Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#71

Post by snthd » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #54

neolefty wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common in early car and aircraft cultures as well. Always a tension between innovation and safety. I don't mean that as a cop-out. Rather that there's no single "right answer". We are choosing something on a spectrum of risk vs reward. Personally, although I have no direct experience, it's starting to look like Tesla is being too risky. Yes, they're safer than human-only drivers, but the mistakes they're making are t…

I firmly believe that a technology deployed in a potentially life-threatening context like a car or plane or pacemaker deserves a much more conservative development approach. "Move fast and break things" isn't appropriate when human lives are at stake. Waymo is applying the appropriate conservatism; Tesla and Uber are playing fast and loose by comparison.

The dilemma is that slow development costs lives as well :-/

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#72

Post by Retric » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:54 PM UTC

berg01 wrote: post #27

otalp wrote: post #2

Full statement: "We are very sorry for the family's loss. According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location, yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location. The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is i…

So the crux here is the naming of the not-really-self-driving feature. This is not an Autopilot for cars. It "requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel". That's a driving assist. Call it the world's best driving assist or whatever, but not Autopilot. (I have seen the usual reply from Tesla apologists that it's a good name because of its aircraft analogy. From a usability perspective that is just so.…

Aircraft autopilot still require actual pilots to pay attention when flying. So really autopilot is the correct term, people are simply assuming it means a level 5 self driving car when it does not.

“And really there’s a sweet spot you have to find where you use automation to relieve the pilot of some amount of workload.” http://nationalpost.com/news/world/disaster-on-autopilot-how... 10 years ago airlines could have gone 100% automation, but a hybrid approach really has proven safer.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#73

Post by saagarjha » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:54 PM UTC

NickM wrote: post #66

eridius wrote: post #8

I have to wonder why Tesla keeps doubling down on victim-blaming. Is this a case of Elon Musk being insecure about criticism (since he's demonstrated a tendency in the past to react poorly to it)? Or is Tesla trying to actually lower their legal liability? Edit: To clarify, in most of these crashes, it's usually a combination of Tesla's fault and the driver's fault. Which is to say, the driver could have avoided the…

I think they're trying to hammer home the point that autopilot is very much not level 5 self-driving. The media is constantly referring to "self-driving" Teslas, so of course it's easy for members of the public to get confused, but this is very different from e.g. the Uber self-driving fatality that occurred recently, where the car was supposed to be able to drive 100% autonomously. Tesla is extremely clear that thes…

Except Tesla themselves was clearly enjoying the positive press from people calling their cars self-driving up until this crash.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#74

Post by redial » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC

jhall1468 wrote: post #56

exotree wrote: post #10

This is a very upsetting response. Yes, the driver could have paid more attention, and yes, he shouldn't have activated Autopilot in an area where he knew Tesla's autopilot was not working correctly. However, Tesla calling it "Autopilot" should be no longer allowed. It's clear that it is most certainly not that, and customers are not treating this feature in a careful and cautious fashion, and I do believe that's due…

Autopilot is a marketing term here. It's correct if we think of Autopilot = autonomous but it isn't. The thing alarms at you (visually and via sound) when you take your hands off the wheel. The fact that drivers ignore that isn't Tesla's fault, and saying it's "not enough" is kind of absurd. What the hell are they going to do if you take your hands off the wheel? Stop the car in the middle of a freeway? I could use y…

> Stop the car in the middle of a freeway?

Yes. When the alternative is having a crash they should find a way to stop. [edit: of course I don't mean to suddenly stop. But if the system can't trust the driver is alert it should disengage or stop. As we've seen now multiple times, if it continues it will result in a crash.]

The current behavior is not only dangerous to the driver of a tesla. It puts everyone in the road at risk, most of whom have no contract with tesla and never agreed to be guinea-pigs in their so-called "autonomous" experiment.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#75

Post by etjossem » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

redial wrote: post #70

NickM wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're trying to hammer home the point that autopilot is very much not level 5 self-driving. The media is constantly referring to "self-driving" Teslas, so of course it's easy for members of the public to get confused, but this is very different from e.g. the Uber self-driving fatality that occurred recently, where the car was supposed to be able to drive 100% autonomously. Tesla is extremely clear that thes…

Jeez, that damned media again misinforming people. Who could have expected a feature called AUTOPILOT to mean self driving, who?!

Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is understands that it does not make an aircraft autonomous. It's an assistive device - a stabilizer for wings and pitch.

