Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash - <AUTHOR> http://abc7news.com/automotive/exclusive-tesla-issues-strongest-statement-yet-blaming-driver-for-deadly-crash/3325908/ <comment><USER2> Tesla's system demands _more_ from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles.

Here's a good example - a Tesla on autopilot crashing into a temporary road barrier which required a lane change.[1] This is a view from the dashcam of the vehicle behind the Tesla. At 00:21, things look normal. At 00:22, the Tesla should just be starting to turn to follow the lane and avoid the barrier, but it isn't. By 00:23, it's hit the wall. By the time the driver could have detected that failure, it was too late.

Big, solid, obvious orange obstacle. Freeway on a clear day. Tesla's system didn't detect it. By the time it was clear that the driver needed to take over, it was too late. This is why, as the head of Google's self driving effort once said, partial self driving "assistance" is inherently unsafe. Lane following assistance without good automatic braking kills.

This is the Tesla self-crashing car in action. Tesla fails at the basic task of self-driving - not hitting obstacles. If it doesn't look like the rear end of a car or truck, it gets hit. So far, one street sweeper, one fire truck, one disabled car, one crossing tractor trailer, and two freeway barriers have been hit. Those are the ones that got press attention. There are probably more incidents.

Automatic driving the Waymo way seems to be working. Automatic driving the Tesla way leaves a trail of blood and death. That is not an accident. It follows directly from Musk's decision to cut costs by trying to do the job with inadequate sensors and processing.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ml6sjk_8c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ml6sjk_8c)

<comment><USER3> " Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles."

I have been thinking that too. At what point do you decide that the autopilot is making a mistake and take over? That's an almost impossible task to perform within the available time.

<comment><USER4> If I was driving a car like that I think I'd feel safer if there was a "confidence meter" available, I have no idea about how these auto-drive systems work but I'm guessing there's some metric for how confident the car is that it's going in the correct direction. Exposing that information as a basic percentage meter on the dash somewhere would make me feel more confident about using the auto-drive.

I can understand why this wouldn't happen from a business perspective, and it's also presumably not as simple to implement as I'm implying, but I can't think of a better way to get around the uncertainty of whether the car's operating in an expected way or not.

<comment><USER5> If they had the ability to measure confidence in the system, they would use it to issue warnings or disable autopilot

The "confidence meter" would almost certainly be 100% right up until it crashes into an obvious obstacle

<comment><USER4> > If they had the ability to measure confidence in the system, they would use > it to issue warnings or disable autopilot

Yeah, that's basically what I'm asking for, maybe a warning light at a certain threshold would be a better default, personally I'd still find a number more trustworthy though.

> The "confidence meter" would almost certainly be 100% right up until it > crashes into an obvious obstacle

If image recognition algorithms have associated confidence levels, I'd be surprised something more complicated like road navigation was 100% certain all the time.

<comment><USER6> The problem is, given a neural network, the decided course of action IS at 100% confidence.

Unless you design the network to specifically answer "how similar is this?" and pair it with a training set and the output of another executing neural net, a "confidence meter" isn't possible.

This is one of the trickier bits to wrap one's mind around with neural networks. The systems we train for specialized tasks have no concept of 'confidence' or being wrong. There is no meta-awareness that judges how well a task is being performed in real-time outside of the training environment.

Humans don't suffer from this issue (as much) due to the mind bogglingly large and complex neural nets we have to deal with the world. Every time you set yourself to practicing a task, you are putting a previously trained neural network through further training and evolution. You can recognize when you are doing it because the process of doing so takes conscious effort. You are not 'just doing <the task>', you are 'doing <the task>, and comparing your performance against an ideation or metric of how you WANT <the task> to be performed'. This process is basically your pre-frontal cortex and occipital lobe for instance, tuning your hippocampus, sensory and motor cortex to perfect the perfect tennis swing.

When we train visual neural networks, we're talking levels of intelligence supplied by the occipital lobe , hippocampus, alone. Imagine every time you hear about a neural net that a human was lobotomized until they could perform ONLY that task with any reliability.

Kinda changes the comfort level with letting one of these take the wheel doesn't it?

Neural nets are REALLY neat. Don't get me wrong. I love them. Unfortunately, the real world is also INCREDIBLY hard to safely operate in. Many little things that humans 'just do' are the results of our own brains 'hacking' together older neural nets with a higher level one.

<comment><USER7> Have you actually worked on applying neural networks in the real world?

Calibrating the probabilities of machine learning algorithms is an old problem. By nature of disciminative algorithms and increasing model capacities, yes training typically pushes outputs to one extreme. There is a ton of information still maintained which can be properly calibrated for downstream ingestion, which anyone actually trying to integrate these into actual applications should be doing.

Most recently:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04599](https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04599) [https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03916](https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03916)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tesla probably shouldn't be saying anything about this at all, even just to avoid giving it more news cycles. But if they were going to say something, here's what they should have said the first time.

\----

We take great care in building our cars to save lives. Forty thousands Americans die on the roads each year. That's a statistic. But even a single death of a Tesla driver or passenger is a tragedy. This has affected everyone on our team deeply, and our hearts go out to the family and friends of Walter Huang.

We've recovered data that indicates Autopilot was engaged at the time of the accident. The vehicle drove straight into the barrier. In the five seconds leading up to the crash, neither Autopilot nor the driver took any evasive action.

Our engineers are investigating why the car failed to detect or avoid the obstacle. Any lessons we can take from this tragedy will be deployed across our entire fleet of vehicles. Saving other lives is the best we can hope to take away from an event like this.

In that same spirit, we would like to remind all Tesla drivers that Autopilot is not a fully-autonomous driving system. It's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred. Just as with autopilots in aviation, while the tool does reduce workload, it's critical to always stay attentive. The car cannot drive itself. It can help, but you have to do your job.

We do realize, however, that a system like Autopilot can lure people into a false sense of security. That's one reason we are hard at work on the problem of fully autonomous driving. It will take a few years, but we look forward to some day making accidents like this a part of history.

<comment><USER9> >t's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred.

This needs far more discussion. I just don't buy it. I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive. I think our psychology won't allow it. When driving, I find that I must be engaged and on long trips I don't even enable cruise control because taking the accelerator input away from me is enough to cause my mind to wander. If I'm not in control of the accelerator and steering while simultaneously focused on threats including friendly officers attempting to remind me of the speed limit I space out fairly quickly. In observing how others drive, I don't think I'm alone. It's part of our nature. So then, how is it that you can have a car driving for you while simultaneously being attentive? I believe they are so mutually exclusive as to make it ridiculous to claim that such a thing is possible.

<comment><USER10> I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem. But I think you're right. I think the "best" way to move forward until we have perfected the technology is not something that drives for you, but something that will completely take over the millisecond the car detects that something terrible is about to happen. People will be engaged because they _have_ to be engaged, to drive the car. The machine can still gather all the data and ship it off to HQ to improve itself (and compare its own decisions to those of the human driver, which IMO is infinitely more valuable). But if there's one thing the average person is terrible at, it's reacting quickly to terrible situations. You're absolutely right that people can't be trusted to remain actively engaged when something else is doing the driving. Great example with the cruise control, too.

<comment><USER11> People love their cars too much.

Cars should just be phased out in favor of mass transit everywhere.

Yes, you can live without the convenience of your car. No really, you can.

Now think about how you would enable that to happen. What local politicians are you willing to write to, or support, in order to enable a better mass transit option for you? And how would you enable more people to support those local politicians that make that decision?

This is the correct solution, since the AI solution of self-driving cars isn't going to happen. Their high fatality rates are going to remain high.

<comment><USER12> _Yes, you can live without the convenience of your car. No really, you can._

Maybe, but unless you can change the laws of nature, you can't build a mass transit system that can serve everyone full-time with reasonable efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and that's just meeting the minimum requirement of getting from A to B, without getting into all the other downsides of public vs. private transportation in terms of health, privacy, security, etc.

<comment><USER11> OK. Anything else you want to make up?

Let's see what that imagination can craft.

<comment><USER12> There's no need to make anything up. Mass transit systems are relatively efficient if and only if they are used on routes popular enough to replace enough private vehicles to offset their greater size and operating costs (both physical and financial). That usually means big cities, or major routes in smaller cities at busier times.

Achieving 24/7 mass transit, available with reasonable frequency for journeys over both short and long distances, would certainly require everyone to live in big cities with very high population densities. Here in the UK, we only have a handful of cities with populations of over one million today. That is the sort of scale you're talking about for that sort of transportation system to be at all viable, although an order of magnitude larger would be more practical. All of those cities have long histories and relatively inefficient layouts, which would make it quite difficult to scale them up dramatically without causing other fundamental problems with infrastructure and logistics.

So, in order to solve the problem of providing viable mass transit for everyone to replace their personal vehicles, you would first need to build, starting from scratch or at least from much smaller urban areas, perhaps 20-30 new big cities to house a few tens of millions of people.

