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

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#251

Post by snarfy » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:30 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #218

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 on…

It reminds me of South Park's drink responsibly ad [1]. You could almost replace 'drink' with 'drive' and it would sound like the current autopilot spin.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3osSJSGInQ

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#252

Post by vizzah » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:33 PM UTC

barnabes wrote: post #238

obeattie wrote: post #224

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…

Yeah, but it seems that they may be, statistically speaking, right. The fears that surround self driving cars may be unfounded, and if they are unfounded, then it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They're right when they say we don't speak of the accidents that didn't happen, and I bet there's a ton of them. As someone who's been in multiple car crashes, as a passenger, I really on longer wan…

Exactly. It's very important to ensure negative (and unjustified!) publicity do not affect technology perception, adoption and growth. There are so many Luddites who take every chance to hammer another nail.. It's understandable that any tech pioneer can easily sense being attacked and has to quiveringly rebuff any hysteria attempts.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#253

Post by obeattie » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

zeroxfe wrote: post #247

obeattie wrote: post #224

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…

I agree with the lack of compassion bit -- I think the messaging could have been far more empathetic. However... > 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. I don't understand how you can equate those first two lines. Uber's observation is clearly irrelevant, but…

> the fact that the Tesla driver received multiple "get your hands back on the wheel" notifications, as close as six seconds before the accident

But that isn't what their statement says. It says the victim had his hands off the wheel for six seconds before the crash, and that he received hands-on warnings "earlier in the drive." It does not say that during those crucial six seconds he was being warned. Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#254

Post by arethuza » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:40 PM UTC

tstrimple wrote: post #154

yani wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont see it

It's in the techcrunch image, not the imgur. The barrier with the yellow face is designed to collapse. https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/screen-sho...

That still looks pretty risky to me - I compared a similar junction here in the UK near to where I live (on the M90 in Fife) and it has about 40 impact attenuation barrels in a triangle.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#255

Post by snarfy » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:41 PM UTC

There have been too many times when driving that I've needed to visually make eye contact with either another driver or pedestrian in order to decide how to proceed. Can an autopilot differentiate between a 6 year old chasing a ball into the street unaware and an 8 year old chasing the same ball but also sees the car coming? Or someone patiently waiting to cross the street while another impatiently sees they are missing their bus and dart across the road anyway? I see it in their face and body language and respond differently. Can autopilot do that? Until it can I don't trust it. At best it should be restricted to roads without pedestrians like freeways.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#256

Post by irq11 » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:42 PM UTC

obeattie wrote: post #253

zeroxfe wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the lack of compassion bit -- I think the messaging could have been far more empathetic. However... > 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. I don't understand how you can equate those first two lines. Uber's observation is clearly irrelevant, but…

> the fact that the Tesla driver received multiple "get your hands back on the wheel" notifications, as close as six seconds before the accident But that isn't what their statement says. It says the victim had his hands off the wheel for six seconds before the crash, and that he received hands-on warnings "earlier in the drive." It does not say that during those crucial six seconds he was being warned. Nor does it ex…

”Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.”

This is critical. No matter how many notices you give, slamming into something at speed is the wrong answer. It’s almost unbelievable that they’re trying to use that as an excuse.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#257

Post by usernam » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:43 PM UTC

Rapzid wrote: post #178

pja wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

somebody literally walked in front of their car.. The analysis I've seen suggested that the self-driving system in the Uber vehicle had 4 or 5 seconds to detect the pedestrian crossing the road in front of them. Driving into a pedestrian on the road in that circumstance is /not/ acceptable for any driver, be they human or automated. Don't be fooled by the video footage Uber released from the in-car camera - the quali…

It is acceptable though, most people wouldn't even get involuntary manslaughter which still requires criminal negligence. People are really spouting off here and project in their own superiority onto the situation. It's a situation similar to when a child gets left in a car or jumps a zoo fence, "I never take my eye off my kids even for one second even when I'm sleeping. I would never allow that to happen to my kids.…

At least here, the driver of the vehicle hitting anything (another car, especially a person) is /always/ responsible, because you're supposed to be attentive for unexpected events. And that's how it should be. Why do you think otherwise? If you don't see clearly in front of you because of scarce illumination, you should go slower.

Unless assisted driving is close to near perfection (that is, it becomes a true auto-pilot without the need of assistance), we're going to see much worse numbers of accidents on the streets for assisted-driving cars.

Assisted-driving requires the same, if not more attention, as it essentially becomes like supervising an inexperienced driver that is prone to make stupid mistakes in otherwise normal circumstances. If you ever had a kid, you should be pretty familiar with how stressful this is.

But thanks to the PR spin, the driver is led to think that he can keep less attention, until he pays none at all. Assisted driving is even more boring than regular driving, lowering the attention span.

What could possibly go wrong?

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#258

Post by swebs » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:45 PM UTC

na85 wrote: post #55

lopmotr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like peering into the black box of autopilot and anthropomorphising some parts of it but not others. Why not say "autopilot sometimes drives into barriers and also humans sometimes drive into barriers."? In both cases the driver/autopilot failed for whatever reason.

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.

Nobody is trying to absolve Tesla. They're just refuting a dumb and easily rebuked claim that no human driver would make the same mistake. There is evidence that crashes happened there before, and it would be easy to imagine someone crashing there because they were focusing on trying to find a spot to merge while driving in what appeared to be a standard lane.

Again, not absolving Tesla, just being realistic about the capabilities of human drivers.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#259

Post by justin66 » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:47 PM 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).

It's a somewhat easy accident to have in heavy traffic if the lanes aren't marked clearly and you don't see the barrier because of cars ahead of you. Not a factor in the Tesla crash (they had a clear line of sight) or in the original crash (which was a DUI).

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#260

Post by heliodor » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:48 PM UTC

irq11 wrote: post #256

obeattie wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fact that the Tesla driver received multiple "get your hands back on the wheel" notifications, as close as six seconds before the accident But that isn't what their statement says. It says the victim had his hands off the wheel for six seconds before the crash, and that he received hands-on warnings "earlier in the drive." It does not say that during those crucial six seconds he was being warned. Nor does it ex…

”Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.” This is critical. No matter how many notices you give, slamming into something at speed is the wrong answer. It’s almost unbelievable that they’re trying to use that as an excuse.

I'm finding it hard to believe the wording on this crucial sentence was so misleading by accident. Upon first reading it, the wording seemed a little off and seemed to me that the two statements should have been two separate sentences instead.