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

Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

ktvq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#21

Post by jdoliner »

snuxoll wrote: post #6

I really think Tesla needs to make autopilot's "hands-on" requirement less lenient, the driver had their hands off the wheel for a full two minutes and the car didn't bark at him? I think (maybe I'm wrong and the other non-fatal one did) this is the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver, and probably the one that is going to put the screws to Tesla, unfortunately.

Didn't the car bark it him though. The article says that Tesla claims the car repeatedly alerted the driver to take control of the vehicle and he didn't.

I think you are wrong that this the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver. In the fatal crash responders found a portable DVD player inside the car and seemed confident it was in use at the time of the crash.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#22

Post by taneq »

themartorana wrote: post #10
taneq wrote: post #5

> "As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel," said Tesla. "He did not do so and shortly thereafter the vehicle collided with a post on the edge of the roadway." If the autopilot's confidence was dropping that rapidly, why did it not slow the vehicle? If it hits zero confidence it should halt completely until the driver restarts the car in man…

That could cause an accident just as easily.

I'm saying it should gradually slow down as it gets more uncertain (just like you do in heavy rain as your visibility decreases), not that it should slam on the brakes with no warning.

If gentle deceleration "causes" an accident then the problem is with the attitude and behaviour of the following vehicle, not with the deceleration.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#23

Post by cloakandswagger »

the_common_man wrote: post #7

Nobody reads manuals and follows instructions . I feel Tesla is going to learn this lesson that hard way. From the article: "We specifically advise against its use at high speeds on undivided roads," it said. Tesla states clearly in its owner's manual that drivers should stay alert and keep their hands on the wheel to avoid accidents when the Autopilot feature is engaged.

People have been trained to recognize the discrepancy between a product's by-the-book usage (which is often impractically stringent, as a CYA for the company) and its real world usage.

Tesla could easily have the "autopilot" turn off if no hands are detected on the wheel for, say, 10 seconds. Putting a blurb in the instruction manual about keeping your hands on the wheel but then allowing users to use it hands-free is broadcasting, "Hey, you don't really have to do this"

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#24

Post by arrty88 »

readams wrote: post #12
taneq wrote: post #5

> "As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel," said Tesla. "He did not do so and shortly thereafter the vehicle collided with a post on the edge of the roadway." If the autopilot's confidence was dropping that rapidly, why did it not slow the vehicle? If it hits zero confidence it should halt completely until the driver restarts the car in man…

I think you'll find suddenly braking in the middle of the road poses its own dangers.

I'm sure it.can detect whether or not there are vehicles behind it.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#26

Post by toomuchtodo »

taneq wrote: post #22
themartorana wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could cause an accident just as easily.

I'm saying it should gradually slow down as it gets more uncertain (just like you do in heavy rain as your visibility decreases), not that it should slam on the brakes with no warning. If gentle deceleration "causes" an accident then the problem is with the attitude and behaviour of the following vehicle, not with the deceleration.

That's the problem though: if its lost confidence, you might be gradually slowing down into a concrete median. You must ensure that the autopilot has enough confidence (while said confidence is diminishing quickly) to continue in the path it chooses safely between current speed and 0.

Pretend we're in the car together. We're traveling at 70mph on a two lane road at night. I cover your eyes with my hands on a curvy road. Assure me we will stop in time without hitting something.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#27

Post by woofyman »

Bromskloss wrote: post #16
the_common_man wrote: post #7

Nobody reads manuals and follows instructions . I feel Tesla is going to learn this lesson that hard way. From the article: "We specifically advise against its use at high speeds on undivided roads," it said. Tesla states clearly in its owner's manual that drivers should stay alert and keep their hands on the wheel to avoid accidents when the Autopilot feature is engaged.

> drivers should stay alert and keep their hands on the wheel What is then the point of having an autopilot?

As a backup to you. Not the other way around.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#28

Post by taneq »

jdoliner wrote: post #21
snuxoll wrote: post #6

I really think Tesla needs to make autopilot's "hands-on" requirement less lenient, the driver had their hands off the wheel for a full two minutes and the car didn't bark at him? I think (maybe I'm wrong and the other non-fatal one did) this is the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver, and probably the one that is going to put the screws to Tesla, unfortunately.

Didn't the car bark it him though. The article says that Tesla claims the car repeatedly alerted the driver to take control of the vehicle and he didn't. I think you are wrong that this the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver. In the fatal crash responders found a portable DVD player inside the car and seemed confident it was in use at the time of the crash.

The driver's response is moot. The larger issue here is that if autopilot doesn't provide for a safe stop under its own control when it encounters a situation it can't handle, any vehicle on autopilot becomes a lethal missile if the driver has some kind of medical problem.

A traditional car won't get more than a few hundred meters if the driver on the freeway has a stroke, say. A car on autopilot could travel hundreds of kilometers and end up in a schoolyard at freeway speeds.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#29

Post by aresant »

I wrote this on a previously buried thread:

Naming their system "autopilot" goes beyond the marketing dept overstepping and into the territory of irresponsibility.

The "average" definition of autopilot per Wikipedia is "autopilot is a system used. . . WITHOUT CONSTANT 'HANDS-ON' control by a human operator being required."

And yet Tesla's disclaimer states:

"Tesla requires drivers to remain engaged and aware when Autosteer is enabled. Drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel."(2)

The disconnect between the name and the actual function is needlessly confusing and probably irresponsible.

They should change the name to "driver assist" or something more accurate given that mis-interpreting the system's function can lead to death of the driver or others.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

(2) https://www.teslamotors.com/presskit/autopilot

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#30

Post by HillaryBriss »

readams wrote: post #9

We'll just have to see how liability laws and juries treat these technologies. We may well see a situation where thousands of lives could be saved from automation, but any accident leads to millions in lawsuits and the technology is killed. Hopefully this isn't the outcome. Airbags occasionally kill or injure people also despite on balance saving lives. So there is precedent for this sort of math, but this is a very…

Takata airbags have been in the news the last several years because at least two people have died and more than a hundred have been injured.

I've heard commenters opine that this "could mean the end of Takata as a company." But I haven't heard anyone say this "could mean the end of airbags as a feature in cars."

I guess what the Tesla autopilot needs is a lot of good publicity every time it avoids an accident which a human driver would otherwise have actually caused.

But where would anyone get the counterfactual for those cases? Does anyone even have information about that?

Post reply on HN