Other Russia News: Testla Model 3 on Autopilot hits a truck, explodes in flames - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: windsmurf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 04:37:21 am
content: https://bgr.com/2019/08/12/model-3-fire-video-tow-truck-russia/

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 02:05:34 pm
content: Nice and safe technology. There should be more of these driving around.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 03:32:51 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 14, 2019, 02:05:34 pmHe claims not to have seen the truck either so the net difference with a human driver is zero. The fact that he's telling us this after a 60 mph crash tells us they're rather safe vehicles indeed.

author: 001
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 05:22:45 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 14, 2019, 03:32:51 pmRussians use km/h not mphYou can see ordinary city trafic at video

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 05:26:36 pm
content: Quote from: 001 on August 14, 2019, 05:22:45 pmIt was 100 km/h which is roughly 60 mph. BTW explosions were from airbags, not battery.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 06:33:38 pm
content: Quote from: 001 on August 14, 2019, 05:22:45 pmI'm pretty sure 60 mph is also a speed in km/h.Whatever the case, I'm just quoting the article.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 06:41:16 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 14, 2019, 02:05:34 pmQuoteModern cars are amazing.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 06:41:26 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 14, 2019, 05:26:36 pmThe airbags turned the car into a fireball??

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 06:44:40 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 14, 2019, 03:32:51 pmAnd on the flip side the claiming autopilot saves lives would seem a bit much.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 06:53:07 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on August 14, 2019, 06:44:40 pmIt looks like the car braked at the last moment. Just a second of braking does a lot to reduce the impact.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 07:17:01 pm
content: Autopilot in cars may improve safety most of the time but in unusual situations, like construction zones, it does not appear to fare quite so well. There was a serious crash here in Salt Lake City a year or so back -- the Tesla diverted from the altered lines in a construction zone and hit a K-rail. Months later another Tesla diverted in the same spot towards the same K-rail but the driver reacted quickly enough to avoid an accident.Interestingly, Tesla is complaining about roads not being uniform enough -- well dohhh...One way around this particular problem would be a transmitter that notifies approaching cars of a construction zone and maybe a police stop that would trigger the car to deactivate the autopilot and inform the driver. OTH, it may be preferred to define zones where use of autopilot is permitted whereas in all other places it is not permitted. This could be mandated for uniform compliance.Brian

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 07:37:54 pm
content: Something tells me a large pothole would probably also wreck an auto-drive car.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 07:45:46 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on August 14, 2019, 06:41:26 pmDunno where fire started and if it was in battery to begin with. Though as it was in Russia, I would not be surprised if that car was salvage fixed in not very safe ways. For example without pyro-fuse. As of airbags, they explode in ICE cars as well.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 09:25:42 pm
content: Have you seen all videos? To me it looks like a straight line with a truck apparently parked on the road shoulder. You'd need to be completely drunk or sleeping not to have seen this.Then I didn't clearly get if they managed to get out of the car before it caught on fire, or after. In the latter case, it's a complete miracle.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2019, 10:09:47 pm
content: The truck was right behind another apparently disabled car on the shoulder. It is arguable how much the truck was visible to the tesla driver.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 12:59:28 am
content: is tesla code used for missile guide system?

