Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 327 posts

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#71

Post by maherbeg »

up_and_up wrote: post #37
Tepix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rates dropped by 40%. The drivers remained the same. Why do you think a different driver demographic will not show a similar improvement?

Do you think peoples ability to behave/drive responsibly vs recklessly could be at all linked to their demographic profile? I am talking statistically, not looking for anecdotes...

It seems like age is a rather large driver of involvement in crashes (younger/newer drivers end up being more crash prone) according to here: https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2012OlderD... (page 5)

Which seems like the current driver profile is possibly safer than the overall population since it's unlikely a large percentage of young drivers own a $100k car. It seems like the effect of widespread autopilot could be greater if it included this cohort.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#72

Post by Dan_Nguyen »

Pxtl wrote: post #53
mikeash wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 3 is the real danger area. That's the level where the driver is able to do other things, but must be prepared to retake control at any time. Those two ideas are basically contradictory: if you're not already involved with driving, it takes too long to get back into it to do anything useful. Tesla's system is level 2, meaning that the driver must (as in, is supposed to) remain engaged and aware of the driving ta…

There is zero chance I'd stay awake behind the wheel of a level 2 or 3 vehicle.

I'm in the same boat as you here. Level 2 and 3 are unsafe for me as an individual. When I drive, actively focusing on the road and driving keeps me awake. When I'm a passenger, the lack of mental concentration plus the gentle rocking motion of a moving car knocks me out within ten minutes.

The current Tesla autopilot is obviously working well for many people, but for myself I have to wait until level 4. Anything more hands on than that is inherently unsafe because of my habits.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#73

Post by t112512512 »

mikeash wrote: post #24
stale2002 wrote: post #6

Oh, hey, will you look at that. The imperfect, incomplete, beta, level 2 self driving cars that were supposed to be the "dangerous" area of self driving are ALREADY better than human drivers. Can we stop the politics and deploy all the real self driving cars to the road immediately, since the government has proven that even the shitty variety is safer than humans?

Level 3 is the real danger area. That's the level where the driver is able to do other things, but must be prepared to retake control at any time. Those two ideas are basically contradictory: if you're not already involved with driving, it takes too long to get back into it to do anything useful. Tesla's system is level 2, meaning that the driver must (as in, is supposed to) remain engaged and aware of the driving ta…

Does Level 3 require instant attention?

I thought it allowed the car to require some parameters (such as road type or weather). If my car can handle the hours-long uninterrupted highway sections of a road trip, yet still require manual driving on city streets, that is still a huge value proposition for time & safety.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#74

Post by mikeash »

Pxtl wrote: post #53
mikeash wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 3 is the real danger area. That's the level where the driver is able to do other things, but must be prepared to retake control at any time. Those two ideas are basically contradictory: if you're not already involved with driving, it takes too long to get back into it to do anything useful. Tesla's system is level 2, meaning that the driver must (as in, is supposed to) remain engaged and aware of the driving ta…

There is zero chance I'd stay awake behind the wheel of a level 2 or 3 vehicle.

I've done a few thousand miles with Tesla's Autopilot and I find it to be much easier to stay awake with it than without. Constantly making little adjustments is pretty tiring. Paying attention to the the road and other cars is enough to keep my attention. Your experience may, of course, vary.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#75

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

fmihaila wrote: post #70
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be reasonable to assume that?

Because traffic-aware cruise control has existed for years from other car manufactures, and I have seen no data showing that this feature decreases safety.

Perhaps you should be looking for data that shows that traffic-aware cruise control increases or matches safety of human drivers then? Seems strange to just assume one side of the argument if there's no proof either way.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#76

Post by zaroth »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #40
stuckagain wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That conclusion is not supported by the data in the report. A supportable conclusion based on this report would be that Tesla automation with auto-steer produces 40% fewer air bag deployments than Tesla automation without auto-steer.

Actually we can't even go that far. >22 The crash rates are for all miles travelled before and after Autopilot installation and are not limited to actual Autopilot use.

Which is exactly how you would want the analysis to be done.

Because of course there were no autopilot miles in the before bucket you would be skewing the analysis if you only looked at autopilot miles in the after bucket.

What we know is after installing the autopilot feature, accidents with airbag deployments reduced 40%. Not just during so-called "safe" autopilot miles, but over all miles driven.

Now it's plausible that autopilot makes you a better driver both while it's on and off, but I'd say it's just exceedingly common to rear-end people due to distracted driving.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#77

Post by ams6110 »

dkonofalski wrote: post #8

I don't really know why this is surprising. Computers are already better than humans at most tasks that involve a limited set of behaviors and they have infinitely better response time than humans (and continue to get better). How could anyone think that a report like this was going to end up any differently?

You might want to read about Therac-25

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#78

Post by camiller »

ebbv wrote: post #42
cryptoz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

35,000 people die from car accidents every single year in the USA alone. Other drivers are not "really good".

Personally I believe most people are really terrible drivers. That being said, there were 210 million drivers in the US in 2009. There's probably a lot more today. That's just 0.01% of drivers. That fact makes me have to question just how bad people really are, despite my own personal opinion. Or maybe cars are just really safe. A better statistic might be number of accidents. In 2015 2.44 million people were injured…

I had an econ professor assert that as cars got safer there were more accidents because people trusted the car to protect them more.... Logically, to reduce accidents due to carelessness we should put a 12" sharpened spike right in the middle of the steering wheel pointing at the drivers chest. If all accidents were deadly wouldn't drivers then exercise the utmost care?

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#79

Post by blktiger »

Pxtl wrote: post #53
mikeash wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 3 is the real danger area. That's the level where the driver is able to do other things, but must be prepared to retake control at any time. Those two ideas are basically contradictory: if you're not already involved with driving, it takes too long to get back into it to do anything useful. Tesla's system is level 2, meaning that the driver must (as in, is supposed to) remain engaged and aware of the driving ta…

There is zero chance I'd stay awake behind the wheel of a level 2 or 3 vehicle.

That's why these level 2 systems are supposed to verify that the driver maintains contact with the wheel. Not that you can't necessarily get around some of those restrictions, but the system is supposed to warn you if it detects you aren't paying attention and eventually it's supposed to pull the vehicle over safely so if you fall asleep it won't be dangerous.

In addition, not having to spend as much energy just keeping the car on the road may help to prevent getting tired. Then again, maybe it won't have any impact.

Re: NHTSA’s full investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction

#80

Post by mikeash »

t112512512 wrote: post #73
mikeash wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 3 is the real danger area. That's the level where the driver is able to do other things, but must be prepared to retake control at any time. Those two ideas are basically contradictory: if you're not already involved with driving, it takes too long to get back into it to do anything useful. Tesla's system is level 2, meaning that the driver must (as in, is supposed to) remain engaged and aware of the driving ta…

Does Level 3 require instant attention? I thought it allowed the car to require some parameters (such as road type or weather). If my car can handle the hours-long uninterrupted highway sections of a road trip, yet still require manual driving on city streets, that is still a huge value proposition for time & safety.

It doesn't require instant attention, no. But it's hard envision a scenario where the car needs attention at some point in the future, not particularly soon, but can't drive itself. Maybe I'm drawing the line at the wrong point, though. If a car can drive itself but may occasionally need to pull over and ask the driver to tell it which way to go, at the driver's leisure, is that level 3 or level 4? I thought 4, but I'm having trouble finding a clear answer.
Post reply on HN