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

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#211

Post by kd5bjo » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 10:53 AM UTC

sweden wrote: post #170

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 n…

Radars do just fine detecting stationary objects, what they can't do is tell whether the stationary object is blocking the road, overhead, or to the side of a curve in the road. As most radar reports of stationary objects fall in the latter two categories, the adaptive cruise control system filters them out of consideration.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#212

Post by oldgradstudent » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 10:54 AM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #104

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

I mean, if Tesla is comparing their luxury car's death rates to motorcycles, which have 10x-50x the fatality rate of passenger cars, then, yes, it's dangerous. Remember, there are several very normal cars models that have had ZERO deaths: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/record-9-models-have-... These autopilot cars are death traps.

I'd say the report is misleading.

Fatalities are rare events. They chose cars with 100,000 registered vehicles or more. The categories these vehicles belong to experienced around 30 deaths per million cars, so cars that have 100,000 registrations would expect 3 deaths. You could easily get a few models with 0 deaths just as a matter of chance.

I don't think these results necessarily show these cars are inherently safer than other cars in the same category.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#213

Post by theclaw » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 10:54 AM UTC

I can understand this happening if the Tesla was following a human driver with “follow-distance set to minimum,” and that driver dodged the barrier, meaning the Tesla had no time to brake and could not move out of the solid-white lines.

According to another comment here the Tesla manual states that if you’re following another car that moves to reveal a stationary object, the autopilot may not be able to stop in time.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#214

Post by freeone3000 » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 10:58 AM UTC

sweden wrote: post #170

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 n…

They're marked 'optional' on your diagram. Optional things can be excluded.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#215

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 11:01 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #87

greglindahl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that particular point, what I see the most is people deciding that they either need to exit or not and abruptly crossing from one HOV lane to the other. Lots of crazy shit. So I'm not sure your scenarios have much relevance -- how many times have you driven through this intersection? I've been through it maybe a thousand times since it was built.

I’ve seen people back up in the breakdown lane on the expressway because they missed their exit. But that was Beijing, and all drivers are hyper sensitive on the lookout for that kind of stuff.

On my first drive into Bucharest a guy drove on the wrong side of the divided highway to take a left into the lot of a building supplies company right in front of my car. Scared the crap out of me.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.436552,25.9597006,18z

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#216

Post by oldgradstudent » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 11:03 AM UTC

wcoenen wrote: post #209

subinsebastien wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the car was not able to detect and avoid the collision in such a simple situation (from a human POV)? We have seen Tesla's autopilot performing very well in a much more complex scenario than this. Ref:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FadR7ETT_1k

Stationary obstacles are a harder problem, because there are so many stationary objects and features around a road that have to be ignored. This autopilot incident is similar to the one with the tractor-trailer[1] in that regard. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-aut...

Or the one in China with the street sweeper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc0yYJ8-Dyo

Or the one with the fire truck: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/23/16923800/tesla-firetruck-...

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#217

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 11:07 AM UTC

> 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.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. So did Tesla's autopilot!

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#218

Post by mtgx » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 11:19 AM UTC

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…

Also, ever notice how in none of the Tesla Autopilot accidents, Tesla finds itself guilty?

I don't even read these posts from Tesla anymore because I know each one of them is just justification for how Tesla did nothing wrong, and it's the fault of the stupid human driver for using its Autopilot "wrong" and dying in the process. Meanwhile, Tesla is laughing all the way to the bank selling the usage of Autopilot as one of the primary features of its cars.

It almost reminds me of how Coke markets its sugar-filled soda "Drink as much as you can at every meal and at any event...but you know, in moderation (because that's what the government makes us say with its dietary guidelines)".

Tesla is kind of like that. It tells people to use Autopilot because it's such a great experience and whatnot, but then stuffs its terms and conditions with stuff like "but don't you dare to actually lay back and enjoy the Autopilot driving. You need to watch the car like a hawk, and if you happen to ignore any of our warnings, well it's your stupid-ass fault for ignoring them, even though we wrote everything there in the 11-point font." It's very irresponsible for any company to do stuff like this.

I don't know what the exact process is now, but I wish the authorities would be able to get access to un-tampered logs of the accident after the fact from the self-driving car companies.

I don't care if it's a car company that has "Elon Musk's reputation" (who I like) or Uber's reputation. These accidents, especially the deadly ones, should be investigated thoroughly. No company will ever have the incentive to show proof that leads to itself becoming guilty. It's the job of the authorities to independently (and hopefully impartially) verify those facts.

I'm a big fan of Tesla and its electric vehicles, big fan of Tesla Energy, big fan of SpaceX. But I've always criticized them for the Autopilot because it was obvious to me from day one that they're being very irresponsible with it and putting the blame on humans, when they were marketing it as a self-driving feature (they did for years, even if they don't do it as much now, but they still use the same name), while its system is far from being anywhere close to a complete self-driving system, and thus putting anyone who uses in danger of dying.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#219

Post by _pmf_ » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 11:20 AM UTC

> After the logs from the computer inside the vehicle were recovered, we have more information about what may have happened.

Why does Tesla have access to the car after the accident at all?

> The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive

No. The logs likely show that signals to trigger the warning signals have been issued; they most likely do not indicate whether they had any effect (minor issue, since they most likely had an effect, but still presenting the likely "happy case" as a fact).

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#220

Post by random4369 » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 11:25 AM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #182

sweden wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

> 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 That doesn't make any sense. Radar systems do detect stationary objects just fine. In fact, from the point of view of the moving car, almost nothing is stationary. I wouldn't be surprised if you're correct about the markings on the road, I almost c…

> It's widely known that RADAR systems are not able to detect stationary objects

What the fuck? That's not at all how radar works. It has no such limitation.