To call the Tesla Model S an "autonomous vehicle" simply because it has a feature called autopilot is disingenuous.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#76

Post by saagarjha » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:57 PM UTC

jhall1468 wrote: post #56

exotree wrote: post #10

This is a very upsetting response. Yes, the driver could have paid more attention, and yes, he shouldn't have activated Autopilot in an area where he knew Tesla's autopilot was not working correctly. However, Tesla calling it "Autopilot" should be no longer allowed. It's clear that it is most certainly not that, and customers are not treating this feature in a careful and cautious fashion, and I do believe that's due…

Autopilot is a marketing term here. It's correct if we think of Autopilot = autonomous but it isn't. The thing alarms at you (visually and via sound) when you take your hands off the wheel. The fact that drivers ignore that isn't Tesla's fault, and saying it's "not enough" is kind of absurd. What the hell are they going to do if you take your hands off the wheel? Stop the car in the middle of a freeway? I could use y…

The biggest issue here is 90% autonomous has been shown to not work. People invariably let down their guard and go "hey, this works" and promptly stop paying attention because there's nothing for them to do.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#77

Post by deelowe » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:57 PM UTC

rootlocus wrote: post #20

ajross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm normally an automation booster, but this is the wrong PR take for sure. I mean, to take this at face value it sounds like Tesla is saying its autopilot doesn't actually work and that if you don't continue to drive your car you're going to die. Maybe that will work in court, but it's not going to sell a lot of cars. I mean... clearly (hopefully) this isn't the attitude being exhibited inside the company. We all kn…

> it sounds like Tesla is saying its autopilot doesn't actually work and that if you don't continue to drive your car you're going to die No, it doesn't just "sound like", it's actually > extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel. This reminder is made every single time Autopilot is engaged. If the system detects that hands are not on, it provides visual and auditory a…

> Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel

Clearly that's not the case, because if it "required" it the car would cease to function if you took your hands off the wheel. Instead, the Tesla continues to drive itself for some time and then after a few seconds warns you, but that's about it. If you want to see what a real requirement looks like, go explore any of the other car makers that have rolled out similar systems at this point. Those really, actually do require "the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel."

Has everyone forgotten Tesla's marketing from when they first rolled this poorly implemented system out?

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#78

Post by coenhyde » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:59 PM UTC

This is a disappointing response from Tesla. I understand why they are trying to limit liability but they fucked up. They need to take responsibility. The autopilot actively veered towards the barrier. That's very different from autopilot failing to avoid a danger.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#79

Post by fmihaila » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 8:00 PM UTC

NickM wrote: post #66

eridius wrote: post #8

I have to wonder why Tesla keeps doubling down on victim-blaming. Is this a case of Elon Musk being insecure about criticism (since he's demonstrated a tendency in the past to react poorly to it)? Or is Tesla trying to actually lower their legal liability? Edit: To clarify, in most of these crashes, it's usually a combination of Tesla's fault and the driver's fault. Which is to say, the driver could have avoided the…

I think they're trying to hammer home the point that autopilot is very much not level 5 self-driving. The media is constantly referring to "self-driving" Teslas, so of course it's easy for members of the public to get confused, but this is very different from e.g. the Uber self-driving fatality that occurred recently, where the car was supposed to be able to drive 100% autonomously. Tesla is extremely clear that thes…

> Tesla is extremely clear that these are only driver assistance features

Promoting the system with the name 'Autopilot' is, to my mind, quite a bit less than extremely clear communication. This name provides Tesla's critics with a constant line of attack, which will continue right up until they reach level 5. I consider myself a hardcore Tesla fan but I think they've botched their messaging, and this latest statement isn't helping.

> ... but people keep getting confused about it, so they keep doubling down on their message.

Well, that's exactly the problem, isn't it: people keep getting confused. If your message isn't getting through, instead of just yelling it louder you could try eliminating all ambiguity, for instance by changing the name. If this were marketed as simply 'adaptive cruise control with steering', nobody could claim they were misled.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#80

Post by saagarjha » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 8:01 PM UTC

josecurioso wrote: post #69

The reason tesla needs to make this kind of statements is very simple: Guy in a renault has this accident and it is just routine, renault won't see their shares fall and there will be next to no coverage of the incident. In the case of tesla any accident gets to the front page of reddit, trends in twitter, is shared in facebook, let alone printed on newspapers, these statements are needed to fight that amount of bad…

Well, Renault doesn't have self driving technology that they're touting as "autonomous†".

†While the driver continues to pay attention and basically does everything they need to do while driving, without actually performing any actions