Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday November 04 2018, @07:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the shouldn't-it-be-auto-driver? dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Another Tesla with Autopilot crashed into a stationary object—the driver is suing

Earlier this month, Shawn Hudson's Tesla Model S crashed into a stalled car while moving at about 80 miles per hour on a Florida freeway. Tesla's Autopilot technology was engaged at the time, and Hudson has now filed a lawsuit against Tesla in state courts.

"Through a pervasive national marketing campaign and a purposefully manipulative sales pitch, Tesla has duped consumers" into believing that Autpilot can "transport passengers at highway speeds with minimal input and oversight," the lawsuit says.

Hudson had a two-hour commute to his job at an auto dealership. He says that he heard about Tesla's Autopilot technology last year and went to a Tesla dealership to learn more.

"Tesla's sales representative reassured Hudson that all he needed to do as the driver of the vehicle is to occasionally place his hand on the steering wheel and that the vehicle would 'do everything else,'" the lawsuit claims.

Tesla blames driver in last month's fatal crash with Autopilot engaged

But that description of Tesla's Autopilot system is not true. While the system can handle a range of driving conditions, it's not designed to stop for parked cars or other stationary objects when traveling at highway speeds. This year, at least two other Tesla drivers have plowed into parked vehicles while their cars were in Autopilot mode (one of them sued Tesla last month). Another Tesla customer, Californian Walter Huang, was killed when his Tesla vehicle ran into a concrete lane divider at full speed.

"It is the driver's responsibility to remain attentive to their surroundings and in control of the vehicle at all times," a Tesla spokesman told Ars by email. "Tesla goes to great lengths to provide clear instructions about what Autopilot is and is not, including by offering driver instructions when owners test drive and take delivery of their car, before drivers enable Autopilot and every single time they use Autopilot, as well as through the Owner's Manual and Release Notes for software updates." (I've reproduced Tesla's full emailed statement at the end of the story.)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:04AM (8 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:04AM (#757557) Journal

    Well that link make is obvious that systems are separate. And, they shouldn't be. All of the sensing system should be integrated, with one central computer controlling them. All this time, I've pretty much assumed that radar, cameras, laser, lidar, and whatever else were all tied together. You will never have a "safe" system, until they are all integrated and calibrated together. Overhead signs, for instance - they can show up on radar, but if the camera, the laser, and all other sensors report the road is empty, then the central computer can logically decide to ignore that particular radar contact. If the camera reports that something is in the same spot that the radar is pinging, then the car should slow down, or even stop.

    Also - the article implies that emergency braking always spikes the brakes. FFS - the engineers aren't smart enough to just slow a vehicle sometimes? We all have to take evasive action, routinely. We don't all of us spike the brakes hard, each and every time we want to avoid some hazard! Often times, just taking your foot off the accelerator suffices to avoid some hazard. If not, touch the brakes, and just let them drag a couple of seconds. The driver adjusts all thoughout the slowing maneuver, it's not all or nothing!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by G-forze on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:48AM

    by G-forze (1276) on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:48AM (#757564)

    Also, since many of the crashes have been caused by the driver not actually paying attention, I'm guessing the car slowing down would rouse the driver from whatever he is doing so that he could take appropriate action. And since slowing down a bit is not a very risky thing to do, it could be done well in time if the computer detects something it cannot clearly classify, just to be sure.

    --
    If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Nuke on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:49AM (5 children)

    by Nuke (3162) on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:49AM (#757565)

    All of the sensing system should be integrated, with one central computer controlling them.

    Nope. That's having a single point of failure mode. I can assure you that is not done in serious industrial safety systems.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 04 2018, @11:03AM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 04 2018, @11:03AM (#757570) Journal

      So, have a redundant backup to the central computer, if necessary. The point is, something needs to integrate all the input, before it can make any kind of logical output. Your hearing may seem independent of your sight, and your sense of feel, but often times your hearing or your sense of touch draws your sense of vision to an event that requires closer examination.

