Another fatal Tesla crash
Discussion
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/30/17182824/tesla-...
Again it seems the owner had a little too much faith in the "Autopilot" system of his Model X.
Is this just an inevitable side effect of new technology or is Tesla playing a bit fast and loose with safety by promoting the system as self driving / autopilot?
I know it beeps at you and gives you plenty of warnings and it's possible the driver was having some sort of medical issue rather than the car being at fault but it seems human nature is to trust technology when it's really not ready.
Personally I think they should disable the autosteering function and make the drivers steer at all times to keep them alert until the systems are advanced enough to offer full self driving.
What's the thoughts?
Interesting also to see the fire department response. They had specific training to deal with Tesla fires but elected to call Tesla and have them come out and make the batteries safe as the pack had split open. They also had to escort the car to the breakers and stay with it for hours due to the risk of re ignition. Their other option was to flood the car and scattered batteries with hundreds of gallons of water to cool it but this would have closed the freeway for hours. A great response I thought.
A real shame also to see this in the Tesla statement, maybe if it had been repaired the driver might have survived at least.
"""The reason this crash was so severe is because the crash attenuator, a highway safety barrier which is designed to reduce the impact into a concrete lane divider, had been crushed in a prior accident without being replaced. We have never seen this level of damage to a Model X in any other crash."""
Again it seems the owner had a little too much faith in the "Autopilot" system of his Model X.
Is this just an inevitable side effect of new technology or is Tesla playing a bit fast and loose with safety by promoting the system as self driving / autopilot?
I know it beeps at you and gives you plenty of warnings and it's possible the driver was having some sort of medical issue rather than the car being at fault but it seems human nature is to trust technology when it's really not ready.
Personally I think they should disable the autosteering function and make the drivers steer at all times to keep them alert until the systems are advanced enough to offer full self driving.
What's the thoughts?
Interesting also to see the fire department response. They had specific training to deal with Tesla fires but elected to call Tesla and have them come out and make the batteries safe as the pack had split open. They also had to escort the car to the breakers and stay with it for hours due to the risk of re ignition. Their other option was to flood the car and scattered batteries with hundreds of gallons of water to cool it but this would have closed the freeway for hours. A great response I thought.
A real shame also to see this in the Tesla statement, maybe if it had been repaired the driver might have survived at least.
"""The reason this crash was so severe is because the crash attenuator, a highway safety barrier which is designed to reduce the impact into a concrete lane divider, had been crushed in a prior accident without being replaced. We have never seen this level of damage to a Model X in any other crash."""
Edited by Blaster72 on Saturday 31st March 13:14
As they say, Tesla have a lower incidence of crashes than other vehicles but when one happens it becomes newsworthy
The Model X crashed head on into the end of a motorway crash barrier, one of those things on the end of a concreter barrier thta are supposed to deform on inpact
This one had already been deformed
https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last...
https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43604440
The Model X crashed head on into the end of a motorway crash barrier, one of those things on the end of a concreter barrier thta are supposed to deform on inpact
This one had already been deformed
https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-we-know-about-last...
https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43604440
Mezzanine said:
Surely there would be some liability on whoever did not replace the already deformed barrier in this situation also?
And what hit it first in case it was another TeslaOr find out why someone else drifted across in the same place
The lane marker white paint doesnt look too good this side. Any chance of it thinking the better white line the other side was the lane marker, in the absence of a concrete barrier
I’m not sure the last statement is to be believed. Tesla aren’t known for their honesty and transparency.
Interesting to see the comment from the previous fatal accident:
“Federal investigators said last year that Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations.”
All in all, it seems the dreams of some, to sit in the back working on the commute, are still some years away.
Interesting to see the comment from the previous fatal accident:
“Federal investigators said last year that Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations.”
All in all, it seems the dreams of some, to sit in the back working on the commute, are still some years away.
REALIST123 said:
I’m not sure the last statement is to be believed. Tesla aren’t known for their honesty and transparency.
Interesting to see the comment from the previous fatal accident:
“Federal investigators said last year that Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations.”
All in all, it seems the dreams of some, to sit in the back working on the commute, are still some years away.
Interesting to see the comment from the previous fatal accident:
“Federal investigators said last year that Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations.”
All in all, it seems the dreams of some, to sit in the back working on the commute, are still some years away.
I think you can now believe Tesla’s comment.
From what I’ve read my belief is the car was locked onto the two white lines you can see in the image, and tragically the driver wasn’t paying attention to the road ahead. Radar controlled adaptive cruise control won’t pick up a stationary object ahead either.
saaby93 said:
It's the same one, you post after me though 
I've been reading up a little more and it looks like the Autopilot 2.5 cars can auto emergency brake up to 90mph now so this sort of accident should be avoidable. It doesn't say in the blurb for that update if it only works when Autopilot is engaged though.
Tesla have been releasing some pretty poorly thought out updates on their Blog regarding this accident and would be wise to STFU until the investigation is complete in my opinion.
Blaster72 said:
It's the same one, you post after me though
I've been reading up a little more and it looks like the Autopilot 2.5 cars can auto emergency brake up to 90mph now so this sort of accident should be avoidable. It doesn't say in the blurb for that update if it only works when Autopilot is engaged though.
