Crumpled Tesla

Part I - Corporate lawyers creed, "...deny, deny, deny..."

Part II - Best 'Defense' is a good 'Offense.'

Both parties are to blame.

Tesla, for proclaiming the safety and reliability of its "auto"pilot controls that lull customers into a false sense of security and invincibility and customers for assuming that these cars are idiot proof and will drive themselves.

Well put.

As you've guessed, I'm an auto broker and one part of my job is to tell my clients how their car operates. The delivery process that Tesla has SHOULD include a description of how their "autopilot" system works. Reading an owners manual doesn't provide enough information, so a demonstration is the optimal method. The person who delivered the car to this lady should have relayed this information to her. He might have, but due to the large amount of information, it may have been ignored. Or over time, she may have forgotten.

If the information was never presented to her, I think she has a good case against Tesla.

When I worked for the last company, we had a "Quality Delivery Checklist". The client signed it at the end of my demonstration. I knew the reason for it - to satisfy any legal proceedings. I also knew that many clients were so anxious to drive their new car that they weren't paying too much attention - they just wanted to sign and go.

I guess Tesla's are not idiot proof.

Idiots are very creative.

As soon as you think you made something idiot proof, they come out with a better idiot.

Why should lightly tapping the brake disengage the auto-braking function of the system? Perhaps some code revision is in order.

And then, if you are sandwiched between a slower vehicle in front and a faster vehicle behind, does the system try to equalize the two gaps?

Because Tesla says. "This has been industry-wide practice for cruise control systems for many years."

I agree with this approach.

I said the auto braking function, not other functions such as acceleration. Think about it instead of just parroting a line that fails to address the issue.

Apparently, you didn't bother to read the article for yourself.

Let me "parrot" the entire paragraph for you.

"In contrast, Tesla says that the vehicle logs show that its adaptive cruise control system is not to blame. Data points to Simpson hitting the brake pedal and deactivating autopilot and traffic aware cruise control, returning the car to manual control instantly. (This has been industry-wide practice for cruise control systems for many years.)"

I read that and understood it perfectly. That is precisely why I am criticizing it. This constitutes an emerging hazard that might better be corrected by leaving some functions automatic rather than going all manual just on a brake-tap.

I believe that all auto-controls should be either full on or full off.

Who decides which functions to disable and when? Why not pull back on the turn signal stalk instead of a brake tap? Will Toyota be different than Chevy?

Maybe it's just me but, I NEVER touch the brake pedal unintentionally, and also never with my left foot so I know when I tap the pedal.

Not all drivers are so perfect.

Remember that these systems are driver aids and it's not meant to be an autonomous car. The system is suppose to keep at minimum a safe distance between your care and the car in front of you. It accelerates to the set speed when the gap is large enough and slows or even stops when the gap is too small. It's a driving aid with an emergency stop built in - if she's not paying attention and the car in front stops, the system is suppose to keep her from getting in an accident. Logically, if she's not paying attention, then she wouldn't hit the brakes, right?

The industry standard is to tap the brake pedal to turn the cruise control off. Whether you use cruise control a lot or not, when traffic is slowing down in front of you, you hit the brakes to slow down. I think it's a good way to turn the cruise control off - makes sense.

So, not unless the system had a failure, it did what it was suppose to do. Turn off when the driver made a decision to turn it off (she hit the brake). This left her in control of her car and due to a driver error, she crashed into the car in front.

Wait.... What? You read a whole article in detail and came out with a reasonable and rational on topic plus coherent answer?

Was your 'information as you choose to believe rational or otherwise' filter turned off?

The same as all my answers, well reasoned and insightful.

You forgot the halo smiley.

And modest to a fault.

Lyn, I think you're right. She hit the brake pedal and cancelled the system. After hitting the brake pedal she decides that she wants the automatic braking system to stop the car.

Logically, if she hit the brake, then she decided she wanted to be in control of her car. Then she chooses to allow the automated system to stop her car soon after? It's a yes or no situation; I want to control my car or I want the car to control itself.

When I was a kid, we were taught to take responsibility for our actions. Sad how things have changed.

Yep. Tapping the brake is telling the system that the driver has seen something the system didn't see. The system should go into manual control.

I think, though, that there ought to be an audible indication, something as simple as the system saying 'NOW ON MANUAL CONTROL'. -- Similar to the stall warning in an aircraft.

All the cruise control cars I've ever driven automatically disengage the cruise control system with a light tap of the brake pedal. I believe that is a universal function of these systems.

I feel no warning should be necessary. That would be like wanting a warning in a plane saying "pulling the wheel/stick back will make the houses get smaller".

Tornado, I think it's a good system, because it's something you don't have to think about and it's universal in the auto industry. Every cruise control system goes into manual mode when you hit the brakes. All modern cars work the same way and it makes it easy for a person to switch from one car to another.

Years ago, I drove a Volvo SC60 with their version of an auto-braking system. They told me to drive into a solid item - well, it was a huge balloon that looked like a wall. They told me to fight all temptation to hit the brakes, which I did and sure enough, the car stopped. Okay, that was in a controlled environment, where I was consciously aware to not hit the brakes. In real life, I know I would've hit the brakes if I was about to hit something. I don't care if there's some sort of automated system to keep me from getting into an accident; I'll do it out of a survival instinct. I have a feeling just about everyone else will.

