No one was in driver’s seat in fatal Tesla crash
cnn.com
cnn.com
It doesn't help that the CEO is lying to investors and customers that "full self-driving" is right around the corner and Tesla's are on the cusp of providing robot Taxi services.
Yes. "Drivers must be engaged and ready to take over" is not really a thing humans will ever do (if they have a tech that can sorta drive itself, they will 100% get distracted)
And even worse, the name of the feature and the whole marketing makes it appear as its Level 5, where it's not even a solid 4.
That's been known for a while. Some of the automation systems that have a human in the loop will actually lower the level of automation every once in a while and ask the human to take over so that the human does not get complacent.
That's not really a popular way to sell cars though. Having a car that requests a lane change or to re-center the car in the lane every once in a while isn't what people are really looking for, even though it would increase driver attentiveness.
For people who assume the AP is some breakthrough in self driving tech, it doesn't feel too different from this [0] 2013 Mercedes Benz video and demo. Just that different CEOs have different appetites for lying to customers.
It's not any kind of 4, let alone solid.
It's tech level 2 working on making 3 solid.
I don’t know if shifting the responsibility from the technology to marketing is the right move here.
It would be very easy for Tesla to do what every other car company already does with lane keeping, which is making sure the drivers hands are on the wheel. If I take my hands off the wheel of my VW for more than 30 or so seconds, lane keep assist turns off and I’ll drive straight into a tree if I don’t put my hand back on the wheel.
...or is Tesla’s philosophy that you shouldn’t need to touch the steering wheel turning a trip from point a to point b, even without level 4 self driving?
How do Tesla’s verify drivers are engaged? And how does the system penalize drivers when they aren’t engaged for extended periods?
There is definitely a problem with their marketing. But the core problem is the technology, IMO.
Yup
Tesla's Vegas Loop, which is a completely controlled and isolated environment, somehow still needs drivers in those Teslas. I guess that could be a legal requirement, but I'm pretty sure if Tesla actually got the full self-driving to work in the loop then they would have used that at least for PR.
The whole thing is just such a bad joke considering the same tunnel could be used for a self-driving subway/train, which would be a massive improvement in terms of throughput over having people enter and exit cars that are not at all designed for public transport.
It why some roads in deserts curve a lot. Helps keep the mind alert.
Take away any active involvement and it will be far worse.
You want help people pay attention better by making it more dangerous for them to nod off?
Those don’t go together.
The car hadn't purchased autopilot.
1. The obvious. The "driver" turned on autopilot and then hopped into the back seat for a thrill-ride. This is what everyone is talking about, but its not necessarily true.
2. The less obvious. The driver took his passenger for a joyride, lost control of the vehicle in a residential area and then slammed into a tree. Lets call this the "Tiger Woords" theory. The resulting fire damaged the doors and the two people were unable to escape. The driver unbuckles himself and tries to escape through the rear-doors, but those also don't work. As such, both people burn to death in the car.
--------
This isn't *necessarily* an autopilot problem. But this is absolutely a "you crashed and then burned to death" problem. In both #1 and #2, this crash proves that a high-speed collision involving these Li-Ion battery packs could very well result in a fire that's extremely hard to douse.
There's also been numerous complaints about the difficulty of opening Tesla-doors when power is cut. If the batteries are damaged (or on fire), can be be sure that those doors can be opened at all?
How do Tesla's doors perform under a variety of crash situations? Are the manual-override instructions too confusing for typical people (especially during emergencies) ??
See: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/1rdqte/questio...
Even Tesla fans have difficulty precisely describing the manual override procedure to open up these doors.
> The interior handles on the front doors electronically open the door; if you continue pulling them all the way, a cable engages and unlocks the door in case of power loss
> The rear door latch is in the body frame and not the door. Therefore, in the event of power loss, there's something to pull on under the seat which will open the door
That's from 2012, so things have probably changed for the S. The front door looks easy enough, but if the front door was damaged from the accident... the rear-manual open procedure looks complicated.
I teach new passengers about it like some kind of airline safety video, but I doubt all people do.