You would then need all of those people to move to those new cities. You'd be destroying all of their former communities in the process, of course, and for about 10,000,000 of them, they'd be giving up their entire rural way of life. Also, since no-one could live in rural areas any more, your farming had better be 100% automated, along with any other infrastructure or emergency facilities you need to support your mass transit away from the big cities.

The UK is currently in the middle of a housing crisis, with an acute lack of supply caused by decades of under-investment and failure to build anywhere close to enough new homes. Today, we're lucky if we build 200,000 per year, while the typical demand is for at least 300,000, which means the problem is getting worse every year. The difference between home-owners and those who are renting or otherwise living in supported accommodation is one of the defining inequalities of our generation, with all the tensions and social problems that follow.

But sure, we could get everyone off private transportation and onto mass transit. All we'd have to do is uproot about 3/4 of our population, destroy their communities and in many cases their whole way of life, build new houses at least an order of magnitude faster than we have managed for the last several decades, achieve total automation in our out-of-city farming and other infrastructure, replace infrastructure for an entire nation that has been centuries in development... and then build all these wonderful new mass transit systems, which would still almost inevitably be worse than private transportation in several fundamental ways.

<comment><USER13> Why so big though? I lived in a 25 000 people town in Sweden and did not need a car more than a few week ends per year. There was 5 bus lines for local transport, and long distance busses and trains with quite high frequency.

And that's not taking into account the fact that bicycle is a very viable way to move around in cities < 200 000 inhabitants.

I have actually never owned a car, I just rent some once in a while to go out somewhere where regular transports don't get me. I have lived in Sweden, France and Spain, in 10 cities from 25 000 to 12 million inhabitants. Never felt restricted. I actually feel much more restricted when I drive because I have to worry about parking, which is horrible in both Paris and Stockholm. Many people I know, even in rural Sweden or France, don't own a car because it is just super costly and the benefit is not worth it. It's very much a generation thing tough because my friends are mostly around 26-32 whereas nearly all the person I know over 35 owns a car, even if they don't actually have that much money and sometimes complain about it.

<comment><USER12> You've almost answered your own question, I think. Providing mass transit on popular routes at peak times is relatively easy. It's more difficult when you need to get someone from A to B that is 100 miles away, and then back again the same day. It's more difficult when you are getting someone from A to B at the start of the evening, but their shift finishes at 4am and then they need to get home again.

To provide a viable transport network, operating full-time with competitive journey times, without making a prohibitive financial loss or being environmentally unfriendly, you need a critical mass of people using each service you run. That generally means you need a high enough population density over a large enough urban area that almost all routes become "main routes" and almost all times become "busy times".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I used to be in awe of Teslas and I have always been a big fan of Musk, and even after the crash I still imagined myself one day buying a Tesla. But after this response, I've completely lost respect for the company, for Musk, and I don't think I'll ever buy one or advocate for someone buying one.

The driver had previously reported to Tesla _7 to 10 times_ that there was an issue with autopilot, but Tesla told him "no there is no issue". There is also video evidence of this same issue happening in other parts of the world, but with similar road conditions. But again, Tesla's response has been "there is no issue."

And now their response is "the driver knew there was an issue but he used autopilot anyway"? Seriously? Either there is an issue or there isn't, Tesla. At first you said there is no issue, and now you're saying there _is_ an issue? And as the cherry on top, you're blaming the driver for continuing to use the feature _even after you told him repeatedly that it 's okay to use_?

For shame, Tesla. For shame.

<comment><USER15> > The driver had previously reported to Tesla 7 to 10 times

I understand this is not a popular opinion on news forums anywhere nor do I write this to absolve in my view Tesla of their poor response nor of their poor choice in naming the system 'autopilot' to start.

But at what point does corporate or government responsibility end and personal responsibility start? If I knew something didn't work and that something could kill me and had reported the issue 7 to 10 times, I would be watching, like a hawk for the issue to recur, or more likely just not using it at all.

People have this insane idea that just because something isn't their fault they don't have to take corrective action in order to avoid the consequences. It is better to be alive than to be correct.

<comment><USER16> In the US, we have laws that require products to work as advertised. If they don't, generally strict product liability applies to the manufacturer, seller, and all middleman (in this case, they're all Tesla), regardless of whether the customer-victim was misusing the product.

In this case, there is no evidence that the driver was misusing the car. But there is a carload of evidence that Autopilot failed.

At this point, the only thing Tesla is accomplishing with these public statements is adding more zeros to the eventual settlement/damage award.

<comment><USER17> The driver was required to remain alert.

<comment><USER18> the car should stop itself to the emergency lane then when user disengagement is detected.

<comment><USER19> That's a very naive comment. What if there's no emergency lane? Should it just crash towards whatever is on the right side of the car? :)

Tesla's autopilot already slows down then stops moving if the user doesn't touch the steering wheel for a period time, but it gives plenty of warning to the user before that happens, as it should be.

<comment><USER18> So let me see, what are the alternative here.

Inconveniencing the driver and making it a learning experience vs crashing into concrete and killing him

Well. Maybe you are the naive one. Machinery shouldn't give warnings. We already learned those lesson in industrial automation settings.

The average mentality of "just user error bro" seen on hackers new is what scares me the most. That is not how you build secure machines, far from it, and at this point my only hope not to be killed from an autonomous car in the next 30 years is for the regulations hammer coming crashing down full force on the wanton engineers that are treating loss of life as user error

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is gonna be interesting as apparently the "Barrier" [1] bug is only in newer AP2 models per latest A/B tests done by cpddan (who did the very first crash reproduction scenario in Chicago [2])

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0bR_EQ47E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0bR_EQ47E) Tesla Model X with AP2.5, SW 2018.6.1

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2Om8Q0IA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2Om8Q0IA) MS 75, AP1, SW 2018.6.1

1\. [https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil...](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil..). "works for 6 months with zero issues. Then one Friday night you get an update. Everything works that weekend, and on your way to work on Monday. Then, 18 minutes into your commute home, it drives straight at a barrier at 60 MPH."

2\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCF8tVqM3I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCF8tVqM3I)

<comment><USER21> I get that the vision system might have been fooled by how the lane widens before the split.

What I don't get is why the radar doesn't pick up the barrier itself. It should have been getting a nice, healthy return signal from it, lots of metal at all kinds of angles. What I'm saying is, this is not a stealthy barrier.

<comment><USER22> Radar is not active if the speed is higher than a specific threshold; it seems it is written in the manual.

<comment><USER21> > _Radar is not active if the speed is higher than a specific threshold; it > looks like it is written on the manual._

I'm having trouble understanding why that would be the case. Why anyone wouldn't want the radar active when going down the highway.

It is not as if it doesn't work at highway speed...

<comment><USER23> That's because he is wrong. The radar is active at all speeds. In my experience, the radar basically only identifies cars and car shaped objects.

<comment><USER21> Radar on the Teslas, if it works like how I am familiar with, just detects "things". Things that have a decent radar return. This class of things does indeed include cars and other vehicles, but should also include walls and such.

It is likely that they're using at least 2-D radar, so the system should be able to discriminate between an object directly in the path of travel, and one that is off to the side.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have to wonder why Tesla keeps doubling down on victim-blaming. Is this a case of Elon Musk being insecure about criticism (since he's demonstrated a tendency in the past to react poorly to it)? Or is Tesla trying to actually lower their legal liability?

Edit: To clarify, in most of these crashes, it's usually a combination of Tesla's fault and the driver's fault. Which is to say, the driver could have avoided the crash, but Tesla could also have avoided it, and the driver's biggest fault lies in trusting the "autopilot" more than they should. In the case of this particular crash, I certainly agree that the driver should have been paying more attention to the road, especially because they already knew the autopilot had issues at that particular point, and if they were paying attention they could have avoided the crash. However, the fact that autopilot can't handle that barrier correctly is a problem especially because the driver reported that exact issue to Tesla multiple times in the past (heck, Tesla probably should have blacklisted that particular GPS location to force the user to take control when approaching that point, if they can't handle the barrier correctly in autopilot). Similarly, Tesla allows drivers the most freedom to ignore the road of any of the "autopilot"-like systems, and they continue to call their system "autopilot"¹, both of which only serves to make this sort of crash much more likely.

¹Yes I know it's technically correct, but it doesn't match what the general public thinks when they hear the term "autopilot". It gives the wrong impression that the system is smarter and more reliable than it actually is.

<comment><USER25> Tesla is exerting and reinforcing that it is not liable for poor driver decisions. If you use any vehicle safety aid while not paying attention, and you die or kill someone while in control of the vehicle, that is your liability.

Whether they call their system "Autopilot" is immaterial. _You_ are the responsibly party as the driver, and this is made clear both at purchase time and during vehicle use.

<comment><USER26> How they call the system drives user expectations and trust. They call it autopilot so that people buy it due to having these expectations. It is consequential and thus legitimate subject to critique.

