Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Tragic Loss

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 511 posts

Re: A Tragic Loss

#131

Post by DanBC »

gjem97 wrote: post #126
mozumder wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the US fatal accident rate is one death per 108 million miles, which includes motorcycles and teens and drunk people. Not only that, you'd expect drivers in the higher-income demographic of US auto customers to have less fatal accidents. The real comparison should between a model S and cars like the Mercedes S-Class, since this is all about car marketing anyways.

> Not only that, you'd expect drivers in the higher-income demographic of US auto customers to have less fatal accidents. What? Why?

newer, safer, well-maintained cars.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#132

Post by Pxtl »

mikeash wrote: post #104
krschultz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's nasty, I think it's realistic. I also think that it aligns with the research that shows humans take a significant amount of time to adjust to taking back over control from autopilot. This is one of the primary design considerations behind the Google self driving car having absolutely no steering wheel or brake. The illusion of humans being able to be the fallback when they're not physically capable…

I don't think it's realistic to rampantly speculate about a situation where so little information is available. And I absolutely think it is nasty to talk ill of the dead when there is zero evidence for what's being said. For all we know the driver had half a second to react before he died. Or maybe he had five minutes. The point is, we don't know. To start from that position and say it's "likely... the driver was sc…

I'll admit that the word "screwing around" was unfair and judgemental, but I'm gonna be honest: I would never want to own a car with this sort of "autopilot with driver fallback" feature because I'd totally fall asleep at the wheel. Completely. So I didn't mean any judgment by it. I could have made the same mistake.

In fact, I'm judging the software, if anything. Any autopilot software that doesn't force the driver to be attentive is effectively taking the responsibility for driving onto themselves, and so cannot blame the driver for being inattentive. You can't say "I got this" and then at the last second say "oh shit, I need you driver!" even if you put warnings that you don't really got this, because you're dealing with human beings who do normal human things.

Yes, I shouldn't have said the driver was screwing around, you're right. But if the driver fell asleep, and a conscious driver would have avoided this accident? I still think it's Tesla's fault, because he'd be awake and alive in a manual car.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#133

Post by iplaw »

ModernMech wrote: post #36
TaylorGood wrote: post #14

As most of you have already seen, Autopilot has detected similar situations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X-5fKzmy38

I don't know if autopilot really "saved the day" there. Maybe for an incompetent driver (which is most, so this is a net positive for safety). But as a human driver, I would have taken human psychology into account and guessed the turning car was going to take advantage of that gap, thus causing me to approach much more cautiously. I don't know how fast that tesla was going, but I don't think I'd be doing more than 5…

It says in the comments/description that the Tesla was driving at about 45 mph, which is entirely too fast in a situation like this. You have a lane of stopped traffic directly adjacent to an open lane. People constantly swerve out of the stopped lane in situations like this.

Further, it would have been common courtesy to stop and allow the car to turn and take advantage of the temporary gap in traffic. People allow me to turn in situations like this all the time, and I return the road karma when I can.

Overall, it seems like quite a failing despite the avoidance of the accident.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#134

Post by morsch »

mevile wrote: post #77
loceng wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel 'A Tragic Loss' sets the tone for the remaining highly technical overview, instead of the technical breakdown seeming tone-deaf, it added tone until getting to the concluding paragraph. Unfortunately, fortunately, Tesla is having to educate people and being very clear to not allow room for panic and unwarranted fear mongering. I would say it is as to the point as it can be, and that it is heartfelt.

In addition it had important information for how other Tesla drivers can use the auto-pilot feature more safely. The article combines condolences and helpful safety information to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Also, you don't see GM making a blog post every time someone passes away in a car they make.

Then again, GM sells more vehicles in a week than Tesla has sold in its entire history.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#135

Post by mandevil »

fixermark wrote: post #12
dvcc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was entirely defensive and self-serving on behalf of Tesla. It's a general PR release, companies do these all the time. What made this so special?

the fact that they could. Imagine how many press releases there'd be per day if another auto company felt compelled to do one for each accident their cars were involved in.

Well yes. Total domestic US car production was two orders of magnitude greater than Tesla's was last year. Ford produced 40% more cars in 1911 than Tesla did last year. Just due to scale, no other company could manage this level of response.

On the other hand, Tesla doesn't do this for every accident. They are treating this one special because Autopilot very carefully, and in a fully controlled manner, drove the car directly into a semi-trailer, which is more than a little embarrassing for the company. And terminal for the driver.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#136

Post by twinkletwinkle »

alkonaut wrote: post #108
georgecmu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot engaged when a tractor trailer drove across the highway perpendicular to the Model S. Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. How is this not an "Autopilot did something very very wrong" story? Tesla autopilot drove the vehicle full-speed into a tractor-trailer, which wasn't registered by its sensor systems. It'…

The autopilot doesn't drive the car, the driver does. The autopilot is a help just like cruise control. Tesla are very clear (apart from the naming of the feature) that the driver must still drive the car. The autopilot will avoid obstacles it can detect and the driver is expected to avoid others (since he has eyes on the wheel and eyes on the road the whole time). I think they misleading thing about Teslas Autopilot…

>The autopilot will avoid obstacles it can detect and the driver is expected to avoid others

I'm sorry, how is that supposed to work, exactly? How does the driver know? Sounds like the driver has to avoid every obstacle - to avoid the case where the autopilot fucks you, like this one - and in that case, what is the autopilot doing?

Re: A Tragic Loss

#137

Post by mdorazio »

gohrt wrote: post #84

> The high ride height of the trailer Is non-standard ride-height a safety failure? Should trailers have crash panels to avoid drive-unders?

They already do in the back of the trailer where most collisions are likely to take place (it's typically a welded set of cross-beams that go down to roughly bumper height). I think that very few collisions are of this side-on type that would make it worthwhile to add side panels as well. It's kind of one of those "how safe is safe enough?" situations where you have to compromise at some point.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#139

Post by mozumder »

gjem97 wrote: post #126
mozumder wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the US fatal accident rate is one death per 108 million miles, which includes motorcycles and teens and drunk people. Not only that, you'd expect drivers in the higher-income demographic of US auto customers to have less fatal accidents. The real comparison should between a model S and cars like the Mercedes S-Class, since this is all about car marketing anyways.

> Not only that, you'd expect drivers in the higher-income demographic of US auto customers to have less fatal accidents. What? Why?

Because they can afford cars with stronger safety features.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#140

Post by twinkletwinkle »

maxvu wrote: post #32
greybox wrote: post #5

Entitled "A tragic loss" but reads like a massive disclaimer. . .

I didn't read it like that. It felt like it was addressing directly the Tesla owner spooked at the news. Also, if I were the target of the PR shenanigans pulled on Tesla, I would want to use precise language, too.

"If our imperfect software kills you, too, rest assured that we will offer our empty condolences to your family while simultaneously using technical language to absolve ourselves of any possible fault"

Do you think that reassures Tesla owners?

Post reply on HN