[mikerathbun]

I get frustrated when Tesla blames the driver for these crashes by saying that they aren't touching the wheel or are ignoring messages. It is extremely common for my car to warn me to keep my hands on the when WHILE I have my hands on the wheel. Even shaking it a little will sometimes not cancel out the warnings. It doesn't seem to matter if my hands are on the top or bottom of the wheel. Anything short of a deathgrip and constant jiggling of the wheel doesn't seem to consistantly register as keeping your hands on the wheel. Anyone who has used Autopilot for a significant amount of time has been beeped at for not having their hands on the wheel even though they are. And yes, the car will make crazy maneuvers at times that no driver in their right mind would make. I still like it and am glad I opted for it, but it is far from earning its namesake.

[intherdfield]

That is very significant!

Your comment suggests that Tesla's claims about the driver having his hands off the wheel for x seconds before a crash could be wrong. If the sensors detect the drivers hands are not on the wheel when they actually are on the wheel, then data logged about how long the driver's hands were off the wheel should be considered suspect.

I hope that's being investigated.

Personally, I'm having trouble believing the driver who died in the recent accident ignored the warnings for six seconds before the head-on collision, especially when he knew Autopilot didn't work well at that section of road.

I'm not familiar with how the system works. If the warning engages, is there a guarantee that the driver will have to take over shortly? Or are there scenarios when the warning turns off by itself and so the driver could have been waiting to see if the car would correct?

[Edit: lolc and Vik1ng pointed out that the warning isn't related to unsafe conditions as I implied. It's used whenever the sensors think the driver's hands are off the wheel.]

[MertsA]

Tesla didn't claim that he didn't have his hands on the wheel, they claimed that it wasn't detected. Tesla knows how inaccurate that is. Tesla has always been shamefully misleading with all of their victim blaming PR pieces. I get that there's plenty of "unintended acceleration" cases where the driver straight up lies about hitting the wrong pedal but they included that information about what the driver did earlier in the trip and the time he would have had a view of the barrier solely to imply that it's his fault that autopilot killed him. That's never an okay thing to do yet it seems like this is Tesla's modus operandi when there's some high profile accident.

Who cares if he had 5 seconds to see the barrier if he only had 0.5 seconds to realize that the car went into casual murder mode right as it veers into the barrier. They make it sound like it had to have been driver error with facts that are irrelevant to the question at hand. Your assumption that Tesla claimed he didn't have his hands on the wheel at the time of the accident is exactly what I'm talking about, Tesla's PR release is filled with weasel words to do exactly that.

I'm not even trying to suggest that Autopilot is less safe than an alert human driver, but one thing is clear, we certainly can't trust Tesla to determine how safe it is.

[userbinator]

Who cares if he had 5 seconds to see the barrier if he only had 0.5 seconds to realize that the car went into casual murder mode right as it veers into the barrier.

This video is quite relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCF8tVqM3I

A fully alert driver trying (and succeeding) in reproducing this behaviour. Observe how long the barrier is visible, how long it takes him to react, and how close the car was to hitting the barrier.

[brandonjm]

This video is horrifying, I assume even the sensors on cars with automatic braking sensors should be able to identify a barrier that large in front of the car. I am way oversimplifying this but I'm sure there is some level of prioritisation in Tesla's Autopilot software to decide what action the car should take. Is the Autopilot software prioritising staying in lane (the car appears to stick to the left white line) over collision avoidance?

[URSpider94]

It can’t, nor can most cars with automatic braking. The Tesla will happily run headfirst into a brick wall all day long. The reason is that the driving world is chock-full of objects with zero velocity relative to terrain - the trivial cases being a rise in the road ahead, or an at-grade bridge where the travel lanes suck below grade to pass. Therefore, autopilot and many auto-braking algorithms filter out completely static objects (see previous story about a Tesla ramming a fire truck stopped on the highway).

Musk has commented publicly before (though somewhat obliquely) about this flaw. He indicated that the company is trying to build a map of reference data so that it can be filtered out automatically, and real hazards can be seen/found.

[skywhopper]

Mapping can never solve this problem. If these cars don’t yet have the ability to detect stationary physical barriers that represent a crash risk, then they are further away from being practical than I thought, and I’m extremely pessimistic. It is clearly a hard problem to solve with naive tech. Unfortunately we have a huge industry and tens of billions of dollars and politicians, corporations, governments, and media who all believe this naive tech is close to perfect. But it can’t see a wall or a fire truck in its path? If this isn’t solved then this whole house of cards will fall apart. The sooner the better, IMO. Let’s start building cars that supplement driver awareness instead of numbing it.

[slivym]

This would be trivial to solve with a vertical mounted LIDAR. You vertically mount it and if the horzontal distance measured level with the bumper of the car are significantly closer than the horizontal distance at a lower angle you can classify that as a stationary object, if it's a continuous lengthening or shortening then it's a ramp. The classification is almost trivial (though the hardware may be expensive or difficult to implement for high speeds).

