
Tesla Model X autonomously crashes into building, owner claims - Foggydog
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3079807/car-tech/tesla-model-x-autonomously-crashes-into-building-owner-claims.html
======
Matt3o12_
I'm very skeptical about it. A lot of accidents happen when people confuse the
brakes and acceleration paddle. Furthermore, the person who had the accident
claimed the break was unresponsive. This could further mean she confused the
paddles and instead of breaking, she accelerated even more.

I'm happy to hear, though, that the person was not heavily injured (she had
burns on her arms but I don't think they are of the second or third degree
because she would have mentioned that). Those accidents can be quite dangerous
(especially in fast cars like the tesla).

I'm looking forward for the black box reporting

~~~
zerooneinfinity
Where did you get your information on the danger of a crash with a tesla vs a
regular car? They surpassed every car in collisions tests and the concerns
about the battery going up in flames have been fixed since the car was
established.

~~~
Matt3o12_
> Where did you get your information on the danger of a crash with a tesla vs
> a regular car? They surpassed every car in collisions tests and the concerns
> about the battery going up in flames have been fixed since the car was
> established.

I'm not saying that tesla is not safe, in fact I'm saying quite the opposite.
Tesla is a fast car and if not properly handled, all fast cars are dangerous.
Since the 75D's aren't delivered yet, I'd expect it to be a 90D or P90D. The
go from 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds. I believe they are fast then any other SUV out
there (except prototypes, maybe), when in ludicrous mode.

So, I'd expect that this tesla did not crash with 10mph into the wall. I'd
expect a Porshe with similar acceleration to have much more serve damages to
the driver. This, once again, shows how safe a tesla is.

~~~
zerooneinfinity
my bad!

------
DigitalJack
That is some terrible reporting. Who knows what will come of this accident,
but the one referenced where the guy claims the car ran into a trailer on it's
own was pretty well refuted by Tesla's black-box style monitoring.

It raises the question of how to prove the trustworthiness of the event
recording. I suppose an audit of their recording mechanisms could be enough,
but it would be nice if the permanent recorder was made by a third party.

~~~
gist
Crazy idea but what about a camera placed in a way that Tesla would capture
footage of the brake and accelerator. Store up to X minutes/hours of that
would come in helpful when combined with the other data they collect.

~~~
Sir_Substance
Sounds like an unnecessarily complex alternative to just logging the pedal
state the same as you would a keypress.

~~~
i_are_smart
The problem with just logging like that is in the reliability of the logs -
what if there's a defect in the position sensor? The pedal (and thus the logs)
may report throttle at 100% and breaks at 0% even if it was the other way
around.

------
drawkbox
New car, 5 days old, seems from the onset that it is driver error as someone
was in the vehicle behind the wheel. New vehicles are a major change to
routine. Speculation... the data might reveal that the wife lied to cover
crashing a 5 day old car.

~~~
arcticfox
This story will certainly be more interesting once Tesla publishes the data
from their side.

~~~
dragontamer
The story is already interesting because Tesla does this, and no other car
company seems to.

Tesla monitors your driving behavior so that they can save face and blame the
driver if things go bad. I don't know of any other car company that does this.

Those monitors are installed to protect the company image, not you.

Its like you're buying a $100,000 piece of spyware. The car isn't your
possession. Its sensor data belongs to Tesla the company, and not you. Despite
your purchase of the vehicle. And that's assuming that Tesla's secret black-
box technology is actually legitimate, and that they're not making stuff up /
hiding the truth from us.

~~~
hardwaresofton
This is true, and while I do despise the invasion of privacy, and everything
that comes with owning a $100,000 piece of spyware, I do appreciate that
barring conspiracy and a flagrant disregard for the law someone somewhere has
some sort of technical data unlikely to be vulnerable to human
memory/eyewitness accounts related to the crash.

Tesla has also convinced me that it is the type of company whose employees
that would not seek to hide something data it correctly clearly supported.
That's a completely unverifiable (and most likely incorrect) assertion on my
part, and of course a result of brand-cultivation on theirs, but still some
companies just can't claim that at all, and I think Tesla has a leg to stand
on still.