The time someone really needs a mechanical door latch will be an emergency situation where they are not in the frame of mind necessary to understand why the handle they've successfully used a million other times is suddenly not functioning.
Imagine getting into a fist fight, only to realize that when you go to cover your face, your brain instead decides that your arms should cover your ass instead. "Well, the human manual says that during a fist fight, stomping your feet will cause your arms to cover your face." is hardly what someone wants to hear.
That's if you're conscious.
After an accident strong enough for the batteries to burst into flames, the manual override being on the inside of the car seems dubious.
Plus, as others have mentioned, it's very likely the same accident has wedged body panels together making opening of the door impossible, despite the manual override.
If one wants a more guaranteed way out - I advise buying a safety hammer for your car. They have a pointed impact head to shatter safety glass, as well as a belt cutter in case your seat belt is jammed.
And the Ford Pinto (yes, the Pinto. The "exploding car" that was the subject of "Fight Club" the movie) had 27 fire-related deaths around the 2.2-million car sold.
The number of Tesla-fires is quickly approaching Ford Pinto levels. (Mostly because the Ford Pinto fires were overblown: as a subject matter in a popular movie and pop culture, they really weren't much more explosive than other cars)
--------
Furthermore: the explosions of Tesla vehicles are requiring far more care. There needed to be over 20,000+ gallons of water over four hours to douse the flames in this very crash.
Only electric vehicles have that kind of sustained, multi-hour fire problem. Fire departments know full well how to put out a regular gasoline fire. But Li-Ion is kind of dangerous tech.
https://www.wcax.com/2021/03/03/car-fire-closes-part-of-i-93...
Last time the stats were visited on this a couple of years ago it seems has cars catch fire about 10x more than electric cars.
We get you like Tesla... but that doesn't excuse being deliberately obtuse. You cannot hand wave away these people that were stuck inside a fire bomb of a vehicle which required about 20 fire trucks worth of water[1] to extinguish the flames... For what should have been a routine accident response. The people inside, if still alive, had no chance of survival. That's really bad...
[1] https://www.solonohio.org/203/Fire-Trucks#:~:text=Contempora....
Many gas automotive fires don't have to do with maintenance either - that seems like a really odd assumption.
You stated upthread that you'd guess gasoline fueled vehicles catch fire more frequently than EV vehicles... you're going to need evidence to backup such an outlandish claim, and the cause of the fire would also need to be an accident such as the one this Tesla was involved in.
It's actually quite difficult to ignite gasoline in liquid form (which is what is in the fuel lines and fuel tank of an automobile). It must be a vapor, and it must be in the presence of an ignition source. ICE vehicles have been designed over the last 100 years to precisely not explode upon impact.
Real life isn't hollywood... cars just don't explode because of an accident... you can even shoot a full gas tank with a high caliber rifle and it'll still not explode nor catch fire. The problem you are equating to vehicles just does not exist anywhere except electronic vehicles powered by these Lithium-Ion batteries... like what is found in your average Tesla.
From the report:
"Vehicle fires accounted for 16 percent of the 1.3 million fires reported to US fire departments. Vehicle fires also caused 15 percentof all civilian fire deaths and 10 percent of all reported civilian fire injuries. In 2018, only fires in one- and two- family homes claimed more lives than vehicle fires. Vehicle fires caused 4.5 times the number of deaths as nonresidential structure fires and 1.6 times the number of apartment fire deaths."
> The leading causes of vehicle fires were mechanical failures or malfunctions and electrical failures or malfunctions. Older vehicles accounted for three-quarters of the highway vehicle fires caused by mechanical or electrical failures or malfunctions. Maintenance is important throughout the vehicle’s years of use.
So... no... not from accidents, but from maintenance neglect (as I already said). Not even remotely similar.
These Tesla's burst into flames upon impact, trapping the occupants inside and dooming them to death.
From your own source again:
> EV fires can occur:
> 1. When a vehicle is stationary. Extreme temperatures, high humidity, internal cell failure, and abuse of a LIB at some prior time can all cause such fires.
> 2. When the EV is charging due to overcharging or problems with the charging stations or cables.
