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

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#371

Post by djsumdog » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

watertom wrote: post #311

wilun wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You know how many plane crashes are not the fault of human error? Very few. I have a friend that investigates planet crashes. He’s told me that between pilot error, human error, hubris, flying when conditions are too dangerous, poorly trained or sloppy mechanics only about about 1% really can’t be classified as being caused by humans. He said the stats are a bit skewed because like any organization that reports on hu…

> planet crashes

I want this job. Although I'm pretty sure all planet crashes would be the result of gravity.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#372

Post by eh78ssxv2f » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:33 PM UTC

misun78 wrote: post #264

zethraeus wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you source the assertion that Uber (as opposed to the local police) has indicated the victim in the crash was homeless? (That would be an inexcusable and cynical deflection.)

Uber never came out mentioning the homelessness of the person. The police did. This is typical HN banter on Uber, thanks for calling it out.

That's because Uber never released an official statement on the accident. At least, I can't find one on their website.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#373

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

jakewins wrote: post #320

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…

> Don't tell us how safe Tesla's are compared to the entire US driving population: Tell us how safe they are compared to equivalent vehicles from other manufacturers. I'm having a hard time to find an exact number comparison, but: - Tesla claims 1 fatality per 320M miles Compared to - A 2015 study of 2011 model year vehicles showed, for instance, Volvo XC90 had never been involved in a driver fatality (1) - There are…

I'm not sure how much of that is about the car versus the driver. Volvo drivers are some of the most slow, excessively cautious, annoying (to others) drivers on the road.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#374

Post by r00fus » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #345

emiliobumachar wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the autopilot did something a human driver who was paying attention would never do" "this isn't an average accident statistic, a lapse in attention or evasive maneuvering. " "That's not a mistake a healthy human will make." Almost every driver thinks they're significantly better than average. Few are. If a human driver's lapse of attention causes a similar crash, how much less of a tragedy is it just because we can…

> Almost every driver thinks they’re significantly better than average. Few are. Actually, about half of drivers are better than average.

It's easy to provide a counterpoint if you ignore words (significantly). Few people are significantly above average.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#375

Post by fastball » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #196

I hate how Tesla framed this as a statistics game. It's like an amazing heart doctor one day suddenly stabbing his patient in the heart with a scalpel, killing him, and then saying... well, sometimes I malfunction, but by and large I cure patients 10x more often than my colleagues. That isn't okay and it's important to talk about that strange behaviour to fix it.

Doesn't look like very aberrant behavior by AP in this instance, this exit ramp is a very misleading one which looks exactly like a normal lane up until it dead ends in a barrier.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#376

Post by fastball » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

1024core wrote: post #329

Apparently, the victim had complained to Tesla repeatedly that the autopilot would veer towards the barrier: http://abc7news.com/automotive/i-team-exclusive-victim-who-d... On the other hand, if I knew the autopilot was trying to do such things, I would not use it so much.

Yeah, and it looks like the AP got confused by the lack of attenuation barrier, so a double whammy -- the AP probably would've avoided it if the barrier had been there, and it would've saved his life.

Honestly, I agree with Tesla in that maybe blame shouldn't be directed towards them. They should be held responsible for the crash, but not the death -- if you want to save lives, those barriers should be replaced immediately, and that is something CalTrans should definitely do.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#377

Post by fancyfacebook » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:49 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…

"And no, you can't get out of culpability by claiming statistical superiority"

Every MBA student needs this tattoo'd on the back of their hand in order to graduate from now on.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#378

Post by lsaferite » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:55 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…

>> The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive

> What they are saying is that while he was driving there was an earlier point at which the car did not crash, where the car gave a visual and audible clues. And you have to ask? Why the hell is that relevant?

I see it being relevant that the driver had his follow distance set to the lowest and that several times in the drive prior to the accident he had to be prompted to maintain his hands on the wheel. This speaks to a driver that wasn't paying attention like they were supposed to be doing. That would increase the likelihood of him missing an upcoming hazard and responding in time.

Regardless of that, if he had reported and issue in that area to Tesla, why the hell was he not driving it himself at the time? I know that I personally value my life enough that I wouldn't trust AP if it had been veering into the wall repeatedly in one area.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#379

Post by ddalex » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #300

wilun wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Your car is going to testify against you.

Presumably Tesla/the car is telling the truth as it saw it. I don't think you're suggesting they're falsifying the logs.

> Which is a terrible way to treat a customer

I'd assume that Tesla sells you a vehicle, not PR or legal services that protect you in case of an accident. Your expectation that Tesla should take the blame is unreasonable by any standard.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#380

Post by ChuckMcM » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 5:59 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…

Sadly I have to agree with you on the narrative angle. While I am very impressed with what Tesla has accomplished in their autopilot I find the careful construction and omissions in this follow up post to be done poorly.

They omit what speed and what lane the car was travelling in. They omit the time at which the car was no longer behaving in the way in which it had (when did it start heading for the crash barrier? At what point did the wheels closest to the barrier move over the line? etc)

They have previously mentioned that their cars have navigated this spot many times in the past (over 200 as I recall) did they note the number with and without the crash barrier intact? How many times was the car in the exit lane and how many times in the lane to the right of the exit lane? How many times have they navigated past it with a damaged crash barrier.

The driver had driven this route before, it was his commute to work. Had he driven it with this car on that route in autopilot before? Did it work then? How many times? How many seconds were there between when the driver's car was doing something right (in lane etc) and doing something wrong (straddling the lane). The response indicates there were 5 seconds of visibility coming up to the crash barrier, at what point was the autopilot on a collision course? All of those five seconds? or the last 500mS ?

Reading the Tesla response I felt I wasn't getting the whole story, and was getting a whole lot of deflection. That isn't the tone that inspires confidence in me. And that makes me sad because they have done much better in the past. I cannot help but speculate that this time they feel they might have been contributory at least and that a full disclosure would be used against them in a civil suit.