~~~
dragontamer
> someone somewhere has some sort of technical data unlikely to be vulnerable
> to human memory/eyewitness accounts related to the crash.

I can agree with this. Having this information recorded should be a standard
feature for cars of this price-range.

However, the information should be in the customer's control (which should
also be fairly passed onto Tesla through a subpoena if necessary).

Its a basic tenant of "ownership". If you don't have primary control of the
data, you really don't own it.

------
tener
There are plenty of vidoes on YouTube of cars "suddenly accelerating to
maximum speed, jumping a curb and slamming into things". They all do it
accidently. People will blame others for their errors. Bad journalists will
pick up the shit for page views.

------
palakchokshi
Tesla is famous for publishing the logs. The owner should be aware of this
before making claims. It would have been prudent to keep this quiet till Tesla
had a chance to respond. Now if the logs prove it was driver error Tesla will
publish the logs and all this outrage would be over nothing. On the other hand
if this was an error in Tesla's system it is in Tesla's best interest to be
transparent and publish the logs and an explanation on how it intends to fix
this.

Either way a public outrage was not required unless the owner wanted to ensure
he got a new car even if it was the driver's fault. By claiming ""I don't'
know if they're going to acknowledge if it was their fault," Puzant said.",
the owner wanted to cast doubt on Tesla's integrity and also give himself an
"out" if Tesla determined it was driver's fault.

~~~
gist
I would suspect that if Tesla has a rock solid way to determine it was the
drivers fault they will fight that till the ends of the earth. (Of course the
same could happen even if not the case but that would be a conspiracy and
probably less likely for practical reasons).

~~~
palakchokshi
Considering that the owner's wife said that she tried the brakes but they
weren't working I am pretty sure there will be brake usage logs coupled with
associated acceleration/deceleration data. That should tell us if the brakes
were applied and if they were working. The acceleration logs will also show if
the acceleration pedal was engaged at the time or not. I am assuming that an
auto acceleration log is different from a hardware pedal usage log. If not we
can't determine if the acceleration was due to software or hardware.

~~~
gist
Sure but by the same token in theory if a brake was applied it should work and
in this case the car owner is saying it didn't work (hence my video footage
comment elsewhere).

~~~
greglindahl
Given that this type of accident happens all the time in all types of cars,
why is it that the car owner's memory is preferred to a sensor? Because you're
basically saying that ALL cars have the same flaw. It's a lot more likely that
humans are fallible.

------
deegles
Tesla is quick to publish data that shows driver error, I wonder if they will
be as quick to do so if it actually is a software issue. My guess however is
that any refusal to publish the black box data will be taken as an admission
of guilt.

I get the impression that the media is just itching for an actual software
error so they can start a FUD firestorm about SDCs.

~~~
ambulancechaser
I don't think they quickly publish data to show data error, but just to refute
claims that their product is deficient or dangerous. This might be what you
mean but they aren't looking to disparage customers but just to maintain the
integrity of their brand to false claims.

------
prudenthints
> It's not like she's a 90-year-old person who's going to press the gas pedal
> instead of the brake

While there is a correlation between age and difficulty driving, I don't know
how this is a valid defense. In moments of stress and danger we're all prone
to making mistakes.

> It's a mile and half away from our house

Many accidents happen close to home due to your perceived feeling of knowledge
and safety in the environment.

------
hardwaresofton
Looks like an answer is already out:

[http://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-x-crash-not-at-
fau...](http://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-x-crash-not-at-fault/)

No idea about that source but supposedly tesla has made a statement. Similar
statement also at this site:

[http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-x-crash-result-human-
er...](http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-x-crash-result-human-error/)

------
Matt3o12_
Turns out my skepticism was right after all, the driver did hit the wrong
paddle: [http://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-x-crash-not-at-
fau...](http://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-x-crash-not-at-fault/)

Discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851817](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851817)

------
whamlastxmas
The state of journalism today is pathetic. Some random person claims something
that is extremely unlikely and it gets run as a story. No verification of
events or even a comment from Tesla. They likely published intentionally
before Tesla's comment because they knew it would be "Our logs show the driver
did something incredibly stupid and it had nothing to do with auto-pilot" and
this would become a non-story. Instead we have this clickbait bullshit that
unjustly harms Tesla's reputation.

------
Radle
"He said his wife had not activated any self-driving features at the time of
the crash."

He said it himself, the electronics were off, his wive fucked up.