<comment><USER27> Calling it autopilot implies you have to pay attention. It implies it's NOT self-driving or autonomous any more than airplanes (which virtually all have some sort of autopilot) are.

<comment><USER28> The name is irrelevant. What's relevant is that 56% of commercial pilots have admitted to falling asleep while flying[1].

People suck at remaining alert and attentive when doing boring shit. So when autopilot was all over the road and screwing up every 30 seconds, it wasn't much of a problem. Now that it can navigate highways for an hour or more without needing a safety critical intervention, we have a problem.

[1][http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24296544](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24296544)

<comment><USER27> What percent of commercial pilots also fly with a copilot?

Additionally, I'm not a professional driver, I don't have any autopilot on my car, but I've definitely briefly fell asleep while driving late at night. What do you think rumble strips are for?

Such an extremely low number of (but extremely highly publicized) fatality is not reason enough to say autopilot is a net negative. In fact, the extreme media focus that every fatality during autopilot causes should goad improvement of autopilot safety until it's far better than human drivers.

(And let's not pretend that this autopilot error doesn't also happen with human drivers... The only reason this failure was fatal is because less than two weeks earlier, a human driver crashed into the same barrier--likely due to the same confusion--and destroyed its effectiveness since the highway department was slow to reset it.)

<comment><USER28> In the article I posted it mentions that of the 56% of pilots who admitted falling asleep, 29% also admitted to having woken up to a sleeping copilot.

There is no path from Autopilot as it is to full autonomy without doing a major shift in strategy. Google figured out very early on that the incremental approach is unfeasible. Most of the other big car companies at the outset were intending to develop autonomy incrementally as well, but then they thought about it for a few minutes.

<comment><USER27> Why aren't major shifts in strategy possible? LIDAR may become very cheap (i.e. $1000, much less than drivers paid for the full self-driving package). Improvements in radar may also help. Requiring much lower speeds (driving like a Waymo grandma) and specific conditions (i.e. dry, well-lit, well-mapped) are also feasible.

As the technology improves, conditions can be relaxed for full self-driving.

The very fact that in this case, the driver had multiple problems with this same spot, and that other drivers also noticed problems in this area, points to an obvious mitigation strategy: flag problem areas geographically for autopilot, develop specific strategies that address the problem, and verify it has been fixed by examining how other Teslas on the road in "ghost" mode (i.e. with the human driving but the software pretending to self-drive) respond to the changes.

Tesla, due to its massive and well-connected fleet, has a lot of tools in the toolbox to address these problems, in some cases more than Google (although I agree Waymo's self-driving capability is currently more impressive).

<comment><USER29> > flag problem areas geographically for autopilot, develop specific strategies > that address the problem, and verify it has been fixed by examining how > other Teslas on the road in "ghost" mode

This is what I have been thinking as well, except it appears that Tesla doesn't currently have a way to handle such scenarios.

Ideally, they should be recording when a driver makes a sharp swerve to correct autopilot's naïve lane marker following algorithm, then use that information to inform future drives using autopilot on that stretch by disabling autopilot as that patch of road is approached, while they work on a reliable fix.

<comment><USER27> Tesla's new Waze-like real-time traffic system as part of its mapping software update could help handle this. If the autopilot system (engaged or in ghost mode) generates an error signal (either binary or some variable degree of error) that is pushed to the traffic system along with the traffic data, it could easily alert other drivers (and hopefully the autopilot system) of such problems.

Considering they have enough data to do realtime traffic analysis, they easily should have enough data to determine problem areas for the autopilot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is a very upsetting response. Yes, the driver could have paid more attention, and yes, he shouldn't have activated Autopilot in an area where he knew Tesla's autopilot was not working correctly.

However, Tesla calling it "Autopilot" should be no longer allowed. It's clear that it is most certainly not that, and customers are not treating this feature in a careful and cautious fashion, and I do believe that's due to Tesla overselling Autopilot's abilities. In addition, its warning systems are obviously not enough to get drivers to take corrective action and ensure their hands are on the wheel. (Why you can take your hands off the wheel at all when engaging autopilot is a mystery to me.)

<comment><USER31> I see your point on calling it "Autopilot", but if you think about the application of the term in terms of aviation, I think it makes more sense. Autopilot in planes won't land the plane for you. It basically will just keep you at a certain elevation and direction.

I think that Tesla's Autopilot function is comparable to planes. That's probably how they will justify it. However there might be a legitimate point in that people don't have that kind of understanding of what "Autopilot" means.

<comment><USER32> Aviation autopilots handle flying duties in a giant expanse of open sky. It's a way, way easier job to do than navigating a highway from behind a steering wheel.

So even if the "capabilities" may be comparable between the two systems, the amount of supervision they require is not, so I don't think they should use the term. It may be "lane-keeping cruise control" isn't nearly as sexy, but it doesn't establish unrealistic expectations which get people killed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Full statement:

"We are very sorry for the family's loss.

According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location, yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location. The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road, despite the car providing multiple warnings to do so.

The fundamental premise of both moral and legal liability is a broken promise, and there was none here. Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel. This reminder is made every single time Autopilot is engaged. If the system detects that hands are not on, it provides visual and auditory alerts. This happened several times on Mr. Huang's drive that day.

We empathize with Mr. Huang's family, who are understandably facing loss and grief, but the false impression that Autopilot is unsafe will cause harm to others on the road. NHTSA found that even the early version of Tesla Autopilot resulted in 40% fewer crashes and it has improved substantially since then. The reason that other families are not on TV is because their loved ones are still alive."

<comment><USER33> I'm normally an automation booster, but this is the wrong PR take for sure. I mean, to take this at face value it sounds like Tesla is saying its autopilot doesn't actually work and that if you don't continue to drive your car you're going to die. Maybe that will work in court, but it's not going to sell a lot of cars.

I mean... clearly (hopefully) this isn't the attitude being exhibited _inside_ the company. We all know there's a big strike team or whatnot that's been assembled to figure out exactly what happened, and how. We all know that it's probably a preventable failure. So that's what we need to see, Elon. Not this excuse making.

<comment><USER34> > it sounds like Tesla is saying its autopilot doesn't actually work and that > if you don't continue to drive your car you're going to die

No, it doesn't just "sound like", it's actually

> extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have > hands on the wheel. This reminder is made every single time Autopilot is > engaged. If the system detects that hands are not on, it provides visual and > auditory alerts.

<comment><USER35> > Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel

Clearly that's not the case, because if it "required" it the car would cease to function if you took your hands off the wheel. Instead, the Tesla continues to drive itself for some time and then after a few seconds warns you, but that's about it. If you want to see what a real requirement looks like, go explore any of the other car makers that have rolled out similar systems at this point. Those really, actually do _require_ "the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel."

Has everyone forgotten Tesla's marketing from when they first rolled this poorly implemented system out?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't get taking this position. Even if they don't want to engage on the autopilot issue, the hands on wheel vs crash avoidance issue is a lost cause already (IE in most states, they'd lose in any lawsuit on it).

If i take any 2018 model year car with front crash avoidance (outside of a tesla :P), and try to drive it into a barrier like this, depending on speed, most avoid the collision, all of them slowed down (AFAICT - i went through the summaries by category on iihs.org).

None of them require you have your hands on the wheel to do that.

In most jurisdictions, to show a defective design, it's enough to show the existence of an alternative design that would have worked (it doesn't usually even have to have been implemented) , and that it is feasible, economically feasible, and would still perform the original function. Almost all of these cases live and die by the cost of that design and whether it's "too much".

Unfortunately for Tesla, there are tons of them here, they all almost certainly cost _less_ than what Tesla is doing, and also all exist. So i'm positive any lawsuit will either settle, or they will show plenty of them would have worked, by driving cars into an identical setup barrier, and Tesla will lose.

(This assumes, of course, Tesla can't force them into a jurisdiction with weird defective design rules)

</comment><comment><USER37> Tesla is recklessly using its own customers to train their fleet for level 5. AT BEST their response is, drivers need to be 100% as attentive as they would without autopilot. _What then is the point of autopilot,_ except to train the fleet?

They are in complete denial that autosteering can seduce reasonable people into lowering their guard and mentally relaxing. Again, what other immediate user benefit would it provide? What would a reasonable person expect autopilot to do?

Isn't it contradictory to offer an automation feature while claiming that legally it does ZERO automation for you?

Note: collision avoidance and emergency braking are on by default even without autopilot. "Autopilot" here really means the autosteering feature.

<comment><USER38> I think the phrase 'Auto-pilot' is a misnomer. It's a lead-on phrase, confuses people to let their eyes off the road. They should have named it 'driver assist' or something mundane people shouldn't get confused by. Auto-pilot for any person means that the car will steer automatically, which it does, but also kills you. At least by now, it should be obvious that a half baked auto- steering or auto-pilot is a colossal mistake. Admit that you made a mistake and be done with it.

