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

51–60 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#51

Post by HillaryBriss »

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.

> Tesla is going to learn this lesson that hard way.

Yes. I hear you. If I, as a non-Tesla driving, regular motorist got grievously injured by a Tesla running autosteer, I bet I'd be able to choose from the nation's finest injury lawyers.

There's an old saying: your freedom to Tesla autosteer your vehicle ends at the tip of my bumper. (Or something like that.)

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#53

Post by Meekro »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #30
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…

> 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.

Sounds like a plan! Let's start right now. Here's an example of the autopilot dodging a reckless driver and avoiding a collision that many human drivers wouldn't have avoided: https://youtu.be/9I5rraWJq6E

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#54

Post by vkou »

taneq wrote: post #28
jdoliner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hundred…

I hate to play Devil's advocate here, but a traditional car on cruise control will absolutely become a lethal missile if its driver has a stroke. I don't think automation makes that particular use case more dangerous.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#55

Post by ModernMech »

helmett wrote: post #25

TIL: car crashes happen. but because it's Tesla it gets 100x the attention

That's not really why this is getting attention. The core issue here is that Tesla is shipping a product called "autopilot", which gives the expectation that it is in fact an autopilot. In the background, people are hearing that autonomous cars are "3 years away!!!" so the expectation is that the Tesla Autopilot feature is the real deal.

Thus you have people watching movies, falling asleep, or driving on dangerous roads using a technology that nowhere near delivers what the name promises. The result is people are dying and getting hurt by an immature technology being pushed too hard by an irresponsible company.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#56

Post by yladiz »

ethanbond wrote: post #48
aresant wrote: post #29

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 Aut…

I'd like to see a survey of how many Tesla drivers think Tesla advocates complete cession of control to Autopilot. My suspicion is zero.

It doesn't matter what they advocate for, it matters the perception of the technology. Just because Tesla doesn't explicitly say that it's a perfect system and says that the driver has to be aware at all times doesn't mean that actually happens, and with a lenient time frame without hands on the wheel it's not surprising that drivers would essentially give control to the car.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#57

Post by yladiz »

lucb1e wrote: post #31
cloakandswagger wrote: post #14

> "No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel." Why doesn't the "autopilot" turn off if no hands are detected on the wheel?

Well the whole autopilot feature is silly if you need to keep your hands on the wheel. Then you might as well steer yourself, or am I missing something? (I don't know details about this feature, I just know it steers automatically on highways.) Until full driver attention is no longer needed, enabling "autopilot" and saying in the manual "PS. you still need to stay as alert as you normally would and keep your hands o…

The problem is that Autopilot isn't really a self driving system, even it's marketed or popularized as such, so it shouldn't be treated as that kind of system. There are other cars that have the same or analogous technology (Lane Assist) but have much smaller time frames until they require the driver to put their hands on the wheel.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#58

Post by lucb1e »

aresant wrote: post #29

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 Aut…

> 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.

While I definitely agree on the name change, it should be accompanied by a feature change. In its current mode, and especially if people know it has been renamed, the same stuff will happen.

When you take your hands off the wheel, it turn on warning lights, break increasingly hard (depending on what it detects behind it) and sound loud warnings in the car. If it's truly an assistive feature where you can't be inattentive, the only scenario in which you stop steering is when you fell asleep.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#59

Post by DanBC »

I'd be interested to see how Google sees this.

Paving the way for autonomous driving by making crashes something that people expect sometimes?

Or putting people off autonomous driving by making people think crashes are not acceptable at all, ever?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#60

Post by etendue »

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.

On the medical devices I've worked on, the risk analysis took into account that the users may not read the instructions for use or might be lacking in training. I'm sure that automotive is similar, which has had me wondering what the risk analysis looks like for the Teslas.
Post reply on HN