Tesla announced yesterday that one of its self-driving cars was involved in an accident in May that killed the occupant, who was in the driver’s seat but letting the car drive itself at the time. The car was on a Florida expressway and, instead of stopping when a large tractor trailer crossed its path, attempted to drive under the trailer. The low height of the trailer sheared off the top of the car.
Last March, Duke University roboticist Missy Cummings testified before Congress that auto companies were “rushing to market” before self-driving cars are ready, and “someone is going to die.” She didn’t mention Tesla by name, but since that is the only car company that has produced a car capable of not just avoiding collisions but passing other cars, she must have had it in mind.
The person who was killed in the Tesla crash, Joshua Brown, had posted two dozen videos on Youtube showing how his self-driving Tesla responded in various situations. One of them received 1.7 million views for showing a near collision that the car avoided when a truck pulled into the car’s lane.
Knowledgeable buyers can find anything on purchase female viagra the shipment description. The majority of infertile cases are treated with certain medications, the symptoms of urinary tract cheap viagra tablet look here symptoms the patients showed only the general symptoms may cover up the local symptoms when prostatitis occurs suddenly. As a warm bloodied animal we need to be warm to function. tadalafil online in uk Sex is good as per the age of the patient. tadalafil in uk view my learningworksca.org Just a few days before the fatal accident, a Tesla owner named Jared Overton reported that his self-driving Model S drove itself into the overhang of a parked trailer. The owner guessed that the car ignored objects in front of it unless they were below a certain height. Tesla, which says that people have driven its cars safely 130 million miles in self-driving mode, claimed the accident was the owner’s fault.
Whatever the cause, it may be that Cummings was right. As noted in a recent review of top-end cars with some self-driving capabilities, no car company has tried to put as many self-driving features into a car on the market as Tesla. While other companies are putting their cars through years of painstaking tests before going to market, Tesla wanted to be the first by offering a car that could fully pilot itself, steer itself, and change lanes by itself.
BMW and Mercedes cars assist with steering using a stereo camera and five radar sensors. Even with these sensors, drivers are allowed to take their hands off the wheel for a few seconds at a time. The Tesla use a non-stereo camera and one radar sensor “mounted low in the grill.” The non-stereo camera could not measure distance and, if Overton is right, the radar sensor may not have been able to detect obstacles above a certain height.
This accident may tarnish Tesla’s image. The Antiplanner joins Missy Cummings, who supports the idea of self-driving cars, but argues they aren’t yet ready for consumers, in hoping this won’t tarnish the image of self-driving cars.
Not the first time machines have killed us. That was just the beginning, this was an accident…..the next time it’s for real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih_l0vBISOE
That’s way too bad, I’m really surprised it was the driver of the self-drive that was the fatality. I always assumed some combination of pedestrians and bicycles/motorcycle/horse/lawn mower/tractor would be the first victim. So sad that the victim apparently had already discovered the flaw (per his videos).
Add that one to the other 32,600 motor vehicle related deaths per year
The Antiplanner wrote:
Tesla announced yesterday that one of its self-driving cars was involved in an accident in May that killed the occupant, who was in the driver’s seat but letting the car drive itself at the time. The car was on a Florida expressway and, instead of stopping when a large tractor trailer crossed its path, attempted to drive under the trailer. The low height of the trailer sheared off the top of the car.
I commend you for being intellectually honest and reporting this sad news, even though I know you have long advocates in favor of self-drive motor vehicles.
This accident may tarnish Tesla’s image. The Antiplanner joins Missy Cummings, who supports the idea of self-driving cars, but argues they aren’t yet ready for consumers, in hoping this won’t tarnish the image of self-driving cars.
Agreed. Apparently (according to CBS News) the trailer of the tractor-trailer combination was painted while, and the Tesla’s cameras could not “see” the trailer against the bright sky.
Jardinero1 wrote:
Add that one to the other 32,600 motor vehicle related deaths per year
In general, the fatality rate is computed as a function of per 100 Million VMT.
Have vehicles with equipment like the Tesla run up enough miles to allow that sort of computation?
