A Tragic Loss • Hacker News Board

Re: A Tragic Loss

#231

Post by semi-extrinsic » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

gshulegaard wrote: post #226

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #174

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…

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."

1/94 million is very close to 10/1000 million, which is what I said.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#232

Post by spenvo » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:15 PM UTC

The top comment in another comment thread, which has been "duped"[0] pointed out how marking a feature in cars as "beta" is irresponsible.

What's beyond the pale IMO is that when auto-pilot was first demonstrated (at the unveil event) - "hands on the wheel" was not part of the story. Journalists and (what appeared to be) Tesla employees were using the feature without hands on the wheel. It looked like Tesla cashing-in on the positive PR without correctly framing the limitations of the tech.

Furthermore, Tesla includes sensors to map the entire surroundings of their cars, but why can't they include sensors to ensure customers have hands on the wheel? (update: comment says they do, but the check frequency is low. why can't it be high?!) It's not just the driver's life at stake, it's everyone else on the road--Tesla should disable this feature on cars [unless it ensures] drivers' hands are on the wheel. Engineers/execs at other companies taking a more responsible approach must be furious at the recklessness on display. One death is too many.

Tesla Auto-pilot fail videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tesla+autopilot...

It's incredibly unfair to other drivers on the road to let someone else use beta software that could cause a head-on-collision.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011635

Re: A Tragic Loss

#233

Post by macintux » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:17 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #192

npizzolato wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. What's the point of an autopilot if you have to avoid every single obstacle and react to every single thing as if the auto-pilot didn't exist? You can't say "autopilot is safer th…

> I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. What's the point of an autopilot if you have to avoid every single obstacle and react to every single thing as if the auto-pilot didn't exist? You don't have to react - you have to supervise it though. It lets the driver monitor a system that micromanages steering, brakes and throttle, instead of doing that micromanagement himself. It requires the same attention but is less work. >…

The problem to me seems to be: at highway speeds, you have to decide very quickly whether or not it's something that the system can't handle.

If you're constantly responding to every change in conditions, what's the point of the autopilot? So you don't respond every time, and then something comes up that the autopilot doesn't recognize, and you don't know that until it's too late.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#234

Post by AceyMan » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:17 PM UTC

nernst wrote: post #213

neurotech1 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the aviation community, there is the major concerns over pilots becoming over-reliant cockpit automation instead of flying the jet. Asiana 214 [0] is a classic example of crashing a perfectly good airliner into a seawall on landing. In the Boeing 777, one example of the (auto)pilot interface showing safety critical information is the stall speed indication on the cockpit display [1], warning the pilot if they are…

My understanding of the Asiana crash was that the autopilot would have landed the plane fine, and that it was the humans turning it off that caused the problem. Your point is still valid, but perhaps we approach a time when over-reliance is better than all but the best human pilots (Sully, perhaps).

The Air France 447 accident is a better fitting example of pitfalls that may obtain in complex "humans-with-automation" types of systems.

There, automation lowered both the standard for situational awareness and fundamental stick and rudder skills. Then, when a quirky corner case happened, the pilots did all manner of wrong on the problem: so much so, they amplified a condition from "mostly harmless" to fatal for all.

Vanity Fair has a nice piece on this accident that's easy to dig up. Good read.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#235

Post by _vk_ » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

This sucks, but it seems likely that we've had the first victim of autopilot-induced inattentiveness.

From the deceased's viral video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I5rraWJq6E):

>I actually wasn't watching that direction and Tessy (the name of my car) was on duty with autopilot engaged. I became aware of the danger when Tessy alerted me with the "immediately take over" warning chime and the car swerving to the right to avoid the side collision.

Combine this with the strange claim that Tesla put in their press release:

>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's hard to see how one can miss a tractor trailer "against a brightly lit sky" when one is paying attention. The human visual system isn't that bad. A likelier explanation is that he just wasn't looking. :(

Re: A Tragic Loss

#236

Post by neurotech1 » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

nernst wrote: post #213

neurotech1 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the aviation community, there is the major concerns over pilots becoming over-reliant cockpit automation instead of flying the jet. Asiana 214 [0] is a classic example of crashing a perfectly good airliner into a seawall on landing. In the Boeing 777, one example of the (auto)pilot interface showing safety critical information is the stall speed indication on the cockpit display [1], warning the pilot if they are…

My understanding of the Asiana crash was that the autopilot would have landed the plane fine, and that it was the humans turning it off that caused the problem. Your point is still valid, but perhaps we approach a time when over-reliance is better than all but the best human pilots (Sully, perhaps).