Tell people explicitly not to use auto pilot. Tesla can still use the onboard cameras and everything else for training the AI.

<comment><USER37> Yeah, Tesla's response to that is it's like a plane: autopilot means you still have be at the controls.

But it's nothing like a plane. Concrete walls don't suddenly appear in the sky. The required reaction time to avoid an autopilot collision in some of these videos is _seconds_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I own a Model X. I love the car in many ways. However, I also think the automation is stupider than a 2 year old. Would you trust a 2 year old to drive your car or to decide when to close your Garage door?

I use the Auto-Steer, only when road is empty, is in a reasonably straight line and I am in the middle lane of at least 3 lane road. Otherwise I don't use it. It might also be fine to use it in stop and go on a divided highway because there is on way you will die at those speeds even if you are in an accident.

But sadly, some people trust the car automation with much more than what it is capable of. This leads to accidents like these. And I would blame Tesla here. Tesla has clearly been misleading in marketing this feature. Not everyone is very savvy and they sometimes take what a company says at face value. I have really smart friends who have seen the AutoPilot link [[https://www.tesla.com/autopilot](https://www.tesla.com/autopilot)] and think that Tesla already have these advanced features.

In the end Tesla is just slightly more advanced than autonomous features of other manufacturers. However, Tesla claims to be much more advanced than others. Because it claims a lot more credit than it deserves, it's only fair that they also face criticism proportionately when the system fails.

Normally, I am against unnecessary regulation. However in this case, I think it is important to bring regulations around consistent messaging and 3rd party rating for autonomous features from all manufactures. We can't have "Move fast and break things" kill people. It's not the same thing as a social app losing a few posts.

Tesla should rename it's feature to "Drive Assist+" whatever, because that is all it is.

On an ending note - I feel sad that the deceased continued to use Autopilot at this spot, when it was known to them that is has failed at the same spot multiple times. If someone well educated, tech savvy and already aware of the problem can fall for this, I worry that a lot more people might do worse.

<comment><USER40> If the usage is so subjective, I can't even understand why its allowed. You seem to be saying its no better than a two year old driving. You create a situation in which its "ok" for a two year old to drive? We have laws that state no 2yo's are allowed to be behind the wheel. Why is this 2yo allowed at all?

<comment><USER41> The same reason cruise control is allowed.

<comment><USER42> I think the solution is to hold Elon Musk/Tesla liable for their misleading statements on FSD, Tesla Network, AP2 and their timelines about future capability.

Future promises if made should come with renaming the product to highlight its capabilities.

<comment><USER43> That's potentially very complicated. As long as drivers are required to purchase insurance and insurance is required to pay out fair sums for accidental death, the accountability should come automatically in the form of higher rates.

<comment><USER42> Do you also hold the same view regarding medicines? That the FDA shouldn't regulate medicines, and manufacturers can make insane promises? After all, we love free market over human lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The thing that sometimes gets lost in the debate around Tesla autopilot (IMO), is that it's possible for self driving cars to be theoretically better than human drivers, AND that Tesla's implementation of that concept to be overall worse.

From the recent accidents it seems clear that Tesla autopilot is just not that great in it's current form. Even if it's following a line that it mistakes for a lane marker, how is it ok that it can't stop for a large obstacle in front of the car when given plenty of distance before a crash? How is this not a totally unacceptable type of failure for a system like this?

<comment><USER23> Autopilot is not an implementation of self-driving cars... You have a completely wrong understanding of this system.

It's basically cruise control that has some lane keeping abilities. If you put your (non-TACC) car in cruise control on the freeway and then ignored everything around you, you will rear end someone, and it's not cruise controls fault. If you put a lane-keeping assist car (like Tesla or others) and completely ignored the road, it will crash eventually. AutoPilot is cruise control with some lane keeping abilities, it is not self-driving. You choose when to activate it (just like cruise control), and every single time you do it tells you to pay attention and keep your hands on the wheel.

<comment><USER45> > It's basically cruise control that has some lane keeping abilities.

And this is exactly why calling it Autopilot is immoral and dangerous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> _" The reason the other families aren't on TV are because their loved ones are still alive."_

Wow, this sounds like a horrible, tasteless burn to end the statement with. And I am a Tesla fan.

<comment><USER47> And where exactly does it say that?

<comment><USER48> The statement is here: [https://twitter.com/dannoyes/status/983899361779236864/photo...](https://twitter.com/dannoyes/status/983899361779236864/photo/1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/apples-steve-wozniak- doesnt-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/apples-steve-wozniak-doesnt- believe-anything-elon-musk-or-tesla-say.html) "Man you have got to be ready — it makes mistakes, it loses track of the lane lines. You have to be on your toes all the time," says Wozniak. "All Tesla did is say, 'It is beta so we are not responsible. It doesn't necessarily work, so you have to be in control.'

<comment><USER49> You don't beta test with human lives.

<comment><USER50> Or you don't use beta features where the ultimate mistake can cost you your life.

<comment><USER51> People don't get this when you call the feature "Autopilot".

<comment><USER52> It is comparable to an airplane autopilot, but not to the public misconception of an autopilot. An airplane autopilot is another complex control, not another pilot.

If I command my autopilot to fly me into terrain or into a thunderstorm, it will do so. If I command it to climb at a vertical speed that the engine power can't support, it will fly the plane into an aerodynamic stall. If I'm flying on autopilot, I still have to pay close attention and still log pilot time as "sole manipulator of the controls". If I crash on autopilot, it's still overwhelmingly [human] "pilot error", not "autopilot error".

People hear autopilot and incorrectly assume it's, "Hey George, fly me to LaGuardia and wake me upon landing."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> The issue with the statements from Tesla is that they seem to prioritize PR and obfuscation before actual relevant factual statements.

The fact that the driver received disengagement warnings prior in the drive is not very relevant to the accident per se. Might as well say the driver has received multiple disengagement warnings during his ownership of the Tesla. It is not relevant to the actual circumstances of the accident. Note that they do not say "he received disengagement warnings right before the accident and chose not to respond". Tesla instead says that his hands were not detected on the wheel 6 seconds prior to the accident. Okay, so thats the case, but obviously the Autopilot system allows that to happen, as disengagement warnings were not active at that time, therefore THE SYSTEM WAS OPERATING WITHIN ITS ESTABLISHED BOUNDS.

This leaves it down to, the autopilot system drove into the barrier while the driver wasn't paying attention, but was operating the vehicle within the defined bounds of the semi-autonomous system, but violated the parameter of "pay attention to the road and be ready to take control". He did not receive any system warning before the accident, he just simply chose not to correct the system behavior before the accident happened. Everything else is just trying to kick up dust and obfuscate the facts of the situation it seems.

The issue with Tesla's semi-autonomous system and to a certain extent, other systems, is that there is a poor boundary between system responsibilities and user responsibilities. This causes issues around the boundary where sometimes the autonomous system will accomplish something, but sometimes it can't and the user must. Because of this fuzzy boundary, I think its almost more important to invest into disengagement logic, equipment, and programming than pure self-driving technology. A good example of investment into this arena is actually GMs Super Cruise, which seems to have MUCH better user engagement detection and much sharper boundaries than systems like Tesla's

<comment><USER54> > The issue with the statements from Tesla is that they seem to prioritize PR > and obfuscation before actual relevant factual statements.

The issue with their statements is that they have no problem throwing their customers under the bus. The proper release is simply "We are investigating the circumstances of this tragic event in cooperation with the NTSB. something something nice words about the family"

If pushed, refuse to discuss the issue while it's under investigation. This is a perfectly justifiable position, lots of groups don't make statements while an issue is under investigation; and you let the NTSB report throw the customer under the bus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> It should be noted that the 40% crash reduction they keep quoting is done with an extremely simplistic analysis and is only a brief paragraph of the full report. [https://www.scribd.com/embeds/337007075/content?start_page=1...](https://www.scribd.com/embeds/337007075/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key- DgnugphNmXkiFVNAWAvV)

It's not nearly as definitive as people (and Tesla) seem to claim it as.

 _edit:_ The full analysis (from page 10 of the link):

>5.4 Crash rates. ODI analyzed mileage and airbag deployment data supplied by Tesla for all MY 2014 through 2016 Model S and 2016 Model X vehicles equipped with the Autopilot Technology Package, either installed in the vehicle when sold or through an OTA update, to calculate crash rates by miles travelled prior to^21 and after Autopilot installation.^22 Figure 11 shows the rates calculated by ODI for airbag deployment crashes in the subject Tesla vehicles before and after Autosteer installation. The data show that the Tesla vehicles crash rate dropped by almost 40 percent after Autosteer installation.

<comment><USER56> I would argue that the people who can afford a Tesla are rich people and thus likely well educated and are safer drivers.

Poor people with bad cars, no education and unsafe driving practices probably have more accidents.

I don't think these stats mean much.

