Tesla to Disable Self-Driving Feature That Allows Vehicles to Roll past Stop Signs

[Tsing]

Image: Tesla



Tesla has been prompted to recall thousands of its Model S, X, 3, and Y vehicles due to a feature in their Full Self-Driving Beta that allows them to drive past stop signs without first coming to a complete stop.



As detailed in a new safety recall report published by the NHTSA, the issue stems from the “rolling stop” feature that’s available in the Full Self-Driving Beta’s “assertive” driving profile, whereby Tesla vehicles can continue driving past four-way stop intersections at up to 5.6 mph if they don’t detect any road users or pedestrians around. According to the NHTSA’s report, there are over 53,000 Tesla vehicles out there that could take advantage of this seemingly dangerous feature that could “increase the risk of collision.”



“The subject population includes certain Model S, X, 3 and Y vehicles operating firmware release 2020.40.4.10 or newer that contain...

Continue reading...

 

[MadMummy76]

Well I'm usually not a fan of Tesla, but I'm with them on this. Coming to a complete stop at a stop sign on a completely empty street is extremely wasteful. If I'm against blockchain for waste of energy, then I also must be against stop signs, or rather the rules surrounding them.

They cause insane amounts of fuel to be wasted around the world.

Down with crypto! Down with NFTs! Down with Stop signs!

 

[Brian_B]

stop sign on a completely empty street is extremely wasteful.

I agree, but that is why Yield signs exist. If the DOT puts up a Stop sign, you have to Stop.

I may think that most Stop signs in the world could be replaced with Yield signs, but it doesn't change the way the law works and I'm not a traffic engineer that knows when you can use either sign safely. You don't get to break the law without consequence just because you think it's a bad idea.

That includes Tesla, they should have been slapped hard on the wrist for this.

 

[DrezKill]

After I saw my friend get pulled over by hidden cop for not stopping long enough at a Stop sign, I always do a full stop and wait at least 3 seconds before I get moving again, even if I think no one else is around. I already look both ways before I move on, but now I make it very obvious that I am checking both ways before I move, so that if a cop is around, they can see that I was looking (there's been trouble in the past cuz of that).

They cause insane amounts of fuel to be wasted around the world.

So do red lights.

Brian_B reminded me about Yield signs. I feel like I almost never see them around anymore. I agree that Stop signs should never be treated like Yield signs. Do I feel that a lot of Stop signs could've been Yield signs? Yes. But if there is a Stop sign there, people should be doing full stops.

As for Tesla, I feel that a human should be the one making a decision to roll past a Stop sign, not an automated driving system. Honestly I don't even know why Tesla put this rolling-stop feature in their software. They purposefully built their software to break the law.

...they should have been slapped hard on the wrist for this.

Yeah they really should have.

 

[MadMummy76]

I agree, but that is why Yield signs exist. If the DOT puts up a Stop sign, you have to Stop.

I may think that most Stop signs in the world could be replaced with Yield signs, but it doesn't change the way the law works and I'm not a traffic engineer that knows when you can use either sign safely. You don't get to break the law without consequence just because you think it's a bad idea.

That includes Tesla, they should have been slapped hard on the wrist for this.

American stop signs are even worse than the rest of the world. We don't have 4 way stop signs at all.

The stop sign one is the only law that I break almost every time. I just can't bring myself to stop completely when I can see for miles that it is safe to continue.

It seems to me that yield and stop signs are used arbitrarily. Whichever was in stock that day, or however the engineer responsible for designing the intersection felt.

 

[MadMummy76]

After I saw my friend get pulled over by hidden cop for not stopping long enough at a Stop sign, I always do a full stop and wait at least 3 seconds before I get moving again, even if I think no one else is around. I already look both ways before I move on, but now I make it very obvious that I am checking both ways before I move, so that if a cop is around, they can see that I was looking (there's been trouble in the past cuz of that).

That doesn't make it a good or necessary law. They are just wasting taxpayer money on enforcing something that serves no real purpose.

So do red lights.

Red lights manage the flow of traffic on thoroughfare streets. It is necessary. You can argue that some traffic lights are placed unnecessarily on low traffic roads, and I agree, but 99% of traffic lights are useful. As opposed to 99% of STOP signs that make you stop for nothing.

Brian_B reminded me about Yield signs. I feel like I almost never see them around anymore. I agree that Stop signs should never be treated like Yield signs. Do I feel that a lot of Stop signs could've been Yield signs? Yes. But if there is a Stop sign there, people should be doing full stops.

