> Until fairly recently, I believe that the RADAR, which used to be in all their cars, would have detected the stationary object (me) and applied braking force to at least reduce the impact.
It is the other way around. They've stopped using RADAR because RADAR has too many false reflections at speed and it was causing learning issues in the ML dataset. The vision based position detection is better (could argue about weather and visibility here, but it is irrelevant to this convo). Reliance on RADAR was causing it to hit stopped objects, because it was relying on radar data that was already too jittery and had to be ignored.
Regardless of the RADAR issue, the driver is responsible for the vehicle at all times. If someone hits you using cruise control they remain at fault.
Nearly every major manufacturer has a separate emergency stop system that continually looks for an obstacle in the vehicle's path and applies braking force, overriding the driver and any cruise control or self-driving that is in use.
These often use RADAR, have worked for years, and are routinely tested by international agencies such as the IIHS.
If Teslas no longer have this functionality, is a serious problem that needs to be corrected. That could mean reprogramming existing cameras or adding a sensor if the system really did rely on the now-removed RADAR.
That's not true and you are confusing different features. AEB and Autopilot/Assisted Cruise Control do not behave the same. Here's some articles I found with a google of "radar cruise control stationary object."
> But while there's obviously room for improvement, the reality is that the behavior of Tesla's driver assistance technology here isn't that different from that of competing systems from other carmakers. As surprising as it might seem, most of the driver-assistance systems on the roads today are simply not designed to prevent a crash in this kind of situation.
> Sam Abuelsamid, an industry analyst at Navigant and former automotive engineer, tells Ars that it's "pretty much universal" that "vehicles are programmed to ignore stationary objects at higher speeds."
> Related: All these types of semi-autonomous systems have a hard time identifying stationary cars—vehicles in stopped traffic on the highway, for example—as "targets" to avoid. Coming over a crest at 70 mph, I pick up the stopped traffic ahead of me far before the system does. I even give the system an extra second or two to identify that we're hurtling towards stopped traffic, but have to initiate braking. However, it's very likely that even at that speed, the car could have made the stop before an impact.
> If traveling above 20 mph, the Volvo will not decelerate, according to its maker.
> No car in our test could avoid a collision beyond 30 mph, and as we neared that upper limit, the Tesla and the Subaru provided no warning or braking.
The Toyota Safety Sense system will slow the car down by 25MPH regardless of its initial speed (except possibly for "very high speeds").
It makes no sense to give up entirely when an application of brakes would reduce damage.
In the case of this accident, the vehicle not only didn't apply brakes but continued to accelerate after it hit me (the double hit).
This may or may not have been operator error, but the driver says she was on autopilot, that there was an OTA update issue, and that it has happened before. This all seems to suggest an investigation is appropriate and necessary.
I don't see why this has anything to do with Toyota's system, which by the way, had a recall for TSS braking due to stationary objects.
You're mad, I get it, but you need to take this up with the driver (who claims she had a failed OTA update, which caused her to wreck, AND THEN DROVE AND WRECKED AGAIN) whose insurance will take it up with Tesla. It isn't your job to figure out why the car did it.
The only point here is that you were hit by an inattentive driver who didn't maintain control of her vehicle twice in one day. She put you in danger and your life at risk, and you're blaming the car.
Tesla could call it Egre-MuzzFlorp and it wouldn’t matter. The surveys showing people think “autopilot” means “can drive itself” were fatally flawed, in that they were done with non-Tesla owners.
>The surveys showing people think “autopilot” means “can drive itself” were fatally flawed, in that they were done with non-Tesla owners.
Reality check: There are videos shown Tesla drivers sleeping in the car, or using the car from the back sit, so we have proof that a subset of Tesla users are using autopilot as "it drives itself and only laws forced Tesla to add those warnings". This videos are reality, no conspiracy, no subjectivity, no fake stats... some idiots are believing the marketing and some other idiots are still defending that marketing.
That doesn't follow. Some people are definitely being idiots, but the marketing doesn't say that it's okay to do those things, so they're not "believing the marketing" by doing so.
If an at-fault Tesla hits me, my legal beef is with the driver of that Tesla. They may in turn rely on insurance or on suing Tesla to recover damages from their own misunderstanding of the car’s abilities or improper marketing, but my beef remains with the driver of the at-fault vehicle.
It is the other way around. They've stopped using RADAR because RADAR has too many false reflections at speed and it was causing learning issues in the ML dataset. The vision based position detection is better (could argue about weather and visibility here, but it is irrelevant to this convo). Reliance on RADAR was causing it to hit stopped objects, because it was relying on radar data that was already too jittery and had to be ignored.
Regardless of the RADAR issue, the driver is responsible for the vehicle at all times. If someone hits you using cruise control they remain at fault.