More in the N.Y. Times: Self-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says
The race by automakers and technology firms to develop self-driving cars has been fueled by the belief that computers can operate a vehicle more safely than human drivers.
But that view is now in question after the revelation on Thursday that the driver of a Tesla Model S electric sedan was killed in an accident when the car was in self-driving mode.
Federal regulators, who are in the early stages of setting guidelines for autonomous vehicles, have opened a formal investigation into the incident, which occurred on May 7 in Williston, Fla.
It also looks like Elon is trying to screw the investors. One company he owns is trying to buy ANOTHER company HE OWNS. I think the investors need to take a hard look at this deal…….it’s starting to smell rotten………
Electric cars are not going to be prevalent in the foreseeable future. For what they cost, you can get a used four-cylinder with enough left over to buy gas for years. If you want electric cars to truly saturate the market they have to be as practical as a gas car and as affordable. Used cars are where the market is strongest and a used car loses about a third of it’s value at resale and if it’s 10 years old, you can get it for less than a third the price of a Tesla. And used Tesla’s were gonna worry about battery quality after several years. Remember the same battery tech used in them is what’s found in laptops and cellphones and we throw those devices away in 2-3 years. And there’s no evidence these vehicles are any better for the planet than gas powered ones. If the power used to charge them is fossil power, there’s no difference. Also if you want electric cars, you’re gonna need a lot more resources then whats presently available to industry and consumers. And the bulk of the worlds rare earth metals that are fueling the tech revolution (yttrium, Praseodymium, Samarium, Terbium, Dysprosium) come from China. Not exactly a nation keen on environmental issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwOBRH56Ic0
So you need…. a lot of copper for the wire, a lot of lithium for all those batteries and a lot neodymium for the motor. And given the environmentalist uproar over mining copper, lithium and neodynium or any metal for that matter, I doubt those materials will be free’d up anytime soon to placate demand for them to economically build a automotive fleet.
LazyReader wrote:
So you need…. a lot of copper for the wire, a lot of lithium for all those batteries and a lot neodymium for the motor. And given the environmentalist uproar over mining copper, lithium and neodynium or any metal for that matter, I doubt those materials will be free’d up anytime soon to placate demand for them to economically build a automotive fleet.
This is analogous to the same environmentalists that promote “clean electric” powered rail transit as an alternative to transportation by rubber-tire vehicles with internal combustion engines, but never want to talk about where that “clean electric” power is generated (and the reality that most of it comes from generating stations that are fired by fossil fuels, either natural gas, coal or oil – on the PJM Interconnection, which serves areas from Illinois in the west to the Atlantic coast beaches of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina in the east, the fuels mix was (in 2014) “40 percent coal, 30 percent natural gas, 19 percent nuclear and 11 percent other, including renewable” (source here, emphasis added).
Odd stuff happens. Had to dodge a goat on my bike today (again). And the way this (still tragic) accident unfolded does sound like a really fast, concentrated response was needed. The machine reaction failed; hard to say if an engaged human would do better. The reconstruction should offer some important insights on that.
But the technology will march on. And learn from (still tragic) events like this.
Curious also as to whether Tesla accepts the liability here, or tries to pass it to the sensor mfg.
>This is analogous to the same environmentalists that promote “clean electric” powered rail transit as an alternative to transportation by rubber-tire vehicles with internal combustion engines, but never want to talk about where that “clean electric” power is generated (and the reality that most of it comes from generating stations that are fired by fossil fuels, either natural gas, coal or oil
Almost no electricity comes from oil. And the gas and coal generating stations generally aren’t in the middle of citie. If the amount of pollution is constant but moved away from people that is still an improvement.
ahwr wrote:
Almost no electricity comes from oil.
Except in Puerto Rico?
I understand that that some “peaking” (as in peak demand) generation is still powered by petroleum products?
And the gas and coal generating stations generally aren’t in the middle of citie. If the amount of pollution is constant but moved away from people that is still an improvement.
