Live data from Hacker News

Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

ktvq.com

181–190 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#181

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…

> 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. This is what we should be trumpeting. Responsibility, honesty, and transparency. Google's self driving car project reports [1] should be the standard. They're publi…

Musk used to be calmer and more open before. Now he seems bratty. Maybe stress or overconfidence.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#182
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you think the accident rate is lower among luxury cars as compared to more common vehicles? I would suspect the opposite. My hypothesis is that the people who seek out and buy cars that go 0 to 60 in 3.2 seconds probably drive faster and more aggressively than average. They therefore are more likely to have an accident.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#183
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We "fire and forget" many type of systems with no possibility of human intervention--at least not in a timely manner Practically speaking, I agree with what you're saying. For autonomous systems as we think of them today, humans can set them and walk away. Philosophically, if I throw a ball into space, is its continued movement autonomous? Kicking off a computer program is just a complex ball. We don't have true ra…

> We don't have true randomness in computers.

Yes we do.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#184
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.

Airplane autopilots do not require millisecond reaction times from the pilots during the control hand off, while Tesla 'autopilot' apparently does.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 obstacle…

> or in fact a legitimate reason to swerve? Reasoning about what's legitimate can be a really fine line. Oncoming car, raccoon, fawn, human, doe, coyote, elk: some of these obstacles might actually be net-safer to not swerve around [perhaps depending on speed]. I'd be really curious if any of the autopilots have a value system that tries to minimize damage/loss of life. And how does it value the exterior obstacle aga…

In some countries it's illegal to swerve to avoid an animal. I assume this means that they've judged it safer not to swerve.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I trust a computer much more than a human to keep a tiny gap at high speed for hours on end. Also if you have a nice clear barrier, it becomes easier to automatically manage steering.

Do you? Can I wire an old iphone into the control system of your car and fire up opencv and a bit of depth estimation and lane following send you off?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No doubt, but both groups need to supervise their Autopilots because autopilots of any kind have always been supervised. That's the point the grandparent is making.

The supervision required for the airplanes is not the same. If airplane autopilot flies you straight into the ground and turns off half a second before hitting it, that won't count as an acceptable behavior on it's part.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#188

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

Actually, I don't know what it does.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#189
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the value of "autopilot" for me would come in increased awareness when my attention is fading. When I'm coming home at 2AM from a gig and the road is long, straight, flat, and boring, my attention wanders. Sure, I start out strong, but soon my eyes just don't focus correctly anymore. I roll down the windows and turn up the radio to stay awake but sometimes I don't realize how I got from here to there. That 30…

> Sure, I start out strong, but soon my eyes just don't focus correctly anymore. I roll down the windows and turn up the radio to stay awake but sometimes I don't realize how I got from here to there.

I understand what you're saying, and that it is unlikely that something will happen, but Tesla still recommends full attention in this scenario. You need to be fully attentive at all times when driving, even with an assisted driving system. Tesla states this clearly in their manual. If something were to come across the road that the car were not prepared for, it may beep at you, or it may not.

This seems to be what happened to the Florida driver. He likely did not think he was abusing the system. He probably crossed that road hundreds of times before on autopilot as part of a commute. And, neither the driver nor the system pushed the brake.

If I were you and got into an accident, I know afterwards my brain would search for a reason why this happened and how I can help it not happen again both to me and to others. The solution is to not drive when tired, and to use the system as designed. An additional thing we can do is put in a few measures to check that the driver is still alert, like requiring hands on the wheel at more frequent intervals.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#190
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.

Well sadly the first casualties was a man that made 3 millions view on YouTube with a video called "Autopilot saves Model S" months before his fatal accident... http://youtu.be/9I5rraWJq6E

At that time I don't recall that Tesla made any statement about how dangerous it was to deliberately push the limit of the system to entertains viewers.

This might have contributed to make him overconfident about autopilot.

RIP

Post reply on HN