I'm not really saying Tesla should be allowed to break the law, I was being facetious. (I thought the last line made that clear enough)
But I do think that stop signs should be phased out, and replaced with yield signs or traffic lights where a yield sign would not be safe.

 

[DrezKill]

That doesn't make it a good or necessary law. They are just wasting taxpayer money on enforcing something that serves no real purpose.

Oh I'm not saying you're wrong, you do have a point.

But I do think that stop signs should be phased out, and replaced with yield signs or traffic lights where a yield sign would not be safe.

I mean that doesn't sound like a bad plan to me.

 

[Brian_B]

When we get a true peer to peer network with autonomous driving, cars can talk to each other and adjust their speeds so they never meet in the middle of an intersection.

It will only take the total demise and subsequent rebuilding of our civilization to get there.

 

[Brian_B]

Also, in many smaller towns, enforcement of rediculous traffic laws is a major money maker and a big line item for their budget income. They want more convoluted intersections, awkward stop signs, and arbitrary speed limit changes just so they can write tickets

 

[serpretetsky]

Well I'm usually not a fan of Tesla, but I'm with them on this. Coming to a complete stop at a stop sign on a completely empty street is extremely wasteful. If I'm against blockchain for waste of energy, then I also must be against stop signs, or rather the rules surrounding them.

They cause insane amounts of fuel to be wasted around the world.

Down with crypto! Down with NFTs! Down with Stop signs!

I haven't done the calculations, but I feel like going from 25mph -> 3mph vs going from 25mph -> 0 mph will not be a huge energy difference. And for freeway traffic this is irrelevant anyways. So i question "They cause insane amounts of fuel to be wasted around the world."

 

[Brian_B]

I haven't done the calculations, but I feel like going from 25mph -> 3mph vs going from 25mph -> 0 mph will not be a huge energy difference. And for freeway traffic this is irrelevant anyways. So i question "They cause insane amounts of fuel to be wasted around the world."

Stopping isn't so much different, and doesn't present any real energy difference - almost all of your stopping power is just thrown off as friction/heat, even systems with regenerative breaking at these low speeds.

However, starting to move from 3 mph vs 0 mph is a huge difference. Rolling stops do save a lot of energy/fuel.

*edit* found someone did the math so I don't have to

The Impact of Stopping on Fuel Consumption

Just pulling out the highlights

We can perform simple, 'ballpark' calculations for an average passenger car (something like a 2011 Toyota Camry)
...
Therefore, each time a car comes to a stop, idles for a few seconds, and resumes traveling at its original speed, the energy consumed is equivalent to about 0.5% of the energy content of one gallon of gasoline.
...
Our estimate of energy consumed by decelerating, idling, and reaccelerating suggests that this process is responsible for about 2% of this annual consumption
...
There are roughly 120 million registered passenger vehicles in the US....Furthermore, this value of 2% becomes more meaningful when scaled by a gallon of gasoline. ... used to decelerate, idle, and reaccelerate are equivalent to about 3.5 million gallons of gasoline per day
...
But even simple solutions, such as wider implementation of the Yield sign will have a positive impact on fuel consumption

 

[Riccochet]

The law says stop. You stop. Doesn't matter if there isn't another vehicle in sight. You stop. Within the confines of the law Tesla was in the wrong.

Don't like the law? Bark up your local/state government's tree.

 

[serpretetsky]

However, starting to move from 3 mph vs 0 mph is a huge difference. Rolling stops do save a lot of energy/fuel.

*edit* found someone did the math so I don't have to

http://[URL][URL]http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/miller1/

[/URL][/URL]

Just pulling out the highlights

The link calculates the energy usage going from 0->25mph. And comes to the conclusion that it is 2% of gasoline consumption in US.

1) 2% is significant, but not crazy
2) My argument is that the difference between 25mph->0 and 25mph->3 is not great. You can do 1/2mv^2 calculation to see the theoretical energy difference is not very large (see below). The link you provide does not do this calculation.
3) The article mistakenly doubles the energy from 25mph->0 to find out gasoline consumption for stop and reaccelerate. They're argument: you use the same amount of energy to decelerate as accelerate. My argument: yes, but decelerating on a traditional gasoline car does not use gasoline, it uses the brakes, which should be a separate calculation.

