A video posted to YouTube this week shows the shocking moment a Tesla car operating in Full Self Driving (FSD) Beta mode in San Francisco suddenly veered towards a cyclist, who was oblivious to the danger the vehicle placed him in.
The footage was posted to the video-sharing website by vlogger and Tesla enthusiast Omar Qazi, who immediately before the near-collision had said, âYou can actually make thousands of people drive safer â just with a software update,â and who had to grab the steering wheel to get the car back on course to avoid hitting the bike rider.
Following the close call, the driver, who goes by the name HyperChange on social media, asks âare we gonna have to cut that?â and also insists that âit wouldnât have hit himâ â although weâre not sure any cyclist would voluntarily take their chances at sharing roadspace with an autonomous vehicle capable of suddenly changing direction in this way.
As journalist Jason Torchinsky pointed out in his report on the incident on the motoring website Jalopnik,
Omar goes on to suggest that this sort of thing is âshocking to people because itâs new,â though I may take the bold position that itâs shocking to people because it fucking turned right toward a cyclist who was clearly visible for no good discernible reason. I think maybe thatâs a bigger shock than, you know, ânewness.â
Qazi claims that the FSD system âfunctioned exactly as designedâ since âit detected that thereâs a potentially dangerous situationâ â although as Torchinsky highlights, it was a situation entirely of the carâs making.
âWell, the whole time youâre driving on human pilot, youâre making your car avoid hitting a biker.â Qazi continues.
âYouâre constantly making your car avoid hitting a biker ... but then youâre surprised that youâre doing it for one second while on FSD Betaâ â leading Torchinsky to suggest that âif youâre characterising normal driving as âconstantly making your car avoid hittingâ anything, let alone a person on a bike, then Iâd have to say your fundamental view of driving is deeply, dangerously wrong.â
âThis time, nobody got hurt, and it was all pretty funny,â the journalist added. âThis time.â
Itâs the second incident involving a Tesla in FSD Beta mode that we have reported on this week, despite the companyâs CEO, Elon Musk, claiming last month that the technology had not been responsible for a single crash since its launch in October 2020.
> Tesla using Full Self-Driving Beta crashes into cycle lane bollard ... weeks after Elon Musk's zero collisions claim
But a video shot by San Jose-based YouTuber AI Addict showed his Tesla car crashing into a segregated cycle lane bollard as it made a right turn while the self-driving mode was engaged.
In a voiceover on the video, he said: âChanging lanes ... Oh ... S***. We hit it. We actually hit that. Wow. We were so close on the corner ... I can't believe the car didnât stop.â
âAlright, YouTube, it's confirmed I have hit that pylon. It's a first for me to actually hit an object in FSD,â he added.
According to Tesla, FSD is âcapable of delivering intelligent performance and control to enable a new level of safety and autonomy.â
The technology supposedly enables the vehicle to drive itself to a destination that has been input on the carâs navigation system, although the motorist has to be prepared to assume control should something go wrong.
In December, we reported how Musk had been accused of encouraging driver distraction and putting road users in danger when it emerged that Tesla owners are now able to play video games through the carâs infotainment system while the vehicle is in operation.
> Tesla owners can now play video games⊠while their car is moving
And commenting on an earlier version of the motor manufacturerâs software, a researcher at Stanford University in California said in 2017 that Teslaâs autonomous vehicle technology had no place being used around cyclists.
> Never use Tesla Autopilot feature around cyclists, warns robotics expert
Post-doctoral robotics researcher Heather Knight wrote that she âfound the Autopilotâs agnostic behaviour around bicyclists to be frightening.â
In a review posted to Medium, she said: âIâd estimate that Autopilot classified ~30 per cent of other cars, and 1 per cent of bicyclists.
âNot being able to classify objects doesnât mean the Tesla doesnât see that something is there, but given the lives at stake, we recommend that people NEVER USE TESLA AUTOPILOT AROUND BICYCLISTS!â
She concluded her review by saying: âDo not treat this system as a prime time autonomous car. If you forget that ⊠bikers will die.â
Add new comment
37 comments
They are at level 4 autonomy.
The vehicles are fully autonomous (no driver or observer) within a defined area.
The vast majority of benefits can be accrued at level 4 and more importantly for the companies running them almost all the money can be made at level 4.
There's very little financial incentive to get to level 5.
That kinda suggests there will be another definition of "have nots" who never get autonomous vehicles because of where they live. Â Sad if true âčïž
I think that will be the case, much like all other utilities the big cities will get them first then they'll gradually become available elsewhere.
But like gas, sewers, broadband etc some areas will never actually get connected.
Conversely, autonomous vehicles would be a good fit for more remote areas, especially if there's an aging population that doesn't enjoy driving anymore. But yes, they're more likely to be put to use in cities first.
Road.cc must love Elon. Â Just think how much clickbait they are going to generate out of him. Â These incidents say nothing about how safe cyclists are around Tesla's with FSD.Â
It needs to be statistics based or it's worthless.  The second Tesla can show that they can reduce cyclist casualties under the current human "score" it can be rolled out globally.
Dont forget a Tesla will never roll coal at you or punishment pass you or do a MGIF.Â
Even if that were true, which I very much doubt, in the kind of transport system we need, with absolutely minimal car/MIV use, stuff like that would be totally useless anyway.
Yeah - I tend to see "(currently) expensive status symbols" / "kicking the can down the road" rather than "future of transport". But then I don't own a car. Plenty of people will laud this as the "zero emissions" or "green transport solution" we need. Maybe we can't get anywhere else from here?
Not sure if there will be 1:1 replacement but if like "cars 1.0" we'll have more of them rather than less.Â
Still, harm minimization (I think - not 100% sure that's so if you account for all the costs). Also history doesn't have to repeat.
Pages