Summoned Tesla Collides with Jet
twitter.com
twitter.com
Nope. Just an actual Tesla colliding with an actual jet.
What’s surprising to me is that it keeps moving post collision… seems odd that it can meet with unexpected resistance and not trigger some sort of emergency measure. (eg. stopping)
I used to be bullish about Tesla’s “only cameras” approach, and I still think they’ll crack FSD in some form, but I am increasingly wondering if there needs to be additional sensors for an abundance of extra safety around collision avoidance.
This is a requirement unless you want it getting stuck on minor bumps and whatnot.
That airplane is small enough it probably gets dragged around by hand when it's not chocked. The chocks small airports tend to use are pretty small to fit under the wheel fairings many small planes have. I can see it pushing the aircraft around by the tail.
Needs additional forward facing sensors then? (For both long and short distance object detection?)
Earlier on in Autopilot/FSD beta testing it was easier to overlook edge cases like this but I think we’re several years into this now and I’m starting to feel that at this stage it should be almost impossible for these cars to be driving into stationary objects.
I’m a proponent of what Tesla are doing but they need to solve this ASAP now, whether by hardware or software, before it erodes too much more confidence (especially as it’s all too easy for people to extrapolate from these documented edge cases and believe these vehicles to be less safe than they actually are).
Vision Jet weighs 6,000 lb at MTOW. So, unlikely.
I've moved similar planes myself.
The owners here are alpha testing a complex and dangerous system and they should expect nothing less.
This is the part of Tesla's business that upsets me. Their marketing department is being allowed to do what marketing departments do, rather than biting the bullet and letting it be known that this is a complex, dangerous, young, and known to fail system.
There are simple decisions here that should be made but weren't, e.g. "keep the product code-name until it is out of beta"; nothing on a current model Tesla deserves being called "self-driving" in any way.
My understanding is that smart summon operates on a completely different set of rules than navigate on city streets, even though they might share some common functionality, like object detection and mapping.
The marketing text for Summon literally says "Your car comes to you while you deal with a fussy child".
Disclaimer: do not use while distracted (like by a fussy child, for example) and always pay attention.
It's understandable why it may not be designed to check that situation, as it is not one you'd normally find in a parking lot (unless maybe a parking lot full of semi trailers).
Tesla is going to do more harm to the prospects of self-driving cars than anyone. Their "test in production" attitude is going to not only cost (more) lives but also force the government to strictly regulate the tech delaying the other companies that are acting responsibly.
Sounds pretty similar to the accidents involving trailers, where the top of the cars were sheared off because it didn't detect anything there.
> Neither Brown nor the car braked for a tractor-trailer, which had turned left in front of the Tesla and was crossing its path. Brown’s Tesla also went beneath the trailer and its roof was sheared off. After that crash Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company made changes in its system so radar would play more of a role in detecting objects.
They got rid of radar, so I wonder if that's made it again more difficult to detect these scenarios.
It seems like nothing irreplaceable (like human life or health) was lost or even at risk in this case.
Oh, whoops, our FSD car hit a deer. The driver should've been prepared to stop the car.
Well of course, but when a Volvo with last generation technology can safely stop the car, that's not an excuse.
The Uber software chose to take no action, the Uber employee at the wheel was apparently paying no attention, and Uber had disabled the Volvo software, the only agent involved that actually thought it would be a good idea to pay attention and try not to kill a woman with a bike on a dark night. Uber shouldn't be allowed to test their software on public roads in my opinion.
I don't think you can take this autopilot, and FSD (Fools Self Driving) contraption seriously or remotely ready for customers to use; even for a 'beta'. Since it's functionality doesn't even work as advertised, puts the lives of other drivers on the road at risk and it is completely useless at the most dangerous time to drive, which is at night.
For example, as a simple test against another autonomous vehicle with LIDAR at night. [0] The Tesla with FSD failed to stop and just ran over the object.
The best part is 100,000 crash dummies have this software installed and seem to be taking the risk in trying it out, even when it malfunctions on the public roads and what we can see here. This contraption needs to be thoroughly investigated.
[0] https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1478802681141645322
I thought that was the worst part of it too, assuming theres nobody inside the car at the wheel. It keeps going, stops, then moves again and looks to go around whatever obstacle it thinks exists. What if this situation can be replicated on an empty road where the tesla runs over a human being? In the worst case, does the tesla keep trying to drive over the human being and turns a minor injury into a fatality?
a) the full sensor stream if possible, but if not, then at least the candidate software could process the sensor stream in real time and output a condensed state and save that
b) the human driver's actual control inputs
Collect these and analyze when the software's suggested inputs deviate significantly from the human's input. Some of the time, that'll be computer reacted to things faster, or human appears intoxicated, but based on real world reports, there's got to be a large space of human driver did the right thing and computer ignored important parts of the scene.
I also think there's some evidence that Tesla has the approach of continue driving unless computer can determine it's unsafe to continue, whereas Alphabet/Google/Waymo has the approach of only drive when computer can determine it's safe, which is way more frustrating to drive nearby, but leads to better outcomes. With Tesla, we usually have reports of collisions at the intended driving speed (which is slow for summon, so great), whereas Waymo collisions are usually at slow speeds often as a result of traffic hitting the Waymo vehicle which was stopped in an unexpected way.
Remember, we have to move fast and break t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ people, literally!
https://twitter.com/PatrickMoorhead/status/14785490274780651...
https://twitter.com/PatrickMoorhead/status/14787645152609116...
https://twitter.com/PatrickMoorhead/status/14787661657237790...
The aircraft owner and insurer could sue Tesla, but likely Tesla's terms of use require the car only be on public roads and private driveways.
"When using Smart Summon, you must maintain a clear line of sight between you and Model Y and stay prepared to stop the vehicle at any time by releasing the button on the mobile app."
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/is_is/GUID-6B9A1AE...
Presumably the driver is insured, right? And insurance covers the his nonsense...
This makes reckless driving easier, but it should still be considered (primarily) the fault of the driver.
"The airbag is in beta! It may not work at night, so be sure to turn it off or it may kill you."
“They we’re using a beta feature honey, it’s not Tesla’s fault.”
“Ok! I’ll go out and play.”
I’m so sick of people using BETA like some magic get-out-of-responsibility free card. Once you let people drive a 3000lb car remotely you can call it pre-alpha if you want. You’re still responsible.
Might as well call not-it.
While it would be wise for Tesla to introduce some form of verification (e.g. push and release the button according to the flashing pattern of the interior lights), I would consider the driver significantly more responsible than Tesla.
Still, it’s not a person in physical control at the drivers seat. No one is even in the car. I can think of a LOT of ways it could go badly.
I agree it’s not as bad as it could be. But that’s not good enough for me. The feature can be dangerous, and not just to people.
Putting a ‘beta’ label on isn’t enough and doesn’t absolve them. They should be held at fault too, in my opinion. Obviously the ‘driver’(?) is at fault too.
To avoid liability the instructions should specify "monitor at such a distance that clearances can be accurately judged". The current guidance implies it's fine if you watch from a distance.
Smart summon intentionally doesn't work at far distances by design, and exactly for the reasons you've mentioned.
The distance limitation is 20 meters within a 6 meter radius of the phone's location. There is no need for a guidance on that, as it is automatically enforced. But there is no way to automatically enforce you looking at the car, hence why the warning about keeping line of sight is there.
Honestly it's embarrassing; if a human behaved this way behind the wheel of a car, I would assume they were high on something stronger than weed.