An Update on Last Week’s Accident • Hacker News Board

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#141

Post by icebraining » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 6:46 AM UTC

cma wrote: post #102

imh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hum…

They didn't even control for wealth. People that can afford a Tesla and the auto pilot add on are much less likely to be driving on drugs, alcohol, etc. It doesn't say anything about the statistics when auto-pilot is engaged, it just says cars with auto pilot. And it doesn't give the statistics for Teslas without auto-pilot (Teslas have other safety factors that might mean auto-pilot isn't responsible for the mortali…

People that can afford a Tesla and the auto pilot add on are much less likely to be driving on drugs, alcohol, etc.

Is that true? I couldn't find statistics that grouped by income or wealth.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#142

Post by bobsil1 » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 6:52 AM UTC

hedora wrote: post #9

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…

> 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).

Previous driver was drunk.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#143

Post by espadrine » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 6:55 AM UTC

laingc wrote: post #90

oldgradstudent wrote: post #63

In keeping with the "Autopilot" terminology, this was "Controlled Flight info Terrain". Tesla demonstrates their usual abuse of statistics. 1.25 fatalities per 100 million miles is the average across all types of terrain, conditions, and cars. The death rate in rural roads is much higher than in urban areas. The death rate on highways is much lower than average. The death rate with new cars is much lower than average…

I completely agree; Tesla’s marketing modus operandi is to fudge statistics. In my view, they are consistently on the wrong side of the marketing puffery | misrepresentation borderline. I do take issue, however, with your claim that Teslas are “well constructed” - they are not. They are poorly designed, poorly constructed vehicles that feel and look cheap. Test one side by side with, say, a BMW 3-Series or a Volkswag…

I saw the argument that a traditional motor’s noise level hides rattling sounds and similar subtle car defects, which a fully-electric vehicle’s silence does not cover.

(I haven’t seen scientific comparisons, though.)

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#144

Post by datamingle » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 6:56 AM UTC

oldgradstudent wrote: post #63

In keeping with the "Autopilot" terminology, this was "Controlled Flight info Terrain". Tesla demonstrates their usual abuse of statistics. 1.25 fatalities per 100 million miles is the average across all types of terrain, conditions, and cars. The death rate in rural roads is much higher than in urban areas. The death rate on highways is much lower than average. The death rate with new cars is much lower than average…

It is only dangerous, if it is worse than the average driver.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#145

Post by icebraining » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 6:57 AM UTC

dzink wrote: post #76

I have a lot of respect for Tesla, but this incident convinced me not to buy one any time soon. I have children with car seats. The fires that break out with battery right under the middle makes it impossible to save someone in the driver seat, let alone in the back. More importantly, self driving cars are not the same - Waymo has lidar, Tesla and Uber don’t (correct me if wrong). If a system is clearly struggling wi…

The Uber car had lidar, although only one, whereas Waymo's have six: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-selfdriving-sensors-...

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#146

Post by oldgradstudent » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 6:58 AM UTC

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #93

oldgradstudent wrote: post #63

In keeping with the "Autopilot" terminology, this was "Controlled Flight info Terrain". Tesla demonstrates their usual abuse of statistics. 1.25 fatalities per 100 million miles is the average across all types of terrain, conditions, and cars. The death rate in rural roads is much higher than in urban areas. The death rate on highways is much lower than average. The death rate with new cars is much lower than average…

> This does not mean their autopilot is not dangerous. It also doesn't mean that it is dangerous. That bag of doritos that you ate, it might also be dangerous. Let's use facts and not vague worrisome complaints. So if you want to talk about the higher danger of rural roads, please give a number, and then give a number for tesla, or estimate one. Don't just say "urgh".

Outside of the Tesla marketing department, conditional probability has been known for 300 years. Comparing the average fatality rate to the fatality rate of a modern car with Autopilot is an egregious abuse of statistics. How can anyone defend this practice ?!

Just as an example, click on California (it is mostly consistent all over) on the map [1]. California has a lower average fatality rate of 1.01 per 100 million miles.

Rural roads have 2.62 fatalities per 100 million miles. Urban roads have 0.70 fatalities per 100 million miles.

The fatality rate is much lower on highways, according to Wikipedia [2], freeways have 3.38 fatalities per billion km (0.54 per 100 million mile, if I managed the conversion).

[1] https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/stsi.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#147

Post by mercer » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 7:00 AM UTC

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…

> That's not a mistake a healthy human will make.

Humans do exceedingly stupid things all the time because they stop paying attention, even momentarily (or subconsciously).

We put big lights on the back of cars that light up when they brake. And yet, despite a driver looking direct at a huge object with two lights, that rapidly grows larger right in front of them, does not always prevent a collision. Or even a chain of collisions. I don't get on the road much, and yet even I've seen a ton of accidents that are baffling and can only have been the result of a driver not paying attention for a bit.

I'm reminded of how in quite a few places removing signs and lights actually improved safety because it forced drivers to stay aware instead of 'driving on autopilot', so to speak.

I think that's the real issue here. The more we outsource our attention to a machine, the more important it is that said machine does MUCH better than we humans do. Especially if a mistake can be deadly.

But I wouldn't be surprised if, indeed, technically this accident could've happened just as easily by a non-autopilot car where the driver had a little 'micro-sleep', got distracted by something in his field of view, mistakenly thought he was on a lane and didn't notice the (let's be fair) ridiculously bad markers that were the only way to tell that part of the 'gray' stuff in front of him was in fact a wall of concrete.

I mean, just look at the image: https://imgur.com/a/iMY1x . Half of what makes the barrier stand out is the shadow!

All that said I might sound more argumentative than I am. I do agree with most of your comment.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#148

Post by FireBeyond » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 7:13 AM UTC

riffic wrote: post #100

Hey Tesla, traffic and vehicle safety advocates do not call crashes “accidents”. http://www.roadpeace.org/take-action/crash-not-accident/ https://www.crashnotaccident.com

Yeah, when driving an emergency vehicle, in my case an ambulance and fire engine, you take a course that used to be called Emergency Vehicle Accident Prevention.

It's now called Emergency Vehicle -Incident- Prevention.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#149

Post by agumonkey » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 7:16 AM UTC

URSpider94 wrote: post #139

agumonkey wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see, sad timing u_u

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#150

Post by FireBeyond » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 7:19 AM UTC

Gustomaximus wrote: post #34

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 ma…

Yeah, they've been open and upfront about things like the fact you can't maintain them yourself (they refuse to provide service manuals except where required by law in MA, where even then you pay a three digit fee to -view-, not get, a copy, and have to make an appointment).

Or the fact that they will remotely downgrade your car (to an older software version) and remove features of it (disable ethernet ports) if they find you "snooping" and discover references to new models.

Thats the kind of openness and honesty you laud them for?