Live data from Hacker News

A Tragic Loss

teslamotors.com

221–230 of 511 posts

Re: A Tragic Loss

#221
This is on the road to being off topic, but still relevant given some of the commentary in this thread:

It makes me a bit sad that the political zeitgeist in the tech community is leaning towards "acceptable losses" when it comes to accidents in automated cars, to the point of pre-emptively expressing disdain at ordinary people reacting negatively to such news. I sense it's going to become harder and harder for us to talk about our worries and skepticism regarding automated driving, since the louder voices claim it will all be worth it in the end. Surely — surely — you're on the side of less death? But personally, I find the utilitarian perspective distasteful. We're perfectly happy to let technology (literally) throw anonymous individuals under the bus as long as less people die overall, but what if it's you that gets hit by an auto? What if it's someone you care about, not Anonymous Driver On TV? The point is that humanity is not a herd to be taken as a whole; every life has rights, including the right not to be trampled by algorithmic decisions or software bugs for the betterment of all. (Sure, you could argue just as well that we have the right not to be run over by drunk and otherwise negligent drivers, but at least this kind of death is not methodical and has some legal recourse.) I feel this perspective needs a strong voice in the tech community too, to counter the blind push forward at the expense of human lives.

Now, this isn't necessarily what happened in this case, but I find Tesla's behavior in these kinds of situations to be creepy and self-serving, at best. Is every death going to come with a blog post describing how much safer automated features are compared to human drivers? Every auto-related casualty is, and should be, a massive event, not a minus-one-point on some ledger in Elon Musk's office.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#222
post #28

> What we know is that the vehicle was on a divided highway with 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. Tragic no doubt, but I'm relieved that this was not a "Autopilot did something very very wrong" story. Autopilot has the p…

The only situation I can imagine a driver not noticing a huge truck perpendicular to them on the highway, regardless of what color it is, is that they're not paying any attention at all. This peculiar wording is making it sound like the computer made the same mistake as the driver, but it seems much more likely that they made two different mistakes. The computer's mistake was in image recognition, and the person's mi…

The only situation I can imagine a driver not noticing a huge truck perpendicular to them on the highway, regardless of what color it is, is that they're not paying any attention at all.

The optical distortions that cause road surface mirages could well entirely hide another vehicle. In this case, since the trailer was painted white, only the wheels and lower chassis would need to be hidden for the image to become unrecognizable. Not saying that's what happened in this case, but there are situations when your forward vision could be compromised. (There is a theory that the colder ocean may have caused a similar optical phenomenon and hidden the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.)

Re: A Tragic Loss

#223
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just factually incorrect. Google is developing self-driving tech just fine without releasing it to consumers as a "beta". So is Delphi. So, presumably, is Uber now. Personally I am also of the opinion that releasing autopilot in its current state (especially with the weak sensors) was not a good move in terms of safety for drivers. Great move for PR and gaining data, yes, but we can now make a very plausible…

And you think when Google, Delphi, and Uber start selling cars, everything is going to work perfectly?

Of course not, but it will work a lot better than autopilot, with significantly lower accident rates. No system will ever be perfect, but there is a huge difference between privately testing something to the best of your abilities before releasing it, and turning on a beta feature easily capable of killing drivers via a software update protected by a disclaimer screen.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#224
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This. Notice how quick they are to bring up "this is the first fatality in 130 million miles", but AFAICT, traffic fatalities in the US occur at a frequency of around 10 per billion miles [1], which is the same. So even though this is just one data point, it's spot on the current average for fatality frequency in normal cars. Furthermore, to gather enough statistics to be able to say with confidence "semi-autonomous…

Having the same fatality statistic was not enough for Google to bring autonomous driving into production. Many people think that it should be at least an order of magnitude safer than manual driving

Re: A Tragic Loss

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "autopilot" with "cruise control" -- would you have the same situation? Autopilot is basically advanced cruise control plus steering assist. From what I make of this story, this same accident would have happened with any other car with cruise control turned on.