<comment><USER57> I keep seeing statements to this effect, and they are incorrect. The comparison is between _Tesla_ cars with and without the AutoPilot feature installed.

The statistic has nothing to do with people not driving a Tesla.

"...airbag deployment crashes in the subject Tesla vehicles _before and after_ Autosteer installation. The data show that the Tesla vehicles crash rate dropped by almost 40 percent after Autosteer installation."

<comment><USER16> The bigger problem is that their study seems to have revealed that while crashes went down, the severity of the crashes went up. People weren't dying in their Teslas before Autosteer, but now we're looking at 4 deaths and counting in the space of 2 years, all directly attributable to the use of Autopilot.

<comment><USER57> Okay lets move the goalposts.

> People weren't dying in their Tesla's before Autosteer

This is false. Although Tesla fatalities tend to be a bit over the top like driving off cliffs, or stolen car escape gone wrong type of situations, there have certainly been non-Autopilot related fatalities in Teslas.

> but now we're looking at 4 deaths and counting in the space of 2 years

This is false. There have been 2 fatalities in Tesla's which are known to have been operating with Autopilot at the time. There was also one fatality in China where the family claims autopilot was on at the time but Wikipedia states this was not confirmed.

> all directly attributable to the use of Autopilot.

I take issue with "directly attributable" simply based on NTSB (a neutral 3rd party if ever there was one) disagreeing with that. They found Autopilot was _not_ at fault in the Florida crash. I think a neutral fact-finder would defer to the NTSB and rank your claim as false.

But finally, you disregard the obvious flaw in your logic, which is you can't possibly know how many potentially fatal crashes or maimings have been avoided due to AutoPilot, except the one thing we do know is that _airbags in Teslas are deploying 40% less with the feature than without_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I am a huge fan of Elon Musk and a small TSLA share holder, but there is something about Tesla and Musk's response to this that feels so wrong. It seems two faced. On the one hand, they shout about how great and safe their technology is, and on the other hand they blame someone for dying when they chose to rely on that technology. Is it safe or unsafe? I know it's not that simple, but this response still saddens me.

I know they must have people who want to bring them down through legal action. And I think they want to establish a precedent that they are not liable in any crashes out of a desire to protect the corporation. But still, this response seems so cold, and so uncaring, that I am reminded that Tesla is still a corporation that in the end must protect itself.

I want self driving cars, but not a world without compassion. Why is it that we seem forced to choose one versus the other?

EDIT: Immediately after hitting send, two Model 3's passed me one after the other, before any other vehicles passed. The universe is strange.

<comment><USER59> I hope you're not driving...or using autopilot.. while you wrote this (kidding)

<comment><USER58> Hah, nope just walking through a Mountain View parking lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I think a good litmus test in this situation is "will this end up in an engineering ethics textbook in 10 years?" Unfortunately, Tesla seems to be taking the Ford Pinto route here. "It's only dangerous if you aren't paying full attention 100% of the time" doesn't sound too far off from "it's only dangerous if you get in a rear-end collision."

Driving with autopilot sounds like being a driving instructor with your own set of controls: you have to be ready to react at less than a moment's notice, yet feel comfortable to hand off controls most of the time. Most people are not trained driving instructors, so I can't see how autopilot is not inherently unsafe.

</comment><comment><USER61> This is a disappointing response from Tesla. I understand why they are trying to limit liability but they fucked up. They need to take responsibility. The autopilot actively veered towards the barrier. That's very different from autopilot failing to avoid a danger.

</comment><comment><USER62> I had an early version of the Model S with the autopilot (P85D). Once it was made available I noticed a DECREASE in the reliability after every update. From day one it was great. It would be glued to the car in front of it and kept me safe. Over the three years I owed it, it only got worse. My theory was that they tried to make the car drive too much like a human. Rather than going safely down the middle of the lane when passing it would try to give a little more space and thus get closer to the median. It only got worse from there. I no longer have the Model S, but it was the best car I ever owned. That said, I won't get another until there are huge improvements to the autopilot.

</comment><comment><USER63> At first, I thought the news was click bait. I watched the video fully to understand if a company like Telsa would really say something to this extent.

        Tesla's auto-pilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel.

        The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead,
        which means the only way for this accident to have occured is
        if Mr.Huang was not paying attention to the road.

This is the official response. I'm completely baffled and at a loss of words. I feel very sorry for the family and I hope they sue the sh*t out of Tesla just for this arrogant statement.

And as for Tesla, you should fire the guy that wrote this. If this official response was something approved by Musk, I just lost all respect for him.

Personally, this is why I am a hardcore manual guy. I drive a stick/manual. I don't even trust automatics to do the job right, let alone some software. There's no way I'm trusting a self driving car. I personally opine that driving is actually very relevant to planning ahead. If you drove a stick, you would know you need to shift down before a steep curve to maintain traction and to reduce your inertia to turn around safely. Or, if you're planning to overtake someone, or you foresee a situation that requires braking, you downshift.

As much inefficient as gearboxes + clutches + ICEs are, the ability to plan ahead and downshift correctly is an exclusive human edge that I believe strongly that computers can't mimic. If they could, we wouldn't have automatics (in 2018) that can't even downshift even with all that data from its sensors. Even the most expensive automatics w/ some sort of software fail to downshift correctly.

Unfortunately, in the driving world, it's not enough if your car can drive 99% accurately as even one instance of wrong downshit/upshift can kill you easily.

I strongly believe driving is best left to humans and there are simply too many variables that could be reliably fixed with mathematical algorithms. Sometimes, it just doesn't "feel" right and maybe it's ok to just trust our instincts.

</comment><comment><USER64> "Well, too bad another of our customers made a mistake and killed himself because he didn't get what 'autopilot' means (for us). Deal with it. Yours, Tesla"

You all know the game Elon is playing here, what's the point of arguing? Either you're OK with that or you aren't. It's that simple.

Imagine Ford doing this everytime. Oh, the outrage...

</comment><comment><USER49> This is so frustrating to me. 50 years ago we had the ability to fly to the moon. A played out trope, sure. But today we can't even do a basic 'dont run into shit' on a perfectly clear day. Physics in this way is and has been a solved problem for decades. The fact that people are dying from hitting stationary objects should be criminal. At lightest, they should bar these companies from even participating.

<comment><USER65> >But today we can't even do a basic 'dont run into shit' on a perfectly clear day.

so,uh, the emergency braking systems on other cars...so called 'AEB' systems, or what Honda calls Collision Mitigation Braking System... would that have caught this?

I would expect this sort of thing "big object in road" to trigger the AEB system... even if it didn't stop me, I'd expect it to trigger before the collision and slow me down. Are my expectations off? or is it just that the tesla system, 'passive sensors only, with machine classification' isn't as good?

I guess people rely on the tesla system more than the honda system, due to advertising, so it could be that both systems make errors at similar rates, it's just that advertising means that the tesla system is triggered more often.

<comment><USER66> Honda's documentation for the Civic doesn't indicate it would stop in this case.

 _" Collision Mitigation Braking System™ (CMBS™) Can assist you when there is a possibility of your vehicle colliding with a vehicle or a pedestrian detected in front of yours."_

I think like Tesla, it would run right into it - the systems have been tuned to reduce false positives and so only detect and stop on objects matching vehicles or pedestrians, not arbitrary objects like a road barrier.

The difference being, the Civic system doesn't give people nearly the same sense of false assurance that the Tesla one does...

<comment><USER67> The way traditional automakers are doing it is the proper way to do it - cautiously and responsibly. Incrementally implementing driver assistive technology instead of shipping an _autopilot_ which doesn't deliver and crashes the car into obstacles. Traditional automakers are used to screw ups that lead to recalls and lawsuits so they're quite cautious.

The Hyundai Ionic assistive tech slows down the car to a stop if you take your hands off the wheel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> May I ask a very simple question here. I've never heard a cogent answer.

What exactly is the point of autopilot if you have to remain 100% attentive with your hands on the wheel? What is the benefit?

I get that cruise control lets you take your foot off the wheel, letting your foot physically rest. And it is my understanding that emergency braking and collision avoidance is active on Teslas at all times even without autopilot. So that basically leaves autosteering.

So, what is the benefit of autosteering when you have to have your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road with exactly the same attentiveness as you would without it? What is it doing for you, now, at level 2, apart from (a) "gee whiz look at what it can almost do" and (b) seducing you into trusting it so you can mentally relax?

<comment><USER68> Trains itself for levels 3,4,5

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> What is the point of Autopilot? It's not self-driving. You're not supposed to let go of the steering wheel and you have to be completely alert to take over if there are problems. Isn't it easier to just not use it in the first place?

</comment><comment><USER70> "NHTSA found that even the early version of Tesla Autopilot resulted in 40% fewer crashes ..."

True

"... and it has improved substantially since then."

Non-specific to the point of being subjective. Untrue according to many HW2 users.