[azinman2]

But in the path of travel??!

[saalweachter]

Not to exonerate Tesla, but cars are ALWAYS almost about to hit something. The next time you’re driving down a curvy road, pay close attention to all the obstacles that are by the side of the road and how often you are pointed right at them and how small the steering adjustments you make are and how little time there is between you almost hitting something and then not.

This is part of why trying to second guess a driver or autopilot is insane; a crashing and non-crashing car are almost identical, except for the crash.

[axaxs]

True. But these aren't auto self driving cars. A self driving car should know its next move, 10 seconds before it makes it(or something similar). There's 0 excuse for it hitting a barrier in 0 traffic.

[hyperbole]

Tesla has likely built 80-90% of an autonomous car enough to fool those who use it into believing it can be trusted. But as with all engineering endeavors that suffer from the Pareto principal its going to take far longer to get close enough that it's better than a human whose paying attention.

Its foolish to oversell thru marketing the capabilities of AP, as it's fairly easy to conflate reliability with observed behavior.

As long as the system mimics enough of the capabilities of full autonomy and it's oversold as such customers will underestimate the risks and become victims of an unfinished product

[Latteland]

tesla's system is lane following which has a radar that knows when the cars in front of you slow down or speed up. that's pretty much it. it's not an autonomous car in general. mine is very reliable for cruise control adjustment, good but not awesome for lane detection (falls down in bad rain for example, works well in clear weather). it tells you this, via display, it knows if its working. I can't understand these fools who thinks its some super advanced system. it really does little more than follow lanes and adjust speed based on detection of cars in front.

[hyperbole]

Video from 2016 showing exactly that:

https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...

If you use this to market your car without any caveats, don't be dismissal of some people who might read into that your car is capable of self-driving, when in reality its clearly absent of anything of the sort.

[shkkmo]

> Tesla claimed that the driver had his hands off earlier in the drive, not at the time of the collision.

You are wrong: "the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."

see: https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accide...

Perhaps you shouldn't attack Tesla for using "weasel words" in their press release if you don't take the time to read it.

Edit: You seem to have edited your post without any disclaimer. Your edits were not visible when I responded. Most people on HN will edit their comments with an "Edit: I was wrong about ____" rather than ninja editing the mistaken claim away. This help make discussions easier to follow and limits misunderstandings.

[MertsA]

I already corrected that, but the point still stands that their press release is intentionally misleading and Tesla knows very well that detecting hand presence on the wheel has problems. Read the press release in full and tell me that it isn't misleading.

Originally when this was posted there was concern over if "prior to the collision" was talking about the 6 seconds before the collision or earlier in the drive. In any case, Tesla is implying that the victim wasn't driving responsibly and there's no data released to the public that would back up such a claim.

[shkkmo]

I have read the press release. What was misleading? The only thing I see that is potentially misleading where they quote the safety statistics for vehicles with auto pilot equipped.

[geofft]

The sentence is only relevant if it carries information content about whether the driver's hands were in fact on the wheel—the reliability of the hand detection system is not believed to be relevant to the crash in any way.

So, if the statement is actually carrying more information about the reliability of the hand-detection system when it sounds like it should be a claim about the driver's hands (the subject of the passive-voice sentence), it is misleading.

[robotcookies]

That's the point of the investigation. Many things could have happened. Maybe the driver fell asleep, maybe he tried to move the wheel and it got stuck. Maybe the car slipped on a patch and had nothing to do with autopilot. We don't know yet. It takes time to review witnesses, multiple sources of information and that's the NTSB's job.

Tesla seems to think they know exactly what happened after only reviewing data collected from the car. They see what they want to see and have become blind to any other possibility. I think that's terrifying. I couldn't trust an automaker with that kind of arrogance.

[kosievdmerwe]

Given that this video exists, I'm putting my bet on the Tesla actively swerving into the barrier: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil...

[asn0]

In that video, it looks like the driver had about 1 second to react to the Tesla's mistake, to avoid hitting the barrier.

Dumb question: if I have to constantly stay vigilant with 1-second reaction time because at any time my assisted-driving car might try to kill me (exactly how changes every time the software updates) -- isn't it less effort to just drive my car myself, so I mostly just have to worry about the drivers around me?

[nugi]

Not dumb at all, it is the big unspoken elephant in the room. It is clear that the current, and next iteritave version of autopilot, self driving, etc. are woefully behild the hype. While in theory a "perfect" ai driver is better, is it true in the chaos of real world traffic? Will drivers even want to be subject to NTSB level scrutiny when an accident happens? There are more questions than answers still.

[JKCalhoun]

Hell, I don't even like letting cars shift for me. /sticksnob

;-)

[Vik1ng]

> ignored the warnings for six seconds

There were never warnings at that time. Tesla just worded it like that to mislead people. It only talks about videos early in the drive.

[shkkmo]

I think the wording is pretty clear, but I think people didn't take the time to fully read the press release, just skimmed it.

