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

An Update on Last Week’s Accident

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 447 posts

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#31

Post by hourislate »

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #5

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…

I thought the auto pilot warned the driver to take control of the vehicle or is that incorrect? There is probably a lot more we don't know and it would be premature to place the blame on the auto pilot and Tesla. This isn't a lvl 5 system. It still requires the drivers attention and that is something we need to consider ( he obviously didn't have his hands on the wheel).

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#32

Post by 1123581321 »

danso wrote: post #22
1123581321 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that the two paragraphs before this quote are inaccurate?

Consider this graf: > In the US, there is one automotive fatality every 86 million miles across all vehicles from all manufacturers. For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident. Let's put aside t…

That's an interesting question. Similarly, one could ask why the focus on fatalities rather than crashes as Tesla's superior traditional safety rating means fewer crashes should be fatal, all else equal.

However, these questions don't lead anywhere interesting. Model S and X cars were driven before and after Autopilot was activated (no hardware change), and the crash rate was reduced after activation. This is the "40% reduction" mentioned by Tesla in the article you pulled the quotes from. You can read a summary here: https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14326258/teslas-crash-rat...

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#33

Post by imh »

>semiautonomous Autopilot

Seems like an oxymoron that's getting drivers into danger.

>Tesla said its vehicle logs show the driver’s hands weren’t detected on the wheel for six seconds before the collision, and he took no action despite having five seconds and about 500 feet of unobstructed view of a concrete highway divider.

And it's not the first time.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#34

Post by Gustomaximus »

booblik wrote: post #18

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.

A level of skeptism is always healthy. Also recognise there are a endless 'maybes'. Anyone that works with data knows there has to be a level of trust and common sense otherwise you hit analysis paralysis.

And on 'trust' Tesla have a history of being open and upfront. Organisations tend to repeat a culture. So for Uber I would closely question their statements given an ongoing history of unethical behaviour across many levels. It seems likely they will lie or show limited truth to reach an agenda. Tesla's history seems open and honest.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#35

Post by sp332 »

hcnews wrote: post #7

> In the moments before the collision, which occurred at 9:27 a.m. on Friday, March 23rd, Autopilot was engaged with the adaptive cruise control follow-distance set to minimum. Would've loved to know the exact moments we are talking about here. Is it 5 seconds or 5 minutes? > 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 wh…

If you ignore it long enough, the autopilot will disengage entirely. The car will drive in a straight line and coast to a stop.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#36

Post by jijojv »

1123581321 wrote: post #32
danso wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider this graf: > In the US, there is one automotive fatality every 86 million miles across all vehicles from all manufacturers. For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident. Let's put aside t…

That's an interesting question. Similarly, one could ask why the focus on fatalities rather than crashes as Tesla's superior traditional safety rating means fewer crashes should be fatal, all else equal. However, these questions don't lead anywhere interesting. Model S and X cars were driven before and after Autopilot was activated (no hardware change), and the crash rate was reduced after activation. This is the "40…

This 40% has nothing to do with Autopilot and applies to any cars with auto braking.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says automatic braking — which can bring the car to a stop if it senses an imminent collision — can reduce rear-end crashes by 40 percent.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#37

Post by tuna-piano »

Their statement blames:

-The driver

-The crushed barrier

-Statistics

But they do not take responsibility themselves. It's apparent and in my opinion shameful.

If Tesla's goal of this is to just share the facts, why didn't they state what AutoPilot did? In addition to statements like "...the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision.", wouldn't it make sense to have a statement like "AutoPilot seems to have made a grave error here, and steered the car into the barrier."

They never admit that their car didn't perform properly. This reads like a carefully crafted, legal approved statement - not the more human statements that we see many times after tragedies. This absolutely lowers my opinion of Tesla by a decent amount.

"We feel very bad about what happened... and want to take responsibility and do what's right" - A quote from the Walmart CEO after a Walmart truck accident injured Tracy Morgan and killed another man. I wish Tesla could stand up and say the same in this case (if the evidence points that way, which it appears to).

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/walmart-ceo-on-tracy-morgan-ca...

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#38

Post by imh »

jijojv wrote: post #28
bladers wrote: post #27

very deceptively crafted sentence. if i drove on AP for 15 minutes and i was alerted to put my hands on the wheel 2 minutes in. It would fit tesla's specially crafted statement. It makes it look like user was warned and didn't respond by putting their hands on the wheel but its completely false. The AP drove him straight into the barrier with no warning.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accide... >very deceptively crafted sentence. >The AP drove him straight into the barrier with no warning. Exactly - anyone who owns autopilot knows this.

It seems gross that they spend so much of this saying "yeah he died and it may be our fault, but statistically you're still better off as our customer."

The atlantic had a relevant piece on the morality there this morning https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/got-9...

And that's assuming they can identify that autopilot is statistically safer. If autopilot isn't used in the same conditions as all human driving, the rates aren't apples to apples comparisons, and the "you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident" figure they imply is misleading.

Post reply on HN