Forget Tesla’s “autopilot” their Automatic Emergency Braking is a Debacle

Update 6–29–2020 — First, Tesla is now using a LIDAR on a development vehicle. This appears to be capitulation on Tesla’s part. The issue now is do they retrofit all existing vehicles? In addition, I recently received data on the radars being used. They are Bosch MRR and now Continental ARS4-A. Both are scanning radars. However, they do not have enough transmitters to detect a crossing object (not enough Doppler fidelity laterally) and they cannot detect stationary objects because they are not pulse radars. (CW radars rely on movement toward or aware to vary the continuous wave frequency. The Doppler effect.) The transmitters they have help determine the moving objects traveling toward or away from them are somewhere in the lane ahead of them. But not much more. Given all of this my original point stands.

As stated in Sam Abuelsamid’s Forbes article “Autopilot Or Not, Tesla Drivers Need To Pay Attention” it’s one thing for “autopilot” to not detect massive stationary objects. It is quite another for AEB (L1 ADAS) to not work in these scenarios either.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2020/06/02/autopilot-or-not-tesla-drivers-need-to-pay-attention/#72a89b8f642a

Clearly these two systems are incompetent and negligent for the same reason. Lack of LiDAR, a proper radar and/or the right core system to utilize them. I believe it is the latter or Tesla would have already fixed this by swapping out their radar for one that scans or sweeps. (They would not install a LiDAR because of the added unit, engineering, and conversion costs to add a sensor. As well as not counter Elon’s statements against LiDAR). I believe Tesla has determined the fix, which includes a new core system, is so expensive that they have bean-counted the lawsuits and decided to sacrifice people to save money and Elon’s ego. So, expect many more stationary or crossing vehicle accidents. This will eventually include children and families.

(With regard to ultrasonic. That system is used for very close in operations. Something not useful at speed. Regarding the successful detection of crossing pedestrians. My assumption is they either spent a lot of time training on people, or they added a hard-coded solution, where that has not occurred for other objects. If this is wrong, I would love to know why.)

Added 6–6/2020 — Some info on the radar and NTSB confirmation of technical issues

https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/

Banner NTSB Report — https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/hwy19fh008-preliminary-report.aspx

(Look at link on right side for full link)

Footnote 28 — The FCW and AEB systems on the market today are designed and tested to detect vehicle targets that are traveling along the same longitudinal path of a vehicle. NHTSA’s FCW testing is conducted at speeds of up to 45 mph as part of the New Car Assessment Program.

Of course, none of this takes in to account the fact that relying on public shadow and safety driving (human Guinea pigs) is untenable, will never lead to L4 and harms people for no reason. More on that below.

Tesla is now using Customer Guinea pigs to learn how to handle Crosswalks in addition to Stop Signs and Lights — Beyond Reckless and Avoidable

· https://medium.com/@imispgh/tesla-is-now-using-customer-guinea-pigs-to-learn-how-to-handle-crosswalks-in-addition-to-stop-db50db4aa0f8

The Autonomous Vehicle Industry can be Saved by doing the Opposite of what is being done now to create this technology

· https://medium.com/@imispgh/the-autonomous-vehicle-industry-can-be-saved-by-doing-the-opposite-of-what-is-being-done-now-b4e5c6ae9237

Proposal for Successfully Creating an Autonomous Ground or Air Vehicle

· https://medium.com/@imispgh/proposal-for-successfully-creating-an-autonomous-ground-or-air-vehicle-539bb10967b1

Simulation can create a Complete Digital Twin of the Real World if DoD/Aerospace Technology is used

Autonomous Vehicles Need to Have Accidents to Develop this Technology

Using the Real World is better than Proper Simulation for AV Development — NONSENSE

My name is Michael DeKort — I am a former system engineer, engineering and program manager for Lockheed Martin. I worked in aircraft simulation, the software engineering manager for all of NORAD, the Aegis Weapon System, and on C4ISR for DHS.

Key Industry Participation

- Founder SAE On-Road Autonomous Driving Simulation Task Force

- Member SAE ORAD Verification and Validation Task Force

- Stakeholder for UL4600 — Creating AV Safety Guidelines

- Member of the IEEE Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Systems Policy Committee (AI&ASPC)

- Presented the IEEE Barus Ethics Award for Post 9/11 Efforts

My company is Dactle

We are building an aerospace/DoD/FAA level D, full L4/5 simulation-based testing and AI system with an end-state scenario matrix to address several of the critical issues in the AV/OEM industry I mentioned in my articles below. This includes replacing 99.9% of public shadow and safety driving. As well as dealing with significant real-time, model fidelity and loading/scaling issues caused by using gaming engines and other architectures. (Issues Unity will confirm. We are now working together. We are also working with UAV companies). If not remedied these issues will lead to false confidence and performance differences between what the Plan believes will happen and what actually happens. If someone would like to see a demo or discuss this further please let me know.

Written by

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store