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

391–400 of 511 posts

Re: A Tragic Loss

#391

Post by saulrh »

mozumder wrote: post #269
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…

The IIHS compares car model fatality rates: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates If you want to do the numbers to compare the Tesla to other cars, where they measure driver fatalities per million registered years, do this: 130,000,000 miles / 12,000 average miles per year per car = 10,833 years. That's 10,833 registered years for the Model S. The IIHS site normalizes to deaths per million registered yea…

asdf

Re: A Tragic Loss

#392

Post by jfoster »

mozumder wrote: post #269
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…

The IIHS compares car model fatality rates: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates If you want to do the numbers to compare the Tesla to other cars, where they measure driver fatalities per million registered years, do this: 130,000,000 miles / 12,000 average miles per year per car = 10,833 years. That's 10,833 registered years for the Model S. The IIHS site normalizes to deaths per million registered yea…

The 130 million miles is not Model S overall, but Model S with autopilot engaged. It's also only the first 130 million miles, so the sample size is currently 1. This will be much more interesting to look at in 5 years, and at the moment it tells us nothing about Model S.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#393

Post by brokenmachine »

Nadya wrote: post #342
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> if self driving cars are (...) That's a hypothetical. You say autonomous cars are "poised" to save many lives -not even avoid many deaths, actively "save". That's very strong language to use based on an "if" that nobody yet knows the answer to with any certainty. That is, unless you are privy to some information that the rest of us are not? Are you? What is it that you base your assertion on? Do you base it on any…

Not who you are questioning. There are already videos of assisted-driving cars avoiding accidents which likely would have been fatal. We already know they can potentially save lives. It's something we already accept for flying. Autopilot in planes has resulted in deaths of crew and passengers. So we have precedent in at least one mode of transportation. Drivers get T-boned or rear end other people all the time. Those…

Planes don't have to deal with semi-trailers or wildlife appearing suddenly in their path regularly either.

Autopilot in a plane doesn't have to deal with obstacles besides the odd mountain here and there.

So I'd say that in many (most?) ways it's easier and safer to autopilot a plane than a car, and as you say, even planes with autopilot have failed.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#394

Post by cloakandswagger »

Shivetya wrote: post #286
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.

All that matters is, did the technology fail. I don't care about crash rates in other cars, if the impact had been different, the only fact that matters in this case is, did the tech fail. If so then is it safe to leave on or should it be disabled across the board until it cannot fail this scenario again. one failure and they will take a minor publicity and money hit, two and its going to devastating

Whether it performed as designed or not really isn't relevant. The salient point here is Tesla's promotion of an "auto-pilot" system that encourages users to take their attention off of the road and put too much faith in a glorified lane-following system.

Now, this is pure speculation, but I really can't imagine running into the side of an 18-wheeler crossing the highway unless A) I was traveling at a reckless speed (unlikely given that "auto-pilot" was on) or B) I wasn't paying attention to the road.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#395

Post by zaroth »

saulrh wrote: post #391
mozumder wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IIHS compares car model fatality rates: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates If you want to do the numbers to compare the Tesla to other cars, where they measure driver fatalities per million registered years, do this: 130,000,000 miles / 12,000 average miles per year per car = 10,833 years. That's 10,833 registered years for the Model S. The IIHS site normalizes to deaths per million registered yea…

asdf

.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#396

Post by jfrisby »

rasz_pl wrote: post #380
jfrisby wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the car wasn't autonomous here. The human behind the wheel had been explicitly instructed to keep hands on the wheel and feet on the pedals -- and that it was his responsibility to override the machine's judgement if circumstances warranted.

yet all the PR material talks about autonomous driving, car drives itself wink wink

PR is PR -- and yes, the ultimate vision is to get to trustworthy un-assisted self-driving.

And yet, before you can engage this mode the Tesla gives you a very stern warning that it's NOT perfect, and you DO need to keep an eye on what decisions it's making and you MUST keep your hands on the wheel.

We're not talking pages of obtuse legalese, we're talking about a single screenful of clear, straightforward warning text.

Also, as a licensed driver, you have obligations that you are expected to be mindful of, not the least of which is maintaining control of your vehicle at all times.

Are some people going to ignore it? Unfortunately, that's likely. But despite that reality, Tesla's autopilot is apparently doing better in terms of accidents per 100m miles driven than unassisted drivers.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#397

Post by snowwrestler »

Fricken wrote: post #386
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

94% of fatal accidents are due to human error, and preventable if you remove impairment, inattention, and poor judgement from the equation.

Ok but what about the limitations of technology?

Yes, self-driving cars will save lives if we assume that the self-driving technology is superior to humans in every way. That's almost a tautology though.

Self-driving cars don't get bored, but they don't seem to see white tractor trailers either. Technology has different shortcomings than people do. Whether tech shortcomings result in fewer lives lost than human shortcomings remains to be seen.

It's astounding to me that HN stories about self-driving cars sit right next to stories about iPhones and anti-virus software, and tone of the comments are diametrically opposed. If you read the comments on self-driving car stories, you'd think that technology can do everything better than people. If you read the comments on stories about iPhones and anti-virus, you'd think that everything has terrible bugs, vulnerabilities, and shortcomings.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#398

Post by Dr_tldr »

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.

Yeah, but that's not how people's emotions usually work.

Although US foreign policy and intelligence decisions were more or less directly responsible for 9/11, you don't lecture people at Ground Zero about the dangers of blowback and not being aware of your government's activities.

There's no such thing as "condolences, but...", and Elon Musk has shown a pattern of this kind of tone-deafness before. Not to say he's not brilliant and not to say autonomous cars won't ultimately save many lives, just that he should either listen to his PR department if he overruled them, or fire his PR department if they did this without him.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#399

Post by imh »

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 whole utilitarian "well fewer people died" ignores the distinction between me driving recklessly and killing myself, and me driving recklessly and killing someone else. Blame matters. If we can decrease the negative impact on innocent bystanders, making not-at-fault fatalities decrease, I'm not sure if I can argue against it.

In that case, it comes back to an old philosophical question (the trolley problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). A framing I like is as follows:

"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed."

By killing one innocent, you can save many. Likewise for self-driving cars. By killing many innocents, you can save even more. If google said, "We're going to round up a bunch of people at random and murder them, but our cars will never crash," we wouldn't say "Innocent deaths have gone down and so it's acceptable." But if the same people died via malfunctions and chance, our response might change. The trolley problem isn't very palatable, but we'll need to collectively answer it.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#400

Post by Animats »

Here's the NHTSA investigation information. This is the beginning of the process that leads to recalls.

INVESTIGATION Subject : Automatic vehicle control systems

    Date Investigation Opened: JUN 28, 2016
    Date Investigation Closed: Open
    NHTSA Action Number: PE16007
    Component(s): FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE
    Manufacturer: Tesla Motors, Inc.
SUMMARY: ODI has identified, from information provided by Tesla and from other sources, a report of a fatal highway crash involving a 2015 Tesla Model S operating with automated driving systems (?Autopilot?) activated. This preliminary evaluation is being opened to examine the design and performance of any automated driving systems in use at the time of the crash.[1]

INVESTIGATION RESUME

    Manufacturer: Tesla Motors, Inc.
    Products: 2015 Tesla Model S
    Population: 25,000 (Estimated)
Problem Description: A fatal highway crash involving a 2015 Tesla Model S which, according to Tesla, was operating with automated driving systems (“Autopilot”) engaged, calls for an examination of the design and performance of any driving aids in use at the time of the crash.[2]

[1] http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/RecentInvestigations [2] http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM5...

Post reply on HN