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

481–490 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#481

Post by jessaustin »

talmand wrote: post #436
jessaustin wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still waiting...

Still waiting to be able to purchase a Google self-driving car as well...

Maybe when they develop a safe, reliable autopilot system, they'll offer it for sale to the public. Some firms seem to have gotten that backwards...

It has always seemed that Google view robocars as a long-term revolutionary concept, while car companies see them as another gaudy add-on like entertainment centers or heated seats. It's not yet clear which is the right stance to take as a firm, but Tesla's recent troubles might be an indication.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#482

Post by jessaustin »

FireBeyond wrote: post #474
jessaustin wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me guess, you haven't done much work in public relations? Much worse for a company than doing some evil reprehensible shit, is doing such shit in a fashion that's an easy, emotional "narrative hook" for the media. A grieving mother clutching a tear-stained auto repair bill itemized with "child's-head-sized dent, one" is the easiest hook imaginable.

Maybe so. But Google for "parents of dead child sent bill for airlift" - if you want to be pedantic, you can even argue that in some of those cases, there may not have been any choice, only an implied consent by law that says that "a reasonable person would have wanted to be flown to hospital". You'll find examples. And for every waived bill you'll also hear "well, regardless of the tragic outcome, a service was rend…

Unless I really misunderstand, the invoices to which you refer are for services intended to preserve the life of a child, not services intended to relieve a third party of certain trifling inconveniences associated with a child's death?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#483

Post by eropple »

pjc50 wrote: post #273
eropple wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, it's illegal to swerve for a moose (TIL: moose are called elk in Europe, American elk are totally different) in the UK? Hitting a moose is a fast route to the grave.

There are no moose in the UK. There's the occasional deer on the road, and parts of the country with unfenced sheep grazing, but no moose. Common sense will be applied and liability is not strict nor is it a criminal offence per se. https://www.clarkewillmott.com/personal-injury-and-medical-n...

Hitting a deer or a sheep in most cars has a pretty good chance of getting you killed in a coupe or a sedan.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#484

Post by prof_hobart »

jessaustin wrote: post #371
prof_hobart wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly a major fault of Tesla's - if you know it's not safe, you've got no excuse to keep going. But the driver shouldn't be allowed to escape blame either. When your car is repeatedly telling you that you need to take control, then you should be taking control.

If the robocar were to warn once, and then steadily slow, all drivers would learn to take over when warned.

I don't disagree - like I say, none of my comment was intended to let Tesla off the hook in any way.

My point was simply that the drivers who use semi-automatic cars and choose to ignore warnings to retake control need to be responsible for their actions as well.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#485

Post by prof_hobart »

luca_ing wrote: post #378
prof_hobart wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly a major fault of Tesla's - if you know it's not safe, you've got no excuse to keep going. But the driver shouldn't be allowed to escape blame either. When your car is repeatedly telling you that you need to take control, then you should be taking control.

I've worked on highly safety related (classification ASIL D) automotive systems. There are rules about how to think about the driver. The driver is not considered a reliable component of such a system, and must not be used to guide decisions. Yes, the driver clearly was a fool, but system design should not have taken his decision into account, and come to its own conclusion for a safe reaction (e.g., stopping the car…

I agree with that, and as I say I'm not attempting to defend Tesla in the slightest.

My point was simply that the driver has to take responsibility for their actions in this situation as well.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#486

Post by Matthias247 »

danso wrote: post #426
Matthias247 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Autopilot" (aka Lane Assist) of my VW does that. If you don't get your hands on the wheel after it wants you to do (which is about 10-15s) and after a first warning it will hit the brakes with a lot of power for the fraction of a second. So it's not actually stopping but giving you a clear signal that you should do something and would wake you up if you fell asleep. I don't know if it will come to a stop if you…

Apologize for not googling this myself: what mechanisms do autopilot programs have for detecting traffic conditions behind them, in terms of camera/radar/algorithms? Are they less robust than the mechanisms governing detection in front of the vehicle?

I guess the current lane-assisting and adaptive cruise control systems don't do anything at all. Most cars only have ultrasonic parking sensors in the back and probably a parking camera which both don't have any range. They probably rely on the fact that vehicles behind them should drive in the normal safety distance and that following cars are responsible for avoiding rear end collisions.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#487

Post by EpicEng »

toomanythings4 wrote: post #355
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 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…

Sorry, but you don't get off that easy when your design is intended to make life and death decisions. I work on FDA regulated medical devices and we have to do our best to anticipate every silly thing a user can (will) do. In this case, the software must be able to recognize that it is operating out of spec and put a stop to it.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#488

Post by EpicEng »

kirkbauer wrote: post #468
verytrivial wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Certainly the software making the driving decision is capable of 'knowing'

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#489

Post by dragonwriter »

kirkbauer wrote: post #469
jacquesm wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> How can autopilot know if it is safe to steer into the shoulder?

I would suggest that if it can't, its not ready for general use on consumer road vehicles.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#490

Post by dimino »

studentrob wrote: post #463
dimino wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 positio…

It's not about balance, it's about you willing to make guesses regarding the bad things Tesla has done, and not make guesses about the potential good things.

This isn't a "let's give 50% time to the creationists" kind of thing, this is a "let's not stretch only one side of the truth" kind of thing.

You said the equivalent of, "I'm voting for X because of my speculation about Y but I refuse to speculate about Z as it does not fit my current argument."

Post reply on HN