> 3. After a traffic crash or other abuse does sufficient damage to cause ignition during or immediately after the crash.
> 4. When an LIB reignites after an initial fire has been handled.
> 5. Due to external factors, such as arson
So... what is the point you are trying to make here?
The very next sentence after your first selected quote.
You are picking an choosing data due to some very obvious bias. I don't think we can continue a productive conversation here. Bye.
Interviews with the widows suggest there were only two people in the car. I don't see why the two men would lie to their wives about how many people would be in the car. If there was a mysterious 3rd person "driver", then that "mysterious driver" would be sued the ever living crap out of by the two widows.
It wouldn't be the first time men have lied to their wives about what they are doing late at night. I'm just saying its a possibility.
I'm really not seeing how a 3rd person magically appears in this story.
"The names of the two crash victims, a 69-year old man, and a 59-year old man, were not immediately released by authorities."
This was in a quiet residential cul-de-sac, too.
What can cause high acceleration with no one in the driver's seat?
Hypothesis: the driver stepping on the accelerator caused the high acceleration.
After crashing into the tree, the driver tries the front door (which was damaged and fails to open). When the fire starts, the driver then moves to the rear seats, hoping to escape through the back doors.
Then the driver dies to the flames, unable to open even the rear doors. (Either due to ignorance to the back-latch, or due to the damage the rear-doors took during the crash).
-------
Remember, the Model S is a complicated electronic lock on both the front and rear doors. The safety issues associated with messing with door handles are well known, but you know... Tesla's want to be special.
> This was in a quiet residential cul-de-sac, too.
EDIT: So was Tiger Woods's car. But rich people with fast cars like to go 87mph on residential roads. Its an unfortunately common situation.
As far as exiting the vehicle goes, hand-crank windows seem like they'd be a lot safer, as they continue to function even if there isn't any power. I don't know if it would have mattered in this particular case, but I think it's a good idea to maximize the number of ways one could exit a potentially-burning car, whether it's powered by gas or batteries. Strange that society (car buyers, manufacturers, and regulators) make this trade-off of decreased safety because window cranks seem cheap, dorky, and old-fashioned.
For my part, I'm also curious how easy it is to actually switch from the driver's seat to the backseat of this kind of car. I know in my personal car (a sedan), it is very difficult to move from the driver's seat to any other seat, which makes me discount scenarios that involve the driver quickly hopping in any other seat. But internal car layouts differ, and I don't know if this specific model is much easier to transfer.
Another thing that is woefully unclear to me is a) what Teslas actually do to make sure the driver is driving when using Autopilot/FSD/whatever, and b) what they actually do when they think the driver isn't paying attention. I've seen many contradictory reports on these topics, especially when some people say that Tesla says this is what they do yet videos seem to indicate that they aren't doing that.
[1] That said, this is also a case where I would have a priori expected the police to be lying to blame the driver instead of the car manufacturer itself.
There is plenty of evidence towards rich assholes driving fast in residential areas (Tiger Woods). Why didn't Tiger Wood's car catch fire? Or I'm sure we've all know our high school jock who was a bit dangerous with his own car (maybe died of a crash while young). In my case, they didn't burn to death either. Etc. Etc.
Yes, I think Tesla dangerously over-sells the autopilot capabilities, but I have a hard time laying the blame for this accident at those feet. If anything, it's unfortunate that such a ridiculous thing happened, because Tesla will be able to use it to paint all autopilot failures with the same brush of irrational behavior, when many are a rational response to the the over-sold marketing from Tesla.
What are people going to think? People will take what they think is a small risk.
“Major improvements are being made to the vision stack every week. Beta button hopefully next month.
This is a “march of 9’s” trying to get probability of no injury above 99.999999% of miles for city driving. Production Autopilot is already above that for highway driving. 6:17 PM · Apr 14, 2021”
UPDATE
To be clear, I obviously understand they are not close to FSD. I’m trying to get people to understand how many in the general public will view this.
https://youtu.be/antLneVlxcs?t=639
https://youtu.be/antLneVlxcs?t=725
At least 2016, actually.