The Asiana pilots were not able to fly a coupled (automatic) landing due to the ILS glideslope being out of service.

The pilots were under the misguided impression that the aircraft would automatically spool-up the engines if the aircraft became to slow. This was a safety feature that didn't engage for a obscure technical reason. Even with a manual visual approach the pilot can still use the autothrust for landing.

A more rigorously trained pilot (eg. Capt. Sully) would have aborted the approach and performed an immediate go-around if he got below the glidepath (or too slow) below a certain altitude (eg. 400ft Above Ground Level).

The rules requiring a go-around (or missed approach) apply for a fully automated approach and landing, just as much as manually flown approach and landing.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#237

Post by illumin8 » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:20 PM UTC

krschultz wrote: post #85

mikeash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the information given, we don't know if the truck pulled out right in front of the car giving the driver no time to react, or if the truck pulled out a minute beforehand and the driver was just oblivious. In the absence of any information either way, it's nasty to just assume the driver was inattentive.

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…

A car traveling 60mph is traveling 88 feet per second - double this because the truck is likely traveling the opposite direction at the same speed. Average human reaction time in best case scenarios is ~215ms (see http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime).

A Tesla Model S P85D can brake from 60-0 in 102 ft. (see http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2015/road-test-specs/)

Assuming the driver is perfectly attentive, and hits the brake immediately upon noticing the truck, they would still need at least 139.84 feet to come to a stop.

This also assumes the truck is no longer moving. If it is you'd have even less distance to stop.

I don't care whether you're waking up from sleep, or completely alert and instantly react, it's a huge assumption to think that any possible reaction would have prevented an accident or fatality. It's just as likely that even had autopilot engaged the brake immediately, the truck still would have plowed into the Tesla and caused a fatality.

tl;dr - two way traffic involved in a head on collision is a dangerous game, made doubly dangerous because of the combined speed of both vehicles working against inertia.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#238

Post by Vik1ng » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:21 PM UTC

neurotech1 wrote: post #215

ghaff wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty well established that humans (e.g. [1]) that humans have a lot of trouble paying when they don't need to be actively engaged most of the time and also have trouble taking back control. In a consumer driving context, I have zero doubt that, as systems like these develop, people will start watching videos and reading absent draconian monitoring systems to ensure they keep their eyes on the road. I'm not sur…

Its worth pointing out that Prof. Missy Cummings, who authored the paper, is a former F/A-18 pilot who specializes in human-machine interaction research. One option is the Tesla autopilot should have an indication when it approaches "low confidence" areas without disengaging, so the driver is not startled if they have to take back manual control.

The Mercedes E-Class Drive Pilot seems to do this to some extent. For example even going from demanding the driver to place one hand on the steering wheel to requiring both hands.

https://youtu.be/Pq5LDi3-ChU?t=40m5s

Re: A Tragic Loss

#239

Post by gshulegaard » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:24 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #231

gshulegaard wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

1/94 million is very close to 10/1000 million, which is what I said.

Close is not the same and neither is the same as 1/134 million. Of course I have no idea if the differences are statistically significant, and it's likely impossible to tell given the lack of data on Tesla autopilot at the moment (new).

Re: A Tragic Loss

#240

Post by mozumder » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 10:24 PM UTC

prodmerc wrote: post #90

dangrossman wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How long to they plan to keep doing this? So long as every Tesla accident makes the homepage of CNBC, unlike the millions that occur in other makers' vehicles. Tesla puts out an immediate PR, and the breaking news that went up on all the financial sites included quotes from it nearly as fast. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/us-regulators-investigating-t...

Yeah no kidding, thousands of people die every year in Fords and no one gives a shit, 1 guy dies in a Tesla and "these cars are unsafe, run for your lives, hide yo kids and yo wife, sell your stock, return your car!". I fucking hate modern media.

There are entire car models that have had zero driver deaths: http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/29/study-chan...

The Tesla Model S will now never be one of them, and in fact, is now among average for fatality rates that includes motorcycles, drunks, and other dangerous factors. It's now not even among the class of luxury cars that have very low driver deaths.

Right now self-driving cars are far too dangerous for public use.