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

301–310 of 327 posts

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

#301

Post by RA_Fisher »

everlost wrote: post #217
Animats wrote: post #189

It's interesting how vague this is. There's an NTSB investigation still pending into a specific Tesla crash.[1] The goals are different. NHTSA asks "do we need to do a recall?" NTSB asks "exactly what, in detail, happened here?" NTSB mostly does air crashes, but occasionally they do an auto crash with unusual properties. Here's the NTSB report for the Midland, TX crash between a train and a parade float.[2] That has…

Yes, it does seem vague. Isn't the NHTSA investigation meant to be a non-biased root-cause-analysis about last year's trailer crash? Instead, this just seems to be a grading report on Tesla's autopilot compliance.

NHTSA is unfortunately highly captured by the industry whereas NTSB has a separate chain of command that ensures more independence.

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

#302

Post by phkahler »

blazespin wrote: post #246
Animats wrote: post #189

It's interesting how vague this is. There's an NTSB investigation still pending into a specific Tesla crash.[1] The goals are different. NHTSA asks "do we need to do a recall?" NTSB asks "exactly what, in detail, happened here?" NTSB mostly does air crashes, but occasionally they do an auto crash with unusual properties. Here's the NTSB report for the Midland, TX crash between a train and a parade float.[2] That has…

The only thing that matters is "NHTSA notes that crash rates involving Tesla cars have dropped by almost 40 percent since the wide introduction of Autopilot" Even if autopilot was faulty in some way, if more people were living than dying - does it matter?

>>Even if autopilot was faulty in some way, if more people were living than dying - does it matter?

If you let your friend drive you somewhere in your car because you think they're a better driver, is it their fault if they crash?

The reason could be anything - you're drunk and they're not, you're in really congested unfamiliar area near where they live, whatever. If you think they're statistically going to be a better driver it does not absolve them of liability. Someone is always to blame.

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

#303

Post by loup-vaillant »

gambiting wrote: post #288
blazespin wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that matters is "NHTSA notes that crash rates involving Tesla cars have dropped by almost 40 percent since the wide introduction of Autopilot" Even if autopilot was faulty in some way, if more people were living than dying - does it matter?

Well, yeah. Imagine there's heart surgery which has only 20% success rate. So every time 100 people go in for that surgery, only 20 survive. Now, someone makes a robot that has 100% success rate, but every 100 operations, it has a glitch in the sofware, where it stabs and kills the patient instead. It has been calculated that on average, using the robot only kills 1-2 out of 100 people going in for surgery, compared…

Step 1: don't recall the robot surgeon. While it does have a fatal bug, recalling eat would kill 79% more patients. Oops.

Step 2: Correct the bug, so the robot stops killing patients.

The Tesla autopilot may be in a similar situation. Even if there is a number of fatality inducing bugs, disabling it would be even worse. That said, 40% crash reduction is not enough. I want to see 75%, 90%, and more.

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

#304

Post by theluketaylor »

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 avoid using even cruise control because I know I am a worse driver when it's engaged. I firmly believe I'd be a danger to myself and others for the first 30 seconds if a level 2 or 3 car had to hand control back to me.

Modulating my speed keeps me engaged with driving and I use it as the trigger to cycle through my responsibilities. I check ahead / speed, adjust throttle, check rearview mirror, check left mirror, check right mirror, repeat. When the throttle step is gone I find myself losing siutational focus very quickly. I've always thought it was because it was the only action that involved actual physical engagement, all the rest are just eye movement.

I just bought a new car that alerts when it's below 4 degrees C about the possible icy conditions, but it only does so after the car has been running for several minutes. By the time it goes off I'm already driving and I mistake it for an engine warning or other catastrophic failure. Every time. I live in Canada, of course it's icy in the winter. Toddlers could have told you that. This is an absurdly dangerous thing to have the car do, because when the beep goes off all my attention is on processing the alert, not about the pedestrian I'm about to run over. I have the same basic fear about getting control of a level 2 or 3 car. All my focus will be on why the car is handing me control, not on the actual task of driving.

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

#305

Post by feedjoelpie »

dEnigma wrote: post #285
feedjoelpie wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very simplistic way to look at it. We're in uncharted territory here. Did crash rates go down because driver error went down? Probably. So accidents for which the driver is liable go down a lot. And accidents for which the car-marker is liable go up a little. That last bit is still a very big deal.

Probably? Why do you think it likely that driver error would go down more than 40%?

