Tesla Model S In Fatal Autopilot Crash Was Going 74 MPH In a 65 Zone, NTSB Says (latimes.com) 623
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Los Angeles Times: The Tesla car involved in a fatal crash in Florida this spring was in Autopilot mode and going about 10 miles faster than the speed limit, according to safety regulators, who also released a picture of the mangled vehicle. Earlier reports had stated the Tesla Model S struck a big rig while traveling on a divided highway in central Florida, and speculated that the Tesla Autopilot system had failed to intervene in time to prevent the collision. The National Transportation Safety Board released a preliminary report Tuesday that confirms some details of the May 7 collision, along with a photo that shows the car with its windshield flattened and most of its roof sheared off. The federal agency also included a photo of the big rig, circling an area on the right side of the tractor-trailer that showed the light damage the truck received from the collision. The 2015 Model S was moving at 74 mph, above the posted 65 mph speed limit, when it struck a 53-foot trailer being pulled by a Freightliner Cascadia truck. Tesla's semi-autonomous Autopilot driving feature was engaged, the report says.
74 at time of crash (Score:3, Interesting)
So... it was going 74 mph at the time of the crash... was this after any kind of braking? What was the speed before any braking was applied?
(I'm going to take a guess it was a LOT over 74mph)
Re: (Score:2)
Rumor down here is that no attempt was made to decelerate the Tesla.
Re: (Score:3)
They released a statement right after the accident saying that there was no indication that either AutoPilot or the driver tried to decelerate. That's consistent with an under-run accident where they didn't see the white trailer against a bright sky. Sadly, trucks are harder to see than you'd expect, so these accidents aren't rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently brakes were not applied. They believe it was a combination of the trailer being a solid light gray color that tended to visually blend in with the sky, coupled with the radar being designed to ignore large flat signs that cross above the road. So the trailer managed to be filtered out as an hazard and was ignored by the software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:4, Insightful)
More than 'sort of'. Look at the photo of the car after the crash.
It's almost entirely intact with minor damage if you ignore the roof!
Very easy to see how the car thought it was clear - it technically was up to about a meter/4 feet above the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The whole thing was a freak accident that will not repeat after the software has been adjusted. It took an incompetent driver (in two regards) and very special circumstances to happen in the first place. Criticizing Tesla for this is stupid, and I suspect its competitors are very much behind this campaign.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not so sure that a simple software fix can fix it. Some key notes:
Eastbound. Afternoon. May. Aka, the sun was right behind him. Clear and bright outside. This is a perfect recipe for light-colored objects ahead to be overexposed, against other overexposed objects, potentially including the road and the sky. If you have a big block of RGB(255,255,255), how do you determine the boundaries? The best you can do is recognize that it's a threat and disable autopilot, while warning the driver.
A more appropriate solution, if this was indeed the case, would be a hardware fix: read the *raw* data from the camera. A potential alternative, if the frame exposure time can be adjusted, would be to read out alternating short and long exposure frames and combine them.
Re: (Score:3)
The system did recognize the side of the trailer, it just though it was a traffic-sign higher up. Hence there is data to work with.
Re: 74 at time of crash (Score:5, Insightful)
"Waiting for a tesla to drive through a large pane of glass...."
As opposed to human drivers, who are known to masterfully avoid all those frequent large panes of glass that suddenly appear on your way while you are driving on the highway.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Interesting)
I think obstacles that are empty below 3 ft confuse the car.
http://bgr.com/2016/05/11/tesla-model-s-summon-crash/
I have also heard of the car running into 1/2 open garage doors.
Re: (Score:3)
I've "heard of" the car doing a lot of things, the majority of which were shown not to have been accurate. No greater excuse has ever been made in the automotive world for wrecking your car than "the car went and wrecked itself!".
