Model 3 crash on autopilot
Discussion
BBC story
Don't see how this could happen, unless the driver didn't actually engage the autopilot function and things like lane keep assist kept it on track but without the full observations. Surely not running into a stationary object is line 1 in the autonomous vehicle programmer's code.
Don't see how this could happen, unless the driver didn't actually engage the autopilot function and things like lane keep assist kept it on track but without the full observations. Surely not running into a stationary object is line 1 in the autonomous vehicle programmer's code.
Personally I think that the branding of such systems as "autopilot" is irresponsible, as they're not automatic systems. At best they're advanced driver assist systems. They require the driver to remain alert, concentrate and pay attention to what the car is doing, which is counter-intuitive to something which name suggests is "automatic", ie. done for you.
The average Joe Bloggs off the street who decides to buy a car with "autopilot" is not likely to be familiar with the pitfalls of automated systems such as genuine autopilots, probably has a pre-conceived idea of what autopilot means (expects it to drive itself) and most probably will disregard the manufacturers safety-clause about staying alert and such like, because let's face it, we are forever ticking the box to accept T&Cs because we don't have the time or inclination to read tedious disclaimers.
Ultimately it leads to serviceable vehicles with functioning "autopilot" systems, driving themselves into things that an alert and competant driver wouldn't. Not necessarily a failing of the car, but a failing of the driver to fully grasp the understanding that they're still in control and are merely operating the car through the autopilot, as opposed to through the conventional controls. The autopilot cannot think, it can only process data from sensors in binary.
The average Joe Bloggs off the street who decides to buy a car with "autopilot" is not likely to be familiar with the pitfalls of automated systems such as genuine autopilots, probably has a pre-conceived idea of what autopilot means (expects it to drive itself) and most probably will disregard the manufacturers safety-clause about staying alert and such like, because let's face it, we are forever ticking the box to accept T&Cs because we don't have the time or inclination to read tedious disclaimers.
Ultimately it leads to serviceable vehicles with functioning "autopilot" systems, driving themselves into things that an alert and competant driver wouldn't. Not necessarily a failing of the car, but a failing of the driver to fully grasp the understanding that they're still in control and are merely operating the car through the autopilot, as opposed to through the conventional controls. The autopilot cannot think, it can only process data from sensors in binary.
- rant over
AmosMoses said:
It will disengage if your hands aren’t on the wheel, unless you have one of the cheat solutions in use.
It’s as much user error as it is autopilot error...
Unfortunately its not quite that simple. The Tesla system has a variable interval that depends on a number of multiple factors. Depending on what the speeds are, road you are on and so on, you can find it will not give the warnings for up to a minute or more. Other manufacturers make it more of a fixed time. I have the earlier Mercedes system and it will start to trigger the alarms after around 20 seconds.It’s as much user error as it is autopilot error...
Its entirely possible that they saw the road was clear and it wasnt alerting anything, so decided to look behind and deal with the dog. And be aware, the Tesla system alerts for around another 20 seconds or so before it does anything. Its all very possible to drive for several miles before before it will do anything.
Westy Pre-Lit said:
Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment. However, the firm does not recommend that drivers remove their hands from the wheel while using the Autopilot feature.
So what's the point of autopilot if you can't take your hands off the wheel ? , I'm confused.
It isn’t “autopilot”. It is no better than any other OE driving aid system.So what's the point of autopilot if you can't take your hands off the wheel ? , I'm confused.
Calling it Autopilot is pure marketing bulls
t and they should be slapped heavily and made to change the name.speedking31 said:
Surely not running into a stationary object is line 1 in the autonomous vehicle programmer's code.
Its actually one of the hardest things to code. Partly why Google don't allow their cars to go over 40mph, and why Uber was involved in the fatal pedestrian crash.As far as I know no autonomous or driver assistance aid can bring a car to full stop from 70mph ish difference in approach speeds.
The stakes are so high - slamming on at 70mph, with very little sensory data will cause a huge number of false positive events (phantom braking) - but radar range isnt enough, and visual detection is looking for ting changes in small number of pixels to determine speed differential to be 100% sure you have no false negative events - like the reported crash.
Whats seem like an easy thing for us humans, is very hard for a computer to replicate.
Edited by gangzoom on Tuesday 10th December 07:20
Edited by gangzoom on Tuesday 10th December 07:20
Jader1973 said:
It isn’t “autopilot”. It is no better than any other OE driving aid system.
Calling it Autopilot is pure marketing bullst and they should be slapped heavily and made to change the name.
It is exactly like an autopilot, but with better (not infallible) collision avoidance.Calling it Autopilot is pure marketing bulls
t and they should be slapped heavily and made to change the name.Plenty of boats have run into things while on autopilot - it steers the course you have set, and if there are rocks or channel markers in the way, it will happily steer your boat straight into them.
AW111 said:
Jader1973 said:
It isn’t “autopilot”. It is no better than any other OE driving aid system.
Calling it Autopilot is pure marketing bullst and they should be slapped heavily and made to change the name.
It is exactly like an autopilot, but with better (not infallible) collision avoidance.Calling it Autopilot is pure marketing bulls
t and they should be slapped heavily and made to change the name.Plenty of boats have run into things while on autopilot - it steers the course you have set, and if there are rocks or channel markers in the way, it will happily steer your boat straight into them.
rickygolf83 said:
Similar to auto pilot blamed plane crashes; pilot should have stepped in before it went pete tong
You should work for Boeing, Airbus or the NTSB with insights like that, have you made this valuable information public yet ? its going to cause a huge stir in the aviation industry.Jader1973 said:
It isn’t “autopilot”. It is no better than any other OE driving aid system.
An "auto-pilot", in the original sense, was simply a way to keep a sailing boat pointing in roughly the same direction without anyone holding the tiller/wheel. It had absolutely no collision avoidance capability. I'm not sure where people have got this idea that "auto pilot" implies that something is fully autonomous. As far as I know it has never meant that. As far as I know even modern aircraft autopilots don't have the facility to autonomously avoid collisions with other aircraft? The older ones where the term was first used in aviation certainly didn't.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 10th December 09:22
kambites said:
Jader1973 said:
It isn’t “autopilot”. It is no better than any other OE driving aid system.
An "auto-pilot", in the original sense, was simply a way to keep a sailing boat pointing in roughly the same direction without anyone holding the tiller/wheel. It had absolutely no collision avoidance capability. I'm not sure where people have got this idea that "auto pilot" implies that something is fully autonomous. As far as I know it has never meant that. Blaming its name for what it does is b
ks, all autonomous driving systems face the same problem - the idiot behind the wheel who thinks it's perfect.kambites said:
Jader1973 said:
It isn’t “autopilot”. It is no better than any other OE driving aid system.
An "auto-pilot", in the original sense, was simply a way to keep a sailing boat pointing in roughly the same direction without anyone holding the tiller/wheel. It had absolutely no collision avoidance capability. I'm not sure where people have got this idea that "auto pilot" implies that something is fully autonomous. As far as I know it has never meant that. As far as I know even modern aircraft autopilots don't have the facility to autonomously avoid collisions with other aircraft? The older ones where the term was first used in aviation certainly didn't.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 10th December 09:22
You're right though.
The problem comes from the way it is interpreted today. People are used to the plane carrying them being on autopilot and not crashing so it has come to infer an ability to not crash.
They were asked to rename it, no idea if they did or not:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2016/10...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff