"Tessy" only the beginning

[Magicniner]

The automated system didn't cause the crash, the truck pulling into the path of moving vehicles caused the crash, the automated system then failed to prevent it, as did the driver who was ultimately responsible for control of the vehicle, whatever mode he had selected.
My main worry about it would be the use of optical sensing rather than Radar for frontal collision avoidance, I'd much rather have Radar, a much more mature technology for detecting something you're likely to hit,

- Nick

[CarlByrns]

No real need to retrain - just pass laws against cell phone usage in every state...

what a resource saver...

Like New York did (first in the country!). Cell phone usage while driving dropped (wait for it) about 1%.

Making something illegal doesn't make it go away.

[fixerdave]

I disagree- Tesla says their Autopilot looks for driver presence- hands on the steering wheel, ect. and will reduce speed if it detects the driver is not awake/aware.

I'm not a fan of self driving cars (hell, I don't even like automatic transmissions) but the numbers don't lie: their collisions-per-mile are almost nonexistent.

Given the circumstances, this accident would have likely happened with or without electronic intervention. Just one of those things.

this just in ---- eyewitnesses claim he was watching a Harry Potter movie just before the accident --- and no I don't make this stuff up - got a pretty good imagination but not that good...

Edit; this is just the thing iv been bringing up all these years - more removal from the task - and in fact said that the texting will not just get longer and more in depth - and I quote myself here ---"people will actually be watching movies whilst they drive"

I see many making excuses for the Tesla death.... Oh, the driver did or did not do this or that.... Bottom line here is that there was a system that at the very least, was intended to be a "driver assist", and it either DID NOT assist, OR it actually contributed to the accident.

Don't get fogged by details here. This is a MAJOR failure. The situation was EXACTLY the sort of thing the "driver assist" SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECT FOR, if it was what it was apparently touted as being.....

Bottom line... it was the truck driver that didn't see the car coming that caused the accident. He made the left-turn. Now, generally speaking, most accidents take 2 idiots. One to make a dumb mistake and another to not avoid it. In this case, it appears to be 3 idiots: the truck driver that didn't see an oncoming car, a failed AI system that didn't hit the brakes, and an inattentive driver that was obviously too reliant on unproven technology.

Will Tesla be sued over this... probably. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Google paid the legal bill. I've read they are rather miffed at the high-speed rollout Tesla is doing... they're expecting this kind of bad publicity and would rather avoid it. If they can't avoid, I expect they'd rather be seen on the "right" side of the debate. Google's approach has been much more methodical while Tesla's is to legally require a driver in the seat paying attention. But, as A.K. Boomer points out... that isn't going to happen. Given the possibility of not paying attention, far too many people will find other things to do. That is inevitable. Google is right; Tesla is wrong. Driver "assist" that approaches total control, thus allowing the driver to stop actually driving, is not really driver assist but rather driver replacement. Calling it driver assist to skirt the law is asking to be sued, and they will.

There is already precedent... I read about one class-action suit over a minivan's traction control that would dump the vehicle in the ditch if the driver chopped the throttle in a fast, tight turn. Personally, I've never driven a vehicle that wouldn't dump me in the ditch if I did anything that stupid... but it seems that if a vehicle is marketed with traction control, the drivers of said are legally allowed to do stupid things.

Google is on the right track... self driving, not driver assist. And, yes, a self-driving Google car will eventually kill someone. That too is inevitable. Whatever, it's not like dumb human drivers don't kill people every day already. People seem to have this attitude that AI has to be better than the best human driver. I don't think so... it just has to be better than average, which is actually pretty bad.

In the end, before I die, the international headline news will be about the idiot that decided to restore some old (circa 2020) vehicle without "proper" AI and take it out for a spin, killing someone in the process. That too is inevitable.

[dp]

Self-driving car, first person testimony. Says it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO0ZJyeVQJs

[Paul Alciatore]

I am not a big fan of automatic steering in cars. I think a better thing to add for safety would be some kind of device that would limit the speed to the limit but with some kind of a factor added to take into account the speed of the other vehicles. It would take a weighted average and if all of the other vehicles in a given distance are going a lot slower than the limit it would assume that there was a good reason and then you would also be limited to that speed. You would need to add a count of the other vehicles so one or a few slow pokes would not slow you down, but if traffic was heavy, it would. This would be accomplished by having each vehicle transmit it's speed.

With all vehicles going the same speed, accidents would be a lot less likely.

[danlb]

No real need to retrain - just pass laws against cell phone usage in every state...

what a resource saver...

Yeah... Right. Like passing a law ever made 100% of the people do what's right. Last I heard speeding was illegal, as was altering the pollution control on a car, but I recall a post where someone one this thread admitted to both infringements.

Dan

[A.K. Boomer]

That said, I'd accept it if we could somehow retrain 100% of all drivers to be 25% better.

Dan

No real need to retrain - just pass laws against cell phone usage in every state...

what a resource saver...

