Death by Tesla

Exactly what I've been saying. Now you accept it?: argumentum ad verecundiam.

Quote :

But the truck driver in the wreck, Frank Baressi, 62, of Palm Harbor, Florida, recalled Brown driving quickly when the accident occurred: “He went so fast through my trailer I didn’t see him.”

Baressi also told the AP that Brown was “playing Harry Potter on the TV screen” at the time of the crash. Baressi acknowledged he couldn’t see the movie, only heard it.

The Florida Highway Patrol confirmed Friday that it found a portable DVD player in Brown’s car after the accident, but agency spokeswoman Sgt. Kim Montes said investigators could not confirm whether it was playing when the vehicles made contact.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Exactly what I've been saying.  Now you accept it?: argumentum ad verecundiam.

That's exactly the opposite of what you've been saying. You continue to assert that the auto pilot system worked as designed. If Musk's statement is true, then the system is obviously untrustworthy.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Quote :

But the truck driver in the wreck, Frank Baressi, 62, of Palm Harbor, Florida, recalled Brown driving quickly when the accident occurred: “He went so fast through my trailer I didn’t see him.”

Quote :

Baressi, an independent owner-operator, said he saw the Tesla approaching in the left, eastbound lane. Then it crossed to the right lane and struck his trailer. "I don’t know why he went over to the slow lane when he had to have seen me,” he said.

So he either saw him or he didn't. Take your pick.

Baressi has been cited for violations six times in two years. Of course he's going to blame the accident on the only witness who can't defend himself. Other witnesses said he took a left turn in front of the Tesla.

Musk said if the radar looks up it stops the car at every overhead sign.

[Heavy sigh.]

By the way, your thread title is wrong/misleading.  If should be "Death by Tractor-Trailer."  Tesla had nothing to do with it -- any car driving under a trailer would have beheaded the driver.

I don't see anything new in that article. Is there some specific point I should be taking from it?

Just more confirmation that the accident wasn't the fault of the Tesla autodrive function. You seem to have resisted this conclusion before. Perhaps as the NHTSA findings come in you will reconsider.

I never said that the accident was the fault of the Tesla system.

Let me expand on that last post.

What I have said is that the Tesla collision-avoidance system failed. I did not ever infer that the system caused the collision. It is reported that the truck make a left turn in front of the Tesla in violation of right-of-way laws. While the proximate cause of the collision was the failure of the Tesla to stop, the ultimate cause was the truck's action. The truck's actions do in no way fall in the category of “Extremely rare circumstances.”

You can find numerous post in forums and on youTube in which the Tesla collision-avoidance system is credited with stopping a car and avoiding a collision.

Read here on forums.teslamotors.com.
In this article, Consumer Reports credits the system with preventing collisions.
Look around and I'm sure you can find more.

From these, I assume that there actually is something called a collision-avoidance system on the Tesla (not AutoPilot). But it apparently does not always work. That's all I was ever attempting to say.

The failure of the system to avoid the collision cannot be excused because of the driver's actions. And his actions can only be speculative. In any case, his actions could not have affected the actions, or lack thereof, of the Tesla's system.

I feel like we're beating a dead horse here but one more time, just to keep our muscles toned.

Quote :

What I have said is that the Tesla collision-avoidance system failed. I did not ever infer that the system caused the collision. It is reported that the truck make a left turn in front of the Tesla in violation of right-of-way laws. While the proximate cause of the collision was the failure of the Tesla to stop, the ultimate cause was the truck's action. The truck's actions do in no way fall in the category of “Extremely rare circumstances.”

It would be "extremely rare circumstances" -- to the point of impossibility -- for a tractor trailer rig to take a sharp left turn in front of a car on the freeway, sharp enough that the car drives under the trailer.

"On the freeway" is the key phrase here. The Tesla autopilot is supposed to be used only on the freeway, or in slow-moving stop-and-go traffic, where cars and trucks are not turning rapidly in front of you. Any other use is outside the design parameters, outside the capabilities of the very limited system. It'll maintain distance to a car in front of you, it'll keep your car within the white lines on the road. That's all it was ever designed to do.