Energy to accelerate 1500kg car from 0 to 17m/s:
1/2(1500kg)(17m/s)^2 ~ 200kJ

Energy to accelerate 1500kg car from 0 to 2m/s
1/2(1500kg)(2/s)^2 ~ 3kJ

Energy to accelerate 1500kg car from 2m/s to 17m/s:
200kJ - 3kJ = 197kJ.

So.. 197kJ vs 200kJ.. and that only is relevant in stop sign situations. If the link's conclusions are correct, even rolling through stop signs at 17m/s (25mph) would only save 2% of gasoline consumption. Rolling though at 3mph vs 0mph would save 1% of that 2%.

 

[Brian_B]

The link calculates the energy usage going from 0->25mph. And comes to the conclusion that it is 2% of gasoline consumption in US.

1) 2% is significant, but not crazy
2) My argument is that the difference between 25mph->0 and 25mph->3 is not great. You can do 1/2mv^2 calculation to see the theoretical energy difference is not very large (see below). The link you provide does not do this calculation.
3) The article mistakenly doubles the energy from 25mph->0 to find out gasoline consumption for stop and reaccelerate. They're argument: you use the same amount of energy to decelerate as accelerate. My argument: yes, but decelerating on a traditional gasoline car does not use gasoline, it uses the brakes, which should be a separate calculation.

Energy to accelerate 1500kg car from 0 to 17m/s:
1/2(1500kg)(17m/s)^2 ~ 200kJ

Energy to accelerate 1500kg car from 0 to 2m/s
1/2(1500kg)(2/s)^2 ~ 3kJ

Energy to accelerate 1500kg car from 2m/s to 17m/s:
200kJ - 3kJ = 197kJ.

So.. 197kJ vs 200kJ.. and that only is relevant in stop sign situations. If the link's conclusions are correct, even rolling through stop signs at 17m/s (25mph) would only save 2% of gasoline consumption. Rolling though at 3mph vs 0mph would save 1% of that 2%.

Your cherry picking some examples there... the delta-V between your examples is skewing your conclusion a bit. Of course it takes more energy pick up 15 m/s than it does 2 m/s....

That said, your example is still much higher than the case example I linked (per stop) - which was only 1/2 of 1%. In your example your at 1.5%.

Is it significant for one stop? No. Does it add up once you look at all the stops you make in a day? Yeah, I'd believe 2%, maybe even higher depending on where you primarily drive. Just look at the EPA difference between City and Highway - that right there will give you some idea of the magnitude that stops have on fuel economy (not perfect, we are strictly looking at rolling stop vs full stop, but some idea). Does it really add up when you look at all the cars in the US with all the stops they make? Oh yes.

That study (I hate calling it that, it isn't really a study, more like an exercise) also ignores freight traffic, mass transit, etc- no heavy trucks, no busses, it's just looking at passenger cars. So the real number is likely considerably higher than what he is estimating.

 

[serpretetsky]

Your cherry picking some examples there... the delta-V between your examples is skewing your conclusion a bit. Of course it takes more energy pick up 15 m/s than it does 2 m/s....

I dont follow. Madmummy was mentioning yield vs stop sign. He seems to imply there is large energy difference (correct me if i'm wrong madmummy!) . I visualized replacing a 4 way stop with a yield signs every way.

I consider 2m/s (4mph) to be acceptable safe creep speed through a 4-way yield. So the question is: how much energy difference between complete stop vs creep through at 2m/s. My argument is that this energy difference itself is already very small. And this is is ignoring all other driving completely. The link doesn't answer this question.

That said, your example is still much higher than the case example I linked (per stop) - which was only 1/2 of 1%. In your example your at 1.5%.

My example shows that the energy difference between 2->17m/s and 0->17m/s is 1.5%. I did not calculate the amount of energy usage saved total for all gasoline usage in usa as the link attempts.

I'm also not sure which number you are refering to: "which was only 1/2 of 1%." Where is this number in the link?

Ok.. i reread that article again and realized they did not convert 25mph to m/s correctly. 25mph is 11m/s, not 17m/s. Need to redo my math:

Energy to accelerate 1500kg car from 0 to 11m/s:
1/2(1500kg)(11m/s)^2 ~90kJ

Energy to accelerate 1500kg car from 0 to 2m/s
1/2(1500kg)(2m/s)^2 ~ 3kJ

Energy to accelerate 1500kg car from 2m/s to 11m/s:
90kJ - 3kJ = 87kJ.