I hate being a conspiracy theorist, but I don't have a lot of faith in attorneys and there may be a chance that they thought this one out ahead of time.

I disagree. One accident does not constitute a statistic, but it does show a possible hazard mode that is not parallel to just a cruise control. Because of that, a different control strategy my be in order. At this point, implementation shouldn't yet be mandated, but it should be studied. (Or studied further if it has already been studied.)

cruise control or not a car with all these sensors and capabilities should have not been in anything more than a minor fender bender.forget the Tesla logs to get out of responsibility the Beta still needs work.

ACC has been around for over a decade. I've never heard about a lawsuit claiming the intelligent cruise control system caused the crash - could've happened, but I haven't heard of it.

Here's a good excerpt from Wired: "The litigation system can really handle this in a fairly routine way," said David Snyder, vice president and associate general counsel at the American Insurance Association, an insurance industry group. "It's all about factual causation. In other words, the driver is presumed to be in control of his or her vehicle..." The lady was definitely not in control of her car. Also, the ACC systems are aides to assist the driver. It's not there to replace the driver.

The only other way a case could be made is if the manufacturer made a defective product. Then Tesla could be at fault. This also came from the same Wired article: "Mercedes-Benz collected more than 100 terabytes of data racked up during more than 1 million miles of real-world testing before customers could purchase cars with features like Distronic Plus and Brake Assist. The radar-based system helps drivers maintain a safe following distance and will slow the car, or even stop it, in an emergency." I wonder how much testing Tesla did? Or did they buy the same system from Bosch (or another manufacturer of these systems) and they were told that it was properly tested?

I don't know the answer, but to me it seems that the accident was caused, not by a system failure, but it was due to driver error.

I wasn't talking about ACC. This is a different system with some additional failure modes, one of which could be safeguarded against. For instance, it is conceivable to bump the brake accidentally and unknowingly. With ACC, that just slows the car gradually until the driver notices. But with the Tesla system, you wouldn't necessarily notice anything wrong, resulting in a potentially dangerous condition.

many years ago a L10-11 crashed into a swamp. the accident investigation was able to recover a lot of the plane including the cockpit recorder. investigators were surprised how calm and chatty the crew was moments before they glided in.a low altitude alarm could clearly be heard with plenty of time to pull up but no action was taken. the investigation finding suggested the crew ignored the audible warnings out of complacency, they were in AUTO, the yoke had been lightly touched or bumped and went into manual and their decent began without notice. as a result of that accident all yokes were modified so a definitive move had to be sensed before the auto was taken offline, not a tap or touch

The article talks about the ACC system. The lady had her car in that mode and she claims that it magically stopped working. Tesla says that the data recorder shows that she hit the brake pedal, which turned the ACC off. Then when she noticed the system was no longer working, she slammed on the brakes, but it was too late.

To me, it's driver error.

You'd make a great shyster for Tesla.

I just commented on the information provided in the article. I know people who work for Elon (Space X) and even though he may be difficult to work for at times, they never said anything bad about him personally. I don't think he'd hire people to lie about what they pulled from the data recorder.

So, if you believe there's some sort of deception or underhanded activities from Tesla, then your argument is with the information in the article, not with me.

Those remarks have nothing whatsoever to do with the concerns I have described.

I bet that same lady probably has trouble getting the guide to come up on her satellite TV. Some people are not technology ready, cannot be machine interfaced at all, in any fashion, now or at any point in the future. There needs to be another criterion other than can this person make the payments.

just find a 12yo

What would you have the Tesla do? Vacillate between two extremes of acceleration/deceleration, and in so doing oscillate between mini-collisions with the one in front and the one in rear?

Are you kidding? What's this business about extremes?

A lane change might be in order, though, if possible.

When I saw the photo, the first thing that hit my mind was: Hey, this looks a lot like the hills around my house. After reading the article, I found out it's not far away.

I find it amazing how our minds pick up small details and we're able to correlate that with our memory.

looks like any number of hwys and roads on the Calif coast to me from Calabasas to Monterey and then some green in early spring, then a tinderbox waiting for a match the rest of the year with Oaks as far as you can see

Look at the shape of the hills and the trees (or lack of them). Looks nothing like the 101 in Calabasas or anything along the coast.

At the end of the movie Dumb and Dumber (where the Hawaiian Tropic bus stops), I noticed the hills looked familiar. Then it hit me - I see it all the time on my drive out and home. The funny things is that the road is a little different now and a developer tore apart some of the hills, but it stuck in my mind when I saw it.

Also, there was a TV show about surviving in the desert with Bear Grylls. When I was watching the show, it looked like he was in Lancaster, CA. Sure enough, that's where he was.

I think the reason we recognize things like this is because there must be something stored in our memory. I stink at remembering people and faces, but I can remember their names and I even remember business transactions - it just happened to me today. Others remember faces and names. My better half remembers songs like you wouldn't believe. Heck, I remember when I was a young boy (under 6 years old), I remembered the details on cars (tail light shape, position, headlights, fake trunks, emblems, etc). Why should a 4-5 year old kid remember stuff like that?

So my question is why we're good at remembering certain things and terrible at others?