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

201–210 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#201

Post by kybernetikos »

dimino wrote: post #118
kilroy123 wrote: post #3

I hate to say it, but there are going to be some deaths on the road to full autonomous cars. (no pun intended) The problem I see is, Tesla is the only one actively testing autonomous driving. The fact that over 100 million miles driven, and we're finally starting to see accidents, is a good sign.

Who the hell expected zero crashes? Please, raise your hand and explain why you think any system could be released that drives a car would ever be able to do so at a rate of 100%?

No one expected zero crashes, but any system like this should have dramatically fewer crashes than humans operating in similar situations (i.e. primarily highway driving) or it should not be deployed to the public.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#202

Post by greendestiny »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #197
greendestiny wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Aren't we talking about a plane? And I said I trust a computer more , not that the presence of a computer is automatically enough. I'm not getting in a manually-controlled plane that's flying centimeters from a hard surface. I will get in some computer-controlled planes doing the same. (At the very least I want a real-time OS and dedicated range sensors. And the confidence of a plane owner who would lose millions of…

There are crop dusters that fly close to the ground and obstacles - do you want to get in a manual one or can I code up a computer controlled one and put you in it?

What you really mean is you want to see safety data and a track record.

As for the actual planes and auto-pilots, the real point is the kinds of engagements and disengagements that work in the air don't necessarily work on the ground and being so close to potential collisions is part of that.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#203

Post by return0 »

yladiz wrote: post #68
return0 wrote: post #39

Great, more data points.

That's kind of tone deaf, don't you think? Just because the crash might provide some useful data, doesn't mean it's something to look positively upon.

Sorry, i was being sarcastic. I consider what Tesla is doing at this stage is outright criminal behavior.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#204

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

Animats wrote: post #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 i…

"Tesla's sensor suite is inadequate."

To me this seems to limit what is possible by software updates.

Does that mean that existing Tesla owners will never get 'real' autopilot capabilities by software upgrades, although I assume most expect to get them?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#205

Post by studentrob »

schiffern wrote: post #144
studentrob wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 transpar…

> 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 your comment, it's working!

Hahaha I guess so! :-D

There should be a similar requirement for transparency of driver-assist vehicles. Clearly, the companies are not giving this up themselves until they're all forced to do it at once.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#206

Post by jacquesm »

yk wrote: post #37
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…

Thing is, standing still on a highway is also not a safe place to be. So the car needs to determine a safe-fail state on its own.

But it is safer than ramming it into a lamp post or guard-rail.

Ok, it is still a risk, and a bad accident may ensue. But most of the times there is a vehicle stopped on the road the traffic behind it simply stops as well, and in most places there is a hard shoulder that you can park on.

It's not as if cars don't strand for other reasons (engine failure, driver incapacitation).

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#207

Post by pyromine »

witty_username wrote: post #106
staunch wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Going beyond the plane analogy everyone is going with, all major transportation systems that utilize autopilot systems (planes, ships, trains) require training that teaches the pilots (or conductors for trains) to know how to stay alert and when to take over.

Perhaps it is true that the semi-intelligent autopilot is good enough for these trained activities, but the untrained public doesn't realize that autopilot today is not full automation.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#208

Post by npizzolato »

raverbashing wrote: post #156

"It's a winding road going through a canyon, with no shoulder," Shope told CNNMoney. The driver told Shope the car was in Autopilot mode, traveling between 55 and 60 mph" Wow, really? This is not the Autosteer's fault, it's pure negligence

If the autopilot couldn't safely handle going 55-60mph, it should have slowed down to speeds that it could handle. If it couldn't safely handle those conditions, it should have safely slowed to a stop. Failing ungracefully is completely autopilot's (and Tesla's) fault.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#209

Post by Animats »

kbart wrote: post #152
yes_or_gnome wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tens of thousands of people either walking or driving the streets of Mountain View and Sunnyvale where Google is testing its self-driving cars. So, the members of the public are at risk. But, I understand that you mean behind the wheel. Which is fun because the Google cars do not have a wheel. As I'm sure you may know, instead of a traditional steering wheel they have horizontally mounted, valve wheel with…

Also, Google doesn't drive it's test car on highway speeds with humans inside. Google self-driving car's speed is limited to 25 mph, so even if it hit something, potential that it would be lethal is very slim.

Google has two basic models of self-driving car. One is a modified standard car, and can drive at freeway speeds. If you drive around Mountain View, CA, you'll probably see some of them. The other is a little electric thing with no steering wheel limited to 25MPH. The Computer History Museum in Mountain View has one on display.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#210

Post by schiffern »

studentrob wrote: post #160
Animats wrote: post #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 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…

>Google's self driving car project reports [1] should be the standard. They're published monthly and they detail every crash

Copying a reply from earlier...

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...

(see also studentrob's excellent reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12084444)

Post reply on HN