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

341–350 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#341

Post by epmaybe »

givinguflac wrote: post #312
forgetsusername wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the auto-maker responsible? Why would the auto-maker be responsible for your distracted driving, and what does it have to do with cruise control? Some of the uproar about these incidents is related to the fact that Tesla marketing is implying far more automation and safety here than the technology can actually provide. And apparently it can cost lives.

Exactly, they shouldn't be responsible for distracted driving. Autopilot can certainly get better, but you're being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that these Tesla drivers with their hands off the wheel don't fall under distracted driving. Could autopilot improve? Yes. Is the driver at fault here for not staying alert and responsible for the car they chose to drive? Absolutely. Please show me a source for th…

Sure, the driver is at fault, but Tesla is almost encouraging this by not having a shorter threshold for keeping hands off the wheel.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#342

Post by madshiva »

obj-g wrote: post #305

I just really don't understand the whole self-driving car craze. What is so attractive about it? Why do people want it so badly? Personally, I like driving, rarely even use cruise control. I would never fully trust these auto-pilots. Ever. So what's the point? If I can't crawl into the backseat and take a nap and wake up at my destination, then what's the use?

Because there's driving and driving. I like driving too but when you are on the highway there's nothing rewarding, it's not driving if you only drive straight. The future is to lean back and do nothing like the google car. Or Little train in road.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#343

Post by quickben »

slavik81 wrote: post #182
iabacu wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very anecdotal evidence here commuting in Toronto here: - more drivers in $80k+ cars leave 2-3 times the following distance than other drivers with cheaper cars. Not all, but very noticeable sometimes.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#344

Post by ssharp »

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 spin control is backfiring. They tried to blame the driver. They're being sued by the family of the dead driver, and being investigated by the NHTSA (the recall people), and the NTSB. 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.

It's a hell of a lot safer for Google to take fault for in a 2mph bump into a bus than it is for a case where someone died. I'd guess Tesla will ultimately settle the lawsuits against them but if they came out and admitted 100% fault, which it likely isn't, they'd have absolutely no ground to stand on and could get financially ruined at trial.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#345

Post by eorge_g »

Tesla is getting hundreds of millions of miles logged for R&D on their autopilot feature. It makes a lot sense business wise to launch this tech when they did.

It's clear from their PR response with the semi-truck accident that they see fatalities as an acceptable consequence as long as they can say they have fewer accidents per mile than 'un-assisted' drivers.

The question is: do we share their belief that this is ethical?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#346

Post by uptown »

jakobegger wrote: post #293
newjersey wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Pretty much every modern car has a way to deactivate the passenger airbag specifically so you can place a baby seat in the front.

At least in the United States, most state laws dictate that babies are to ride in the back seat (if available) in child seats. Some states also dictate when a child can be turned around to face forward. Varies state to state.

Here's a state-by-state break-down:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/childsafety_laws.htm...

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#347

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

Draiken wrote: post #326
gkya wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tell me what's the difference between using a beta system and not caring (leaving hands off the wheel, etc) and drunk driving?" The latter is a clearly defined criminal offence whereas the former is currently unclear. While the driver is certainly liable for reckless driving, that the marketing seems to have suggested that the feature is usable, is a fact.

And does that remove the driver's responsibility?

Does it remove Tesla's responsibility?

You're literally now comparing Autopilot to criminal offenses and asking if it should be allowed, seems like you're suggesting Autopilot should be illegal.

Sure, drivers suck, this is a known bug in humans. I'd like to see Autopilot changed to counteract the human limitation rather than acting like humans should be perfect for a system to work.

This is how you get into bad UI design ("it is NOT my UI that sucks, the users just don't understand it! Read the manual!"). Except in this case people can literally die.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#348

Post by pc86 »

jessaustin wrote: post #319
esteth wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think such a value system is fine in as much as it preserves the safety of the driver. I'd like my car to make value judgements about what's safer - braking and colliding with an object or swerving to avoid it. I'd rather it brakes and collides with a child than swerve into oncoming traffic, but I'd rather it swerved into oncoming traffic to avoid a truck that would otherwise T-bone me. As long as the system only a…

I'd rather it brakes and collides with a child... Humanity: you're doing it wrong. That some humans have this attitude is another reason why humans shouldn't drive automobiles.

The first priority of an autonomous vehicle should be to cause no loss of life whatsoever. The second priority should be to preserve the life of the occupants.

Nobody buys an autonomous car that will make the decision to kill them.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#349

Post by pc86 »

vacri wrote: post #254
esteth wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think such a value system is fine in as much as it preserves the safety of the driver. I'd like my car to make value judgements about what's safer - braking and colliding with an object or swerving to avoid it. I'd rather it brakes and collides with a child than swerve into oncoming traffic, but I'd rather it swerved into oncoming traffic to avoid a truck that would otherwise T-bone me. As long as the system only a…

The moral choice is the opposite direction: the car should prefer to kill the occupant than a bystander. The occupant is the reason why the car is in use; if it fails, the penalty for that failure should be on the occupant, not bystanders.

This is a great argument if your goal is no autonomous cars. Nobody buys a car that will choose to kill them.
Post reply on HN