Tesla ‘Full Self-Driving’ tried to drive owner into a lake, viral video shows

[mkhuffman]

irregardless is NOT a word...(ir)regardless of what Webster's Dictionary says!!!!

Sorry...just a huge pet peeve of mine...carry on...

Its a reoccurring problem

Sponsored

 

[s4wrxttcs]

Maybe it self realized that it was a Tesla.

I had the same impulse when I realized I was human.

 

[SwampNut]

A computer that can see in every direction at all times should make exactly zero of those mistakes.

Exactly, and I think it's obvious that there's one more advantage; we cannot ever look in multiple directions. No matter how much you want to, no matter how perfect your attention span is, you *probably* don't have an array of sensors on your head.

Early on, Tesla's system stopped me from a potential broadside by a red light runner before I could see him, though I had full attention going.

 

[CharonPDX]

BUT DIDN'T!!

Watch the video - The vehicle only stopped when self-driving was disengaged. AKA: The driver hit the brakes when they saw the water ahead. (The video has a "self-driving" tag at the bottom indicating when self-driving is engaged.)

FSD regularly tries to turn me into a curb - trying to enter a parking lot with one of the busiest Superchargers in the area. You'd really think it would know how to get to a Supercharger, as often as Tesla vehicles drive into it. Or into the drive-through *EXIT* of a bank whose drive through is completely separated from the rest of the parking lot the Supercharger is in.

Or starts to turn into the correct parking lot entrance, then hesitates, swerves back into traffic, then swerves to drive into the *OUTBOUND* lanes of the parking lot entrance.

FSD is a fun toy to play with - when you're paying *MORE* attention than you normally would. It is not a suitable replacement for an attentive driver yet.

 

[ukyank]

So many people on this thread are going to struggle when FSD is the norm in the future

 

[skyguyscott]

I think we are overlooking the core issue here, and why I find Tesla's "FSD" so deceptive and infuriating.

The core issue is not that a Tesla operating under FSD was stopped by the driver from driving into a lake. From all the previous comments here, no one is particularly surprised by that tech failure, most of us who have some understanding of the underlying technology are aware of it's limitations and imperfections.

The core problems is that Tesla, and Elon in particular, market it as "Full Self Driving" setting unrealistic expectations, lulling unsuspecting owners into irresponsible driving behaviors, and, most egregiously, causing fatalities not only to the vehicle occupants, but to innocent pedestrians and other drivers.

Elon is giving vehicle autonomy a very bad reputation and inviting legislation that threatens to cripple future developments in the technology.

Tesla deserves every lawsuit regarding FSD, not for developing the technology, but for irresponsibly and dishonestly calling it something it isn't, and people have paid with their lives for this willful deception.

Imagine how much of a nothing-burger this entire story would have been if only Elon, and let's be honest, this totally is his decision, had chosen a more honest name, perhaps something along the lines of "visual vehicular computer control" Something that clunky would be awkward marketing and isn't sexy, but it's more honest and probably would have saved lives.

 

[Time2Roll]

I would like to see the destination programmed and the initial position of the vehicle. I find it very possible the vehicle was put in a position to look for a method to turn around and the driver may have pointed the vehicle into this "corner".

I mean did the vehicle come off the highway finding this to be the proper route to a real destination? I see this a clickbait to express a dislike for Tesla or just to gain clicks.

 

[skyguyscott]

I would like to see the destination programmed and the initial position of the vehicle. I find it very possible the vehicle was put in a position to look for a method to turn around and the driver may have pointed the vehicle into this "corner".

I mean did the vehicle come off the highway finding this to be the proper route to a real destination? I see this a clickbait to express a dislike for Tesla or just to gain clicks.

It's largely irrelevant because regardless of the destination and IP, the car was in FSD, driving on a residential street, signaled a right turn and turned onto a boat ramp when it could have turned into a driveway, if it was seeking to turn around, and if it was trying to turn around, it could have stopped in a car length, then backed out, but it accelerated forward after the turn.

If you look at the 17 second clip, the vehicle is in self driving mode, you can see the the car turn on the right turn signal (light blinking off the surroundings) and it evidently chose to turn onto a boat ramp. The driver depresses the brake pedal 13 seconds into the clip, just before/as the front of the vehicle reaches the water line.

That the FSD failed to detect the water isn't particularly surprising; there was the incident several years ago where a Tesla ran into a jackknifed semi at night, killing the driver who speculatively dozed off before impact, because the software did not recognize what it was seeing. To be fair, it's probably pretty tricky for AI to learn to distinguish between a lake and a slightly submerged roadway or pothole of water, and humans have been known to make poor choices when faced with flooded roads, not knowing whether the pavement has been washed away.

The real issue is that Full Self Driving isn't full self driving, or if so, lacks the intelligence a 15-year-old with a learner's permit possesses. Are there cases where FSD might be able to react faster and better than a distracted or inattentive or tired human driver? Yes. But there are numerous cases like this one as well.

