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

Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 850 posts

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

#181

Post by rightbyte »

fapjacks wrote: post #155
patcheudor wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>t's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred. This needs far more discussion. I just don't buy it. I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive. I think our psychology won't allow it. When driving, I find that I must be engaged and on long trips I don't even enable cruise control because taking the accelerator input away from me is…

I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem. But I think you're right. I think the "best" way to move forward unt…

Thats kinda Volvo Cars approuch, word by word, as one of their RnD engineers explained it to me.

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

#182

Post by greglindahl »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #168
greglindahl wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Tesla was shipping a Level 3 system, your analysis would be great. But they aren't. They're shipping a Level 2 system where you're reminded each time that you enable it that you've got to remain alert. And which dings at you if you don't keep your hands on the steering wheel.

This is irrelevant. Before his death, Tesla told the driver that there was no issue with the autopilot feature. This likely contributed to his continued use of the feature. That feature, because of the same issue (which Tesla denied existed) killed him. And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system. Whether or not it's a full self-driving mode, or if it's an assisted aut…

That makes absolutely no sense. You're basically saying that Tesla's statement made it OK that the driver did not pay attention to what was going on, which is something which is required 100% of the time when Autopilot is functioning correctly. (It's a L2 system, and reminds the driver to continue paying attention each time it is turned on.)

If things worked the way you want it to, no car company would every say anything to any customer other than bland statements drafted by lawyers.

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

#183

Post by base698 »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #168
greglindahl wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Tesla was shipping a Level 3 system, your analysis would be great. But they aren't. They're shipping a Level 2 system where you're reminded each time that you enable it that you've got to remain alert. And which dings at you if you don't keep your hands on the steering wheel.

This is irrelevant. Before his death, Tesla told the driver that there was no issue with the autopilot feature. This likely contributed to his continued use of the feature. That feature, because of the same issue (which Tesla denied existed) killed him. And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system. Whether or not it's a full self-driving mode, or if it's an assisted aut…

I'm a new Model S over, and it's hard for me to believe anyone would believe them. The autopilot makes egregious errors during any prolonged use. You should feel more alert and engaged when using it at this point.

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

#184

Post by Johnny555 »

mannykannot wrote: post #167
Johnny555 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like Tesla's auto pilot? Drivers are supposed to be "flying", scanning gauges and the road ahead to ensure the autopilot is doing what they expect... I think people that say that "autopilot" is a bad name for this feature don't really understand what an "autopilot" does.

An airplane under autopilot is not a second or two away from a fatal crash.

If the pilots are not flying, then it can be just a short time away from a crash. Like when the pilot is not paying attention and by the time the auto pilot can no longer fly, the pilot doesn't have enough situational awareness to take over.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_fli...

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

#185

Post by DannyBee »

I don't get taking this position. Even if they don't want to engage on the autopilot issue, the hands on wheel vs crash avoidance issue is a lost cause already (IE in most states, they'd lose in any lawsuit on it).

If i take any 2018 model year car with front crash avoidance (outside of a tesla :P), and try to drive it into a barrier like this, depending on speed, most avoid the collision, all of them slowed down (AFAICT - i went through the summaries by category on iihs.org).

None of them require you have your hands on the wheel to do that.

In most jurisdictions, to show a defective design, it's enough to show the existence of an alternative design that would have worked (it doesn't usually even have to have been implemented) , and that it is feasible, economically feasible, and would still perform the original function. Almost all of these cases live and die by the cost of that design and whether it's "too much".

Unfortunately for Tesla, there are tons of them here, they all almost certainly cost less than what Tesla is doing, and also all exist. So i'm positive any lawsuit will either settle, or they will show plenty of them would have worked, by driving cars into an identical setup barrier, and Tesla will lose.

(This assumes, of course, Tesla can't force them into a jurisdiction with weird defective design rules)

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

#186

Post by danso »

Johnny555 wrote: post #145
mrguyorama wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why pilots are still in control of the plane while autopilot is active. Even while active, there is still a "pilot flying" and pilots are still responsible for scanning gauges and readouts and verifying the autopilot is doing what they expect. They do not just turn on autopilot and goof off

Just like Tesla's auto pilot? Drivers are supposed to be "flying", scanning gauges and the road ahead to ensure the autopilot is doing what they expect... I think people that say that "autopilot" is a bad name for this feature don't really understand what an "autopilot" does.

