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

331–340 of 581 posts

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

#331

Post by sokoloff »

ccalf wrote: post #309
emiliobumachar wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of human-driven car accident victims have done nothing wrong at all. Almost every driver thinks they're better than average. Even when it's a stupid person dying from their stupidity, it's still a tragedy. I really think data driven analysys is the way to go. If we can get US car fatalities from 30000 a year to 29000 a year by adopting self-driving cars, that's 1000 lives saved a year. Agree with your point #3.…

OK but if by saving 1000 lives a year required as a side-effect that you personally be among the fatalities, would that be OK for you? I hope not. Think of this as a technical corner case; so, the question is the soundness of the analysis—for example, the distribution of deaths and what that means for safety—and not letting various facile logic get in the way of that work.

Let’s imagine that auto-driving tech saves 2001 gross lives per year and kills 1001 people who wouldn’t have died in an all human driving world, for a net of 1000 lives saved.

I think that’s a win, even if I now have an even statistical chance to be in the 1001 and no chance to be in the 2001.

Requiring that I be in 1001 is not ok, no more than requiring I donate all my organs tomorrow. Allowing that I might be in the 1001 is ok, just a registering for organ donation is.

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

#332

Post by namelost »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #295
EnderMB wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone that has been caught speeding, it's also worth mentioning that one of the big reasons why the UK has improved its road safety statistics is a reasonably new initiative where you get an option on your first offence to either take the points on your license or to attend a safety workshop. IIRC, the workshop was about three hours, but it was surprisingly useful. The instructors treated you like adults and not…

Out of curiosity, how are you supposed to react if an emergency vehicle wants you to go forward when you're by a set of traffic lights with a camera? I would think to look carefully at all directions and, if visibility allows, pass the red light, then contest the fine with an "emergrncy vehicle passing through" defence. But what is the official position?

It's illegal to cross through a red light, even if there is an emergency vehicle behind you that wants to get through.

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

#333

Post by Svip »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #295
EnderMB wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone that has been caught speeding, it's also worth mentioning that one of the big reasons why the UK has improved its road safety statistics is a reasonably new initiative where you get an option on your first offence to either take the points on your license or to attend a safety workshop. IIRC, the workshop was about three hours, but it was surprisingly useful. The instructors treated you like adults and not…

Out of curiosity, how are you supposed to react if an emergency vehicle wants you to go forward when you're by a set of traffic lights with a camera? I would think to look carefully at all directions and, if visibility allows, pass the red light, then contest the fine with an "emergrncy vehicle passing through" defence. But what is the official position?

I am not sure the UK has traffic light cameras, but they do some places in Germany. And the official position in Germany, and in most of Europe I think, is that emergency vehicle decisions trumps everything else. If a police officer directs you to do something that would break the law, then you should do it, as a police officer's decision trumps regular traffic laws.

At least, that's how it works in Germany and Denmark. But I don't think Denmark has traffic light cameras. I've never seen them anyway. But I've seen them in Germany.

Of course, this is assuming you don't actually cross the entire junction, but rather just moves out into the junction, so the emergency vehicle can get through.

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

#334

Post by gutnor »

blauditore wrote: post #280
ldesegur wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's like "Made with 100% local organic chicken" is only pointing out that the organic chicken is local, unlike the non-organic chicken whose provenance is not guaranteed.

That would be great to live in the world of marketing people where everyone is so able to parse weasel words. That would solve the fake news problem overnight.

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

#335

Post by josefresco »

Auto-pilot will put massive pressure on states and municipalities to improve road maintenance - specifically lane indicators and fixes to "peculiar" roads/intersections etc. This will increase budgets, which will in turn create massive opposition to self-driving autos by those not wanting to pay more taxes for other people's fancy cars.

I travel/drive a good deal in the summer and for a few years now have silently (mostly) muttered to myself that if auto-pilot cars are going to use "painted lines" to navigate - they're "gonna have a bad time".

Poorly painted lines aside, think of how many "wtf" moments you have on the roads around your town - just down the road from my house is a road that just... ends (due to poor planning years ago). It's obvious to human drivers what to do (you're supposed to exit the paved road and drive over a hump to the dirt road that continues), but for auto-pilot? Not so much unless they make use of "data sharing" that would reveal the human solution to this screwed up piece of road.

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

#336

Post by oldsj »

seatotree wrote: post #328
ccalf wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK but if by saving 1000 lives a year required as a side-effect that you personally be among the fatalities, would that be OK for you? I hope not. Think of this as a technical corner case; so, the question is the soundness of the analysis—for example, the distribution of deaths and what that means for safety—and not letting various facile logic get in the way of that work.

There is a simple solution for this. If you think you are an above average driver, don't use autopilot.

Until self driving cars start crashing in to you

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

#337

Post by josefresco »

bobsil1 wrote: post #144

Btw linked accident was for a Model S with Tesla autopilot 1. Can tell because no camera on silver blinker assembly. They're now on 2.5.

Can autopilot v1 cars be upgraded to v2.5? I'm assuming since you mentioned a camera it's not just software.

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

#338

Post by StavrosK »

princeb wrote: post #290
blauditore wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

bizarre statement is there any point in saying that a hypothetical brain-dead, comatose bodybuilder is stronger than a starving man?

Yes, if the bodybuilder can be software-upgraded remotely out of the coma.

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

#339

Post by epanchin »

antirez wrote: post #200

What is happening was clear to many since the start: Tesla incarnates the behavior of his founder, exaggerating the technology that is really available right now, and selling it as a product without the premise for it to be safe. A product that kinda drives your car but sometimes fails, and requires you to pay attention, is simply a crash that we are waiting to happen. And don't get trapped by the "data driven" analy…

Saying “When you drive you are in control” is fine, but you’re not always the only person impacted when you crash.

As we have no control over how others drive, statistics are more relevant.

As a pedistrian, I care about cars being on average less likely to kill me. If it means I’m safer I would rather the driver wasn’t in control of their own safety.

The ethical solution is the one with the least overall harm.

Of course being safer overall while taking control from the driver is unlikely to drive sales.

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

#340

Post by Piskvorrr »

qaq wrote: post #321
Piskvorrr wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps that SV is vocal , excessively so: promises miracles, yesterday, at will, almost for free. In other words, massively overpromises, then underdelivers - that amounts to painting a huge sign "KICK ME" on its collective butt. While other enterprises might do that as well, even to a criminal extent, they do not brag about it. This might be all the explanation that's needed, no conspiracy necessary.

What miracles was FB promising? (Again not a fan of FB).

I would guess "we'll give you social network, not a total-surveillance tool" would qualify. I don't think the second part would have been a reasonable expectation.
Post reply on HN