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

221–230 of 447 posts

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#221

Post by Shaanie »

roesel wrote: post #186
fcantournet wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistically if you're wealthy enough to own a Tesla, you're also way less likely to have to drive when tired/under the influence for example. All sorts of constraints are correlated with wealth that put you in way more risky situations if you're poorer.

Do you have anything to back this claim? It seems to not make sense.

For example: https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/46/6/721/129644

It's not exactly controversial to claim that lower income correlates to crime though.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#222

Post by Shaanie »

martin_bech wrote: post #193
fcantournet wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistically if you're wealthy enough to own a Tesla, you're also way less likely to have to drive when tired/under the influence for example. All sorts of constraints are correlated with wealth that put you in way more risky situations if you're poorer.

Bullshit or post a source.

First scientific study after 10 seconds of googling https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/46/6/721/129644

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#223

Post by saalweachter »

kristianc wrote: post #180
pja wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And no, you can't get out of culpability by claiming statistical superiority. Quite. Tesla is deliberately comparing their modern vehicle design & wealthy driver base (statistically one of the safest cohorts) with the entirety of the U.S. driving population. This is bad statistics: We expect Tesla vehicles to have far fewer accidents than the mean US vehicle per mile, because Tesla's are expensive modern vehicles wit…

> Quite. Tesla is deliberately comparing their modern vehicle design & wealthy driver base (statistically one of the safest cohorts) with the entirety of the U.S. driving population. This is bad statistics: We expect Tesla vehicles to have far fewer accidents than the mean US vehicle per mile, because Tesla's are expensive modern vehicles with (relatively) wealthy drivers who can afford to keep them maintained & will…

Hell, wealth correlates with age. How many 16-20 year olds are driving Tesla’s?

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#224

Post by obeattie »

To me there is a stunning lack of compassion and decency in the response to these incidents by both Tesla and Uber.

Uber made sure to point out that the victim of their incident was homeless. Tesla is pointing out how the driver received unrelated cues earlier in the journey. None of this information is relevant. They’re trying to bamboozle the reader in an effort to improve their images at the expense of victims who can’t defend themselves.

I don’t understand why it is so impossible for these companies to act humbly and with a sense of dignity around all this. I don’t expect them to accept responsibility if indeed their technology was not to blame, but frankly that isn’t for them to decide. Until the authorities have done their jobs, why not show remorse, regardless of culpability, as any decent human would?

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#225

Post by gus_massa »

sweden wrote: post #194
bufferoverflow wrote: post #182

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 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 is mentioned in the manual of the car: "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:…

IIRC the radar can detect the object but it has too many false positives, like a small soda can that has a lucky alienation and shape that make it appear as a big object. So the system ignores the static signals of the radar, because randomly stopping each time an small object is confused with a big object is also dangerous. And the system uses other signals to identify and avoid static objects.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#226

Post by saalweachter »

sweden wrote: post #194
bufferoverflow wrote: post #182

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 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 is mentioned in the manual of the car: "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:…

This is not a RADAR problem, it’s a world modeling problem.

So you’re sending out pulses and listening for echos, which tells you how far away something is in a particular direction. You correlate subsequent pulses to say whether the object is moving toward you or away. If you have a car 50 m ahead of you every time you ping, everything is good. Now that car suddenly swerves around a car stopped in front of it, and your ping off that object says 60 m. A crash is less likely, your model thinks! The object in front of you is rapidly speeding away! By the time it realizes it isn’t, boom, crash.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#227

Post by ajross »

kristianc wrote: post #180
pja wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And no, you can't get out of culpability by claiming statistical superiority. Quite. Tesla is deliberately comparing their modern vehicle design & wealthy driver base (statistically one of the safest cohorts) with the entirety of the U.S. driving population. This is bad statistics: We expect Tesla vehicles to have far fewer accidents than the mean US vehicle per mile, because Tesla's are expensive modern vehicles wit…

> Quite. Tesla is deliberately comparing their modern vehicle design & wealthy driver base (statistically one of the safest cohorts) with the entirety of the U.S. driving population. This is bad statistics: We expect Tesla vehicles to have far fewer accidents than the mean US vehicle per mile, because Tesla's are expensive modern vehicles with (relatively) wealthy drivers who can afford to keep them maintained & will…

> We expect Tesla vehicles to have far fewer accidents than the mean US vehicle per mile,

We do? Is there a cite for that? It seems to me that driver of new luxury vehicles are disproportionately aggressive and unsafe, actually. Has this been studied?

If your going to make an argument for bad statistics, you need to practice good science yourself.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#228

Post by _pmf_ »

mickronome wrote: post #190
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…

While I find it deplorable that several companies are essentially using people, although in this case apparently willing, participants in testing auto pilot or autonomous driving software. I also find the lack of prominent road markings, signage, or any significant shock absorbing zone simply astonishing! It makes me wonder, is that layout actually on purpose? I truly find it hard to believe that a road or traffic au…

What irks me is that they think it's OK for them to advertise it as auto-pilot, with an asterisk pointing to the fine print that says "aw shucks, not actually, haha".

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#229

Post by paganel »

jacquesm wrote: post #215
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can confirm, have just driven for 2+ hours on the streets of Bucharest and there’s no way for an AI-like car to drive in here for more than 2 blocks without getting involved into an accident. Unless said car becomes sentient, but even in that case it would still have to “guess” some of the crazy stuff the other drivers on the road may be up to or to expect that a barely marked road-construction thingie will suddenly show up just in front of the vehicle while driving at 60 kph. And Bucharest has got nothing on a city like Istanbul.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#230

Post by narag »

Rapzid wrote: post #161
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 an…

While I believe Tesla and the driver are the ultimate source of the accident, I believe CalTrans messed up worse with that barrier.

When reading something like this in sci-fi, I always thought that the stories where over the top and tongue in cheek, to make some other point. Now I see they were real.

Companies are allowed to create robots that kill people. Then we sit around here and discuss how much of the killing is on the the robot's manufacturer, the robot's owner, the street lights and the victim.

Post reply on HN