Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Chippopotanuse t1_j95dj4t wrote

Weird how Teslas keep crashing in to emergency vehicles. Happens so frequently that NHTSA launched an investigation:

> The latest Tesla crash into a first responder vehicle comes just two weeks after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation into 11 instances of Tesla drivers hitting parked emergency vehicles while using the Autopilot driver-assist system in the US. The incidents date back several years and follow a surprisingly common pattern: First responder vehicles, including police cars and fire trucks, stop to assist disabled vehicles on road shoulders or traffic lanes, using emergency lights to direct traffic around them, as Tesla vehicles with Autopilot engaged collide with them either with or without attempts by the driver to brake in the seconds prior to impact. Some crashes have resulted in serious injuries, as they happened at highway speeds.


NLJeroen t1_j95h2ck wrote

Probably because emergency vehicles are not around that often to have significant impact in the learning models.


Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_j95u8sw wrote

Except other automated systems like SuperCruise and ProPilot and whatnot don’t seem to have this same issue. Tesla automation is disproportionately hitting emergency vehicles with respect to how many systems are in the market


Koksny t1_j95utd4 wrote

Decent developers and engineers no longer want to work for balding manbaby, underpaid and overworked.

Gig for Mercedes is much better than slaving for the archcunt.


TenderfootGungi t1_j9704bx wrote

Possibly, but they have had several incredible people leading the program. It probably comes down to Musk insisting they do it with cameras only. Everyone else also has LiDAR.


schiffty1 t1_j96uwwo wrote

Oh no, you've angered the muskrat horde.


VegasKL t1_j96xz98 wrote


That's also different technology afaik. I think GM maps various roads with lidar vehicles and then those maps get loaded into the vehicles for cross-referencing to their position -- done this way so they don't have to have a bunch of LIDAR units on the vehicle processing in real time. They likely have some forward facing LIDAR or Radar (or both) units.

Elon wants to be cheap and do it solely with cameras.


razorirr t1_j95x698 wrote

Are they though?

In 2019, an estimated 2,500 vehicles crashed into firetrucks parked as blockers (6.8 crashes every day or 16% of all firetruck collisions).,of%20all%20traffic%20fatalities%20nationwide

Tesla has had around a dozen but its over 5 years.

Theres around 2 million teslas, and they all have AP at this point. 248 million cars total. .8%. 2/2500 is .08%. So tesla is 10x better than everyone else.

Also i feel you dont hear about the others because their systems are in an insignificant amount of cars, and usable on an insignificant amount of places. Once they scale to "yeah it works everywhere" it will go up


Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_j967fmm wrote

NHTSA makes manufacturers with automated assist systems in the market report crashes involving those technologies. Despite having only a minority share of ADAS in the market today, Tesla’s crashes represented 70% of the reporting.


razorirr t1_j9685bf wrote

Cant read, paywall.

how much of a minority, and how many miles do the others have? Like ford for example is all happy their has been active for 16 million miles recently, Tesla is around 3 billion since it came out adding about a billion a year. so every 1 tesla is worth 97 fords.


razorirr t1_j98uvkc wrote

hahahaha. that report is a news article talking about the NHTSA report i got my 2 AP crashes from.

If you take the estimated miles driven for AP, and the estimated miles driven by everything else. AP has a crash rate of .0009 per 1,000,000 miles into all first responder vehicles, and that is assuming all 2 reported in that report were tesla. all cars overall broke out to .001 per 1,000,000 miles.

So forcing everyone to use AP would reduce crashes into parked firetrucks by 290 a year or 11.5%.

So if you want to use that article as a reason against ap, feel free, as its actually a reason to ban humans and use AP.

Its page 7 of nine, second chart, shows ADAS crashes per vehicle it crashed into. Further. the data in that report has the possibility of double counts, so if Tesla reported it and the police seperately reported it. its 2x times. It also does not mean "The tesla crashed into me" If you rear end a tesla, and the tesla was on AP, it goes in the report, even though it was not the teslas fault.


nfollin t1_j98wgyn wrote

Bro, I just linked it for you, relax.


jayfrancy t1_j95zvzu wrote

How many other autonomous systems have had these accidents. That’s the apples to apples.


razorirr t1_j963cf0 wrote

How much do you want to actually read? I can answer this.

NHTSA has a standing order on ADAS crashes. All manufacturers are required to provide telemetry and report if a crash occurred with ADAS either on, or had been on in the previous 30 seconds. This reporting started July of 2021 and is still current.

You can read their june 2022 findings here. next report will be next june

In that whole time period, only 2 crashes were confirmed into first responder vehicles total, for any brand.