I disagree. In a car with normal or even advanced cruise control, the driver would still be paying attention to the road and ostensibly would have seen the truck ahead and applied the brakes. Autopilot makes it very easy to not pay attention at all and let the car drive itself for minutes at a time. I'm sure you'll say, "yes but that's a driver attention problem, not a technology problem", but to me they're the same…

That's the same as blaming your car company for getting speeding tickets when you used cruise control. How many of those letters have you sent out?

Re: A Tragic Loss

#226
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This. Notice how quick they are to bring up "this is the first fatality in 130 million miles", but AFAICT, traffic fatalities in the US occur at a frequency of around 10 per billion miles [1], which is the same. So even though this is just one data point, it's spot on the current average for fatality frequency in normal cars. Furthermore, to gather enough statistics to be able to say with confidence "semi-autonomous…

Your statistics seems to be at odds with the statistics quoted in their post:

"Among all vehicles in the US, there is a fatality every 94 million miles. Worldwide, there is a fatality approximately every 60 million miles."

Re: A Tragic Loss

#227

I mean I understand Tesla has to make a statement here and I understand they want to ensure everyone that it's not really their fault but to title a post "A Tragic Loss" and then spend the majority of the post discussing all of your car's safety features and how it wasn't your fault just seems tone deaf and distasteful to me. Maybe they had to do it for legal reasons I don't know (I'm certainly not a lawyer) and I'd…

I half expected the final paragraph offering condolences to end with "but remember, this really wasn't Tesla's fault!" The third paragraph reads like Tesla is trying to wash their hands as much as possible. "Remember, he clicked all these buttons. He knew what he was getting into!"

Yes. Last time, their excuse was "but the driver should have known that in firmware revision 6.2 and later, tapping the brake disables automatic braking".

This time, there's an interesting question. Did Tesla remotely access the crash data after the crash? Did they alter any data? Is that verifiable? The NTSB will probably explore that issue. The crash data record in an airbag controller becomes read-only when the airbag fires.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#228

A direct reply from Elon Musk on twitter about why radar did not recognize the white side of a trailer across the road when the camera missed it: "Radar tunes out what looks like an overhead road sign to avoid false braking events" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/748620607105839104 EDIT: When the "overhead sign" comes down below overhead clearance of the vehicle the signal should not be masked. There should have…

Also an interesting comment:

This is why trailers require safety guards in the EU. Cars simply cannot get underneath them.

https://twitter.com/jn_cn/status/748626793180069888

Re: A Tragic Loss

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Notice how quick they are to bring up "this is the first fatality in 130 million miles", but AFAICT, traffic fatalities in the US occur at a frequency of around 10 per billion miles [1], which is the same. So even though this is just one data point, it's spot on the current average for fatality frequency in normal cars. Furthermore, to gather enough statistics to be able to say with confidence "semi-autonomous…

Having the same fatality statistic was not enough for Google to bring autonomous driving into production. Many people think that it should be at least an order of magnitude safer than manual driving

Sure. The problem with this is statistics: you need to have your autonomous cars travel at least 100 billion miles before you can confidently say they're an order of magnitude safer.

A normal car drives about 100 000 miles in 10 years. You then need one million autonomous cars driving around for a decade before you even know whether they're safer!

Re: A Tragic Loss

#230

Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. It appears to me like this is a case that shows the limitations of stereo vision as the main sensor system guiding the Tesla autopilot. I would even venture to say that it could have possibly been avoided using LiDAR technology. According to various interviews however Elon Musk is n…

LiDAR still has problems getting blinded by direct sunlight, which will swamp any optical sensor system that is safe to human eyes.

Its possible to reduce the field of view affected by sunlight down to 0.5 degrees of the sky (the size of the sun), but for any practical system it will much larger than that.

Post reply on HN