Driver Errors, Overreliance on Automation, Lack of Safeguards, Led to Fatal Tesla Autopilot Crash - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]The National Transportation Safety Board determined Tuesday that a truck driver’s failure to yield the right of way and a car driver’s inattention due to overreliance on vehicle automation are the probable cause of the fatal May 7, 2016, crash near Williston, Florida. The NTSB also determined the operational design of the Tesla’s vehicle automation permitted the car driver’s overreliance on the automation, noting its design allowed prolonged disengagement from the driving task and enabled the driver to use it in ways inconsistent with manufacturer guidance and warnings. As a result of its investigation the NTSB issued seven new safety recommendations and reiterated two previously issued safety recommendations. ... The Tesla’s automated vehicle control system was not designed to, and could not, identify the truck crossing the Tesla’s path or recognize the impending crash. Therefore, the system did not slow the car, the forward collision warning system did not provide an alert, and the automatic emergency braking did not activate. The Tesla driver’s pattern of use of the Autopilot system indicated an over-reliance on the automation and a lack of understanding of the system limitations. If automated vehicle control systems do not automatically restrict their own operation to conditions for which they were designed and are appropriate, the risk of driver misuse remains. The way in which the Tesla “Autopilot” system monitored and responded to the driver’s interaction with the steering wheel was not an effective method of ensuring driver engagement. Tesla made design changes to its “Autopilot” system following the crash. The change reduced the period of time before the “Autopilot” system issues a warning/alert when the driver’s hands are off the steering wheel. The change also added a preferred road constraint to the alert timing sequence. Fatigue, highway design and mechanical system failures were not factors in the crash. There was no evidence indicating the truck driver was distracted by cell phone use. While evidence revealed the Tesla driver was not attentive to the driving task, investigators could not determine from available evidence the reason for his inattention. Although the results of post-crash drug testing established that the truck driver had used marijuana before the crash, his level of impairment, if any, at the time of the crash could not be determined from the available evidence.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170912.aspx[/url] [QUOTE]New Recommendations As a result of its investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following new safety recommendations: To the US Department of Transportation: 1. Define the data parameters needed to understand the automated vehicle control systems involved in a crash. The parameters must reflect the vehicle’s control status and the frequency and duration of control actions to adequately characterize driver and vehicle performance before and during a crash. To the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 2. Develop a method to verify that manufacturers of vehicles equipped with Level 2 vehicle automation systems incorporate system safeguards that limit the use of automated vehicle control systems to those conditions for which they were designed. 3. Use the data parameters defined by the US Department of Transportation in response to Safety Recommendation [1] as a benchmark for new vehicles equipped with automated vehicle control systems so that they capture data that reflect the vehicle’s control status and the frequency and duration of control actions needed to adequately characterize driver and vehicle performance before and during a crash; the captured data should be readily available to, at a minimum, National Transportation Safety Board investigators and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulators. 4. Define a standard format for reporting automated vehicle control systems data, and require manufacturers of vehicles equipped with automated vehicle control systems to report incidents, crashes, and vehicle miles operated with such systems enabled. To manufacturers of vehicles equipped with Level 2 vehicle automation systems (Audi of America, BMW of North America, Infiniti USA, Mercedes-Benz USA, Tesla Inc., and Volvo Car USA): 5. Incorporate system safeguards that limit the use of automated vehicle control systems to those conditions for which they were designed. 6. Develop applications to more effectively sense the driver’s level of engagement and alert the driver when engagement is lacking while automated vehicle control systems are in use.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2017-HWY16FH018-BMG-abstract.pdf[/url]