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 01:19:01 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on August 15, 2019, 12:59:28 amOnly not very good ones. Good missile guidance maximizes lethality, and this clearly failed at that.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 03:41:18 am
content: It was a glancing blow with braking before, not a head-on collision at full speed. Not so difficult to survive that.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 07:10:37 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on August 14, 2019, 07:17:01 pmHere is the thing: "unusual" by whose standards? A driver is always required to be alert, no matter the circumstances, otherwise don´t drive.The biggest problem with self driving cars is that engineers approach problems prioritized by probability, the law however punishes the single case and there is no discount on violating the law more often.The compromises taken on behalf of the driver are plentiful to the point i´d call it crazy:- driving faster than visibility and road conditions allow is usually prohibited, meaning an automated car would need to go slow on every bend and obstacle that blocks the view, however, the algorithms don´t do that, therefore take risks. Otherwise it might make itself the obstacle for following cars, leading to plenty of other problems, like gridlocks and crashes- detecting, but ignoring objects vs. ignoring everything that is not detected. As human driver it is up to you to decide if something is to become an obstacle or not, so you detect and classify everything, but only react to those objects that youpredict to interfereor are required to react. Sensors are however designed to only detect a limited set of objects in very specific situations, leading to ignore the whole rest of surroundings. This has far reaching implications, like not lowering the speed when required, not avoiding dangerously close situations, therefore increasing the danger, as seen in above video- technical issues on the vehicle itself, stuff breaks, not surprisingly- technical issues on other vehicles like cargo falling off, or even non technical like people getting out of open doors- adverse weather conditions, road condition (the said potholes, ice, water, foliage on ground)The traffic on a public road itself is after all - and besides any abstraction via regulations - a social interaction (hence laws are made for humans) and technology has never been a good method to solve social issues. Social issues are not static, but a moving target anyway.QuoteMore uniform roads might be a benefit to human drivers as well, and should this lead to change in regulations it would mean new construction gets a bit more expensive or at least different, but will cover most roads one day. Not over night, though and not as an excuse for bad decisions taken by a car manufacturer. "The world refuses to meet our assumptions".QuoteAs everyone knows, not without the crypto-blockchain-cloud, can´t build such beacons without it. Otherwise some kids could make a fun out of abusing it, stealing them, misplacing them, whatever.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 07:21:55 am
content: When will people learn.Autopilot does not currently process the video feed to determine braking. The radar filters out stationary cars when travelling faster than 50 kph because a stationary vehicle looks the same as a road sign or other large road structure.So the vehicle will hit stationary vehicles (that have not decelerated in front of the car) and an accident will happen. This type of accident is all too common with Tesla autopilot. It killed someone in China, in California and has led to other serious accidents.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 09:26:05 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 15, 2019, 07:21:55 amBunch of nonsense, whatever it looks like, it does not stop being an obstacle. And it's NOT common at all. Human drivers making the same mistake is nowhere less common.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 09:30:15 am
content: I think you misunderstand me. I am not defending Tesla Autopilot. In fact I consider this a serious issue and it's part of the problem with Tesla's ADAS system.It is a common enough outcome. My car has regular adaptive cruise control. If a car pulls away from in front of me, and there is a stationary car in front now, it will plow into the back of that car, because above 25 mph it will not detect stationary vehicles unless they have come to a stop in front of the car (it must see a change in velocity to zero.) It is an edge-case that adaptive cruise control systems including Tesla Autopilot have.But at least on a car with ACC, you are steering and sometimes providing accelerator/brake input. You are always in control of the car, the ACC just makes it easier especially in dense traffic. It is too easy on a Tesla Autopilot enabled car to just let go and let the car do all the work.It is important to note that Tesla's Autopilot, at present, is essentially a fancy ACC system with vision for lane hold and collision avoidance. Navigate on Autopilot is more advanced but still suffers similar limitations. Tesla are not confident enough in the AP data set to brake based on video alone which is why all their cars have radar.edit: spelling

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 09:40:56 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 15, 2019, 09:30:15 amIn this case the driver mentioned he had his hands on the steering wheel and wasn't aware of the truck when he hit it so the whole autopilot isn't too relevant. The human driver failed and it appears the autopilot mitigated the crash by last minute braking.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 09:56:35 am
content: It doesn't matter the driver was steering the vehicle. A Tesla caught fire. That's all important.I wonder if there was similar inflammatory discussion going around when they migrated from horses to cars.Since it is pretty difficult to set fire to a horse.Anyway, I think that even if a parked Tesla is set ablaze by an arsonist it will headline the news with lots of comments about how EV's are dangerous and self driving shouldn't exist.Quote from: orion242 on August 14, 2019, 06:41:26 pmAny rapid spread of fuel in a fire causes a fireball. If you have a container of flammably liquid burning it will only burn at the top. If you disturb the liquid the fire will get more intense. If you rapidly convert the liquid into droplets by a bursting pressurized canister, it will "explode", or rather, burn more quickly due to better fuel-oxygen mix. Replace liquid by powder, or any fuel, same applies.*Someone should fix the title, it says Testla.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 10:57:49 am
content: 'Airbags...'Yes, it was airbags! Definitely!...And, to boot,two of them(in ever car!): The first one went off at00' 09"and the second at0' 13"!I will firstly blame the AI (in all of its forms) that is being pushed to the ignorant masses as the second coming of whatever(!) might be coming, and,Secondly (and most important) I will blame all those patheticbozosthat unconditionally TRUST any POS being hoarded to trust by anyone in power.Because science is not about pressing the buttons that get lit, in order to put them off. Science is about putting in question ΑΝΥΤΗNG; even the most established ideas, propositions and, especially, those establishedScience-Gods: the ones who I call'monkeys with [or without] a degree'.-George