So every other article you have seen since june 21 through may15th 2022, the cutoff date in that report, is bullshit. its the press going "oh its a tesla and a responder vehicle, lets accuse AP/FSD, get a shitload of clicks from people on reddit, then not release a retraction months later when its found not to have been the cause"

As to my significantly insignificant bit. yeah, both crashes might have been tesla (the report does not break it down to that detail) But their system works everywhere, and is on way way more cars than Fords or GM. Ford was happy when they hit 16 million miles driven total. Teslas system does north of a billion a year. If tesla was both crashes on 1b miles, ford will have 0, and you can claim that "well ford is perfect" no, ford just has not had enough time to be statistically relevant.

The only other brand to have a significant amount of vehicles is Honda, with about 5 million, Their system however does not function everywhere so theres the question of are they better at not crashing, or do they just not have the crashes per mile figure out there as they have not released miles of usage figures. I can't do apples to apples with them as tesla has shown their apple, and the others all have a black box they say may or may not have a fruit in it.


woody60707 t1_j95xg1d wrote

Look, no one has time to read your wall of text! Is Tesla bad, yes/no?


razorirr t1_j95yrg5 wrote

Tesla great! They crash 10x less into firetrucks than all cars when figured for crashes per car. They just make the news cause dumbasses click then bitch


TheLaGrangianMethod t1_j95zcce wrote

Does this account for the autopilot variable? Which is kind of what this whole thing is about? Tesla autopilot not seeing the first responders?


razorirr t1_j964ohq wrote

This report does. Manufacturers are required as of july 1 to have the cars monitor when the systems were on / off. If the car crashed with it either on, or on in the prior 30 seconds to the crash to report it.

From July 1 2021 - May 15 2022. Only 2 crashes total were into first responder vehicles. It does not specify which brand had it happen. but even if it was tesla for both, its probably inevitable. Tesla reports about 1 billion miles a year where the car is driving, Ford reported 16 million in a press release.

If we find that 1 crash in 500 million miles is the average, Fords 16 million miles is only 3.2% of that miles driven. Its not that ford never crashes, its that they have not done enough driving to hit the point at which it was statistically probable to have occurred yet.


SporkofVengeance t1_j95q0qn wrote

As the training set is basically using real cars as alpha/beta testers, that’s likely true for Tesla. Most other companies now are using synthetic data to train their AVs and so test a far wider range of scenarios.


VegasKL t1_j96ymhz wrote

It shouldn't be an issue of training data anymore, Tesla uses a lot synthetic (3d generated) data now so they can train the same exact scenario with a ton of variables swapped out over and over again. Nvidia (IIRC) did a presentation on the tech.

Remember, they also had this issue with box trucks if I remember correctly.


Raspberries-Are-Evil t1_j96hgmc wrote

Or because Tesla's are not "self driving." The driver is responsible for the car, and, this is no different than someone in a Honda hitting a truck and killing themselves.


razorirr t1_j965fji wrote

Weird how you brought that up when this article does not even attempt to blame it on Autopilot / FSD.

Frankly, theres 2500 crashes like this a year across the whole vehicle fleet. 6.8 of them per day. So if that was 1 article, where are the other 5.8 articles? Oh wait it does not involve a tesla, so it wont make the news.

There were from Jul 2021 - May 2022, 2 crashes that were proven to have been ADAS of any brand's "fault". And by fault I mean the NHTSA's order of "if the system was off, but on up to even 30 seconds before hand, it counts"

Tesla does about a billion miles a year right now. Ford was happy to put out a press release about their cars having hit 16 million total. So even if both of the 2 in that report is tesla, and we find out that its a 1 in 500 million miles driven average. 16/500=3.2%. Ford simply has not had enough usage to have their 1:500,000,000 happen yet.


bobjoylove t1_j96hyfd wrote

Nevertheless with ADAS this exact collision type should be 100% avoidable without extenuating circumstances (ice on the road, impact from another vehicle driven by a human). The reason it’s not is Tesla’s refusal to use ranging technology like Radar, and insisting on cheaper visible-light based cameras.


razorirr t1_j96oqwi wrote

Your statement shows you dont know how car radar works.

Cars are using the radar to measure doppler shift. This is how they tell if the car in front of you is moving faster, or slower than you. Because the speed of the signal is a known constant, it can also give you distance.

In the conditions you have driving, you have to throw out any measurement of something not moving, such as that parked firetruck and mark it as invalid. This sounds ridiculous but its for a simple reason

Pretend you are in a car with radar and you are driving down into a valley. The car will see the bottom of the valley where you would start driving up the other hill as a static object, and the car would stop. With radar, you cant tell this valley from a police car.


bobjoylove t1_j96wdpy wrote

Your statement shows how you don’t know how software works.

