Live data from Hacker News

Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

abc7news.com

551–560 of 850 posts

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

#551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel. This reminder is made every single time Autopilot is engaged." A reasonable person would not take this to mean that the car is driverless.

1. Tesla says it requires hands on wheel. 2. It has sensors to confirm this. 3. The sensors allow you a few seconds (a lot of seconds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfvkw1TIiM4 ) with hands off wheels before warning you. So, which is it, Tesla? Is hands off wheel allowed, or not allowed? If it's not allowed, why do you program your sensors to tolerate the situation?

> The sensors allow you a few seconds (a lot of seconds

It used to allow you _fifteen minutes_...

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

#552
Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles.

Here's a good example - a Tesla on autopilot crashing into a temporary road barrier which required a lane change.[1] This is a view from the dashcam of the vehicle behind the Tesla. At 00:21, things look normal. At 00:22, the Tesla should just be starting to turn to follow the lane and avoid the barrier, but it isn't. By 00:23, it's hit the wall. By the time the driver could have detected that failure, it was too late.

Big, solid, obvious orange obstacle. Freeway on a clear day. Tesla's system didn't detect it. By the time it was clear that the driver needed to take over, it was too late. This is why, as the head of Google's self driving effort once said, partial self driving "assistance" is inherently unsafe. Lane following assistance without good automatic braking kills.

This is the Tesla self-crashing car in action. Tesla fails at the basic task of self-driving - not hitting obstacles. If it doesn't look like the rear end of a car or truck, it gets hit. So far, one street sweeper, one fire truck, one disabled car, one crossing tractor trailer, and two freeway barriers have been hit. Those are the ones that got press attention. There are probably more incidents.

Automatic driving the Waymo way seems to be working. Automatic driving the Tesla way leaves a trail of blood and death. That is not an accident. It follows directly from Musk's decision to cut costs by trying to do the job with inadequate sensors and processing.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ml6sjk_8c

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

#553
post #135
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They double down on it because they are shipping a system that is unsafe by design. Their engineers know it, their lawyers know it, and Elon Musk knows it. Blaming the user and pointing to the ToS is their fig leaf against liability. When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless. When it is used as advertised, it is dangerous. They know better, and they don't give a damn. First to market, and all tha…

« When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless » Really? Having an autopilot system with an incredibly fast reaction time able brake/swerve/avoid accidents faster than humans is "useless"?

Well, autopilot was engaged here and it certainly didn't brake, swerve, avoid an accident _at all_, let alone "faster than a human could".

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

#554

Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles. Here's a good example - a Tesla on autopilot crashing into a temporary road barrier which required a lane change.[1] This is a view from the dashcam of the vehicle behind the Tesla. At 00:21, things look norm…

" Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles."

I have been thinking that too. At what point do you decide that the autopilot is making a mistake and take over? That's an almost impossible task to perform within the available time.

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

#555
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 try to tell people that if you cannot take a nap behind the wheel of a self-driving car, then the automaker has failed to produce a self driving car. If you have to be attentive behind the wheel of a self driving car, then you might as well just steer it yourself.

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

#556
post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about all those martyred by prolonging our current manual driving system for the years band decades it will take to roll out separate infrastructure for vehicles no one owns because they can't drive them anywhere? I think we need to keep the human driver in control, but have the computers learning through that constant, immediate feedback. And get rid of misleading marketing and fatal user experience design error…

I don't think it'll take years to update our infrastructure. For example, we could embed beacons into catseyes to make it easier to know where the road boundaries are etc. Also, we could make sections of the highway available with the new infrastructure piece by piece. It is just as progressive as your suggestion, but the problem becomes a whole lot easier to solve when you target change towards infrastructure as wel…

These will take a lane from regular traffic and give it to rich people who buy an expensive car.

It also will not ensure exclusion of manual vehicles, so it won't create the exclusion necessary for the predictable driving environment.

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

#557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can live without the convenience of your car. No really, you can. Maybe, but unless you can change the laws of nature, you can't build a mass transit system that can serve everyone full-time with reasonable efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and that's just meeting the minimum requirement of getting from A to B, without getting into all the other downsides of public vs. private transportation in terms of hea…

OK. Anything else you want to make up? Let's see what that imagination can craft.

There's no need to make anything up. Mass transit systems are relatively efficient if and only if they are used on routes popular enough to replace enough private vehicles to offset their greater size and operating costs (both physical and financial). That usually means big cities, or major routes in smaller cities at busier times.

Achieving 24/7 mass transit, available with reasonable frequency for journeys over both short and long distances, would certainly require everyone to live in big cities with very high population densities. Here in the UK, we only have a handful of cities with populations of over one million today. That is the sort of scale you're talking about for that sort of transportation system to be at all viable, although an order of magnitude larger would be more practical. All of those cities have long histories and relatively inefficient layouts, which would make it quite difficult to scale them up dramatically without causing other fundamental problems with infrastructure and logistics.

So, in order to solve the problem of providing viable mass transit for everyone to replace their personal vehicles, you would first need to build, starting from scratch or at least from much smaller urban areas, perhaps 20-30 new big cities to house a few tens of millions of people.

You would then need all of those people to move to those new cities. You'd be destroying all of their former communities in the process, of course, and for about 10,000,000 of them, they'd be giving up their entire rural way of life. Also, since no-one could live in rural areas any more, your farming had better be 100% automated, along with any other infrastructure or emergency facilities you need to support your mass transit away from the big cities.

The UK is currently in the middle of a housing crisis, with an acute lack of supply caused by decades of under-investment and failure to build anywhere close to enough new homes. Today, we're lucky if we build 200,000 per year, while the typical demand is for at least 300,000, which means the problem is getting worse every year. The difference between home-owners and those who are renting or otherwise living in supported accommodation is one of the defining inequalities of our generation, with all the tensions and social problems that follow.

But sure, we could get everyone off private transportation and onto mass transit. All we'd have to do is uproot about 3/4 of our population, destroy their communities and in many cases their whole way of life, build new houses at least an order of magnitude faster than we have managed for the last several decades, achieve total automation in our out-of-city farming and other infrastructure, replace infrastructure for an entire nation that has been centuries in development... and then build all these wonderful new mass transit systems, which would still almost inevitably be worse than private transportation in several fundamental ways.

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

#558
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.

You seem to understand the difference. Everyone in this thread seems to understand the difference. So why should anybody believe a failure to understand the term is a problem?

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

#559
post #2

Full statement: "We are very sorry for the family's loss. According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location, yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location. The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is i…

This response from Tesla comes across as cold and shows no empathy to the victim's family. "We are very sorry for the family's loss" sounds so hollow after reading the rest of the statement. Does Tesla needs to give such strong public statement against the victim and his family? What is the point? Tesla is euphemistically saying - "Driver was stupid. Sorry but not really." This statement is really hurtful for the fam…

> Grow some heart Tesla. I am probably asking too much from a faceless corporation.

I'd think that Tesla is the very antithesis of a faceless corporation, for better or worse.

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

#560

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…

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'…

> while simultaneously stating in your legal language to protect yourself: don't take your hands off the wheel

They don't just say it in the legal language. The car is continually reminding the driver of it, as the article makes clear.

Post reply on HN