Mark Rober just set up one of the most interesting self-driving tests of 2025, and he did it by imitating Looney Tunes. The former NASA engineer and current YouTube mad scientist recreated the classic gag where Wile E. Coyote paints a tunnel onto a wall to fool the Road Runner.
Only this time, the test subject wasn’t a cartoon bird… it was a self-driving Tesla Model Y.
The result? A full-speed, 40 MPH impact straight into the wall. Watch the video and tell us what you think!
Very surprised Mark isn’t… Super supportive of musk and Tesla.
He owns a Tesla and is rather wealthy at this point. Not to mention that he’s Mormon. I’d expect him to be very conservative and all in on the grift.
Rober is definitely a businessman out to make money and is very self-promoting and will accept just about anybody as a sponsor, but I can’t think of anything he’s done that’s been out-and-out deceitful or political. And he really does have some engineering chops.
I think he’s a good voice for this b3cause he’s been so intentionally apolotical, and even my right-wing family likes his stuff.
Though my YouTube crazy engineer of choice is Stuff Made Here. He spends months between videos, but the stuff he makes is awesome, and he shows off a lot more of the actual creative process. And his fabrication tool collection is insane for a home shop.
They should just program it to drive through the painted tunnel but when another driver comes behind you they crash into it.
Who the hell is Wyle E. Coyote?
A victim of American spelling?
That’s why they called it the “Coyote” dataset.
According to Ol’ Elon the robo-taxi service has been a couple months away since 2017 or so. I can’t imagine it’s much closer now than then.
I think Rober just showed us why. Mowing down kids in weather is an unacceptable amount of risk.
Unacceptable risk to you. I’m guessing Elon is fully prepared to take the risk and minimise the consequences.
That’s what insurance is for after all
It’s right at the end of the tunnel they’re diggin in CA
All these years, I always thought all self driving cars used LiDAR or something to see in 3D/through fog. How was this allowed on the roads for so long?
They do.
But “all self driving cars” are practically only from waymo.
Level 4 Autonomy is the point at which it’s not required that a human can intercede at any moment, and as such has to be actively paying attention and be sober.
Tesla is not there yet.On the other hand, this is an active attack against the technology.
Mirrors or any super-absorber (possibly vantablack or similar) would fuck up LIDAR. Which is a good reason for diversifying the Sensors.On the other hand I can understand Tesla going “Humans use visible light only, in principle that has to be sufficient for a self driving car as well”, because, in principle I agree. In practice… well, while this seems much more click-bait than an actual issue for a self-driving taxi, diversifying your Input chain makes a lot of sense in my book. On the other hand, if it would cost me 20k more down the road, and Cameras would reach the same safety, I’d be a bit pissed.
On the other hand I can understand Tesla going “Humans use visible light only, in principle that has to be sufficient for a self driving car as well”, because, in principle I agree.
The whole idea is they should be safer than us at driving. It only takes fog (or a painted wall) to conclude that won’t be achieved with cameras only.
On the other hand, if it would cost me 20k more down the road, and Cameras would reach the same safety,
You had a lot of hands in this paragraph. 😀
I’m exceptionally doubtful that the related costs were anywhere near this number, and it’s inconceivable to me that cameras only could ever be as safe as having a variety of inputs.
Musk’s ethos is clear, both in business and government. He will make whatever short term decisions his greed and the ketamine tell him to make, and fuck whatever happens down the road. Let’s not work so hard to sanewash him like the media has Trump.
The whole idea is they should be safer than us at driving. It only takes fog (or a painted wall) to conclude that won’t be achieved with cameras only.
Well, I do still think that cameras could reach “superhuman” levels of safety.
(very dense) Fog makes the cameras useless, A self driving car would have to slow way down / shut itself off. If they are part of a variety of inputs they drop out as well, reducing the available information. How would you handle that then? If that would have to drop out/slow down as much,you gain nothing again/e: my original interpretation is obviously wrong, you get the additional information whenever the environment permits.
And for the painted wall. Cameras should be able to detect that. It’s just that Tesla presumably hasn’t implemented defenses against active attacks yet.You had a lot of hands in this paragraph. 😀
I like to keep spares on me.I’m exceptionally doubtful that the related costs were anywhere near this number.
cost has been developing rapidly. Pretty sure several years ago (about when tesla first started announcing to be ready in a year or two) it was in the tens of thousands. But you’re right, more current estimations seem to be more in the range of $500-2000 per unit, and 0-4 units per car.
it’s inconceivable to me that cameras only could ever be as safe as having a variety of inputs.
Well, diverse sensors always reduce the chance of confident misinterpretation.