[quote]The Tesla driver’s pattern of use of the Autopilot system indicated an over-reliance on the automation and a lack of understanding of the system limitations. If automated vehicle control systems do not automatically restrict their own operation to conditions for which they were designed and are appropriate, the risk of driver misuse remains.[/quote] I've been saying this for a while. People are objectively worse drivers than they used to be. Even things as commonplace as ABS have made people more aggressive and lazy. It's stupidly common to see people screaming around in their AWD vehicles with traction control in conditions that merit substantial caution, particularly in the rust belt. They aren't flying off the road, but make themselves utterly reliant on those systems without properly understanding their limitations. It's incredibly easy to go into a corner too hot and to spin out when you are unknowingly pushing equipment to it's limits. Not that I would recommend discarding these safety features mind you. Injuries and fatalities are steadily decreasing over time as the features get better and better. I'm just saying that it's an uphill battle, and a testament to the old saying "Make something idiot proof and the world will design a better idiot." Full automation will ultimately resolve this, but you can expect the number of "Jesus Christ that guy was a fucking moron" stories to keep increasing until then. That or the systems will wind up so neutered that they become impractical for everyday use, otherwise known as "This is why we can't have nice things."

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;52674989]I've been saying this for a while. People are objectively worse drivers than they used to be. Even things as commonplace as ABS have made people more aggressive and lazy. It's stupidly common to see people screaming around in their AWD vehicles with traction control in conditions that merit substantial caution, particularly in the rust belt. They aren't flying off the road, but make themselves utterly reliant on those systems without properly understanding their limitations. It's incredibly easy to go into a corner too hot and to spin out when you are unknowingly pushing equipment to it's limits. Not that I would recommend discarding these safety features mind you. Injuries and fatalities are steadily decreasing over time as the features get better and better. I'm just saying that it's an uphill battle, and a testament to the old saying "Make something idiot proof and the world will design a better idiot." Full automation will ultimately resolve this, but you can expect the number of "Jesus Christ that guy was a fucking moron" stories to keep increasing until then. That or the systems will wind up so neutered that they become impractical for everyday use, otherwise known as "This is why we can't have nice things."[/QUOTE] Call me old fashioned, but that's why I believe people should learn to drive in vehicles where the most advanced and "active" technical driving safety feature (barring crumble zones, airbags or seatbelts) are brake booster and disk brakes. And practicing on a enclosed driving course capable of simulating most common driving conditions (especially wet driving and outright aquaplaning). That actually gives you some respect for the driving conditions and how the car behaves, instead of numbing you so you think you're OK until even the modern technical equipment can't save you. That said modern Daily Drivers definitely should have those features, but many people really do benefit from a "refresher" course in a old banger on a driving course.

I had to look it up again just to be sure: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk[/url] Just as I remembered, the trailer did not have side underride guards, since they're apparently not mandatory in the US. Not to claim that the driver was blameless in this case, far from it, but even if he braked, he still could have easily ended up dead.

[QUOTE=Murkrow;52675128]I had to look it up again just to be sure: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk[/url] Just as I remembered, the trailer did not have side underride guards, since they're apparently not mandatory in the US. Not to claim that the driver was blameless in this case, far from it, but even if he braked, he still could have easily ended up dead.[/QUOTE] I really don't know why underride guards aren't a thing in the US. They even improve efficiency iirc. If you hit a truck without them then the outcome isn't pretty, as seen in this incident: [t]https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/screen-shot-2017-06-20-at-7-30-49-am-e1497959759674.png[/t]

[QUOTE=Morgen;52675166]I really don't know why underride guards aren't a thing in the US. They even improve efficiency iirc. If you hit a truck without them then the outcome isn't pretty, as seen in this incident: [t]https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/screen-shot-2017-06-20-at-7-30-49-am-e1497959759674.png[/t][/QUOTE] Most of the time, underride guards are just a low metal brace in the rear that essentially acts as a rear bumper at car bumper height. They don't really improve efficiency, but their added weight to a fully loaded trailer means it's also also negligible when it comes to their weight worsening brake distance or fuel efficiency. It's one of those things where the pros greatly outweigh the cons, given a car rear ending a trailer puts the driver's head right at decapitation height.

