Tesla Autopilot Hits a Deer [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Tesla Autopilot Hits a Deer [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrWH_0YA5XM
94 comments
I don't get it, is the person advocating against using Autopilot then? What do they want Tesla do actually do? You can't have it both ways - can't pin it on Autopilot for making you less attentive and then continue using it only to point the finger when it doesn't compensate for lack of attention.
Autopilot is just poor quality. Period. If it can't even try to avoid a deer like this, it's bad software (and hardware). What should Tesla do? Make better software and hardware, and not let people pay for it and use it until it is good. This isn't early access to a Steam game but that's how Musk seems to treat it. But then again he has stock and reputation making it a one way road; there's no going back now.
That leaves it to consumers and regulators. As consumers we can stop getting caught up in Musk's persona, and stop buying a dangerous product. And regulators should start doing their job for the first time in many years.
That leaves it to consumers and regulators. As consumers we can stop getting caught up in Musk's persona, and stop buying a dangerous product. And regulators should start doing their job for the first time in many years.
Sure, I can acknowledge that the software should have reacted here, but so should've the driver. The driver is responsible for the vehicle and Tesla are clear about this. I don't think it's valid to blame inattentiveness on Autopilot either.
So you're ignoring all the points of the video? That autopilot lulls the human brain slowly away from attention even with knowledge of its necessity?
You're describing a flawed overall system. It has to be nearly perfect or it would be better not to exist at all. Middle ground is incompatible with our minds. You are asking for the impossible.
You're describing a flawed overall system. It has to be nearly perfect or it would be better not to exist at all. Middle ground is incompatible with our minds. You are asking for the impossible.
Oh gosh no.
I can see it now, google self driving car with built in “captcha” where it checks your response time to the “fire drill” alert tone to take over driving.
That’ll train us.
Probably the perfect time to show an advert too. Our attention is pulled, and the adrenaline is pumping…
Or would that just train us to ignore the ‘take over tone’?
Or would that just train us to ignore the ‘take over tone’?
Google dropped this approach a long time ago precisely because of this problem: their employees were zoning out
What is your point? If the car is actually self driving, then there is no need for human interaction. The issue is this is not, therefore the driver still needs to be engaged enough to respond
Sorry, no strong point. I was just pondering that the issue is inattention, and imagining google, who spends the most money, ever, on capturing human attention, taking the next dystopian step.
The deer is already hit by the time the driver reacts.
It is irresponsible for Tesla to market something as "autopilot" when it definitely isn't that. Telsa is the one trying to have it both ways (selling something by giving the impression that it offers full "autopilot" performance, then passing the buck back to the driver when anything goes wrong).
For reference, Tesla's marketing[1] is clear about what they mean when they say "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving":
> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...
> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...
They're saying that in those videos, the driver didn't need to provide any inputs to the car. They didn't say that you never will, or that he didn't have to pay attention and be ready to.
There is absolutely no excuse for using that video to market Autopilot/FSD (it's still the main feature on tesla.com/autopilot). The driver is clearly not just there for legal reasons. Given that the video is a few years old and FSD beta is still screwing up every couple minutes in the most recent Youtube videos, that driver probably bailed it out in many bad takes before they got this one.
I'm not against calling Tesla's system autopilot. In the end autopilot in reality is dumb system. Cruise control is also an autopilot, so is lane assist. Problem comes when people think autopilot is actually smart, when it really only does pretty basic things...
Selling FSD however is pure scam.
Selling FSD however is pure scam.
Thats a pretty loose definition of autopilot;
>noun: automatic pilot; plural noun: automatic pilots
a device for keeping an aircraft on a set course without the intervention of the pilot.
Cruise control only maintains velocity, lane assist still requires interventions when turns need to be made or lines are unclear. That sounds like intervention to me
"without the intervention of the pilot" is a pretty pivotal part of everyone else's understanding of the word.
Cruise control only maintains velocity, lane assist still requires interventions when turns need to be made or lines are unclear. That sounds like intervention to me
"without the intervention of the pilot" is a pretty pivotal part of everyone else's understanding of the word.
I agree with you, but Tesla are very clear that the person in the driver's seat is 100% responsible for the vehicle when Autopilot is active. Until the law catches up with innovation, that will continue to be the case.
Most planes today can land themselves, yet pilots still often land manually to keep their attention and skills sharp. Tesla drivers which make use of Autopilot should consider doing the same -- since ultimately it's their ass on the line for now.
Most planes today can land themselves, yet pilots still often land manually to keep their attention and skills sharp. Tesla drivers which make use of Autopilot should consider doing the same -- since ultimately it's their ass on the line for now.
Aircraft pilots - especially those who fly jets with auto-landing features - are exceptionally well trained and paid to keep that attention and skill sharp. And that’s not counting their backup - the co-pilots - who are typically just as well trained and compensated as the lead pilots.
