Tesla FSD faces yet another probe after fatal low-visibility crash
- Reference: 1729276641
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/10/18/tesla_fsd_lowvisibility_accident/
- Source link:
In its latest opening [1]resume [PDF] into a Tesla FSD investigation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said that it's taking a look at Tesla self-driving systems due to four accidents, one involving an injury and another fatally striking a pedestrian. All four accidents occurred in "an area of reduced roadway visibility conditions" with FSD, either beta or supervised, engaged.
"In these crashes, the reduced roadway visibility arose from conditions such as sun glare, fog, or airborne dust," the NHTSA noted, adding that it was opening the inquiry to assess "the ability of FSD's engineering controls to detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions."
[2]
In addition, the NHTSA will examine if any further accidents, aside from the four mentioned, are linked to FSD's poor performance in low-visibility conditions. The agency will also review whether Tesla implemented any changes to FSD that could have worsened its ability to handle such scenarios.
[3]
[4]
The investigation includes all 2016-2024 Model S and X vehicles, 2017-2024 Model 3, 2020-2024 Model Y and 2023-2024 Cybertrucks outfitted with FSD, covering around 2.4 million vehicles.
Maybe removing all those sensors wasn't a great idea after all?
Tesla owner Elon Musk has had a [5]long-standing opposition to the use of things like ultrasonic sensors, radar and lidar in his quest to achieve unassisted full self driving, instead preferring AI and cameras to do the job.
The EV maker has since committed entirely to computer vision, [6]eliminating additional sensors in its latest model year vehicles. That means that aside from being able to see in the dark like most modern cameras, Tesla vehicles are ostensibly just as good at seeing in fog, sun glare or excess airborne dust as a human driver, with the added caveat that it's an AI making the decision, not a human.
[7]Tesla's big reveal: Steering-wheel-free Robotaxi will charge wirelessly
[8]Tesla hits the brakes on rollout of Full Self-Driving code to new users
[9]Tesla that killed motorcyclist was in Full Self-Driving mode
[10]Tesla's purported hands-free 'Elon mode' raises regulator's blood pressure
Plenty of other self-driving companies and their engineers have [11]disagreed with Tesla over its vision-only approach, and this may be the first time we've seen its FSD formally evaluated to see whether it can actually drive better in low-visibility environments than a human.
We've asked the NHTSA if it's worried about the lack of sensors being behind this Tesla investigation, but the agency declined to comment citing the ongoing nature of the case.
Automotive safety experts The Register spoke with for this story noted that Tesla's reliance on computer vision, especially via low-resolution RGB cameras, could be a contributing factor in the accidents.
[12]
The type of cameras Tesla uses are vulnerable to blinding in dusk, dawn, in fog and rain and when driving into the sun because of their low dynamic range, we're told. Relying solely on cameras could be also an issue because they are passive receivers of light, meaning they're unable to predict distance unless set up in stereo, which Tesla cameras reportedly are not.
Not that Tesla hasn't had to patch FSD several times over the years to address other safety issues, including twice last year alone. Tesla patched FSD in January 2023 to address reports from the NHTSA that it was acting [13]unsafe around intersections , and again in December because the attention controls were " [14]insufficient to prevent misuse " of the system by drivers paying less attention than they should.
In both cases, the NHTSA's investigation included fewer vehicles than the latest one, suggesting an even greater need to fix the issue if it doesn't play out in Tesla's favor.
[15]
We've reached out to Tesla for comment, but didn't hear back. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/10/18/tesla-fsd-low-viz-odi-resume.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZxLagzfmiQq7f-id6OBTWgAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZxLagzfmiQq7f-id6OBTWgAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZxLagzfmiQq7f-id6OBTWgAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/22/tesla_self_driving_cars/
[6] https://www.tesla.com/support/transitioning-tesla-vision
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/11/tesla_robotaxi_robovan_arrive/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/28/tesla_has_to_fix_safety/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/31/tesla_fsd_motorcyclist_killed/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/30/tesla_elon_mode_nhtsa/
[11] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/10/31/former-head-of-tesla-ai-explains-why-theyve-removed-sensors-others-differ/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZxLagzfmiQq7f-id6OBTWgAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/tesla_fsd_upgrade_recall/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/13/tesla_recall_autopilot_safety/
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZxLagzfmiQq7f-id6OBTWgAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Gimme The Sensors!
"If a few are good, more must be better, and too many should be just about enough..."
All of the inputs need to get through a Kalman filter and be assessed/weighted and then processed and a decision made. Too many inputs might bog the system down so there will be an optimum number and type. That may change with conditions as well as how the data is processed. If a microphone hears a siren, perhaps it's not a bad idea to process visual camera inputs to detect lights from an emergency vehicle. When we get a puncture, we sense the car biased towards the flat tyre, the noise and the change in performance. Just a reading from a pressure sensor (that can often go wrong) won't do it. It's the totality of disparate data that leads us towards the correct assessment.
What a shock
The situations that human eyes don't work so well are also the situations where machine vision also doesn't work so well. Who could have guessed it? Obviously not big brained Musk!
Re: What a shock
It's worse than that. The human eye works far better than the camera in most of those situations.
Eyes have an absolutely massive dynamic range, a much better peak angular resolution, and a ridiculously wide field of view to detect movement and siccade to identify it. Plus stereo depth perception, though it's less important at driving distances than you might think.
You can also be sure these cars have the lowest cost cameras possible.
Re: What a shock
"and a ridiculously wide field of view to detect movement"
I wish I had a link to point to, but while we do have a wide field of view that can detect movement, we have a very narrow perception of details. Our brains make up stuff constantly to fill in. With lots of experience, those invented stories are accurate enough to be getting on with but computers can't do that. It's our brains that we "see" with and even somebody with sight in one eye can sort out depth well enough to drive. What can be important is seeing that traffic is coming to a stop up ahead and it would be good to start slowing now rather than slamming on the brakes just before we pile into the tail end of the tail back. We can also tell if it's a lorry across the road up ahead or we are seeing an overpass at a certain point of view that's obscuring the roadway below.
Re: What a shock
Yes there are issues with the way human brain processes images - generally that makes us miss things, see [1]What an RAF pilot can teach us about being safe on the road to understand the issue. But computers aren't ready to replace the human divers in most situations.
[1] https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
Shut it down.
If the Elongated Muskrat won't end the idiotic camera-only failure, NHTSA needs to step in to recall and suspend the sale of Turdlas with any feature that allows the car to have any level of control beyond full human driving.
The camera-only approach is a failure, and should not be allowed on the road.
Camera only is bad ?
But we let millions of poorly sighted people drive on the roads every day
The question is
Are the cars causing more accidents than the human equivalents
That is where we need to be going
Gimme The Sensors!
What I know about FSD could be written large on a small postage stamp.
Having admitted my ignorance, I'd want all the sensors that could be bolted on.
If a few are good, more must be better, and too many should be just about enough...