Video: Tesla Slams Into Overturned Truck in Probable Autopilot Failure

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

A Tesla Model 3 became one with an overturned box truck in Taiwan on Monday, raising another red flag for advanced driver-assist features. Since we routinely crap upon driving aids — which never seem to work when and how you need them — we’ll keep this one under 650 words. Fortunately, our task has been made easier by preliminary reports lacking much information and a sizable language barrier.

The incident took place on Taiwan’s National Highway 1 near the Zhongshan High Chiayi Water Section, with the car allegedly operating in Autopilot mode. Video footage shows the Model 3 keeping to the leftmost lane with ample time to stop for the overturned delivery vehicle. There’s even a person standing in the road (likely the truck’s driver), flagging cars to warn them of the giant obstacle. The Tesla, however, failed to notice any of that until it was too late and ended up going through the trailer’s roof.

As much blame as the manufacturer is bound to get for this one (like in past incidents), we’re saddling the driver with all the responsibility this time. There’s really no excuse for this to have happened, assuming the vehicle’s brakes were functioning normally, and the accident could have been avoided if he’d kept his eyes on the road. It also feels fine to call him a moron, as he survived the encounter without sustaining serious injuries.

The Model 3 does appear to apply the brakes as it approaches the overturned vehicle, but it’s far too late to do anything but bleed off some speed before impact. Jalopnik, which first reported the story in English, did not indicate whether Autopilot or the driver (a 53-year-old man named Huang) stomped the brake pedal at the last second. Local Taiwanese outlets seem to suggest it was the car. Had his overconfidence in Autopilot not gotten him into the predicament in the first place, we’d probably praise the system. That won’t happen today.

Tesla’s Autopilot has shown itself to be vulnerable to large, brightly colored objects (usually white). Joshua Brown, the Florida Tesla owner believed to be the first Autopilot-related fatality, also collided with a white semi-truck trailer that the system’s camera array failed to recognize as an obstacle. LIDAR, which CEO Elon Musk has been famously averse to implementing, probably would have been able to fill in some of the visual gaps in the software. But don’t assume it’d have saved the day. We’ve driven enough advanced driving aids to know they’re always one minor hiccup away from failing you, regardless of manufacturer or design.

Twitter user @jsin86524368, who clearly has an axe to grind with overhyped automotive tech (we see you, brother) and an affinity for comically cringeworthy articles/press releases, compiled a comprehensive collection of photos and videos from the incident. He also said that Taiwanese media claimed the car’s airbags didn’t go off. While the accident may not have been severe enough to trigger them, the footage certainly makes it seem as though they should have.

Tesla rarely has anything to say about stuff like this unless it’s forced to; in this case, we don’t think there’s much of a need. The problem is fairly obvious. Misleading marketing has led well-heeled fools to believe certain automotive products are self-driving and they’re now running amok on public roads.

Our take? Regulators need to pull their heads out of their asses and come to grips with how badly they’ve mishandled certifying this “life-saving technology” and remind themselves that corporate promises don’t mean a whole lot. At the same time, automakers (not just Tesla) need to cut the crap and stop pretending driver assistance packages are infallible. They’re notoriously unreliable, frequently obnoxious, and selling them has allowed a subset of bad drivers to become worse because they’ve mistakenly convinced themselves that an electronic nanny will intervene at the last minute and save them.

https://twitter.com/jsin86524368/status/1267423319495606272

[Image: B.Zhou/Shuterstock]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
7 of 32 comments
  • ToolGuy ToolGuy on Jun 02, 2020

    Speculation (we've seen my history of video interpretation - lol): • The driver of the truck (if that's the driver of the truck) likely saved this guy - the driver of the car brakes when the driver of the truck gets in his face as much as possible at that speed. • The driver of the car did eventually bleed off a good bit of speed - it's interesting that the airbags didn't fire [likely Delta-V hint]. • +1 to indi500fan's 'crash dissipation' comment. The driver of the car certainly chose the 'softest' part of the truck to run into. The front end of the Tesla looks to be in pretty good shape. Latest death statistics [worldwide] (from people who have a financial incentive to track them carefully): https://www.tesladeaths.com/ Nobody died here, so of course you don't see this one listed. [If looking for this incident in the spreadsheet was your first instinct, check your biases.] In the "Autopilot claimed" column, the latest figure is from September 17, 2019. In the "Verified Tesla Autopilot Death" column, the latest entry is from March 1, 2019. If you graph global "Verified Tesla Autopilot Death"s over time, you get a very different picture than the reactionary knee-jerk hysteria some have exhibited. Meanwhile, it *may be possible* that Tesla 'Autopilot' [thumbs-down on naming] has prevented some accidents and some deaths.

