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

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

#701

Post by skgoa » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:09 AM UTC

alpos wrote: post #395

flokie wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That news footage in the linked article looks exactly like this scenario: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... