Tesla Avoids Recall After Autopilot Crash Death (bbc.com) 187
Tesla will not be ordered to recall its semi-autonomous cars in the US, following a fatal crash in May 2016. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration closed its investigation after it found no evidence of a defect in the vehicle. From a report: Joshua Brown was killed when his car collided with a lorry while operating in Autopilot mode. Tesla has stated Autopilot is only designed to assist drivers, who must keep their hands on the wheel. The feature is intended to be used on the motorway, where is lets cars automatically change lanes and react to traffic. The NHTSA report said data from the car showed that "the driver took no braking, steering or other actions to avoid the collision". Bryan Thomas from the NHSTA said the driver should have been able to see the lorry for seven seconds, which "should have been enough time to take some action".
also, Tesla’s crash rate was reduced by 40% (Score:5, Informative)
https://electrek.co/2017/01/19... [electrek.co]
Re: (Score:2)
This story is a joke in that it does not recognize that Tesla is now considered not just the safest car, but with AP is saving NUMEROUS lives.
When Model 3 hits the market later this year, it should become quickly obvious that tesla will be saving lives, energy, and money.
Distracted (Score:2)
According to this article, not only should he have been able to see the truck for 7 seconds, but the truck driver said he was watching Harry Potter:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1... [theverge.com]
It's tragic, but at least he didn't hurt anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
but the truck driver said he was watching Harry Potter:
How exactly was the truck driver able to see exactly what movie the guy was watching from that angle and distance?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I was skeptical when it was put that way too.
After the accident the truck driver went over to the car and the movie was still playing. So he didn't know at the instant of the accident- he found out after the accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your point being? Do you really suggest it is even possible that the guy, as his last act in this world, started playing Harry Potter _after_ the accident?
That is beyond stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this a serious question? Are you mentally challenged?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he greatly inconvenienced the truck-driver.
Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
People are lazy and stupid. If they have a toy that drives for them they are going to activate autopilot and not think they have to pay attention.
It's got to be all or nothing. This half-control is bullshit and is going to lead people into a false sense of security.
How can you be expected to both pay attention and not pay attention at the same time? If the car is driving then I promise you most people are going to be checking Facebook or watching movies. That's just how people are wired.
All or nothing. It's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Tesla needs to promote the idea that you need to "keep your hands on the wheel at all times" rather than the idea of an "auto-pilot".
On the other hand, 7 seconds is a lot (Score:2)
If the human would have been able to see the truck for 7 seconds, the "autopilot" should have been able to have seen it for even longer, and 7 seconds is already *a lot* for a computer, making it a pretty crappy autopilot..
Recall wouldn't cost a lot, after all! (Score:2)
Badly named feature, then (Score:2)
It should not be called autopilot
Being stupid while operating dangerous machinery (Score:2)
... can get you killed. I think Tesla should be congratulated for making evolution work again, at least to a small degree.
Re:Autopolit, should have been called Assistpilot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then Autopilot should just be deflated and no longer used.
Re:Autopolit, should have been called Assistpilot! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Autopolit, should have been called Assistpilot! (Score:5, Funny)
So you are saying that Autopilot is mis-named even for aviation?
Then Autopilot should just be deflated and no longer used.
I'm going to guess by your screen name that you must have used the manual inflation nozzle on the automatic pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends, some can land the plane unassisted (Score:2)
> People misunderstand what an autopilot does.
Pilots are supposed to be *prepared* to take over, but a class IIIb system can land the plane in zero visibility. Well, *technically* it's not supposed to be zero, but the plane is 200 feet long and you're supposed to have 150 feet of visibility. In other words, you can see only half a second in front of you. Some autopilot systems can pretty much fly the plane without pilot input - much more so than Tesla's system. Heck even on a DJI (toy), the autopilot ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Per Airbus training, throttle forward and stick back are the responses to most emergencies, powering out of the situation.
The inexperienced third pilot (right seat) was trying to do that, while the second pilot (left seat) was pushing forward on the stick trying to get the nose down. Airbus's control scheme averages the control inputs instead of having a preferred input and without feedback, the pilots did not know they were opposing each other into the aircraft doing nothing. They realized it seconds befor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The plane's length and its landing speed aren't necessarily equal. That said, it's amusing that the first plane I looked up—the 767—the landing speed is up to 199 MPH, and that does just happen to equate to almost exactly half a second. :-)
Two different numbers, yes (Score:2)
> The plane's length and its landing speed aren't necessarily equal.
Yeah I wasn't saying they were.
