Investigation into Tesla after fatal crash

Stallingrad

It was only a matter of time, will be interesting to see the outcome.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36680043

Shannon757

It's the first fatal accident in 130 million miles. Not bad for new technology but tragic all the same.

Raging_Ninja

Stallingrad wrote: »

It was only a matter of time, will be interesting to see the outcome.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36680043

Should never have been called "autopilot" - really it's just assisted driving.

seamus

Not really an investigation into Tesla, just an investigation into the crash.

Any road, this was indeed inevitable. The upside here is that once the data is processed and the issue corrected for, it's a scenario that will never happen again in an automated vehicle.

Unlike with human drivers, where this exact same incident will continue to happen multiple times a day, every day.

kyote00

In autopilot mode, it tried to drive under a truck that it did not "see" due to a brightly lit sky ......

"The company said in a statement: "The high ride height of the trailer combined with its positioning across the road and the extremely rare circumstances of the impact caused the Model S to pass under the trailer, with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S."
In a statement, Tesla said it appeared the Model S car was unable to recognise "the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky" that had driven across the car's path.


I wonder what other unique circumstances lie in wait ?

seamus wrote: »

Not really an investigation into Tesla, just an investigation into the crash.

Any road, this was indeed inevitable. The upside here is that once the data is processed and the issue corrected for, it's a scenario that will never happen again in an automated vehicle.

Unlike with human drivers, where this exact same incident will continue to happen multiple times a day, every day.

GreeBo

kyote00 wrote: »

In autopilot mode, it tried to drive under a truck that it did not "see" due to a brightly lit sky ......

"The company said in a statement: "The high ride height of the trailer combined with its positioning across the road and the extremely rare circumstances of the impact caused the Model S to pass under the trailer, with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S."
In a statement, Tesla said it appeared the Model S car was unable to recognise "the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky" that had driven across the car's path.


I wonder what other unique circumstances lie in wait ?

Does the Telsa not use simple distance measuring lasers for this or purely image analysis?

A simple distance laser wouldnt care about the colour of objects...

bertie4evr

From reading (Or misreading!) between the lines it sounds like the driver was decapitated, which is absolutely horrible.

But it all sounds, as they said, unique. Having glaring sunlight obscuring the camera, and a white trailer that's elevated so the radar couldn't pick it up is a perfect storm that'd fool the system.

Edit: Seems the radar did pick it up, but because it was elevated and not at road height it was recognised as an overhead sign.

Tweet

eeguy

kyote00 wrote: »

In autopilot mode, it tried to drive under a truck that it did not "see" due to a brightly lit sky ......

"The company said in a statement: "The high ride height of the trailer combined with its positioning across the road and the extremely rare circumstances of the impact caused the Model S to pass under the trailer, with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S."
In a statement, Tesla said it appeared the Model S car was unable to recognise "the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky" that had driven across the car's path.


I wonder what other unique circumstances lie in wait ?

An infinite amount I imagine.

I think there's a misconception that autonomy will bring crashes to zero. That's never going to happen, even the most advanced autopilot can't escape physics.
People will continue to die on the roads, but hopefully less and less as the tech advances.

I will say that it's great that Tesla can pull so much info from the cars and identify exactly what happened. It's absolved them from quiet a few legal cases so far.

GreeBo

bertie4evr wrote: »

From reading (Or misreading!) between the lines it sounds like the driver was decapitated, which is absolutely horrible.

But it all sounds, as they said, unique. Having glaring sunlight obscuring the camera, and a white trailer that's elevated so the radar couldn't pick it up is a perfect storm that'd fool the system.

Edit: Seems the radar did pick it up, but because it was elevated and not at road height it was recognised as an overhead sign.

Tweet

Bit of an issue if overhead isnt actually over someones head....

bertie4evr

GreeBo wrote: »

Bit of an issue if overhead isnt actually over someones head....

Absolutely, the radar I assume is pointed down, if it's in the rear-view mirror, or straight out if it's in the grille. The camera probably looks up to read speed limits and recognise other obstacles etc.

I don't understand how the sun did block it out though, as even some of the cheaper dash cams I've seen do fairly well with bright light.

Maybe it wasn't the camera being completely obscured and more that the computer vision was confused by it? I have heard of autopilot throwing warnings when driving into the sunlight and not being able to pick up road markings...

keyboard_cat

GreeBo wrote: »

Does the Telsa not use simple distance measuring lasers for this or purely image analysis?

A simple distance laser wouldnt care about the colour of objects...

Like the Google car uses however that Lidar system costs double what the car does

Del2005

kyote00 wrote: »

In autopilot mode, it tried to drive under a truck that it did not "see" due to a brightly lit sky ......

"The company said in a statement: "The high ride height of the trailer combined with its positioning across the road and the extremely rare circumstances of the impact caused the Model S to pass under the trailer, with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S."
In a statement, Tesla said it appeared the Model S car was unable to recognise "the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky" that had driven across the car's path.