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Interesting)
So the road under the truck looked clear (sort of)
If only the autopilot system had been calibrated to take into account the exact height of the Tesla's roof. If that had been done, then there would have been no accident in this case (the Tesla would have stopped until the truck was out of the way), but when encountering a somewhat higher truck, the Tesla would pass cleanly underneath it, with the driver probably never even noticing what had happened. And that would have been rather awesome.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How would the car have been able to do this?
I'm sure that's the question that Tesla's engineers are asking each other right now. Since I'm not a Tesla engineer, I don't have the answer -- maybe it will require more hardware. I do know that a product that doesn't reliably take the location of its owner's head into account when doing its collision-prediction calculations is a product that is going to have trouble in the marketplace.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
No wonder autopilot is safer than human drivers per mile driven.
Humans drive everywhere in all weather in all circumstances... autopilot only drives on uninterrupted stretches of highway, in clear weather... and it still demands the human sit there with his hands on the wheel as a backup.
Re: (Score:3)
And so we have a driver that violated 3 (!) safety measures. It is no surprise he got killed with that. Technology can to only so much to compensate for stupid.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:4, Insightful)
...yes, because of the possibility that someone may cross in front of you when they don't have right of way, like this truck. It was a typical rural US Highway grade crossing intersection, and the truck was turning left onto a side road. The road was long and straight, and as I remember from looking at it on street view, it wasn't hilly, either, and it was daylight, so the truck driver should have had a good view of the oncoming car.
I don't know why the truck driver's part is ignored so much. Well, I know, really, it's because that's so boring that it's not news. If the oncoming car hadn't been a Tesla, but had instead been an ordinary tired driver, none of this would have gone beyond local news.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed!
I always hate that every time there is an accident involving a truck and "regular" vehicle there's always some cop on the news talking about how the truck driver is a professional to it was likely the car driver's fault. I drive about 5MPH over the limit (if the flow of traffic will allow) and often have large trucks tailgate me (pulling up behind me, not me cutting in front of them). I also see them abruptly change lanes in heavy traffic, and exhibit all sorts of the same terrible behaviors I see
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a Cruise-Control-like system so I would assume it goes at the speed that the driver sets it at and then seeks to keep that speed. 74mph is 1mph under 10 over, which everybody knows is the 'real' speed limit and I bet is a common setting for people using Cruise-Control.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:4, Informative)
That does explain the nasty looks I get because I stick to the posted speed limit.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you stay in the slow-poke lane, we can be BFFs.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just the one guy behind you, it's also the entire line of people going reasonable speeds behind him. There's also the chance the guy you're passing will speed up as you attempt to overtake, resulting in you two slowpokes creating a wall. *That* is when the guy behind you will tailgate. As the guy in the passing lane it's your job to break the stalemate, either by committing to the pass and speeding up, or "cancelling" and slowing down to go behind the other slowpoke. Otherwise, you create a far more dangerous situation than exceeding the speed limit would create.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh? Please tell me how a bunch of people doing the same speed creates a dangerous situation.
For the record I agree unless you're overtaking don't be in the lane.
But on the flip side the overtaking lane is not a lane designed for the express purpose of breaking the law, so if you're going faster than the LEGAL LIMIT, you have zero right to complain as the cause of any unsafe scenario is actually yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
There's also the chance the guy you're passing will speed up as you attempt to overtake,
I see this a lot. I really wish the cops would drive around in unmarked cars armed with radars and cameras and look for this behavior, and any time they catch someone doing it, arrest them on the spot and haul them to jail. It's incredibly dangerous behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh? Please tell me how a bunch of people doing the same speed creates a dangerous situation.
For the record I agree unless you're overtaking don't be in the lane.
Oh, that's an easy one.
When people who speed can't pass they get irrationally angry and start to do dangerous things, like tailgating, swerving, and suddenly accelerating/braking.
So you see, it's really your fault for making them SO DANGED ANGRY because they can't speed and pass people at that particular instant.
:P
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Insightful)
I love this topic because I always get to mention the Autobahn. No speed limit and half the traffic fatalities per mile as US interstates, all because the slower people keep right, and allow the faster people to just pass.
