Watch again. Those pedestrians were in the crosswalk before the car turns. That's illegal at best, and definitely dangerous for those pedestrians. The car wasn't taking a tight right turn either.

Yep, that's all true, but it was several meters away from them, far from hitting.

Haha how is that illegal? The driver took over way before the car entered the crosswalk section.

"Entered the crosswalk section" is a rather euphemistic way of describing "drove directly through where the people were going to be"

That's not what I saw. I saw the car abort it's turn that would have taken it through the crosswalk in front of the people and not impeding them. Still illegal, but a far cry from almost hitting them.

The car aborted (or was aborted by the driver) and stopped before finishing it's turn on the road from what I saw, leaving it at about a 45 degree angle instead of the 90 degrees it would eventually reach if it continued turning.

I think it's the devil in the details here. "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing, nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible.

> "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing

Was it though? Look closely, and maybe replay it a few times (I just did, another response to a different comment of mine had made this point so I looked). The car seems to have recovered itself, and the driver grabbed it a second later after it was already correcting.

That it decided it needed to turn all of a sudden us perplexing, and something that should be looked into, but it also went back to a straight path a moment later, either because of pedestrians too close or because of some other reason.

> nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible.

"drove directly through where the people were going to be" most definitely implies that to my eyes. People die for exactly that reason all the time. Maybe I'm confused as to what you're trying to communicate.

If you substitute those quoted words into the sentence I was responding to my meaning becomes less dramatic:

> The driver took over way before the car entered the crosswalk section.

+

> "Entered the crosswalk section" is a rather euphemistic way of describing "drove directly through where the people were going to be" reply

=

"The driver took over way before the car drove directly through where the people were going to be."

If you are right that the car stopped itself then it's certainly not as large an error as I had assumed. I think what I was mainly trying to communicate was simply a disagreement with the person I was responding to who implied there was little wrong with this behaviour at all.

Was going to drive != drove

Read the comment and substitute in my words. I didn't imply what you're saying I implied

For one, before the car enters the intersection, there is a pedestrian crossing. There is a pedestrian on the right side about to cross. I think it is safe to say in most countries, the car has to yield and stop.

RCW 46.61.245 RCW 46.61.235

You are required, by law, to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. Every intersection in Washington state is a crosswalk, marked or not.

In this particular case they had the walk sign too.

I suppose we'll never know if the Tesla was going to follow through on that right turn.

But if you were an observer on the corner and could not see whether it was a human or an AI was driving the car, you would almost certainly consider whatever the car did (starting the turn) while pedestrians were actively crossing dangerous.

I sincerely hope you are not in the possession of a drivers license.

How is this comment helpful?

Ok, I’ll ask. How would you describe it?

"Car slightly spooks a couple of people including the driver who safely took over and resumed driving"

"Car doesn't yield to pedestrians". For "almost hit" I would expect car to run by pedestrian in less than half a meter or for pedestrian having to react quickly to avoid car.

It makes more sense when you realize the car wasn't even supposed to be turning. Look at the nav screen. If this guy didn't take over, where exactly was the car going? I think it's very easy to speculate it wouldn't have ended well.

Yes, it's weird that car decided to turn right. But I don't agree that's it's easy to speculate that it would hit the pedestrians, they were pretty far. I would think some emergency braking would take over or something. We have many thousands of tesla cars out there, lots of people are making videos about autopilot, but I don't think we have an example of a car actually hitting a pedestrian?

Two seconds of googling:

Here's one: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-pro...

Here's another: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/business/tesla-autopilot-...

Oh, another one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2020/05/16/lawsuit-a...

This appears to be the first one, in 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self...

I'd keep going but maybe you get the point.

It looks like it re-routed down the side street at exactly that moment. You can see the projected path line shift to that street immediately before.

It doesn't look like it would have hit anyone to me (it was only partway through turning, so was facing people when it or he aborted it, but that's not the path shown on the display), but it was definitely an illegal move.

Step through the video frame by frame; you can see the car begin turning back to the left before the driver takes over. He actually stopped the left turn; the car would have recovered quicker without his actions.

Not that the driver was wrong to do what he did; we have the advantage of frame-by-frame replay. But the frame-by-frame does show that this is not what it appears at first glance.

"Car decides to turn for no reason and in the process fails to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk."

Which makes it even more confusing as to why they'd Streisand effect themselves.

I doubt DMCA came from Tesla, they let worse videos take thousands of views on youtube and never done anything.