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

421–430 of 850 posts

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

#421

Post by LoSboccacc »

greglindahl wrote: post #349
gamblor956 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, we have laws that require products to work as advertised. If they don't, generally strict product liability applies to the manufacturer, seller, and all middleman (in this case, they're all Tesla), regardless of whether the customer-victim was misusing the product. In this case, there is no evidence that the driver was misusing the car. But there is a carload of evidence that Autopilot failed. At this poin…

The driver was required to remain alert.

the car should stop itself to the emergency lane then when user disengagement is detected.

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

#422

Post by rohit2412 »

slg wrote: post #180
txcwpalpha wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone elsewhere in this thread put it, this is a case where silicon valley's posterchild slogan "move fast and break things" has turned into a reality of "move fast and end lives". Fast updates can be a great thing, but companies (in this case, Tesla) need to do a better job of figuring out when to apply this mentality of "move fast" and when to instead apply a mentality of "move slower because even the slightes…

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…

This isn't limited to no autopilot vs full autopilot. If autopilot is so good at correcting a drunk driver's accident, then let it run in a shadow mode only making corrective actions in emergencies. Why is AEB bundled in with Autosteer in all stats? AEB is undoubtedly good, Autosteer is debatable.

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

#423

Post by hyperbole »

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…

No one dies so someone 10 years from now can watch a full episode of the family guy unimpeded for the duration of their commute.

The human toll is irrelevant to the conversation, what's relevant is whether risks taken are being taken knowingly - you cannot market a self driving vehicle whose functionality "is 2x better than any human being" while simultaneously stating in your legal language to protect yourself: don't take your hands off the wheel - that's bs.

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

#424

Post by slg »

danso wrote: post #397
slg wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are reading into that text more than you should. Autopilot and full self-driving are two separate features. Autopilot can be used today. Full self-driving can be purchased today but won't be activated until some unknown future date. Those features are separate configurable options when purchasing the car that come with their own prices. Tesla makes it clear enough that any owner should know those are two separate…

> You are reading into that text more than you should. The page's title is "Autopilot | Tesla". It is the first result for "tesla autopilot" in search results. And "autopilot" appears 9 times on the page. So if that's not an intentional attempt to mislead consumers into conflating Autopilot with "full self-driving", then what would such an attempt look like, hypothetically?

Is it crazy to hold a driver to a higher standard than simply Googling "Tesla autopilot" and only reading the first paragraph of the first result? If you read that entire page, the difference between autopilot and full self-driving is clear. If you read the car's manual, the difference is clear. If you look at the configurator for the car, the difference is clear when you have to pay $3,000 extra for full self-driving. I am not sure how any responsible Tesla owner could think that this is only a single feature.

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

#425

Post by almost_usual »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #377
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…

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 roa…

> Or worse, people and companies will relocate to cities with exclusive self driving car policies

So people will relocate to avoid traffic? Why doesn't this happen today? Suppose San Francisco decided to not enforce self driving laws to protect small businesses and preserve community infrastructure and culture. Now suppose Phoenix (only picked because they've been progressive with self driving technology) does enforce self driving laws, would you expect a mass exodus from San Francisco to Phoenix?

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

#426

Post by mozumder »

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…

People love their cars too much.

Cars should just be phased out in favor of mass transit everywhere.

Yes, you can live without the convenience of your car. No really, you can.

Now think about how you would enable that to happen. What local politicians are you willing to write to, or support, in order to enable a better mass transit option for you? And how would you enable more people to support those local politicians that make that decision?

This is the correct solution, since the AI solution of self-driving cars isn't going to happen. Their high fatality rates are going to remain high.

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

#427

Post by greedo »

18pfsmt wrote: post #388
greedo wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, reading the comments in that post are amazing. The echo-chamber, Stockholm Syndrome is full blown on that subreddit...

Look, I'm old and cynical too, but we can't do character assassination in this way. You need to take issue with specific facts or your argument comes across as extremely weak.

The post was downvoted almost to oblivion, and blocked until the admins released it. Just read the comments. Most of the "character assassination" is commentors attacking the OP on Reddit.

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

#428

Post by unityByFreedom »

slg wrote: post #180
txcwpalpha wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone elsewhere in this thread put it, this is a case where silicon valley's posterchild slogan "move fast and break things" has turned into a reality of "move fast and end lives". Fast updates can be a great thing, but companies (in this case, Tesla) need to do a better job of figuring out when to apply this mentality of "move fast" and when to instead apply a mentality of "move slower because even the slightes…

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…

> I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths.

The safety claims Tesla/Musk make are debatable. There is a lawsuit over getting the raw data NHTSA used to make the "autosteer reduces collisions by 40%" [1]. AEB also reduces the collision rate by 40 percent, which is mentioned in the same NHTSA report [2]. And, supposedly AEB and autosteer were activated around the same time, so it might not be easy to tell which provided a benefit.

> I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended"

You need a lot of data to show that. 1 death per 86 million miles driven is the average in the US, and that's across all types of vehicles, new and old, including motorcycles, bad weather (where autopilot is not likely to be engaged), and on all kinds of roads (autopilot is mostly engaged on divided highways).

There was also a death in China that looks like autopilot [3].

[1] http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/quality-control-...

[2] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.PDF

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc0yYJ8-Dyo

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

#429

Post by wott »

alpos wrote: post #409
laythea wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> 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.

Nope, and that's the whole difference. They will be killed by theirs actions, their choices, their inattention, or those of other drivers. They won't be killed by the machine.

With autopilot / pseudo-autopilot, they will be killed by the machine.

It is a huge difference, both in terms of regulations of people transportation safety, and in terms of human psychology, which makes a big difference between being in control and not being in control of a situation.

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

#430

Post by intrasight »

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 it either, and the airline business has lots of history to show that it is bunk. Autopilot must either be better than humans or not be present. I'm sure the car autopilot engineers have learned much from airplanes. And I'm pretty sure that Tesla management has overrode the engineers concerns because they'd rather move fast and break things.
Post reply on HN