I freely admit I generally exceed the speed limit (although usually by more like 5MPH), and I get annoyed when we have five or more lanes through our city and people are driving below the limit in the center and left of center lanes. Someone is in the "proper" lane if they are generally passing people to their right and being passed on the left. At the same time, I don't feel like I should have to get over and go slower so that the person behind me can exceed the limit even more than I am. If it's not going to slow me down, I have no issue moving over to allow a faster driver to pass. I promise you - if you want to go faster than I'm going, I really don't want to be in your way, but you have to give me reasonable time to pass the people I'm passing.
The problem is most people hate being passed, and think the people passing are jerks (instead of simply not caring, which we should all do more of - worry about yourself). I think it has to do with transactional analysis. I often drive in off-peak hours, and use cruise control (not autopilot!) because it actually helps me pay more attention to the road without worrying about driving a consistent speed.
It's true that it seems like people will speed up when passing.... and often slow down after they pass you. What I've observed is that it's almost always the person being passed speeding up. They may not even realize they're doing it - it's probably only millimeters of difference on the accelerator, and then they complain the person passing them slowed down. The vast majority of the time I'm passing people - using cruise control - they speed up to match. Maybe they feel like if they are being passed then they are going too slow. I think more often people just don't like "losing" the social interaction with others on the roadway. All I know is that it ends up causing a lot more traffic problems because you then create rolling roadblocks, causing people to have to change more lanes to go around. For me, I'll often speed up some more - and if they speed up to match, I'll drop back to my original speed and get behind them... at which point they generally slow down. Quite frustrating, but I don't want to be the person blocking traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. The person who thinks it's their god given right to speed should not be a dick by tailgating the people who are doing the right thing, which is overtaking without breaking the law.
Re: (Score:3)
On some roads 70 is the real limit even when they are posted at 55.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a Cruise-Control-like system so I would assume it goes at the speed that the driver sets it at and then seeks to keep that speed. 74mph is 1mph under 10 over, which everybody knows is the 'real' speed limit and I bet is a common setting for people using Cruise-Control.
Yeah, "9 above is safe" is a common perception, and there is some truth to it. The size of speeding tickets tend to vary with how much above the limit you are, and cops rake in more on stopping someone going faster.
But it breaks down in low traffic conditions, where the cops have time to stop you anyhow.
A more safe speed is "slower than nearby cars" - they're not going to stop you for doing 85 if another car flies by doing 100.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cruise control is different from Auto Pilot.
And despite being modded down for mentioning it - the whole concept behind this is the car is supposed to be controlling itself. Giving time for the pilot to go to the lavatory and stuff.
At least that's the perception people getting killed by it think it is.
Re: (Score:3)
No, Autopilot is specifically NOT autonomous driving, it's a driver-assist, where the driver is required to be alert and hands-on-wheel. This is displayed and agreed to by the driver every single time Autopilot is enabled.
That being said, truck under-runs are common and highly fatal for non-automated drivers, even at low speeds, because the raised truck bed bypasses all of the safety measures that cars have in place for car-to-car collisions. Bumpers, crumple zone, seat-belts, anti-collision sensors, etc.,
Re: (Score:3)
At that speed they need to pull into the right lane to avoid being run over.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Funny)
Had they been going zero, they would not have died.
If they had been going zero, they would have died before they reached their destination.
Re:74 at time of crash (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently brakes were not applied. They believe it was a combination of the trailer being a solid light gray color that tended to visually blend in with the sky, coupled with the radar being designed to ignore large flat signs that cross above the road. So the trailer managed to be filtered out as an hazard and was ignored by the software.
If the trailer had adhered to european safety regulation it would have at least side rails under to prevent cars being stuck underneath it. Not only would it have saved the car's driver it would also prevent the trailer from being detected as sign.
Re: (Score:3)
> designed to ignore large flat signs that cross above the road.