This seems pretty clear:

"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."

[lolc]

The warning is not a reaction to unsafe conditions. It comes on when the system detects (rightly or wrongly) that the driver doesn't hold the wheel.

[kosievdmerwe]

It could also be that a false warning took the driver's attention off the road in the second or two they had to save their life.

[blensor]

While naming a product should usually be up to the company who creates said product, my opinion on this is that Tesla should no longer be allowed to call this "autopilot", for public safety reasons.

Autopilot is a well known word which suggests a certain level of autonomousness and a car that might kill you if you take your attention away for 6 seconds simply does not qualify for that name. Tesla changing the name from autopilot to something better resembling reality would send a strong message to people to be more careful with using it while the attention is somewhere else

[wirrbel]

There is actually a semi-official categorization that Tesla seems to ignore

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Autonomous_car#/Levels_of_drivin...

pilots are level 3 upwards according to this classification. Level 2 systems are called assistants. If tesla would adhere to the industry agreement, they would call their system an "assistant" and not a pilot.

[z6]

Ok, so if they rename it to 'lane guidance' or whatever, everything would be cool?

[Cookingboy]

Yes, it would be much better. They also need to take away the in-your-face Full Self Driving marketing on their Auto Pilot page to eliminate any misleading association.

[illustrioussuit]

I know nothing about aviation, but isn’t “autopilot” on a commercial plane pretty much just “maintain altitude and heading”? Pilots still have to be engaged and active, right?

[Area12]

Don't miss the point here. Tesla doesn't require that you be a licensed air pilot before you buy the car. It doesn't matter what pilots know about autopilots, it's about what the general public believes when they hear "autopilot". I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of the world believes that an autopilot allows both pilots to leave the cockpit for five or ten minutes. So the word "autopilot" misleads them, even if a pilot would know the limitations.

[CaptainZapp]

And in aviation you have the added advantage that you don't just smash into a divider on 35'000 feet with one second notice.

[shkkmo]

No, but you are required to be a licensed driver and the car warns you if you take your hands off the wheel. I don't know how you can claim that the meaning of "autopilot" isn't clear to the drivers.

[kosievdmerwe]

Did your driver's license involve training in how to handle autopilot and its common errors and how to correct them? If not, I'm not sure how having a driver's license is relevant?

[shkkmo]

> If not, I'm not sure how having a driver's license is relevant?

The driver is licensed to operate the motor vehicle. It is their responsibility to be familiar with the safe operation of the vehicle.

> how to handle autopilot and its common errors and how to correct them?

Do you believe that anything additional was required here other than keeping the car in it's lane?

[cdowns]

In General Aviation at least, there are varying levels of autopilot (depending on how nice the system is you can maintain heading and altitude or fly a pre-programmed course with navigational waypoints), but all of them will fly you right into the side of a mountain or into restricted airspace if you let them. You can't just set it and stop paying attention. It seems that is what people want when they think of "autopilot" for their cars.

[markshead]

If that is the case, autopilot on a plane seems to be more like cruise control expanded to maintain pitch, yaw, and roll than autonomous flying.

[0xffff2]

There is tremendous variability, but this is basically correct. In addition, the sky is wide open and empty compared to even a not so busy street.

Airplane autopilots really are solving a much simpler problem than even a level 3 autonomous car has to solve.

The most advanced autopilots can automatically takeoff and land, but that requires substantial ground equipment at each airport to support.

[binarnosp]

+1, Instead of developing super smarts autopilots we could just instrument the highways so they can tell the car where to go. The instrumented roads could send out warnings and give control back to the driver when there are roadworks ahead.

[sundvor]

Key thing that unlike Tesla's self driving system. just about nothing can happen in a plane that will kill you if don't disable the auto pilot in 1-2 seconds.

Perhaps final stages of ILS approach? That'd be the exception, but pilots are trained and certified for this - and definitely not allowed to snooze off then.

(I'm not a pilot, but have spent a fair amount of time and money on various PC flight sims; edit: and used to drive a Mazda 3 with a very good radar cruise control and AEB, before ditching it for a bicycle because getting old and fat).

[cmurf]

I'm a pilot and wouldn't consider them autonomous. In the most sophisticated systems, you can plug in a fairly complex route to destination but there's a disconnect in automaticity when transitioning from cruise to approach. There are standard terminal arrivals, but they all assume contact with ATC for specifics, and in the case of lost communication in instrument flight you're expected to use your best judgment for ambiguous sections of the route clearance. Autopilots don't have judgment, and they also can't do two way communications either, so they're not able to accept ATC clearances directly, a pilot has to do that. So yeah not autonomous.

[rayiner]

Weird pro-Tesla, anti-airliner FUD. A modern airline’s autopilot will handle everything between takeoff and landing, and can land the plane if needed. The A380 auto pilot has been able to respond to TCAS (collision avoidance system) advisories automatically for almost a decade.

GA autopilots may be more limited, but that’s not what the general public is thinking of when you say autopilot.

