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

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#271

Post by exotree » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:25 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #265

vizzah wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The main thing that would make me convinced of the safety of self driving cars would be if the executives of self driving car companies took criminal liability for accidents caused by their cars or software. When the cost of them killing somebody by having a deficient QA process is minimal (and just affects shareholders), then the cars will be rolled out before they are ready. What will happen to liability at present…

If individual engineers and executives were made to be legally responsible for potential fatal accidents resulting from technology, progress would grind to a halt.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#272

Post by jakecopp » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #265

vizzah wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The main thing that would make me convinced of the safety of self driving cars would be if the executives of self driving car companies took criminal liability for accidents caused by their cars or software. When the cost of them killing somebody by having a deficient QA process is minimal (and just affects shareholders), then the cars will be rolled out before they are ready. What will happen to liability at present…

I agree with your intention, though isn't it inevitable self driving cars will kill people even if they are 1000x safer than humans?

If a CEO has many millions of cars running his software, their will always be a death.

In that case, nobody would want to take on that responsibility so nobody would build self driving cars.

Therefore humans will still drive cars and there will be 1000x more deaths, most preventable with self driving cars.

This is pretty much exactly the Trolley problem in ethics and philosophy. Read up on it :)

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#273

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:30 PM UTC

exotree wrote: post #271

crdoconnor wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing that would make me convinced of the safety of self driving cars would be if the executives of self driving car companies took criminal liability for accidents caused by their cars or software. When the cost of them killing somebody by having a deficient QA process is minimal (and just affects shareholders), then the cars will be rolled out before they are ready. What will happen to liability at present…

If individual engineers and executives were made to be legally responsible for potential fatal accidents resulting from technology, progress would grind to a halt.

I mean, in cases where they are criminally negligent, they are already responsible for accidents.

The tricky part is figuring out what constitutes negligence.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#274

Post by xvf22 » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:30 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…

It seems that it was written in a way that confuses the issue intentionally.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#275

Post by sfifs » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:34 PM UTC

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 don’t understand why it is so impossible for these companies to act humbly and with a sense of dignity around all this.

I would venture a guess this is an outcome of the "sue for everything" legal environment in the US. Any statement that could be construed as anything other than "we did nothing wrong" could be seized on by shareholders suing the company for securities fraud and demanding class action status.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#276

Post by rgbrenner » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:37 PM UTC

SomewhatLikely wrote: post #157

rgbrenner wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically tesla's statement says he was warned at some point to take control during his drive. That could have been 5 seconds into his commute, or it could have been 5 seconds before he hit the barrier. He may have taken control at that time, and then reengaged it later. He may or may not have been warned to take control before hitting the barrier. Tesla's statement is not clear on this at all.

The statement mentions "hands on warning" which just means you need to keep your hands on the wheel. That's very different than giving control back to the driver.

Thank you.. you are correct. That’s an important detail I wrote incorrectly.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#277

Post by perilunar » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:38 PM UTC

Why isn't the end of the barrier tapered instead of vertical e.g.:

http://fortressfencing.com.au/pub/media/catalog/product/d/b/...

(I know there was a previously destroyed crush zone, but still, better to be lifted and deflected than brought to a sudden stop.)

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#278

Post by cowkingdeluxe » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:38 PM 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…

I think at least 50% of the blame should be placed on the maintainer of the road.

The crash attenuator was 'used up' from a previous accident and might have prevented death if it was in working condition.

I see this all the time where I live. Crashed attenuators or disfigured guard rails go months and months without repair.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#279

Post by Amezarak » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:39 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…

Tesla's huge success in people's mindspace of self-driving vehicles is baffling to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the self-driving features in Teslas:

- Cruise control maintains speed, will automatically decelerate if a car in front slows down, speed back up if they speed or go away, etc.

- Collision avoidance: the car will automatically emergency brake if it believes a collision is imminent.

- Lanekeeping: the car will stay in the lane without driver attention, although if it doesn't detect your hands on the wheel with enough frequency, the system will disengage.

- The car can park itself.

A quick look at Wikipedia tells me it can also change lanes and be "summoned."

Most of these features, especially considering cruise control, collision avoidance, and lane-keeping as the core featureset, since at least in 2017, have been in wide deployment among most car manufacturers, down to even cheap economy cars, that people are buying right now without getting on waiting lists or anything of the kind. You can buy a car right now with this core featureset for around ~18k.

Not only that, people seem to dramatically overestimate what kind of auto-pilot Teslas have. Speaking with my doctor about it, he assured me that "you just tell the car where to go, and it goes there." How did Teslas get so hyped up in the common man's imagination?

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#280

Post by fricat1ve » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:39 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…

>the victim had his hands off the wheel for six seconds

Actually it doesn't even say that, it says his hands "were not detected." Which means nothing to me.