Yeah, maybe ones the car can fit under. But there are no signs 'above' the road that are only 4 foot above it, that's an object you need to avoid.
that's the "9" they give you, right (Score:2)
I call BFD here (Score:5, Insightful)
Go Los Angeles and there are some freeway offramps marked 25 MPH and, goddamit, they farking mean it oh holy shit will I make it. But as time goes on those honest speed limits get replaced with better intersections, but the speed limit stays the same.
Freeway speed limits should be 80. Non freeway speeds should be a good 10 MPH over what they are already.
/ my comment doesn't count for the road in front of my house
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but that doesn't mean you aren't speeding. That means that the police lack the technology to really get you within that range. Now Tesla admits it in logs and it is probably to the thousands of a mile per hour. It is still illegal even if it is 'normal'.
Are you kidding, cops have had technology to accurately measure your speed to tenths of a mile an hour for quite some time. As for what constitutes speeding, we all know what is technically legal. What speed is accepted in general by drivers and law enforcement was the point.
Re:I call BFD here (Score:5, Insightful)
From an aircraft investigation standpoint (every accident has multiple contributing causes), I'd actually put most of the blame on the truck driver. If you look at the pic of the intersection, there is absolutely no way he didn't see the Tesla coming. He simply got impatient and made the turn, gambling that he could force the Tesla driver to slow down to avoid him (which didn't happen because the driver was inattentive with Autopilot on).
That's not to excuse the Tesla driver. A big part of road safety is that both drivers are trying to avoid an accident. When one driver abandons that philosophy, the chances of an accident instantly double. When both drivers abandon that philosophy, you pretty much guarantee there will be an accident. While the truck driver made a one-time mistake, a Tesla driver who relies too much on Autopilot is making a continuous mistake. There will be a high chance of an accident any time he (or rather the car) drives past another inattentive or reckless driver.
Lucky you're not in Australia (Score:4, Informative)
I typically drive 10 mph over the posted speed limit, both on freeways and on roads. IMHO, the posted speed limit is for either A) the driver with dementia who shouldn't be driving anyway, or B) some government that needs the speeding fines to balance their budget.
Go Los Angeles and there are some freeway offramps marked 25 MPH and, goddamit, they farking mean it oh holy shit will I make it. But as time goes on those honest speed limits get replaced with better intersections, but the speed limit stays the same.
Freeway speed limits should be 80. Non freeway speeds should be a good 10 MPH over what they are already.
Lucky you're not in Australia.. I have been booked (via hidden camera) for doing 64km/h in a 60km/h zone (39.8mph in a 37.2 zone).
Police generally will pull you over if you're doing 10km/h over the limit (6.2 mph) as the fine doubles at that point.
15km/h over (9.3mph) triples the fine.
And I'm not just talking about police on traffic duty - any police car will pull you over if you're speeding.
If you get caught doing 25km/h over (15.5mph) that's an immediate loss of license.
Our highway / freeway limits (apart from some isolated stretches on interstate highways) are all 100km/h (62mph).
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair Australian drivers are horrible, and I say this as an Australian who learnt to drive in Australia. Not only is road behavior bad but this stupid "Every K over is a Killer" marketing campagin has trained an entire country that it is more important to look at your dashboard than the road in front of you.
Cracking down on speeding is a good thing. Doing it Australian style is definitely not.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true at all. All jurisdictions have laws/regulations that require slowing down for adverse conditions. It doesn't matter what the nominal speed limit is, you'll get nailed for doing 55 in a blizzard.
Re: (Score:3)
80mph = 128.747km/h. That's so bad for fuel efficiency, there should be no other reason as to make it illegal!
Besides the significant figure issue with your conversion (where did all of that extra precision come from??), the fuel efficiency of modern cars is more affected by transmission gearing than air resistance (at the speeds that we're talking about). My 15 year old car gets better fuel efficiency at 80 mph than at 55 mph, mostly because the last shift point is around 60 mph and the engine rpm are lower at 80 mph.
