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

161–170 of 447 posts

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#161

Post by Rapzid »

jVinc wrote: post #159

I really hate the whole Tesla angle of "technically we are not lying but we know people are going to mis-remember and misrepresent what we are writing". Take for instance: > The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive... What this means is that during this incident there were No visual or audible clues that a crash was about to happen What they are saying is that while…

Yeah, it's pretty crafty PR. The CPC must be green with envy, while Uber is still ruing their reputation. Such a difference in conversation; so many people laying the blame squarely on the driver(he is ultimately the PIC tbh, but Tesla and particularly CalTrans messed up bad), however Uber is being raked through the coals when somebody literally walked in front of their car..

Just Say'n

EDIT: While I believe Tesla and the driver are the ultimate source of the accident, I believe CalTrans messed up worse with that barrier. At least Tesla owns up to the limitations and warns drivers to stay in control, but why the hell was that barrier not replace d?! What systemic mediocracy is playing out there that they have road work signs with dates 3 years old on them, and a critical safety barrier is just missing with traffic flow as usual?!

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#162

Post by _ph_ »

jVinc wrote: post #159

I really hate the whole Tesla angle of "technically we are not lying but we know people are going to mis-remember and misrepresent what we are writing". Take for instance: > The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive... What this means is that during this incident there were No visual or audible clues that a crash was about to happen What they are saying is that while…

Perhaps they don't know (yet?) what exactly went wrong? The car was heavily destroyed, I am surprised they got any logs retrieved from the car at all. They might be able to reconstruct more information about the accident, but unless they have a complete log including video (unlikely), it will take time to reconstruct. As there is an ongoing investigation about the accident, it is understandable, that they are not making any statements beyond anything they can prove without a doubt at the current point of time.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#163

Post by lb1lf »

wbl wrote: post #127
xapata wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a fully aware driver unsure of what to do when seeing a surprise in my lane. I only hit the break because a passenger started screaming. I was so confused to see a pedestrian on the freeway.

When in doubt slam brake.

Just a little nit-pick - «When in doubt, quick glance in rear-view mirror, then slam brake.»

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#164

Post by cma »

icebraining wrote: post #141
cma wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also look at occupation. Tesla owners = disproportionately software engineers. Software engineers are one of the lowest car insurance risk pools (and we're even before any of them started using auto-pilot).

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#165

Post by rripken »

caseyf7 wrote: post #133
Robotbeat wrote: post #79

Earlier 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...

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.

Maybe SDC already do this, but it seems like the Agent should keep track of things that look like potential lanes and then if the potential lanes turn out to be not-lanes (have barrier in them) the Agent should flag the area that looked like the start of a lane so future SDC know to avoid it.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#166

Post by Rapzid »

_ph_ wrote: post #162
jVinc wrote: post #159

I really hate the whole Tesla angle of "technically we are not lying but we know people are going to mis-remember and misrepresent what we are writing". Take for instance: > The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive... What this means is that during this incident there were No visual or audible clues that a crash was about to happen What they are saying is that while…

Perhaps they don't know (yet?) what exactly went wrong? The car was heavily destroyed, I am surprised they got any logs retrieved from the car at all. They might be able to reconstruct more information about the accident, but unless they have a complete log including video (unlikely), it will take time to reconstruct. As there is an ongoing investigation about the accident, it is understandable, that they are not mak…

Sure, but the ONLY reason many of us can figure for mentioning the previous warnings in the way they did is because the way it would.get interpreted as a sound bite. Could be wrong, but this isn't conspiracy theory territory. These companies have teams of highly paid communications experts(spinsters) engaging in social engineering.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#167

Post by Kiro »

colordrops wrote: post #118
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…

But this wasn't a self driving vehicle. It isn't capable of dealing with all situations, and it warning the driver for 6 seconds to take control, which didn't happen.

No, it didn't warn at all. It warned prior to this, which was just put in the text to trick people into thinking it warned.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#168

Post by testplzignore »

Robotbeat wrote: post #79
andrewstuart2 wrote: post #13

Earlier 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...

I wonder if the problem is the uneven pavement leading up to it. The white solid line starts close to it, then drifts left. In certain lighting conditions, the division in the pavement might seem more prominent than the white line, which I could imagine tricking a human or computer to follow it instead. That wouldn't cause a head-on crash itself, but would cause the car to get very close. I could then imagine a computer trying to correct its mistake by moving RIGHT (because that area looks like a lane) instead of left and going head-on into it.

Though of course that doesn't explain why it didn't recognize the barrier as something it should avoid at all costs. Unless perhaps something to the left confused it and made it think there was an obstacle there, too, thus causing it to think it was going to crash regardless. If so, maybe it did try to brake at the last second?

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#169

Post by Kequc »

bobthepanda wrote: post #140
Robotbeat wrote: post #79

Earlier 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...

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.

It also indicates that you shouldn't pass out of that area.

The vehicle should have at the very least stopped short of the road obstruction. But we don't yet know what led up to being in that lane, I was hoping the article in the OP would have taken us through it. Instead I'm getting the feeling this was a catastrophic software failure. Without more transparency on the issue, despite what Tesla may prefer I don't think I have any choice but to feel uncomfortable.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#170

Post by sweden »

jVinc wrote: post #159

I really hate the whole Tesla angle of "technically we are not lying but we know people are going to mis-remember and misrepresent what we are writing". Take for instance: > The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive... What this means is that during this incident there were No visual or audible clues that a crash was about to happen What they are saying is that while…

It's widely known that RADAR systems are not able to detect stationary objects, only moving ones. Actually, they are are to detect them but just not where they come from, so a barrier in the middle of the road and a traffic sign on the side of the street, they would look like the same to the RADAR system.

But to be honest, I am more worried with the markings of the road rather than the inability of the autopilot of not foreseeing the accident: https://imgur.com/a/hAeQI

What's wrong with the US road administration? Why is this even look like a driving line? Where are the obvious markings? It's a very misleading road layout, I am curious the amount of accidents that happen there every year.

This is how I expect this kind of thing to look like: https://i.imgur.com/dfZehmd.gif

Given on how the road looks like, it makes more sense why Tesla is reinforcing the fact that the driver wasn't paying attention to the road.

Edit: Since people are curious about the limitations of the RADAR, the manual of the car mentions this limitation:

"Traffic-Aware Cruise Control cannot detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles, especially in situations when you are driving over 50 mph (80 km/h) and a vehicle you are following moves out of your driving path and a stationary vehicle or object is in front of you instead."

You can also read here that Volvo's system faces the same problem: https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/

Post reply on HN