I vigorously disagree. If those enviro groups are going to say that coal-fired generation is bad, then it is bad in suburban Anne Arundel County, Maryland is every bit as bad in very rural Grant County, West Virginia. Because of prevailing winds, at least some of the pollution from the stacks at Mount Storm ends up in the Baltimore and Washington.
The focus on the East Coast is myopic. Hydro is king on the West Coast; nearly all of Seattle’s electricity (and most of Portland’s) is from renewable sources.
In other news, eight people were killed today and another 1,100 injured due to distracted driving.
@C. P. Zilliacus
To quantify:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015:
Petroleum = 1%
> Because of prevailing winds, at least some of the pollution from the stacks at Mount Storm ends up in the Baltimore and Washington
Moving the source of pollution away from densely populated areas will benefit human health. Less than eliminating the pollution, but it will still be an improvement.
Frank wrote:
The focus on the East Coast is myopic. Hydro is king on the West Coast; nearly all of Seattle’s electricity (and most of Portland’s) is from renewable sources.
Frank, sorry about that. I am a native of the Atlantic Coast and have lived there nearly my entire life. When I say something that is limited to a certain part of the U.S., I generally qualify it as such (see above).
You can and should comment about how things are in the West (I have been in California many times but only once in Oregon).
My point about advocates of certain expenditures of public dollars (such as public transportation projects on steel rails) not telling the whole story is still relevant (examples presumably closer to your home is the never-ending advocacy for more light rail in Portland in spite of massive unfunded post-retirement benefits at and unfunded capital repair outlays on the existing system run by Tri-Met – not unique to Tri-Met either).
ahwr wrote:
Moving the source of pollution away from densely populated areas will benefit human health. Less than eliminating the pollution, but it will still be an improvement.
Wrong. Suggest you read up on the subject before making more such claims.
With apologies to Frank, ozone transport remains a problem in the East. Emissions (especially nitrous oxides, or NOx) from the smokestacks of coal-fired generating stations in the Allegheny Mountains and the Ohio River valley are carried east and have worsened ground-level ozone pollution in East Coast metropolitan areas from Virginia to Maine.
Details about ozone transport can be found here.
@C. P. Zilliacus
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013004548
Electricity generation is responsible for 11.7% of PM2.5 emissions.
Road transportation is responsible for 6.9%
Population weighted concentrations of PM2.5 attributable to road transportation was ~1% higher than from electricity generation, leading to deaths attributable to PM2.5 emissions from road transportation ~1% higher than from electricity generation. Their simulation attempted to take into account wind etc…
If emissions are the same, but the sources are moved away from people, the health impact of those emissions is reduced.
No apologies needed, gentlemen.
Looking at the entire US, only 38% of electricity generation is from coal. Natural gas, nuclear, and renewables make up the rest.
ahwr shows that “moving tailpipe emissions” is beneficial—especially in light of the fact that most electricity generation in the country is not from coal. (Natural gas power plants generate only seven percent of the nitrogen oxides and only 0.2 percent of the sulfur dioxide of coal plants.)
At any rate, it’s just another lazy (and factually incorrect, as usual) comment that has derailed comments on an article about autonomous cars, not electric vehicles.
How many years before this headline becomes common?
Frank wrote:
No apologies needed, gentlemen.
Looking at the entire US, only 38% of electricity generation is from coal. Natural gas, nuclear, and renewables make up the rest.
Agreed.
ahwr shows that “moving tailpipe emissions” is beneficial—especially in light of the fact that most electricity generation in the country is not from coal. (Natural gas power plants generate only seven percent of the nitrogen oxides and only 0.2 percent of the sulfur dioxide of coal plants.)
Agreed. Coal-fired generation dominates much more in the East and the South than elsewhere (such as the West and parts of New York State and New England, where they have access to hydroelectric generation along the St. Lawrence River and in Quebec).
Added advantage about natural gas-fired generation – less carbon emitted per kWh of power generated.
At any rate, it’s just another lazy (and factually incorrect, as usual) comment that has derailed comments on an article about autonomous cars, not electric vehicles.
Indeed, though I think the derailment was relevant because the self-driving car that crashed was a Tesla.