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 11:54:58 am
content: AI cars need the Texas Touchsend the lot there for the locals to pop off a few roundsand upload some Youtubes

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 11:57:05 am
content: Quote from: A Hellene on August 15, 2019, 10:57:49 amOn what basis are you casting doubt? The explosions look remarkably similar as the ICE airbag explosion posted before and every modern car has a handful of them in the dashboard and sides.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 12:21:17 pm
content: Could be air bags, could be shock absorbers, or pretensioners, maybe even high voltage lines shorting together if the pack is sufficiently damaged such that the HV contactors didn't disengage. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter. All cars contain material that is at risk of explosion in a fire.I don't know where the fire started, but it was probably in the battery. That itself is not an issue because any energy source can be volatile if damaged. But it does pose concerns for fire fighters. Lithium ion batteries are extremely hard to extinguish.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 12:36:41 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on August 15, 2019, 09:56:35 amDidn't we just have one in a parking garage go up all by itself?Quote from: Jeroen3 on August 15, 2019, 09:56:35 amNo fuel here, so what's the point? "Safer", yet it seems many times one of these cars is in a good collision, 55MPH+ it results in a fireball. I don't really follow the crashes in any depth and its not like Telsa or anyone else is really tracking and publicly releasing meaningful stats either. Time will tell.Just my 2 cents, as misguided as it may be. Fuel tank is a much smaller target to hit for starters. Its also plastic on many cars and just deforming it doesn't equate into a leak. Even if it leaks, it still needs an ignition source. How much deformation can these battery packs take? Do they test how they hold up under the forces of a highway speed collision and how does that compare to a standard fuel tank?

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 12:44:52 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 15, 2019, 11:57:05 amTo these great balls of fire being surrounding the whole vehicle --which balls of fire CANNOT be the outcome of the self-contained and internally-explosive airbag systems. And to the chronical hysteresis of four whole seconds between the two distinct explosions at the stationary vehicle, that can clearly be seen in the video footage, above.-George

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 01:00:58 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on August 15, 2019, 12:44:52 pmThey certainly can be the outcome of a detonation inside a raging fire. The airbag will displace a great deal of hot air and burning particles with, well, 'great balls of fire' being the result.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 01:11:24 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on August 15, 2019, 12:44:52 pmI don't get your argument about difference in explosion time. What the issue with that to begin with? Model 3 has 8 airbags, so the should be left some non activated after the crash. Also it seems you have no idea how big energy is contained within airbag.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 01:55:33 pm
content: All right, people!I do not know; this was my gut feeling by watching the footage, above. Even if the video camera white balance was correct (because it is a night scenery), it would be difficult to judge from the colour temperatures of the fire (orange (~1500°): petroleum derivatives free burning) and from the two explosions (whitish (~6500°): NON free-burning of what element/compound???), with lithium's critical point being at 3300°K.Even if I admitted that the explosions of the airbags inside the raging fire of the vehicle cabin COULD BE an outcome of the original vehicle fire, I cannot see HOW can this little detail whitewash (or wash-away) the major issues (theAIand themass stupidity) I initially pointed fingers at...-George

