Yea not saying the Autopilot was at fault obviously but a normal human driver would have significantly slowed down if anticipating or after that truck try to cut him off. It doesn't seem to me that the Tesla wanted to do that, hard for me to gauge with that video.

Or maybe it did but I wonder if the computer slowed down or the driver itself (probably the computer).

I would have driven the same as the Tesla. I would have been watching that truck, half-assuming he would move onto me. I would also not have yielded, however, because I would want to be able to honk and make a huge deal if he tried cutting across two lanes, and running me off the road, lol.

It should be pointed out that Google recently updated their cars to make them drive a bit more aggressive/assertive while driving. It was found that they were being TOO cautious, and that alone was causing problems because they were proactively slowing down when other drivers weren't expecting them to.

There is no reason why you should slow down if someone is moving over from two lanes away into the lane next to you. You SHOULD be watching carefully to make sure they don't cross two lanes at once as this truck did, and if they start to come into your lane, then you honk or slow down if you want to be [overly] nice to them. I don't again mean to sound like a Tesla fanboy here, but that autopilot actually reacted quite brilliantly in this situation.

Yet these comments exactly describe how the Tesla autopilot failed. It failed seeing something even bigger than your bus in front of it because (I suspect) the programmers didn't take into account a big rig crossing in front of it in such a way that the road looked clear.

I'm not buying the whole "bright sky/white truck" description as the full blame on this. I really think the sensors saw clear road ahead underneath the trailer, or that was at least a contributing factor.

If you look at the diagram of the accident its pretty clear there was no attempt by the autopilot to slow down before and maybe even after the accident.

I have no idea what the driver of the car was doing, but it was definitely not paying attention.

Now, to be fair, this exact accident could have happened with a regular driver using cruise control only and texting his girlfriend on the phone. The automation in either case is a contributing factor but the root cause is the nut behind the wheel.

Nonsense, the truck obviously wasn't taking that left turn at high speed. Yet it managed to go across two lanes and well into the side road before the impact, so that the car in the right lane hit somewhere in the middle of the trailer and yet didn't even attempt to brake or swerve.


The autopiled failed completely.


By the way, I am wondering if the autopilot did notice the truck, would it try hitting the front or back of the truck in such case, where there is wheel/axle structure and car crumple zones can be engaged, instead of going for the middle where driver decapitation is almost guaranteed.

I didn't realize the software was considered "beta". Just more proof that Tesla is getting unfair leeway on their car development.

Can you imagine what would happen if Ford or Chevy downloaded "beta" software to all their cars that eventually caused a finger to get caught in a door handle, never mind a death?

It's not just Tesla, it's also Toyota: http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/a...%E2%80%9D-code


and probably everyone else, they were just lucky.

Now I don't know whether Tesla's problem was due to dismal programming practices (like Toyota's probably was) or due to delivering Autopilot before a reliable algorithms for obstacle detection were designed, as I suspect, but in the end it makes little difference.

Correction: it does - because with good programming practices one could prevent Toyota's problems, while Tesla's may be currently unsolvable.

I can't come up with an analogy that accurately describes how astronomically implausible that scenario is.

Hundreds of people spent hundreds of thousands of man-hours on this system with countless meetings and brainstorming sessions coming up with every scenario. The disclaimers are there for a reason, it's because the system has limitations. If those limitations were deemed an inappropriate risk (combined with the clear disclaimers that the driver must still be engaged in operating the 2 ton high speed projectile we call a car) it never would have been put in the hands of users.

Get the right 10 people in a room with access to their data and they can tell you every detail of that system from the solder used on wire J234 to the bitrate of processor V1 to the field of view of each sensor to the torque used on the fasteners. I'd bet my bottom dollar Tesla knew where the system fell short within a week of hearing about the accident and had a report on Musk's desk as they prepared to inform the NHTSA.

I've seen people figure out what's wrong with spaceships >20,000 miles away with only basic telemetry. I'm not a fan of Musk, but I've met people that work for him, don't sell them short.

Autopilot or not, you shouldn't be sleeping or watching Netflix while in the pilot seat. Period.

I do hope this push for automation doesn't further invoke careless behaviour...

With how the US is, I have a feeling this is the ONLY way it will go. Making things "easier" always makes people lazier, especially with how many people actually let themselves rely on technology.

Makes me so sad. Manual transmissions are the dying breed today. Conscious and active drivers are the next to go... :cry:

Well sad, but..... He did manage to get a Darwin Award.

Ok, I'm a little not quite sober but here is my view on life the universe and somethings.
The more complicated a system is the higher probability of unforeseen events. This Tesla incident reminds me of the Google Camera Car incident.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/02/29/...-car-accident/
The lawyers will have a field day with this.