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

461–470 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#461

Post by jessaustin »

NhanH wrote: post #454
jessaustin wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this thread has really squicked me out. Of course dehumanization is an age-old tactic for enabling asshole behaviors of all sorts. I'd like to hope, however, that outside the current commuter-hell driving context, few people would even admit to themselves, let alone broadcast to the world, their considered preference for killing children. That is, when they no longer drive, perhaps people won't be quite so insan…

I don't even drive at all, and yet this thread irks me from the other direction. Dehumanization is an age-old tactic for enabling asshole behaviors, and bringing children into a discussion is an age old tactic for justifying irrational decisions ("Think of the children"). You claimed that any car may be driven slowly enough to avoid killing people on the road with only mere convenient to others. That's patently false…

I believe you, that you don't drive at all. You call both situations strawmen, yet each is a common occurrence. Safe speed in an automobile is proportional to sightline distance. If drivers or robocars see a child (or any hazard) near the road, they should slow down. By the time they reach the child, they should be crawling. That's in an urban alley or on a rural interstate. If the child appeared before the driver or robocar could react, the car was traveling too fast for that particular situation.

In that "traveling too fast" failure mode, previous considerations of convenience or property damage no longer apply. The driver or robocar already fucked up, and no longer has standing to weigh any value over the safety of pedestrians. Yes it's sad that the three kids in the backseat will be woken from their naps, but their complaint is with the driver or robocar for the unsafe speeds, not with the pedestrian for her sudden appearance.

This is the way driving has always worked, and it's no wonder. We're talking about kids who must be protected from the car, but we could be talking about hazards from which the car itself must be protected. If you're buzzing along at 75 mph and a dumptruck pulls out in front of you, you might have the right-of-way, but you're dead anyway. You shouldn't have been traveling that fast, in a situation in which a dumptruck could suddenly occupy your lane. In that failure mode, you're just dead; you don't get to choose to sacrifice some children to your continued existence.

Fortunately, the people who actually design robocars know all this, so the fucked-up hypothetical preferences of solipsists who shouldn't ever control an automobile don't apply.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#462

Post by oconnore »

studentrob wrote: post #409
oconnore wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lent out my copy, but one particularly relevant section compares results from the aviation industry's use of pure-autopilot and HUD-augmented landings. Pilots maintain their flying skills, and get better overall results by staying in the loop with an augmented vision system. Good pilots often avoid full-autopilot entirely, or are forced to abort only seconds from touchdown, resulting in poorer landings. Bad pilots…

Interesting. I didn't realize humans have already attempted so many different automated systems. In the talk you linked, he points out how, historically, systems are never fully automated because humans are not comfortable with that. He seems to predict that cars will not be the first systems that we allow to become fully autonomous, and admits he could be wrong. It's surprising to me that he feels texting should be…

When he talks of humans being richly involved in the environment, not sleeping in the trunk, I imagine an interface with several levels.

Example: you are driving down a highway that has full monitoring by overhead cameras. No obstacles are going to jump out at you, and the position of the car is mapped precisely in real time. The human controls via a joystick to select a lane position, and brakes are automatically applied if avoidance is needed.

Now the car leaves the highway, onto an isolated road. Before leaving the known environment, the interface switches. Now the lane position becomes a trajectory projection, and the driver must observe the road. The task of safely following the trajectory is automated. The interface adds random noise to the trajectory projection, to test that the driver is paying attention. Failure to demonstrate control results in the car pulling off to a rest stop.

Finally the car goes downtown. A well known road, but with many pedestrians and bicycles. The interface is based around identifying obstacles, with a joystick for max safe speed stop. Trajectory is automated, with the driver choosing turns. The car scans for pedestrians, but if the driver does not acknowledge them, the car slows since the driver is not paying attention. If the car misses a pedestrian, the driver is aware and has been conditioned and trained to react in time.

All of these interfaces would require driver attention (minimal on the highway), but would significantly reduce fatigue associated with driving.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#463

Post by studentrob »

dimino wrote: post #459
studentrob wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you think? I think it's not safer based on existing data. Musk was pretty quick to tout that autopilot is safer over 100 million miles driven. It turns out his statistic was not as useful as it could have been. There was no mention of conditions in which autopilot is not likely to be engaged such as adverse weather or non-divided roads. Plus some deaths are from motorcycles, which, it seems, should somehow…

It sounds like you're willing to speculate/entertain assumptions (e.g. regarding miles of "relatable" road usage) when it harms Tesla, but not when it might help them.

Must every critical argument I make be balanced with something positive in order to demonstrate I'm not 100% against Tesla?

Tesla definitely done great things. They're just not front and center in the news at the moment.

