Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 581 posts

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#111

Post by icc97 »

tlrobinson wrote: post #35
ChuckMcM wrote: post #17

I have now talked with two people who have autopilot in their model S's and both said the problem with autopilot is that it is "too good". Specifically it works completely correctly like 80 - 90% of the time and as a result, if you use it a lot, you start to expect it to be working and not fail. If it beeps then to tell you to take over, you have to mentally get back into the situational awareness of the road and the…

Relevant quote from an article about the Air France 447 crash: > To put it briefly, automation has made it more and more unlikely that ordinary airline pilots will ever have to face a raw crisis in flight—but also more and more unlikely that they will be able to cope with such a crisis if one arises. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-... (linked to from another HN post today: https://news.yc…

Airline pilot training is designed to handle this, as well as they have a co-pilot who prevents them from being distracted and is able to take over if they are distracted.

Tesla is just handing it out to anyone who can afford to buy a Model S/X (and now Model 3) with the absolute minimum of warnings that they can get away with.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#112

Post by oldgradstudent »

njarboe wrote: post #72
jackvalentine wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine the autopilot is 100 times safer than human drivers. Is it? Can it be proved controlling for all variables?

No it is not. But might be someday. Will that be good enough? My dad would spend 100k on a car that was 10 times less safe, if it let him keep using a car. I'm sure others would as well.

Your dad would be happy to get a car that was 10X less safe, but the rest of us on the road will be less so.

These are public roads, driving a dangerous cars put other people at risk.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#113

Post by adrianmonk »

Aeolun wrote: post #75
adrianmonk wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(iii) That there doesn't seem to be a continuous path between where it is headed immediately and where it will have to go 2 or 3 seconds later. If your immediate future can't be harmonized with what will happen afterward, something is wrong. (iv) That it has (literally) been down this road before and had to revise its estimate of what it thought it was a lane (i.e. jerk back into the lane once it realized). (v) That…

> that it shouldn't drive into I love you qualified this ;)

I'm nerding out here, but roads are complicated and it actually requires a qualifier!

Assuming no exit-only lanes, there is a V-shaped area you can drive into: the beginning of the new exit lane. And then it's followed by another V-shaped area that you can't: the resumption of the shoulder.

One way you can tell the difference is lines, if they are painted properly. But you can also tell from context. If you know (from experience and/or road signs) that only one lane peels off for this exit, and if you have already seen the V-shaped area for the exit, then the next V-shaped area is not OK to drive into.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#114

Post by creato »

njarboe wrote: post #70
m_mueller wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it currently really reduce fatalities if you control for car cost, age group and area driven? I‘m unconvinced of the current statistics.

Currently it is probably worse than the average driver. But here is a trolley problem for you. What is the ratio of people killed who volunteer to test out an auto-drive to the number of lives saved by that early testing? 1:1, 1:10, 1:100, 1:1000, 1:1,000,000? A million people die in vehicle wrecks each year.

Those are clearly not the only two options. Waymo appears to be far and away the leader in this space, and they've killed zero people.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#115

Post by danso »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #102
danso wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla’s Autopilot reduces crashes by 40% according to the NHTSA This claim was immediately called into suspicion when it was first published, and the NHTSA is currently facing a FOIA lawsuit for refusing to release data to independent researchers. http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/quality-control-... https://jalopnik.com/feds-cant-say-why-they-claim-teslas-aut...

As noted in your citation, Tesla requested the data they provided to be confidential (which is not an uncommon request), and the NHTSA granted the request. Whether the statement from the regulatory agency can be independently verified is immaterial.

> Whether the statement from the regulatory agency can be independently verified is immaterial

You believe independent verification of study results are "immaterial"? OK.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#116

Post by oldgradstudent »

Jasper_ wrote: post #105
njarboe wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. But might be someday. Will that be good enough? My dad would spend 100k on a car that was 10 times less safe, if it let him keep using a car. I'm sure others would as well.

The proper way to prove "it's 100 times more safe" isn't to let it cause some number of deaths and then go "welp, we tried our best but we were wrong, turns out it's less safe. Shucks". But that's exactly what Tesla, Uber, etc. all seem to be doing. "We'll compare our statistics once the death tallies are in and we'll see which is safer". The most we have to go on for a rough approximation of safety is the nebulous a…

> the nebulous and ill-defined "disengagements" in the public CA reports.

The usual description of disengagements: "Disengage for a perception discrepancy" or "Precautionary takeover to address perception".

Except when referring to others, then its plain English: "Disengage for a recklessly behaving road user" or "Other road user behaving poorly".

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#117

Post by toomuchtodo »

danso wrote: post #115
toomuchtodo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As noted in your citation, Tesla requested the data they provided to be confidential (which is not an uncommon request), and the NHTSA granted the request. Whether the statement from the regulatory agency can be independently verified is immaterial.

> Whether the statement from the regulatory agency can be independently verified is immaterial You believe independent verification of study results are "immaterial"? OK.

Because I do not have access to raw data does not make the resulting facts any less true (see: proprietary hurricane models).

The NHTSA made a determination and I’m using it as a data point.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#119

Post by aaron-lebo »

buvanshak wrote: post #95
aaron-lebo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He definitely has a penchant for exaggeration if not outright dishonesty. It bothers me that people respect someone who can say so many blatantly false things and that an engineer can be so loose with the truth. That's his shtick though, promise unbelievable things, then when you get halfway there, people don't care you were wrong and/or lying. He understands how to market himself and his ventures. My guess is he's g…

>It bothers me that people respect someone who can say so many blatantly false things and that an engineer can be so loose with the truth. Why does it bother you though. "People" are like that, right? If you know your target demographics, and thus know what strings to pull, then you can make your target do anything. In this case, invest, financially and emotionally in what ever he is doing. Pretty basic advertising.…

You're asking why exaggerated claims which have led to deaths are distasteful?

It might be basic advertising, but that doesn't make it right nor effective. If Musk would just do what he has without all the exaggerated promises, why's that not good enough? The claims make him look worse, not better.

Denying reality is great until it comes crashing down. Just a few examples. Forgive this first title. The important part is the quote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/musk-epic-failure-2016-5?op=1

Tesla reported first-quarter earnings last week, and while they were better than Wall Street expected, the earthshaking news that emerged was that Musk is taking the carmaker in a new strategic direction.

Tesla, which delivered about 50,000 vehicles last year, is aiming to deliver 500,000 in 2018. The production target isn't new, but the timeline is. Tesla had previously said it would build half a million cars a year by 2020.

This did not happen, which led him to Tweet last July that they could deliver 20k cars per month by Dec. This did not happen either. Investors were relieved they managed to hit 2k per week this past week (this is down from the 2.5k they were targeting).

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/881757617416056832

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-stock-jumps-after-pr...

He's got a shaky attachment to the truth. I don't know if he really believes himself (this is called delusion, usually) or he's a liar. Either way it's kind of odd for a guy who doesn't need to exaggerate to be impressive. Not sure what it has to do with Nolan. He's never promised a 20 hour movie.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#120

Post by Smaug123 »

jijojv wrote: post #32
ChuckMcM wrote: post #17

I have now talked with two people who have autopilot in their model S's and both said the problem with autopilot is that it is "too good". Specifically it works completely correctly like 80 - 90% of the time and as a result, if you use it a lot, you start to expect it to be working and not fail. If it beeps then to tell you to take over, you have to mentally get back into the situational awareness of the road and the…

The lag time is for it to know you're distracted is ~ every 1min when you have to jiggle the wheel.

"Jiggle the wheel" and "have situational awareness of the road around you" are two very different things.
Post reply on HN