I highly doubt Tesla will start putting drivers through several hundreds of hours of training every year (let alone pay them 6/7 figure salaries) to have properly safe and trained drivers in their cars.
I highly doubt Tesla will start putting drivers through several hundreds of hours of training every year (let alone pay them 6/7 figure salaries) to have properly safe and trained drivers in their cars.
The other thing that people who bring up the aviation analogy don't often mention is the difference in scale of reaction times when flying in an aircraft; they are moving much faster, but the distance between them (and the ground below) is also much higher, more than proportional to cars; when the autopilot disconnects, there is at least a few seconds to react to the situation. In a car, reaction/handover times to avoid a collision are sub-second.
Like one of the GP comments said,
>* "Your brain cannot turn off habituation'
The entire argument falls apart, and quickly. If the statement 'its the drivers responsibility' relies on us completely ignoring human behaviours and patterns.
People are falliable, and encouraging people to not concentrate and put trust into auto-pilot, and knowing with every kilometre travelled. People concentrate less and less. Who is at fault when the car misbehaves and breaks away from expected behaviours?
>* "Your brain cannot turn off habituation'
The entire argument falls apart, and quickly. If the statement 'its the drivers responsibility' relies on us completely ignoring human behaviours and patterns.
People are falliable, and encouraging people to not concentrate and put trust into auto-pilot, and knowing with every kilometre travelled. People concentrate less and less. Who is at fault when the car misbehaves and breaks away from expected behaviours?
Habituation is even a problem in ordinary cars. There's a word for it: highway hypnosis. First identified 100 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis
> I agree with you, but Tesla are very clear that the person in the driver's seat is 100% responsible for the vehicle when Autopilot is active.
So when Tesla says[1]:
> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.
The "legal reason" for having a person in the driver seat is so that they can act as a liability shield for Tesla?
[1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...
So when Tesla says[1]:
> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.
The "legal reason" for having a person in the driver seat is so that they can act as a liability shield for Tesla?
[1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-hardware...
[deleted]
You keep posting the same comment.
That is a specific marketing video from five years ago. The current system has basically nothing in common with what is shown there, hardware or software wise.
> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.
Does it say that in the Autopilot terms of use? Maybe the owner's manual?
That is a specific marketing video from five years ago. The current system has basically nothing in common with what is shown there, hardware or software wise.
> The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.
Does it say that in the Autopilot terms of use? Maybe the owner's manual?
> You keep posting the same comment.
No, I made two distinctively different comments, but used the same quote from Tesla in them, which is the same quote you've just quoted yourself.
> That is a specific marketing video from five years ago. The current system has basically nothing in common with what is shown there, hardware or software wise.
So it got worse over the last 5 years? Because Tesla said the car was driving itself, but now you're saying that's not true, and there's nothing in common with them.
No, I made two distinctively different comments, but used the same quote from Tesla in them, which is the same quote you've just quoted yourself.
> That is a specific marketing video from five years ago. The current system has basically nothing in common with what is shown there, hardware or software wise.
So it got worse over the last 5 years? Because Tesla said the car was driving itself, but now you're saying that's not true, and there's nothing in common with them.
Do you agree with these two statements?
1. The feature marketed as "autopilot" on airliners is accurately named
2. The human pilots of airliners need to keep paying attention even when autopilot is active
Isn't that exactly analogous to how it works in a Tesla? Why do you then say "it definitely isn't that"?
1. The feature marketed as "autopilot" on airliners is accurately named
2. The human pilots of airliners need to keep paying attention even when autopilot is active
Isn't that exactly analogous to how it works in a Tesla? Why do you then say "it definitely isn't that"?
With commercial airliners, they moved away from auto-landing systems to head-up displays: assistive technology for the pilots.
To me it seems likely that putting in HUD-type assistance would be safer than attempting self driving, which is more complicated than landing a plane.
To me it seems likely that putting in HUD-type assistance would be safer than attempting self driving, which is more complicated than landing a plane.
HUDs don't seem like they really impact auto-land. They do impact conditions in which take off is authorised because they can add a synthetic centre line so that pilots are comfortable taking off in low visibility.
For landing existing CAT III landing will complete the entire landing and rollout. Failures (e.g. loss of a flight computer or sensor problems) that would lock out CAT III autoland would likewise rule out attempts in a HUD.
The reason you don't see much real CAT IIIc bad weather landing isn't that it can't work or HUDs would be better, the problem is that sure, now you're safely on the ground but with zero visibility you're stuck on a runway, you can't very well taxi a jetliner when you can't see the concrete you're on let alone the signs and lights. Even a follow-me car won't help, you can't see it.
