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

361–370 of 850 posts

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

#361

Post by Retric »

gamblor956 wrote: post #355
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…

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 automat…

It's not that simple, the aircraft are designed based on what the Airlines want not what the Pilots want. Further, the airlines could easily get a aircraft that flew 100% of the time from A -> B but that does not seem to be the safest option.

Further, pilots are not alone in the cockpit. So, even when one of the pilots is going to take a nap it still ends up as a safety benefit worth the cost of 2 or some times 3 pilots on a long trip.

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

#362

Post by gamblor956 »

zaroth wrote: post #345
waitwhatt wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the people who can afford a Tesla are rich people and thus likely well educated and are safer drivers. Poor people with bad cars, no education and unsafe driving practices probably have more accidents. I don't think these stats mean much.

I keep seeing statements to this effect, and they are incorrect. The comparison is between Tesla cars with and without the AutoPilot feature installed. The statistic has nothing to do with people not driving a Tesla. “...airbag deployment crashes in the subject Tesla vehicles before and after Autosteer installation. The data show that the Tesla vehicles crash rate dropped by almost 40 percent after Autosteer installa…

The bigger problem is that their study seems to have revealed that while crashes went down, the severity of the crashes went up. People weren't dying in their Teslas before Autosteer, but now we're looking at 4 deaths and counting in the space of 2 years, all directly attributable to the use of Autopilot.

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

#363

Post by Retric »

berg01 wrote: post #91
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…

> So really autopilot is the correct term, people are simply assuming it means a level 5 self driving car when it does not. The basics of good usability is that whatever the average person/user is likely to do is to be considered to be what the system should deal with. As you say yourself, people somehow, super mysteriously, seem to think that the feature name Autopilot implies L5 driving. That's fine. My point is th…

Ehh, no I hear Autopilot and I don't think 100% automation but then again I worked for the FAA.

Even the flawed system seems to have a net safety benefit. It's one thing to say wait, it's another thing to say kill more people, because I don't like the semantics being used.

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

#364

Post by theclaw »

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…

There's a difference between "couldn't find a problem" and "no problem".

He went to them multiple times and they couldn't reproduce the problem. Sounds fairly standard. I'd be surprised if you can cite them saying there is definitely no problem.

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

#365

Post by z6 »

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.

Regardless of what you think it means, this guy was likely smart enough to know what it is. It's not like it was a 90 year old driver who doesn't understand technology. Also, supposedly he was aware of issues at this particular spot. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that he passed out at the wheel, either due to a medical condition or sleep deprivation. Having said that, tesla should fix their collision detection and auto-braking systems.

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

#366

Post by robertAngst »

Dwolb wrote: post #117
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…

Tesla need to stop calling it 'Autopilot'. The name implies drivers don't need to drive and is most likely a big reason drivers are lured into a false sense of security.

Ive fallen out of love with Elon.

Hes a big talker and a bigger cult leader.

His fans will believe the news.

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

#367

Post by dustingetz »

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…

Tesla has world-class PR, let's assume they're saying the right thing. What circumstances might they be facing to which this message is a correct response?

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

#368

Post by gamblor956 »

mrb wrote: post #218
matte_black wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't, guns do not fire by themselves using AI trained for that purpose. A man has been killed here by faulty engineering.

When you engage the trigger, firearms require a responsible human to aim with attention. When you engage the autopilot, the system requires a responsible human to watch the road with attention. I really don't see any difference.

A gun is deliberately aimed at a target. The bullet isn't responsible because it has no agency; it is a propelled piece of mass. A self-shooting gun has agency, and does not require the human to aim with attention. (There are currently no self-shooting guns on the market absent hacked firearms.)

A Tesla Autopilot is like a self-shooting gun. Autopilot decides where to go, independently of the human. The car is in control, not the human. Moreover, the car does not actually require the human to watch the road with attention because it continues to maintain control even in the absence of human involvement.

Ergo, they're nothing alike.

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

#369

Post by cpt1138 »

darkstar999 wrote: post #115
cpt1138 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the usage is so subjective, I can't even understand why its allowed. You seem to be saying its no better than a two year old driving. You create a situation in which its "ok" for a two year old to drive? We have laws that state no 2yo's are allowed to be behind the wheel. Why is this 2yo allowed at all?

The same reason cruise control is allowed.

With cruise control all it does is maintain your speed and with the more advanced cameras your distance from the vehicle ahead of you. There is absolutely no instance where you would ever take your hands off the steering wheel with cruise control. Only your feet off the pedals.

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

#370

Post by hyperbole »

patcheudor wrote: post #107
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…

>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 don't buy this either nor should we it's not how the feature is marketed.

"The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat."

The result of this statement and the functionality that matches it is it creates a re-enforced false sense of security.

Does it matter whether the driver of the model X whose auto pilot drove straight into a center divider had his hands on the wheel if the outcome of applying autopilot is drivers focus less on the road? What is the point of two drivers one machine one human? You cannot compare car auto pilot to airplane they're not even in the same league. How often does a center divider just pop up at 20k ft?

Usually machinery either augments human capabilities by enhancing them, or entirely replaces them. This union caused by both driver and car piloting the vehicle has no point especially when it's imperfect.

I'm not opposed to Tesla's sale of such functionality, sell whatever you want, but I am opposed to the marketing material selling this in a way that contradicts the legal language required to protect Tesla...

There's risks in everything you do, but don't market a car as having the hardware to do 2x your customers driving capability and then have your legal material say: * btw don't take your hands off the steering wheel... especially when there's a several minute video showing exactly that.

Tesla customers must have the ability to make informed choices in the risks they take.

Post reply on HN