[JackCh]

I'd wager the general public has overestimated the capabilities of aviation autopilots for quite a long time and only recently have common autopilot systems begun to approach what the public thinks about them. For instance in 1947 a USAF C-54 is reported to have taken off, crossed the Atlantic and landed on autopilot (all under very careful supervision). Needless to say autoland on commercial airliners would not be near ubiquitous for many years following that, but I suspect the general public did not have an accurate understanding of this. Furthermore I suspect many among the general public greatly overestimate the extent to which autopilot controlled take-off exists. "Pilots just push button and take a nap" is a sentiment I've often heard expressed, perhaps only partially in jest.

This is far from a defense of Tesla. On the contrary, the public's ignorance about what capabilities are implied by 'autopilot' suggest to me that Tesla should not be using the word.

[CaptainZapp]

The capabilities you have with automation in modern planes is amazing.

I once had the privilege to sit in the cockpit during an entire flight. That was in the late nineties and probably would be completely out of the question nowadays.

The weather and visibility were shitty and what was really interesting was that they initiated the landing automatically, but when the runway become visible (about 400 meters) the first officer took over and landed the plane manually.

Two other things I learned is the amount of manuals they have available in that very cramped space (maybe maintained electronically nowadays) and that when you think that they just key in a couple sequences into the flight management system to then play solitaire you would be very wrong.

Both pilots where permanently active and on high alert during the entire one hour flight. That may be a bit more relaxed on long distance flights, but people who believe it's like driving a bus are really, really wrong.

it was an amazing and very interesting experience.

[sitharus]

You’re correct, an airline autopilot can do all that under _continual pilot supervision_. The autopilot also cannot communicate with ATC so pilots will adjust the flight path in flight to account for ATC instructions and changing weather. It’s not hands-off.

[ssambros]

It is "hands off", it is not "situational awareness off". And airplane autopilots do not require split-second interventions if something goes wrong, the buffer is usually in a couple of seconds range. Even then trained pilots sometimes fail to correctly take over the flying duties (see Air France Flight 447).

Tesla is claiming that if the drivers hands are not on the wheel then they are not responsible what what their "autopilot" does.

[ccostes]

The most advanced autopilot systems today can navigate and even land the aircraft, but the majority of systems (especially on general aviation aircraft, but even many commercial) are closer to what you describe, and can kill you if you're not paying attention.

[danaliv]

And those autopilots can only land under close supervision by specially trained aircrew.

[tedunangst]

Perhaps the Tesla autopilot should be subject to the same regulations and restrictions regarding use as airplane autopilot.

[Shivetya]

well one thing to note is that what the public thinks an aircraft autopilot can do is not exactly what it does do. hence the reason many object to Tesla's use of the name, they are exploiting the ignorance of the public with regards to the capability of the product.

[vkou]

Only in general aviation (Which has an appalling accident rate.)

Autopilots in commercial aircraft - the kind that you'd be flying from San Francisco to New York are capable of far more then just dumb cruise control, including navigation and landing.

If 'maintain pitch and direction' were enough to be 'autopilot', then my SO's '97 Toyota Avalon had 'autopilot'.

[cycrutchfield]

This is nonsensical. What kind of autopilots do you think airplane pilots and boat captains use? That's where the name comes from, and if people think otherwise maybe they shouldn't take their cues from science fiction.

If I name something warp drive, are you then entitled to believe that you will now be able to travel faster than light? Will you blame me for naming the product incorrectly if you travel at a speed less than c?

[BonesJustice]

It is irrelevant whether you think it is _reasonable_ for people to associate the word ‘autopilot’ with autonomy. Reasonable or not, people do, and that has safety consequences for everyone who shares the road with them.

[gcb0]

> blames the driver

well, you are driving a car from a paypal mafia founder. why everyone forget that Musk started by ignoring banking regulations and mostly laundering money quasi legally, while later on holding funds from everyone for arbitrarily enforced rules, while completely ignoring user complaints. (bye HN karma :)

seriously, why is that everyone hates paypal ethics but loves musk and hold him as holy?

[WhompingWindows]

I think you're overestimating the amount that people hate paypal ethics. For instance, I don't know what you mean by ignoring banking regulations and laundering money quasi-legally? I read his biography written by Ashlee Vance and I don't think this was covered.

[goldenkey]

PayPal has changed a lot. Back when my parents sold thousands of items on eBay, PayPal would screw them over many many times, and not just with disputes - PayPal often locked funds for months without cause.

It is fairly easy to find out what PayPal used to be like when Musk ran it - just ask some older eBay sellers.

[paulie_a]

PayPal really hasn't changed that much. They still pull the same bullshit and if they went out of business tomorrow the world of ecommerce would be a better place

[reaperducer]

>PayPal often locked funds for months without cause.

Not unique to PayPal. Deposit a check of an amount that's unusual for your "profile" at Chase and it'll sit on the money for three weeks.