[QUOTE=Van-man;52675240]Most of the time, underride guards are just a low metal brace in the rear that essentially acts as a rear bumper at car bumper height. They don't really improve efficiency, but their added weight to a fully loaded trailer means it's also also negligible when it comes to their weight worsening brake distance or fuel efficiency. It's one of those things where the pros greatly outweigh the cons, given a car rear ending a trailer puts the driver's head right at decapitation height.[/QUOTE] Side underride guards are a thing as well, apparently in the US ~500 people die every year from going under the side of trailers.

Side ones get hung up on terrain, especially railroad crossings. I don't remember where I read it, but I saw a cost:benefit analysis of the aerodynamic foils under the trailers (not a bumper, basically just sheet metal fins to slightly reduce drag underneath the trailer), and they apparently get ripped apart frequently enough that they more or less break even with their cost, so nobody really runs them because it's a pain in the ass when they do get hung up on something.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52675261]Side underride guards are a thing as well, apparently in the US ~500 people die every year from going under the side of trailers.[/QUOTE] This sounds fucking calloused but why do people always try to beat trucks/trailers/lorries? The risks HEAVILY outweigh any gains you get from it. Just be patient.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;52675313]Side ones get hung up on terrain, especially railroad crossings. I don't remember where I read it, but I saw a cost:benefit analysis of the aerodynamic foils under the trailers (not a bumper, basically just sheet metal fins to slightly reduce drag underneath the trailer), and they apparently get ripped apart frequently enough that they more or less break even with their cost, so nobody really runs them because it's a pain in the ass when they do get hung up on something.[/QUOTE] They have been mandatory in Europe for decades so they seem to of figured it out here.

Even in aviation, today, automation complacency is a very real thing and the biggest problem with automation. A pilot, while letting the plane fly itself, still has to monitor all the systems, but because of the autopilot, boredom and hypovigilance set in, which lets unusual parameters go unnoticed. Which is why some airlines let the pilots fly the airplane manually in some situations where they don't necessarily have to; to keep the workload and arousal to a healthy level and make the flight safer. Automation is defined in every EASA document as an aid for the pilots, a tool, [B]not[/B] as something to replace them or allow them to take a nap. With cars beginning to come with "autopilot" modes of one type or another, people need to be taught to not over-rely on these systems, much like pilots. Autopilot has not been perfected in the sky where it has existed for many decades, let alone on the ground where not only is the technology a lot more recent but the environment a lot more complex. Even with automation aside; human factors studies that have existed for so long in aviation have to start seeping into the automotive world. And I defend that people taking a driver's license should be taught, and practice, how to recover the car in situations of loss of traction and other abnormal attitudes, much like a pilot is taught stall/spin recovery, but that's a big logistics problem as you can't exactly practice that safely on public roads.

[quote]If automated vehicle control systems do not automatically restrict their own operation to conditions for which they were designed and are appropriate, the risk of driver misuse remains.[/quote] You'd have to remove everything but the bare minimum mechanical parts required for the vehicle to operate. [editline]12th September 2017[/editline] If anything, we should automate as fast as we can, and remove the driver from the equation. It's the only way to prevent reckless driving without leaving thousands essentially doomed, unable to work because they cannot drive, and potentially become homeless because of that.