Bad logic.

</comment><comment><USER71> > "Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel."

By that definition every car I've ever driven has been fully self-driving.

<comment><USER27> It's called autopilot, not self-driving.

<comment><USER72> Autopilot is a miss-leading product name. It implies automation of the process of driving.

It doesn't function like an autopilot and requires no co-pilot. Taking a technical term used in aviation is meaningless and dangerous.

<comment><USER27> It functions similar to an autopilot (ie follows terrain, but not perfect). Even general aviation aircraft have them and don't require copilots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> We need FAA style oversight on self driving cars.

<comment><USER27> This isn't self-driving, though. It isn't called self-driving.

<comment><USER45> How else would you describe an Automatically Piloted Vehicle then?

If it's not self-driving, don't call it Autopilot, and don't lull people into a false sense of security. Even with alarms to try and keep the driver engaged, people are inherently going to place more faith in 'Autopilot' than 'Enhanced Cruise Control' or something similarly named.

The marketing around this feature is reckless, and Tesla + Musk should be ashamed. To the point that I would consider working on that team to be immoral.

For what it's worth, this is coming from a big Musk fan.

<comment><USER27> It's called autopilot because "autopilot" already has a technical meaning which doesn't imply self-driving. Heck, some aircraft autopilots are so primitive they only keep the aircraft in level flight without terrain following (although some do that). No versions of autopilot mean the pilot doesn't have to pay attention. This is all _already established_ through broad use before Tesla introduced the term to cars.

The same linguistic games you're trying to play for "autopilot" apply just as well to "cruise control" or worse, since that term didn't have an already- understood technical definition when introduced to cars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> First off, Tesla has no business calling it auto-pilot; it's over promising. Call it driver assist to be more clear because if you have to keep your hands on the steering wheel and your eyes on the road, that is not auto pilot:

"... Automatic Pilot: noun: a device for keeping an aircraft on a set course without the intervention of the pilot. ..."

</comment><comment><USER75> It sounds like you need life insurance, as we enter into the age of alpha- tested autonomous cars.

You need it to be a driver or passenger when inside a robotic car.

And you also need it when you are just a pedestrian, while walking your bike on the road. Because you never know when a robotic car is going to run you over.

</comment><comment><USER76> Most surprising part of the crash to me was not that the car followed the wrong lane markers but that it had no concept of a completely static barrier in its path.

This should have resolved with the driver calling Tesla to complain about whiplash from last minute breaking.. not plowing full speed into a concrete barrier tearing the front of the car off.

Tesla will definitely now make a point to update their tests for this case and similar deaths will definitely be avoided in the future. That is value that has been added to Tesla's system at the cost of Mr. Huang's life. If I was a lawyer on this case I'd probably take that position.

"What does Tesla feel Mr. Huang's life is worth for this improvement to their system?"

</comment><comment><USER77> Unless they have other data to back up their claim of the hands not being on the wheel, such as camera images, Tesla isn't making a statement of fact. Rather they are recounting what imperfect sensors might be telling them (that's convenient in the upcoming lawsuit).

To give perspective: I have a car (BMW) with lane-keeping "autopilot", which often gets wrong whether I have my hands on the wheel.

It seems to me that it senses resistance to rotation to determine hands- onness. If my hands are very relaxed, just letting the steering wheel do its thing, apparently the sensor can't pick it up anymore.

I had my hands on the wheel, dammit car! Stop beeping and flashing at me all accusatory.

</comment><comment><USER78> Wow, Tesla instantly went from my dream car (having replaced Bentley) to Do Not Buy. I simply will not buy a car or other dangerous equipment from a company that doesn't care if I die and only cares about their brand.

</comment><comment><USER79> Tesla's marketing around this feature is completely at odds with what they say when a problem happens. If you are required to be paying attention with hands on the wheel at all times, then the "Autopilot" name itself is fraudulent, not to mention all the blather about how it's safer than a human driver. Even if self-driving cars were imminent (they aren't), this sort of blatant misrepresentation by the likes of Tesla (a company who surely doesn't need the lure of self-driving to sell its cars) would set back consumer interest and adoption by years.

</comment><comment><USER80> > "Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and > have hands on the wheel."

I am a Tesla fan, and although I previously didn't understand the criticism for the name, I now see some negatives of a name like "autopilot". IMO it implies non-intervention (and yes I know Tesla warns about this etc), but at the current stage of technology and regulation, maybe "autopilot" wasn't the _best_ naming choice?

</comment><comment><USER81> >Tesla sent Dan Noyes a statement Tuesday night that reads in part, "Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel...

No it doesn't. Maybe the agreement when you use that feature does but if they really wanted to/cared enough they would make it so it only works while your hands are on the wheel.

I'm still on the fence and think commercially releasing this very experimental technology as a product to the public is incredibly irresponsible.

<comment><USER82> It is absolutely irresponsible. While facebook is in the news as a reminder that companies that unethically exploit the lack of regulations in emerging technologies for the competitive purpose of getting higher customer adoption will, at one point, have to report to congress and become responsible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> The line about fundamental legal/moral principle being a broken promise is dead wrong. Who wrote this? Tesla has a horrible pr firm appareantly.

The fundamental principle is standard of care. One could say it was reasonably foreseeable this would happen since the driver reported it! Tesla was negligent and their best hope would be to show comparative fault by the driver. But forget negligence.

Products liability is strict liability. Someone died here. Causation is the only issue and imo it looks bad for Tesla.The fundamental premise of both moral and legal liability is a broken promise, and there was none here Very very stupid statement on their part. They should have quietly settled this. Bad pr and legally peroulous. As a shareholder this makes me question their competence to deal with these matters. They should fix the issue and settle. All the discovery and everything about mobile eye and radar. Horrible strategy by Tesla. It's like they take it personal since auto pilot failed. People are dumb. It doesn't matter if they warned him to keep his hands on the wheel. Someone died. There was an alternative design that was safer. Whoever wrote that statement should be fired

</comment><comment><USER84> Insurance rates will probably go up on "self-crashing cars" if this trend continues.

For some reason, people aren't dying so dramatically due to cruise control. I love cruise control, because it helps me focus on "driving" (which I consider steering + observing). The Tesla autopilot feature seems to do the opposite: it helps you focus on _not driving_. This ain't Volvo, folks.

<comment><USER27> Cruise control DOES cause deaths: [http://www.indianainjury.com/trucking- accident-verdict-leads...](http://www.indianainjury.com/trucking-accident- verdict-leads-change-cruise-control-policy/)

...but it's not Tesla, so a single death isn't plastered over every news site and discussed ad nauseum by tech sites.

EDIT: More cruise control deaths: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/24/skoda- drive...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/24/skoda-driver- decapitated-in-stuck-cruise-control-mystery) [https://www.levylaw.com/cruise- control-accidents-defective-p...](https://www.levylaw.com/cruise-control- accidents-defective-product-liability-lawsuits-levy-phillips-a-konigsberg/) [https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5645195/m1-motorway-crash- lorr...](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5645195/m1-motorway-crash-lorry-driver- cruise-control-hands-free-call-eight-dead/)

<comment><USER84> The last one with the truck does count, I agree. If it enables inattentiveness, it's likely to cause harm.

The Skoda driver makes less sense: if you are trying (like he was) to stop, brakes should always outpower the engine. Unless the brakes failed. Toyota went through a huge ordeal just like that (possibly floormats, possibly ECU stack overflow, who knows). An attentive & trained driver should be able to handle it. The truckers were willfully ignoring what pretty much every driving manual tells you. If you drive at night without lights, in a blizzard, with summer tires, I don't see how you can blame the car manufacturer if you hit something. But if all you do is consistently go over potholes, and consistently lose power steering & lights when the serpentine belt comes loose, I think you can blame the manufacturer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> I don't get it. Doesn't autopilot mean that the car is steering itself? "Perfect" or not, if the car is steering itself, what is the point of having your hands on the wheel? I get the point about being alert, and needing to take over if you see an issue, but I would fear that I'd be overcompensating autopilot by having my hands on the wheel while cruising along.

Can somebody explain?

</comment><comment><USER86> The Tesla warns you, what, 6 times before disabling autopilot. Why not have the car engage the emergency lights and gradually slow down for each warning - eventually coming to a full stop. This plays directly into human impatience, likely resulting in hands on the steering wheel after the first warning. In the event that the driver does not react there is probably something wrong (e.g. seizure) and the car should come to a complete stop for safety. This is a very real trolley scenario because a stopped car on the highway is asking to be rear-ended, but it's still far better than a car traveling at 60mph with an incapacitated driver.

My last idea on how to eliminate these types of casualties was met with fair criticism (TL;DR - battery ejection)[1]. Am I missing anything with this idea?

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16720680](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16720680)

</comment><comment><USER87> I think the name "Autopilot" matters less than how it works. Do the raw (whatever Tesla and NTSB have access to in a lab) recordings include hand position, temperature and pressure? Or is the raw data a binary state true/false similar to the in-car UI experience?