~~~
Nadya
They are claiming that the features were off - but malfunctioned and 'worked'
anyway. (eg: a mishap by Tesla)

As with most others here, I believe it was user error. These sort of accidents
happen - it's just "unique" this time since they are claiming it was Tesla's
fault.

------
hashkb
If we don't develop due process for machines, they're going to be the
scapegoat for everything.

...and I'm going to get away with murder.

------
hartator
The model X seems to attract a lot of issues. Too bad it also tarnish the
reputation of the model S.

------
pj_mukh
This is a very bold effort on Tesla's part. Fast deployments of autonomy code
has never been tried before. There will inevitably be some casualties (even
some deaths) in this process, but no other process can guarantee otherwise.
The long term impact on public health is HUGE [1]. Some company just has to
figure out how to weather the storm of (possibly irrational) criticism from
the first such casualty. The company that can parse through this process and
update their methods first will win.

[1] [http://www.sciencealert.com/driverless-cars-could-reduce-
tra...](http://www.sciencealert.com/driverless-cars-could-reduce-traffic-
fatalities-by-up-to-90-says-report)

------
dragontamer
Unlike the previous accident, which the Tesla S literally doesn't have the
sensors to see the above-ground trailer... this Model X crashed into the side
of a building. I'd like to assume that the below-chassis sensors would have
been able to pick that up.

I'm more concerned about edge-cases like the Tesla S autonomous crash rather
than cases like this one. My current assumption (pending evidence: we don't
have any yet so we can only assume) is that the driver is the blame in this
specific case.

We'll see when more data comes in.

\----------

Unfortunately, I don't think it is moral for a car company to install sensors
and use sensor data against the car's owner.

If I buy the car, then the whole car is allegedly mine: including these
sensors that only Tesla can tap into. The fact that I don't have access to all
the sensor data means that Tesla's definition of "ownership" is rather
convoluted compared to a normal car.

~~~
dgacmu
Sure it's moral - in fact, it's great. The question of morality only arises if
there's asymmetric access to the data. In the event of a claim being made by
the driver against the company, _both_ sides should have complete access to
the logs data to make their case more firmly. What shouldn't happen is ONLY
one party being able to inspect the data.

But this is unlikely to happen in practice. A lawyer for the driver would
undoubtedly subpoena Tesla for access to the data. And a reasonable judge
would probably concur. IANAL and IANAJ, so the latter is a guess. :)

~~~
dragontamer
> But this is unlikely to happen in practice. A lawyer for the driver would
> undoubtedly subpoena Tesla for access to the data. And a reasonable judge
> would probably concur. IANAL and IANAJ, so the latter is a guess. :)

So what's the process here? You're going to start suing Tesla so that you hope
you can officially subpeona them of the data you don't have access to?

Its asymmetric no matter what. The role of these logs should be reversed: the
driver ought to have first-dibs at the logs to determine if he has a
legitimate case to bring forth against Tesla.

Then Tesla should subpeona the data once they start getting sued. In any case,
Tesla holding the data so that they have the information-advantage against
their own customers is a bit fishy.

~~~
dgacmu
Yes, that's exactly what you do when you sue anyone and you believe they have
data relevant to the case. It's called discovery. First you have to have a
reasonable basis for doing so, and a claim that their car auto-drove into the
wall is such a basis.

