People in the comments are quick to criticize this, but really, c'mon - what's the point of a self-driving car if you don't do something else instead of driving?
So basically they are vulnerable to any T-Bone situations? I regularly drive on country roads that have 4 way intersections. People will blow through those regularly without stopping. You have to be on lookout to see if they are slowing down and use your judgement to see if you need to be ready to break.
I assume the auto detect tech wouldn't pick up on that type of situation?
Mobileye, the company behind some of the sensor tech involved in the Tesla, said in a statement to Electrek that "today's collision avoidance technology, or Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) is defined as rear-end collision avoidance, and is designed specifically for that. This incident involved a laterally crossing vehicle, which current-generation AEB systems are not designed to actuate upon." It's planning to add detection for that type of incident beginning in 2018, while Tesla again pointed out that the combination of the box truck's design and color resulted in the automatic braking not firing.
Agree, I'd want to use that extra time to take a nap, read the paper, eat my lunch or whatever. If I have to pay attention, I might as well just drive it myself plus if the car is about to crash into something, you might just think the car is about to stop on it's own at any second until it's too late by the time you do try to react.
Police confirm DVD player found in Tesla Autopilot wreck:
https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/01/police-confirm-dvd-player-found-in-tesla-autopilot-wreck/
People in the comments are quick to criticize this, but really, c'mon - what's the point of a self-driving car if you don't do something else instead of driving?
Apple also has the best ARMv8 implementation on the planet. What a ridiculous line of criticism.
That hasn't been the experience of drivers using the system. No the hardware isn't the main limiter it is the software.
That's not why your girlfriend buys iphones.
If hardware isn't the limitation then google wouldn't still be limited by the substantially more sophisticated hw. But it's also plausible given the replies here that tesla fans have easily meet expectations.
the truck driver says that he heard the Harry Potter movie playing.
.
If hardware isn't the limitation then google wouldn't still be limited by the substantially more sophisticated hw. But it's also plausible given the replies here that tesla fans have easily meet expectations.
Per the Tesla blog post:
1. Autopilot = 1 death per 130 million miles
2. United Statues = 1 death per 94 million miles
3. Worldwide = 1 death per 60 million miles
Granted, #2 & #3 are based on 100 years of data collection. Still...the robots are better than us at driving. As much as I'd hate to give up driving, if everybody had to switch & it made us significantly safer, it sounds like a good idea to me. But nobody wants "death by robot", so I understand the resistance for sure.
the google car has a roof mounted lidar basically for situations just like what killed this guy. the hardware AND the software are a limitation in the tesla
The current system is a Level-2 system, which is basically a driver aid system and not meant to be fully autonomous. The Google is going straight to fully autonomous a level-4 system. For the current level-2 system the main limitation is software. If at a future date Tesla wants to move to a level-4 system then yes hardware would be limitation.
That's a pretty arbitrary distinction when Tesla allows the system to be used more or less autonomously. There are simply cases where Teslas are unsafe by design, and owners will run into them as circumstances dictate.
It is basically the distinction that other manufacturers are making with their driver assist system. Currently their is other car manufactures like Mercedes Benz that have system that closely replicate what Tesla auto-pilot does.
If you think about it Tesla is engaging in more of a Agile method of development of their driver assist systems. You basically have a progression of updates that allow the system to get better and better at autonomous driving as you can off-load more work to the car. However Tesla has stressed that the driver still needs to pay attention because they are ultimately responsible. All of this is enabled by the fact that Tesla has two-way communication so they can download real time data from the cars and push updates.
Google on the other hand has very deep pockets and can afford to take the time to make the jump directly to fully autonomous vehicles. However even with all the real time testing that Google is doing they will still run into engineering corner case scenarios once they roll out some type of vehicle that is fully autonomous.
Obviously there is a argument to be made for either method of development. However we cannot expect that either made is not going to result in some fatalities either way.
Can you edit the title to be more accurate? You know, something like "driver watching a DVD at speed had the expected thing happen, happened to be using lane keeping and adaptive cruise control"?
The driver had a reasonable expectation that the system would work in this situation.
How's that really different than the video shown here which praised the system for possibly preventing a crash with a left-turning vehicle:Was it widely known that lateral crossing vehicles were a problem for Tesla's auto-pilot system?
Was it widely known that lateral crossing vehicles were a problem for Tesla's auto-pilot system?
I didn't know it, and I've read a lot about the Tesla system.
I wonder if owners are really aware of this?
I would guess not, judging by some of the videos on Youtube.
I would have assumed it would see and brake for a truck crossing it's path.
Why would you be watching a DVD and trusting the auto-pilot of a vehicle that can't do anything about vehicles crossing your path? It seems like he must have been unaware of the limitation, or he wouldn't have trusted the system?
There is an awful lot it can't do. That's why it is billed as an assist, not an autonomous car. It also can't handle coming up upon completely stopped cars well (via radar, they're going to look exactly like cars on the side of the parked on the side of road). It can't handle stop signs. It can't handle traffic lights. It can't handle road debris, etc. It doesn't know how to handle the end of a lane when multiple lanes become one. Shall I go on? The list is enormous since it's an assist and not an autonomous car.
I have one. A rational individual cannot mistake it for an autonomous car, nor is it advertised as one. What there are a lot of though are irresponsible media stories that don't take this in to account (in regards to reviews and such, not this incident).
Mr. Brown was particularly interested in testing the limits of the Autopilot function, documenting how the vehicle would react in blind spots, going around curves and other more challenging situations.
“This section in here is going to be very, very difficult for the car to handle,” he said in one video, posted in October, as his vehicle rounded a curve. “We’re filming this just so you can see scenarios where the car does not do well.”
Mark Vernon, a high school classmate who recalled tinkering with electronics in shop class together, said that his friend showed off the self-driving feature on a recent visit at Mr. Brown’s home.
“He knew the hill that it would give up on, because it couldn’t see far enough,” Mr. Vernon said. “He knew all the limitations that it would find and he really knew how it was supposed to work.”
From the NYT article about the guy being very experienced with the system.
You mean the one that every time you enable it reminds you to keep your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road?
The one that fusses at you when it can tell your hands are off (which it can only do in turns really because it can only tell your hands are on by the extra force it has to exert to turn the wheel)
The driver had a reasonable expectation that his driver assists would magically become an autonomous car? I can only assume you've only read news articles and never actually used this feature in an actual car.
A rational individual cannot mistake it for an autonomous car, nor is it advertised as one.
You realize that this just affirms that the guy darwin awarded himself. He of all people should understand that you never stop monitoring this.
This is the internet though, where millions of people who have read an article about a thing know more than people who have it in their lives and use it on a consistent basis, so by all means, keep on telling me how a rational individual could confuse a Tesla for an autonomous car, and how it is somehow a piece of technology's fault when he died from watching a dvd instead of the road.
A Southfield art gallery owner told police his 2016 Tesla Model X was in Autopilot mode when it crashed and rolled over on the Pennsylvania Turnpike last week.
In his crash report, Vukovich stated that Scaglione's car was traveling east near mile marker 160, about 5 p.m. when it hit a guard rail "off the right side of the roadway. It then crossed over the eastbound lanes and hit the concrete median."
After that, the Tesla Model X rolled onto its roof and came to rest in the middle eastbound lane.