I think it's best to look at the data or issues being discussed rather than some hidden motive. When I discuss politics, I don't just say "I'm voting for Billy", I try to say, "I like Billy's position on X because Y". Same thing here.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#464

Post by makomk »

taf2 wrote: post #320
abalone wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

its a bit harder than a double tap... You press and hold. Count to three. Now wait for the car to start blinking and make a shifting noise. Press either the front of the key or back of the key to move forward. Definitely not easy to engage so I can understand tesla view on this one... I do this every morning/night to pull my car out of the tiny garage since I can't get my door open inside the garage

There are multiple methods of activating their autopark feature. At the time of the crash, the setting that allowed you to activate it using the keyfob as you describe also meant that merely double-tapping the P button in the car would activate autopark and cause the car to start moving forward a few seconds after getting out. This was added in a patch, so unless you paid attention to their release notes you may have missed it.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#465

Post by studentrob »

oconnore wrote: post #462
studentrob wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I didn't realize humans have already attempted so many different automated systems. In the talk you linked, he points out how, historically, systems are never fully automated because humans are not comfortable with that. He seems to predict that cars will not be the first systems that we allow to become fully autonomous, and admits he could be wrong. It's surprising to me that he feels texting should be…

When he talks of humans being richly involved in the environment, not sleeping in the trunk, I imagine an interface with several levels. Example: you are driving down a highway that has full monitoring by overhead cameras. No obstacles are going to jump out at you, and the position of the car is mapped precisely in real time. The human controls via a joystick to select a lane position, and brakes are automatically ap…

> All of these interfaces would require driver attention (minimal on the highway), but would significantly reduce fatigue associated with driving.

I see now, that makes sense. Thanks!

I did a little more hunting on Mindell and it seems his words are easily misinterpreted [1] [2]

It sounds like he is almost anti-Google in that article, though I imagine he's really trying to argue for something like you describe.

I think Google's on the right track towards such a system. Right now they're constraining themselves to having sensors inside the vehicle to see how far they can safely travel. If that does not work out, presumably they can invest in developing a living road like you describe to aid in tracking cars' movements.

If Google does start some sort of taxi network, presumably passengers will be able to enter destinations, or perhaps request to change lanes. Under Mindell's definition, perhaps that is not completely autonomous. I think it is full autonomy in the way Google thinks of it. Or maybe Mindell would call that autonomy and just admit he was wrong and that cars are the first human transporters that can be fully autonomous.

Thanks for your thoughts. I like your ideas about adding noise. You've obviously put some thought into this. I haven't seen others mention that elsewhere.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/3whcj0/googles_vision...

[2] http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-vision-of-self-driving-cars...

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#466

Post by kirkbauer »

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…

Autopilot is not autonomous driving. It is fancy cruise control. Just like cruise control can't handle every situation neither can autopilot. Just like autopilot in an aircraft it requires a human paying attention and ready to take over.

The system works as intended and advertised. Obviously it isn't perfect but with the fatality rate roughly equal to human drivers and the accident rate seemingly much lower it seems at least as good as a human.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#467

Post by kirkbauer »

TetOn wrote: post #411
Vraxx wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not lulling anybody into anything! The guy was given multiple warnings by the car that what he was doing was unsafe. The last of which was extremely pertinent to the crash. To quote the article, "As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel". This is after the initial alerts telling him that he needs to remain vigilant while using this featu…

I just want to see "the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel" followed by "and Autopilot then pulled to the side of the road, turned on the hazard lights, and required the driver to take over."

That's stupid. Autopilot doesn't have the ability to determine if it is safe to pull over. It has a fallback mode; eventually it will come to a complete stop in the middle of the road and turn the hazards on. But since this is also dangerous it makes sense to give the driver time to stop it from happening.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#468

Post by kirkbauer »

verytrivial wrote: post #366
toomanythings4 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. >They tried to blame the driver. In this incident, the driver was using autopilot in a fashion that it should not be; twisting road at high speed. The driver IS at fault. >They're being sued by the family of the dead driver This is no proof of anything. You can find a lawyer to sue anybody over anything. >and be…

> In this incident, the driver was using autopilot in a fashion that it should not be; twisting road at high speed. I don't understand why, if the car's GPS co-ordinates are known, the car even allows autopilot on anything but roads known to be within spec. > The driver IS at fault. I'm not sure legal liability is that clear cut.

I can't imagine that every road in the world can be determined to be "safe" or "not safe" via GPS coordinates alone.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#469

Post by kirkbauer »

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.

How can autopilot know if it is safe to steer into the shoulder? It won't even change lanes without driver input.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#470

Post by kirkbauer »

avs733 wrote: post #416
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…

>3. Tesla's autopilot behavior after a crash is terrible. It doesn't stop. In the semitrailer crash, the vehicle continued under power for several hundred feet after sheering off the top of the Tesla driving under the semitrailer. Only when it hit a telephone pole did the car stop. This is actually the most distributing part to me. In these situations, graceful failure or error handling is absolutely critical. If it…

I wonder if the dead driver hit the accelerator?
Post reply on HN