They would still be in a situation where they knew that there was a chance that the could be injured by relying only on autopilot. No one should expect autopilot to be perfect and if they value their safety they should pay attention at all times just like the Tesla UI tells you when you enable autopilot and while you are driving.
We’re also told FSD is 99.999% effective and getting better fast
There are those in the general public who will take that to mean that it’s safer than they should
No, they are not. I own a Tesla with the FSD package and I've seen many of the videos with FSD beta. FSD is definitely a remarkable technology but they are nowhere near close to FSD.
More likely they were playing with launch mode somehow and I guess thought that autopilot would magically engage and keep them safe? But IIRC those aren't compatible features.
I think it's correct to say that no one was driving the car. I just don't believe the CAR was attempting to drive itself either.
Edit: And per Musk, the card didn't have the FSD beta software (nor had even purchased it) and autopilot indeed wasn't enabled: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1384254194975010826
That said, what seems much more likely here is that they were engaged in some kind of manual work to get the car to accelerate ludicrously. And that's not a situation against which the autopilot should be reasonably expected to protect against.
a) Plug in a seat belt defeater, or plug in the seat belt after you hop out.
b) Hang a weight off the steering wheel so it feels torque.
At some point, it's hard to ban people being stupid. You can buy a woodchipper and take the guard off and shove your arm in, do we need to ban woodchippers? Or if we build something with layers of guards and safeties.. at some point you the user are responsible for what happens when you bypass them?
Company: "Nah bro, it was my car's feature X that killed them, not the self-driving feature"
Newspaper: "But self-driving cars are supposed to be safe!"
Company: "They are safe. It's just feature X cars that aren't safe. And we give people a choice."
Newspaper: "But self-driving cars are supposed to be safe!"
Which is to say, no one paid to attention to the exact breakdown because most people aren't going to dive into the options. If Tesla wants self-driving to seem safe, they sure as better disable all unsafe self-driving features.
I mean, just automatic transmission imposes a few restrictions on the driver that standard doesn't. "Maybe self-driving" is going to create driver behaviors that definitely-not-self-driving doesn't. Cars have been elaborately idiot-proofed for a long time 'cause a lot of idiots drive.
They said the same thing about the Toyota acceleration problem.
Then there's the pesky fact that a car needs like 1000HP to overpower the brakes on something like a modern Camry. So if people were actually pressing a brake pedal, which is physically connected to the hydraulic brake system, the car will stop.
Yeah, they were successfully sued over it, but all that means is that they were probably responsible based on the information the jury was allowed to hear. And I believe much of the culpability came down to the fact that the floormats did actually move into the pedal box for that era Toyota (mine did it all the time, even post-recall).
PS: I had a Prius during this time. Even after selling it, without experiencing any acceleration issues, Toyota wrote me a $2k check to agree to never sue them.
Don't believe me? This video from the FSD beta opens up with the text "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself"
At some point, we need to acknowledge that Elon Musk is deceiving his customers, his investors and all the hand-wavey legal bullshit around that is just that...bullshit.
Yes, it's therefore at least somewhat reasonable for someone to think they didn't need to be in the drivers seat. Although in this case it doesn't look like FSD was installed or activated on the car, if they're marketing it as a feature then sometimes even reasonable people will be confused and believe they have that option.
It tracks the lane lines using a dashboard camera and detects swaying/lane drifting. The system will nudge you back into your lane and beep at you. If it has to do this repeatedly, the dashboard will light up and ask you to take a break.
edit:
"Model 3 and Model Y are equipped with a Cabin Camera that is located above the rear-view mirror and turned off by default. If you enable the Cabin Camera, a short video clip will be captured and shared with Tesla following a safety event such as a collision or an advanced emergency braking (AEB) event. This short video clip is intended to capture the few seconds before a safety event and does not include any footage from the safety event itself."
https://www.tesla.com/support/car-safety-security-features#c...
Other cars with the camera enable such things as hands free driving. Tesla camera doesn’t do anything for you. Maybe send a pic of you screaming if you crash, but it’s not useful to you at that point.
Might I suggest "Death Valley."