Live data from Hacker News

Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

ktvq.com

101–110 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#101
post #98
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 tr…

Of course they're going to blame the driver. Admitting anything else tends to lead to class action lawsuits. They're a business, not a lifestyle.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#102
post #98
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 tr…

Has this feature decreased safety? Tesla's first fatality came after 130 million autopilot miles whereas traditions in the US, we have one fatality every 90 million miles. If that continues to hold, this seems to be significantly safer with it's own set of caveats. Not altogether different than getting stuck in a burning car due to your seatbelt.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#103

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.

If planes had to fly within centimetres of hard barriers there would be no autopilot.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#104
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.

Yes but one has a much higher barrier to entry.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Furthermore, I imagine that an auto going down a road is far more likely to detect (or not detect) a situation where a human needs to take action right now. Aircraft have systems to detect approaching objects and things like sensor failures usually aren't going to require split-second action. (e.g. the Air France 447 crash involved multiple pilot errors over many minutes rather than a failure to take over rapid enough control.)

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#106
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.

Pilots (require certification and extensive training) are different from car drivers.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#107
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

Has this feature decreased safety? Tesla's first fatality came after 130 million autopilot miles whereas traditions in the US, we have one fatality every 90 million miles. If that continues to hold, this seems to be significantly safer with it's own set of caveats. Not altogether different than getting stuck in a burning car due to your seatbelt.

That's 90 million miles among all cars.

I'd wager that if you compare it with cars at Tesla price point -- mostly luxury cars -- Tesla would look pretty bad.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lent out my copy, but one particularly relevant section compares results from the aviation industry's use of pure-autopilot and HUD-augmented landings. Pilots maintain their flying skills, and get better overall results by staying in the loop with an augmented vision system. Good pilots often avoid full-autopilot entirely, or are forced to abort only seconds from touchdown, resulting in poorer landings. Bad pilots…

Cool. Tesla should review this book and talk. Paraphrasing a few quotes from your link ... "The most difficult challenging tech problem is not full autonomy, but rather the interaction between automated systems and humans" The subtitle of the book is also notable: "Robotics and the Myths of Autonomy" The speaker almost seems to be arguing that full autonomy is impossible. If we start up a system, then its behavior ha…

It's not so much that full autonomy is impossible. We "fire and forget" many type of systems with no possibility of human intervention--at least not in a timely manner. What you can't do is start an automated process, comforting yourself that an inattentive human can always take over in a split-second if the automation messes up.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#109
With three accidents on "autopilot" in a short period, the defects in Tesla's design are becoming clear.

1. Tesla's "hands on wheel" enforcement is much weaker than their competitors. BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes have similar systems, but after a few seconds of hands-off-wheel, the vehicle will start to slow. Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. Tesla is operating in what I've called the "deadly valley" - enough automation that the driver can zone out, but not enough to stay out of trouble.

The fundamental assumption that the driver can take over in an emergency may be bogus. Google's head of automatic driving recently announced that they tested with 140 drivers and rejected semi-automatic driving as unsafe. It takes seconds, not milliseconds, for the driver to recover situational awareness and take over.

2. Tesla's sensor suite is inadequate. They have one radar, at bumper height, one camera at windshield-top height, and some sonar sensors useful only during parking. Google's latest self-driving car has five 3D LIDAR scanners, plus radars and cameras. Volvo has multiple radars, one at windshield height, plus vision. A high-mounted radar would have prevented the collision with the semitrailer, and also would have prevented the parking accident where a Tesla in auto park hit beams projecting beyond the back of a truck.

Tesla is getting depth from motion vision, which is cheap but flaky. It cannot range a uniform surface.

3. Tesla's autopilot behavior after a crash is terrible. It doesn't stop. In the semitrailer crash, the vehicle continued under power for several hundred feet after sheering off the top of the Tesla driving under the semitrailer. Only when it hit a telephone pole did the car stop.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike crash is disturbing, because it's the case the "autopilot" is supposed to handle - divided limited-access highway under good conditions. The vehicle hit a guard rail on the side of the road. That may have been an system failure. Too soon to tell.

The NTSB, the air crash investigation people, have a team investigating Tesla. They're not an enforcement agency; they do intensive technical analysis. Tesla's design decisions are about to go under the microscope used on air crashes.

Tesla's spin control is backfiring. They tried to blame the driver. They're being sued by the family of the dead driver, and being investigated by the NHTSA (the recall people), and the NTSB. In comparison, when a Google self-driving car bumped a bus at 2mph, Google admitted fault, took the blame, and Urmson gave a talk at SXSW showing the data from the sensors and discussing how the self-driving car misjudged the likely behavior of the bus.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#110

With three accidents on "autopilot" in a short period, the defects in Tesla's design are becoming clear. 1. Tesla's "hands on wheel" enforcement is much weaker than their competitors. BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes have similar systems, but after a few seconds of hands-off-wheel, the vehicle will start to slow. Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. Tesla i…

The Pennsylvania Turnpike crash is disturbing, because it's the case the "autopilot" is supposed to handle - divided limited-access highway under good conditions. The vehicle hit a guard rail on the side of the road. That may have been an system failure. Too soon to tell.

This is the one I'm very interested to hear more about. From what I've heard, Tesla's self-driving is very aggressive in swerving to avoid obstacles -- was hitting the guard rail the result of a deliberate swerve, and if yes then was there a logic error, a sensor error, or in fact a legitimate reason to swerve?

Post reply on HN