Back to autopilot: there's a wide range of autopilots in airplanes. Single engine planes might not have them unless they're IFR equipped. There's no requirement to have one, but they are useful for reducing cockpit workload. Perhaps the most common, is just a simple hold heading autopilot where you use a knob to set a bug on the direction gyro and the autopilot holds that heading. Literally all it does is hold a heading. Not altitude, not speed, not power. And then way on the opposite end of the spectrum are autopilots certified for ILS CAT IIIc landings, and include autoland.

</comment><comment><USER88> I have to say I was a firm supporter of tesla's autopilot, but you know, this is rediculous, Tesla should be ashamed say sorry, say oour system is crap , is a demo version and it doesn't work, and thats it. The rest is history, I was about to get a new tesla, not anymore.

</comment><comment><USER75> If the guy didn't use the Tesla Autopilot, then he would still be alive today.

I don't know how else to clearly say this.

When you are travelling at 65 MPH, then there is no ability to safely react, should the car decide to go berserk.

You probably have less than 0.25 seconds to react. And even if you had your hands on the wheel, there is just no way for you to safely process the situation, and react to safely take control of the vehicle.

And if you do react, then you might end up over-reacting, which would cause a different kind of accident. And which, Tesla would blame on you, for human error for over-reacting.

This is not a good situation. The only way to survive, is to not play.

I have over hundreds of thousands of miles of driving experience, and I as a human, would have never gotten into this situation.

</comment><comment><USER89> Given the nature of the product, the strategy for handling this must have been ironed out a while ago.

This is it.

</comment><comment><USER90> Maybe the cost of improvement is failure in this case. For Tesla to fix the issue of a crossing tractor trailer not being positively detected there had to be an instance of a Tesla hitting a crossing tractor trailer. Maybe for road work barriers that change position as the road work progresses to be avoided there needs to be an impetus for Tesla engineers to build in detection of these cases.

This is all a way of saying that I reject the notion that autonomous vehicles are more unsafe as compared to manually driven vehicles. This isn't an impulsive reaction either; data compiled by the NHTSA has proven this out.

<comment><USER54> The choice isn't really autonomous vehicles vs manually driven vehicles. The choice is autonomous vehicles vs manually driven vehicles vs manually driven vehicles with computer assistance.

It turns out that humans are really bad at paying attention to be able to take over for an autonomous system; but computers are pretty good at paying attention in order to take over for a human driven system.

I do believe that eventually autonomous vehicles could be safer than a manually driven vehicle with computer assistance, but Telsa's are not currently autonomous vehicles, despite the perception that many of their drivers apparently have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> As far as I know Tesla has never endorsed letting their cars drive themselves for more than a short time and only when traffic and road conditions are optimal. I'd be fine with anyone showing me otherwise but I'm pretty sure I seen statements specifically saying do not use the autopilot in city highway traffic conditions.

The driver is the only one to blame in this case. That's not a cold or heartless thing to do, it's just a fact.

Tesla cannot remain silent about this. They have to tell people to not do what this driver was doing. It could have been worse. He could have killed others driving nearby.

<comment><USER92> > As far as I know Tesla has never endorsed letting their cars drive > themselves for more than a short time

They used to only require you to put your hands on the wheel every 15 minutes, before being "encouraged" to reduce that to 1 minute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> "We know that he's not the type who would not have his hands on the steering wheel, he's always been (a) really careful driver," said Will.

Isn't it obvious he didn't have his hands on the wheel?!? If he did he would have corrected the car.

I'm not saying Tesla or the driver are to blame. I know very little about this incident cos I haven't followed it. But can't say he always has his hands on the wheel when they'd clearly not the case.

Likewise everyone says he apparently reported it to Tesla 7-10 times? But he still felt the need to not pay attention on this particular stretch of road he was worried about?

</comment><comment><USER94> This reads like they're making a legal argument but in the court of public opinion. Maybe it will be effective, but as a PR move I am not at all impressed. Best to leave the legal wrangling for the real courtroom and stick to "We feel terrible about this tragedy, and have no further comment." when speaking to the public. Blaming the victim, especially when he is dead, is bad form. I have to think a reputable PR firm would understand this, which makes me think Musk is forcing his team to make these kinds of statements.

</comment><comment><USER68> >"We know that he's not the type who would not have his hands on the steering wheel, he's always been (a) really careful driver," said Will.

I don't understand. The victims family is trying to make the case that the driver had his hands on the steering wheel but blame Tesla's AP at the same time? So are they saying AP drove off road against his will while he was trying to steer the car? Because that would be ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER95> They should probably take a page from Waze and allow drivers to report areas where autopilot doesn't function properly. Fleet learning but not crowd sourcing?

<comment><USER47> They technically do, in a Tesla you can report a bug using your voice while you are driving. Now, I don't know if/how they act on the bug reports.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> Tesla gambled with their lane assist by calling it autopilot in the hopes that it would give them good PR as the first car manufacturer with a self driving car. It failed spectacularly with multiple deaths. Most (all?) of the crashes are the result of the impossible nature of the task for the human driver. You cannot react fast enough when autopilot brain-farts in a seemingly trivial length of road.

They fucked up big.

</comment><comment><USER97> Given the facts, who/what else would be to blame?

This IMO has more to do with PR than anything else.

Well... marketing too. I've never felt comfortable with the term "auto pilot" as it is used in the context of Tesla's vehicles. This is potentially a finnicky topic, but I think there should be better standards and legislation around what can be reasonably marketed as "auto pilot".

</comment><comment><USER59> GM's recent TV advertisement shows the driver engaging their version of autopilot and crossing his hands...I was like woah! That would never make it through legal if they weren't very very confident about their tech. Contrast that image with Tesla's demand that drivers keep their hands on the wheel and it seems that GM is miles ahead of everyone on autopilot.

<comment><USER98> From what I've read, GM is less confident about their system's ability to operate under as wide a variety of situations as Tesla's does. Yes, it operates in a hands-free manner, but does so only on well mapped uninterrupted divided highways, and even then it requires the driver pay attention. It does this by way of the IR lights and camera mounted in the steering wheel, which only allow the driver to look away from the road for a few seconds at a time.

Given the bad press that Tesla gets after any Autopilot driven accident, GM seems to have made a safe choice here.

<comment><USER16> GM's AV systems are leap-years ahead of Tesla's. Pretty much everyone in the AV world is, including Uber (the recent accident notwithstanding). However, GM is taking the safe and conservative approach: restrict the usage of a feature that could potentially kill its users to a specific set of situations in which extraordinary testing has demonstrated that it won't. And that's exactly the right way to do it until they get to true self-driving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> As most routes in a normal journey are a repetition, maybe the car could learn from an human first. The owner drive a few times in their normal route and the car uses this info to train the autopilot in the same route and paying attention to the differences between what the car would have done and the human really did.

</comment><comment><USER100> They need to change the name of the feature from autopilot to lane assist. That might keep people paying attention to the road.

</comment><comment><USER99> As most routes in a normal journey are a repetition, maybe the car could learn from an human first. The owner drive a few times in their normal route and the car uses this info to train the autopilot paying attention to the differences between what the car would have done and what the human really did.

</comment><comment><USER101> The self driving tech is trying to do everything 'by itself' in that it's trying to drive perfectly without help but in the ends roads will probably have to meet the tech part way. That is, the roads will need some (hopefully not to expensive) adjustments or additions to make the self driving tech more reliable.

</comment><comment><USER82> Driving a Tesla in the "auto-pilot" is like taking my 16yo kid for a teaching lesson while I am in the passenger seat, sweating and sometimes hoping for the best when she makes a mistake that could be fatal. And as a software engineer, I have more faith in my daughter than Tesla's software.

</comment><comment><USER102> The good news is that Tesla does not manufacture toys for children. Otherwise, for them label "not suitable for children under 3 years, must be used carefully etc" would make every deadly mistake just another user's fault.

</comment><comment><USER103> We heavily regulate factors/distractions that may reduce a drivers attention from the road (alcohol, drugs, mobile phones etc).

If Autopilot still requires a user to monitor the road, but results in a reduction in driver attention to the road, then why is it not regulated like mobile phone usage?

</comment><comment><USER104> The Apple Watch is fully submersible and in reality waterproof but Apple is smart enough not to call it waterproof for the purpose of liability. Tesla has chosen to market their product as "autopilot" and will have to face the consequences of that marketing decision.

</comment><comment><USER105> "She told the ABC7 News I-Team that Walter complained that his Tesla's Autopilot had steered toward that same barrier on several occasions, she recognized the location and the blue Model X."

</comment><comment><USER106> I think autopilot is worth it if it cuts down the drunk driving rate.

I can't imagine the edge cases that result in fatality for Autopilot would be greater than the damage done by drunk driving.