I wonder what other unique circumstances lie in wait ?

Might be time the US put barriers under their HGVs like Europe has had for years, plenty of human driven vehicles go under HGVs.

GreeBo

bertie4evr wrote: »

Absolutely, the radar I assume is pointed down, if it's in the rear-view mirror, or straight out if it's in the grille. The camera probably looks up to read speed limits and recognise other obstacles etc.

I don't understand how the sun did block it out though, as even some of the cheaper dash cams I've seen do fairly well with bright light.

Maybe it wasn't the camera being completely obscured and more that the computer vision was confused by it? I have heard of autopilot throwing warnings when driving into the sunlight and not being able to pick up road markings...

I'd say it was more that the sun shining straight onto the white side of the truck from behind, "dazzled" the camera.

I still think that a simple distance measuring device fitting to the top of the car pointing straight ahead would solve this.

Similar to simple parking sensors, but obviously working a little faster.

Raging_Ninja

GreeBo wrote: »

I still think that a simple distance measuring device fitting to the top of the car pointing straight ahead would solve this.

Similar to simple parking sensors, but obviously working a little faster.

That's what the radar did - that's the "distance-measuring device". It's just that it was programmed to classify anything over X-height as an overhead sign and not apply the brakes. In this case, the X was too low.

bertie4evr

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

That's what the radar did - that's the "distance-measuring device". It's just that it was programmed to classify anything over X-height as an overhead sign and not apply the brakes. In this case, the X was too low.

I think the radar and camera work together, and in this case the radar passed below the trailer, which would typically be fine because the camera would be able to pick up anything over the radars height limit. But obviously this didn't happen.

Raging_Ninja

bertie4evr wrote: »

I think the radar and camera work together, and in this case the radar passed below the trailer, which would typically be fine because the camera would be able to pick up anything over the radars height limit. But obviously this didn't happen.

Elon Musk in the tweet above said that the radar filtered what looks like overhead signs - implying the trailer was detected, but ignored because it was over a certain height.

eeguy

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Elon Musk in the tweet above said that the radar filtered what looks like overhead signs - implying the trailer was detected, but ignored because it was over a certain height.

Yep, I'd say the height cut off was just too low.

There's plenty of barriers, such as those on the Car Only lane at the M1 toll, that are set just above the roof of a car.

I've seen some of the American artic trucks and their ground clearance could be well over a metre, especially those who haul building materials.

Sabre Man

Article on Teslarati about the accident
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s-driver-using-autopilot-killed-crash-tractor-trailer/

It's crazy that it's possible to cross a dual carriageway like that.

Sabre Man

Sabre Man wrote: »

Article on Teslarati about the accident
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s-driver-using-autopilot-killed-crash-tractor-trailer/

It's crazy that it's possible to cross a dual carriageway like that.

The police description doesn't make it sound very appealing!

The top of Joshua Brown’s 2015 Tesla Model S vehicle was torn off by the force of the collision... the tractor-trailer was traveling west.. Brown’s car was headed east in the outside lane of U.S. 27A. When the truck made a left turn onto NE 140th Court in front of the car, the car’s roof struck the underside of the trailer as it passed under the trailer. The car continued to travel east on U.S. 27A until it left the roadway on the south shoulder and struck a fence.... Brown died at the scene.

This might sound silly, but how come the car also managed to leave the road and hit fences (and a 'power pole')? Whatever about the truck surely it'd notice these?

I'd have thought that once the car was hit (crashed into, etc) it'd bring the car to a stop (unless the driver pressed a pedal,etc. to over-power the autopilot)?

kyote00

I think the point is that the technology failed here.

Its no different than the 'sticking accelerator pedals' cases in normal cars etc ....

This time, its a design flaw in the software - presumably if the same conditions arise again, the same result will happen. It really needs to be able to detect an articulated truck in front and perpendicular of it

Quoting stats on safety so early on into the life is also a bit daft. Later on they offer the gem "requires explicit acknowledgement that the system is new technology and still in a public beta phase" --- like the washing machine shrunk your clothes....

pablo128

Deleted User wrote: »

The police description doesn't make it sound very appealing!



This might sound silly, but how come the car also managed to leave the road and hit fences (and a 'power pole')? Whatever about the truck surely it'd notice these?

I'd have thought that once the car was hit (crashed into, etc) it'd bring the car to a stop (unless the driver pressed a pedal,etc. to over-power the autopilot)?

Or unless it was absolutely flying down the road. Does anyone know what speed the car was travelling at?

RIP to the guy too. Hopefully his legacy will be an even greater improvement in safety for the worlds motorists.

bertie4evr

kyote00 wrote: »

I think the point is that the technology failed here.

Its no different than the 'sticking accelerator pedals' cases in normal cars etc ....