[goldenkey]

That's just a check clearing. Paypal would lock entire account funds, payment clearance was not an issue.

[reaperducer]

No, it's beyond check clearing. The check clears in two days, but Chase still sits on it for a while as a matter of policy.

[api]

He's driven the first major innovation in space flight since the 70s.

[dsl]

Except the space shuttle, international space station, mars missions, hubble telescope, and a dozen other things. But other than that, sure.

[mozumder]

My favorite is the DC-X that Space X and others are recreating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o

[api]

I was aware of the DC-X. It was tested in the 90s but it never went anywhere. Why didn't someone else do what SpaceX is now doing? They were too busy selling 70s tech and cashing checks.

When I said 'first new thing in aerospace since the 70s' I meant shipped. Things that never shipped don't exist.

The Shuttle I suppose could count but it was a mixed bag and in some ways a step backward from the Saturn V.

Seems like people have flipped from mindless Musk worship to being haters all the sudden.

Tesla may fail but they validated the market for high-end electric cars. Before Tesla the popular narrative was that EVs are impractical, slow, have poor range, and can't possibly ever compete with ICEs. People argued that modern transportation was absolutely and fundamentally inseparable from oil, even spinning this into popular peak oil doomsday narratives.

The biggest threat to Tesla today is that now that they've validated the market larger more experienced car companies are jumping on the EV bandwagon.

[MertsA]

Yeah, the DC-X was neat and all but that's suborbital on a stubby cone shaped rocket. That's essentially what New Shepard accomplished and not really comparable to actually recovering the first stage on a real orbital launch. As for the shuttle, well there's a reason why Buran wound up being nothing more than a hanger queen and it was arguably superior to the shuttle. From a practical perspective I think it's fair to say that SpaceX has been the largest impact in access to orbit since the 70s.

[jfoutz]

The Hubble is amazing, but i'm not sure how it advanced space flight. wasn't it a shuttle package? ISS was Soyuz and shuttle launches as well, if i recall correctly. So, yes, there is a ton of innovation is space 'stuff'. but space flight? that seems like more of a stretch to me.

Perhaps Delta and Atlas rockets were amazing innovations. They did great jobs with the recent mars missions. I don't recall getting particularly excited for many mars launches. (the missions were cool though).

Those boosters landing together though made me fell like a little kid watching a shuttle launch. But those boosters man. Maybe that's not innovation but that landing sure felt like a big moment to me.

I think the parent poster is trying to say, for a long time it felt like small refinements.

[JumpCrisscross]

Replace “space flight” with “launch vehicles” and it’s accurate. NASA stalled out in that department, between the Shuttle and SLS, due to bad management and politics.

[gthtjtkt]

> by saying that they aren't touching the wheel or are ignoring messages.

The funniest part of Tesla's statement is the fact that it basically renders "Autopilot" worthless. Or, at best, turns it into nothing more than an Adaptive Cruise Control system with an extremely misleading (and dangerous) name.

Tesla has been all too happy to let people believe that Autopilot is what the name implies. They only make a real effort to correct that misconception when something bad happens. Then they finally say "It's not actually autopilot, you're still supposed to keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road at all times", to which we collectively shrug and say "Well then what the hell is the point of Autopilot? And why did you give it such a misleading name?"

[slavik81]

I agree entirely. What's the point of an autopilot if I have to spend my entire drive watching it like a hawk to ensure it doesn't steer me into a wall?

You know what I really want? I want a vehicle to save me when I screw up. I love skiing, but it's a dangerous sport, and the most dangerous part is driving home. You're in the mountains in the dark, the road might be icy, and you're tired from a long day of strenuous exercise.

I want to see humans and machines working together. A car that could spot deer on or beside the road would save lives. They can be very difficult to see in the dark, and hitting one could send it through your windshield at highway speed.

Augmenting human ability has a lot of potential. Even just adding sensors that humans don't have would be huge. I bet those deer are way more obvious in infrared.

[kalleboo]

Mercedes has a night vision system like that https://youtu.be/d03SuJ0TVcY

[_ea1k]

Autopilot is a driver assistance feature, not a safety feature.

[kps]

Tesla claims it is. “Tesla Autopilot does not prevent all accidents – such a standard would be impossible – but it makes them much less likely to occur. It unequivocally makes the world safer for the vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists.” — https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accide...

[_ea1k]

That is a really good point. I hadn't though until now about how that language makes it all so ambiguous. The implication that autopilot is safer than you doing it yourself has to be misleading as it implies that you shouldn't have to monitor it so closely.

Ugh.

[netsharc]

For a non-safety feature they do scream a lot about how many lives it saved...

[shkkmo]

> What's the point of an autopilot if I have to spend my entire drive watching it like a hawk to ensure it doesn't steer me into a wall?

If you fall asleep while driving, it may prevent you from driving into a barrier or on-coming traffic. It's not meant to take over the act of driving from you, but to provide assistance.