[danlb]

There is no crying need for it at all. It is in no way safer than a driver assist vehicle controller, but it is much more "techie", much more expensive, and a lot harder to do. It's "cool" in a way, but also very un-cool in many other ways.

This particular one is as safe as a human, based on the accident rate per million miles. The Google version has had better than human fatality rates.

.... And that's the point. 32,000 automobile fatalities in 2014 (about 3 times the number killed via gun violence) that could be prevented. If the autonomous cars are 25% better in the most common accident, that's 7,000 lives per year. I'd say that there is a need.

That said, I'd accept it if we could somehow retrain 100% of all drivers to be 25% better.

Dan

[J Tiers]

I see many making excuses for the Tesla death.... Oh, the driver did or did not do this or that.... Bottom line here is that there was a system that at the very least, was intended to be a "driver assist", and it either DID NOT assist, OR it actually contributed to the accident.

Don't get fogged by details here. This is a MAJOR failure. The situation was EXACTLY the sort of thing the "driver assist" SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECT FOR, if it was what it was apparently touted as being..

People are saying that a human driver might not have spotted it either. WHAT THE DICKENS DO YOU SUPPOSE DRIVER ASSIST IS FOR?

The POINT of driver assist is that it is watching when you are not. It sees what you miss. It spots what you fail to see. IF IT DOES NOT DO THAT, IT IS WORTHLESS. And here we have a case where it DID NOT spot the problem, which is the only reason to include it in the car... to spot those problems that the driver misses.

It doesn't matter if the driver was SLEEPING..... the driver assist happily let the car drive right into a fatal accident of a type that should have been anticipated. And it does not appear from reports that the driver assist did anything towards prevention or mitigation of the accident. NO reports that it applied the brakes. The car went hundreds of feet onward and hit other obstructions before stopping.

The driver assist should have done what any driver with brains would do, which is observe the slow obstruction (truck) and slow down in anticipation of the need to stop. This does not seem to have happened, either because it was never intended to do that, or because it failed to do what it was supposed to do.

It is fair to ask what it was intended to do, what was it's program supposed to do? What did Tesla claim it WOULD do, that made the driver pay that little attention and throw too much responsibility on the "driver assist"? If obstruction detection and application of brakes was not it's purpose, what WAS it for?

Basically, the driver assist utterly failed to do what it should have done, or was expected to do. That can only be classed as a MAJOR failure, of the system or the marketing, and no amount of excuses can possibly change that.

That's funny, right there!

The opinions probably are split between those who are skeptical of new tech and those who are not, I will give you that. Which group is taking the "more realistic view" is debatable. At one point, electronic ignition and computerized fuel injection were considered unnecessarily complex and suspect. Now they are widely accepted and desired. There are a lot of similar examples of "that will never work" technology that is accepted mainstream now.

The companies that have done the most work on autonomous cars have not been car companies. I take comfort in that. I'd hate to see the quality efforts dismissed because of the failure of the less capable efforts of a few car companies.

Dan

I said up front it was a loaded term... so you are not discovering anything new here....

So you think it's great that the car companies are doing this? The same car companies that have been PROVEN IN COURT to have saved trivial amounts per car while knowingly installing unsafe parts? OOOOOOkkkAAAAAAAYYY......

When someone has a profit motive for jamming new technology into a product as soon as possible, you need to look closely and determine whether what they are doing is affecting a critical system, and if so, are they testing it sufficiently? Are they making it as good as they can?

Remember, these car companies have been willing to accept a certain number of injuries, deaths and lawsuits in order to provide a lower cost product. In principle, that is not necessarily so bad, because safety is an open-ended goal. But it tends to take on a different aspect when you yourself are among the potential injuries and deaths, AND at the same time, they are rushing to introduce something very complex, which has major safety issues, as exemplified by the Tesla death.

That tends to make a person wonder whether this new thing, whatever it is, really has to be on the road that quickly, or whether it might make sense to do it slower.

I happen to be against the idea of a fully autonomous vehicle driving on arbitrary roads. It's an unrealistic and un-necessary goal for the moment. There actually is no NEED being filled.

It makes a LOT OF SENSE as a driver assist that still requires the driver to have guidance and speed inputs, much as is normal now, but which watches out for dangerous situations and changes. THAT actually fills a need, or a strong want, depending on your attitude about getting into accidents, a large percentage of which seem to be rear-end collisions.

It may ALSO make sense as a central city vehicle, to some extent autonomous, but in a relatively controlled environment (no gravel roads, no cliff-side roads, etc), and with centralized control for handling of gross traffic situations that are not really amenable to autonomous vehicle solutions. Basically a taxi service type operation. Just close the place to human drivers.

But, aside from a "because we can" type reason, what is the need for a fully autonomous "Take me to see Aunt Milly in Columbus" type vehicle? Its a plaything for the rich, and yet another way to make a car impossible to afford.

