11–20 of 447 posts
> Tesla Autopilot does not prevent all accidents – such a standard would be impossible – but it makes them much less likely to occur. It unequivocally makes the world safer for the vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists. These kinds of unequivocal statements are just begging for a lawsuit, imo. They simply don't know that this is true.
Really not much additional info here aside from the number of warnings the driver had. Also, the standard "Tesla is 10x safer" metrics that get pulled out each time a crash gets sensationalized. What I think they fail to address, especially in this case, is that the autopilot did something a human driver who was paying attention would never do. Autopilot does a great job of saving people from things even a wary drive…
> the autopilot did something a human driver who was paying attention would never do. Then how did the crushed barrier get crushed before the Tesla hit it? Clearly, the stretch of road is unsafe enough to trick humans drivers (and, clearly, Tesla should improve).
The most likely scenarios I can think of would be not paying attention and drifting into the barrier, attempting to avoid a car merging into the lane (and not paying enough attention), or being struck by another car and being forced into the barrier.
> Tesla Autopilot does not prevent all accidents – such a standard would be impossible – but it makes them much less likely to occur. It unequivocally makes the world safer for the vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists. These kinds of unequivocal statements are just begging for a lawsuit, imo. They simply don't know that this is true.
> Tesla Autopilot does not prevent all accidents – such a standard would be impossible – but it makes them much less likely to occur. It unequivocally makes the world safer for the vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists. These kinds of unequivocal statements are just begging for a lawsuit, imo. They simply don't know that this is true.
"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision." Shouldn't you have more audible warnings than visual if you are aware that not complying will lead to an accident?
"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision." Shouldn't you have more audible warnings than visual if you are aware that not complying will lead to an accident?
This feels particularly evasive. If you want to claim that your technology is 10x safer, you should be able to back that up with self-insurance, and not try to put the blame on the driver. If the autopilot does not think it is capable of driving safely, it should pull over to the shoulder of the road, not beep and flash.
How much can we trust this data, provided by Tesla? Maybe the sensors that tell if the hands were on the wheel malfunctioned? Maybe he tried to restle the car into control? Would be helpful to have a video recording of the driver instead.
Really not much additional info here aside from the number of warnings the driver had. Also, the standard "Tesla is 10x safer" metrics that get pulled out each time a crash gets sensationalized. What I think they fail to address, especially in this case, is that the autopilot did something a human driver who was paying attention would never do. Autopilot does a great job of saving people from things even a wary drive…
it's a mistake that healthy humans make all the time, which is why those crash barriers exist in the first place, and why that particular crash barrier was damaged by a previous crash.