Garmin's emergency autoland for GA pilots has the same problem, but since it's an emergency feature "Oh dear we took an entire airport out of service for an hour" is an acceptable consequence. The alternative may well have been fatal in that case.
Anyway, people have added e.g. enhanced visibility and highway edge marker HUDs to high end vehicles before. But, that's going to be something you need to train with in order to use it effectively. An airline would send crew on the recommended two week course before they're allowed to fly the modified plane, but we know even private pilots routinely avoid recommended manufacturer training, and cars would definitely be worse. My guess: Tesla would sell a thousand cars with a HUD, fifty drivers would take the free training, ten of them would come away having learnt anything. All one thousand owners would be confident they can now drive at 60mph in dense fog even though the training said "You definitely must not drive at 60mph in dense fog".
For landing existing CAT III landing will complete the entire landing and rollout. Failures (e.g. loss of a flight computer or sensor problems) that would lock out CAT III autoland would likewise rule out attempts in a HUD.
The reason you don't see much real CAT IIIc bad weather landing isn't that it can't work or HUDs would be better, the problem is that sure, now you're safely on the ground but with zero visibility you're stuck on a runway, you can't very well taxi a jetliner when you can't see the concrete you're on let alone the signs and lights. Even a follow-me car won't help, you can't see it.
Garmin's emergency autoland for GA pilots has the same problem, but since it's an emergency feature "Oh dear we took an entire airport out of service for an hour" is an acceptable consequence. The alternative may well have been fatal in that case.
Anyway, people have added e.g. enhanced visibility and highway edge marker HUDs to high end vehicles before. But, that's going to be something you need to train with in order to use it effectively. An airline would send crew on the recommended two week course before they're allowed to fly the modified plane, but we know even private pilots routinely avoid recommended manufacturer training, and cars would definitely be worse. My guess: Tesla would sell a thousand cars with a HUD, fifty drivers would take the free training, ten of them would come away having learnt anything. All one thousand owners would be confident they can now drive at 60mph in dense fog even though the training said "You definitely must not drive at 60mph in dense fog".
Good points!
If only we paid the same attention to human driver accidents. It's good to keep the company and technology accountable but I still believe that autopilot is _miles_ better than your _average_ driver.
Like in this particular case - it was on a bend, there was an oncoming car approaching - should the autopilot have hit the brakes at full and risk swerving into the oncoming car? Should it have swerved around the deer and hit the oncoming car? I would have probably slowed down a bit but still hit it as human reaction speed is not that fast in reality. The deer becomes clearly visible ~3:53 and contact is made at ~3:56. Studies[1] show that the average reaction speed is 1.5 seconds. This leaves 1.5 seconds to come to a full stop. Would you be able to come to a dead stop within that timeframe at 70mph?
Every time a Tesla thread comes up I see so many "couch racers" in comments that pretend they're formula 1 drivers with split second reactions.
In reality this is a life-saving technology - imagine how much death, loss and suffering will self-driving cars prevent by taking drunk people off the road alone.
[1] https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/saferroadsnsw/s...
Like in this particular case - it was on a bend, there was an oncoming car approaching - should the autopilot have hit the brakes at full and risk swerving into the oncoming car? Should it have swerved around the deer and hit the oncoming car? I would have probably slowed down a bit but still hit it as human reaction speed is not that fast in reality. The deer becomes clearly visible ~3:53 and contact is made at ~3:56. Studies[1] show that the average reaction speed is 1.5 seconds. This leaves 1.5 seconds to come to a full stop. Would you be able to come to a dead stop within that timeframe at 70mph?
Every time a Tesla thread comes up I see so many "couch racers" in comments that pretend they're formula 1 drivers with split second reactions.
In reality this is a life-saving technology - imagine how much death, loss and suffering will self-driving cars prevent by taking drunk people off the road alone.
[1] https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/saferroadsnsw/s...
Moving too fast to react isn't an excuse for a human driver; that's just driving too fast. Applying the same standard to Autopilot, if the Tesla was going so fast that it didn't have time to stop for an obstacle as far away as that deer was at 3:53, it was going too fast.
But she says the Tesla didn't brake at all, which suggests it just didn't recognize the deer or doesn't have a rule saying that an animal walking toward the road might be dangerous.
But she says the Tesla didn't brake at all, which suggests it just didn't recognize the deer or doesn't have a rule saying that an animal walking toward the road might be dangerous.
That’s not how this works - cars go at a speed limit set by the road they’re on. The speed limit is selected based on safety factors present on the road.
By your logic, one needs to move 30mph on the interstate to make sure they can react to whatever jumps out at them. Or am I misunderstanding something here?
By your logic, one needs to move 30mph on the interstate to make sure they can react to whatever jumps out at them. Or am I misunderstanding something here?
