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

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#301

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

narag wrote: post #230

Rapzid wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Replace "robot" with "car" and it suddenly doesn't sound sci-fi at all.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#302

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

fricat1ve wrote: post #280

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…

>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.

[deleted]

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#303

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:22 PM UTC

fake-name wrote: post #183

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. Uh, what? I think you're thinking of Doppler radar systems. You can do static scene imaging with radar, no problems (I've written the code to do it, even!). There's no way in hell a car is going to be using a Doppler radar. In all likelyhood, they're using a plain-old FMCW system, and it can absolutely detect stationar…

Model S likely uses https://www.bosch-mobility-solutions.com/en/products-and-ser...

(It's for sure a Bosch radar, but maybe a different one)

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#304

Post by prepend » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:26 PM UTC

“For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident.”

Their stat is for miles in vehicles equipped with autopilot, not miles driven by autopilot. So if their claim was whether a Tesla equipped with autopilot is safer than a standard car, this would be valid.

The comparison should be with miles driven with autopilot engaged. They must know this number because Tesla tracks everything.

It’s unethical of them to publish such misleading stats.

Cynically, I also think that the fatality rate of autopilot miles is either really bad or just not comparable due to too few miles. Either way, they should reveal this.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#305

Post by roel_v » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:29 PM UTC

huebnerob wrote: post #283

Shaanie wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's lots of different kinds of crime, each very unique in its circumstances. Just try comparing the stats for securities fraud vs. drug possession, for example. DUI is a tough one, people of all socioeconomic backgrounds like to get drunk, and people of all socioeconomic backgrounds like to drive. Off the cuff, I might guess that the numbers would show DUI to be the most egalitarian crime, actually.

How about you look at facts before spewing PC-motivated 'guesses', like http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-26... and http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/2/111 - both from the first page of my first google search, I'm sure it's trivial to find many more.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#306

Post by wilun » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:29 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's very irresponsible for any company to do stuff like this.

It's very irresponsible for regulation to allow them to do that. And statistically for us to vote for politics that are not against that kind of behavior. Big companies rarely give a shit about killing people in the process of making money, as long as they are not punished for doing that. (And we, btw, mostly don't give a shit when the people being killed live in other countries, even when the process to do so is far more direct than the 1st world problem that interest us here.) People who used to organize those kind of criminal behaviors used to be held responsible for the consequences, but it is more rare now and the laws in various countries have actually been changed so that people managing companies are far less accountable than before for the illegal and otherwise bad things they order. As for companies being accountable, it is usually in punitive money that is order of magnitude less amount than the extra profit they made in doing their shit, so why would them stop? The risk of the CEO being sent to jail would stop them. Ridiculously small fines against the company, in the astonishingly rare cases where they even actually fined, not so.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#307

Post by martin_bech » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

Shaanie wrote: post #222

martin_bech wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit or post a source.

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

But Shaanie, maybe im reading it wrong, but from that article, it seems that “poor people” are more likely to do a dui, by a factor of somewhere between 1 and 2.8. That does in no way directly correlate with Teslas beeing 3.7x safer than the average.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#308

Post by wilun » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:35 PM UTC

irq11 wrote: post #261

heliodor wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even then, I fail to see how it’s relevant information. I’m supposed to trust an “autopilot” that warns me six seconds before it slams me into a wall?

In their next statement about the next person they kill: 'The Autopilot clearly both stated in vocal synthesis and by displaying on the internal screen: "WARNING - I'll attempt to kill you in six second". Yet the driver did not manage to regain control against the rogue AI. He is clearly at fault for having died, and his family should be fined to recover the cost the the investigation.' :P

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#309

Post by scoggs » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

Arnt wrote: post #297

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…

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?

Thank you. Do people really want Tesla to use another company's failure / worse #'s via statistics in their review of this accident?

At least they are responsive, seemingly open, and seemingly empathetic. They are obviously handling things in a business first manner as corporations will but it hardly feels as inhuman as people seem to be making it out to be.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#310

Post by ahakki » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #172

evincarofautumn wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if it’s possible to determine whether those cars have zero death rates in part because someone who would buy that model is less likely to get in a fatal accident in the first place—whether because of who they are, or how they were advertised, or whatever. I imagine a minivan owner as a very cautious driver…then again, I have been in the passenger seat when a friend was doing drifts in his mom’s minivan, so y…

Yes, one might quip that males under the age of 25 wouldn't be seen dead in any of those vehicles.

Who doesn’t wanna sit in an Audi A4 Quattro?