Ahh, another case-in-point of why automation isn't going to be the magical road safety cure-all people hope it to be. When are we going to stop fawning over computerizing the car and start making 'holding a license' actually mean something? [QUOTE=Van-man;52675047]Call me old fashioned, but that's why I believe people should learn to drive in vehicles where the most advanced and "active" technical driving safety feature (barring crumble zones, airbags or seatbelts) are brake booster and disk brakes.[/QUOTE] I say you go even older still. Four corner hydraulic drum brakes, no power steering, no power assist, non-synchronized 3-on-the-tree, should be the equipment set of the vehicles people are trained on. Basically, a '34 Ford sedan with a period correct 4-pot in it. If they can control something so stone age it was considered conservative in the 1940s they'll have no trouble controlling the much more modern car they drive in everyday life. [editline]12th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52675487]You'd have to remove everything but the bare minimum mechanical parts required for the vehicle to operate. [editline]12th September 2017[/editline] If anything, we should automate as fast as we can, and remove the driver from the equation. It's the only way to prevent reckless driving without leaving thousands essentially doomed, unable to work because they cannot drive, and potentially become homeless because of that.[/QUOTE] And how, pray tell, are they going to afford a $40,000 car when $5,000 is too much of a loan for them? What about those of us so financially assfucked that we have to choose between buying food for the week and replacing bald maypops that have broken belts in them, hrm?

[QUOTE=Morgen;52675166]I really don't know why underride guards aren't a thing in the US. They even improve efficiency iirc. If you hit a truck without them then the outcome isn't pretty, as seen in this incident: [t]https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/screen-shot-2017-06-20-at-7-30-49-am-e1497959759674.png[/t][/QUOTE] It's money. Pure and simple. It adds weight which costs fuel and load capacity on top of initial cost. The only way these will make their way into real world use is if the government requires it, which isn't seen as a big issue. Seeing as rear guards weren't even properly mandated until the 90s, I don't see them being used anytime soon. It's kinda shitty, but that's the way it is.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52676208]Ahh, another case-in-point of why automation isn't going to be the magical road safety cure-all people hope it to be. When are we going to stop fawning over computerizing the car and start making 'holding a license' actually mean something?[/QUOTE] Autopilot at this point is just advanced cruise control. But it's already proven to massively reduce the rate of crashes. Autopilot has undoubtedly saved lives, and the system has improved to the point that this incident wouldn't be repeatable.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;52674989]I've been saying this for a while. People are objectively worse drivers than they used to be. Even things as commonplace as ABS have made people more aggressive and lazy. It's stupidly common to see people screaming around in their AWD vehicles with traction control in conditions that merit substantial caution, particularly in the rust belt. They aren't flying off the road, but make themselves utterly reliant on those systems without properly understanding their limitations. It's incredibly easy to go into a corner too hot and to spin out when you are unknowingly pushing equipment to it's limits. Not that I would recommend discarding these safety features mind you. Injuries and fatalities are steadily decreasing over time as the features get better and better. I'm just saying that it's an uphill battle, and a testament to the old saying "Make something idiot proof and the world will design a better idiot." Full automation will ultimately resolve this, but you can expect the number of "Jesus Christ that guy was a fucking moron" stories to keep increasing until then. That or the systems will wind up so neutered that they become impractical for everyday use, otherwise known as "This is why we can't have nice things."[/QUOTE] Hell, even something as simple and common as 4WD. Here we have idiots coming in via the airbase or whatever who get a big 4x4 truck, see a muddy/snow-covered road and think "Aha! I'll just switch into four-wheel drive, and this will be a cake-walk!" and naturally, they get stuck, and now they can't get our because they got stuck [I]in four-wheel drive[/I].