There is no crying need for it at all. It is in no way safer than a driver assist vehicle controller, but it is much more "techie", much more expensive, and a lot harder to do. It's "cool" in a way, but also very un-cool in many other ways.

[Willy]

It's not just the driving although that is of course the most important thing --- credible source or not they did show something that cannot be disputed,,, a guy walking up to the car - presses a button and not only does the dr. door unlock - it then opens for you - then - to add insult to injury - this same door automatically closes for you once you get inside ,,,that's with a fully functional "manual" door handle right in front of you within reach - but you ignore that - you just sit there like a complete idiot and let it "do it's thing" in about 3 or 4 times the time frame that it would have taken you - that is if only you found a way to grow a nutsac in time and close the freakin thing yourself.
Geeeze what kind of a spineless D.bag would even be caught dead driving a Pu** mobile like that --- face it - unless you have a serious disability WTF are you doing with your life man???
Sitting there for an extra three seconds looking back at people and giving them that stare like "yeah iv finally made it folks this is what its all about"

what a group of morons...

haven't we taken things far enough? --- where the hell is this gonna end folks? think this is a great thing??? what kind of a wussie would want something like this?

It's called the dumbing down of driving. I'm sure the insurance companies are keeping close tabs on some of these new technological trends.

We already have parking assist. Pickups are coming out with up to seven cameras to help guide buddy's trailer into his little spot of heaven at the campground so that he doesn't run over one of his new neighbors.
He'll also have at his disposal the help of trailer reverse guidance a "feature" that tells buddy which direction to turn the steering wheel in order to back up straight. All the while roughing it out in the woods. Good grief!

[A.K. Boomer]

It's not just the driving although that is of course the most important thing --- credible source or not they did show something that cannot be disputed,,, a guy walking up to the car - presses a button and not only does the dr. door unlock - it then opens for you - then - to add insult to injury - this same door automatically closes for you once you get inside ,,,that's with a fully functional "manual" door handle right in front of you within reach - but you ignore that - you just sit there like a complete idiot and let it "do it's thing" in about 3 or 4 times the time frame that it would have taken you - that is if only you found a way to grow a nutsac in time and close the freakin thing yourself.
Geeeze what kind of a spineless D.bag would even be caught dead driving a Pu** mobile like that --- face it - unless you have a serious disability WTF are you doing with your life man???
Sitting there for an extra three seconds looking back at people and giving them that stare like "yeah iv finally made it folks this is what its all about"

what a group of morons...

haven't we taken things far enough? --- where the hell is this gonna end folks? think this is a great thing??? what kind of a wussie would want something like this?

[PStechPaul]

The Harry Potter thing was in the text of the original link. I think it said the truck driver only heard it playing when he apparently stopped and approached the vehicle before first responders arrived, and it was a Harry Potter video on a separate DVD player. Much depends on how fast the Tesla was going and what the sight distance was between vehicles when the truck turned across the other vehicle's lane. There is some expectation that a driver approaching from some distance will see the truck turning, and slow down, or take evasive maneuvers to avoid an accident.

I saw an almost similar situation yesterday, as I was being driven back to the rehab facility from a home safety discharge visit. A car made a left turn in front of us, while a car in our right line was moving faster. The other car slowed down because of a bump as it entered the parking lot, and the speeding driver almost hit him. He was likely on a cell phone, and assumed the other car would not slow down. Such drivers also seem to have one hand on the phone and the other on the horn. Braking and steering are secondary.

[Willy]

for the record it was not ET it was IE (inside edition) much more credible source lol

I read it in your OP link. I hope you pay better attention when driving.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

Frank Baressi, 62, the driver of the truck and owner of Okemah Express LLC, said the Tesla driver was "playing Harry Potter on the TV screen" at the time of the crash and driving so quickly that "he went so fast through my trailer I didn't see him."
"It was still playing when he died and snapped a telephone pole a quarter mile down the road," Baressi told The Associated Press in an interview from his home in Palm Harbor, Florida. He acknowledged he couldn't see the movie, only heard it.

[A.K. Boomer]

for the record it was not ET it was IE (inside edition) much more credible source lol

[A.K. Boomer]

-Probably more bullsh*t.

First, the car was at highway speed. The only possible witnesses that could have seen into his car would have been other drivers following closely along.

Second, the rumor I heard was he was watching it on the car's in-dash screen. I'm pretty sure it's close to impossible to get the dash screen to play a movie while the car is underway. For that matter, I'm pretty sure more than a few states make that illegal- those DVD players for kids and whatnot tend to go in the back seat, not where the driver can see and be distracted by it.

And if we really want to get nitpicky, why would a 40-year-old Ex-Navy EOD expert be watching Harry Potter? ( )

Doc.

hey - don't blame me --- im only telling you what I just heard on ET

and yeah would they not have a better way of finding out if this was the case than just eyewitnesses ?

also thought about that - X-navy seal watching Harry Potter... who knows maybe never to be found out for certain..