Ten seconds from engaging AutoPilot on a drive where AutoPilot had not been used at all previously prior to that point.
I don’t know how long the drive was, or how long the car had been on the highway up until that point. But this is somewhat suggesting that the driver Jeremy Banner may have activated AutoPilot in this case to deal with something else going on in the car at the same time, and was not looking out the window as the Tesla approached and ultimately crashed under the tractor-trailer. I think we do know that there was no attempt by the driver at all to brake or steer leading up to the crash.
There is a physical camera above the rear-view mirror, but past statements by Tesla (which have been corroborated by Tesla owners who have jailbroken their cars and analyzed the software) is that the “selfie” camera is not even initialized and never records footage, so while there may be footage of the approach and crash, there likely does not exist footage inside the vehicle. I read in a different article that the plaintiff is seeking discovery of this footage claiming
it does exist. The stated purpose of the camera is in the future when the car is being used as a RoboTaxi.
The article doesn't say anything about the truck being in front of the Tesla's path for 10 seconds:
> The crash in west Delray Beach happened four months ago when a tractor-trailer pulled out in front of a bright red Tesla Model 3 driven by 50-year-old Jeremy Banner.
“Vehicle 1 (V-1) was a tractor/trailer combination vehicle traveling eastbound on the driveway access to 14095 SR 7 (Pero Farms) preparing to turn left onto SR 7. Vehicle 2 (V-2) was traveling southbound on SR 7 within the outside lane approaching Pero Farms. After V-1 came to a brief stop at a stop sign, V-1 entered the southbound lanes of SR 7 pulling into the path of V-2. V-2 struck the driver side of V-1’s trailer resulting in the roof being sheared off as it passed underneath the trailer. V-2 continued southbound and came to a final rest approx 3/10th of a mile south of the collision. The driver of V-2 was pronounced deceased on scene.”
The preliminary NTSB report [2] does not provide any more precise detail of the timeline, except to acknowledge that front facing video does exist, and that neither AutoPilot or the driver attempted to stop or evade the tractor-trailer.
As the Tesla approached the private driveway, the combination vehicle pulled from the driveway and traveled east across the southbound lanes of US 441. The truck driver was trying to cross the highway’s southbound lanes and turn left into the northbound lanes. According to surveillance video in the area and forward-facing video from the Tesla, the combination vehicle slowed as it crossed the southbound lanes, blocking the Tesla’s path.... Neither the preliminary data nor the videos indicate that the driver or the ADAS executed evasive maneuvers.
Neither did I! But it surely had to be a visible threat. A road where you can drive 68MPH is going to have enough visibility that you’ll see a truck that might cross your path at least that far in advance. Especially in flat-as-a-pancake Florida.
Is it Autopilot's standard behavior to decelerate/pump the brakes when it detects a vehicle at an intersection? Yes, I agree 10 seconds should be more than enough time for AP to begin preliminary evasive/mitigating maneuvers, but according to what u/zaroth posted [0], the preliminary findings do no not indicate this.
I’m not saying Autopilot should have handled this. I’m saying the driver should have seen the potential threat sometime before engaging the system, and realized it was not a safe time to let it run unassisted. (It’s never truly safe in the current incarnation, but there are degrees.)
I don't have a Tesla and so don't know how AP is used day-to-day, but I'm assuming it's frequently activated while driving at highway speeds, even amid traffic – similar to standard cruise control? But you're saying that drivers should never activate AP while driving, if any vehicles are also on the road within 5-10s of traveling speed?
Autopilot is a driver assistance feature. You are required to keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel while using it.
Naturally, not everyone does that, although they definitely should. If they do choose to break those requirements, they should only do it for long enough that safety can be assured.
If you use Autopilot for a bit, you get a feel for how it handles different situations, and adjust your attention accordingly. If the road is wide, clear and well marked then I can look far ahead and don’t have to focus too much. If I’m in a construction zone driving right next to a barrier, I need to keep a firm grip to ensure it stays away from that barrier and within the lines. If there’s stopped traffic ahead, I need to start watching to ensure it brakes, and take over to do it myself if it doesn’t.
This guy never should have taken his attention away from the road. If he did, he never should have done it for so long. If he did, he never should have done it in a situation where a threat could turn into danger within that time.
The plaintiffs allege "more than" $15,000 in damages. The $15,000 figure is likely just a jurisdictional minimum. In other words, they need to allege damages over that amount in order to stay out of small claims court or something similar (am a lawyer--never practiced in Florida, but this would make sense). It's almost certainly not their full request, and they'll ask for much more at trial.
I hope so. When I read that steam came out of my ears. All I could think was the Hulk Hogan got $140M for.. cheating (yeah I know it's more complicated than that) and here we have this poor family that is only going to get $15k. Just... not sure where this world is heading.
