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

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

#291

Post by Twisell » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:22 PM UTC

dewski wrote: post #176

txcwpalpha wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can't just blanket say everything is irrelevant because it doesn't fit your narrative. If he reported the system wasn't working, why would he continue using it especially in a known problematic area?

Because it’s on his daily commuting path? If the autopilot globallly function well and give him added security why should he disconnect it?

But if the car consistently swerve toward the barrier in certains circumstances, doesn’t it increase the probability of a crash because it programmatically increase risk of accident in an otherwise safe situation. And then isn’t Tesla culpright of not treating bug report appropriately?

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

#292

Post by hangonhn » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:24 PM UTC

debt wrote: post #225

greglindahl wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare that with the message displayed each time the driver turns on Autopilot. Is there any evidence that Tesla drivers are more influenced by marketing or by the message that they see every day?

Also does Tesla have numbers to show that autopilot has actually been safer than a normal human driver?

Even if they do show the AP is safer than a human driver, the idea that a machine/software killing people is pretty unsettling to most of us. It's one thing to have a human driver make an error and kill himself and other and another to have a machine do it on a somewhat regular basis, even if in the long run less people die overall. There's something really uncomfortable for society. The justification for it feels very cold and calculated, even if it is right. We've arrived at Peter Singer's trolley car problem.

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

#293

Post by lavezzi » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:25 PM UTC

txcwpalpha wrote: post #179

dewski wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just blanket say everything is irrelevant because it doesn't fit your narrative. If he reported the system wasn't working, why would he continue using it especially in a known problematic area?

Because he was assured by Tesla that it was working, and there was no problem. They were clearly wrong. As for the relevance: sure I can. My post about Tesla's contradiction has no relevance on what kind of autopilot it was. Tesla denied there was an issue, contradicted themselves by then saying there is an issue, and now is casting blame on the user for that issue. That's not acceptable. It would be unacceptable if…

> Because he was assured by Tesla that it was working, and there was no problem. They were clearly wrong.

This doesn't hold up if you refer back to the comment that states he contacted them 7-10 times.

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

#294

Post by txcwpalpha » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:27 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #217

txcwpalpha wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The same principle applies. Autopilot is not a binary feature that either works or doesn't. It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer. Sure, Tesla could have delayed this specific update in favor of more testing. But how many preventable accidents would happen during that testing period that an earlier roll out could have prevented? Neither you or I know the answer to that. Tesla has acce…

>It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer.

In this instance, it didn't get safer. It did the opposite, and it killed someone.

>I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes.

You haven't? Because I'm sitting here looking at a story about a bug in Tesla's latest software that Tesla ignored and then it resulted in someone's death.

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

#295

Post by kolpa » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:27 PM UTC

cdancette wrote: post #248

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…

For me it's the opposite. I feel like with cruise control on, I'm much more attentive to the road and the surroundings and feel much safer. It really annoys me when I have to constantly look at the speed to avoid getting above the limit and it is very tiring for long drives.

You need a speed limiter, not necessarily cruise control.

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

#296

Post by danso » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:29 PM UTC

Rychard wrote: post #289

danso wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe Tesla bears the burden of maintaining its own homepage? tesla.com/autopilot currently has "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" as its top headline and has had that for awhile now.

Well, they do have the hardware, that isn't the issue. The cars simply lack the software to enable a fully autonomous vehicle. The phrasing indicates that if/when the software becomes available, the car would be theoretically capable of driving itself. It's just a typical misleading marketing blurb; nothing more.

Yes, it is the issue because no one has achieved full self-driving yet so Tesla simply has no idea what hardware may be required to achieve that level of functionality in real-world situations.

But that wasn't the line of argument I was making. The parent commenter said this about people misunderstanding the term "autopilot"

> Just because people don't know the proper term or have an erroneous idea of the term, doesn't mean tesla has to have the burden of people misinterpreting what it says.

Seems like people might be mistaken because the phrase "Full Self-Driving" is literally the first thing on the official Tesla Autopilot page.

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

#297

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:30 PM UTC

Rychard wrote: post #289

danso wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe Tesla bears the burden of maintaining its own homepage? tesla.com/autopilot currently has "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" as its top headline and has had that for awhile now.

Well, they do have the hardware, that isn't the issue. The cars simply lack the software to enable a fully autonomous vehicle. The phrasing indicates that if/when the software becomes available, the car would be theoretically capable of driving itself. It's just a typical misleading marketing blurb; nothing more.

> Well, they do have the hardware

They don't actually know that they have hardware for full autonomy till they have a fully working hardware/software autonomy system; what they have is hardware that they hope will support full autonomy, and a willingness to present hopes as facts for marketing purposes.

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

#298

Post by kolpa » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:31 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #186

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.

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.

If autopilot crashes at a lower rate than the average driver, they are correct, but autopilot+attentive driver would still be better than either alone.

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

#299

Post by awestley » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:31 PM UTC

I had an early version of the Model S with the autopilot (P85D). Once it was made available I noticed a DECREASE in the reliability after every update. From day one it was great. It would be glued to the car in front of it and kept me safe. Over the three years I owed it, it only got worse. My theory was that they tried to make the car drive too much like a human. Rather than going safely down the middle of the lane when passing it would try to give a little more space and thus get closer to the median. It only got worse from there. I no longer have the Model S, but it was the best car I ever owned. That said, I won't get another until there are huge improvements to the autopilot.

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

#300

Post by saalweachter » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:32 PM UTC

chaboud wrote: post #126

snthd wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unfortunately, that sentiment, wielded as a shield by the ambitious, papers a veneer of virtue over the callous disregard of cutting corners with other people's lives. The reality is that careful development is expensive . If Uber and Tesla were racing to save lives, they'd open up their work to the public. They're racing to make the most money possible in the end. Part of that equation is cost. Another is maximizing…

I think the exact logical flaw is that saying "slowing down development for testing costs lives" assumes the solution will be validated as correct. Waiting a year to deploy the correct solution for want of testing costs the lives that solution could have saved in that year, yes, but pushing one correct and four incorrect solutions immediately into production - when the incorrect solutions each cost twice as many lives as could have otherwise been saved - and re-evaluating after a year kills far more people than are saved.