I'm not talking about situations where something jumps out of nowhere or a meteor falls out of the sky onto the road. This deer didn't jump out onto the road. It slowly walked out onto the road; it was visible near the edge of the car's vision; and it was easy to anticipate that it might walk in front of the car.
I've encountered many situations like this without hitting the animal. I would slow down and move aside to give the deer room, starting as soon as I saw the deer at 3:53. If the deer had moved faster and taken the whole lane I'd have passed it in the other lane. The oncoming car wasn't that close.
But you must also be able to stop in this distance, because the obstacle might not be a deer you can steer around, it might be a fallen tree that blocks the whole road.
You're certainly right that many human drivers would not do better than the Tesla here, but we should expect the Tesla to be better than a bad human driver.
I've encountered many situations like this without hitting the animal. I would slow down and move aside to give the deer room, starting as soon as I saw the deer at 3:53. If the deer had moved faster and taken the whole lane I'd have passed it in the other lane. The oncoming car wasn't that close.
But you must also be able to stop in this distance, because the obstacle might not be a deer you can steer around, it might be a fallen tree that blocks the whole road.
You're certainly right that many human drivers would not do better than the Tesla here, but we should expect the Tesla to be better than a bad human driver.
It's interesting to watch the continued narrative shift away from the original sales pitch of self-driving as a solution to human fallibility even at low autonomy levels to stuff like "you wouldn't expect a human to do better in the same situation." It's like that scene in The Simpsons with Homer chasing the grill as the pig atop it connects with increasingly nasty things as he yells "it's still good!"
Speed limits are a maximum, not a minimum. With limited visibility in fog or snow, it is extremely common to see cars going 10+ mph under the speed limit.
The speed limit is supposed to be the maximum appropriate speed in ideal conditions. In practice almost no one treats it that way, but that's the philosophy by which it was designed. They take into account the clear area on the side of the road, sight lines, and the curve of the road itself.
The speed limit is supposed to be the maximum appropriate speed in ideal conditions. In practice almost no one treats it that way, but that's the philosophy by which it was designed. They take into account the clear area on the side of the road, sight lines, and the curve of the road itself.
The actual recording of hitting the deer starts at 3:50
https://youtu.be/jrWH_0YA5XM?t=230
https://youtu.be/jrWH_0YA5XM?t=230
Soo... I'm an idiot. Heads up for other people: this contains a video of a car killing a deer.
I updated my video description comment to include the timestamp
Isn't this the exact behavior we are taught as human drivers?
"Smash into a large animal, dying is good" ?
No. You should brake. The intended and authorised safety regime for automobiles assumes you will maintain a situation where you can reasonably brake before foreseeable impacts.
This is quite different from say, an airliner or a railway train which couldn't possibly brake, and so those need completely different safety environments. "Absolute block" is an example for railways, there is intended to be no possible way for two trains to be in the same section of track, so, you always have at least an entire section (it will often be more on fast trains) to brake even if you can't see far at all.
In a car you don't have that environment, you should always be prepared to stop in the distance you can see. If you're thinking, "But nobody drives like that" then you're part way to understanding why so remarkably many people die on roads.
No. You should brake. The intended and authorised safety regime for automobiles assumes you will maintain a situation where you can reasonably brake before foreseeable impacts.
This is quite different from say, an airliner or a railway train which couldn't possibly brake, and so those need completely different safety environments. "Absolute block" is an example for railways, there is intended to be no possible way for two trains to be in the same section of track, so, you always have at least an entire section (it will often be more on fast trains) to brake even if you can't see far at all.
In a car you don't have that environment, you should always be prepared to stop in the distance you can see. If you're thinking, "But nobody drives like that" then you're part way to understanding why so remarkably many people die on roads.
In fact, the law requires those behind you to be able to brake to avoid you regardless of what you do in front of them. If the car in front of you skids to avoid a family of ducklings, you're going to be the responsible individual if you rear-end them.
With large farm animals such as horses and cows, or with larger wildlife like moose and elk, your life is at stake - there are plenty of drivers killed just hitting moose (look at the size of the mother in the embedded video and you can easily imagine her sliding up the hood and through the windshield: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=livewith.drivingm.... This video also shows something that's true of elk and deer as well - they have very little traction on pavement.
With large farm animals such as horses and cows, or with larger wildlife like moose and elk, your life is at stake - there are plenty of drivers killed just hitting moose (look at the size of the mother in the embedded video and you can easily imagine her sliding up the hood and through the windshield: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=livewith.drivingm.... This video also shows something that's true of elk and deer as well - they have very little traction on pavement.
Small correction: you should brake until just before impact if it is going to happen because you want your car's nose to be up as high as you can in this case because otherwise you might get a double helping of windshield+deer into your car.
1) Deer can and do jump.