</comment><comment><USER107> Blaming the autopilot for the death of Walter Huang is like blaming the bullet for a firearm-related death. The man at the wheel or the man at the trigger is ultimately responsible.

<comment><USER42> What if Smith and Wesson announced that their guns will update over the air and suddenly the bullets will become non-lethal and infact save lives as they'll include water from the fountain of youth?

Because I don't see much difference from how Elon Musk makes misleading and clearly false statements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> I agree that this statement seems cold, and blames the driver, but from a legal perspective, can it be anything else?

They can't admit anything or publically take any responsibility, because it could be used against them in the court case right?

Even in their statement they don't say "Autopilot is not perfect" they say "According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect".

The only thing the actually admit in the statement is that "Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel".

It's cold and heartless, but anything else opens them up to liability right?

<comment><USER109> > I agree that this statement seems cold, and blames the driver, but from a > legal perspective, can it be anything else?

Yes.

The law doesn't require, or even create an incentive, for them to make a statement at all.

The law doesn't require, or create an incentive, for them include any attribution of blame or responsibility in any statement they do make.

This is a hamfisted attempt at PR management by directing the _public_ blame for the incident to the driver, not soemthing made necessary by legal requirements or incentives related to legal liability.

<comment><USER108> Thanks, my comment was a genuine question. If that is the case, then their PR statement is indeed very cold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> This is why we need government investigators to look at crash/accident data (after the fact) and we need to ensure that the data hasn't been tampered with by anyone, including the car makers.

We can't just rely on the company's words in a crash. _Of course_ the company has all the incentive to lie or at least be as misleading as possible or try to minimize its blame as much as possible, to avoid liability or bad press. That should surprise absolutely no one. That's why we need to make sure that the company's bias is taken out of the equation altogether.

<comment><USER111> This is Silicon Valley. "move fast and break things"

<comment><USER112> Common in early car and aircraft cultures as well. Always a tension between innovation and safety.

I don't mean that as a cop-out. Rather that there's no single "right answer". We are choosing something on a spectrum of risk vs reward.

Personally, although I have no direct experience, it's starting to look like Tesla is being too risky. Yes, they're safer than human-only drivers, but the mistakes they're making are too algorithmic. They're not _enough_ safer to call Autopilot a success.

Contrast that with Waymo, who are paranoid-ly safe. They seem to be taking the long view that building trust (and not taking any chances to lose that trust) is as important as technical achievements.

Edit: Or, at some other extreme of poor citizenship, Uber, who seem to have gone off the deep end of "Keep up appearances of having a self-driving research program even though it's a disaster internally."

<comment><USER111> I firmly believe that a technology deployed in a potentially life-threatening context like a car or plane or pacemaker deserves a much more conservative development approach. "Move fast and break things" isn't appropriate when human lives are at stake. Waymo is applying the appropriate conservatism; Tesla and Uber are playing fast and loose by comparison.

<comment><USER113> The dilemma is that slow development costs lives as well :-/

<comment><USER114> Unfortunately, that sentiment, wielded as a shield by the ambitious, papers a veneer of virtue over the callous disregard of cutting corners with other people's lives.

The reality is that careful development is _expensive_. If Uber and Tesla were racing to save lives, they'd open up their work to the public. They're racing to make the most money possible in the end. Part of that equation is cost. Another is maximizing the utility of available resources.

They only need to be safe enough to not get shut down or lose substantial market share (ongoing capital).

<comment><USER115> I think the exact logical flaw is that saying "slowing down development for testing costs lives" _assumes the solution will be validated as correct_. Waiting a year to deploy the correct solution for want of testing costs the lives that solution could have saved in that year, yes, but pushing one correct and four incorrect solutions immediately into production - when the incorrect solutions each cost twice as many lives as could have otherwise been saved - and re-evaluating after a year kills far more people than are saved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER116> I suspect many of the same arguments being made in this thread would have been made about cruise control when it was first introduced.

</comment><comment><USER117> Does HN have a policy against posting things that autoplay video/sound? If not, I believe it should (or at least require a tag).

</comment><comment><USER118> The naming of their self driving features "autopilot" will go down in history as Tesla's biggest mistake.

</comment><comment><USER119> Tesla should just change Autopilot to Copilot and reserve the Autopilot name for when they achieve full self driving.

</comment><comment><USER120> Things like this have me fully convinced that we're never going to see ubiquitous driverless cars in my lifetime.

</comment><comment><USER121> Missing good old cars already oś still excited about meeting Tesla lawyers every time something happens to you?

</comment><comment><USER122> What exactly is Tesla intending the Autopilot to be used if the driver has to keep hands on the wheel?

</comment><comment><USER123> The solution is to require ALL vehicles to have self driving features like collision avoidance.

</comment><comment><USER124> Waiting for Ilon to be questioned in the Congress too.

</comment><comment><USER125> Wow this is a terrible article

</comment><comment><USER126> Not a good look for Tesla.

</comment><comment><USER127> you would think that a self driving car would be aware of any obstacle anywhere around the car (360 degrees) and aware of them far enough to have time to react... where are their sensors looking if they can't even see fixed obstacles in front of the car...

</comment><comment><USER128> he complains about the autopilot being unreliable yet he still chooses to use it again and again. i think the negligence was on his part then.

</comment><comment><USER129> I vote that ABC News has it's journalism license revoked! All in favor?

</comment><comment><USER130> Autopilot means it will pilot itself.. automatically.

Tesla is using "guidance assistant". Huge difference.

Their terminology is either very confusing at the best, or bluntly deceiving at the worst.

<comment><USER131> Twice now people using absolutely stupid arguments to defend the driver here. He _knew_ what Autopilot was and STILL took his hands off the wheel.

Autopilot is a name in the same way Amazon.com isn't a damn rain forest. It's a term taken from aviation, but "autopilot" in a plane and "Autopilot" in a Tesla aren't even remotely the same thing. And literally everyone understands that, yet any time this occurs we start blaming semantics.

This guy wasn't confused. He explicitly stated his car was having trouble with this section of the road and he trusted his car to handle it. It got him killed. The word "autopilot" did not get him killed.

<comment><USER132> > STILL took his hands off the wheel

That's not clear. The car didn't detect his hands on the wheel, but that doesn't mean his hands weren't on it. Tesla's implementation of hand detection (like many of their other systems) is rather unreliable.

<comment><USER133> So he had his hands on the wheel and took no action for 6 seconds while driving straight to the barrier. Doesn't make it look any better for the driver TBH.

<comment><USER134> Well, the Tesla had the same amount of visibility and drove straight into the barrier. Victim blaming doesn't get Tesla off the hook.

<comment><USER131> Tesla is a fucking computer. The dude that took his hands off is a human. One of those has actual intelligence. You don't get to blame user error on the computer because someone died.

He. Took. His. Hands. Off. The. Wheel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER135> The reason tesla needs to make this kind of statements is very simple: Guy in a renault has this accident and it is just routine, renault won't see their shares fall and there will be next to no coverage of the incident. In the case of tesla any accident gets to the front page of reddit, trends in twitter, is shared in facebook, let alone printed on newspapers, these statements are needed to fight that amount of bad PR.

<comment><USER114> Well, to be fair, if someone in the US is able to find a running Renault that can go faster than 30mph under its own power, it's pretty exceptional.

I think that Tesla's response is tone-deaf and ill-advised. I'm not presently a Tesla shareholder, but I do have a Model 3 reservation coming up soon.

Guess which one of those this public statement makes me want to change...

<comment> semi-extrinsic I think this classic Renault will do a little over 30mph.

[https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for- sale/renault/r...](https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for- sale/renault/r5-turbo-2/2082048.html)

<comment><USER114> There was one of these tooling around the campsites at Le Mans a few years ago (probably there every year). Lamborghinis, Ferraris, TVRs. No. The R5 Turbo got all of the crowds. It was awesome.

Nonetheless, I haven't seen a Renault in the US, in person, in a few years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER136> I am not sure why there is so much anti Tesla sentiment here in HackerNews. I am a new model 3 owner and very well informed so many times that "Enhanced Autopilot" is nothing other than advanced cruise control and my attention is always on the road. This is a great technology but someone cannot be more obvious than this on how to use it responsibly.

<comment><USER137> >I am not sure why there is so much anti Tesla sentiment here in HackerNews.

I just hope it is not limited to HN, and there is more anti Tesla sentiment out there as well.

They deserve every bit of it.

<comment><USER136> Please provide more info on why "They deserve every bit of it". I respect HN that is why i am surprised a lot, and regarding other places on Internet there is so much going on to manipulate the stock price.

<comment><USER137> Can you list all unwarranted ones among all the Tesla hate you see?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


This Game Teaches You How to Build a Quantum Computer - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3jkya/quantum-game-physics-computer-puzzle <comment><USER2> Looks interesting! Too bad it doesn't seem to be responsive on mobile...or did I miss something?</comment>