I think lawsuits and government intervention will kill self driving cars for the next decade or two. Even if autonoumous are 10x better, thats still hundreds of deaths per year that will be attributed to a half dozen autonomous car maker's software.
Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
141–150 of 530 posts
Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
#142Earlier 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.
You're both right. That's exactly how aircraft autopilot systems work... and it doesn't work. There have been several plane crashes -- most notably AF447 -- which resulted from autopilot systems disengaging when the (human) pilots had insufficient situational awareness to safely take over control of the aircraft.
It's not lack of situational awareness after the autopilot disconnected that caused AF447 to crash.
Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
#143From the Article: > The driver in Montana was headed from Seattle to Yellowstone National Park when he crashed on a two-lane highway near Cardwell. ..."It's a winding road going through a canyon, with no shoulder" From the Tesla Owners Manual: > Traffic-Aware Cruise Control is primarily intended for driving on dry, straight roads, such as highways and freeways. ... > Autosteer is particularly unlikely to operate as i…
The rule of the Dancing Pigs applies here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs
Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
#144I'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?
Google has a completely different strategy. They're aiming for 100% automation via a more gradual testing process before making any sort of automation available to consumers. I believe their thought is that the closer we get to complete automation, the less likely a driver is to remain aware. We're only at roughly 10% automation right now and drivers are already taking their eyes off the road. When we get to 90%, hum…
>Google's self driving car group gives some awesome transparency reports every month, including details about every accident
Google isn't doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They have always been required by law to send autonomous vehicle accident reports to the DMV, which are made available to the public on the DMV's website.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...
So the transparency itself is mandatory. Google merely chose to control the message and get free PR by publishing an abbreviated summary on their website too. Judging by this comment, it's working!
For example, here's the full report on Google's accident in February, the first one where the autonomous car was the vehicle at fault: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3946fbb8-e04e-4d52...
Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
#145What the hell is happening in this comment thread? Do we not all realize that, per-mile-driven, Tesla's auto pilot is much safer than human driving? I thought we were prepared to deal with the inevitable crashes, but based on the chicken littles here, maybe I was wrong.
But is it safer than the BMW system that does the exact same thing?
I also seriously doubt it's much safer than driving a normal car in the same situation. Musk threw out a bullshit comparison with general vehicle fatality stats. But Autopilot is used in a situation that's safer than average travel--highway driving in good weather. Most deaths happen at intersections--not highway.
Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
#146I don't understand why Tesla is allowed to release a safety critical system on to the roads when it requires buyers to acknowledge its not-finishedness. They're putting beta systems into an uncontrolled environment. No driver in the nearby lanes has been given that choice.
This a thousand times. Why is this allowed? And then going the extra mile and calling it autopilot which has all kinds of connotations about not needing to give a fuck about what the vehicle does. Bad bad bad. Recall and remove the feature until it's ready for actual use. Don't put everyone else on the road at risk so you can beta test.
It's already something other cars on the roads have. Tesla just did it on the cheap and Tesla gets more press because it's not a 100 year old car company and its founder is Elon Musk.
Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ro…
> The core issue here is that Tesla is shipping a product called "autopilot", which gives the expectation that it is in fact an autopilot. An autopilot system is defined as a system that assists, but does not replace, the human operator of a vehicle. Therefore Tesla's system is, in fact, an autopilot.
From wiki:
"An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required."
That's the clear opposite of what Tesla's manual suggest. If it required hands-on wheel and constant attention, call it what it is -- a driver assistance system, not autopilot.
Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
#148I 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.
The clouds are rarely full of rocks. The planes have pilot/copilot and cabin crew. The pilots are highly trained professionals. The systems on the planes pass extremely rigorous testing to be certified.
Chances of gaining control and awareness of the situation in a timely manner on an airplane are higher.
Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
#149Tesla should contact the design team which creates the manuals for Ikea to create a purely graphical "owners manual" clearly describing what the autopilot can and cannot do. Admittedly, a lot of the Tesla marketing seems to indicate otherwise, but the autopilot is just a very sophisticated lane and distance/speed assistant. It seems to handle the typical freeway very well, but does not promise to handle most other driving situation.
For example, it does not handle any crossing traffic, nor stationary obstacles as well as debris on the road. Off the freeway it is entirely the responsibility of the driver to keep the car safe, the autopilot cannot (by design) handle most of the situations.
The discussion of having the hands on the wheel is a bit a red herring. Having the hands on the wheel limits the amount of distracting things you can do while driving, but the key point is paying attention to what is going on. Hands off on an empty highway, why not? But when a truck appears on the horizon with some potential to cross - better be prepared to take action. The same applies to small country roads, and especially when the autopilot starts to warn the driver.
Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana
#150With 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…
> Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. How are these numbers compatible with each other? Was the car going at >1000 miles per hour?
Meh.. I assumed it was a buggy case that allowed more than an hour of hands-off time.