Who will pay the fine? (Score:2)
The estate of the driver, or Eoin Musk
woopie (Score:2)
>"The Tesla car involved in a fatal crash in Florida this spring was in Autopilot mode and going about 10 miles faster than the speed limit," "Was Going 74 MPH In a 65 Zone,"
Um, so what? That is about normal. Is this supposed to be shocking or something?
I thought Autopilot was not on... (Score:2)
I remember reading something from Tesla saying they found autopilot was not on, and had it been it would have stopped the car.
Re:I thought Autopilot was not on... (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember reading something from Tesla saying they found autopilot was not on, and had it been it would have stopped the car.
Different incident. There have been three in recent weeks. This is the fatality, where autopilot was on, didn't detect the truck, and the jackass was watching a Harry Potter DVD in the driver's seat. Hopefully he didn't have children, for their sake and for ours, so no one has lost their father and we get a Darwin Award nominee.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading something from Tesla saying they found autopilot was not on, and had it been it would have stopped the car.
That was the incident in Pennsylvania, not Florida.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/... [engadget.com]
Autos cause 1.2 million deaths worldwide each year (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does this one death cause everyone to panic?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it was the first in an "autonomous" car and it was in a situation that was trivial for a human to avoid.
Re: (Score:3)
If there is a flaw in the system or the software, you now have tens of millions of malfunctioning missiles on the road.
Re:Autos cause 1.2 million deaths worldwide each y (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does this one death cause everyone to panic?
Who has panicked? Unless by "panic" you meant "engage in intense debate about the potential risks and rewards of a new and relatively unproven technology", but that's not a very common definition of that word.
What about the truck? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, did the truck turn in front of oncoming traffic? If so, why is this the Tesla's fault?
Re: (Score:2)
It's no one's fault, yet. There's no conclusions to the report.
Re:What about the truck? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It's programmed to ignore obstacles it considers over the top of car so that it doesn't stop at every overpass and road sign.
That's good, but this case demonstrates how important it is that it makes that determination correctly.
It has begun (Score:5, Funny)
Missing a big point (Score:5, Insightful)
I think people are missing a rather big point here.
The NTSB is investigating the accident, and will post a reasonably fair and accurate assessment of what happened.
Tesla will make some changes to ensure that this type of accident is avoided in the future, and push at the next update.
All teslas will become safer because of the analysis. In effect, the collective software will have "learned" from a mistake and corrected. This is not something that the driver of a fatal accident can do, nor other non-involved drivers.
With enough data, enough mistakes and near-mistakes corrected, the software will quickly evolve to be safer than any human driver.
From a machine-learning perspective, this has enormous benefits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You talk as if AI that "learns" is present here.
There are no real good instances of that in the real world, certainly nothing predictable or verified to act in accordance with instructions.
This is much more akin to a software bug. Someone will tweak a parameter, patch a flaw, add a condition but it's still inherently the same software underneath it all. Software that is trying to look down a webcam and interpret the data as a 3D model which it uses to try to drive.
AI is NOWHERE NEAR this kind of capabilit
Re:Missing a big point (Score:5, Insightful)
You're bitching about semantics. Machine learning, AI, programming - no, this isn't some autonomous correction to the system; it isn't going to "learn" from this in the human sense. But the system (programmers, sensors, and control fucntions) will be improved to deal with this type of situation. There is no AI in the car - it's just programmed reactions. But in your zeal to blather on about what AI is and isn't, you're missing the point that the *system* will become more capable of handling out-of-normal and unanticipated conditions. In humans we call this intelligence.
No difference? (Score:3)
citizen, we need to dissect you for the benefit of others; please report to the vivarium immediately.
You're referring to forced sacrifice, I was referring to accidental death.
There's no difference, in your view?
Who Cares? (Score:3)
Trailer under run bars would have saved life (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the way the trailer took the top of the car off while barely slowing it down. This shows how trailer under-run bars would have prevented this death. In Europe they are required, and we basically don't have this sort of side collision decapitation horror accident.
