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

681–690 of 850 posts

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

#681

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

neya wrote: post #573
Animats wrote: post #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 norm…

> Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. I often wonder if auto-pilot is truly 100% auto-pilot if it requires you to keep an eye out for its "Hey maybe I'll screw it up, so please keep a watch on me"

This is what it's commonly called currently. Not super weird if you consider that there is an autopilot on planes - which only keeps direction and altitude. You also have to keep en eye on it and of course steer it to where you want it to go.

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

#682

Post by donkeyd »

Animats wrote: post #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 norm…

Another way of looking at that crash could be that Tesla needs to be clearer about the specific environments in which AP can be used. Those road works were clearly visible much earlier than 1 second before the crash. The drive should've switched to manual control ahead of time, but probably didn't think they needed to.

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

#683

Post by spurgu »

Someone1234 wrote: post #455
spurgu wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, Tesla calling it "Autopilot" should be no longer allowed. Meh, autopilots on boats don't do anything more than steer a straight compass course.

That's inaccurate. Many marine autopilots integrate with AIS, sonar, and charts for accident avoidance and alerts. For example on some larger ships it is able to calculate if at the current speed a collision would occur and reduce speed to avoid it. Some can do "port to port" auto-steer, taking the vesicle through narrow channels.

We are both accurate. I was talking about boats, not ships. My point still stands - ships are required by Collision Regulations to keep a lookout at all times. And yet they are called "autopilots". Even the most crude of devices that I described (that is used on pleasure boats).

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

#684

Post by avar »

hnaccy wrote: post #599
crabasa wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. If this was true, wouldn't Tesla vehicles have a higher rate of crashes, all things being equal? Is there any evidence that this is the case?

>Is there any evidence that this is the case? Yes. >the Model S had higher claim frequencies, higher claim severities and higher overall losses than other large luxury cars. Under collision coverage, for example, analysts estimated that the Model S's mileage-adjusted claim frequency was 37 percent higher than the comparison group, claim severity was 64 percent higher, and overall losses were 124 percent higher. http:…

    >>Is there any evidence that this is the case?
    >Yes.
If there is evidence for it, this isn't it. Tesla cars having higher claim frequencies compared to say the puny Fiat 500 Electric (noted in the article) could just as well be explained by people driving it dangerously because it has "Ludicrous Mode".

Porsche also has 3x the accident rate of Daewoo. That doesn't mean Daewoo cars are 3x as safe, it just means that people who are looking for a hot-rod buy a Porsche and not a Daewoo[1].

1. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7605/are-bmw-ow...

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

#685

Post by LoSboccacc »

ranman wrote: post #661
Animats wrote: post #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 norm…

Do you own a Tesla? I do. I’ve driven one for 3 years now. It definitely makes road trips easier and reduces fatigue. I believe it requires the same amount of attention but less physical exertion. Your polemic description of “trail of blood and death” is really based on anecdotal descriptions instead of reality. Car accidents happen and will continue to happen for a long time. The goal is to reduce the number of acci…

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/52/4/4

you are the one telling anecdotal experience, jfyi

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

#686

Post by nukeop »

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…

>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.

I don't know if paraphrasing Joseph Stalin is the right way to go around this

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

#687

Post by product50 »

m4x wrote: post #648
product50 wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - this is not a fair comparison. Tesla, without the autodrive feature, functions like a regular car. It is upto you if you want to turn on the autodrive or not.

We are discussing the use of Autopilot, so it is a fair comparison. Nobody is worried about the safety of a Tesla with autopilot off.

Well if you are worried about safety with autopilot on don't turn it on. To expect a system to function 100% from day 1 or even on day 1000 is unreal. Look at aeroplanes - they used to be notorious with their safety records in the 50s and 60s. However, with each crash, problems were identified and improvements were made. This is what led to the current world where aeroplanes are one of the safest mode of traveling.

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

#688

Post by culturestate »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #681
neya wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. I often wonder if auto-pilot is truly 100% auto-pilot if it requires you to keep an eye out for its "Hey maybe I'll screw it up, so please keep a watch on me"

This is what it's commonly called currently. Not super weird if you consider that there is an autopilot on planes - which only keeps direction and altitude. You also have to keep en eye on it and of course steer it to where you want it to go.

Autopilot on a modern commercial aircraft does much more than hold heading and altitude. It's quite possible for autopilot to fly the plane autonomously almost entirely from takeoff to landing.

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

#689

Post by buvanshak »

slg wrote: post #424
danso wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-drivin…

>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?

That is damn crazy. You should consider your users to be complete idiots when improper use of the thing can endanger lives.

Why are we even debating this?

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

#690

Post by TipVFL »

buvanshak wrote: post #657
supernovae wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't take that long. Also, people are terrible at detecting objects directly in front of them and just like computers, the human brain can be cheated, overloaded, inept or inexperienced leading to an accident. Now we have cars with lane assist, smart breaking, auto pilot features and that's only in the past 5-10 years. Of all the places where technology can save lives, its definitely in vehicles/transportation.

> Also, people are terrible at detecting objects directly in front of them and just like computers, the human brain can be cheated, overloaded, inept or inexperienced leading to an accident. How many optical illusions do you usually see in the roads while driving, that can result in an accident? I am not even talking about the "people are terrible at detecting objects directly in front of them" part. I mean, how can…

Humans can only look in one direction, and only from inside the car with their view obstructed, and they're only paying attention sometimes.

Check out this article, it is easy to never see a bike you're on a collision course with. https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-th...

Post reply on HN