This time, its a design flaw in the software - presumably if the same conditions arise again, the same result will happen. It really needs to be able to detect an articulated truck in front and perpendicular of it

Quoting stats on safety so early on into the life is also a bit daft. Later on they offer the gem "requires explicit acknowledgement that the system is new technology and still in a public beta phase" --- like the washing machine shrunk your clothes....

The safety stats people are quoting (1 in 130 million) are bullsh*t anyway. It's almost the exact same fatality rate as traditional driver operated cars (Not to say it won't go down in future).

H3llR4iser

Deleted User wrote: »

This might sound silly, but how come the car also managed to leave the road and hit fences (and a 'power pole')? Whatever about the truck surely it'd notice these?

Shot in the dark, probably the impact that tore the roof off also took a bunch of fundamental equipment with it (sensors et all). At that point the system was blind, or trying to feed off wrong/discording data.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd have thought that once the car was hit (crashed into, etc) it'd bring the car to a stop (unless the driver pressed a pedal,etc. to over-power the autopilot)?

This is more important, I believe. One'd expect a failsafe system to be there to immediately stop the vehicle if a collision/incident is detected. Also, I don't know the Tesla system, does it have a "dead man switch" like trains have, stopping the vehicle in case the driver becomes unresponsive for longer than a set time? It should be a required feature for any "autopilot" system.

kyote00 wrote: »

Quoting stats on safety so early on into the life is also a bit daft. Later on the offer the gem "requires explicit acknowledgement that the system is new technology and still in a public beta phase" --- like the washing machine shrunk your clothes....

Yep, as an engineer, I facepalm every time I hear triumphalist statements about statistics, safety and so on. It's a public beta test, things will go wrong, and it's insane to instill people with the idea the system is infallible at this point in time. But hey, it's a commercial success, so...

eeguy

kyote00 wrote: »

I think the point is that the technology failed here.

Its no different than the 'sticking accelerator pedals' cases in normal cars etc ....

It's totally different. In your example the car has forcibly taken control from the driver.

In Teslas example, the driver gave control to the car and didn't monitor his surroundings like he should.

Autopilot is a slightly more advanced cruise control and Lane assist. It's not a substitute for a driver and doesn't claim to be.

porsche boy

Deleted User wrote:

I'd have thought that once the car was hit (crashed into, etc) it'd bring the car to a stop (unless the driver pressed a pedal,etc. to over-power the autopilot)?

Does your car do that? Does any?
Reason I say that is because I have watched a few car crash compilations on you tube and the one thought I am left with is why the ABS system doesn't lock the brakes on in the event of an accident/airbag deployment. Cars seem to just wander off until they hit something that stops them, occasionally causing another crash.

Sitec

This was always going to happen. It would be amazing if the technology did another 130 million miles before another fatility.

The same as developing any technology there will be set backs. The only problem is when dealing with transport there can be fatalities.

kyote00

Its really is the same thing.

The flip side is saying that drivers didnt monitor the function of the accelerator pedal ....

In reality, the poor guy probably had only seconds to react...was probably expecting the car to do something....

I drove a tesla about 6 months ago in the US, albeit for a few hours only. My overwhelming memory of autopilot was permanently being on "tender hooks" waiting to see what the car would do.....

The whole tablet dash thing is really awful aswell - I'm a big fan :eek:

eeguy wrote: »

It's totally different. In your example the car has forcibly taken control from the driver.

In Teslas example, the driver gave control to the car and didn't monitor his surroundings like he should.

Autopilot is a slightly more advanced cruise control and Lane assist. It's not a substitute for a driver and doesn't claim to be.

2RockMountain

seamus wrote: »

Unlike with human drivers, where this exact same incident will continue to happen multiple times a day, every day.

I wonder if there will be the same level of investigation and press coverage into the 100-ish other people killed on the roads in the US today?

Raging_Ninja

2RockMountain wrote: »

I wonder if there will be the same level of investigation and press coverage into the 100-ish other people killed on the roads in the US today?

Where there is a systemic problem with the vehicle model there usually is such an investigation. Most traffic collisions though are caused by negligence - people either breaking the rules of the road or just not paying attention. There are very few honest-to-god genuine accidents which could not have been avoided.

porsche boy

porsche boy wrote: »

Does your car do that?

My car isn't claiming to do the driving for me, though. Surely a system like this should have a critical zone or such where it detects a collision and reacts accordingly (ie; stopping. Not, as you say yourself, rolling into another crash).

Just seems like, if safety is such a big concern on these things (and it obviously is) this would have been thought up.


In relation to HellRaiser's comments about a 'dead man switch', i did read in one of the articles that the system will acknowledge if there haven't been hands on the steering wheel in X amount of time, and it will 'gradually slow the car' until hands are detected again.

richy

I wonder how many people die per 100,000 kms driven in a manually operated car in comparison to a computer controlled car. Would be good to see a comparison.