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

A Tragic Loss

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: A Tragic Loss

#61

Post by mschuster91 »

randyrand wrote: post #38
mschuster91 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a truck. There is, it's called capitalism, and a safety skirt costs money. The fix is, as in many cases, regulations. However, I believe that even the shown safety skirt leaves too much space below, and especially exposed tires, which is still dangerous for pedestrians and bikers.

Non for profits that buy semi trucks also do not install safety skirts. Neither do any government trucks I've seen. I don't think capitalism is the issue.

Capitalism is the issue because the money is being saved by cutting corners on safety. In case of non-profits and the government people might actually sue for wasting of money because money is spent on stuff that is not required by law.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#62

Post by Someone »

randyrand wrote: post #32
KaiserPro wrote: post #6

The main problem with all of this, is that its not a true autopilot. In fact its the worst kind of autopilot. one that bails out at the last minute leaving you fuck all time to take action. telsa's autopilot is level 3, which means freeway driving only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification The thing I fear now is the toxic mix of fanboyism and excessive PR management reminiscent of the worst ex…

Yes it has a better driving record than humans do already. Really speaks to the promise of autopilot.

I don't think you can statistically make that claim on this N=1 data point given that "This is the first known fatality in just over 130 million miles where Autopilot was activated. Among all vehicles in the US, there is a fatality every 94 million miles. Worldwide, there is a fatality approximately every 60 million miles."

They should not have mentioned that global number. I doubt Teslas drive much on the really dangerous roads in third-world countries that make that number so high, certainly not on autopilot (Aside, those numbers make it look like US roads are safe. They are relative to third-world countries, but not relative to Western Europe)

More importantly, autopilot bails out when it thinks it cannot do a reliable job. I think those times correlate strongly with times when it gets dangerous.

There also is the effect of car quality. It is harder to get killed in a Tesla or Volvo than in a 1970's Volkswagen Beetle.

It probably is impossible to make a fair comparison, but I think the better comparison would be with modern and fairly expensive cars driving on US highways.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#63

Post by alex_duf »

pisarzp wrote: post #59
mysterypie wrote: post #35

Paraphrasing from the article: Tesla Autopilot: 1 fatality per 130 million miles All US vehicles: 1 fatality per 94 million miles Worldwide vehicles: 1 fatality per 60 million miles If the statistics above are accurate, logically there should be no reason for distress, worry, accusations, or mistrust. Or at least much less so than for ordinary driving. It's like shark attacks: No matter how remote it is, there's goin…

But isn't Tesla autopilot working only in highways, which are much safer then average road? Then this statistic wouldn't be that good.

As tragic as it is, I don't think one case makes it enough to call it a statistic yet

Re: A Tragic Loss

#64

Post by comboy »

mysterypie wrote: post #35

Paraphrasing from the article: Tesla Autopilot: 1 fatality per 130 million miles All US vehicles: 1 fatality per 94 million miles Worldwide vehicles: 1 fatality per 60 million miles If the statistics above are accurate, logically there should be no reason for distress, worry, accusations, or mistrust. Or at least much less so than for ordinary driving. It's like shark attacks: No matter how remote it is, there's goin…

If the average is 1 per 90M, it's worth remembering that with just 130M tested, the variance is huge.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#65

Post by PinguTS »

madaxe_again wrote: post #51
efaref wrote: post #13

It sounds like the trailer didn't have underrun guards, which I think are mandatory in Europe, but presumably not in the US. http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/guards.html I expect those would have helped in this situation, as the car would have impacted the guards (and thus it would be a normal collision), rather than having its top sliced off.

Correct. The EU requires underrun guards on all vehicles except tipper trucks, which cause a disproportionate number of fatalities still. There was an attempt to introduce legislation in the US in the 90's, I believe, but it was killed.

There is also an exemption for historic trucks as well as for trucks, which are mainly used in terrain. That applies to all the Expedition trucks, which are used by world travelers.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#66

Post by gargravarr »

farhanhubble wrote: post #60
gargravarr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla actually use the correct term for it, the fundamental problem is a mass misunderstanding of what aircraft autopilot does. Autopilot in an airliner is capable of flying the plane on a set course in ideal conditions . This means good weather, no other air traffic in the vicinity and full feedback from its various sensors. As soon as the plane enters a scenario outside of which it's designed to operate, control is…

If a radar system mistakes a mammoth trailer for an overhead sign, there's clearly something wrong with it.

On the surface, yes, but what actually differentiates one large angular piece of metal from another to radar? Not much. The best option, as others have suggested, may well be for Tesla to incorporate LIDAR, but that means hardware changes to all its cars.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#67

Post by tombrossman »

efaref wrote: post #13

It sounds like the trailer didn't have underrun guards, which I think are mandatory in Europe, but presumably not in the US. http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/guards.html I expect those would have helped in this situation, as the car would have impacted the guards (and thus it would be a normal collision), rather than having its top sliced off.

Underrun guards are a good idea but not yet practical for trailers in the US. The reason is that loading dock approaches have far too much variance in ground height, and the empty space under the trailer is essential to have. If guards were in place, they would come into regular contact with the ground and either damage the trailer or the truck would be 'high centered' and stuck, resting on the guards. I suppose the guards could be made to fold up out of the way but this would add weight and complexity, and probably affect strength. Trucking companies in the US do things like use 'super single' tires that are extra wide to span the width of dual tires. This saves the weight of two unneeded sidewalls and save a few pounds weight. Because truck design is so influenced by large fleet purchases, even very tiny changes to weight are avoided. Lighter > safer.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#68

Post by gambiting »

efaref wrote: post #13

It sounds like the trailer didn't have underrun guards, which I think are mandatory in Europe, but presumably not in the US. http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/guards.html I expect those would have helped in this situation, as the car would have impacted the guards (and thus it would be a normal collision), rather than having its top sliced off.

The guards are mostly just thin aluminium panels on steel supports, so if the car impacted them front first, going at highway speed(lets assume 50-60mph?) they would have made no difference whatsoever.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#69

Post by NateyJay »

hellofunk wrote: post #55
mschuster91 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The phrase is just filler and means nothing, yet it is used everywhere I guess this is due to legal concerns (which also provided us with pages-long email footer legalese bullcrap).

I don't think this has anything to due with legality. A legal contract, for example, doesn't need this phrase anywhere for the words to be legally binding: after all, they are in the contract itself, therefore don't need any special modifier.

Some clauses and phrases are required to have extra attention called to them to be binding, which is why you see some paragraphs bolded, or all capitals.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#70

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

What strikes me most is that the first paragraph is only dedicated to the benefit of Tesla, trying to downplay the event by comparing it to human drivers.

After three more paragraphs to deflect damage from Tesla the last paragraph - like an afterthought - is about the tragedy of the death of a person.

Perhaps this is just me.

I at least would have wished the first paragraph would have followed the headline of "A tragic loss".

Post reply on HN