Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 244 posts

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#21

Post by na85 »

martin_bech wrote: post #16
amluto wrote: post #6

If Tesla actually made Autopilot into an emergency braking (or, more generally, safety) system, it would be fine. All they’d have to do is make two changes: switch from automatic steering to a lane departure warning system (so the driver must keep their hands on the wheel and will always be paying attention) and possibly rename it. Of course, their stock price might crash and a whole bunch of customers who paid for s…

Teslas already have emergency braking and lane departure warning...

Doesn't seem to be a working emergency braking system, as those poor souls who plowed into stationary obstacles found out.

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#22

Post by secabeen »

fhrow4484 wrote: post #4

This is a pretty good explanation of the shortcomings of today's assisted driving capabilities. The marketing towards 'self driving' or 'auto pilot' should really emphasize on these. My guess here is that the lane assist and adaptive cruise systems somehow thought the car it was following switched one lane to the right, and so the Tesla assumed it was on the most left lane, without any moving car in front (hence acce…

> What's amazing is that, prior to that article, I had no idea that collision avoiding system at high speed would ignore any stationary object, even if it's right in front of you... This changes dramatically how I'll perceive such assisted technology from now on.

Yeah, they all put it in the manual, but who reads those?

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#23

Post by secabeen »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #18
raverbashing wrote: post #11

I still don't get why do Autocrasher systems think it's better to ignore stationary objects even whey it's driving towards it at a high speed! Sure, slamming in the brakes is a bad idea. This doesn't mean the system can't start to slow down or change the direction of the car.

I suspect that it's too difficult for the systems to accurately determine whether an upcoming object is actually in the lane. It's not uncommon to pass stationary vehicles parked on the side of the road. If you're approaching those vehicles along a curve, they might seem like they're in the road to a radar sensor even when they're not. I can see why it's a hard problem: attempting to detect these probably leads to to…

> Still, you would think that there would be some threshold where the car decides, "Hey, this stationary obstacle is right in front of me. I should slow down"

I think there is, it's just that by the time it reaches that threshold, the distance to obstacle is less than the stopping distance for the car at 60+ mph. A human making that judgment might steer around the obstacle, but AEB systems don't have that option.

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#24

Post by stephengillie »

na85 wrote: post #21
martin_bech wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teslas already have emergency braking and lane departure warning...

Doesn't seem to be a working emergency braking system, as those poor souls who plowed into stationary obstacles found out.

Supposedly automated braking is only in effect when the "driving assustance package"* is enabled in Teslas.

*autopilot

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#25

Post by stevenwoo »

tracer4201 wrote: post #5
nanis wrote: post #2

This article and many others like it are written as if one ought to be ashamed for thinking self driving cars should not routinely smash into stationary objects on their paths or kill people: This isn't the only recent case where Autopilot steered a Tesla vehicle directly into a stationary object—though thankfully the others didn't get anyone killed. Back in January, firefighters in Culver City, California, said that…

Didn't hit me that way. Sounds more like we as consumers misinterpret what the technology is and trust it too much... of course, there's a feedback loop where companies like Tesla call everything autonomous and hype the marketing to mislead consumers.

It seems like the radar/camera system Toyota uses for its Pre Collision System has the same weaknesses as Tesla's sensor suite but the list of exceptions in the Toyota manual is pretty brutally honest about the issues. Just for pedestrians it warns: Some pedestrians such as the following may not be detected by the radar sensor and camera sensor, preventing the system from operating properly:

• Pedestrians shorter than approximately 3.2 ft. (1 m) or taller than approx- imately 6.5 ft. (2 m)

• Pedestrians wearing oversized clothing (a rain coat, long skirt, etc.), mak- ing their silhouette obscure

• Pedestrians who are carrying large baggage, holding an umbrella, etc., hiding part of their body

• Pedestrians who are bending forward or squatting

• Pedestrians who are pushing a stroller, wheelchair, bicycle or other vehi- cle

• Groups of pedestrians which are close together

• Pedestrians who are wearing white and look extremely bright

• Pedestrians in the dark, such as at night or while in a tunnel

• Pedestrians whose clothing appears to be nearly the same color or brightness as their surroundings

• Pedestrians near walls, fences, guardrails, or large objects

• Pedestrians who are on a metal object (manhole cover, steel plate, etc.) on the road

• Pedestrians who are walking fast

• Pedestrians who are changing speed abruptly

• Pedestrians running out from behind a vehicle or a large object

• Pedestrians who are extremely close to the side of the vehicle (outside rear view mirror, etc.)

