Jump to content
Note: This thread is 2443 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Take a minute to read through this article before you respond to this thread: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/05/14/tesla-model-s-crash-utah-involved-autopilot-distracted-driver/609596002/

I guess this is kind of a rant, but a well deserved one. A woman crashed into a fire truck at nearly 60mph earlier and walked away, literally, with a broken ankle. Tesla is now under fire because the woman claims that her car was driving in "autopilot" mode at the time of the accident. I think this is beyond ridiculous, and the fact that any heat is directed at Tesla is asinine. First off, Tesla and Elon Musk always preach that autopilot should never be used so that the driver can avoid paying attention on the road. Even worse, the woman was on her phone while driving. 

  Quote

The woman also told police she was looking at her phone prior to the collision and estimated her speed at 60 mph, which is consistent with eyewitness accounts, according to a police statement issued late Monday.

Expand  

Tesla issued a public statement, consistent with what they've always said.

  Quote

A Tesla spokesperson said the company's previous response to the crash still stood, which noted that Autopilot — a semi-autonomous system that works like a souped up cruise control — requires constant vigilance and is not meant to take over driving responsibilities while the driver focuses on other chores. 

Expand  

Tesla should not be under scrutiny for this. Their autopilot has helped save lives in multiple situations, They preach that the cars Autopilot feature is not a replacement for paying attention and actually being in control of the car. According to Elon Musk, the car even issues a warning when you first turn it on. I completely agree with Musk in saying that a system that helps save even 1 life is a system worth being deployed.

 I understand that people are disappointed that the car wasn't able to stop in time, etc. But you should never be stupid enough to believe that a car will be able to handle everything and you can stop being in control of the car. In my opinion, this is just another case of the old saying: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I can't speak for Tesla but I use to work at the GM Proving Grounds.  The adaptive breaking which I'm sure is on Tesla would have stopped the car regardless if it was in auto pilot or not.   I've driven cars that will slow down automatically when they get too close to another object.   

My opinion, and only my opinion, both Tesla and the woman are at fault.   The car should have stopped without her interaction and she shouldn't have been so stupid to assume that it would. 

From the land of perpetual cloudiness.   I'm Denny

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  On 5/15/2018 at 1:18 AM, dennyjones said:

My opinion, and only my opinion, both Tesla and the woman are at fault.   The car should have stopped without her interaction and she shouldn't have been so stupid to assume that it would. 

Expand  

Not guaranteed. I bet you there is wording in the buying of that car that the driver is fully responsible to not be distracted while driving. 

 

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  On 5/15/2018 at 1:24 AM, saevel25 said:

Not guaranteed. I bet you there is wording in the buying of that car that the driver is fully responsible to not be distracted while driving. 

Expand  

There is, they've made it publicly known that it isn't 100% effective. They warn you even when you turn it on that it isn't a replacement for paying attention. 

  On 5/15/2018 at 1:18 AM, dennyjones said:

My opinion, and only my opinion, both Tesla and the woman are at fault.   The car should have stopped without her interaction and she shouldn't have been so stupid to assume that it would. 

Expand  

I respect your opinion, but even cars that advertise their safety features like automatic braking and assisted parking, etc. have disclaimers that they don't work 100% of the time. I see no reason why, especially when the woman is using her phone while driving, Tesla should be at fault.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The fact that she was looking at her phone while doing 60mph prior to the accident puts the driver at fault. Adaptive breaking etc. are there to assist the driver, not replace them. Over here it's an oddence to use a mobile phone (with no hands free) stationary with the engine on let alone moving as you are not in full control of vehicle. 

We had something in the news about a guy who turned on the autopilot and was caught climbing into the passenger seat, by the unmarked police care next to him, whie on the motorway. Driver was banned but couldnt understand what the problem was,

Russ, from "sunny" Yorkshire = :-( 

In the bag: Driver: Ping G5 , Woods:Dunlop NZ9, 4 Hybrid: Tayormade Burner, 4-SW: Hippo Beast Bi-Metal , Wedges: Wilson 1200, Putter: Cleveland Smartsquare Blade, Ball: AD333

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  On 5/15/2018 at 1:43 PM, RussUK said:

The fact that she was looking at her phone while doing 60mph prior to the accident puts the driver at fault. Adaptive breaking etc. are there to assist the driver, not replace them. Over here it's an oddence to use a mobile phone (with no hands free) stationary with the engine on let alone moving as you are not in full control of vehicle. 