[userbinator]

you're still supposed to keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road at all times

...and be ready to correct it should it try to steer into objects. IMHO that's even worse than plain old "manual" driving --- at least in that case, the car doesn't have a mind of its own and won't suddenly decide to steer itself. It'll keep going in a straight line even if (absolutely not recommended on a public road, but a good way of checking the suspension and steering) you take your hands off the wheel.

To me, it sounds more like driving with Tesla autopilot is like being a driving instructor for a not-too-great learner.

[stale2002]

" Or, at best, turns it into nothing more than an Adaptive Cruise Control system"

This is literally what Teslas autopilot system is.

It is adaptive cruise control and lane assist.

They do not claim to be self driving. It is not a level 3 system. It is level 2.

The purpose of autopilot is to have both the features of lane assist and adaptive cruise control.

What's the big deal? Why is this so surprising to you? This is what it is. Go buy a car from Google if you want a self driving level 3 car.

If you don't want a level 2 system then don't buy it.

[unclebucknasty]

>it is far from earning its namesake.

The FTC should require them to stop using the term Autopilot. The common understanding of that term makes it misleading.

Words matter and Tesla is trying to have the benefit of the term without the responsibility for what it implies.

[drbawb]

Autopilot, as used by the aviation industry, still requires an attentive pilot. It is a pilot-aid to reduce workload, it does not obviate the need for a pilot prepared to maintain control of the aircraft or correct for unexpected conditions. Autopilots can and do malfunction, in this video[0] it attempts to make a >1G maneuver unprompted. You'll note the pilot in command in this video is actively scanning for traffic, he is physically positioned to take control of the aircraft, he is paying attention to instrumentation, and is actively participating on frequency. In other words despite having an autopilot: he is still piloting the aircraft.

I don't think the issue here is Tesla misusing the word. The issue is that the common (non-pilot) understanding of the term is wrong. People piloting heavy machinery have an onus to maintain their currency & proficiency, as well as be ready to correct for faults in their instrumentation and pilot aids.

Autopilot is intended to be a tool to reduce pilot workload so you can focus on other aspects of maintaining correct control of the vehicle. (Namely in an aircraft it assists you with aviation, leaving you better able to navigate & communicate.) Instead what we are seeing with these assists in cars is that people are using these pilot aids and then engaging in unrelated distractions.

[0]: https://youtu.be/QbvfkKyurJI?t=13m25s

[John_KZ]

If you engage the autopilot in a (certified) plane at cruise level and glimpse over a topographical map of the area, you can practically fall asleep, wake up and you'll still be completely safe (until you run out of fuel). This argument/parallelism with aviation is null.

Airplane autopilot: Engage, divert attention for minutes, not die (consistently). Tesla autopilot: Engage, divert attention for 10 seconds, die (also consistently).

Airplane autopilot!=Tesla autopilot. Name is misused.

Also take a moment to appreciate what you say "It's ok to use this name on cars, because professional pilots know you can't completely rely on plane autopilots. People should know that and if they die it's their fault."

The video you provided shows a very unusual case. Most autopilots on small aircraft are not really running software so such "bugs" are virtually non-existent, and in large aircraft they only use tested-to-death systems and they practically never bug out.

[markshead]

Do most people think that autopilot is used to avoid other planes and obstacles like mountains? I always assumed autopilot was basically like cruise control for planes and just kept it level, at a fixed direction, and constant speed. Same thing as autopilot on a sailboat.

[John_KZ]

Old autopilots did exactly that, in addition to keeping a predefined climb/sink rate (long ascents/descents are really boring to do manually in small aircraft).

New autopilots in commercial airliners can do many things (follow GPS tracks or radio navigation waypoints, control engine throttle, line up and bring the airplane 50-100ft over the runway etc) but they never do collision avoidance, landings or terrain mapping. Airliners also have alarms for low altitude (most have radar altimeters) but they prompt the pilot for action, they're not supposed to avoid anything on their own. Apparently Tesla doesn't even do that.

[tzs]

Modern airliners can and sometimes do do automatic landings [1] [2] [3] [4]. It's done when visibility is very poor. If it is not required, most pilots prefer manual landing. It's less work. The autoland system is more complicated to set up, and is more work to monitor in order to take over if something goes wrong. But when the visibility is low enough, many airlines require their pilots to use it.

[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-airplane-landings-be-conducte...

[2] https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-airliners-landed-using-a...

[3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/02/...

[4] https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/technical/65056-autoland-...

[shkkmo]

Autopilot refers to a wide range of capabilities on boats and airplanes. Many of those require an active, attentive opertator for safety.

The car is warning you if you take your hands off the steering wheel. I don't see how anyone but a moron would value their misconceptions about the term "autopilot" over the clear signals that your hands are required to be on the steering wheel.

I wish people would stop bringing this idiotic point about the term "autopilot" and instead talk about how the different designs of autopilot can encourage or discourage attentiveness in operators.