The difference is more like 3% now. Again, in terms of actual gasoline saved by general driving the number would be much much smaller.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Regardless of calculations and energy conservation Tesla even having a roll-through stop feature for cars sold in the U.S. is questionable to say the least. I could easily fill a room with people who were either ticketed, or pulled over and warned, over such things. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees or disagrees with it since that's the law and to have your car be able to make such a choice for you shouldn't even be on the table.

I obviously can't speak for all the other countries in the world, even though I've lived in a couple of others but was too young to drive then, but I know here in the U.S. there's plenty of law enforcement that don't look kindly upon such behavior.

Edit: Just to add, does anyone here think, or have personal experience, in going before a judge for getting ticketed for this and saying my car was designed to roll through and got let off? Just curious.

 

[Brian_B]

I'm also not sure which number you are refering to: "which was only 1/2 of 1%." Where is this number in the link?

Sorry, I mistyped there, I should have said one-half a percent.

But anyway ---

Once a vehicle has stopped, let's assume the automobile remains motionless for three seconds. If we assume a car engine idles at 500 RPM, a 2.5 liter engine (a modest car engine, like that found in a Toyota Camry) will complete 25 revolutions during those three seconds. For these 25 revolutions, there are 12.5 intake strokes. Because the engine is idling, most of the airflow into the engine is blocked, so let's assume that only 50% of the engine displacement is effectively used. During these 12.5 intake strokes, the engine will draw in about .41 pounds of air (19 grams, or .65 moles) at 1 atmosphere of pressure and 77°F (25°C). If we assume our gasoline consists of C8H18 and that we burn it stoichiometrically, we'll need about 0.05 fluid ounces (1.5 milliliters) of gasoline to keep the engine running during this time. A gallon of fuel (3.8 liters) contains about 130 million joules (or 130 × 106) of energy. [2] So for every three seconds spent idling, about 50 kilojoules (50 × 103 joules) of energy is consumed. Therefore, each time a car comes to a stop, idles for a few seconds, and resumes traveling at its original speed, the energy consumed is equivalent to about 0.5% of the energy content of one gallon of gasoline..

 

[Ditchinit]

I'll just leave this link here.

Contrary to some of the opinions posted above, stop sign installations are not arbitrary. In the US (I can only speak with experience about the US - and even then only about limited areas in the US), they're codified in law. Each state and municipality may have adopted variations of the MUTCD (which provides both mandatory usage and optional variation guidance to transportation engineers), but those variations are subject to approval from FHWA, and lack of approval means no Federal participation in highway improvement projects (a REALLY BIG DEAL™) ... which translates to fewer highway traffic funds available for transportation improvements for those states or municipalities.

The reason stop signs exist is because, as is statistically proven, drivers generally are self-centered and have little regard about their own or other's welfare, especially when making critical decisions regarding their abilities and potential collision points approaching at speed. Not everyone adheres to "the rules of the road" - some adhere to "might is right" - and I'm sure many of you have observed or experienced this from one side of the coin or the other. No one (or rarely anyone) ever intends to be involved in a crash. But crashes and fatalities still happen at an alarming rate. The most common phrases uttered right before a crash: "I got this, hold on!", "oh, s**t!", and "huh?"

Stop sign compliance is absolute and mandatory, whereas yield sign compliance is subject to individual interpretation. Fewer deaths are caused at intersections controlled by stop signs than those controlled by yield signs. Drivers who ignore either are bound to become a statistic not of their choosing. But what do they care if they're dead? Cutting in front of that other car is more important than life itself, right?

Stop signs delineate which traffic has the right of way. They make intersections safer by lowering the bar to the least common denominator of command and control. Selfish drivers are why we can't have nice things. Are there other possible solutions? Yes. But everyone has an (educated or uneducated) opinion on that. Some solutions are more economical than others. For example, installing a stop sign is far less expensive than constructing a roundabout. With finite transportation funding, installing a stop sign may allow for fixing a lot of potholes that would otherwise have to be deferred to cover the cost of a single roundabout. In the perfect world, all traffic would be free-flowing and crash free. We don't live in the perfect world. The safest roads are the ones on which there are no drivers.

Little known fact ... some states and municipalities have laws and ordinances requiring all drivers to yield to others regardless whether they have right of way. But not all do.

I'll just go back under my rock over there ---->

 

[Uvilla]

I think we first need the news that Tesla finalized self driving for this news to mean anything. But hey they are moving on to human like robots, so maybe those will drive the car?

 

[Brian_B]

I'll just leave this link here.

Someone did some homework and brought some references - maximum effort! I like it.