2) The difference between the nose of a car while braking and while coasting is an inch or two. Won’t make a lick of difference.
Source for 1) Having a deer jump over my car, leaving only fur in the windshield wiper blades. 2) Mythbusters, measuring for a “Wanted” car jump myth.
2) The difference between the nose of a car while braking and while coasting is an inch or two. Won’t make a lick of difference.
Source for 1) Having a deer jump over my car, leaving only fur in the windshield wiper blades. 2) Mythbusters, measuring for a “Wanted” car jump myth.
Thanks. This was advice dispensed by multiple locals in Canada where the deer were so thick on the road that these encounters would happen at least once every week, I didn't actually set up a scientific side-by-side test to see what the difference would be. Braking hard transfers a few hundred pounds of load (depending on the weight of the vehicle, typically about 25% or so) to the front axis, and how far it dips depends on how stiff your suspension is. A typical family car (say, a Caravan or Windstar) will drop quite a bit more than an inch or two but even then I agree it may not make much of a difference because of the way the nose of the vehicle is shaped.
Its worth noting that when I was taught, they also said not to break.
Ironically I did actually end up having a encounter with a deer. I did break, and swerve, but at the time I had a car without anti-lock breaks. I lost control of the vehicle and flipped it (which is also why they tell you not to swerve, unless you have good awareness).
Ironically I did actually end up having a encounter with a deer. I did break, and swerve, but at the time I had a car without anti-lock breaks. I lost control of the vehicle and flipped it (which is also why they tell you not to swerve, unless you have good awareness).
I'm pretty sure humans are supposed to at least slow down if they can possibly do so, which in this case appears to have not happened
Brake hard, swerve if possible, that is if no oncoming traffic. Pretty much standard training in driving school here, were we expect deers and moose to be on road.
Small animals you drive through, bigger animals you try to avoid by breaking, elk/moose you actively try to aim right and behind the path if you have time to react, mainly because those things will kill you when they slam through the window.
Leaving a dead small animal will draw out larger animals who see an easy meal and do real damage when they connect. It's bad advice.
The car would have had time to come to a stop if it had started breaking when the deer became visible. That said the collision only became inevitable when the deer dashed forward in the last second (literally the last second of its life).
The car could have reacted better and likely prevented the hit, but if a human had been the only driver nobody would have even suggested that the driver was at fault.
The car could have reacted better and likely prevented the hit, but if a human had been the only driver nobody would have even suggested that the driver was at fault.
I've hit several deer but only killed one animal precisely because I slow down when I see them walking. I've NOT hit dozens that have wandered into my lane so I'd say I have a pretty good track record.
The difference here between the human and the car is that it's completely acceptable to require perfect attention and focus at all times from the car.
Honestly, I disagree. A human could've spotted the deer from far away and could've made the decision to slow down or stop so that the deer could cross safely.
When there are other cars around or when the animal would've jumped in front of the car before you could react, I'd say the driver can't be blamed for hitting the animal because there was no reasonably alternative. In this case, breaking and turning on the hazards would've been a perfectly fine solution. This deer didn't have to die and a human driver could've (should've) avoided a collision.
The deer is just an example of the system failing, though. It shows that Tesla's wannabe-self driving is incapable of dealing with animals near the road. A small deer like this could be hit safely, but when a car doesn't try to break for something bigger and heavier, people could easily die. You run over birds and bunnies, but don't even try to drive through a horse. That thing is going straight through your windshield when you hit it, so you'd better risk getting rear-ended when a runaway horse walks onto the road. You're going to need one of those death mobiles like a Cybertruck that doesn't do those fancy "crumple zones" or "safety glass" to make it through anything larger than an adult boar without risking a crash, so any full self-driving system should be able to anticipate large animals near the road (or shut down in areas where large animals are known to cross roads).
When there are other cars around or when the animal would've jumped in front of the car before you could react, I'd say the driver can't be blamed for hitting the animal because there was no reasonably alternative. In this case, breaking and turning on the hazards would've been a perfectly fine solution. This deer didn't have to die and a human driver could've (should've) avoided a collision.
The deer is just an example of the system failing, though. It shows that Tesla's wannabe-self driving is incapable of dealing with animals near the road. A small deer like this could be hit safely, but when a car doesn't try to break for something bigger and heavier, people could easily die. You run over birds and bunnies, but don't even try to drive through a horse. That thing is going straight through your windshield when you hit it, so you'd better risk getting rear-ended when a runaway horse walks onto the road. You're going to need one of those death mobiles like a Cybertruck that doesn't do those fancy "crumple zones" or "safety glass" to make it through anything larger than an adult boar without risking a crash, so any full self-driving system should be able to anticipate large animals near the road (or shut down in areas where large animals are known to cross roads).