> That said, it's amusing that the first plane I looked upâ"the 767â"the landing speed is up to 199 MPH, and that does just happen to equate to almost exactly half a second. :-)
The 777 is also about the same speed, so half a second to travel 150 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it looked like you were. :-)
Yes, it did (Score:2)
Yeah, I see how it could look like that. There is of course a slight relationship - I just crashed a plane that's 2 feet long and lands at 10 MPH. I don't imagine there is any 200 foot plane that lands at 10MPH, though there are some small models that fly fast
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'Average Joe' isn't buying a fucking Tesla lol
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that the Average Tesla driver knows any more about piloting than the Average Joe. S/he's just richer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I like the Mercedes approach.. It shakes the wheel when it detects something you need to pay attention to with the steering and will apply the breaks for you before you hit something... YOU still have to drive the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what's the point? If my hands are already there, I might as well steer the car.
Because sometimes you don't see something for a variety of reasons. Maybe you have your mirrors adjusted wrong [caranddriver.com] (most people do, actually). Maybe you're hauling a bunch of party balloons and your rear view is obstructed. Maybe you're watching someone being a moron to your right and something else suddenly comes up on the left?
The Tesla system can see an take proactive measures to attempt to save you when you might not have a chance to react.
That's not the same thing as "Ohhh, this isn't good, but I'll just l
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hands on Wheel? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then what's the point? If my hands are already there, I might as well steer the car.
I was wondering the same. I've never felt like I needed "assistance" to keep the car in my lane.
You may be a great driver, but you only get to drive your own car. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You people see one person out of ten thousand driving erratically and all of a sudden everyone sucks at driving.
Everyone does suck at driving, at least occasionally. If you haven't screwed up on the road yet, just wait, you will. And it only takes one lapse to get people killed.
Re: (Score:2)
:)
Re: (Score:3)
If only... (Score:2)
If only there were some sort of central repository of information that you could query to quickly find the answer to your question, ideally in less time than it took you to click Reply, type in your question with extra unimportant information, click Preview, then click Submit.
Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
...Is it really an autopilot crash? Or some guy who, unfortunately, wasn't paying as much attention as he should whilst driving a 2 tonne hunk of metal around other human beings?
Well, you you read the statement in the summary:
The NHSTA is saying that while Tesla's autopilot features are made to help avoid collisions and improve safety, they are not legally responsible for keeping a driver safe. The driver still is responsible for operating the vehicle, including in emergency situations. The owner here did not make any attempt to avoid the collision but should have been aware of the situation. Either he was being an inattentive driver, or he deliberately failed to take action, expecting the Tesla system to instead. In either case the Tesla system is not the one to blame for the accident not being avoided.
Re: (Score:2)
So if he injected himself with all the marijuana the car won't drive him home?
Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that, human nature being what it is, a lot of drivers will come to rely too much on autopilot and will stop paying attention just like this guy apparently did. That will cause a lot of crashes just by itself. This isn't DIRECTLY the fault of autopilot, but is rather an INDIRECT consequence of having it (combined with human nature).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that, human nature being what it is, a lot of drivers will come to rely too much on autopilot and will stop paying attention just like this guy apparently did. That will cause a lot of crashes just by itself. This isn't DIRECTLY the fault of autopilot, but is rather an INDIRECT consequence of having it (combined with human nature).
Not really a problem. The insurance companies already track accidents based on model and features. It will only take a few years of data to determine whether a particular autopilot feature makes a driver safer or not. If it reduces the number of severe accidents and fatalities then it's still a win even if it shifts the type of accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score:4, Funny)
Nobody who ever died in a car crash would have died in a car crash if we didn't have cars. So cars are a loss?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that cars are something that people can own and use provides way more benefit to humans and the risk is worth it obviously, because otherwise people wouldn't drive
For a small fraction of what is spent on personal vehicle ownership, we could have pretty amazing public transportation that would satisfy the needs of nearly every city & suburb dweller. And that would naturally lead to fewer serious accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
For a small fraction of what is spent on personal vehicle ownership, we could have pretty amazing public transportation that would satisfy the needs of nearly every city & suburb dweller. And that would naturally lead to fewer serious accidents.
Also for a small fraction of what is spent on fast food, people could buy and cook healthy vegetarian meals for themselves, that would satisfy the nutritional needs of nearly every citizen. And that would naturally lead to fewer cases of heart disease and obesity.
Unfortunately, what people want is not always the same as what would theoretically work the best. In this case, most people want private cars, and they have made that preference clear through both their spending and their voting patterns. Barrin
Re: (Score:2)
Barring the advent of some kind of benign dictatorship, a transition to all-public-transit won't happen anytime soon
That would depend on the definition of soon but I'm not alone in noting that younger people aren't as keen about cars as my generation were in our teens & 20s.