The article says that the family is seeking "more than $15,000 in damages", and does not mention a cap. $15,000 is the threshold for a civil suit in Florida to move beyond small-claims court:
That struck me as weird as well. The article should have clarified it, since for all intense and purposes it is "unspecified damages." Their legal fees alone will probably be at least 10 times that.
As the article notes, the driver killed in this case died in circumstances to similar to the very first driver killed using Autopilot in 2016 [0]: driving into the side of a tractor trailer. However, back then, Tesla implied that the Model S cameras may not have seen the tractor trailer because of the lighting conditions:
> Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied.
The trailer in this recent case was also white (not sure what the lighting conditions were). Regardless of whether it is legally the driver's fault, how can AP be making what seems to be the same exact error 3 years ago when Musk says Telsa's full self-driving will be ready in 2020? White trailers are not exactly an edge-case on U.S. roads.
(worth noting that in 2016, Tesla's AP was built by Mobileye; now it is in-house)
It’s a broad side of the trailer which is a challenge. Tesla will stop for the rear-end of a trailer, but may disregard the broad side of a trailer stretching across the highway because it looks too much like an overpass.
Definitely corner cases like the broad side of a tractor trailer stretched across the highway will prevent FSD from being remotely possible in 2020. Complex traffic light arrangements in multi-lane intersections, unprotected left turns, even driving over a lane marker to avoid a fixed obstacle are still TBD features in the AutoPilot code base.
Those are the features they will be adding in 2019/2020 to get what Musk is calling “feature complete” but regardless of what he has claimed, from personal experience, I do not see how the cars could operate without any human driver in 2020 except under highly constrained conditions like “in parking lot not to exceed 3mph” and even that I think will expose corner cases with cars getting stuck and needing driver assistance.
What I do think we will see in 2020 is a respectable percentage of trips being completed start-to-finish with AutoPilot engaged the entire time.
However, then and now, the driver absolutely, positively, must always be looking out the window when operating AutoPilot.
If an overpass is falsely identified as the broadside of a truck, even a very small percentage of the time, then sudden breaking in the middle of the road would be very dangerous. Also, from a PR standpoint, I think there would be many articles about how AP caused a fatal accident rather than merely failing to prevent it...
From a PR standpoint, how is it advantageous to Tesla for laypersons to be told that Autopilot, which is ostensibly safe enough for hands-off highway driving, can't recognize what is to every human driver an unambiguously dangerous situation?
In terms of overpasses being falsely identified as the broadside of a truck, this explanation feels more and more confusing to me as Tesla doubles down on vision-only self-driving (as opposed to LIDAR-assisted). Why would a camera and computer-vision algorithm ever falsely identify an overpass, which in normal weather is viewable and trackable from at least a mile away, as a broadside of a truck suddenly running through an intersection?
My aunt's vision isn't so great any more, and quite often she'll brake for what she thinks is an animal or car, but is just a shadow. Other times, if the sun is low in the sky, she will not notice other vehicles that really are there.
I just make sure that when I'm a passenger in her car I have my hand resting on the emergency brake, so I'm ready to stop the car if I need to. It's much safer that way.
The guidance system will show the truck approaching from the rear. It will show it drive along side you, and pass, and it will show it driving in front of you.
GreenTheOnly posts lots of videos of internal captures from his Tesla AutoPilot (I believe he “jailbreaked” his Tesla to capture them. Here’s an example of what the software is tracking [1].
He was able to capture one case where there happened to be a trailer backing up / parking in front of him a couple months back [2]
Musk is Tesla's worst enemy here - first in naming the thing "AutoPilot" and then in doubling down with his absurd claims about "Full Self Driving" within a year. What the general public thinks "Full Self Driving" means is Uber - I get in a car, I set a destination, and it goes there as if a human driver was at the wheel - I can browse the web, take a nap, whatever. We are a decade from that, if not more. But as long as Tesla insists on calling it "AutoPilot (now with Full Self Driving!)" they will keep getting sued when an unfinished technology encounters a problem.
I can’t help but think of Bart Simpson sitting in the back of the car while driving down the highway - “cruise control my dude!” Right before the road turns off and he goes into a cornfield
I think autopilot is an apt name. It’s not like planes on autopilot do everything and just fly themselves. It’s more like setting the cruise control. I still need to be paying attention when my car is on autopilot, real pilots don’t set their autopilot and then just leave the cockpit.
Reminder that the start of the marketing video for Autopilot says "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car drives itself." [0]
I'm waiting for the first federal bill to require that all trucks over a certain size must be painted with some recognizable pattern, to these driving systems. All white, and perhaps all some other colors, will be illegal.
(I'm 1/2 waiting for this to appear in The Onion.)
Let's analyze Tesla's statement here, because it's useful training in intellectual self defense:
"Our data shows..."
Note the use of the keyword data. This appears frequently in Tesla statements. It implies certainty and technical understanding.