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 01:57:05 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on August 15, 2019, 12:44:52 pmLook at the video that was posted where the airbag in an ICE car explodes. It looks almost identical.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 02:08:09 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on August 15, 2019, 01:55:33 pmWhat's clear is that there's a group of people who've decided they don't agree with the situation regardless of what happens. No positive safety record or any other factual matter can change their mind.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 03:00:05 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 15, 2019, 02:08:09 pmRegardless of the existence (or not) of any groups of people that cannot trust the Establishment (see the hundreds of millions of human victims of thatancient indivisible trinity[Organised Religions* - Banking Institutions** - Secret Societies*** --all of them interconnected], which has become more powerful today than it has ever been, I think thatyour answer does not -even remotely- address theroot causes**** of that accident--and what can be done to prevent the following ones that are expected to happen with mathematical accuracy.-George[ * ] Today: TheAbrahamic Delusons(more than 120 million victims since the beginnings of Christianity).[ ** ] Today: The Rothschild / Rockefeller / etc.[ *** ] Today:The Big Kahunas& Freemasonry (more than 260 million victims since Marxism).[ **** ] The (immature or not)AIin all of its forms (which we all know where it leads us to), and thecultivated stupidity of the massesto be unconditionally trusting anything they come across.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 03:52:28 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 15, 2019, 07:21:55 amYes, to check if any obstacle is in front of the cars projected path, it needs to see the lane markings (edit: and know the steering wheel angle). The standing car did block these markings, then the truck stood half in the lane. Even if radar would stop the vehicle in front of any obstacle, it needs lane markings (edit: and swa) to cross check if it will hit them, otherwise it would brake repeatedly when approaching a bend.And no, in itself this situation is not a corner case, it is too high confidence of developers or marketers.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 04:17:41 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 15, 2019, 02:08:09 pmIs there a mile for mile safety comparison that's apples for apples?Most I have seen look at ICE as a whole compared to EVs that cost $40K+. Can't see how one comes up with a fair comparison unless its similarly priced modles only. How many first time drivers are sporting these EVs? How many high risk drivers can afford insurance on an EV? How many <$10K cars have the same safety features as these EVs?The two populations of drivers & car safety features won't look anything like each other.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 06:45:55 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on August 15, 2019, 03:00:05 pmSpeaking entirely for myself (although I'm sure others will agree..), oh please do take your conspiracy blathering somewhere else. We've got real things to discuss.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2019, 07:03:03 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on August 15, 2019, 03:00:05 pmLuckily none of your other convictions are left field. Otherwise we might have mistaken you for a ranting conspiracy loon.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2019, 04:51:50 am
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2019, 09:42:51 am
content: All we need now are some lurking Flat Earthers to rock up, and get the party started to extend this post to 1000 pagesFWIW and no crystal ball required, unregulated tech based Artificial Intelligence isn't going to do organic based Real Intelligence recipients any favors,but will pocket some quick cash for the No Intelligence corporats pushing this BS via their sucker investors blowing cash on it'Other Peoples' Money..'

