An Update on Last Week’s Accident

Post by microtherion » Sun, Apr 01, 2018, 3:00 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #79

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm obviously not privy to the details of the prior crash, but I'm pretty sure any healthy human would not deliberately drive into the barrier. The most likely scenarios I can think of would be not paying attention and drifting into the barrier, attempting to avoid a car merging into the lane (and not paying enough attention), or being struck by another car and being forced into the barrier.

I think the answer is that the path into the barrier looks just like an actual lane, and that this was enough confusion that a human driver apparently had made the same exact mistake a week earlier. https://imgur.com/a/iMY1x https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/screen-sho...

Post by emn13 » Sun, Apr 01, 2018, 6:08 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #430

emn13 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plane is much easier to navigate because there aren't things like lane-dividers floating about. That's handy, but alas it does not apply to driving a car. Just because an in-air navigation aid that allows for essentially pilot-free navigation deserving of the name "autopilot" happens to be relatively trivial to build, does not mean any navigation aid of similar complexity for other modes of transport should be call…

I think what I'm taking issue with isn't anything about comparing them to self driving cars, it's that you characterize them as "trivial to build". They are not. They coordinate a significant number of life-critical systems, react to minute perturbations in the air stream with microsecond precision, and do so with such a high level of precision that human pilots are often forbidden from overriding them outside of spe…

Post by slavik81 » Sun, Apr 01, 2018, 8:09 AM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #410

prepend wrote: post #304

“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 auto…

True, they know this number, it is public and has been ratified by transit authorities; see pages 10-11: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.PDF

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 01, 2018, 12:38 PM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #435

ricardobeat wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, they know this number, it is public and has been ratified by transit authorities; see pages 10-11: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.PDF

Why do they use weasel words and misleading statistics when they have this? A crash rate of 1.3 per million miles before installation and 0.8 per million miles after sounds like a slam dunk for the autopilot's statistical safety.

Post by dang » Sun, Apr 01, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

yougotit wrote: post #291

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.