I've totaled a car because of a deer jumping in front of my vehicle. Swerved, and flipped the car right over. That's not out of the realm of possibility in this video. If the car had swerved, and hit a decline, it takes remarkably little to flip a car.
Well not a tesla. You have to really work to flip them, but the point stands.
This despite being taught about danger of animals, and living in a place with a large wild population.
Your brain does not process images outside of the immediate distance in front of you nearly as fast as you think it does. I had a good four seconds that I could have "seen" the dear, but it was only when it was directly in my path that I realized what was going on.
When you are watching youtube, you are staring right at it. When you are driving a car, chances are you looking straight ahead.
Well not a tesla. You have to really work to flip them, but the point stands.
This despite being taught about danger of animals, and living in a place with a large wild population.
Your brain does not process images outside of the immediate distance in front of you nearly as fast as you think it does. I had a good four seconds that I could have "seen" the dear, but it was only when it was directly in my path that I realized what was going on.
When you are watching youtube, you are staring right at it. When you are driving a car, chances are you looking straight ahead.
No!? You're supposed to not swerve, but you sure as shit are supposed to brake! If you can't safetly slam on the brakes because somebody was tailgating you or because the road surface is too slippery, then you already fucked up before the deer appeared!
The purpose of ABS is its ability to safely brake AND swerve. Saved my ass many times, especially on icy conditions. ESC is also magical.
Thats only part of the problem. If you swerve and don't hit it straight on, you are likely to hit someplace where the engine block doesn't give you as much padding. You car will be totaled and have a bad day if you hit a large buck head on. You and/or your passenger will be dead if it comes through the windshield or side window glass.
As I understand it, the purpose of ABS is to let you slam on your brakes and NOT swerve. If your wheels lock up then you lose all steering authority. ABS lets you slam your brake to the floor and still be able to keep your car on the road using the steering wheel. If your car doesn't have ABS, then you should know that and know to "pump your brakes" instead, to maintain control of the car.
If a child jumped in front of my car, I'd swerve even if that meant risking a tree. If I ran over a child I don't know that I'd be able to live with myself anyway, so the choice is clear: I risk myself to improve the odds of the child making it away unscathed. But a deer? No way in hell. I'll slam on the brakes, since my car has ABS, but I would not take my chances with swerving.
If a child jumped in front of my car, I'd swerve even if that meant risking a tree. If I ran over a child I don't know that I'd be able to live with myself anyway, so the choice is clear: I risk myself to improve the odds of the child making it away unscathed. But a deer? No way in hell. I'll slam on the brakes, since my car has ABS, but I would not take my chances with swerving.
I was taught that unless you are really really sure that there is no impediments and/or cliffs to either side of you, to hit it straight on, and only to dodge if you were sure you could make it.
Of course, they also said to break as much as possible but hit it straight on. You would total the car, but cars are designed for that, versus your body not being able to take a deer going through the windshield if you clip it on the side. The engine block is padding, use it.
Looking at the video, it looks exactly like the videos of horrible car crashes I saw in school (less blood). As usual with Tesla, the headlines are sensational, the hacker news comments breathless, but it's a fairly straight forward physics and recognition problem. 300+ people die a year, and billions of dollars in cars are destroyed each year. A neural network mimics the way human brains work. If a animal goes in a unexpected direction (or if it wasn't recognized at all), its going to be a problem.
Of course, they also said to break as much as possible but hit it straight on. You would total the car, but cars are designed for that, versus your body not being able to take a deer going through the windshield if you clip it on the side. The engine block is padding, use it.
Looking at the video, it looks exactly like the videos of horrible car crashes I saw in school (less blood). As usual with Tesla, the headlines are sensational, the hacker news comments breathless, but it's a fairly straight forward physics and recognition problem. 300+ people die a year, and billions of dollars in cars are destroyed each year. A neural network mimics the way human brains work. If a animal goes in a unexpected direction (or if it wasn't recognized at all), its going to be a problem.
> As usual with Tesla, the headlines are sensational
The headline is "Tesla Autopilot Hits a Deer" which is as bland and unsensational as you can get while being true.
> A neural network mimics the way human brains work.
This is like saying a drawing of a circle mimics the way the sun works. NNs are vaguely inspired by a high-level neuron topology, but the similarities pretty much end there. Gradient descent and backpropogation don't take place in the brain at all, and we don't know enough about the brain to mimic the way it works.
The headline is "Tesla Autopilot Hits a Deer" which is as bland and unsensational as you can get while being true.
> A neural network mimics the way human brains work.
This is like saying a drawing of a circle mimics the way the sun works. NNs are vaguely inspired by a high-level neuron topology, but the similarities pretty much end there. Gradient descent and backpropogation don't take place in the brain at all, and we don't know enough about the brain to mimic the way it works.
