idea to use Autopilot.". This suggest strong bias of 'easy miles' in the statistics as discussed here earlier.Edit: also from the link "In the user manual it clearly states that it will not detect stationary objects when driving over 50mph.".

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2016, 10:56:49 pm
content: An interesting read. Gizmodo: Tesla's Autopilot Driving Mode Is a Legal Nightmare.http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw86bMmiwBad for Tesla.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2016, 03:02:15 pm
content: The Autopilot's smart camera supplier will not renew the contract with Tesla due to disagreement on how Tesla presented the capabilities (or lack thereof) to its customers.http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1105260_camera-supplier-mobileye-drops-tesla-as-customer-citing-autopilot-crash

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2016, 06:23:00 pm
content: Lawsuits will work both ways. It won't be too long before someone is sued for not having an autopilot. I suspect the first occurrence of this will be in a rear end accident that could have been avoided through one of the auto braking systems. A very limited autopilot application, but a step on the road.

author: Avacee
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 12, 2017, 07:47:22 pm
content: Apologies if this was covered in another thread .. If so my google-fu is weakThe NTSB report has been released and concludes that Tesla's autopilot was partly to blame for the crash.My interpretation of the articles and reading some of the reports is that it gave a false confidence to drivers as well as not correctly detecting the truck.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40340828andhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41242884NTSB report table:https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=59989&CFID=1126988&CFTOKEN=b1b9a5b7e849bb32-88C471C8-01C8-077F-A22C23E2E219927FDriver Assistance System Report:https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59500-59999/59989/604889.pdfSelected snippets from the 2 BBC's articles:It found that in 37 minutes of driving, Mr Brown had his hands on the wheel for just 25 seconds.The documents also found that Mr Brown had set cruise control at 74mph (119km/h) which was above the 65mph speed limit.In its report, the Safety Board said the truck should have been visible to Mr Brown for at least seven seconds before impact but that he took "no braking, steering or other actions to avoid the collision".The report said that the car remained in autopilot mode for most of his trip and that it gave him a visual warning seven separate times that said "hands required not detected".In six cases, the system then sounded a chime.The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has found that Tesla's Autopilot system was partly to blame for a fatal accident in which a Model S collided with a lorry.Federal investigators say Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations."In this crash, Tesla's system worked as designed, but it was designed to perform limited tasks in a limited range of environments," Christopher Hart, a member of the NTSB said in a meeting to discuss the findings of its investigation."Tesla allowed the driver to use the system outside of the environment for which it was designed, and the system gave far more leeway to the driver to divert his attention to something other than driving."Following the meeting, the NTSB's report includes seven safety recommendations requiring car manufacturers to add safeguards to prevent automated vehicle control systems from being used outside the conditions for which they were designed.Tesla has yet to respond to the NTSB's findings.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2017, 08:05:04 pm
content: I think I know how Tesla fixed the bug: their cars stop in the middle of the road for nothing!Very annoying to drive behind so I passed it first chance I got.