Re:Er (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditional cruise control allows you to pick a constant speed, so I would expect it at least can do that. I would also expect the car has no way to know the posted speed limit of the road, thus the driver controls the speed of the car (that said, we have most of the pieces needed to make that work, and in fact I bet self-driving cars in testing do this, but for "semi-autonomous" I expect it's not worth the trouble to implement since any way you do it you need a bunch of extra equipment on the car to figure out what the speed limit is, which makes the feature more expensive... or the user can just set the proper speed himself for free.)
In the end it's the driver who is responsible for the actions of his car, as far as he can control them. The only things I can see wrong with autopilot with everything I've heard so far is the name, which may tempt a driver to assume it does more than it actually does, and the fact that giving a driver less things to concentrate on while driving can be dangerous in some cases if they still need to be able to react.
Re:Er (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No I get it - my point is how can you call this an "autopilot" if it doesn't even read road signs or figure out speed limits from GPS location or something. It's more of a "tries keep the car in your lane" device. I know it's just a detail, but lawyers have won lawsuits for less.
Autopilot is exactly what it is ...
Wikipedia: An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace a human operator, but assist them in controlling the vehicle, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operation, such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.
Re: Er (Score:4, Insightful)
The only problem with the terminology is that there is a disconnect between what the common person on the street thinks the capabilities of an autopilot is versus its actual capabilities. An actual autopilot is not much more than an airplane cruise control that maintains a preset altitude, heading, and airspeed, while the common perception is that it is essentially an autonomous robot pilot that can do everything up to and including dogfighting while the human pilot takes a nap.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla has agreements and explanations for each owner that explicitly states what function the 'Autopilot' actually has.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla has agreements and explanations for each owner that explicitly states what function the 'Autopilot' actually has.
Not going to fly with a judge when people start dying.
"Oh but your Honor he clicked on this agreement..."
uh huh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of autopilot [wikipedia.org] according to Wikipedia is:
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace a human operator, but assist them in controlling the vehicle, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operation, such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.
The key thing to note is that it doesn't replace the human operator. Arguably Tesla's autopilot does more than airplane autopilots in that it is aware of traffic around it. However, this crash was a corner case in that the system decided that the radar echo from the truck was from a sign, since the truck was white against a white sky, and since the road and lines ahead were still visible underneath the truck. Tesla is in the process of increasing th
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm intimating that the Wikipedia definition is not the one used if you were to ask the general public.
No. It's the definition you would probably find in the manual for an airplane. It's called reality. Go ask a pilot if they sleep while autopilot is on. They could lose their license. And if that isn't enough, when you activate autopilot on a Tesla, you are warned that it requires an alert human driver. And if even that isn't enough, perhaps you might get the hint when the car keeps reminding you to keep your hand on the wheel if you haven't touched it in two minutes.
Re: Er (Score:4, Insightful)
and slows or stops if the vehicle in front of you decelerates.
But not, apparently, if a brick wall suddenly appears in front of you. Yes I agree that "autopilot" is a horrendous choice of name because "auto" and "automatic" imply autonomy, no matter how many clickthrough EULA's you shove in front of someone. I'm all in favor of Tesla but Musk should have realized that people can be really, really, REALLY stupid and this system needed to be idiot-tested a lot more before being released. I don't think an EULA or even a signed contract will save him when people have died.
Re: Er (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid people are why my daughter's scooter has a single warning label on it: THIS PRODUCT MOVES WHEN USED.
People are in an automobile that doesn't drive itself, but for some reason think an autopilot will let them sleep during the trip. It's a sad part of reality that people with enough money to buy a Tesla can be so stupid as to not listen to any instruction or learn about the unique features of their purchase. Darwin Award indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Looks correct to me as neither of thoise definition say anythign about automatic avoidance of other craft/vehicles.
Looks like stupid people are just stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm both those definitions agree and almost perfectly describe how autopilot works both in a Tesla and and aircraft. I fail to see the issue.