Lol you were taught to drive right into deer? I wonder what the Yelp reviews are for that driving school.
Yes, you don't swerve to avoid an animal, that can turn a major problem into a fatal one, for you and the other occupants of the vehicle.
What about slowing down? The car in the video wasnt going that fast. I live in an area with a lot of deer and the first thing you do is slow down.
For sure; alternative headline: "Tesla swerves into tree to avoid deer".
Cars have this handy peddle on the floor that lets you slow down the car without power-sliding it. You should give that a try.
Great answer - thankfully that’s always possible right?
Yes, if you are driving responsibly then using the brakes is always an option. All cars have brakes; they're required to by law. If using the brakes is not an option then you already fucked up (e.g. you were going too fast on a slippery road.)
I've lived in deer country for five years. It's quite literally impossible to brake every time a deer hits the road in front of you because they have the ability to teleport into and out of the space in front of you with a speed that is frankly unbelievable until you have it happen to you. I managed to avoid all but one of these encounters and I chalk it up to luck rather than reaction speed or driving skill and that was at fairly low (< 40 mph) speeds.
Deer standing safely by the road side will happily panic and jump in front of your car at the last possible moment. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Deer standing safely by the road side will happily panic and jump in front of your car at the last possible moment. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Agreed. The deer I hit lept out of a ditch that I couldn't see into, on an unfamiliar highway, and landed less than a car-length in front of my car. About 10 miles later, I drove my blood/hair/shit-encrusted car past a "deer area" sign. Thanks...
This shows me that you have little real-world experience driving in challenging conditions
It didn't even see it. So also no night vision too? I thought this software had object detection even on autopilot.
Sounds like a very dangerous robo-taxi if that was going to be released as "Level 5" for 2020.
Sounds like a very dangerous robo-taxi if that was going to be released as "Level 5" for 2020.
It saw it all right, pixels dont lie, there was no problem with visibility, problem was with Vision algorithms. Its programmed to ignore things it doesnt "recognize". Anything that isnt a car (unless it has police blinkers on apparently) or upright human is clear road to Tesla.
Example video given by someone actually defending autopilot :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0_eKr8jnNo
@2:20 exact same situation as in Jessa Jones clip. "all of a sudden a deer ran out onto the road but autopilot didn't react at all, gracie's applied the brakes only moments before impact but it was too late " Living creature hit, $4500 bill an 2 weeks without the car.
@6:30 plows into road debris roughly size and shape of a human lying on the road.
@9:00 finally correctly recognizes human on a crosswalk.
@11:00 Coyote, zero reaction and human takes over to avoid accident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0_eKr8jnNo
@2:20 exact same situation as in Jessa Jones clip. "all of a sudden a deer ran out onto the road but autopilot didn't react at all, gracie's applied the brakes only moments before impact but it was too late " Living creature hit, $4500 bill an 2 weeks without the car.
@6:30 plows into road debris roughly size and shape of a human lying on the road.
@9:00 finally correctly recognizes human on a crosswalk.
@11:00 Coyote, zero reaction and human takes over to avoid accident.
This is one of those cases where cameras alone simply don't cut it, other manufacturers add LIDAR for a reason: it works well when the cameras do not.
Infrared actually should be doing quite a wonders here. At least some tech demos of such cameras seem to be good enough. Then again it just might not be in training data...
I wouldn't be surprised if, like the self-driving Uber system that killed a pedestrian[1], Tesla's Autopilot is programmed to ignore some detected objects and obstacles in order to have a "smoother" ride.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-drivi...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-drivi...
Maybe we should actually be fixing what people understand autopilot to be.
We try to make it some magic AI system, but instead it is dumb system that keeps speed and route potentially even between lines and it might even make turns. But that is pretty much it.
Now, FSD marketed by Tesla, should be something the whole company is punished with massive daily fines until they make it actually work or stop using the term and allow anyone to return vehicle for full price.
We try to make it some magic AI system, but instead it is dumb system that keeps speed and route potentially even between lines and it might even make turns. But that is pretty much it.
Now, FSD marketed by Tesla, should be something the whole company is punished with massive daily fines until they make it actually work or stop using the term and allow anyone to return vehicle for full price.
Tesla is 100% image based autopilot or something? I have 2 vehicles with radar and I have no doubt both of them would have attempted to stop for this.
With LIDAR or RADAR?
No production car (AFAIK) uses LIDAR. Some have RADAR, but it doesn't usually help a lot here. This Tesla actually has radar in it. Tesla is actually moving to pure vision because they think they can respond faster to a all vision system and have fewer conflicts when radar randomly bounces back (this apparently was one of the reasons for phantom braking events in autopilot), but also apparently because radar interference with other cars is starting to become a thing.