  • Imagefont Imagefont on Jun 02, 2020

    All the Tesla fanboys.... jeez Once again and pay attention: this system is specifically designed to lull the driver into a false sense of security, even if the fine print says is sub level 2. The system WILL DRIVE THE CAR, about as competently as a five year old either one driving lesson. When it works all the fanboys point to he great tech a mumble something about statistics and how that proves it’s safe. When there’s a crash, blame the driver, you should have been paying attention, don’t blame the car. Do you get it? Anyone with functioning brain cells out there? Anyone? No???

    • See 4 previous
    • SCE to AUX SCE to AUX on Jun 03, 2020

      @Vulpine I'm not in the industry, but an airbag is somewhere between an active and passive device. It doesn't control the steering, throttle, or brakes like AP does. It merely sits there waiting for a signal to deploy. Airbags aren't as passive as a seatbelt, but even those require the driver to use them, and some are fitted with 'active' retraction devices for high-G crashes. If you're referring to Takata, that's clearly an anomaly in passenger safety. Nothing provides greater value than a seatbelt and a defensive driving style.

  • FreedMike Not surprisingly, I have some ideas. What Cadillac needs, I think, is a statement. They don’t really have an identity. They’re trying a statement car with the Celestiq, and while that’s the right idea, it has the wrong styling and a really wrong price tag. So, here’s a first step: instead of a sedan, do a huge, fast, capable and ridiculously smooth and quiet electric touring coupe. If you want an example of what I’m thinking of, check out the magnificent Rolls-Royce Spectre. But this Cadillac coupe would be uniquely American, it’d be named “Eldorado,” and it’d be a lot cheaper than the $450,000 Spectre – call it a buck twenty-five, with a range of bespoke options for prospective buyers that would make each one somewhat unique. Make it 220 inches long, on the same platform as the Celestiq, give it retro ‘60s styling (or you could do a ‘50s or ‘70s throwback, I suppose), and at least 700 horsepower, standard. Why electric? It’s the ultimate throwback to ‘60s powertrains: effortlessly fast, smooth, and quiet, but with a ton more horsepower. It’s the perfect drivetrain for a dignified touring coupe. In fact, I’d skip any mention of environmental responsibility in this car’s marketing – sell it on how it drives, period.  How many would they sell? Not many. But the point of the exercise is to do something that will turn heads and show people what this brand can do.  Second step: give the lineup a mix of electric and gas models, and make Cadillac gas engines bespoke to the brand. If they need to use generic GM engine designs, fine – take those engines and massage them thoroughly into something special to Cadillac, with specific tuning and output. No Cadillac should leave the factory with an engine straight out of a Malibu or a four-banger Silverado. Third step: a complete line-wide interior redo. Stop the cheapness that’s all over the current sedans and crossovers. Just stop it. Use the Lyriq as a blueprint – it’s a big improvement over the current crop and a good first step. I’d also say Cadillac has a good blend of screen-controlled and switch-controlled user interfaces; don’t give into the haptic-touch and wall-to-wall screen thing. (On the subject of Caddy interiors – as much as I bag on the Celestiq, check out the interior on that thing. Wow.)Fourth step: Blackwing All The Things – some gas, others electric. And keep the electric/gas mix so buyers have a choice.Fifth step: be patient. That’s not easy, but if they’re doing a brand reset, it’ll take time. 
  • NJRide So if GM was serious about selling this why no updates for so long? Or make something truly unique instead of something that looked like a downmarket Altima?
  • Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
  • Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Next