[QUOTE=Morgen;52675383]They have been mandatory in Europe for decades so they seem to of figured it out here.[/QUOTE] Europe's trailers are built completely differently. It's unfortunately not as simple as "do what they're doing" because we either have to retrofit problematic side guards onto the trailers, or replace the millions of trailers on the road with brand new ones, and probably need to adjust infrastructure like loading docks as well. It's a huge expense that no one wants to bear, so its probably not going to happen here.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;52675389] Even with automation aside; human factors studies that have existed for so long in aviation have to start seeping into the automotive world. And I defend that people taking a driver's license should be taught, and practice, how to recover the car in situations of loss of traction and other abnormal attitudes, much like a pilot is taught stall/spin recovery, but that's a big logistics problem as you can't exactly practice that safely on public roads.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if anything like it exists as part of driver's license training elsewhere, but in Denmark there is a mandatory day of training in a facility where you're taught exactly that. The facility can simulate various conditions, from a bit of damp road to full on aqua planing. There's an instructor talking to you over the radio who straight up [B]forces[/B] you to skid out. They'll keep yelling at you to drive faster and brake harder until you do lose control and afterwards they'll force you into the same situation but tell you to attempt to recover the car. There's also some training with brake distances depending on your speed, so you get a feel for how much longer your brake distance actually gets as your speed increases. It's honestly really fun too.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52676208]Ahh, another case-in-point of why automation isn't going to be the magical road safety cure-all people hope it to be. When are we going to stop fawning over computerizing the car and start making 'holding a license' actually mean something??[/QUOTE] [quote]The Tesla’s automated vehicle control system [b]was not designed to[/b], and could not, identify the truck crossing the Tesla’s path or recognize the impending crash.[/quote] Highlighted it for you. If it was designed to do so, i absolutely guarantee it would avoid the truck much better than a human ever could. AI is [b]really[/b] good at this shit.

[QUOTE=Capsup;52676749]I'm not sure if anything like it exists as part of driver's license training elsewhere, but in Denmark there is a mandatory day of training in a facility where you're taught exactly that. The facility can simulate various conditions, from a bit of damp road to full on aqua planing. There's an instructor talking to you over the radio who straight up [B]forces[/B] you to skid out. They'll keep yelling at you to drive faster and brake harder until you do lose control and afterwards they'll force you into the same situation but tell you to attempt to recover the car. There's also some training with brake distances depending on your speed, so you get a feel for how much longer your brake distance actually gets as your speed increases. It's honestly really fun too.[/QUOTE] Closed circuit training courses are mandatory in a ton of European countries, we have it here in Austria (Half a year after you get your license), germany has it and I'd wager most others around here do too. It's a very enjoyable experience for people that like driving and you get to test several limits safely, but back when I went through it there were several people who were forced by their parents to go in order not to lose their license and had no interest in participating. Also went there again as part of emergency driving training and one of our female drivers didn't manage to do the backwards driving course at all, she basically ran off the road every 5 meters. Sadly the exercise wasn't long enough for her to improve at all.

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;52676915]Closed circuit training courses are mandatory in a ton of European countries, we have it here in Austria (Half a year after you get your license), germany has it and I'd wager most others around here do too. It's a very enjoyable experience for people that like driving and you get to test several limits safely, but back when I went through it there were several people who were forced by their parents to go in order not to lose their license and had no interest in participating. Also went there again as part of emergency driving training and one of our female drivers didn't manage to do the backwards driving course at all, she basically ran off the road every 5 meters. Sadly the exercise wasn't long enough for her to improve at all.[/QUOTE] I had the same type of training we also got to experience climbing out of a flipped car.

I'm pretty against automated cars since no matter how well it's designed there is always a risk of something unexpected going wrong, even aeroplanes which have the most advanced autopilot systems with multiple redundancies have had severe failures, these also still require the crew to be fully alert at all times, your average driver isn't held to such high standards, frankly I'd rather have a poor driver at the wheel than a computer. There is certainly a use for using AI to enhance driver awareness and to provide emergency systems but total control in my opinion is dangerous and I can guarantee more people will die as a result of relying on it.

