Fired Tesla Employee Posts New Video of Full Self-Driving Running Red Light
jalopnik.com
jalopnik.com
In those instances, the (temporary) light box was tilted enough to make it seem like the light could have been for the parallel road and not us.
I didn't bring it up because Beta detects and reacts to pretty much every other light like you'd expect.
What I don't get is why the driver/passenger are freaking out on camera. I'm going to guess its clearly for the social media outrage. They were already saying it was a red light before they passed it. They could have pressed the brakes at any time, but they decided to spend the time cursing. The car was already clearly approaching way too fast for the intersection (~25 mph) and they chose to do nothing.
You want to pretend like we jumped to the engineering end and it’s a solved problem. It’s not. I know if my family drove through this intersection daily, I wouldn’t find the risk as acceptable.
It’s part of the contract for beta users that you have to pay full attention to the road ahead and be ready to react at all times if the system makes a mistake. In the case of the clip in OP, they deliberately didn’t react and should be kicked off the program by Tesla and fined by the police.
Because they are way more likely to be engaged on the easy miles and they are still bad enough that the driver pays attention
I would be willing to bet, with Tesla's fraudulent ways, they are counting a brake before an accident a driver-in-control accident. They should be required to publish the time-since-FSD of every single accident in a Tesla vehicle.
There is no independently verifiable data that supports this.
You’ll have to do some deeper statistical analysis to discredit what they’re saying.
I don’t need to discredit it, my default is to not believe it unless there has been verification by an independent body. Over time you learn to look at the wording of claims from a company and read between the lines. They may have cherry picked some stat under certain conditions but it won’t be representative - the small print will read stuff like “highway miles, during daylight hours when compared to similar vehicles” which gives them a bunch of wiggle room.
Many companies claim things in their marketing material, I’ve never know anyone to take it at face value but todays the day I guess.
The red light comes into view first actually and only then does the green one come into play, but fair enough that this doesn't say much. As soon as you're past the big bend and going straight towards the light (i.e. before the final bend) I can clearly see one red light that the car and driver are facing head on and another green light, which is slightly turned on an angle from the car/driver. As we get closer, we can even see that they did this on purpose, i.e. the red light is purposefully not right above the road and facing the road head on (which would only be the tiny part of if after the slight right bend) but is clearly meant for the people coming around the big bend, so they can see from afar that there's a red light. Then as you turn the slight right bend before turning left onto the main road, you have the regular lights as you would see at any t-intersection and they're clearly red.
Also any driver that is unclear of what the lights mean should simply slow down so they have more time to survey the situation, which if they interpret all the perfectly visible lights correctly at a late point only, they are slow enough that breaking would stop them where they should stop.
Instead it seems that people are siding with the auto-pilot, which thinks that he very clearly has a green light and takes the intersection at speed. It barely slowed down from 30 to 27 before taking the actual left turn of the intersection so it seems to have been very sure of what it's seeing. So if people are saying that this is an unclearly lit intersection, the auto-pilot disagrees and it thinks that it very clearly is that green light that's meant for the road its on.
Some folks also seem to find it reasonable to let others know when something is unsafe.
Seen in that light, I don’t really see an issue and don’t think it’s cool to diminish the video by suggesting it was merely to produce outrage.
I, for one, don’t want to run into a wayward Tesla while on the highway.
A few days later I was going down the hill at night just like the drunk driver. For a second I saw the upcoming light and then one soon after it overlap because of the gradient on the hill and the distance between the lights.
I could definitely see AI and people not paying attention getting overlapping lights like this confused.
we often make up for this in human judgment, but the machines are unable to make up for that, and that's a major gap.
First, looking at it on 2D video shot at night is very different than actually being there. But more importantly, the acceptable threshold for autonomous vehicles is not and never will be “Better than the worst drivers.”
Definitely poor intersection design though as well. I've seen lights with extensions around the bulb to prevent them from being seen from obtuse angles, I wonder why these lights don't have those? Especially at night it would completely block your vision of the light(s) that don't apply to your road.
But the serious issue with the FSD doesn't become moot because of this.
Plus, if you see both red and green lights, your first instinct as a driver (human or not) should be to stop and re-examine more closely, not run through it.
I would hope a driver using FSD or any other system like it would be alert/aware to intervene...but for this video, it looks like they were trying to see how the car would react.
This entirely feels like a manufactured scenario since they simply did not act like a informed driver, and decided to freak out.
If none of this is true, than they are incredibly shitty drivers that were not paying attention to what was happening and let the car cruise through a red light. The exact same scenario would have occurred with a standard 1990 era cruise control system.
"They're a bad person so this must be fake", or maybe they're a bad person which is exactly why they thought doing something like this is okay
Look I'm all for knowing this information, that something like this can happen. But to be clear, in no way do I condone how it was done. This seems reckless for the sake of clicks.
There is an intersection in Houston that is one of the most dangerous in the USA that kills a dozen people a year due to poor design and planning from TxDOT. There are probably hundreds of intersections like this around the country that will need to be fixed.
If I go paint road lines into a wall painted like a tunnel, are the drivers who hit the tunnel wall responsible, or is it me who painted the road lines?
The white lines of the two adjacent lanes made it look like there was a well-defined lane there, with the barrier right in the center.
Here's a pretty good picture of what it looked like then:
https://www.autopilotreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/m...
You can see there is no hatching to make it obvious it was a non-drivable area.
I would have expected something like this might have made a difference:
https://driveractive.com/Assets/photos/rm25.png
(that said, why didn't radar help?)
Also, there's a huge yellow and black chevron block visible in that picture that any human driver paying attention would have seen and easily avoided. Crosshatching is unnecessary if you're paying the least bit of attention to what's in front of you. What was the software's issue here?
It is absolutely a problem with the Tesla software that it wasn't able to parse that area properly. Doesn't necessarily mean the human driver wasn't at fault.
I do think that it had already stopped at least one, maybe multiple crashes since it has been last replaced.
The discussion here though is about visibility, and the attenuator would have been quite obvious there.
Page 2 (which is actually the 22nd page of the pdf) shows an image of the pre-crash state of the attenuator. It is present, but non-operational due to a previous crash. While that crash affected it's usefulness, it's visibility is only marginally reduced.