Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident • Hacker News Board

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

#401

Post by danso » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

nnf wrote: post #371

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 agree that since that statement is at the top of the /autopilot page may insinuate that that's what Autopilot is, but that statement is describing the hardware on the cars rather than the software. I think that's intended to be read as "if you buy a new Tesla, you'll be able to add the Full Self-Driving Capability with a future software update; no hardware updates required." It could be made more clear, though.

People will differ about whether the statement is worded clearly enough, but it is a bizarre thing to put on the very top of the page. It is completely aspirational, and there is no factual basis for it either. No company has yet achieved full self-driving capability, so how can Tesla claim their current vehicles have all the hardware necessary? Even if it's true that future software updates will eventually get good enough, what if the computational hardware isn't adequate for running that software (e.g. older iPhones becoming increasingly untenable to use with each iOS update).

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

#402

Post by zip1234 » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:18 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #208

namelost wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A high rate of road deaths isn't a fait accompli. Musk would have us believe that technology is the only answer. The UK has the 2nd-lowest rate of road deaths in the world (after Sweden). The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them. However, the UK has strict driver education programme. It is not easy…

> The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them. Actually, paradoxically that means they are actually safer. People drive slower on narrower roads, which means that accidents are within the safe energy envelope that modern cars can absorb. Very, very few people will ever die as a passenger or driver in…

The UK also has a lot of roundabouts for road junctions. It means less 'run red light' collisions.

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

#403

Post by quotemstr » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:18 PM UTC

ldesegur wrote: post #288

jijojv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not comparable at all. Google/Waymo uses lidar and has been at it since 2009 and per https://waymo.com/faq they are "fully automated vehicle" but alas not for sale yet. Tesla's self-driving vaporware being sold since Oct'16 is camera only and should be activated any day now ? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823632597284691969 " Yes, safety should improve significantly due to autonomy features, even if reg…

The low sunlight is hard to deal with by humans and computer vision isn't better. In the meantime, Tesla's CEO doesn't believe Lidar is necessary ( https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/7/16988628/elon-musk-lidar-s... ). My advice to the company BOD & shareholders: have him take the Udacity's self driving car online course and after the first project, he'll clearly understand how limited detecting lanes by CV only can be.…

Musk's central point is that if humans can drive with two cameras, so can a machine. And he's right. Why wouldn't we do just as well as the visual cortex?

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

#404

Post by blktiger » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:19 PM UTC

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…

My Subaru has a "lane assist" feature which helps keep you in your lane while driving. It only gives a little bit of pressure in the direction you should be moving to help you out and if you don't do anything the car will still move out of the current lane. This certainly helps me stay more aware as I can't ever rely on the car to fully steer, but if my concentration lacks during a turn on the freeway I get a reminder that I need to turn if I'm not paying as much attention when I come upon a curve in the road or just drift to one side a bit. So it definitely helps me remember that I'm always in control.

OTOH, the car has probably saved me from at least one accident where traffic ahead of me suddenly slowed down right as my attention relaxed. The _only_ correct way of using these systems is to treat them as an extra level of safety on top of your responsibilities as a driver. An "extra set of eyes" to help you avoid an accident while leaving you as the primary driver of the vehicle.

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

#405

Post by zip1234 » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

Piskvorrr wrote: post #248

codebolt wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Hello, fellow robot car, I am also a robot car, not a wifi pineapple notatall nooosir, and all lanes ahead are blocked. But hey, there's a shortcut, just turn sharp to the right. Yes, your map says you're on a bridge, but don't worry, I have just driven through there, trust me." Nothing could possibly go wrong and the idea of evil actors in such a network is absurd - right? Your idea reminds me of the 1990s Internet…

Also, what's to stop evil actors right now? There is a road near me with the bridge out. Anybody could just go remove the warning signs. Why don't they?

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

#406

Post by matte_black » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #393

ajross wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Ethical. One thing is that you do a stupid thing and die. Another is that a technology fails in trivial circumstances that in theory are avoidable. A doctor can make also errors, but a medical device is required to be very safe and reliable in what it does. This needs elaboration or citation. You're one of the only folks I've seen come straight out and make this point: that somehow a technology or practice that…

I think the point he's making is that it's worse if a person dies because of something they have no control over (self-driving car malfunction) than if a person dies because of their own stupid choices (driving drunk, driving too fast for conditions, running red lights, etc). This, of course, ignores the fact that stupid choices drivers make tend to affect other people on the road who did nothing wrong, so the introd…

No, that conclusion completely ignores the fact that the kind of people who buy Teslas are generally not the kind of people who drive unsafely anyway and die in terrible wrecks.

If you give every shitty driver a self driving Tesla maybe you would do something to make roads safer, but if you’re just giving it to higher net worth individuals who place greater value on their own life, you haven’t even made a dent in traffic safety.

In fact in some cases all you’re doing is making drivers unsafer because the autopilot encourages them to not pay attention to the road no matter how much you think they are watching carefully. The men killed in Teslas could have all avoided their deaths if only they had been paying attention. If I see a Tesla on the road I stay the hell away lest it do something irrational from an error and kill us both.

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

#407

Post by Fraterkes » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:21 PM UTC

drexlspivey wrote: post #298

greendestiny wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sk…

I don't get it. These two are the same thing.

The comment above you supposes that people who drive teslas have fewer accidents on average, even without autopilot. Saying that autopilot "lowers the average" would mean that autopilot lowers the amount of accidents for tesla drivers, while "lower than average" could mean that while a tesla with autopilot is safer than the average, it is less safe than a tesla without autopilot. Pretty complicated

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

#408

Post by dannyw » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:21 PM UTC

I want to ask: why is Tesla's advanced suite of cameras and ultrasonic sensors unable to detect a big, yellow and black stationary barrier?

In combination with chevron markings that mean "never ever drive here". Either should be a globally overriding signal to emergency break or turn, not "keep following the white line".

If the answer is "during morning light, it doesn't see it", then they need to take the feature offline until the car is fitted with an appropriate LIDAR; or other technology that can detect stationary obstacles.

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

#409

Post by quotemstr » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:21 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #398

oldgradstudent wrote: post #58

Tesla claimed[1] that: > Our data shows that Tesla owners have driven this same stretch of highway with Autopilot engaged roughly 85,000 times since Autopilot was first rolled out in 2015 and roughly 20,000 times since just the beginning of the year, and there has never been an accident that we know of. There are over 200 successful Autopilot trips per day on this exact stretch of road. Which might be technically tru…

my question which is the same as others, does Tesla register events where the driver overrides the system? If they register it how do they account for it? if they are not even considering that the driver overrode the system because it was going to crash then all their claims are suspect.

Why? The car isn't driving by itself. What matters is whether Autopilot is a net safety improvement, which it currently appears to be. Why would you add the weird requirement to the system that it be better without human input at all?

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

#410

Post by w_t_payne » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:22 PM UTC

My former employer makes a camera-based lane departure warning system. Although I was not involved with its development, I do know that the amount of testing that they do on these systems is very extensive (hundreds of people involved in the test process).

I would be very interested in seeing a side-by side test of the LDW systems of major manufacturers. This might give us an idea if the problem is fundamental to the technology or is simply a deficiency in the engineering approach of one (or some) manufacturer(s).