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

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

#371

Post by osrec » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:20 PM UTC

fapjacks wrote: post #155

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…

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 disagree with your initial sentiment. In my opinion, we can have self driving cars without a large human toll. I just think we need to stop trying to merge self driving cars into a road system designed for human operators. Moreover, we should not be "beta testing" our self driving cars on roads with human operators. Accidents will happen, as ML models can and do go unstable from time to time. Instead, we should look to update our roads and infrastructure to be better suited to automated cars. Till then, I hope those martyred in the name of self driving technology are not near and dear to you (even if you'd feel it's worth it).

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

#372

Post by otalp » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:21 PM UTC

theclaw wrote: post #336

ceejayoz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like Stalin never had anything fair/correct/smart to say. Guy had some great quotes. "A sincere diplomat is like dry water or wooden iron." "We think that a powerful and vigorous movement is impossible without differences - 'true conformity' is possible only in the cemetery." "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

Whether or not Stalin actually said it, the quote is intended to excuse the murder of thousands - it's carelessly misinterpreted here.

Stalin probably didn't say it and the quote is usually used to highlight how the human brain cannot comprehend the devastation of a hundred deaths while it can easily feel grief for one death.

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

#373

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

throwaway2048 wrote: post #288

slg wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

there is also no indication that it is _saving_ lives either, stats that are about easy, relatively safe situations, where humans take over when challenges occur are not any kind of meaningful indicator. Not to mention the market telsa courts self selects for safer driving in general (rich, and informed). To act like this is a clearcut case of the trolley dilemma and telsa is making a moral choice that saves life is…

As far as I know there has been only a single public study on the safety of Tesla's autopilot. It compared miles driven in Teslas without the autopilot hardware and safety features versus miles driven in Teslas with those features. They showed a 40% reduction in crashes. I think it is fair to assume that a 40% reduction in crashes resulted in numerous lives being saved. I don't see how coming to that conclusion is "misinformed bordering on disingenous".

That specific note is available on page 10-11 in the linked study. [1]

[1] - https://www.scribd.com/embeds/337007075/content?start_page=1...

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

#374

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

kodis wrote: post #173

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.

From what I've read, GM is less confident about their system's ability to operate under as wide a variety of situations as Tesla's does. Yes, it operates in a hands-free manner, but does so only on well mapped uninterrupted divided highways, and even then it requires the driver pay attention. It does this by way of the IR lights and camera mounted in the steering wheel, which only allow the driver to look away from t…

GM's AV systems are leap-years ahead of Tesla's. Pretty much everyone in the AV world is, including Uber (the recent accident notwithstanding). However, GM is taking the safe and conservative approach: restrict the usage of a feature that could potentially kill its users to a specific set of situations in which extraordinary testing has demonstrated that it won't. And that's exactly the right way to do it until they get to true self-driving.

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

#375

Post by theclaw » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #318

fmihaila wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Failed under what conditions, though? The manufacturer gets to specify the conditions under which they consider their product to be safe and suitable for a particular purpose. The car was not used under those conditions and the result was injury through misuse of the product.

If my toaster causes me serious injury because I used it in the bath, that is my problem.

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

#376

Post by Barrin92 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:24 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #159

tathastu wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

>Is there any evidence that Tesla drivers are more influenced by marketing or by the message that they see every day?

given the behaviour of customers (putting down lump sums of money without knowing when they receive their car, camping out in front of stores), dedicated only communities (a 200k user subreddit for a car company?) and so forth I'm going to go with yes and it seems to border on the cult-ish.

There is a cult of personality around Musk and Tesla that is simply irrational

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

#377

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:26 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…

Economic incentives and competition will eventually cause it to happen regardless of sentiment. First, insurance rates for manually driven cars will shoot through the roof as less risky drivers moving to self driving cars decimate that risk pool (like if gun owners were required insurance for misuse). Second, cities that go to self driving only will have a huge advantage in infrastructure utilization and costs as roads are used more efficiently (with smoother traffic) and parking lots/garages become a thing of the past. Residents will just push for it if it means not being stuck in traffic anymore. Or worse, people and companies will relocate to cities with exclusive self driving car policies, creating a huge penalty for cities that don’t or can’t do that.

In comparison, the economic impact/benefit of banning assault rifles is negligible (and definitely not transformative) even if I personally think it is the morally right thing to do. (Maybe we can make the case later if school security and active shooter drills become prohibitively expensive and/or annoying)

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

#378

Post by oldpond » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:26 PM UTC

The solution is to require ALL vehicles to have self driving features like collision avoidance.

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

#379

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

2bitencryption wrote: post #189

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…

it definitely has to do with how the lane marker stripe on the road crosses into the other lane at the divider. you can see the Tesla hugs the left line divider. When the lanes split, the line doesn't -- it continues into the opposite lane. Regardless, that's a totally common occurrence on the road. It seems absurd that the car will trust a painted line over any type of radar or imagery showing a rapidly approaching…

It doesn't work based on car follow - but it does switch to that mode momentarily in extreme cases when lanes completely disappear and there is a car in front and when it does - it make the leading car full blue.

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

#380

Post by txcwpalpha » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:28 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #358

txcwpalpha wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>Like I said in my previous comment, neither of us know how many accidents were prevented or lives saved by that update.

Then why are you making assumptions about it, then?

>You are drawing those conclusions with only half of the equation.

No, I'm not. The facts are: there was a problem that was reported to Tesla, Tesla ignored that problem, and now someone is dead because of that problem. No further information is needed to recognize that Tesla acted poorly here.