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

Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 184 posts

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#51

Post by ucaetano »

sidcool wrote: post #30
jsjohnst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

From Elon's interview, he mentioned that 'autopilot' was a name akin to the flight autopilots. Pilots are never expected to get their eyes off the controls. This crash is unfortunate and should be investigated. But autopilot naming is something I don't think is the problem.

> Pilots are never expected to get their eyes off the controls.

Pilots do so all the time, because airplanes aren't flying in a congested 2D space. Airspace is mostly empty, with very large distances between planes and features, allowing for plenty of early warning.

And an airplane's "autopilot" has nothing to do with Tesla's Autopilot. Their purpose and working mechanisms are completely different.

The airplane analogy is pure bullshit.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#52

Post by aardvark291 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #12
rootusrootus wrote: post #2

I wonder if it is imprudent to create too many vehicles that have partial self-driving capability before we have ones that can do 100% of it. Instead of to the point where you can take your attention away from the road, but not to the point where it can reliably avoid accidents on your behalf. Too many people aren't wise enough to use the partial autonomous technology without abusing it.

People have been safely and intelligently using cruise control for... decades? It is a partial automation solution that reduces half of what you have to manage when controlling the car (how fast you're going). I suspect the primary problem is not the partial autonomous technology, but the marketing which is convincing people they can trust it. Nobody ever told you your cruise control means you don't have to pay atten…

> "People have been safely and intelligently using cruise control for... decades?"

More than half a century in mass-market automobiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_control#History

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#53

Post by anonymouz »

samstave wrote: post #41
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #17

You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…

Let me put another option out there for you: Tesla wants autopilot Emergency services want autonomy in being able to shut the freeway down. How about PUT THE FUCKING AUTOPILOT SYSTEM IN THE EMERGENCY vehicles -- such that THEY can report to ANY auto driving car "SLOW DOWN we are doing emergency services [HERE]" And then you get both -- The emergency services vehicles should be freaking beacons to any self/auto drivin…

How about making them highly visible by, say, painting them red and putting flashing lights on top of them?

Difficult to blame the emergency vehicles when the semi-autonomous car fails to detect something that stands out so much.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#54

Post by cialowicz »

sidcool wrote: post #30
jsjohnst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

From Elon's interview, he mentioned that 'autopilot' was a name akin to the flight autopilots. Pilots are never expected to get their eyes off the controls. This crash is unfortunate and should be investigated. But autopilot naming is something I don't think is the problem.

Which is silly, since pilots can absolutely take their eyes off the controls at cruising altitude and not slam into something. If, for some reason, the system disengages they would have ample time to take control of the plane. That is absolutely not true with an automobile, where in some situations, an action must be taken in milliseconds.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#55

Post by [deleted] »

sidcool wrote: post #30
jsjohnst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

From Elon's interview, he mentioned that 'autopilot' was a name akin to the flight autopilots. Pilots are never expected to get their eyes off the controls. This crash is unfortunate and should be investigated. But autopilot naming is something I don't think is the problem.

[deleted]

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#56

Post by mortehu »

justin66 wrote: post #21
michaelmior wrote: post #11

> The California Highway Patrol and Culver City Fire Department confirmed the southbound Tesla had struck the fire truck, but could not immediately confirm whether the vehicle had been on Autopilot. It sounds like it's not 100% confirmed that Autopilot was at fault. The first sentence of the article also reads " reportedly on 'Autopilot'"

We'll know soon enough based on stored vehicle telemetry. Experience suggests that the right to privacy is the first thing to go in the event of a newsworthy crash in a Tesla.

> Experience suggests that the right to privacy is the first thing to go in the event of a newsworthy crash in a Tesla

Isn't that usually because the owner lied about using Autopilot?

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#57

Post by nol13 »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #39
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more I think about it, the more I think that there should be an outward signal, such as a special light, that a car is in self-driving mode. We already require signals when changing lanes, reversing, and for electric cars to be audible at low speeds (starting in 2019). Those nearby shouldn’t have to guess if a car is under computer control.

What do you think human drivers should do differently when driving near a car that is under computer control?

not bother honking

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#58

Post by jsjohnst »

sidcool wrote: post #30
jsjohnst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

From Elon's interview, he mentioned that 'autopilot' was a name akin to the flight autopilots. Pilots are never expected to get their eyes off the controls. This crash is unfortunate and should be investigated. But autopilot naming is something I don't think is the problem.

> From Elon's interview, he mentioned that 'autopilot' was a name akin to the flight autopilots.

Then he failed, as they are completely unrelated.

> Pilots are never expected to get their eyes off the controls.

This is also false. They need to be alert, but they most certainly do not need to be as attentive as keeping their hands on the controls unlike with Tesla.

Unlike the sibling comment below alluded too, many commercial airplane autopilot systems are advanced enough to land the plane completely on auto as well as some even automatically respond to TCAS alerts to avoid nearby aircraft.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#59

Post by steve_adams_86 »

sathackr wrote: post #14
aphextron wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a feeling Tesla knew this and didn't care. The marketing value of "Autopilot" is too great.

Airbags save lives. Airbags also kill babies if used incorrectly. There are warning placards in several places in your car saying such. Sometimes an airbag can cause more injury than the accident. A seatbelt may trap you in a sinking car. But overall, airbags and seatbelts have significantly reduced traffic injuries and fatalities. Autopilot saves lives. Autopilot used incorrectly can kill people. But overall, Autopi…

> Autopilot used incorrectly can kill people.

Sorry, I don't get it. How do you use something incorrectly when by definition you aren't really using it at all? It seems like an oxymoron.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#60

Post by justasitsounds »

imron wrote: post #32

I guess it's not all bad news - a collision with a stationary object at 65mph and the driver was able to walk away > Because of the force of the impact, firefighters advised the Tesla driver that he should be taken for a medical evaluation, but he showed no significant injuries and refused treatment,

Bets the driver was voluntarily impaired?
Post reply on HN