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

271–280 of 581 posts

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

#271

Post by ldesegur »

melling wrote: post #249
smoyer wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4. There is another completely unknown variable - how many times would the autopilot have crashed if the human hadn't taken over. So Tesla's statistics are actually stating how safe the autopilot and human are when combined, not how safe the autopilot is by itself.

I thought the autopilot was always supposed to be combined with the human. It’s not a self-driving car. It’s really an advanced cruise control.

From https://www.tesla.com/autopilot: "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver"

Why do we keep referring to something that we understand should require human supervision as "auto"? Stop the marketing buzzfeed and let's be real.

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

#272

Post by mozumder »

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…

GM's well reviewed SuperCruise focuses on monitoring the driver so that the driver is paying attention to the road.

That's what 'too good' is supposed to be.

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

#273

Post by simion314 »

codebolt wrote: post #161
sho_hn wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not be surprised if Musk coldly responded that this is a known problem with no solution, but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average. In other words, for the proponents it's a trade-off. And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers. Which of course will snowball when reliance on automation keeps making drivers w…

> And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers. Which of course will snowball when reliance on automation keeps making drivers worse than better, and at some point you're past the point of no return. I really hope it does get to the point were all drivers are automatic and interconnected. Cars could cooperate to a much higher ex…

>I really hope it does get to the point were all drivers are automatic and interconnected. Cars could cooperate to a much higher extent and traffic could potentially be much more efficient and safe.

I think you can make some conclusions from the current software industry and see how many defects are deployed daily, I see Tesla and Uber have same defects as any SV startup and not as NASA, having this starups controlling all the cars on the road sounds a terrible idea.

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

#274

Post by davej »

smoyer wrote: post #259
melling wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the autopilot was always supposed to be combined with the human. It’s not a self-driving car. It’s really an advanced cruise control.

That's what Tesla says but that's not how people are using it - and as people grow more comfortable with the autopilot, the less vigilant they'll become. I have this picture in my head where people are trying to recoup their commute time as though they're using public transport. I suspect we'll get there some day but today is not that day. While the Tesla spokespeople are good at saying it's driver assist, their mark…

"All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."

This is perhaps a case of purposely confusing marketing. All vehicles have the hardware for full self-driving capability but not yet the software. The full self-driving is to be enabled later on through an over-the-air software update.

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

#275

Post by greendestiny »

sho_hn wrote: post #148
icc97 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would not be surprised if Musk coldly responded that this is a known problem with no solution, but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average. In other words, for the proponents it's a trade-off. And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers. Which of course will snowball when reliance on automation keeps making drivers w…

Actually despite your skepticism Tesla's PR spin has already beaten you.

"but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average"

That's not what they said, they said the death rate was lower than the average. And yet you can't help hearing that it lowered the death rate. I think it's very likely turning on autopilot massively increases the rate of death for Tesla drivers, but they've managed to deflect from that so skilfully.

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

#276

Post by Piskvorrr »

buvanshak wrote: post #78
oldgradstudent wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they allowed to put beta software on public roads where third parties that never consented to their EULA are put at risk. If they want beta software on a private track, that's their (and their insurance company's) problem.

Because no one is stopping them from. Even here, in HN, which is supposed to be filled with tech people, this is rarely asked. Then it is not surprising the common people and non-tech savvy authorities are complacent...

Oh, it is asked all right. But then the business side interrupts with time-to-market and diminishing returns and the cost of settling out of court vs. probability thereof - and voila, "move fast and kill people".

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

#277

Post by Piskvorrr »

buvanshak wrote: post #69
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…

> said the problem with autopilot is that it is "too good". Isn't it true that the thing cannot detect a stationary object in its path if the vehicle is traveling at above 50kph? If that is true, then I think this is an extremely dangerous situation that the owners of these vehicles are in...

Owners are in their armored cocoon. I'd be worried about whatever is besides/behind/in/at/ that stationary object.

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

#278

Post by ilitirit »

jijojv wrote: post #2

Week after the fatal accident Musk continues to promote Autopilot as safe by retweeting stuff like https://twitter.com/Teslarati/status/980476745106231297 Tesla Model S navigates one of Vienna’s ‘crappiest’ roads on Autopilot IIHS '17 study puts Autopilot at only reducing 40% accidents which is the same as their '16 study which had the same 40% reduction for any car with Auto Emergency Braking.

> at only reducing 40% accidents

Unless I'm missing something, 40% is actually a good result (given what they're trying to measure).

However, I think the more important statistic would be regarding how many injuries/fatalities does it reduce vs cause. Are there any studies on this?

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

#279

Post by qaq »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #60
doe88 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I don't know I feel ambivalent about autopilot right now, as most on HN I always crave for new technologies, but the fact that something very dangerous can be very good most of the time and very bad occasionally make me weary of using it altogether. I know that's irrational because most often then not it probably saves you from your own mistakes. Also, if Tesla intends to shield itself behind a beta status for…

Why are they allowed to put beta software on public roads where third parties that never consented to their EULA are put at risk. If they want beta software on a private track, that's their (and their insurance company's) problem.

You just described every modern car on the road.

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

#280

Post by blauditore »

ldesegur wrote: post #271
melling wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the autopilot was always supposed to be combined with the human. It’s not a self-driving car. It’s really an advanced cruise control.

From https://www.tesla.com/autopilot : "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver" Why do we keep referring to something that we understand should require human supervision as "auto"? Stop the marketing buzzfeed and let's be real.

I'm not sure whether it's intentionally been worded that way, but that sentence makes only a statement about hardware, not software. So technically, it's correct that the hardware is more capable than that of a human ("sees" and "hears" more), but it's the software that's not up to par.
Post reply on HN