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

261–270 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#261

Post by _pmf_ »

tmptmp wrote: post #138

It's sad. I am a big fan of Tesla and had/still have very high hopes from them, but it's decreasing. It seems Tesla is hell-bent on committing suicide. This way, they don't need the fossil-fuel car lobby to destroy them. The BMW, Volkswgen and the likes of dirty-gas-guzzlers-producers would be chuckling now. Why the hell are they so bullish on auto-pilot? I cannot see any sense in it. They must just concentrate more…

> It seems Tesla is hell-bent on committing suicide.

It's unfathomable why they don't just concentrate on their core competency (EV technology) and keep their AI experiments in R&D (where they belong).

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#262

Post by ben_jones »

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.

Exactly. They are "testing autonomous driving" with human lives. The sickening part is Tesla advocates think this is alright in the name of "progress". I wonder how they would feel if they had a family member die to it. "Data points" right?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#263

Post by studentrob »

Scarblac wrote: post #240
studentrob wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't envy his position, or any other CEO or leader of a large group. It's a huge responsibility. You can face jail time for not sharing information. Usually only the most egregious violators see a cell, but it's still a scary prospect if you somehow got caught up in some other executive's scheme. At the end of the day, the CEO signs everything. Edit: I see the downvote. Am I wrong? Is being a CEO all rainbows and…

It sounds like it's some predicament he's in by some accident that wasn't his fault.

As outsiders, we can only know what the company, regulatory agencies, and reporters tell us.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#264

Post by avree »

readams wrote: post #12
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…

I think you'll find suddenly braking in the middle of the road poses its own dangers.

Every other car model with an 'automatic driving' or 'autopilot' feature will begin to slow if you ignore prompts to put your hands on the wheel.

Tesla is the only car manufacturer that does not have a gradual emergency braking system implemented.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#265

Post by studentrob »

Scarblac wrote: post #249
studentrob wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yeah who knows. I think Musk retweeted his video. Hindsight is 20/20. Tesla can still move forward and learn from this.

That's going to hurt in the lawsuit, isn't it?

I'm not a lawyer, so, I don't know

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#266

Post by cynix »

kbart wrote: post #147
cynix wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The actual implementation only requires periodic, not constant, hands-on-wheel. Although it's in the driver's interest to pay attention constantly, as evident from this accident.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#267

Post by Dylan16807 »

ben_jones wrote: post #256
Dylan16807 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close, but not constantly centimeters close. It's a whole different league, and not one I'm comfortable trusting a human with.

Humans write the software that powers computers FYI.

It's the reaction times I don't trust. And the ability to judge distances precisely enough.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#268

Post by studentrob »

delroth wrote: post #259
studentrob wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The requirement does not seem to be there for driver-assist vehicles. Also, it's a state-level requirement. Looks like it's just in CA for now. The accidents detailed in the Google reports are all from California. And, Tesla may be unwilling to start reporting driver-assist accident rates to the public unless the other driver-assist car companies are forced to do it too. I'll make an addendum to my above comment.

> The accidents detailed in the Google reports are all from California. You could have opened the first report[1] on that page and notice this is wrong. > June 6, 2016:​ A Google prototype autonomous vehicle (Google AV) was traveling southbound on Berkman Dr. in Austin, TX in autonomous mode and was involved in a minor collision north of E 51st St. The other vehicle was approaching the Google AV from behind in an adj…

Blast! I can't get anything right. It's too late to edit my original comment.

Well, that's awesome that Google reports on accidents outside of California too.

Thank you for correcting me, delroth.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#269

Post by Angostura »

jacquesm wrote: post #192
HNaTTY wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree; I think it's despicable that Tesla is acting in such a defensive manner. -- "No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel. "As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel," sa…

> No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel. That would seem to me to be reason to steer the car to the shoulder and disengage the auto-pilot. Tesla is trying to take too big a step here and blaming the driver(s) of these cars is really really bad PR.

> That would seem to me to be reason to steer the car to the shoulder and disengage the auto-pilot.

Agreed. Or where a shoulder isn't available engage hazard flashers and drop speed to 10 miles an ho

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#270

Post by Angostura »

BillinghamJ wrote: post #241
awestroke wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the car told the driver to take back control of the vehicle, which the driver ignored. People with no respect for the danger of driving are going to get hurt, with or without driver assist technology.

Then it should gradually and slowly come to a stop.

With hazard flashers going etc.
Post reply on HN