Tesla have been releasing some pretty poorly thought out updates on their Blog regarding this accident and would be wise to STFU until the investigation is complete in my opinion.
Auto emergency braking would not stop this happening, it tries to minimise the impact speed when a collision is inevitable. I've been reading up a little more and it looks like the Autopilot 2.5 cars can auto emergency brake up to 90mph now so this sort of accident should be avoidable. It doesn't say in the blurb for that update if it only works when Autopilot is engaged though.
Tesla have been releasing some pretty poorly thought out updates on their Blog regarding this accident and would be wise to STFU until the investigation is complete in my opinion.
The adaptive cruise control, or TACC (traffic aware cruise control) as Tesla call it, locks on to a moving vehicle ahead of it and matches its speed. This is the same as other manufacturers radar systems.
It doesn’t see stationary objects in its path, and there have been other incidents where a car using TACC hits something when the vehicle directly in front of it swerves to avoid something directly in its path. There was an incident not that long ago when a lorry swerved to avoid a fire truck and the car ploughed into it.
That's not what it says in the owners handbook.
Reads like the car looks 160 meters ahead and will warn the driver before automatically applying the brakes if it detects a collision is imminent.
There are plenty of warnings in the handbook to emphasize the system isn't infallible and it's always the up to the driver to pay attention but the wording could give people a false sense of security.
Reads like the car looks 160 meters ahead and will warn the driver before automatically applying the brakes if it detects a collision is imminent.
There are plenty of warnings in the handbook to emphasize the system isn't infallible and it's always the up to the driver to pay attention but the wording could give people a false sense of security.
Plug Life said:
Progress demands sacrifices.
What a moronic comment. So a system that is called and marketed as autopilot has flaws but the it acceptable, no it isn't. If it was marketed correctly, as an assistant then this life would have been saved.Too many people blinkered because it is a tech company.
Volvo may have more experience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_47utWAoupo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_47utWAoupo
Blaster72 said:
That's not what it says in the owners handbook.
Reads like the car looks 160 meters ahead and will warn the driver before automatically applying the brakes if it detects a collision is imminent.
There are plenty of warnings in the handbook to emphasize the system isn't infallible and it's always the up to the driver to pay attention but the wording could give people a false sense of security.
In my experience the forward collision avoidance alert doesn’t operate when Autopilot is engaged as the car maintains its preset distance depending on which setting the driver has selected. Reads like the car looks 160 meters ahead and will warn the driver before automatically applying the brakes if it detects a collision is imminent.
There are plenty of warnings in the handbook to emphasize the system isn't infallible and it's always the up to the driver to pay attention but the wording could give people a false sense of security.
This is what I don't understand.
This video was hailed as proof that Tesla cars had some kind of sixth sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNRU17nTyg
yet that Model X didn't spot a stationary concrete barrier closing at 70mph.
This video was hailed as proof that Tesla cars had some kind of sixth sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNRU17nTyg
yet that Model X didn't spot a stationary concrete barrier closing at 70mph.
Thesprucegoose said:
Plug Life said:
Progress demands sacrifices.
What a moronic comment. So a system that is called and marketed as autopilot has flaws but the it acceptable, no it isn't. If it was marketed correctly, as an assistant then this life would have been saved.Too many people blinkered because it is a tech company.
Whether there is another phrase or word that sums up what the car does when it is engaged can be debated until the cows come home.
In this tragic case accordingly to the logs the driver had a clear uninterrupted view for 5 seconds / 150 meters before hitting the divider, which itself hadn’t been repaired from a previous crash. Maybe if it had been repaired it wouldn’t have been a fatality, and maybe the driver wasn’t paying attention.
Blaster72 said:
This is what I don't understand.
This video was hailed as proof that Tesla cars had some kind of sixth sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNRU17nTyg
yet that Model X didn't spot a stationary concrete barrier closing at 70mph.
Wont it be either that all that scafolding type stuff on the front of the barrier confused it into thinking was harmlessThis video was hailed as proof that Tesla cars had some kind of sixth sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNRU17nTyg
yet that Model X didn't spot a stationary concrete barrier closing at 70mph.
or the driver had accidentally deactivated it as per another incident
Why is there a road layout with two solid lines ending up at a solid lump of concrete
Blaster72 said:
This is what I don't understand.
This video was hailed as proof that Tesla cars had some kind of sixth sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNRU17nTyg
yet that Model X didn't spot a stationary concrete barrier closing at 70mph.
Apologies, I’m wrong about the forward collision warning. In this case autopilot was engaged and the radar can and did bounce under the car in front and detected that the car two in front was braking severely, and that triggered the alarm. This video was hailed as proof that Tesla cars had some kind of sixth sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNRU17nTyg
yet that Model X didn't spot a stationary concrete barrier closing at 70mph.
However, the radar won’t lock on to a stationary object, hence why it didn’t see the obstruction.
On the motorway if there is nothing in the range of the radar the car will proceed at the selected speed, and a queue of stationary traffic half a mile won’t be detected. Following a car to a halt, and then stop start is fine though.
Blaster72 said:
Seems the driver had complained to Tesla several times about the behavior of the Autopilot on his Model X and had even taken it in for checks where nothing wrong was found.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/29/tesla-crash...
Maybe same as these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrwxEX8qOxA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsp_0CJRU9c
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 1st April 13:54
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff