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

351–360 of 850 posts

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

#351

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#352

Post by greglindahl »

gamblor956 wrote: post #307
Ryudas wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this argument so often. Autopilot has never been a term for autonomous, just as its used in aviation. 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.

The problem is that Tesla creates the misinterpretation by explicitly stating that Autopilot is a self-driving system rather than a driver-assist system. It's a fatal choice of words.

That's not what the Tesla system says when you turn it on, every time.

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

#353

Post by Twisell »

dewski wrote: post #303
Twisell wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 appropri…

Based on his complaints I don’t see how we can infer it gave him added security which would warrant continued use. If I knew a tool I used around the house wasn’t working completely as advertised I wouldn’t continue using the feature that wasn’t working for me. As a beta user of bank software where clicking transfer money ended up sending twice as much, wouldn’t it be my fault if I did it 7 more times when I acknowle…

As I see it it’s a minor bug with horrible consequences. What is shocking is not the bug itself, nor the lack of a quick bugfix, but inability to acknowledge the problem and lack of basic and sincere human empathy.

To quote Tesla statement "We empathize with Mr. Huang's family,(...), but the false impression that Autopilot is unsafe will cause harm to others on the road." and the last sentence is by far the worst "The reason that other families are not on TV is because their loved ones are still alive."

Seriouly the most urgent thing to do for Tesla is maybe to fire the head of PR. How can anybody in his right mind have vetted this last sentence?

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

#354

Post by greglindahl »

gamblor956 wrote: post #347
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…

Autopilots can and do land planes; the first autopilot landing was decades ago! They simply don't as a matter of practice so that pilots can maintain their skills during landing, which is the most crucial and dangerous part of the flight. Additionally...Autopilot in planes is hands off . The pilots look at the gauges but they're not actively maintaining their grip on the controls.

Now you're damning Tesla because of a safety feature: the point of keeping the hands on the wheel is that it's a way of keeping the driver alert.

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

#355

Post by gamblor956 »

Retric wrote: post #72
berg01 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Airlines require their pilots to pay attention while flying. The autopilot itself is perfectly fine with the pilots falling asleep, and per another comment, more than half of pilots using autopilot on long flights actually do doze off!

Moreover, autopilot in planes is hands-free. The pilot is monitoring gauges but is not maintaining physical contact with the controls.

The reason that airlines went with hybrid automation is because take-offs and landings are the most dangerous parts of the flight, and if there were any autopilot issues at those times there likely wouldn't be sufficient time for the pilots to take over and recover. Overseas, some airlines allow pilots to let autopilot handle takeoff/landing in good weather.

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

#356

Post by greglindahl »

chrisper wrote: post #141
slavik81 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Autopilot in planes won't land the plane for you. For unmanned aircraft, autoland is an safety feature. After loss of link, an autopilot might be configured to land at a designated location, rather than just circling until it runs out of fuel and drops out of the sky. Though admittedly, crashing in a safe place is less serious when the vehicle has no people in it. The Tesla autopilot needs much closer supervision t…

Autoland is also a safety feature for manned aircraft because it allows you to land in bad visibility or avoid accidents like the one at SFO a couple of years ago.

Excessive reliance on features like autoland was actually the cause of that SFO accident, according to the NTSB.

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

#357

Post by Retric »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #142
Retric wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "And really there’s a sweet spot you have to find where you use automation to relieve the pilot of some amount of workload" ... and that sweetspot, for highway driving, looks to be around the 1998 level of having automatic transmission + cruise control. As we've seen examples in two recent fatal accidents, a driver with too little to do is dangerous.

You need to look at both benefits and downsides.

Tesla autopilot does seem to have net safety benefits though the data is far from conclusive. Honestly, I expect insurance companies probably have the least biased data but even then they may not have the same trade-offs in terms of damage vs fatalities as we would like.

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

#358

Post by slg »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #294
slg wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are drawing those conclusions with only half of the equation. Like I said in my previous comment, neither of us know how many accidents were prevented or lives saved by that update.

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

#359

Post by spurgu »

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…

>However, Tesla calling it "Autopilot" should be no longer allowed.

Meh, autopilots on boats don't do anything more than steer a straight compass course.

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

#360

Post by dewski »

Analemma_ wrote: post #323
dewski wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was forcing him to use the feature if he knew it wasn’t working as intended on that particular stretch of road. My issue with your statements are you’re shifting 110% of the blame to Tesla when that isn’t remotely the case.

And my issue with your statements is that you're trying to have it both ways: you're claiming both that "there is no problem" and "Tesla told him about the problem so it's his fault". You have to pick one.

Nowhere do I say there is no problem so I’m not sure why you’re quoting that. I acknowledge there may be a problem since he shouldn’t have been using autopilot on that known problematic strip of road.
Post reply on HN