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2019, 09:57:40 am
content: As long as, for each kilometer driven the chance of dying on autopilot is less than dying from manual control, then all is good.Which i believe is currently the case according to Tesla stats. (Deaths on autopilot per km is less by considerable margin).Even if autopilot does some stupid things and kills people in situations where a human driver would have easily avoided the accident.As long as it's balanced out by autopilot saving more people in other situations, due to its super fast reactions, then it's a force for good and is saving peoples lives by existing.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2019, 01:11:09 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 17, 2019, 09:57:40 amThat´s quite some statement, but are you sure it is unbiased? If a human driver makes a mistake and someone is injured or killed it is the drivers responsibility and liability. I usually never hear much of such cases but they happen on a daily basis, so there is some bias hidden in there. In these cases the driver will -without other factors- have to take the blame, the full legal consequences, insurance will only try to pay what they have to. Technical faults also do happen, but the responsibility for most is with the driver anyway - if the car is not fit for road use, you are supposed to not drive it, if a system repeatedly fails while driving you are supposed to not use it.If an autopilot (repeatedly) makes mistakes whose liability is it? Is everything as transparent to you as the owner that you legally have every evidence you need to prove not having been at fault? Who would want to be the person taking the responsibility for such cases? Even if legally the responsibility for operating the car on autopilot is considered to be with the driver, they will (justifiably) try to sue the manufacturer to lower their costs in such cases - that´s kind of the game changer because checking a cars technical status for autopilot is kind of impossible and unpredictable to the average driver, next to the impossibility to foresee the situation it will fail in.What i want to point out is, if one person makes a mistake you can´t blame everyone else for having done that. If a machine makes a mistake you can blame every copy and its creator of having done it. That´s kind of a bias why it would seem OK if it just statistically works out, but imho doesn´t.Btw. you don´t need a self driving car to do crash mitigation or "super fast reactions", that´s available without navigation already and can work in the background while being driven by a human. The bias in such statistics is that you need to compare cars with emergency brake assist to cars with emergency brake assist coupled to navigation. I don´t see where that would lower the numbers, it´s just a marketing gag because they offer their cars with this as standard and connect the statement with their brand. Btw. don´t overestimate a single manufacturers influence on this, the parts that enable this function in the first place (radar sensor(s), electronic stability program w/ emergency brake assist, electronic steering, video processing, engine/transmission controller) come from the usual suspects (suppliers) and are dependent on each other, the manufacturer basically ticks the boxes which features he wants to offer to customers and does systems integration and testing.Not much homebrewing in there.QuoteWhat some people call fringe is an everyday situation to many. Whose definition and threshold applies? Legally it would need to be stated in the manual what is "normal" or defined by regulations.Would you consider snow/foliage/rain/shadows/dirt/parking cars on a road a normal thing? I do.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 01:15:32 am
content: I think. If overall;- A driver/passenger is safer in a car on autopilot than a car under manual controland- Cars on autopilot are less likely to kill a pedestrian than a manual car.Then nothing else really matters from a safety perspective, self-drive is safe enough to be on the road.When it comes to liability if autopilot causes an accident, this is a separate issue.The way auto-drive works is that crash video/info feeds back into the AI to make it better and prevent them happening in the future.So as long as it's always true that 'autopilot is safer on average' then i think liability will probably work as follows..If a Telsa on autopilot repeatedly kills people in the same way then Tesla as a company would be liable for negligence causing death.But if a Tesla on autopilot kills a person in a random one-off situation it would be considered more like an accidental death with no one responsible. (same as being hit by lightning or whatever).Obviously this approach has potential problems in that someone could recode a car to kill someone in a weird way to try get away with murder. etc..But overall i don't see another way to do it.Note i am referring to full autopilot with no driver at all.Any human driver using a semi-autopilot system that request them to pay attention to the road is responsible for any accident that occurs.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 01:21:33 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 23, 2019, 01:15:32 amI think the public in general accepting this is a real hurdle to cross, monumental today. There will be full video of the case that's almost surely hitting the news. Its going to take a generation or more to just accept this IMO. That's AFTER self driving cars become common and "generally safe" in the public's eye.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 01:26:08 am
content: Quote from: orion242 on August 23, 2019, 01:21:33 amI think the general public will probably be ok with it.The issue will be people who loses someone they care about in an AI caused accident and no one is held accountable.And how much this in the news effects the public view of AI.My guess is that there will be so much footage of AI doing superhuman things and avoiding accidents that the public will think of it as a 'force for good' and therefore tolerate a small number of random fatality's that may have been avoidable by a human.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 01:30:11 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 23, 2019, 01:26:08 amExactly what makes the headlines. And how many level 5 autonomous cars are on the road now? This isn't changing short term. Insurance and liability issues haven't even been sorted out yet. Let alone anyone show a self driver can operate outside of a tiny closed course let alone a generally accepted large area.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 01:39:42 am
content: I agree to somewhat as you describe, the public will accept these failures at some point.To get to that point from where we are today, that's a long path yet.I would like to see some safety tests specifically between battery & standard fuel tanks that cover low speed to hi-way speed collisions. Based on real current production models, real accidents and the resulting fire hazard.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 03:06:29 am
content: Here's a novel concept. Dispense with all these gadgets and force people to actually drive the car and look where they're going. A mobile phone jammer built into every car would probably do more to prevent accidents than all the driver assistance gadgets in the world.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 07:08:21 am
content: Quote from: orion242 on August 14, 2019, 06:44:40 pmI would argue that if the driver would have been paying full attention, that he would have seen the truck.I've said for years, whilst I don't disagree with modern technology being introduced into cars, some of it is making people lazy and complacent. A lot of people think they can drop their guard because a computer is driving, in turn, they take greater risks, they don't assess what's around them and when it comes to the crunch, they make poor decisions. The longer this goes on, the worse it gets.I drive a variety of different cars at work fitted with features like lane departure assist, autonomous braking and adaptive cruise control and I continuously find myself reacting well before the computer does (in some cases several seconds). I've lost count how many times I'm already on the brakes by the time the car warns of a potential collision (Subaru is the worst at this). I've never been in a situation where the car has had to intervene in a situation I wasn't aware of or prepared for.I feel as a society we are losing proper driving skills either through complacency or never being taught properly in the first place.