But they also mean you can’t “do one thing, and do it well”, as now you have to do 2-4 things (camera, lidar, radar, sonar) well. If one were to get to the point where you have either one really good data-source, or four really shitty ones, it becomes conceivable to me.From what I remember there is distressingly little oversight for allowing self-driving-cars on the road, as long as the Company is willing to be on the hook for accidents.
They originally the model S had front facing radar and ultrasonic sensors all round, the car combined the information to corroborate it’s visual interpretation.
According to reports years ago the radar saved Tesla’s from multiple pileups when it detected crashes multiple cars ahead (that the driver couldn’t see).
Elmo in his infinite ego demanded both the radar and ultrasonics be removed, since he could drive with out that input so the car should be able to… also it is cheaper.I’d be very curious to know how much cheaper it is. Sure, there’s R&D to integrate that with everything, but that cost is split across all units sold. It feels like the actual sensors, at this scale, can’t add a significant amount to the final price.
I think it’s all about the timeline. Tesla gambled on cameras before AI models became usable (the company most certainly committed itself to the camera sensors a few years before it became public). By the time automated driving models became usable, Tesla had tons of camera data to capitalize on, but presumably not the corresponding radar data (or not in a consistent manner), so rebuilding a multi-sensor dataset for AI training was probably not very appealing in terms of cost and time to market.
Back when Elon made avoiding LiDAR a core part of his professional personality, it was fairly expensive. But as any tech genius can tell ya, component prices drop rapidly for electronics.
Now, radar is dirty cheap. Everything has radar. Radar was removed from Teslas. A radar sensor for my truck is $75, probably much less at scale orders.
LiDAR sensors cost anywhere from $500-$1,500 for a vehicle of this type, near as I can tell (this type being Level 2 autonomy rather than something like a Waymo. A well-kitted out self-driving vehicle has 4 LiDAR sensors).
Here is the LiDAR module currently used on the Mercedes S-Class, it’s $400 used: https://www.ebay.com/itm/285816360464
It’s a hideously small cost-savings in 2025 for a luxury vehicle like a Tesla. Any rational company would’ve reversed course after the first stationary-object-strike fatality. Tesla is not a rational company.
Exactly, my previous car (BMW) once saved me in the fog by emergency braking for something I wasn’t able to see yet. My current car (Tesla) shuts down almost all safety features when the camera’s can’t see anything, so I doubt it will help me in such situations. The only time my Tesla works well is in perfect conditions, but I don’t live in California.
Exactly, my previous car (BMW) once saved me in the fog by emergency braking for something I wasn’t able to see yet.
If you were driving at a speed at which the low visibility would have gotten you into into an accident due to some obstable you weren’t able to see yet, you were driving too fast. Simple, isn’t it?
While true, it’s still nice that super-human senses are looking out for the driver on their behalf. Also it’s nice if super-human senses allow for braking earlier and closer to graceful rather than standing hard on the brakes because of late notice.
Fog is one example, but sudden blinding glare could be another situation that could be mitigated by things like radar and lidar. Human driver may unexpectedly be blinded and operating at unsafe speed without any way of knowing that glare was coming in advance.
As you say, it’s nice if there is an additional assistant, also for e.g. health emergencies.
That said: Driving assistants should only ever be that: assistants. They are not a replacement for safe and controlled driving. I know I’ve been an arsehole on some occasions when I had my driver’s license fresh, and I got lucky that I didn’t have any accidents until I learned to calm down and drive with respect for other people and animals. Just throwing that in here to say I don’t consider myself a saint. But anything “self driving” should be forbidden everywhere, unless it’s on rails that the vehicle can not reasonably escape even if it wanted to (i.e. trains).
These things will make people more complacent and lazy, and will absolutely lead to worse drivers and more collisions
Just like government hand outs… Prohibiting accidents is communism, dyind on the grill of a SUV is a patriotic duty… /s
tesla uses cameras only, i think waymo uses lidar.
Most non Tesla brands that have some sort of self-driving functionality use lidar and/or radar. I’ve got a BMW iX and as far as I know it uses cameras, radar, lidar, and ultrasonic sensors.
It’s the only sensible approach. Not just is the notion that “humans use just their eyes too” completely wrong (otherwise how would be able to tell that something is off with the car “with our butt”?), computers are not even remotely close to our understanding and rapid interpretation of the world around us or cooperation beyond of what’s pre-programmed, which is necessary to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Cars must offset this somehow, and the simplest way to do so is with vast sensor suites that give them as much information as possible. Of course many humans also utterly fail at cooperation and defensive driving, but that’s another problem.
Money.