Passenger vehicle sales in the USA have essentially flatlined since the 70s and if you adjust for the driving age population, they've fallen off a cliff.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong about younger people, but I think the trend will be more towards Uber (and similar services) than towards public transit, with the possible exception of metro within large cities.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be a licensed driver and carry insurance to drive. Perhaps people with these new "features" should have to take a class and test and get an upgrade on their license (like I did for my Motorcycle). And they (like some states like Michigan do) should require additional insurance so when the driver of the autopilot gets sued, they have enough cash to pay out to the driver that was injured do to their inattention.
Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical logic-fail, overly-conservative, sheep-herd, think-of-the-children thinking.
In the absence of cars, no one would die in a car crash. However cars provide a massive overall benefit so we accept the risks.
In the absence of autopilot, (theoretically, pending more stats) many people would die in accidents that the 'autopilot' is quick enough to avoid and/or limit the severity of. 'Autopilot' (potentially) provides overall benefit even if it introduces some less severe risks that would not otherwise be present. Additionally, expecting this to be perfect is ridiculous anyway. Human drivers are extremely fallible. It doesn't take much to improve in the crash-and-death sense, not to mention traffic flow situations (compare humans merging 5 lanes to 1 for an accident/construction vs. AI)
Furthermore, the risk here is drivers mis-using a technology to begin with. You can mis-use almost anything. You do so at your own peril despite the eleven-teen billion warnings everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you are a safe driver, it makes you safer, if you're an idiot who isn't paying attention to the road, it makes you safer, but not as safe as an already safe driver.
Under no circumstances does this technology make you less safe. Only you can do that by being stupid and not paying attention to the road.
Autopilot doesn't "lull you into a sense of false security" YOU "lull you into a sense of false security" but only if you were already an unsafe driver.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact it's working so poorly that the report states there are 40 fewer collisions while using it. We could all hope other systems work so poorly.
But let's not let facts get in the way of your preconceived notions.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently she Slashdot couldn't handle the percent sign in my comment, that's 40 percent fewer collisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Under no circumstances does this technology make you less safe.
I disagree.
it does TOO MUCH, to the point that even a safe driver CANNOT realistically be expected to be continually engaged with the act of driving for extended periods of time, and that makes him less safe.
If I am driving today, even on a highway, the constant micro-corrections in steering help keep me engaged.
Tesla's autopilot takes that engagement away, Musk himself bragged about 'hardly touching the wheel' on a long trip. After hours of not *needing* to pay attention to the road, and not needing to do
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion does not agree with the conclusions of the HTSA report [nhtsa.gov].
It looked at driver engegement and how it was affected by driver assisting features. Conclusion is that indeed some periode of inattentiveness exist but rarely bigger than 5 sec. So the 7 seconds in which the driver did not react to the truck crossing his path is very exceptional.
Secondly they looked at the amount of accidents and collisions of Tesla's before and after the Autopilot was introduced. They fell by 40 percent.
In my opinion a go
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a wonderful world to live in for sure. But the world you describe probably demanded a sacrifice in the pursuit of knowledge and perfection like we on planet Earth are attempting now.
Until some alien from a perfect world gives us a flash drive with all of the necessary knowledge we will have to figure it out ourselves. There is not other way around this. People are going to die. Even if we shedded ourselves of all technology, people are still going to die. It's been happening since the dawn o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I’m not going to feel too bad for the family of that guy when the families of the (number of accidents * 40%) who didn’t die are still happily running around. There are fewer accidents on the whole with Autopilot than without it. That’s a clear win.
Also, if this is the case I think it is, the driver was a douche and completely at fault. He made a habit of posting videos of himself using Autopilot improperly. IE completely not paying attention to the road like he should have been. Stup
Re: (Score:3)
That is who you should feel compassion for, you jackass.
If smart people fuck up, they probably should have known better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The smart ones already had great driving records. It is the stupid ones you are protecting with this technology.
Being smart doesn't protect you from stupid people's actions -- you can be a perfect driver and still get rear-ended by someone who never saw you slow down because they were texting.
This technology protects stupid people and the smart people who have to share the roads with them.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that, human nature being what it is, a lot of drivers will come to rely too much on autopilot and will stop paying attention just like this guy apparently did. That will cause a lot of crashes just by itself. This isn't DIRECTLY the fault of autopilot, but is rather an INDIRECT consequence of having it (combined with human nature).
Maybe we should get rid of warning sirens for weather-events, too. A lot of people will come to rely too much on the tornado siren to tell them if they need to take cover and stop paying attention to what the actual conditions are outside their homes. It's not directly the fault of the lack of sirens that the fellow was flattened in his house, but rather an indirect consequence of having the sirens not go off before the funnel came up his street (combined with human nature).