And further, let's assume Tesla eventually fixes the software and the system has learned to recognize and respond appropriately in all the types of unusual cases where it failed before. That still leaves random cases it has not encountered yet. Further still, what happens when there is a hardware glitch, degraded optics or CCD sensors, or signal interference in the wiring , or simply heavy rain and poor visibility, or slick roads or poor driving surfaces that affect braking distances -- sure humans would have difficulty navigating some of these circumstances and the algorithm can be taught to drive with caution, but the way the system is marketed gives no hint to the inherent limitations and failure regimes possible in the technology.

Eventually, self-driving vehicles may be safer and more reliable than an experienced and alert professional chauffeur, BUT we are not there yet; from what statements Elon has made, he wants you to think we're really, really close and you can trust it.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Fewer than the number of deaths caused by meatbag drivers, which we've seen is clearly the case. It's already a win that is only getting better.

Funny how there were 3 more pages to this thread after you made this comment, but I have yet to see a single source supporting this claim. Let me guess, your source is “trust me bro”.

 

[RandomMcRandomFace]

So many people on this thread are going to struggle when FSD is the norm in the future

Why? Once it is actually FSD, it will be simple. Problem is, it is not FSD. Not even close. That’s the entire rub. People keep talking about how much safer “it” is, but “it” is just a drivers aid like any other level 2 system (perhaps better/more advanced, but not “self driving”). So when people say it is safer than a human driver, that’s likely true of every single drivers aid. The question is how much safer, if at all, the supervised version of FSD is compared to other systems and, ultimately, whether it will actually, ever, be unsupervised.

My contention is it never will be (on current hardware) but that’s just my opinion. I’d be thrilled if they succeed. But it’s not now.

 

[Engi_Nerd]

The core issue is not that a Tesla operating under FSD was stopped by the driver from driving into a lake. From all the previous comments here, no one is particularly surprised by that tech failure, most of us who have some understanding of the underlying technology are aware of it's limitations and imperfections.

The core problems is that Tesla, and Elon in particular, market it as "Full Self Driving" setting unrealistic expectations, lulling unsuspecting owners into irresponsible driving behaviors, and, most egregiously, causing fatalities not only to the vehicle occupants, but to innocent pedestrians and other drivers.

These relentless pearl-clutching threads are an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. The entire US economy functions the same exact way as Elon does, lying to the consumer and setting laughably unrealistic expectations that end up endangering entire generations of people. That's called capitalism.

See: Opioid crisis. PFAS. Leaded gasoline. Asbestos. Cigarettes. Alcohol. Processed foods. Glyphosate. And 1000 things we don't even know about yet.

Autonomous driving will kill fewer people in the next ten years than Oreos will kill in the next 10 days. Too bad that doesn't get as many clicks and won't help reinforce your bias that your EV brand (in group) is morally superior to your neighbor's brand (out group).

 

[RandomMcRandomFace]

These relentless pearl-clutching threads are an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. The entire US economy functions the same exact way as Elon does, lying to the consumer and setting laughably unrealistic expectations that end up endangering entire generations of people. That's called capitalism.

See: Opioid crisis. PFAS. Leaded gasoline. Asbestos. Cigarettes. Alcohol. Processed foods. Glyphosate. And 1000 things we don't even know about yet.

Autonomous driving will kill fewer people in the next ten years than Oreos will kill in the next 10 days. Too bad that doesn't get as many clicks and won't help reinforce your bias that your EV brand (in group) is morally superior to your neighbor's brand (out group).

Interesting perspective. Insane, but interesting. I assume you still use leaded gas, asbestos and smoke? Oh, wait, now that it is well known they are dangerous, they aren’t used and/or are discouraged. Odd that.

And if there was a thread on Marlboroforums.com, you’d be on there saying “the pearl clutching about smoking is such a joke, because . . . asbestos!” This thread is too much. I am off to take some opioids.

 

[Dark-Fx]

So many people on this thread are going to struggle when FSD is the norm in the future

Why? Once it is actually FSD, it will be simple. Problem is, it is not FSD. Not even close. That’s the entire rub. People keep talking about how much safer “it” is, but “it” is just a drivers aid like any other level 2 system (perhaps better/more advanced, but not “self driving”). So when people say it is safer than a human driver, that’s likely true of every single drivers aid. The question is how much safer, if at all, the supervised version of FSD is compared to other systems and, ultimately, whether it will actually, ever, be unsupervised.

My contention is it never will be (on current hardware) but that’s just my opinion. I’d be thrilled if they succeed. But it’s not now.

Because they aren't going to know how to drive when the system fails them for any reason. I suspect that's not what ukyank meant but it's what they should mean.

 

[RandomMcRandomFace]

Because they aren't going to know how to drive when the system fails them for any reason. I suspect that's not what ukyank meant but it's what they should mean.

Ah, that’s makes sense!

 

[VandalSibs]

Autonomous driving will kill fewer people in the next ten years than Oreos will kill in the next 10 days

I would love to see the stats on "Oreo-related deaths". Do you have them? If I have free time at work maybe I'll try and dig something up, but if you have actual, verified numbers that would be great.

Sponsored