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

291–300 of 511 posts

Re: A Tragic Loss

#291

Post by ModernMech »

sampo wrote: post #260
ModernMech wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There were lots of lights and reflections, and it was night, and the turning car was black. Watching the video the first time, I didn't see the car before it was already in front of the camera. Watching the video second time and knowing what to expect, then I of course see the car in advance.

> There were lots of lights and reflections, and it was night

All those factors indicate the car was going too fast given the conditions -- autopilot or not. It appears that in general, the Tesla AP does not take road and environmental conditions into account (or weigh them heavily at least). In this case, there was no collision in spite of the conditions. But this should have been a giant red flag for Tesla engineers. Unfortunately, the story at hand tells us that they're not doing their job.

> Watching the video the first time, I didn't see the car before it was already in front of the camera.

I didn't either, not at first. But given just the first frame and knowing a collision was about to be avoided, my first reaction was the autopilot was going to prevent a rear-end due to a short stop, or it was going to stop as someone merged in from the right lane.

But you and I are not the driver of this car. The driver should have known the highway was not divided, should have known of the possibility for cross traffic, and he should have adjusted his behavior accordingly. I guarantee you there was also a sign (before the start of the video) indicating there is an opportunity for cross traffic ahead. Given that, those white headlights (they look reddish in the video, but in real life they would be bright white) should caution the driver that a car is probably looking to turn.

The autopilot did not take any of this context into account, and that's exactly why someone is dead today. It's operating with superhuman reaction speed, but with the common sense and wisdom of a 10 year old.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#293

Post by cloakandswagger »

spenvo wrote: post #232

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-i…

That's the real scandal here if there is one. Tesla has been capitalizing on their autonomous driving feature, and promoting it in an unsafe way to do so (after all, it'd look a lot less impressive if all the demo videos had alert drivers with their hands on the wheel).

The truth is that autonomous driving is something every major car manufacturer could develop and demo tomorrow, but large companies like Ford/GM/Toyota are way too risk-averse (or some would say, responsible), to promote it in such a way.

Here's hoping that Tesla doesn't poison the well for autonomous driving.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#295

Post by Twirrim »

fdsaaf wrote: post #273
spenvo wrote: post #232

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-i…

> hey do the check frequency is low. why can't it be high?! Because that makes it less useful. I am a Tesla owner. I am an adult capable of monitoring the car and taking control when autopilot gets confused. My hand being on the wheel at all times is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for verifying that I am paying attention and am ready to take over control. > One death is too many. I am sick and tired o…

> My hand being on the wheel at all times is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for verifying that I am paying attention and am ready to take over control.

Yes it is. Set your ego aside for a second, forget about how good or bad of a driver you are, and consider how long it would take anyone to move their hand back to the wheel and take control.

Lets be generous and assume half a second. 60 mph * 0.5 seconds = 44 feet, or roughly 3 car lengths before you've even begun to re-assume control of the vehicle, let alone take the appropriate action to handle whatever is going wrong.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#296

Post by java-man »

I could never understand why Tesla needed the auto-pilot feature. They have too much on their plate already. What possible benefit could it bring to justify adding such a high risk decision?

Re: A Tragic Loss

#297

Post by malz »

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.

It seems newsworthy that the world's first robotic car, specifically designed to see and react to road conditions, drives into the side of a truck.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#298

Post by milcron »

georgecmu wrote: post #25
simonsarris wrote: post #2

> 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…

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'…

Autopilot doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than the average human driver.

On average, humans are rather unsafe car drivers.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#299

Post by pacificmint »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #266
angusb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about Tesla though. They have to defend autopilot not only to protect the brand but to protect the public's perception of autonomous vehicles in general. Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. So from a utilitarian perspective, it's probably justified to take extraordinary measures to make sure reactionary media and public whim doesn't kill it off, however uncomfortable that might seem in…

>> Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. Based on what?

> Based on what?

Human drivers are very bad. We kill over 32,000 people a year (and that's a 60 year low, just a few years ago it was over 40,000).

So if self driving cars are just a little better than humans, they will save many lives. If they are a lot better than us, they will save many more.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#300

Post by jsprogrammer »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #287
archagon wrote: post #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…

>> The point is that humanity is not a herd to be taken as a whole; That's a great point but the truth is that we already treat human lives as a resource to be spent: for instance, we allow planes to fly and automobiles to be driven even though their safety is not perfect. We allow that, out of say a million flights, one plane will fatally crash killing usually everybody on board (I don't know what the real number is…

We actually don't allow planes to crash. Crashes are a result of human error or catastrophic failure. When a crash occurs, the cause is investigated so that another crash never happens for the same reason. If a defect is ever found, all affected planes are grounded until they have been fixed.

I expect Autopilot to be disabled soon.

Edit:

>So basically we accept that in order for each of us to fly to our destination, 300 ish people must die every so often. Like a kind of sacrifice.

Your position is...crazy.

No plane will take off if there is a calculated chance that it could crash.

Post reply on HN