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

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

#621

Post by hnaccy » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:14 AM UTC

tjomk wrote: post #597

axaxs wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You don't put beta features in that have life on the line. People always laugh at ridiculous warning labels, saying not to stick a fork in a toaster, or not to do something else obvious. Funny as it is, they are there for a reason, and it's not a corporations sense of humor. Tesla is the opposite of that, more or less advertising a feature that could kill you. It should be illegal, and if not, they'll eventually…

This is exactly the point why I will never understand people in US and the sort of thing with labels and warnings. You don't microwave a cat just because there is no warning label saying you cannot do that. You do not dry your hair submerged in a bath just because there's no warning label. And knowing how imperfect and faulty this system is (which is what the family says the driver told them), I would avoid engaging…

Are you not trusting the engineers who manufactured your cars internal computer system, brakes, etc? What about bridges or elevators?

Tesla markets their vehicles are self-driving cars that are safer than humans, this is dishonest.

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

#622

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:14 AM UTC

haeffin wrote: post #618

axaxs wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, who knows. The difference is that Honda and others aren't advertising an auto driving but a warning system. If i'm designing such a system, the obvious answer is 'if I don't know my exact next x feet, stop the car.' And I mean exact. A confused autodrive system should stop in the highway, not smash a barrier.

A car that stops for no reason is a safety risk for the cars that follow it, so that's not a good option either.

[deleted]

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

#623

Post by axaxs » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:15 AM UTC

haeffin wrote: post #618

axaxs wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, who knows. The difference is that Honda and others aren't advertising an auto driving but a warning system. If i'm designing such a system, the obvious answer is 'if I don't know my exact next x feet, stop the car.' And I mean exact. A confused autodrive system should stop in the highway, not smash a barrier.

A car that stops for no reason is a safety risk for the cars that follow it, so that's not a good option either.

I did think about that. Though, as a driver, you're supposed to leave enough room for this to happen, I know that's not reality so point taken. With early enough 'im confused', perhaps it can just blare an alarm and disable auto drive. Still, given the option between the two, I'd choose come to a stop vs any alternative. It's what a human would do if they lost all visibility.

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

#624

Post by dayaz36 » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:15 AM UTC

abalone wrote: post #587

May I ask a very simple question here. I’ve never heard a cogent answer. What exactly is the point of autopilot if you have to remain 100% attentive with your hands on the wheel? What is the benefit? I get that cruise control lets you take your foot off the wheel, letting your foot physically rest. And it is my understanding that emergency braking and collision avoidance is active on Teslas at all times even without…

Trains itself for levels 3,4,5

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

#625

Post by lsc » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:17 AM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #620

lsc wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But today we can't even do a basic 'dont run into shit' on a perfectly clear day. so,uh, the emergency braking systems on other cars...so called 'AEB' systems, or what Honda calls Collision Mitigation Braking System... would that have caught this? I would expect this sort of thing "big object in road" to trigger the AEB system... even if it didn't stop me, I'd expect it to trigger before the collision and slow me do…

The AEB wouldn't trigger on something like this. And it shouldn't, since an actual driver would be turning to follow the road, so there is no reason to do any emergency braking (or even to warn them).

but a big part of AEB is to slow the car before a collision, thus reducing the speed/severity of the resulting crash. There certainly should be a point at which it becomes clear that the car is going to hit the thing, and I'd expect the AEB to reduce speed at that point, even if that is too late to completely stop the car.

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

#626

Post by abalone » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:18 AM UTC

Tesla is recklessly using its own customers to train their fleet for level 5. AT BEST their response is, drivers need to be 100% as attentive as they would without autopilot. What then is the point of autopilot, except to train the fleet?

They are in complete denial that autosteering can seduce reasonable people into lowering their guard and mentally relaxing. Again, what other immediate user benefit would it provide? What would a reasonable person expect autopilot to do?

Isn’t it contradictory to offer an automation feature while claiming that legally it does ZERO automation for you?

Note: collision avoidance and emergency braking are on by default even without autopilot. “Autopilot” here really means the autosteering feature.

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

#627

Post by lsc » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:22 AM UTC

axaxs wrote: post #623

haeffin wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car that stops for no reason is a safety risk for the cars that follow it, so that's not a good option either.

I did think about that. Though, as a driver, you're supposed to leave enough room for this to happen, I know that's not reality so point taken. With early enough 'im confused', perhaps it can just blare an alarm and disable auto drive. Still, given the option between the two, I'd choose come to a stop vs any alternative. It's what a human would do if they lost all visibility.

> I'd choose come to a stop vs any alternative. It's what a human would do if they lost all visibility.

As a human who has driven in central valley fog? it's not what most humans do. I personally pull over if I can't see two seconds ahead while going above 45, because most people are still going 65-75mph even when you cant see the lines on the road 20 yards in front of you.

I'm also uncomfortable with that, afraid someone will plow into me. But that's better than plowing into someone else, I think (though again, I think I'm not in the majority in that assessment.)

One thing I often do is wait for a tractor trailer to pass me... then I follow them just close enough to keep their taillights in view, on the theory that I can probably stop faster than they can, and they are lit up pretty well, so I can see them further than I can see other cars.

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

#628

Post by greglindahl » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:31 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #537

greglindahl wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... in a Level 2 system, that's a fine thing.

Steering toward a barrier is not fine for any level.

Er, no, that’s not how it works. Level 2 is not expected to be perfect in that fashion. You want level 3.

Automatic cruise control is also not expected to be perfect at slamming on the brakes to avoid rear-enders. The driver is responsible.

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

#629

Post by kgwgk » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:32 AM UTC

tjomk wrote: post #597

axaxs wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You don't put beta features in that have life on the line. People always laugh at ridiculous warning labels, saying not to stick a fork in a toaster, or not to do something else obvious. Funny as it is, they are there for a reason, and it's not a corporations sense of humor. Tesla is the opposite of that, more or less advertising a feature that could kill you. It should be illegal, and if not, they'll eventually…

This is exactly the point why I will never understand people in US and the sort of thing with labels and warnings. You don't microwave a cat just because there is no warning label saying you cannot do that. You do not dry your hair submerged in a bath just because there's no warning label. And knowing how imperfect and faulty this system is (which is what the family says the driver told them), I would avoid engaging…

> You don't microwave a cat just because there is no warning label saying you cannot do that.

And why don’t you that, precisely? If you don’t understand the physics of the thing how are you supossed to know that using it on low power is different that bathing the cat on warm water, for example?

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

#630

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 5:35 AM UTC

oblib wrote: post #478

As far as I know Tesla has never endorsed letting their cars drive themselves for more than a short time and only when traffic and road conditions are optimal. I'd be fine with anyone showing me otherwise but I'm pretty sure I seen statements specifically saying do not use the autopilot in city highway traffic conditions. The driver is the only one to blame in this case. That's not a cold or heartless thing to do, it…

> As far as I know Tesla has never endorsed letting their cars drive themselves for more than a short time

They used to only require you to put your hands on the wheel every 15 minutes, before being "encouraged" to reduce that to 1 minute.