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

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#291

Post by yougotit » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:59 PM UTC

biktor_gj wrote: post #192

I don't care about Tesla at all, not a fan boy or anything, but I don't understand all the blaming on Tesla for this accident. So, the guy had complained 'between 7 and 10 times' about Autopilot malfunctioning there, yet he kept on using it Autopilot disengaged before the crash, giving visual and audible alerts before turning off, yet he didn't take the wheel, so he probably was doing something else instead of keepin…

Ha, you just fell for Tesla PR. Maybe you should read their statement again. It is gullible people like you that they create these misleading statements.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#292

Post by crdoconnor » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:00 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 dont think that's the case. However, if the people who build it refuse to take responsibility for their defects killing people then I think that's the clearest possible signal that the technology isn't viable.

Obviously this would also mean that compensation would have to go up for self driving car engineers and execs to compensate for the risk. That's fair, and, if that cost makes a self driving car venture uneconomic - again, not viable. And that's okay.

People take responsibility for other people's lives every day when they get in a car. I don't think the idea that Uber engineers should do the same should be considered particularly controversial.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#293

Post by andrewaylett » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

espadrine wrote: post #143

laingc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree; Tesla’s marketing modus operandi is to fudge statistics. In my view, they are consistently on the wrong side of the marketing puffery | misrepresentation borderline. I do take issue, however, with your claim that Teslas are “well constructed” - they are not. They are poorly designed, poorly constructed vehicles that feel and look cheap. Test one side by side with, say, a BMW 3-Series or a Volkswag…

I saw the argument that a traditional motor’s noise level hides rattling sounds and similar subtle car defects, which a fully-electric vehicle’s silence does not cover. (I haven’t seen scientific comparisons, though.)

Traditionally at least, the only thing one would hear inside a Mercedes Benz going at 60mph would be the tick of the clock.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#294

Post by xapata » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:08 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #134

xapata wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A swerve is not the only possibility, as the area between lanes looks like a lane. My father has done the same thing while driving at night. He insisted he was in a lane while I yelled repeatedly that he wasn't. Luckily he changed lanes / entered a real lane just before we crashed.

Yes, bad visibility could explain it, but Tesla themselves say it was 9.30am and the autopilot had "five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider".

Looking at a photograph of the barrier, a poorly designed median also explains it.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#295

Post by phkahler » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:08 PM UTC

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…

>> You're going to have to explain to me how the wealth of a driver has any bearing on their ability to pilot a self-driving car.

It doesn't. But autopilot is only supposed to be used on the highway. Not in New York City. Not on dirt roads. On the highway. That's the easiest place to make a system like that work - adaptive cruise control and a simple lane follower go a long way there (I hope Tesla has something a lot more advanced than that). To compare stats on their limited use autopilot to the whole country is truly disingenuous.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#296

Post by xapata » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:09 PM UTC

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.

It turns out brains can freeze in a panic.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#297

Post by Arnt » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:13 PM UTC

pja wrote: post #175

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…

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…

Do you expect 370% above average for any cohort? That's amazingly amazing. That must mean that some other cohorts are correspondingly far below the average, what are they?

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#298

Post by wilun » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:13 PM 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…

Tesla always blame the "driver" (and publicly so, nonetheless) when they are killed by their "autopilot" (which is actually driving, that is fulfilling the purpose indicated by its name, despite being not very good at it...) -- either directly, or by carefully stating misleading statements that are both technically correct and incredibly dishonest in the context of both the events and the surrounding text.

Why people are still using their shit is beyond me. Why they are still authorized to sell it under this marketing (like the name given to it, or the mismatch between the restriction and the practice), I also can't understand: it should be better regulated by the authorities.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#299

Post by the-dude » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:15 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #242

chris_t wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Wealth correlates with health correlates with better reaction times & general fitness I agree with your general point, but you can't just join up 2 correlations like that, that isn't always going to work when there are other confounding factors (and there always are). Wealth also correlates with age which anticorrelates with reaction times and general fitness.

According to insurance adjusters, age correlates with lower accident rates.

And having a hotmail emailaddress with higher accident rates.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#300

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

wilun wrote: post #298

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…

Tesla always blame the "driver" (and publicly so, nonetheless) when they are killed by their "autopilot" (which is actually driving, that is fulfilling the purpose indicated by its name, despite being not very good at it...) -- either directly, or by carefully stating misleading statements that are both technically correct and incredibly dishonest in the context of both the events and the surrounding text. Why people…

This is probably the worst part about driving a Tesla: Your car is going to testify against you. Because Tesla can and will make a statement like this, and they will always throw you under the bus. Which is a terrible way to treat a customer, as a general practice.