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

401–410 of 850 posts

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

#401

Post by gamblor956 »

Retric wrote: post #361
gamblor956 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pil…

Airlines do get aircraft that are capable of 100% self-controlled flying gate-to-gate if they've bought a plane within the last 2 decades. They simply choose not to utilize those features for liability reasons.

And as the other commentor who brought up the sleeping pilots noted, in many cases, both pilots fell asleep during the flight.

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

#402

Post by fmihaila »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #380
slg wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

> and now someone is dead because of that problem.

You've stated this repeatedly without proof. It has not been established he is dead because of that problem. The investigation may yet reach that conclusion, but until then you have no support for this assertion.

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

#403

Post by phkahler »

Retric wrote: post #396
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…

Your belief is meaningless, we have hard data that shows a net benefit to these systems. It's not a question of zero deaths, it's a question of reducing the number which means you need to look beyond individual events. Remember the ~90 people who died yesterday from a US car accident without making the news are far more important than a few individuals.

>> our belief is meaningless, we have hard data that shows a net benefit to these systems.

No we don't. Tesla likes to compare their deaths per mile to the national average. The problem is that their autopilot is not fit to drive everywhere or in all conditions that go into that average. There is no data to support that autopilot is safer overall. It may not even be safer in highway conditions given that we've seen it broadside a semi and now deviate from the lane into a barrier - both in normal to good conditions.

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

#404

Post by gamblor956 »

greglindahl wrote: post #354
gamblor956 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I'm damning Tesla because they sell the vehicle as self-driving when it cannot, and moreover "require" the driver to maintain superficial alertness without actually enforcing alertness in a reasonable matter like all of their major competitors do.

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

#405

Post by rayiner »

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…

They’re really digging themselves a hole. Can you imagine explaining to a jury that your “autopilot” isn’t “fully-autonomous” and trying to justify that as not misleading by pointing to “autopilots in aviation?”

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

#406

Post by gamblor956 »

theclaw wrote: post #375
gamblor956 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Product liability (in the US) attaches to the normal usage of a product, whether that is an intended usage of the product or not.

A toaster is not normally used in the bath, so that does not create product liability issues. A car is normally used for driving...in fact, that's a car's primary use...so product liability would attach to its driving-related functional failure.

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

#407

Post by ehnto »

kafquaesque wrote: post #321
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…

If a person uses a device while using autopilot, (which seems highly likely—not sure in thi instance) wouldn’t it be advisable to have the alerts come to them directly on whichever device they are using? The alert breaks them out of whatever task they are focusing on. If the alert is coming from the car I can see how a lot of us could ignore it.

What a world. Where we can't even take enough responsibility to be present enough to hear the "You are about to die" bell chime.

Imagine the possible breaking components in that chain too. Bluetooth can fail, satellite can fail, cell can fail, WiFi can fail, a USB cable can fail, there isn't a single piece of connectivity technology that would make me confident enough to delegate alerts to another device.

There is also an inherent failure of alarms in general in that even very loud ones can be ignored if they give false positives even once or twice. There is a body of study trying to address it. Some of the most fatal industrial accidents occured because alarms were either ignored or even fully switched off. We aren't good with alarms.

I think the meat of it though is that unless Auto-pilot works perfectly then you can't leave it alone. And if you can't leave it alone then what's the point?

The sell for autonomous cars isn't that people are just so darn tired of turning the steering wheel that they would really rather not. It's that we could potentially be more productive if we could shift our full attention to work/study/relaxation while commuting.

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

#408

Post by gamblor956 »

fmihaila wrote: post #326
gamblor956 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Proximate cause is irrelevant. This is a product liability issue because the product failed, which means strict liability applies. I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me just yet that the product failed. We don't know what the investigation will show.

Car steered itself into a concrete wall. That is, by definition, failure. It doesn't matter whether it was properly following its coding to follow lane lines.

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

#409

Post by alpos »

laythea wrote: post #191
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…

"Saving other lives is the best we can hope to take away from an event like this." I am a bit irked by the arrogance of this statement. The best we can hope for is to ensure the safety of the public. And you, as a company, can be regulated out of business.

I think of it this way: Most car manufacturers are releasing their products on the public year after year, knowing full well that a decent percentage of people that drive away from the dealership will be killed by the thing they just bought.

Tesla is merely trying to take the next step in reducing that percentage.

Their strategy is sound and we so far have not come up with any alternatives that stand a remote chance of improving safety as much as self-driving. Even if they are largely unsuccessful, they are indeed trying to ensure the safety of the public.

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

#410

Post by greglindahl »

gamblor956 wrote: post #404
greglindahl wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I'm damning Tesla because they sell the vehicle as self-driving when it cannot, and moreover "require" the driver to maintain superficial alertness without actually enforcing alertness in a reasonable matter like all of their major competitors do.

Wow. You sure are an expert in alertness.
Post reply on HN