At what point is the operator ult
Re: (Score:3)
Personal responsibility is so last century, we don't do that any more. It's always SOMEONE's fault, and it's never our own!
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out lots of Volvo owners are idiots and step on the gas instead of the brake, but the NTSTA guys can't call the US public a bunch of fools, so they had to phrase the findings somewhat diplomatically.
There might be more of these.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they don't want to type TSA?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, then, the autopilot did nothing anyway.
Whatever Tesla might claim, autopilot is a dumb idea.
In this instance, it literally did NOTHING to prevent a collision that should have been obvious to a driver for over 7 seconds.
Sure, it's the driver's fault for relying on it, same as if you drive "relying" on your ABS to operate instead of leaving a sensible distance.
But surely it just proves that autopilot is a load of shit and this just says that you can't even blame the manufacturer if it does nothing wha
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, then, the autopilot did nothing anyway.
Whatever Tesla might claim, autopilot is a dumb idea.
In this instance, it literally did NOTHING to prevent a collision that should have been obvious to a driver for over 7 seconds.
Sure, it's the driver's fault for relying on it, same as if you drive "relying" on your ABS to operate instead of leaving a sensible distance.
But surely it just proves that autopilot is a load of shit and this just says that you can't even blame the manufacturer if it does nothing whatsoever.
CTFD. Autopilot is a work in progress and the newer version will, in time, be far more capable. In this particular case, the Autopilot didn't react because it couldn't distinguish the side of the truck from what could also have been a large overhead sign. It's important to note the driver also didn't react, despite having ample time.
On average, Autopilot is far better than not having it but I think Musk's plans for autonomy will take longer than he thinks and the corner cases will prove to be intractable an
Re: (Score:2)
The driver still is responsible for operating the vehicle, including in emergency situations. The owner here did not make any attempt to avoid the collision but should have been aware of the situation. Either he was being an inattentive driver, or he deliberately failed to take action, expecting the Tesla system to instead. In either case the Tesla system is not the one to blame for the accident not being avoided.
As much as I love the idea of automated cars, I still have the feeling it's applied the wrong way.
Tesla takes away the easy parts of the driving from the driver. That's of course like 98% of a regular car ride. Most rides you just follow the road, stop at traffic lights, move on with traffic, nothing happens. It's the bit that is the problem: cars or trucks that cross in front of you and force you to slow down, pedestrians suddenly trying to cross, etc.
So as a result, 98% of the time the driver doesn't need
Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score:5, Funny)
A British Truck. I am not sure why it was driving in the US
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As per usual on /., didn't read the actual article, but just the synopsis..and it was talking about the US traffic safety board not finding Tesla fault...so, wasn't sure why a US story was using slang that isn't familiar to someone IN the US.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A rainbow-coloured, nectar eating parrot [google.com].
How it wrecked his car, I have no clue. They are pretty cute, though, he probably got distracted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a common nickname for Lorikeets in the international pet market (although to be fair it's usually spelled "Lori" - but as you can see from the above link "lorry" also gets plenty of hits).
Re: (Score:2)
You know damn well he's not going to bother looking up what a hair shirt is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: A lorry? What the holy hell (Score:2)
Really I think you only managed to kick the British out because the pesky French where meddling in other peoples business. No French assistance and the trators in the 13 colonies would have lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yall over yonder in England ain't speakin English right! You don't have sidewalks and walk on the pavement instead - so uncivilized. Heck, the place is so undeveloped you need designated zebra crossings. And the cars don't even have trunks - they make do with a boot at the back!
Re: (Score:3)
I find it hilarious that the people who brought us the word "y'all" will tell the people of England that they are speaking English wrong.
"Y'all" has an immediately evident meaning and does a great job at making the second-person plural explicit, so while I may not use it and certainly wouldn't espouse its use in formal writing, it's hardly an egregious sin against the English language.
Moreover, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. British English has plenty of its own quirks to cite, whether we're talking about genericized brands (e.g. Brevilles and Hoovers), weird dialects (e.g. Cockney), or odd pronunciations (e.g. pronou
Re: what the fuck's a lorry? (Score:2)
The term British English is highly offensive to an English person living in England. We speak English you all speak something else whether it be American English, Canadian English etc.
Re: (Score:2)
1) We're talking about a dialect that spans the British isles as a whole, rather than being unique to England. The only thing offensive here (other than your butchery of the language; see: "We speak English you all speak something else...") is your willful exclusion of the other countries in Great Britain.
2) While I might allow that it could be offensive in some contexts (e.g. if I was in England and was making a point of overemphasizing the word "British" for no reason other than to be rude), the notion th
Re: (Score:2)
But the BBC did. Why would you expect a BBC article to be written in bastardised American English?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure only Trump could get away with that...