      I don't care if the radar passes through one evaluation system, on it's way to the central computer. And visible light cameras can pass through it's own processor, before it gets to the central controller. But, setting up all these subsystems so that they don't share data is never going to work.

      The radar controller may well panic at some contact - but that's alright, if within milliseconds it gets a message, "Ignore the contact bearing 001 degrees at 300 yards because it is an expected stationary hazard on a curve." The camera system can panic over something else in the roadway, but the laser assures the master system that the obstacle is actually just heat waves. All systems should accept double-check data from the other systems.

      I don't care how we might choose to work around a "single point of failure", but I'm certain that it can be done. Bottom line, at present, radar IS a "single point of failure". It can't be relied on, but people insist on relying on it.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Sunday November 04 2018, @06:23PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Sunday November 04 2018, @06:23PM (#757688)

        I partially agree - it makes sense to give the autopilot access to all the data. However, the entire point of having a backup safety system (autobraking or whatever) is to prevent a failure by the driver (in this case autopilot) from killing you - to do that, it must NOT allow the autopilot to override. If the emergency braking system freaks out and thinks it needs to brake, the car brakes. If the autopilot thinks it's wrong, then it needs to navigate the car in a manner that avoids triggering the emergency braking system.

        Otherwise having the emergency braking system at all is pointless - it sees an oncoming collision and starts to brake, milliseconds later the imperfect autopilot overrules it, and you end up slamming into the parked car anyway.

      • (Score: 2) by Username on Monday November 05 2018, @12:25AM

        by Username (4557) on Monday November 05 2018, @12:25AM (#757791)

        I think he's talking about all the sensors sharing a data line when you used the term integrated. As in combined into one part. He's probably a mac person, since this problem is common on macbooks and airbooks, etc. They have temp sensors on the same line as the light sensor on the camera, so when that fails and grounds out, or you get a speck of shit on a connector, it take down the signal from the other sensors. Making the macbook fan runs 100% and throttles cpu multiplier to base to prevent thermal damage from not successfully polling the temp sensor.

        Doesn't even have to be linked up, it just has to work. Something in road, hit the brakes. Autopilot, like cruse control, should turn off when brakes are engaged. Now if he turned the braking feature off due to nuisance braking, it's still the features fault. Should work or not have it at all. It's like having a seatbelt that rips apart when any kind of force is applied. He should sue not only tesla but the manufacturer of the braking system and the legislator who added the mandate.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @10:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @10:54AM (#757928)

      Current "self-driving" cars are a far cry from industrial safety systems.

    • (Score: 2) by mobydisk on Monday November 05 2018, @01:01PM

      by mobydisk (5472) on Monday November 05 2018, @01:01PM (#757964)

      What they have now is *worse* than having a single point of failure. They have multiple points of failure. There is a difference between "multiple computers" and "redundant computers."

      What they have now is 2 systems that don't communicate, so if either one fails the entire system fails. Lane changing computer fails? CRASH. Automatic cruise control system fails? CRASH. By integrating both into one, you reduce the likelihood of failure, plus the computer has the benefit of all the sensor data instead of one. So once they integrate them and update their algorithms, then add a redundant computer. Of course, a redundant computer is useless unless there are redundant sensors, and a redundant control system from those computers, and redundant wires to those sensors, and a system for arbitrating the redundant computers... and this is why industrial and medical devices can be very expensive.

      P.S. I work on industrial medical safety systems.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Sunday November 04 2018, @06:15PM

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday November 04 2018, @06:15PM (#757685) Journal

    Well that link make is obvious that systems are separate.

    No, you are misreading the article. It says that the systems are separate on many vehicles, but does not say that they are separate on Teslas.

    Also - the article implies that emergency braking always spikes the brakes.

    Teslas don't always. The car gives an audible warning first.

    In fact that article is rather poorly researched. It discusses the limitations of radar, but radar is only used as a secondary input on Teslas. [tesla.com]