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

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

#311

Post by almost_usual » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:39 PM UTC

lorenzorhoades wrote: post #260

almost_usual wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I generally agree with this philosophy but this is very optimistic…

I think there is a key point that will result in the freedom of being able to drive being stripped long before assault rifles. Imagine if i create a private road from SF to LA and say that only self driving cars can drive on it. The vehicles on this road are all inter-connected, allowing them to travel at speeds in excess of 150+ MPH, and since the road that i've created is completely flat it still allows it to be a…

So you exit the self driving private road to enter a public road where there are still local residents who insist on driving their own vehicle. Some of these residents have never been to location X and have no interest in it. They care about their neighborhood and getting around however they want.

The point is driving is a freedom and getting rid of it in this country will be hard. I'd imagine self driving vehicles having more prevalence in China where the government can control what destinations you have access to and monitor your trips.

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

#312

Post by stale2002 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:39 PM UTC

almost_usual wrote: post #249

fapjacks wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I generally agree with this philosophy but this is very optimistic…

We aren't asking that normal cars are banned.

We are asking that self driving cars be ALLOWED if the user chooses, even IF the safety is in doubt. This is because of just how extremely important this issue is.

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

#313

Post by greglindahl » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:39 PM UTC

hangonhn wrote: post #292

debt wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ve…

The trolley problem doesn't have a human in the loop.

Edit: Instead of downvoting me, can the downvoter please point out where the trolley problem involves a human in the loop? This is a level 2 system, where a human driver has to remain alert and ready to take over. That's not the trolley problem.

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

#314

Post by kodis » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

emiliobumachar wrote: post #171

robotkdick wrote: post #36

GM's recent TV advertisement shows the driver engaging their version of autopilot and crossing his hands...I was like woah! That would never make it through legal if they weren't very very confident about their tech. Contrast that image with Tesla's demand that drivers keep their hands on the wheel and it seems that GM is miles ahead of everyone on autopilot.

Well, does GM actually, officially allow users to cross arms in their car on live roads, or is it all artistic license?

Again, from what I've seen and read, it doesn't matter what the driver does with his hands and arms, only that he keep his eyes on the road.

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

#315

Post by Analemma_ » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

andrei_says_ wrote: post #305

txcwpalpha wrote: post #59

I used to be in awe of Teslas and I have always been a big fan of Musk, and even after the crash I still imagined myself one day buying a Tesla. But after this response, I've completely lost respect for the company, for Musk, and I don't think I'll ever buy one or advocate for someone buying one. The driver had previously reported to Tesla 7 to 10 times that there was an issue with autopilot, but Tesla told him "no t…

I think the core of the issue lies in what “using autopilot” means. If the driver had used it according to the instructions (with hands on the wheel, while driving the car, watching the road as a driver always should), the crash would not have occurred. Tesla is between a rock and a hard place, they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected. The message is not intended for the deceased driver’s…

> they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected.

That hasn't even been definitively established yet (regardless of what Tesla says), as the multiple videos of post-update Teslas steering directly toward crash barriers demonstrate.

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

#316

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #262

brewdad wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think there's an implied difference between Autopilot vs a name like Driver Assist? Even Co-pilot would be be a better name as it implies an expectation that the driver is still ultimately responsible.

I'm asking for data. The data doesn't care what you and I think. And the data will reflect what Tesla drivers think, as opposed to people who've only heard Tesla's marketing. Tesla drivers get reminded about the limitations of the autopilot system each time they enable it.

The literally hundreds of posts on HN about it being a problem are data that it is. And that's a tech-savvy crowd that theoretically would know the limitations of the system.

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

#317

Post by mnl » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

"Well, too bad another of our customers made a mistake and killed himself because he didn't get what 'autopilot' means (for us). Deal with it. Yours, Tesla"

You all know the game Elon is playing here, what's the point of arguing? Either you're OK with that or you aren't. It's that simple.

Imagine Ford doing this everytime. Oh, the outrage...

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

#318

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

fmihaila wrote: post #210

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…

> the man died because of that issue Tesla would argue that the proximate cause was that the driver was not paying attention. > And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system. Tesla is not saying that it's his fault for using the system. They are saying it is not Tesla's fault if the driver wasn't paying attention, despite being presented with repeated warnings closely pr…

Proximate cause is irrelevant. This is a product liability issue because the product failed, which means strict liability applies.

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

#319

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

hangonhn wrote: post #292

debt wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ve…

Oh we let machines kill people all the time. Trains, power transformers, oil rigs...

Sure autodriving is entering the uncanny valley and that's different. Lots of things are different about it. Instead of prosecuting one person for causing an accident, now a whole line of vehicles is 'at fault' and maybe get sidelined. Good news there is, they can all be fixed at once.

It'll end up more about the law and insurance implications, than what we feel about it.

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

#320

Post by John_KZ » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

ClassyJacket wrote: post #259

John_KZ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>perhaps something else should be done that will incentivize the driver to disengage Autopilot. There's a very simple solution: Don't fucking include it in the car. Require the users to show up at the car dealership and sign a legal waiver to allow the activation of the new, insecure, and dangerous feature. There are no cars on the road with airbags that sometimes work and sometimes cause 3rd degree burns. There are…

"There are no cars on the road with airbags that sometimes work and sometimes cause 3rd degree burns." ... What about the millions of cars being recalled right now for deadly faulty Takata airbags?

They're being recalled. Telsa's autopilot isn't. The situation with the airbags is an exceptional circumstance and they're recalled for a slightly higher chance of malfunction. They have been on 37 million vehicles for 16 years and caused 15 deaths. As low as that is, it's still not tolarated, because this is how strict the auto industry is and should be.