You augment the camera with the RADAR. When the two diverge significantly the system will error and hand back control to the driver.


razorirr t1_j96yztn wrote

That wouldn't do anything

Like I explained, the radar in this case would give "All clear"

The camera in this case should have gave "firetruck" but gave "all clear"

Erroneous camera All Clear + radar design all clear = all clear = crash.

Camera Firetruck + all clear = stop

The radar all clear in this case is unneeded, as it will never be not all clear, and the diverging car stop is not needed because the firetruck car stop would apply.

From a QA guy telling the probably Developer guy your logic is bad, you could program the radar to always return blocked if it sees any static object. but then that causes a problem.

  1. If the radar says blocked, and the camera sees something, That is a stop due to agreeing.
  2. If the radar says blocked but the camera does not see anything, that is a stop due to divergence.

Your car would never be able to go anywhere in the system you proposed other than on an unblocked flat surface.

Love all the instant downvotes all my posts are getting. Seems a lot of people don't know what they are talking about but think they do.


bobjoylove t1_j971ijk wrote

The Radar is used for ranging. It provides a distance and a rate of change over a reasonably narrow aperture. The bottom of the valley does not get close enough to warrant emergency intervention from the braking system.

The fact that the majority of cars with dynamic cruise and automated pedestrian braking systems all using 60GHz as the detection method should tell you it is possible and it is shipping already.


razorirr t1_j9731y8 wrote

>The Radar is used for ranging


>The bottom of the valley does not get close enough to warrant emergency intervention from the braking system.


You are driving down the hill, its a 1 mile slope from top to bottom, then it curves and goes up the next hill.

You are right that while its far away, you can ignore the read because the range is saying "yeah i see something, but its 3000 feet off, who cares" or it just sees nothing as its not looking that far out.

But since its not moving and you are, eventually you will be 200 feet from the bottom. Radar sees this as an object blocking your path, and its now close enough the car goes "Yeah I see something, its 200 feet away, lets stop."

Since the ground is never going to move, radar will always say stop. A camera with sufficient data labeling ability can overcome this as it can tell context, radar never can as it is a binary "block / clear"

Also, heres Chevy explaining how they do their pedestrian braking. Its using cameras, not the radar.


bobjoylove t1_j977j8u wrote

Ok let’s agree to disagree on the technical aspects of a know working collision avoidance system they is shipping on millions of cars including my own.

It’s good to have a secondary system to cross-check the cameras. I have noted that many (not this one) cases of the Tesla systems failing have been at night. Adding RADAR or LIDAR augments the cameras. BTW the answer in the back of the book is Tesla have realised that they actually do need RADAR and have begun adding it.


razorirr t1_j978ckm wrote

No. This is a technical conversation about how a technical system works. You cant agree to disagree on those aspects else its impossible to come to an agreement at all. The only way to prove this would be for you to prove the car would not stop forever on the hill once the radar and the camera diverged if divergence = stop or in the case of pure radar = sees blockage = stop.

I agree augmenting is good. Like the radar can see the range of an object better than camera vision can guesstimate it. But what i was talking about is a known limitation to radar. You can not "Augment" around that, you have to throw the data out, and if you are throwing it out 100% of the time, you don't need it.


bobjoylove t1_j97ch2n wrote

Do you ever think that, even when provided with a link proving me right - specifically Tesla adding RADAR to fix their issue - and you still argue that isn’t the resolution; that you might just be stubbornly wrong?


razorirr t1_j97dmf4 wrote

Did you ever think that they could be putting the radar in to augment all the other situations where radar is helpful, but due to the limitations of radar, this is not one of those situations?

Actually read and comprehend that article. The OG radar my car has was insufficient compared to just cameras. The one they are putting in has much better distance that it can see, but it still will have the issues I've explained above as that is a fundamental issue with radar.

So now instead of seeing the bottom of the valley at 200 feet, it sees it at 400 feet. All of the same problems occur and the car still can not proceed to the bottom of the hill if programmed to always stop based off a radar blockage or a radar vs camera divergence. Radar always will be not helpful for static objects in path, but it will be really helpful for letting the car know something is in motion 400 feet away.


bobjoylove t1_j97ekv4 wrote

It’s clear they have reviewed the data and made a decision. If that’s not enough to convince you, then I’m not sure what more you might need.

Have a good day.


razorirr t1_j97g29v wrote

I will freely admit radar can help in situations. This situation is not one of them because of how radar works. You have convinced yourself otherwise and now refuse to correct your incorrect opinion.

Have a good one.


TenderfootGungi t1_j97ac0b wrote

>In the conditions you have driving, you have to throw out any measurement of something not moving, such as that parked firetruck and mark it as invalid.

That should depend on where it is. Is it on the side of the road? Not an issue. In my lane? Real issue.