author: windsmurf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 07:38:45 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2019, 07:08:21 amI think Tesla needs to accept a lot of blame here... they continue to market Autopilot as a "self-driving" feature when it's really just an advanced cruise control system. And they continue to allow the media and youtubers to hype up "autopilot" with their demonstrations of "distracted driving" as if there's nothing wrong with that practice. Tesla sees them only as free-marketing of Tesla products.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 10:38:23 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2019, 07:08:21 amThat's somewhat to be expected.The computer can react faster than a human and is always aware of distance to object vs car speed vs current stopping distance needed (wet vs dry).So it knows how long it can leave a decision before it must decide to take control and avoid injury.The car makers have to design the systems to leave it to the last minute.It would be pretty annoying if your car kept on applying brakes sooner than you under normal driving conditions.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 10:48:13 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2019, 07:08:21 amYou are smart. You don't trust the car yet, so you are still nervous.You'd do the same if you were a driving instructor with a new student.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 10:54:20 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on August 23, 2019, 10:38:23 amI'm talking about under abnormal conditions, such as when the car in front suddenly brakes hard or someone moves into your lane directly in front of you. I was also specifically talking about the pre-warning before actual automatic braking occurs. Some of these systems are slow to react in certain conditions.Quote from: Jeroen3 on August 23, 2019, 10:48:13 amI absolutely don't trust the car,anycar. The only time I put my faith in a car is when it detects something that I can't or if the chips are down and there is nothing more I can do to rectify the situation. Technology like electronic stability control, airbags, seat belt pretensioners, crumple zones and emergency braking are life savers. A car that drives itself is not.I was in a Hyundai Santa Fe a few weeks ago and tested out the adaptive cruise on the highway. It was unnerving. Several times, upon changing lanes, it hadn't detected the traffic ahead early enough so it was accelerating towards a queue of stopped cars. I had to manually intervene then. On one occasion, the car drove itself into a situation where the "collision detection" warning came on. A car should never do that outside of factors beyond its control. The other thing I noticed was when it can't make a decision and relinquishes control back to the human driver, it does so at the drop of a hat, you have to be aware of what's going on around you and be ready to take control straight away.The other annoying thing I find about self-driving cars is the visual cues it gives to other drivers, most of these systems are all too happy to apply the brakes when simple coasting or engine braking could suffice. The Subaru's were especially bad with this, in traffic brakes were constantly applied for only a second or two. It made for a very erratic driving experience and those behind me probably thought I was some terrible driver.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2019, 09:42:00 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2019, 07:08:21 amThey are designed to warn as late as possible, this is not a comfort feature, it is a safety feature. Maybe the user interface is sometimes misleading as well, some cars with adaptive cruise control allow setting a distance to hold while keeping the distance to the vehicle in front. This setting has nothing to do with warning time for collision warning or collision imminent braking, as detection of obstacles for the collision imminent reaction has different criteria than the adaptive cruise control.None of them can foresee the future (or even "obvious" things) and people get annoyed by a machine doing things different than they would have done, but otherwise expect the machine to do some task they are responsible for.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 25, 2019, 09:56:33 pm
content: Quote from: windsmurf on August 23, 2019, 07:38:45 amAs if they can forbid it.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 27, 2019, 03:38:17 am
content: Quote from: SparkyFX on August 25, 2019, 09:42:00 pmI am fully aware that they are completely different systems and behave differently, however I find "as late as possible" rather open to interpretation. What might be considered "late" for an average driver may be perfectly safe for an experienced and attentive driver. So far of all the different makes and models I've driven, Volvo seems to truly leave driving to the human driver and only intervene when the conditions absolutely require it. Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Subaru, Holden and Ford all tend to alert at varying degrees of "early".In Australia, we teach 'regular' drivers a minimum safe distance of 3 seconds behind the car in front (at any given speed) but in more advanced and high speed driving courses (such as the ones I taught on) we drop it to 2 seconds. At 110 km/hr (normal Australian highway speeds), that's a difference of over 30 metres.

author: windsmurf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2019, 05:09:29 am
content: Quote from: wraper on August 25, 2019, 09:56:33 pmThey can certainly issue stern official warnings against such practices to the producers of such content, and even issue official warnings in the comments section, including potential legal liabilities. They can also issue frequent public statements against content which misuse and misrepresent their product.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2019, 08:16:01 am
content: Outside city limits (or higher than 50 km/h) the enforced minimum distances here are 1/2 the speedometer (value in km/h, not the width of the instrument) in meters, below that you´re fined a variable amount. Within city limits (50km/h) afaik 2-3 car lengths. Quite similar to a 2 second rule (55m vs. 60m @ 110km/h).But that´s for steady pace driving, a collision imminent braking however is pure physics, the distance to the obstacle, speed, speed of the obstacle, weight of the vehicle, tire grip, brakes, the maximum considered deceleration all need to be calculated to check if a collision acutally is imminent. The biggest, not measureable variables in there are the vehicle weight, road condition and tires/brakes,probably leading to varying safety margins, depending on vehicle manufacturer. None of these are always ideal, so if you´re testing in almost ideal conditions you might come to different conclusions than otherwise. Which is why these systems never guarantee to avoid a crash, they are made to lower the impact it might have, in most cases however manage to stop before hitting an obstacle.There are also systems that detect imminent collisions, prefill the brake booster and assist electronically to hit the brakes as hard as possible to shave a few 1/10s off the process, should the driver activate the brake.Then there are questions like: is there a mandatory technical inspection in the country, how extensive is it, would it cover worn out tires and brakes? Some manufacturers might brush this off with responsibility for maintenance is with the driver and so on.