[QUOTE=Tampong;52677012]I had the same type of training we also got to experience climbing out of a flipped car.[/QUOTE] How did they simulate that? Had to climb in first? :V: Our national accident insurance actually has crash simulators that lets you experience a "slow" frontal crash in (i think) a smart. I believe it was part of a seatbelt promotion. They even take a sorta polaroid photo of you during the peak.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;52677016]I'm pretty against automated cars since no matter how well it's designed there is always a risk of something unexpected going wrong, even aeroplanes which have the most advanced autopilot systems with multiple redundancies have had severe failures, these also still require the crew to be fully alert at all times, your average driver isn't held to such high standards, frankly I'd rather have a poor driver at the wheel than a computer. There is certainly a use for using AI to enhance driver awareness and to provide emergency systems but total control in my opinion is dangerous and I can guarantee more people will die as a result of relying on it.[/QUOTE] Autopilot, even in its current stage has been proven to reduce crashes by about 40%. The system doesn't have to be perfect, just better than humans. If a car with autonomous features screws up and kills someone once in awhile that's probably worth the trade off IMO. Plus when something like this happens then it can be fixed, and won't happen again to any car using autopilot.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52677328]Autopilot, even in its current stage has been proven to reduce crashes by about 40%. The system doesn't have to be perfect, just better than humans. If a car with autonomous features screws up and kills someone once in awhile that's probably worth the trade off IMO. Plus when something like this happens then it can be fixed, and won't happen again to any car using autopilot.[/QUOTE] There should always be a manual override though. Just last week my navigation sent me via a route that took 40 minutes longer. I knew a slight detour was faster, so I ignored it. With a fully automated car I would've been 40 minutes late. Advanced cruise control is great for highway cruising, but automation shouldn't be used in towns or cities. Seems much too dangerous to me. Also, fairly sure it isn't automation that reduces crashes by 40%. It's sensors that detect crashes and obstacles. Which has been a thing for the last 15 years.

[QUOTE=joost1120;52677342]There should always be a manual override though. Just last week my navigation sent me via a route that took 40 minutes longer. I knew a slight detour was faster, so I ignored it. With a fully automated car I would've been 40 minutes late. Advanced cruise control is great for highway cruising, but automation shouldn't be used in towns or cities. Seems much too dangerous to me. Also, fairly sure it isn't automation that reduces crashes by 40%. It's sensors that detect crashes and obstacles. Which has been a thing for the last 15 years.[/QUOTE] Those sensors are part of automation. No one's advocating for removing manual control. The guy that unfortunately died in this incident actually posted a video a few months prior of the autopilot system saving him from being sideswiped by a truck. Autopilot is actually amazing in rush hour city traffic as well.

[QUOTE=joost1120;52677342]There should always be a manual override though. Just last week my navigation sent me via a route that took 40 minutes longer. I knew a slight detour was faster, so I ignored it. With a fully automated car I would've been 40 minutes late. Advanced cruise control is great for highway cruising, but automation shouldn't be used in towns or cities. Seems much too dangerous to me. Also, fairly sure it isn't automation that reduces crashes by 40%. It's sensors that detect crashes and obstacles. Which has been a thing for the last 15 years.[/QUOTE] Of course a car's always gonna have a manual override, the environment on the ground is so much more complex than in the air. Obstacles can appear where previously no obstacle was ever there. I will always be the first one to speak out against someone inferring that humans should be thrown out of the equation completely. But there's nothing wrong with [I]some[/I] automation that, for instance, brakes if it detects an obstacle, or keeps you in your lane in case you fall asleep while driving (so long as it's not intrusive during normal driving). It just protects both you and the car. And I don't think anybody enjoys driving in very heavy/stop-and-go traffic, so having the car be able to do that while you do something more interesting like going on youtube or something would be a big help.

[QUOTE=Capsup;52676749]I'm not sure if anything like it exists as part of driver's license training elsewhere, but in Denmark there is a mandatory day of training in a facility where you're taught exactly that. The facility can simulate various conditions, from a bit of damp road to full on aqua planing. There's an instructor talking to you over the radio who straight up [B]forces[/B] you to skid out. They'll keep yelling at you to drive faster and brake harder until you do lose control and afterwards they'll force you into the same situation but tell you to attempt to recover the car. There's also some training with brake distances depending on your speed, so you get a feel for how much longer your brake distance actually gets as your speed increases. It's honestly really fun too.[/QUOTE] In Canada the driver ed schools used to take students to empty parking lot during the winter and make them skid and drift all over the place. Unfortunately they rarely do it anymore since it's illegal.