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

91–100 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#91

Post by cpncrunch »

studentrob wrote: post #77
heurist wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what it does - it alerts drivers, and when their hands are off for some amount of time the car will pull off to the shoulder and stop until your hands are back on the wheel (IIRC).

What's the interval between when you take your hands off and it decides to pull over? From what I've seen in discussions and videos, it's pretty long. Other car manufacturers seem to only allow a few seconds.

The article seems to imply that the warning is given if driving conditions become "uncertain" and the driver's hands are off the wheel. Perhaps the time interval between warning and the car automatically stopping should be lower. What's the point of the car continuing on autopilot if it's uncertain of where it's headed?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#92

Post by cpncrunch »

oconnore wrote: post #38
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…

Because this sort of auto->manual transition of control does not work [1]. 1: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Robots-Ourselves-Robotics-Autonom...

Actually, that's precisely how (real) autopilots work. If the autopilot can't reliably continue flying (e.g. in extreme turbulence, severe icing, or failure of some part of the system), it will immediately disengage with a loud warning sound, and the pilot has to take immediate control.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#93

Post by morcheeba »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #44
ethanbond wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including "put your hands on the wheel" x2

If you're instructing the driver to do something, and they don't, your last option is to fail as gracefully as possible (which is "what is the best path forward in the distance I need to stop at emergency braking rate + I must notify the vehicle behind me as soon as its clear I will take automated action, even if that's before I apply braking force").

Going off-road like it did seems safer than stopping on a highway. Sure there was damage, but far safer for the unconscious* occupants than being rear-ended.

(* I use "unconscious" because this guy was not paying attention, but also because it appeared to the car that the driver was dead)

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#94

Post by studentrob »

cpncrunch wrote: post #91
studentrob wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the interval between when you take your hands off and it decides to pull over? From what I've seen in discussions and videos, it's pretty long. Other car manufacturers seem to only allow a few seconds.

The article seems to imply that the warning is given if driving conditions become "uncertain" and the driver's hands are off the wheel. Perhaps the time interval between warning and the car automatically stopping should be lower. What's the point of the car continuing on autopilot if it's uncertain of where it's headed?

> What's the point of the car continuing on autopilot if it's uncertain of where it's headed?

Haha agreed! I don't know exactly how the system works. My sense is Tesla's AP let's you be hands off for a much longer time than other self driving systems

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#95

Post by Chathamization »

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…

Is it even useful if it's merely assisting the driver, though? I haven't used it, but actively steering a car while someone else is also actively steering it sounds pretty terrible.

If you're not actively steering it but just waiting to take over if things go poorly, things also seem like they'd be difficult. Other than getting in an accident, how is a person supposed to know when autopilot is doing it's thing correctly, and when it isn't?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#96

Post by coredog64 »

CaptSpify wrote: post #34
Bromskloss wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And this is why I don't think they should call it "autopilot". The name is misleading, imo

How about"copilot"?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#97

Post by kalleboo »

cpncrunch wrote: post #92
oconnore wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this sort of auto->manual transition of control does not work [1]. 1: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Robots-Ourselves-Robotics-Autonom...

Actually, that's precisely how (real) autopilots work. If the autopilot can't reliably continue flying (e.g. in extreme turbulence, severe icing, or failure of some part of the system), it will immediately disengage with a loud warning sound, and the pilot has to take immediate control.

Specifically because this is such a precarious transition of control, pilots have extensive training in staying alert and being prepared to take over, have co-pilots, and have rules about adequate rest times etc. And yet there are still air accidents involving improper use of the Auto Pilot.

We can expect none of these things from the average driver - they're more likely to be watching Harry Potter on their iPad

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#98

Post by iabacu »

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…

Given how many deaths happen due to car accidents, one would think that any car feature that decreases safety should be considered a bug (UX bugs included).

The sad thing is that Tesla has been repeatedly blaming the driver, instead of improving its technology in an openly earnest manner -- an approach that eventually made air travel the safest.

With so many sensors, car travel can eventually become safer than air travel in the future. If Tesla attitude improves, that future will arrive faster.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#99

Post by coredog64 »

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…

Even before Takata, airbags were dangerous. US regulations require airbags to arrest unbelted occupants. This means they are larger and more explosive than those that take the edge of for an otherwise restrained occupant (e.g. Europe).

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#100

Post by staunch »

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…

If it's a good enough name for airplanes, it's a good enough names for cars. Both require users to be ready to take control at any moment.
Post reply on HN