The text at the top of the homepage for Tesla Autopilot is this:

> Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

> 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.

Whatever theory you have for Tesla's naming of their feature, it doesn't match with their marketing.

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

#187

Post by dingaling »

greedo wrote: post #127
supreme_sublime wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point on calling it "Autopilot", but if you think about the application of the term in terms of aviation, I think it makes more sense. Autopilot in planes won't land the plane for you. It basically will just keep you at a certain elevation and direction. I think that Tesla's Autopilot function is comparable to planes. That's probably how they will justify it. However there might be a legitimate point in th…

Actually autopilots in airliners, and some military jets ARE capable of landing aircraft.

And have been doing commercially so since 1966!

First Cat III autoland aircraft was the Shorts Belfast freighter. Sud Caravelle and HS Trident airliners started at lower categories and worked up to III.

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

#188

Post by rohit2412 »

jhall1468 wrote: post #62
joering2 wrote: post #53

Autopilot means it will pilot itself.. automatically. Tesla is using "guidance assistant". Huge difference. Their terminology is either very confusing at the best, or bluntly deceiving at the worst.

Twice now people using absolutely stupid arguments to defend the driver here. He knew what Autopilot was and STILL took his hands off the wheel. Autopilot is a name in the same way Amazon.com isn't a damn rain forest. It's a term taken from aviation, but "autopilot" in a plane and "Autopilot" in a Tesla aren't even remotely the same thing. And literally everyone understands that, yet any time this occurs we start bla…

> Twice now people using absolutely stupid arguments to defend the driver here. He knew what Autopilot was and STILL took his hands off the wheel.

And you guys miss the forest for some shrubs. Yes, the driver was negligent. But do you not see the constant barrage about autonomy for Ap2, Tesla network, FSD, coast to coast drives constantly misleading people? Do you not see why the driver was negligent? Or are you too biased to blame Tesla and need to blame the driver?

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

#189

Post by 2bitencryption »

jijojv wrote: post #5

This is gonna be interesting as apparently the "Barrier" [1] bug is only in newer AP2 models per latest A/B tests done by cpddan (who did the very first crash reproduction scenario in Chicago [2]) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0bR_EQ47E Tesla Model X with AP2.5, SW 2018.6.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2Om8Q0IA MS 75, AP1, SW 2018.6.1 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... . "wor…

it definitely has to do with how the lane marker stripe on the road crosses into the other lane at the divider.

you can see the Tesla hugs the left line divider. When the lanes split, the line doesn't -- it continues into the opposite lane.

Regardless, that's a totally common occurrence on the road. It seems absurd that the car will trust a painted line over any type of radar or imagery showing a rapidly approaching wall...

EDIT: watch both videos again --

Notice in the video where the car DOESN'T head towards the divider, the Tesla autopilot dashboard shows that it can see the car ahead of it.

In the one where it DOES head towards the divider, it doesn't have a car in front of it to follow.

I am wondering if in the first instance, the Tesla was confused by the lines, but saw a car ahead which cleared up its confusion (maybe it weighs trailing another car as better than following lines).

In the other instance, all it had to work with was the lines (and all the radar and other stuff it has that should avoid all this...).

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

#190

Post by PunchTornado »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #168
greglindahl wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Tesla was shipping a Level 3 system, your analysis would be great. But they aren't. They're shipping a Level 2 system where you're reminded each time that you enable it that you've got to remain alert. And which dings at you if you don't keep your hands on the steering wheel.

This is irrelevant. Before his death, Tesla told the driver that there was no issue with the autopilot feature. This likely contributed to his continued use of the feature. That feature, because of the same issue (which Tesla denied existed) killed him. And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system. Whether or not it's a full self-driving mode, or if it's an assisted aut…

It's a feature that is in development and you can not use it if you don't want to.

Everybody knows ad is alerted by the fact that self driving technology is not there yet. The driver knew that.

Post reply on HN