I have a question- why keep ap on at all? Are they beta testing it and using metrics? Because I don't think it's the difference between someone buying a car and not.
An Update on Last Week’s Accident
131–140 of 447 posts
Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident
#132Their 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 stateme…
What you are asking them to do is legal suicide. If they were to claim this was their fault, they would be immediately slapped with multi-million dollar lawsuits from everybody who ever had a problem with auto pilot. It would end the company.
Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm obviously not privy to the details of the prior crash, but I'm pretty sure any healthy human would not deliberately drive into the barrier. 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.
I think the answer is that the path into the barrier looks just like an actual lane, and that this was enough confusion that a human driver apparently had made the same exact mistake a week earlier. https://imgur.com/a/iMY1x https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/screen-sho...
If you are building an autopilot system, I’d expect 1) identify black/yellow hazard signs and 2) don’t hit them to be basic features by version 0.5. Seems like a big miss to run straight into that.
Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's disingenuous. The only reason a human drives into that barrier is if they swerve to avoid something or are otherwise not properly paying attention (texting, etc.). There's no good reason for the autopilot to have hit that barrier. The mental gymnastics going on in these comments attempting to absolve Tesla of any responsibility are truly next-level.
A swerve is not the only possibility, as the area between lanes looks like a lane. My father has done the same thing while driving at night. He insisted he was in a lane while I yelled repeatedly that he wasn't. Luckily he changed lanes / entered a real lane just before we crashed.
Yes, bad visibility could explain it, but Tesla themselves say it was 9.30am and the autopilot had "five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider".
Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one shipping a Level 2 system provides insurance for it. The definition of Level 2 is that the driver has responsibility.
That's very troubling. If you saw the Uber crash cam on the driver it's obvious that the "responsible drivers" are completely non-responsive, on their phones, half asleep. A system that lulls the driver into a false sense of security does NOT pass responsibility to said driver.
Uber is testing a Level 4-5 system, those systems will need to be insured since they will not have a driver in the car.
Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a True Scotsman in this context. The point is that humans tend to crash into things they're not fully aware of, short of self-harm. Either: A) The autopilot could not see a concrete barrier in its path. B) More likely, and as the story reports, it WAS aware of the danger but didn't do anything. Either case is at least worth discussing, no?
In which bucket would you put the possibility that the computer observed evidence of the barrier, but the evidence that there was no barrier -- the prior that barriers don't exist in lanes of traffic -- was too strong?
[deleted]
Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident
#137I have two quite different takes on this and the recent Uber crash
1. Simply stop using automated driving in real world until we have clear golden standards (something like billions of hours of simulated driving against real world data collected by other systems makers sensors. The accidents so far have been characterised by "that should not have been possible, not that was really hard edge case"
2. Accident reports make horrific reading (and upsetting for families especially). But like reports in day the FAA, there are benefits - openly sharing crash data makes (ok should make - see 1.) the next round safer. secondly just reading these things makes the humans involved more ... aware.
Some time ago i visited Ireland and was amazed to hear the local news announcing recent car deaths - it was a mandated thing, to try and raise awareness and reduce future accidents - it apperntly worked.
Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the answer is that the path into the barrier looks just like an actual lane, and that this was enough confusion that a human driver apparently had made the same exact mistake a week earlier. https://imgur.com/a/iMY1x https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/screen-sho...
This divider looks rather unforgiving. Is it common for dividers in US to be just plain concrete blocks without anything to prevent rapid deceleration?
[deleted]
Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a median in the middle of the highway. The car probably continued in a straight line instead of "steering into" a barrier. https://imgur.com/a/iMY1x
Not excusing tesla but how on earth can there be a piece of flat concrete instead of a v shaped bendable deflector ? Was there one but had to be replaced ?
There is a crushable barrier there. It was broken that day, because someone had recently crashed into it. Drove past there yesterday, it has been replaced.
Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm obviously not privy to the details of the prior crash, but I'm pretty sure any healthy human would not deliberately drive into the barrier. 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.
I think the answer is that the path into the barrier looks just like an actual lane, and that this was enough confusion that a human driver apparently had made the same exact mistake a week earlier. https://imgur.com/a/iMY1x https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/screen-sho...
The entire thing is two solid white lines on either side, which are pretty strong indicators that you shouldn't pass into that area in the first place, diagonal stripes or not.