Re: (Score:3)
I can see how the car could fail to see the rig since it sits high off the ground and might appear to be clear, especially when the trailer color is gray.
No higher off the ground from the side than it is from the back. I still think their algos needed serious amounts of work before being released. It's 2016 not 1916, there are consumer safety laws now, you can't get away with "it's your own damned fault, you were doing it wrong" anymore. Not as much, anyway. Yeah I know the driver has a big role in the blame game, but if you were allowed to get away with that then nothing would have safety features. Got caught in the industrial machinery? His fault for being
Re: Er (Score:5, Insightful)
It's 2016 not 1916, there are consumer safety laws now, you can't get away with "it's your own damned fault, you were doing it wrong" anymore.
See, that's the problem with people. We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from people. There is something to be said for safety features, but you need to set an expectation on the user as well. You cannot expect the company to cover for every possible idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from people.
No. We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from ENGINEERS. People are allowed to be stupid. Way back in the days of the first air-brakes, they used air pressure to apply the brakes. What happened when the system failed and air pressure was lost? The brakes failed. Nowadays you design a system where you need air pressure to REMOVE the brake. Now if your system fails, the brakes are applied - orders of magnitude safer than no brakes. Electrical devices are grounded. Commercial jets can fly w
Re: Er (Score:5, Insightful)
No. We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from ENGINEERS. People are allowed to be stupid.
People can be as stupid or drunk or tired or half-blind as they like, LICENSED DRIVERS who operate two tons of metal travelling at 70+ mph need to take some damn responsibility for that. Thankfully he only won a Darwin award but if he'd killed somebody I'd call that a clear case of vehicular manslaughter which can land you in prison for a very long time. Drivers that can't do their part should hand in their license and wait for the real self-driving cars.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect it's not worth the trouble to implement since any way you do it you need a bunch of extra equipment on the car to figure out what the speed limit is, which makes the feature more expensive
The car already has cameras and GPS, and uses both machine vision and mapping to determine the local speed limit. As of the beginning of this year, speed limits are enforced for residential and undivided roads. US27 is a divided highway, and thus the software only warns that you're speeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does, read other comments as to why it failed.
Re: (Score:2)
The trailer was perpendicular across the road.
Re: (Score:3)
The truck had been going th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One less idiot on the road (Score:5, Informative)
However, can we all agree that it is also incredible stupidity on Tesla's part to call this "Autopilot"?
As a Tesla owner, I do not agree. Tesla makes it abundantly clear what the capabilities and limitations are. Nobody that is actually using it has been misled.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a forseeable consequence of a bad design and Tesla have enjoyed the bad press that goes with it. And yes "autopilot" is a misleading term that only compounds the risk.
A previous article on /. indicated that the driver was reading/goofing/whatever on a phone/tablet and not paying attention. Eyes off road completely. Tesla doesn't deserve bad press for something if that is indeed the case.
I guess that means autopilot will require monitoring of the driver by video and audio, as well as a jet-style black box for data recovery in future autopilot cars.
Plus, we all know that this is only the beginning. When an auto-drive (autopilot) system is perfected years from now, there
Re: (Score:3)
People are making the predictable error of thinking this very new technology should be perfect. That's not a reasonable expectation. Newsflash: the first truly autonomous vehicles (which this IS NOT) are going to screw up sometimes. They're going to get people killed. They should, as a minimum standard to be allowed for use at all, get fewer people killed, but it's not going to be zero, and it's going to be a different set of people.
A lot of
Re: (Score:3)
That speeding is unsafe.
You do know where those statistics come from right? Police investigate collisions, and if the car was doing even 1 km/hr over the posted limit, they check off "speeding" as one of the causes of the collision. As a result of the fact that the vast majority of cars are travelling over the posted speed limit at all times on public roads, the vast majority of collisions "have speed as a factor". This doesn't actually mean that reducing speed limits, or stricter enforcement of them, will make it any safer, but i