AL Priority with Tesla Model X

[RedRocket]

Teslas only use one forward camera, one forward 77GHz radar, and 12 ultrasonic parking sensors -- more parking sensors on the Model X to protect the falcon wing doors. It won't interfere with ALPs or any other radar or laser system.


After having the car for a week I must admit I am extremely impressed with Autopilot's performance despite having fewer sensors than most of its competitors. The competition still is nowhere close when it comes to semiautonomous driving.

Did you see the pix of the "X" model crashed into the front of a business building ? Owner claims the vehicle accelerated "on-its-own" b/c of a faulty collision avoidence sys. There have been several of these type incidents that have been reported. - WTF ?

[jdong]

Did you see the pix of the "X" model crashed into the front of a business building ? Owner claims the vehicle accelerated "on-its-own" b/c of a faulty collision avoidence sys. There have been several of these type incidents that have been reported. - WTF ?

Tesla responded by claiming that the vehicle logs show that the car was in Drive and the driver slammed the accelerator down full force. Since all the Model X's delivered at the time were 600+HP P90D's that is a very fatal mistake to make and will end up in a wall 100% of the time until Elon invents mid-air reverse thrusters for SUV's!


I think it's troublesome that in modern cars, accident investigations put your word against the manufacturer's word since they designed the logging system and are interpreting it. It's the Toyota incidents all over again: does the car have a faulty accelerator sensor or did the guy's wife on one of the very first drives of a brand new super car hit the wrong pedal and launch it into a building? I would honestly say the latter is more probable.

With the ridiculous power of the Model S / Model X we are seeing a lot more "ordinary" drivers have super car performance at their disposal.... for better or for worse!


EDIT: It's worth noting that the owner's other claims are a bit dubious. Tesla's UI will not allow engaging cruise control or Autopilot unless you are going above 18mph except if you are following another car, which was not the case here. And of course, collision "avoidance" systems only kick in under limited circumstances, usually just inattentive rear-endings. Cars are not smart enough yet to prevent 100% of accidents, and no automaker is ballsy enough to program a car to disobey a driver's full-throttle inputs. I would guess most of the folks on this forum would oppose a car that disobeys the driver's intentions because the car's firmware thinks that the action is unsafe!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedRocket]

Tesla responded by claiming that the vehicle logs show that the car was in Drive and the driver slammed the accelerator down full force. Since all the Model X's delivered at the time were 600+HP P90D's that is a very fatal mistake to make and will end up in a wall 100% of the time until Elon invents mid-air reverse thrusters for SUV's! - lol, good one !


I think it's troublesome that in modern cars, accident investigations put your word against the manufacturer's word since they designed the logging system and are interpreting it. It's the Toyota incidents all over again: does the car have a faulty accelerator sensor or did the guy's wife on one of the very first drives of a brand new super car hit the wrong pedal and launch it into a building? I would honestly say the latter is more probable.

With the ridiculous power of the Model S / Model X we are seeing a lot more "ordinary" drivers have super car performance at their disposal.... for better or for worse!


EDIT: It's worth noting that the owner's other claims are a bit dubious. Tesla's UI will not allow engaging cruise control or Autopilot unless you are going above 18mph except if you are following another car, which was not the case here. And of course, collision "avoidance" systems only kick in under limited circumstances, usually just inattentive rear-endings. Cars are not smart enough yet to prevent 100% of accidents, and no automaker is ballsy enough to program a car to disobey a driver's full-throttle inputs. I would guess most of the folks on this forum would oppose a car that disobeys the driver's intentions because the car's firmware thinks that the action is unsafe!

Agree fully, it's a "She" said & "He" said situation when only one side gets 1st look at the in-car data logging....the potential for manipulation of recorded evidence is ever present at this time.

[jdong]

Agree fully, it's a "She" said & "He" said situation when only one side gets 1st look at the in-car data logging....the potential for manipulation of recorded evidence is ever present at this time.

Yeah, I think before long, the NHTSA may need to start taking a NTSB-like role in air craft black box interpretation…. The manufacturer has every interest to design the logging system and interpret the data to their benefit. I think in this particular case it's probably 99% driver error, but that's not good enough. If I were ever involved in a situation like this, I would want a neutral third party to be examining the data and the design of the logging system.

[awj223]

Yeah, I think before long, the NHTSA may need to start taking a NTSB-like role in air craft black box interpretation…. The manufacturer has every interest to design the logging system and interpret the data to their benefit. I think in this particular case it's probably 99% driver error, but that's not good enough. If I were ever involved in a situation like this, I would want a neutral third party to be examining the data and the design of the logging system.

Will be interesting to see how they analyze the logs from this crash. Do they have a camera/visual light capture system so that they can "see" what the driver would have seen?
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12...nomous-model-s

[jdong]

Will be interesting to see how they analyze the logs from this crash. Do they have a camera/visual light capture system so that they can "see" what the driver would have seen?
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12...nomous-model-s

That guy was Joshua Brown, who's posted other Autopilot youtube videos before. So, for sure they have dashcam footage and can confirm whether or not he was distracted: http://electrek.co/2016/06/30/tesla-...ught-on-video/


The article has the details on the crash (divided highway, he had right of way, oncoming truck made left turn assuming other traffic would stop for him). But, however, not at fault != could not have prevented the accident. It's unclear whether or not he was distracted because of trusting the Autopilot…



Either way, it's tragic, but a cautionary tale that traffic conditions can change at a second's notice. You can use automation features like Autopilot to allow you to be more alert to the big picture around you…. Or you can use it to pay less attention and play Angry Birds while your car maintains you in your lane. Obviously, one is less moronic than the other, but human temptation can push you towards the other.



(To directly answer your question: AP's camera is in a firewalled separate module, and does not record video and is not capable of transmitting the video to the rest of the car's electronics. So no, they would not have a video recording of what happened in the car. They do, however, have full logs on the settings of the car, speed, driver input, the digital representation of what the AP interpreted on the road, etc.)

[awj223]

That guy was Joshua Brown, who's posted other Autopilot youtube videos before. So, for sure they have dashcam footage and can confirm whether or not he was distracted: http://electrek.co/2016/06/30/tesla-...ught-on-video/


The article has the details on the crash (divided highway, he had right of way, oncoming truck made left turn assuming other traffic would stop for him). But, however, not at fault != could not have prevented the accident. It's unclear whether or not he was distracted because of trusting the Autopilot…



Either way, it's tragic, but a cautionary tale that traffic conditions can change at a second's notice. You can use automation features like Autopilot to allow you to be more alert to the big picture around you…. Or you can use it to pay less attention and play Angry Birds while your car maintains you in your lane. Obviously, one is less moronic than the other, but human temptation can push you towards the other.



(To directly answer your question: AP's camera is in a firewalled separate module, and does not record video and is not capable of transmitting the video to the rest of the car's electronics. So no, they would not have a video recording of what happened in the car. They do, however, have full logs on the settings of the car, speed, driver input, the digital representation of what the AP interpreted on the road, etc.)

With semi autonomous cars, I can see the same issues arising that happened with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9C...-air_collision mid-air collision over Germany. If the autopilot is giving the driver instructions to do something and the driver does otherwise thinking that he knows better based on what he can see, and another driver does what his autopilot says to do, there will still be a collision (in the collision mentioned, one pilot obeyed TCAS while the other obeyed ATC, and both collided in an accident in which there were no survivors).

Today, pilots are given instructions to obey TCAS at all times, regardless of what ATC says. The same type of training would be required for human car drivers.