We had something in the news about a guy who turned on the autopilot and was caught climbing into the passenger seat, by the unmarked police care next to him, whie on the motorway. Driver was banned but couldnt understand what the problem was,

Expand  

We saw that in the paper here in the States.

From the land of perpetual cloudiness.   I'm Denny

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  On 5/15/2018 at 2:01 PM, dennyjones said:

We saw that in the paper here in the States.

Expand  

Some people are just crazy. I barely trust myself behind the wheel let alone a computer (plus the other gizmo's) :-P

Having auto pilot does bring up loads more police scenarios. "do you know how fast you were going sir?", "Sorry officer i dont. I was asleep in the passenger seat at the time" 

Russ, from "sunny" Yorkshire = :-( 

In the bag: Driver: Ping G5 , Woods:Dunlop NZ9, 4 Hybrid: Tayormade Burner, 4-SW: Hippo Beast Bi-Metal , Wedges: Wilson 1200, Putter: Cleveland Smartsquare Blade, Ball: AD333

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 2443 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Wordle 1,312 4/6* ⬛⬛🟩⬛⬛ ⬛⬛🟩🟩🟩 🟨⬛🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,312 6/6* ⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ 🟨⬜🟩🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩 🟨⬜🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 back in Phew land….
    • You are not wrong. The shaft and the head together both contribute to the performance of the club. I'd also suggest that they contribute in different amounts depending upon whether we are comparing a driver, an iron or a wedge. (We could argue all day about how much is the head and how much is the shaft... and I would enjoy the argument.) Having said that, in order for a youtuber or anyone else for that matter to completely optimize the club and then hit it in comparison to another completely optimized club is all but impossible. Just one of the many reasons why all club tests should be taken with a generous pinch of salt.  Not only that but even in robot testing there are variables that are outside the areas of control. I've personally been lucky enough to witness robot testing first had. It's fascinating how non-repeatable the results can be. Let me elaborate. With an 7 or 8 iron the robot can land balls over and over again in an area the size of a kiddie pool. However, when the testers moved away from a 7 or 8 iron, the results got less and less precise. Interestingly it didn't matter if they went up or down the bag. With the robot hitting short pitches and even chips, relatively, more variation than full short iron shots. Similarly, long drives with the robot created more variation as well. This is without the effects of wind, variations in the surface and texture of where the ball lands etc...  In addition, this doesn't take into account possible bias, either consciously or unconsciously of the tester. The testers I got to witness (these happened to by Taylormade guys, but I'm sure it doesn't matter), confessed that they could influence the results if they wanted to. They could take two clubs and make either of them "win" with robot testing if they wanted to. They made to the point to illustrate that in their job they had to constantly make sure they were fighting bias and/or putting in double checks, but never-the-less when I now read about any testing saying X club is 7 yards longer, I think back to their statement.  So, if it's that difficult to get really good results out of a robot imagine how difficult it is to get quantifiable results out of a human swinging a club.  Here's a fun test to try. Hit your driver 10 times on a launch monitor and gather the data (You can do 20 or 30 swings it doesn't matter). Now group the data into 2 sets, the odd numbered swings and the even numbered swings. Look at your two data sets. I guarantee that one data set will look "better" than the other. Even though, it's the same person swinging the same club on the same day. But if you just happened to be testing a driver against your driver on that day, Even if you gather your data by switching back and forth between the two drivers you may get misleading results. I've done this test a few times in my life and it's interesting to see how the "odd numbered me" or the "even numbered me" always produces different results, sometimes one will win by a large margin.  In summary, I too enjoy watching reviews of the new clubs that come out, especially drivers. But it is information not data. 
    • Wordle 1,312 4/6* ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛🟦🟦🟦 ⬛🟦🟦🟦⬛ 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧  
    • Something I’ve been thinking about. I watch a lot of club tests, retired and get up way too early, and there’s something I think in my opinion might be being done wrong. They might pick several drivers, could be something different, and use the same shaft so things will be equal. In my mind a shaft might be good in one club and not in another. Learned the hard way, had my best ever driver at the time, G410, and kept hearing about how great the G425 MAX was. Since I sometimes have trouble finding senior shafts we traded heads and the 410 shaft never seemed to work out in the 425 head for me. Wasn’t as straight or as long so I have moved on. Don’t think everyone was wrong about the G425, just think that combination maybe didn’t work for me.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...