[unclebucknasty]

>Autopilot, as used by the aviation industry

>I don't think the issue here is Tesla misusing the word. The issue is that the common (non-pilot) understanding of the term is wrong

In fact, because it's well-known that there's a common misunderstanding of the term (as you've acknowledged) but the company chooses to use it anyway, then that's sufficient to represent intentional misuse. They are leveraging this misunderstanding in their branding, then hiding behind the "real" meaning when it's convenient.

Companies test and invest heavily in their branding, which includes a full reasoning of the connotations associated with the words they choose. There is literally no way that Tesla is unaware of people's common misunderstanding.

So, maybe it's clearer if you look at it another way: why choose a word that could create any confusion when there are countless other choices?

>the pilot in command in this video is actively scanning for traffic, he is physically positioned to take control of the aircraft, he is paying attention to instrumentation, and is actively participating on frequency. In other words despite having an autopilot: he is still piloting the aircraft.

If a driver took a similar monitoring posture there are n-situations in which he/she would not have time to react to avoid an accident. There is generally far-greater margin of error and time for correction when an aircraft's autopilot fails. This is why a system that requires such monitoring in an automobile is a fundamentally flawed design. There are too many situations in which there is simply not enough time.

Because drivers are expected to a.) allow the system control of the vehicle but b.) recognize its failures and take back control to correct within milliseconds? That's super-human and, at best, adds n units to the human's reaction time--with potentially devastating consequences.

And, remember, it's beyond "environment monitoring". Drivers must now correct for when the vehicle does not recognize a hazardous situation and also respond when the vehicle itself suddenly creates a hazardous situation (like veering towards a barrier). There is no amount of "environment scanning" that can predict such a malfunction.

[rayiner]

> Autopilot, as used by the aviation industry,

Pilots may realize that autopilot is a term that can refer to extremely simplistic systems that require constant pilot attention. The public at large that Tesla is selling to, however, equates the term with big airliner autopilots that could land the plane if needed.

[rurounijones]

> Autopilot, as used by the aviation industry

Which is a tiny tiny percentage of the general population.

As has been said it is what the general population understands "autopilot" to mean which is the important part. The fact that the niche and general understandings are different should not be a gap that a company inserts itself into to mislead the public as to their products capabilities.

Yes, most people don't know the nuances of what "Autopilot" means in the aviation industry, but trying to educate the general public is a losing proposition vs just telling Tesla to rename the system.

[bapbap]

I agree, something more like Volvo's "Pilot Assist" makes sense to me.

[GeekyBear]

Adaptive Cruise Control with Lane Keeping Assistance seems to be the most common industry name for it.

[justherefortart]

Adaptive Cruise Control seems even better.

[Joky]

ACC is a different feature that exists separately: it does not touch the steering.

[shifter]

Yep, this used to happen frequently on road trips. It relies on squeezing the wheel fairly firmly.

I got into the habit of periodically giving it a good squeeze while resting my hand on it.

[delive]

It doesn't want a squeeze though, it needs resistance/feedback on turning the wheel. Having your hands on the wheel isn't enough, you actually have to give it a little tug, so the alert happens pretty often unless you have a good cadence of tugging on the wheel randomly while in Autopilot.

[LeoPanthera]

Hence the increasingly common tactic of Tesla owners to hang a water bottle from one side of the wheel, which provides constant torque, and fools the system into thinking you are always holding it.

[kybernetikos]

That sounds almost dangerous.

[m1n1]

Might those tugs affect its learning?

[x0054]

It is NOT learning.

[my_first_acct]

As I understand it, other auto manufacturers provide similar capability, though they may call it "lane keeping" instead of "autopilot".

What I haven't seen discussed: Are these cars from other manufacturers having similar problems with crashing into things? Are Tesla crashes considered more newsworthy, which is why we hear more about them? Or are drivers of these other cars more attentive? Or do these other cars actually have better technology?

Just curious why the discussion is always Tesla "autopilot" vs Waymo "full autonomy" vs unaided humans, when other manufacturers are also putting level-2 "lane keeping" systems on the road.

[Someone]

Tesla brags and thinks it is OK to use their customer as guinea pigs more than other manufacturers.

Other car manufacturers are more careful than Tesla in what they let get out of the lab. For example, they wouldn’t have to send out a firmware update that, as a new requirement, forces users to keep their hands on the steering wheel (https://thenextweb.com/artificial-intelligence/2016/09/23/te...) because they wouldn’t yet dare deploy one that doesn’t.

And I don’t think their technology is worse than Tesla’s. See for example https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520431/driverless-cars-ar... (2013).

[dragonwriter]

> Just curious why the discussion is always Tesla "autopilot" vs Waymo "full autonomy" vs unaided humans, when other manufacturers are also putting level-2 "lane keeping" systems on the road.

Because, ironically, Tesla and Waymo (and Uber) have been more suscessful at deliberately drawing media attention. The thing is, once you draw media attention, it tends to stick around even when the story goes someplace you don't want it to.

