Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#381

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:49 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #379

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.

What if the manufacturer is permitting conditions that incentivizes distracting driving? Like not requiring hands on the wheel? It's also a problem if it permits driving faster than the speed limit.

Its normal to exceed the speed limit e.g. passing. No absolute limit can be arbitrarily set without tying the pilot's hands/limiting their options which could make the roads more dangerous.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#382

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:51 PM UTC

forgetsusername wrote: post #311

madaxe_again wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose I'm driving a "normal" car. I have my hands on the wheel, but I am reading a book. I hit a tree. Is the auto-maker responsible? They advertised the car as having cruise control. Call me old, but I remember similar hysteria when cruise control systems started appearing. People honestly thought it would be like autopilot or better - and ploughed into highway dividers, forests, other traffic, you name it, at 55m…

> 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.

It costs lives because folks are toying with this new thing. If they'd just use it as intended, they'd achieve the higher levels of safety demonstrated in testing.

Yeah, I just blamed the victims for misusing autopilot. Like anything else, its a tool for a certain purpose. Its not foolproof. Testing its limits can get you hurt, just like a power saw.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#383

Post by jaimex2 » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:52 PM UTC

I think the next software update needs to place limitations on where auto pilot can be deployed.

Heck, mine the data from streetview and disable activation on roads where it can't work 100%

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#384

Post by pc86 » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:52 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #369

eertami wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this case it isn't a bystander, it's out in the middle of the road in front of a moving vehicle. If a child runs in front of my car then it is most definitely at fault and I'd honestly much rather it be dead than me, if those are the options.

You are not alone in that, but perhaps in a minority. A child cannot truly be 'at fault'.

Legally speaking children are found to be at fault all the time, and under certain circumstances even treated as adults. So no, they're not incapable of being at fault.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#385

Post by 3pt14159 » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:53 PM UTC

The real issue is whether or not "Autopilot" is safer than a human or not. If the number of deaths for similar road conditions per distance travelled are less then Tesla should be allowed to continue the way that they are doing things. It's obvious to me the way other systems do this (by slowing down if the user doesn't put his or her hands on the wheel frequently) leads to people not using the feature because it is less useful which may, paradoxically, leads people to have a worse driver at the wheel.

Just the stats, ma'am. Are they safer or not? If so, then it's fine by me. What we gain from self-driving cars in terms of real world usage data is extremely valuable.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#386

Post by studentrob » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:53 PM UTC

baakss wrote: post #314

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…

This is really to a point where it can only hurt Google. Just look at the word choice in the article: >The crashes are calling the safety of such automatic driving features into question, just as they're being incorporated into more and more cars on the road. Tesla's failure in this court harms the entire concept, not just their own brand. The average person isn't going to distinguish between Tesla's inappropriately…

I'm not worried.

There is plenty of time for Tesla to reconsider its strategy and for Google to continue building on its good reputation.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#387

Post by hanklazard » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:54 PM UTC

The autopilot feature seems like one that should be taken through rigorous testing approved by the appropriate regulatory structure before being allowed out on the roads. The fact that Tesla has been able to simply update firmware to include this experimental new feature on their vehicles as they please feels very "wild west" and as much as I don't tend to prefer regulation, this feels like the proper place for it. By the way, this has been my feeling on the matter before any autopilot crashes were reported.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#388

Post by cptskippy » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:56 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #367

Retric wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damages from a single death have a relatively low cap unless the victim was making a lot of money. Lost sales is generally a much larger issue.

Tesla drivers do tend to be higher earners than average.

The base Model S with no extras costs more than twice the average price of all new cars in 2016.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#389

Post by talmand » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:56 PM UTC

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…

>> Google admitted fault, took the blame

Let's wait until Google's car kills someone and then compare their reaction to that of Tesla's.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#390

Post by Retric » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 1:58 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #367

Retric wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damages from a single death have a relatively low cap unless the victim was making a lot of money. Lost sales is generally a much larger issue.

Tesla drivers do tend to be higher earners than average.

300k * 20x = 6 million. Not chump change, but not going to do much to Tesla.

A CEO making 15 million / year is another story.