It is not "plug in your destination and the car will drive itself."

NoCoPilot wrote:

It is not "plug in your destination and the car will drive itself."

Yet.

Exactly. And this accident illustrates why "driverless cars" are still a fantasy. The Tesla, and many other high-end vehicles, have built-in navigation systems which will plot your route on a map, even taking into consideration traffic conditions, road closures, and reported accidents.

But the next step -- actually taking the wheel to get you there -- requires negotiating roads full of human drivers, and human drivers are notoriously unpredictable and sometimes illogical (20 mph under the limit with the left blinker on). Side radar and forward- and rear-facing cameras can only do so much.

If every car was driverless the roads would be a lot safer.

_Howard wrote:

I never said that the accident was the fault of the Tesla system.

Here's what you said.

Quote :

- a system that was so poorly engineered as to allow such a collision is completely worthless. We're not talking about scraping the paint at night; we're talking about a sunny day and great big god damned truck. If that was outside the system's design parameters (and I only have your word on that), then the entire system is one-hundred percent shit and should be scrapped immediately

You say you didn't mean the CAS caused the accident -- but it certainly sounds like you expected the CAS to *avoid* the accident.

NoCoPilot wrote:

You say you didn't mean the CAS caused the accident -- but it certainly sounds like you expected the CAS to *avoid* the accident.

Did I think the CAS - Collision Avoidance System - should have Avoided the Collision? Silly me.

Tesla wrote:

Digital control of motors, brakes, and steering helps avoid collisions from the front and sides.

richard09 wrote:

Yet.

"Yet" is getting closer.

Tesla wrote:

And our new Summon feature lets you "call" your car from your phone so it can come greet you at the front door in the morning.

I had the Summon feature demonstrated for me on my test drive. The car rolls at about 2 ft per minute.

Probably not a fatal speed.

Tesla has bigger plans for the summon feature, which is pretty much worthless in its current incarnation (see what I did there: incarnation?).

Tesla wrote:

In two years, Musk says, Summon will let you call up your self-driving Tesla from just about anywhere—even across the country. “Ultimately, you’ll be able to summon your car from anywhere,” as long as it can physically get to you, he said in January.

The future Summon feature will probably be disabled if sensors detect anyone inside the car.

If their sensors can't find a truck, I am suspect of their ability to find a person.

_Howard wrote:

Did I think the CAS - Collision Avoidance System - should have Avoided the Collision? Silly me.

Ya know, in a way, the CAS almost did avoid a collision.

It determined that essentially the entire car -- less the roof -- could fit under the trailer and keep going.

Quote :

A report by the Florida Highway Patrol reviewed by Reuters states that the Model S operated by Brown went underneath the trailer of a truck that had turned left in front of the car. The Tesla's windshield hit the bottom of the trailer as it passed underneath, and the car kept going, leaving the road, striking a fence, crossing a field, passing through another fence and finally hitting a utility pole about 100 feet south of the road, according to the report.

Apparently the CAS is not good with math.

Oh shit, now you want it to be able to pass a GED?

That may be asking too much. But it should be able to pass a driving test.

I scrounged through what remains of my memory and have determined that I have been in eight automobile accidents since 1961. In four of these, the car I was in was considered a total loss by the insurance companies.

If the other drivers cars had been equipped with a properly-operating collision avoidance system, seven of the accidents would not have happened. I am very much in favor of CAS.

I've been in one accident.  It was my fault (legally).  A CAS would've prevented it.

I was waiting at a red light.  The light turned green, the car in front of me took off, and I did the same.  At that moment I reached down to eject the cassette tape that was playing.  I plowed into the rear of the car, who had stopped for no reason in the middle of the block, without any taillights.

This was about 1990.  I was driving a 1973 Opel which was worth nothing.  I didn't file a claim.

The car I hit was a beat-to-shit rusted out 1970 Camaro.  The driver convinced my insurance company that his car was a "mint collector's classic" and had them pay over $10,000 to fully restore his jalopy.

My insurance company wanted to raise my rates.

I dropped them.