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

281–290 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#281

Post by pluma »

taejo wrote: post #185
wyldfire wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Technically the swerving itself is not necessarily illegal, but it makes you liable for anything that could have been avoided by not swerving. If you swerve on a free and open road and don't cause any damage or injury to anything or anyone (including yourself and your car), it's not like you will still be dragged to court just because you didn't want to unnecessarily run over someone's pet.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#282

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#283

Post by gutnor »

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 really fits well with their image of an agile tech company producing car from the future. Also they need those software upgrade as it buys them some time to focus on new car model rather than replacing existing one.

Tesla is still a tiny player in the car business and at some point a big brand will enter its market in force. They need to be bullish to maintain their image.

That said, their PR has always been overreactive. Remember all the dirt they thrown at people reviewing their car. Or how they came hard on people with their burning Tesla. Those were unnecessary "dickish". If Tesla has some actual blame to take, the tone set by their PR people is going to seriously backfire.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#284

Post by wiz21c »

studentrob wrote: post #216
agumonkey wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

the guy comes forward and says "I'm going to make an autopilot for the masses". He/We know it's tough to do. The guy release its autopilot. It's not quite ready for prime time. Double problem : the guy goes into a tough business alone, the guy makes stuff that's not 100% ready.

I like it when people try to do hard stuff, that's fine and maybe heroic. But they have to be prepared : if testing the whole thing must take 10 years to be safe and a gazillion dollars, then so be it. If it's too much to shoulder, then they should not enter the business.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#285

Post by abalone »

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…

It bugs me how quick Tesla is to blame their drivers. That autopark crash, for example, was clearly the result of a software design flaw. Tesla pushed an update where to activate autopark all you had to do was double tap the park button and exit the vehicle. That's it. No other positive confirmation. No holding the key fob required. The vehicle would start moving without a driver inside.

You'd think someone would have realized that a double tap could accidentally happen why trying to single tap.

The reporting on this was terrible, but there's a YouTube video illustrating the design flaw.[1]

Thing is, someone at Tesla must know this is the real culprit. But there was no public correction of their local manager who blamed the driver.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-JoZL9edlA

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#286

Post by freyir »

Autonomous vehicles will require engineering that's more like NASA and less like weekend hackathon. Given Musk's association with SpaceX, I was hopeful we'd get the former, but it's starting to look like an autopilot solution was released half-baked.

The current SV engineering climate -- youth beats experience, move fast and break things, release early and often -- works great for photo sharing apps but not great when lives are at stake.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#287

Post by KaiserPro »

a3n wrote: post #86

I 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.

Indeed.

I'm not sure of the legalities in the US, but in the UK I'd suggest that there are a few things that they'd fall foul of:

o advertising standards, its not an autopilot o trading standards, not making a safe product/warnings [0] o death by dangerous driving [1] o driving without due care and attention [2]

[0] There are layers of consumer protection that enforces things like no sharp edges, doesn't give off nasty vapours, does what the marketing says it does.

[1][2] these are crimes for the driver. If you are found to have been driving in a reckless way, non concentrating, or not having hands on the wheel, that your fault as a driver. very large fine and time in jail.

especially as the tesla has lots of sensors to prove what the driver was doing.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#288

Post by newjersey »

jacquesm wrote: post #200
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but actively steering a car while someone else is also actively steering it sounds pretty terrible. My passat has most assist systems and I like how it steers. It tries very hard to get my attention and get my hands back on the steering wheel. It barely lets me keep my hands 15 seconds of the wheel but this is perfect for what it's designed to do: keep you in the lane if you are being distracted by something (eg: b…

> keep you in the lane if you are being distracted by something (eg: baby). If you can't drive responsibly with a baby on board lane assist isn't going to save your ass. If something happens to your baby which distracts you ask someone else in the car to take care of it, if there is nobody to help pull over at the earliest opportunity. Lane assist will not save you from anything else but lane departure and there are…

I can't imagine the gymnastics involved in this feat either. A baby doesn't belong on the front seat without some modifications to the car as far as I know.

I absolutely agree. There is absolutely no excuse for the driver to take their eyes off the road to assist a baby in the car. How would you assist a baby in the back seat while driving with a seat belt on anyway?

As I read about people using these features, I'm convinced they shouldn't exist. Yes, crazies will apply eyeliner while going sixty on a highway but I doubt driver assist is an adequate solution for such stupidity should a driver poke themselves in the eye.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#289

Post by duerrp »

base698 wrote: post #124
alogray wrote: post #102

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.

I actually worked out the math on this--Tesla is lying with statistics when they made this comment they did about 1 in 130 million miles. Here's what I did: 1 in 90 million rate: 1.1 x 10^8 Probability of No accident in one mile: 1 - 1.1 x 108 = ~9.9999999 x 10^8 Probability of No accident and driving 130 million miles: (9.99999999 x 10 ^ 8) ^ 130e6 = 0.24 Probability AT LEAST ONE ACCIDENT in 130 million miles = 1 -…

Also, are they counting all previous versions of the software instead of just the latest?

Moreover, I wonder how the human drivers in the statistics fare if you correct for drunk driving / using cellphone, etc. In my opinion, any autopilot worth it's name should be an order of magnitude better than the average human driver.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#290

Post by duerrp »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #166
base698 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually worked out the math on this--Tesla is lying with statistics when they made this comment they did about 1 in 130 million miles. Here's what I did: 1 in 90 million rate: 1.1 x 10^8 Probability of No accident in one mile: 1 - 1.1 x 108 = ~9.9999999 x 10^8 Probability of No accident and driving 130 million miles: (9.99999999 x 10 ^ 8) ^ 130e6 = 0.24 Probability AT LEAST ONE ACCIDENT in 130 million miles = 1 -…

In other words, the exact rate is very uncertain when there's only one crash data point. They might be lucky (or unlucky). Well that's obvious, and I wouldn't call it lying at all.

It is misleading though...
Post reply on HN