I remember reading that tesla only uses cameras for it’s self driving. My 2018 Honda uses radar for the adaptive cruise so the technology exists, musk is just an idiot.
Radar doesn’t detect stopped objects at high speed. It’d hit the wall too on radar alone.
This has to be solved by vision and or lidar.
Unless your car is traveling faster than the speed of light, radar will detect objects in front of it. But yeah, I was trying to imply that for a complex system like self driving musk is a buffoon for relying on a single system instead of creating a more robust package of sensors.
They get filtered out and the car will not act on it because there is so much noise from stationary objects all around you. The car essentially wouldn’t drive at all if it didn’t filter them out.
At high speeds, the radar in all cars is used to detect moving objects and the change in velocity of those objects.
Radar will not prevent running into this wall at 40mph.
People can downvote me all they want, but that doesn’t change anything.
Only vison and / or lidar would stop for that wall at 40mph.
Edit: aside from clarity on the above this is the expected outcomes
Radar in cars today: hit the wall
Vision: probably all hit the wall but could be sufficiently programmed to not if they trained on it.
Lidar: would not hit the wall.
Does it? My 2023 model throws a shit fit if it’s cold and I assume the camera covers are iced over.
It probably has cameras as well, for lane guidance etc.
My Mazda complains if the windscreen is dirty for the same reason.
Yep, I could see someone placing a billboard like that with a cliff behind it.
Honestly all the fails with the kid dummy were a way bigger deal than the wall test. The kid ones will happen a hundred times more than the wall scenario.
Some sort of radar or lidar should 100% be required on autonomous cars.
I think insurances will require that is it comes to self driving at least here in Europe.
EU leading the world in consumer protection laws yet again
I fully agree, but sadly, investors likely care more about their cars hitting walls than hitting kids. Killing a kid or pedestrian in the US is often a very cheap fine. When my uncle was run over on a sidewalk next to his son, the police ruled it an accident and the city refused to do anything. Same thing happened when my friend was ran over in a bike lane… So killing humans is probably cheaper than hitting a wall.
Interesting that in the most consumerist nation on earth, objects have more value than people.
Suddenly, there are more Yellow Brick Road murals everywhere.
A building owner would not want cars crashing into their property though. Why would they get a mural to intentionally deceive a robot car?
Someone made a mural in Brazil but it was removed for safety.
https://www.jalopnik.com/real-life-wile-e-coyote-drives-fiat-smack-into-paintin-1765745078/
Because its fucking funny.
And the driver will have to pay to rebuild it anyway
Taking a guess here, but I think Mark Rober is not a big trump/musk fan? :D
He is studiously apolitical, the only political comment I could find from him was the very sensible advice that we need to tone down our hyperpartisanship :)
https://x.com/MarkRober/status/1641487680168153089?lang=en
For me, I criticize any vehicle that is objectively crappy… and some vehicles where I find them subjectively crappy… and I hope folks don’t assume I’m doing that because of my political leanings.
The story of the disney thing as a reason for why to make a Lidar video, is a great “cover your ass” move.
No one will accuse him of doing it to hit Elmo’s self driving taxi ambitions. but the timing is telling.
he could have made the video at any time, he chose to do it now.
Meep meep.
+1…a classic!
A fitting metaphor for Musky and their involvement with the US government.
I love that one of the largest YouTubers is the one that did this. Surely, somebody near our federal government will throw a hissy fit if he hears about this but Mark’s audience is ginormous
Honestly I think Mark should be more scared of Disney coming after him for mapping out their space mountain ride.
He probably just made Disney admissions and security even more annoying for everyone else.
Judging by the fact that he has an imagineer-video out (effectively) at the same time as the space-mountain mapping, I’d expect that Disney was fully aware of what he was doing, and the whole sneaky-thing was just to make it more appealing to viewers.
The question is could this fool a human
Also I went and watched the video and he doesn’t seem to even use full self driving for the wall test
As a human who watches the video, I can say no. The wall would not have fooled me.
Many people tend to doze off so much they would absolutely get fooled. I admit I might, too, especially if the wall is made of a material that needs no guy wires to prop it up. They either used digital effects or a very good color grading job, it’s uncanny.
Are you sure though?
If you knew to expect a wall it is pretty obvious but if you aren’t expecting a wall it might prove confusing.
I probably would stop either way.
There’s no way the wall would look real as your perspective shifts while yoi over closer to it. Most humans would react to that by at least slowing down.
I watched the video. The wall would not fool a human with object permanence.
Anyone who is fooled, is likely impaired enough that they are not legal to drive.
The hell does that have to do with object permanence?