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#26

Post by rcthompson »

nanis wrote: post #2

This article and many others like it are written as if one ought to be ashamed for thinking self driving cars should not routinely smash into stationary objects on their paths or kill people: This isn't the only recent case where Autopilot steered a Tesla vehicle directly into a stationary object—though thankfully the others didn't get anyone killed. Back in January, firefighters in Culver City, California, said that…

Regarding your edit, I agree that, in isolation, the passage you quoted can easily be misinterpreted to imply that the current functioning of these systems is acceptable, and the only reason I didn't read it that way is because the rest of the article explicitly rejects that interpretation.

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#27

Post by rcthompson »

joe_the_user wrote: post #20
rcthompson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an odd claim to make, since the article doesn't say anything at all about self-driving cars. Moreover, I don't think it's trying to shame anyone. It's making the point that there is a difference between crashing due to an error in the driver assistance systems and crashing due to encountering a situation that the system is incapable of handling. The tail end of the article states unambiguously that this is no…

Moreover, I don't think it's trying to shame anyone. It's making the point that there is a difference between crashing due to an error in the driver assistance systems and crashing due to encountering a situation that the system is incapable of handling. Well, that point is most likely lost on someone who dies in a crash of these cars. IE, the difference is big from some viewpoints but irrelevant from others. I think…

Knowing the difference is important because in one case, you need to fix a bug, and in the other case, you need to design a new system (or decide that the problem is unfixable and give up).

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#28

Post by Spooky23 »

tracer4201 wrote: post #5
nanis wrote: post #2

This article and many others like it are written as if one ought to be ashamed for thinking self driving cars should not routinely smash into stationary objects on their paths or kill people: This isn't the only recent case where Autopilot steered a Tesla vehicle directly into a stationary object—though thankfully the others didn't get anyone killed. Back in January, firefighters in Culver City, California, said that…

Didn't hit me that way. Sounds more like we as consumers misinterpret what the technology is and trust it too much... of course, there's a feedback loop where companies like Tesla call everything autonomous and hype the marketing to mislead consumers.

Why be so defensive of Tesla?

This isn’t fluffing up phone features, it’s presenting a system in such a way that key, known deficiencies that maim or kill are buried.

The people impacted by this trusted the system based on manufacturer claims, which unfortunately were and remain horseshit.

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#29

Post by AareyBaba »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #18
raverbashing wrote: post #11

I still don't get why do Autocrasher systems think it's better to ignore stationary objects even whey it's driving towards it at a high speed! Sure, slamming in the brakes is a bad idea. This doesn't mean the system can't start to slow down or change the direction of the car.

I suspect that it's too difficult for the systems to accurately determine whether an upcoming object is actually in the lane. It's not uncommon to pass stationary vehicles parked on the side of the road. If you're approaching those vehicles along a curve, they might seem like they're in the road to a radar sensor even when they're not. I can see why it's a hard problem: attempting to detect these probably leads to to…

This is exactly what previous generation AI in the 80's and 90's were criticized for: the systems built were too 'brittle'.

They worked well for the narrow domains they were programmed for but they couldn't deal with novel situations and had no way to generalize. It is not clear we can engineer our way out of this by just adding new rules.

Proponents of early symbolic AI systems (expert systems) said we just need to be patient and add more rules and at some critical point the system would reach the singularity. One such project has been going on for 34 years! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc

Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers

#30

Post by Merad »

secabeen wrote: post #22
fhrow4484 wrote: post #4

This is a pretty good explanation of the shortcomings of today's assisted driving capabilities. The marketing towards 'self driving' or 'auto pilot' should really emphasize on these. My guess here is that the lane assist and adaptive cruise systems somehow thought the car it was following switched one lane to the right, and so the Tesla assumed it was on the most left lane, without any moving car in front (hence acce…

> What's amazing is that, prior to that article, I had no idea that collision avoiding system at high speed would ignore any stationary object, even if it's right in front of you... This changes dramatically how I'll perceive such assisted technology from now on. Yeah, they all put it in the manual, but who reads those?

My parents bought a new 2018 Camry a few weeks ago that came with a manual roughly an inch thick. Expecting anyone to read it is bordering on delusional. I say this as someone who often does read manuals (because I’m a nerd).
Post reply on HN