No production car (AFAIK) uses LIDAR. Some have RADAR, but it doesn't usually help a lot here. This Tesla actually has radar in it. Tesla is actually moving to pure vision because they think they can respond faster to a all vision system and have fewer conflicts when radar randomly bounces back (this apparently was one of the reasons for phantom braking events in autopilot), but also apparently because radar interference with other cars is starting to become a thing.
> No production car (AFAIK) uses LIDAR
Various brands are putting LiDAR on their cars:
- Lucid: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/lucid-air-1065bh...
- Toyota and Lexus: https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/35063150.html
- XPeng: https://insideevs.com/news/537039/xpeng-p5-lidar-video/
- Volvo: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/electric-volvo-xc90-lidar...
Various brands are putting LiDAR on their cars:
- Lucid: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/lucid-air-1065bh...
- Toyota and Lexus: https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/35063150.html
- XPeng: https://insideevs.com/news/537039/xpeng-p5-lidar-video/
- Volvo: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/electric-volvo-xc90-lidar...
None of thoose are shipping en masse yet.
But boy, we do need that technology to come down in price, stat.
But boy, we do need that technology to come down in price, stat.
03:51 to see the actual hit.
I did hit a deer in Wyoming once as well, although I did brake hard. Still $5K in repair costs, but at least I didn't total the car. The situation is not easy even for human driver TBH - deer is not something you routinely encounter on the roads, so for a split second your brain simply doesn't know what to do. Then you realize you have to brake but still think it might run the other way, which it could show the intention of doing, so you don't brake as hard as you should. But the dumb animal seems to be startled by the headlights, so it will run right in front of your car at the last moment, which is what it did in my case.
Knowing what I know about computer vision (which is quite a bit), this is actually one of the simpler problems they have to solve, which is why I think it'll be solved and what you're seeing here is just a data bug. Not enough animals in the training set.
Knowing what I know about computer vision (which is quite a bit), this is actually one of the simpler problems they have to solve, which is why I think it'll be solved and what you're seeing here is just a data bug. Not enough animals in the training set.
I've been in WV for a month, not encountering deers when the night falls is what's surprising. Also, a herd looking at your slow-driving car when the moon is hiding makes for a surreal vision (for some reasons, their eyes are _bright_ in the dark)
Their eyes are so bright because they are retroreflective[1]. Just like road signs, they reflect light back in the direction it came from.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum
Which we should be thankful for, because otherwise they'd be _very_ hard to see as well, and a lot more people would be dying.
Are. You. Fucking. Kidding me?
There could be strategies to unhabituate driver's brain. For example, randomly swerving the car into oncoming traffic, just for a short moment. Make it seem unsafe, while keeping it safe. Make it random enough to avoid habituation.
While your specific example is a terrible idea, the overall thought makes sense.
Maybe limit autopilot so that for every mile, or hour spent on autopilot you have to drive an hour manually? Make it random?
Also stop calling it autopilot because it implies self driving capabilities that are not yet fully baked.
Maybe limit autopilot so that for every mile, or hour spent on autopilot you have to drive an hour manually? Make it random?
Also stop calling it autopilot because it implies self driving capabilities that are not yet fully baked.
Yeah, that was kind of tongue in cheek, but I feel it should randomly scare you to actually be effective. It's probably a good idea if you had to drive manually for a few minutes randomly, but the switch should happen quite suddenly so that you need to be paying attention constantly.
> There could be strategies to unhabituate driver's brain. For example, randomly swerving the car into oncoming traffic, just for a short moment. Make it seem unsafe, while keeping it safe. Make it random enough to avoid habituation.
Then what's the point of self driving? Thrills? No one would want it.
My Honda does something similar with its lane-centering feature (it will disengage after maybe 15 seconds of no driver input), but that feature is so limited it's not annoying.
Then what's the point of self driving? Thrills? No one would want it.
My Honda does something similar with its lane-centering feature (it will disengage after maybe 15 seconds of no driver input), but that feature is so limited it's not annoying.
This has a strong possibility of making things worse by conditioning the human driver to react with "oh, it's just the auto-pilot testing me", and thus not reacting properly when it does actually malfunction.
* "My Tesla was on autopilot and it plowed into a deer in my lane, there were no cars behind me, it did not attempt to slow down or stop."
* "As one Tesla autopilot mile becomes 50, 500, 5000, the behavior of your brain changes - it offloads the cognitive burden of driving to the autopilot, even when you have your hands on the wheel looking straight ahead"
* "Your brain cannot turn off habituation, it will put too much trust in autopilot, you can't do anything about that and that can be disastrous"
* Mentioned article: Tesla Drivers Using Autopilot Watch the Road Less, MIT Study Shows - https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37727214/tesla-drivers-au...
* The footage when it hits a deer is at the 3:50 timestamp - https://youtu.be/jrWH_0YA5XM?t=230