"...that, when used properly by an attentive driver who is prepared to take control at all times..."
Interesting condition.
"...drivers supported by Autopilot are safer than those operating without assistance"
This is garbage logic. It's just saying any errors that aren't corrected by the driver are cases of "not using it properly." Of course the "data" will show improved safety if you exclude all the accidents.
Tesla is facing a lawsuit (well, many lawsuits). They obviously aren't going to put out any sort of public statement that would show there's a chance Tesla is at fault. This is PR for PR's sake.
Dev: "The compiler's automatic error checking didn't catch the array overrun in my code, resulting in a costly security breach!"
Compiler Vendor: "Our data shows that compiler diagnostics, when used by a skilled and conscientious programmer who is prepared to review and test his or her code, reduce software defects compared to no diagnostics, making software development safer."
Your examples are garbage logic because array overruns are so harmful that they should be hard errors. Of course, this requires a runtime cost, that can be elided in most cases by the compiler's optimizer. But even low level languages nowadays can be safe by default (see Rust) - the unsafe behavior should always be a conscious, well studied decision by the developer.
Much like the lauded “success” of the 12 step program. Those program all claim high success rates as long as you adhere to the rules of the program... which means not drinking/drugs. Eg “falling off the wagon” means you stopped following the program rules and so don’t generally count as a “failure”.
But by hiding the fact that that is all it is they get government support and funding. Many of the program are also used by churches to force adoption of their religion. Essentially people are required to undertake a 12 step program and one of the steps requires you to accept a higher power. The churches then claim that the “higher power” “could” just be a friend or some such in much the same way that an “intelligent designer” does not mean “god”, it could be anything. Anything at all.
Because many churches love abusing their power over other people (like missionary “doctors” who require patients in $country convert to Christianity to receive treatment)
Driver facing camera has to become standard for systems like autopilot that are still 80% solutions so they can disengage when drivers invariably start leaning on the system too much and start using it inappropriately.
Unless the autopilot sped up the vehicle, it sounds like the driver was going at least 13 mph over the speed limit. By speeding, the human driver increased the danger to himself and everybody around him.
I truly am sorry he died. But I don't think Tesla should be on the hook for the scenario he seemingly created.[1]
[1] In my ethical framework, adults are responsible for their choices, and in a functioning democracy, for obeying even laws they don't personally like. I realize I'm in the minority on this.
51 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 99.4 ms ] threadhttps://web.archive.org/web/20190803003025/https://www.sun-s...
I don’t know how long the drive was, or how long the car had been on the highway up until that point. But this is somewhat suggesting that the driver Jeremy Banner may have activated AutoPilot in this case to deal with something else going on in the car at the same time, and was not looking out the window as the Tesla approached and ultimately crashed under the tractor-trailer. I think we do know that there was no attempt by the driver at all to brake or steer leading up to the crash.
There is a physical camera above the rear-view mirror, but past statements by Tesla (which have been corroborated by Tesla owners who have jailbroken their cars and analyzed the software) is that the “selfie” camera is not even initialized and never records footage, so while there may be footage of the approach and crash, there likely does not exist footage inside the vehicle. I read in a different article that the plaintiff is seeking discovery of this footage claiming it does exist. The stated purpose of the camera is in the future when the car is being used as a RoboTaxi.
> The crash in west Delray Beach happened four months ago when a tractor-trailer pulled out in front of a bright red Tesla Model 3 driven by 50-year-old Jeremy Banner.
“Vehicle 1 (V-1) was a tractor/trailer combination vehicle traveling eastbound on the driveway access to 14095 SR 7 (Pero Farms) preparing to turn left onto SR 7. Vehicle 2 (V-2) was traveling southbound on SR 7 within the outside lane approaching Pero Farms. After V-1 came to a brief stop at a stop sign, V-1 entered the southbound lanes of SR 7 pulling into the path of V-2. V-2 struck the driver side of V-1’s trailer resulting in the roof being sheared off as it passed underneath the trailer. V-2 continued southbound and came to a final rest approx 3/10th of a mile south of the collision. The driver of V-2 was pronounced deceased on scene.”
The preliminary NTSB report [2] does not provide any more precise detail of the timeline, except to acknowledge that front facing video does exist, and that neither AutoPilot or the driver attempted to stop or evade the tractor-trailer.
As the Tesla approached the private driveway, the combination vehicle pulled from the driveway and traveled east across the southbound lanes of US 441. The truck driver was trying to cross the highway’s southbound lanes and turn left into the northbound lanes. According to surveillance video in the area and forward-facing video from the Tesla, the combination vehicle slowed as it crossed the southbound lanes, blocking the Tesla’s path.... Neither the preliminary data nor the videos indicate that the driver or the ADAS executed evasive maneuvers.