It is telling that no other self driving tech is having trouble with this. Everyone else has this figured out.


razorirr t1_j9an80n wrote

You would think that but no. If you consider anything in front of you not moving as reason to stop, if i put you on a hill, your radar is now pointing down the slope, so as you approach the bottom your vision will tell you "im ok to proceed, its just the hill slope leveling off." Radar will tell you "oh shit theres a stationary object, brake now". Stationary objects in path is a limitation of using radar, which cant tell what the object is.


smoke1966 t1_j96ns58 wrote

Blinded by the light probably. also useless in snow and can't see a semi trailer against a white sky.


tapac333 t1_j96ehdu wrote

Emergency vehicles run red lights. More Teslas than other brand self- driving cars on ths streets, therefore probability of Teslas hitting vehicles that don't abide by traffic signs would be higher.


Chippopotanuse t1_j96mwhw wrote

Okay…but these are emergency vehicles that are on the side of the road and stopped.

Literally the excerpt from the NHTSA report I pasted says these emergency vehicles were stopped on the side of the road to help folks.

The flashing lights on emergency vehicles confuse the Tesla AI. It’s been a known problem for years. Elon and his fanboys try to gloss over it or play whataboutism games to avoid having to address it in any substance.


razorirr t1_j96xtfb wrote

So, we don't have all the offical numbers for things but we can take a crack at this Lex Fridman, a MIT Research Scientist has sat down with the sales figures and the AP miles driven numbers tesla has occasionally given out, and at the last update he posted, there would have been roughly 1.8 billion miles driven between 4-22-2020 and 1-1-2021. For a full year this is 2.662 billion miles. or 221.9m per month.

NHSTA says over the course of 10 months, there have been two confirmed ADAS related accidents into first responder vehicles.

If you take the 12785 miles per driver 2020 average which they calculated by doing the math against the 2020 FHA report. There are 228m drivers, so this is 243b a month

This report shows that 2500 trucks a year parked as blockers get hit. 250 per month

250 accidents per month / 243000 million miles = .001

.2 accidents a month / 222 million miles = .0009

So if you take all the different reports in context of each other. Non tesla AP hits .001 fire trucks per million miles driven. Tesla AP hits .0009 firetrucks per million miles driven.

Tesla AP is slightly better than all humans + other AP systems. If we replaced everything else with Tesla AP, we would have reduced the accident count by 291.5


[deleted] t1_j95oz1a wrote



Chippopotanuse t1_j95psyk wrote

How many of those cars claim to have “full self driving“ and have people doing everything from reading the newspaper on the highway to taking a nap while the car is going 70 miles an hour.

Sure, the fine print says “but there has to be a human ready to take control at all times!“

But there’s only one auto maker that brags about their self driving hardware. And so yeah, it is newsworthy when the one company who claims they can do it is failing spectacularly at it. And getting people killed.


[deleted] t1_j95qsbq wrote



Chippopotanuse t1_j95rlgv wrote

They all had autopilot engaged. You can ignore reality if you’d like.


jenkinsleroi t1_j95tq03 wrote

Your statistic is meaningless unless it's normalized by number of miles driven. And I suspect the number of miles driven by non Tesla cars is way higher.

Plus autopilot should mean that they're much less likely to crash into a stopped vehicle on the side of the road.


Chippopotanuse t1_j95uvbc wrote

It’s not my statistic. It’s the NHTSA investigating crashes.

If you think your hand waving is enough to overcome the legitimate concerns the NHTSA has here…please see if Tesla will hire you as their general counsel in charge of regulatory oversight.


[deleted] t1_j95xvvj wrote



Chippopotanuse t1_j95zckj wrote

You are less informed than your think.

Elon talks about autopilot and full self driving interchangeably.

Go listen to him in 2019 when speaking with Cathie Wood’s Ark Podcast:

“My guess as to when we would think it is safe for somebody to essentially fall asleep and wake up at their destination: probably toward the end of next year. I would say I am certain of that. That is not a question mark.”

It’s 2023 now. Not 2020.

And Tesla isn’t anywhere near capable of having someone fall asleep and arrive at their destination in any safe manner.

Elon didn’t speak unequivocally back in 2019 about this. He didn’t say “hey we are working on something cool that might happen someday.”

He guaranteed it: “I would say I’m certain of that. It’s not a question mark.”

He has promised consumers for years that they can do these things.

He’s a liar and you’re being duped. And more than one person who believed his statements are now dead.


FrontierRoad t1_j95somg wrote

I was thinking the same thing I'm sure plenty of ford pintos are plowing into things but never here a word.


Chippopotanuse t1_j969uy9 wrote

Can you put me to the press release where the Ford CEO guaranteed that Pinto owners could fall asleep behind the wheel and safely arrive at their destination?