[sschueller]

A lot of people also paid for autopilot before it had the hands on wheel every few minutes requirement.

[aylmao]

> I still like it and am glad I opted for it, but it is far from earning its namesake.

I trust the intelligence of drivers, but this brings up a good point. Could calling it "autopilot" be perhaps a bit much right now? I'm not claiming it's false advertising kind of bad, but I can see it being better for marketing than giving a reasonable sense of what the feature is capable of.

[sarah180]

I would argue that the "creates false expectations that leads to fatal automobile collisions" kind of bad is potentially a more serious kind of bad than the "false advertising" kind of bad.

[shkkmo]

It is an accurate use of the term. If the system is warning you when you take your hands of the wheel, you would have to be a moron to assume that your attention is not required.

[linsomniac]

I also often find that the car doesn't detect my hands on the wheel when they are. Sometimes a gentle shake isn't even enough and giving it a firmer shake causes it to disengage.

[jorvi]

IMO CoPilot would have been a great name that much more accurately covers what it does.

[_ea1k]

As a pilot, I'd consider that name worse. Copilots literally fly the plane, often with no real supervision. Autopilots require supervision.

[cynix]

> It is extremely common for my car to warn me to keep my hands on the when WHILE I have my hands on the wheel. Even shaking it a little will sometimes not cancel out the warnings.

This is not what I experience. Maybe the sensor in your steering wheel is faulty? For me, the warning goes away as soon as I lightly jiggle the steering wheel (I stop as soon as I encounter any resistance).

[beenBoutIT]

Tesla blaming the driver for not using their steering wheel correctly is effectively admitting the obvious, that their car is badly designed. If the car needs to be used a certain way to be fully functional and they can't work that into the design in a way that compels the user to use it correctly, they have failed. The reason conventional wheels are an example of great design is that the user is forced to use them. Their no-knob, no-button interior was, until now the more obvious design fail. Some people see Tesla's badly-designed completely flat all-digital interface as the 'future of the automobile', while in reality what they're looking at is DeLorean 2.0.

[ovao]

Interesting. Have you reported those issues to Tesla?

[uncoder0]

It's a widely reported issue over at /r/teslamotors. I see a thread or mention of it at least once a week.

[donarb]

A reddit group is not a substitute for contacting the company directly.

[Phlarp]

Really? It seems companies respond to problems that are aired in public much quicker and more thoroughly than through their official support channels.

.@brand on a public twitter with enough followers to care about usually gets a pretty quick response.

Hell, how many times have YC companies prioritized support issues because a user posted it here on HN? I see it all the time with coinbase and crew, even googlers hanging out seem to be able to get account bans reviewed relatively easily.

I would argue the /r/teslamotors sub would be BETTER than going to Tesla directly. The motorist that died in this crash had contacted Tesla multiple times regarding this issue, since the crash plenty of others have made videos of similar behavior at similar median splits across the interstate system.

If the driver had made those complaints public perhaps others would have corroborated his accounts and or recreated the issue with video proof. Certainly putting somewhat public pressure on Tesla to fix the problem quickly.

[pushtheenvelope]

I kinda disagree with this. Its the company's job to be on top of whichever forum its users are using to discuss its products, especially looking out for security/safety issues. While it would nice for the Op to directly contact the company, I'd place more of the weight of responsibility on the company than the user.

[_ea1k]

Are you implying that it is likely that his hands were ON the wheel when he drove into the barrier? I don't see why he would have driven into the wall if that were the case.

[btian]

Why do you get frustrated if the driver failed to maintain control of the car?

When autopilot on airplane crashes the plane, what do you think is the primary cause?

[Waterluvian]

Hands on the wheel is also like not going above the speed limit. Yes, 10 and 2. But in reality we all bend those rules a bit.

[_s]

A lot, if not most advanced driver trainings recommend 9/3.

[cpt1138]

So if your hands are on the wheel is the autopilot still in control and you are not? I'm curious because if their telemetry says his hands were not on the wheel but they were, then did he just drive himself into the barrier?

[avs733]

Tesla's autopilot is setup to check if the driver's hands are on the wheel.

If it does not detect hands on the wheel it disengages.

The argument they make is that having hands on wheel is, effectively, having the driver in the loop as a part of the safety system ready and able to take over 'instantaneously' if necessary.

[cpt1138]

So his hands weren't detected on the wheel and the autopilot disengages at highway speeds? I can't really understand how this is supposed to work.

[dingo_bat]

It doesn't work. That's my whole takeaway. It's just a fancy lane keeping and cruise control system.

[lafar6502]

what telemetry? Why would anyone trust this data?

[AckSyn]

Been driving one on long drives regularly the past year and I've never experienced the problems you describe before.

[chapium]

I’d be really concerned about the news then. Will you react quickly if the car decides to drive towards a post?

[thebluehawk]

Same. My other annoyance about every single one of these threads are people making comments about how unsafe it is when you can tell they've never even driven a car equipped with it.