[1] - https://electrek.co/2019/03/01/tesla-driver-crash-truck-trai...
[2] - https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/hw...
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20597980
Naturally, not everyone does that, although they definitely should. If they do choose to break those requirements, they should only do it for long enough that safety can be assured.
If you use Autopilot for a bit, you get a feel for how it handles different situations, and adjust your attention accordingly. If the road is wide, clear and well marked then I can look far ahead and don’t have to focus too much. If I’m in a construction zone driving right next to a barrier, I need to keep a firm grip to ensure it stays away from that barrier and within the lines. If there’s stopped traffic ahead, I need to start watching to ensure it brakes, and take over to do it myself if it doesn’t.
This guy never should have taken his attention away from the road. If he did, he never should have done it for so long. If he did, he never should have done it in a situation where a threat could turn into danger within that time.
That seems quite low, are they hoping Tesla will just settle without fighting it since the plaintiffs know their case is weak?
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/297256-ron-desantis-sig...
> Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied.
The trailer in this recent case was also white (not sure what the lighting conditions were). Regardless of whether it is legally the driver's fault, how can AP be making what seems to be the same exact error 3 years ago when Musk says Telsa's full self-driving will be ready in 2020? White trailers are not exactly an edge-case on U.S. roads.
(worth noting that in 2016, Tesla's AP was built by Mobileye; now it is in-house)
[0] https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss
Definitely corner cases like the broad side of a tractor trailer stretched across the highway will prevent FSD from being remotely possible in 2020. Complex traffic light arrangements in multi-lane intersections, unprotected left turns, even driving over a lane marker to avoid a fixed obstacle are still TBD features in the AutoPilot code base.
Those are the features they will be adding in 2019/2020 to get what Musk is calling “feature complete” but regardless of what he has claimed, from personal experience, I do not see how the cars could operate without any human driver in 2020 except under highly constrained conditions like “in parking lot not to exceed 3mph” and even that I think will expose corner cases with cars getting stuck and needing driver assistance.
What I do think we will see in 2020 is a respectable percentage of trips being completed start-to-finish with AutoPilot engaged the entire time.
However, then and now, the driver absolutely, positively, must always be looking out the window when operating AutoPilot.
If you approach a truck from the rear, you have a rear aspect on it before having a side aspect on it.
If you have overtaken by a truck, you have a front aspect on it before having a side aspect on it.
In terms of overpasses being falsely identified as the broadside of a truck, this explanation feels more and more confusing to me as Tesla doubles down on vision-only self-driving (as opposed to LIDAR-assisted). Why would a camera and computer-vision algorithm ever falsely identify an overpass, which in normal weather is viewable and trackable from at least a mile away, as a broadside of a truck suddenly running through an intersection?
I just make sure that when I'm a passenger in her car I have my hand resting on the emergency brake, so I'm ready to stop the car if I need to. It's much safer that way.
GreenTheOnly posts lots of videos of internal captures from his Tesla AutoPilot (I believe he “jailbreaked” his Tesla to capture them. Here’s an example of what the software is tracking [1].
He was able to capture one case where there happened to be a trailer backing up / parking in front of him a couple months back [2]
[1] - https://youtu.be/7ztK5AhShqU
[2] - https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1118330606146998272?...
[0] https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
(I'm 1/2 waiting for this to appear in The Onion.)
"Our data shows..."
Note the use of the keyword data. This appears frequently in Tesla statements. It implies certainty and technical understanding.
"...that, when used properly by an attentive driver who is prepared to take control at all times..."
Interesting condition.
"...drivers supported by Autopilot are safer than those operating without assistance"
This is garbage logic. It's just saying any errors that aren't corrected by the driver are cases of "not using it properly." Of course the "data" will show improved safety if you exclude all the accidents.
Dev: "The compiler's automatic error checking didn't catch the array overrun in my code, resulting in a costly security breach!"
Compiler Vendor: "Our data shows that compiler diagnostics, when used by a skilled and conscientious programmer who is prepared to review and test his or her code, reduce software defects compared to no diagnostics, making software development safer."
Step 1: do not drink/drugs
Would get the same 100% success rate.
But by hiding the fact that that is all it is they get government support and funding. Many of the program are also used by churches to force adoption of their religion. Essentially people are required to undertake a 12 step program and one of the steps requires you to accept a higher power. The churches then claim that the “higher power” “could” just be a friend or some such in much the same way that an “intelligent designer” does not mean “god”, it could be anything. Anything at all.
Because many churches love abusing their power over other people (like missionary “doctors” who require patients in $country convert to Christianity to receive treatment)
I truly am sorry he died. But I don't think Tesla should be on the hook for the scenario he seemingly created.[1]
[1] In my ethical framework, adults are responsible for their choices, and in a functioning democracy, for obeying even laws they don't personally like. I realize I'm in the minority on this.