NHTSA reports that 94% of all auto accidents involve driver error. Autopilot is a feature that reduces the number of decisions drivers make. It would be improbable for the two not to be extremely related.

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

#306

Post by Piskvorrr »

greglindahl wrote: post #253
everlost wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does seem vague. Isn't the NHTSA investigation meant to be a non-biased root-cause-analysis about last year's trailer crash? Instead, this just seems to be a grading report on Tesla's autopilot compliance.

Section 5.3 pretty much sums up the root cause of this accident: the driver assist requires the driver to be alert, and the driver had 7 seconds to react and didn't. There's no requirement that driver assist software magically become self-driving software in that situation. Put another way: it's nice if the software can avoid a problem, but not required. The main remaining concern is that drivers not be confused abou…

And that's the problem of "aaaalmoooost self-driving cars, just a few corner cases:" 1. the corner cases are right where the risks are, and 2. the hype of "autopiloted" cars creates an unrealistic expectation of L5 autonomy.

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

#307

Post by Piskvorrr »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #303
gambiting wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yeah. Imagine there's heart surgery which has only 20% success rate. So every time 100 people go in for that surgery, only 20 survive. Now, someone makes a robot that has 100% success rate, but every 100 operations, it has a glitch in the sofware, where it stabs and kills the patient instead. It has been calculated that on average, using the robot only kills 1-2 out of 100 people going in for surgery, compared…

Step 1: don't recall the robot surgeon. While it does have a fatal bug, recalling eat would kill 79% more patients. Oops. Step 2: Correct the bug, so the robot stops killing patients. The Tesla autopilot may be in a similar situation. Even if there is a number of fatality inducing bugs, disabling it would be even worse. That said, 40% crash reduction is not enough. I want to see 75%, 90%, and more.

You are omitting the PR angle: "I DON'T CARE THAT FAR MORE PEOPLE WOULD DIE OTHERWISE - BAN KILLER ROBOTS NOW!!!!"

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

#308

Post by Piskvorrr »

agumonkey wrote: post #237
uncoder0 wrote: post #211

After looking at the report it looks like Tesla ran into the same issue we did in the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge. The trailer was higher than the front facing sensors. We and most other teams had all assumed 'Ground Based Obstacles' meant that any obstacles on the test track would make contact with the ground in the lane of travel. DARPA decided to put a railroad bar across the street and expected cars to back up and…

I don't understand why the paradigm isn't about full volumetric prediction .. is it because people were too tired of solving all other issues (surely possible at the time of DARPA challenge, but Tesla had time and money since); or hardware limits (like scanning a larger area would impede signal quality or make processing too heavy ..)

Which one seems more likely? "We could absolutely do that, but meh...just ship it already, who cares" or "doing that would require a major redesign, more sensors and more gigaflops"? (Okay, in the current hw/sw development paradigm, the first one doesn't sound as unlikely as it ought to)

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

#309

Post by Piskvorrr »

gambiting wrote: post #289
xorxornop wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides, it's perfectly possible to fall asleep but with your hands still touching (even gripping!) the steering wheel.

That's also a solved problem - Mercedes cars have "attention assist" which can figure out how attentive you are by measuring how you drive. If you are literally falling asleep at the wheel, the system will get very annoying and insist that you stop for some rest. Of course, whatever algorithm they are using won't work if the car is driving itself, you can't judge the reaction time if all the driver is doing is holdin…

One of the approaches used on long-distance buses is "track head position and angle." If you're "looking" into your lap or into the ceiling while driving, that's a fairly reliable signal that something is wrong, never mind how you're holding the steering wheel.

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

#310

Post by agumonkey »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #308
agumonkey wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why the paradigm isn't about full volumetric prediction .. is it because people were too tired of solving all other issues (surely possible at the time of DARPA challenge, but Tesla had time and money since); or hardware limits (like scanning a larger area would impede signal quality or make processing too heavy ..)

Which one seems more likely? "We could absolutely do that, but meh...just ship it already, who cares" or "doing that would require a major redesign, more sensors and more gigaflops"? (Okay, in the current hw/sw development paradigm, the first one doesn't sound as unlikely as it ought to)

For a company like Tesla, I dearly hope they don't think this way. If so it would mean everything they talked about was marketing drivel (the safety of the car frame etc). So far Musk felt honest with most of his design claims. Unlike lone SDV hackers on github for instance.
Post reply on HN