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

191–200 of 850 posts

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

#191

Post by laythea »

tc wrote: post #18

Tesla probably shouldn't be saying anything about this at all, even just to avoid giving it more news cycles. But if they were going to say something, here's what they should have said the first time. ---- We take great care in building our cars to save lives. Forty thousands Americans die on the roads each year. That's a statistic. But even a single death of a Tesla driver or passenger is a tragedy. This has affecte…

"Saving other lives is the best we can hope to take away from an event like this."

I am a bit irked by the arrogance of this statement. The best we can hope for is to ensure the safety of the public.

And you, as a company, can be regulated out of business.

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

#192

Post by laythea »

krrrh wrote: post #124
Gerardo1 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This same thing can be said of auto-pilot in planes. Not saying it invalidates your argument, just that there are pretty wide-reaching consequences to that idea.

This comparison really only works if you mean engaging autopilot with a bunch of other planes flying in close formation and if clouds were made of steel and concrete. Most of the time that autopilot is engaged on a flight there is next to zero risk of a collision. Commercial pilots also get a lot of training specifically related to what autopilot is and isn’t appropriate for.

That is a valid counterpoint in my opinion.

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

#193

Post by Phrodo_00 »

tathastu wrote: post #106
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…

Tesla's autopilot page ( https://www.tesla.com/autopilot ) says (as of today): 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.

While it might imply otherwise, the message is clear about the _hardware_ being ready for self-driving. That doesn't mean the car is capable of self-driving in general.

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

#195

Post by frafra »

ansible wrote: post #164
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…

I get that the vision system might have been fooled by how the lane widens before the split. What I don't get is why the radar doesn't pick up the barrier itself. It should have been getting a nice, healthy return signal from it, lots of metal at all kinds of angles. What I'm saying is, this is not a stealthy barrier.

Radar is not active if the speed is higher than a specific threshold; it seems it is written in the manual.

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

#196

Post by Robotbeat »

Fricken wrote: post #133
Robotbeat wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it autopilot implies you have to pay attention. It implies it's NOT self-driving or autonomous any more than airplanes (which virtually all have some sort of autopilot) are.

The name is irrelevant. What's relevant is that 56% of commercial pilots have admitted to falling asleep while flying[1]. People suck at remaining alert and attentive when doing boring shit. So when autopilot was all over the road and screwing up every 30 seconds, it wasn't much of a problem. Now that it can navigate highways for an hour or more without needing a safety critical intervention, we have a problem. [1] h…

What percent of commercial pilots also fly with a copilot?

Additionally, I'm not a professional driver, I don't have any autopilot on my car, but I've definitely briefly fell asleep while driving late at night. What do you think rumble strips are for?

Such an extremely low number of (but extremely highly publicized) fatality is not reason enough to say autopilot is a net negative. In fact, the extreme media focus that every fatality during autopilot causes should goad improvement of autopilot safety until it's far better than human drivers.

(And let's not pretend that this autopilot error doesn't also happen with human drivers... The only reason this failure was fatal is because less than two weeks earlier, a human driver crashed into the same barrier--likely due to the same confusion--and destroyed its effectiveness since the highway department was slow to reset it.)

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

#197

Post by txcwpalpha »

slg wrote: post #180
txcwpalpha wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone elsewhere in this thread put it, this is a case where silicon valley's posterchild slogan "move fast and break things" has turned into a reality of "move fast and end lives". Fast updates can be a great thing, but companies (in this case, Tesla) need to do a better job of figuring out when to apply this mentality of "move fast" and when to instead apply a mentality of "move slower because even the slightes…

It is the classic trolley[1] problem and Tesla is flipping the switch on the tracks. I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths. Considering there has only been two confirmed fatalities in which autopilot was partially at fault (AFAIK), I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended". Whether that is the right ethical or…

But this isn't a question about no autopilot vs autopilot. This is a question about the previous version of autopilot vs the current version. If the previous version of autopilot (read: the one that didn't swerve into barriers and kill someone) was working, why did they update everyone to this new version which apparently has a life-threatening bug? Was it necessary to roll out this update so quickly? My guess is no, and that with less of a "move fast and break things" mentality, they might have tested the update more and fixed this issue before it went live.

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

#198

Post by waitwhatt »

xvf22 wrote: post #95
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…

It'll work 99% of the time and lull you into a false sense of security. The other 1% of the time you better be ready to take over with little notice or there's a chance you'll end up dead. And with automatic updates a section of road that has been fine for a year suddenly tries to kill you... Blaming the victim certainly doesn't sit well with me.

I totally agree. I am a massive fan of Tesla but this response is absolutely atrocious and disrespectful.

They refuse to acknowledge a bug in THEIR software which drove his car in to a concrete barrier and pin all the blame on him. Even so far as to tease him and ask why he would even use their product in that area (which Tesla allows).

It must feel so so so sad to have your loved one die and then to read this heartless BS from tesla.

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

#199

Post by cmurf »

I think the name "Autopilot" matters less than how it works. Do the raw (whatever Tesla and NTSB have access to in a lab) recordings include hand position, temperature and pressure? Or is the raw data a binary state true/false similar to the in-car UI experience?

Back to autopilot: there's a wide range of autopilots in airplanes. Single engine planes might not have them unless they're IFR equipped. There's no requirement to have one, but they are useful for reducing cockpit workload. Perhaps the most common, is just a simple hold heading autopilot where you use a knob to set a bug on the direction gyro and the autopilot holds that heading. Literally all it does is hold a heading. Not altitude, not speed, not power. And then way on the opposite end of the spectrum are autopilots certified for ILS CAT IIIc landings, and include autoland.

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

#200

Post by waitwhatt »

zaidf wrote: post #129

"The reason the other families aren't on TV are because their loved ones are still alive." Wow, this sounds like a horrible, tasteless burn to end the statement with. And I am a Tesla fan.

"99% of people survive and our software bug only drives a few people violently in to concrete barriers at seconds notice and decapitates them. It just so happens that your loved one is now dead but he shouldn't have used our product, as he knew it didn't work there. kthxbye"
Post reply on HN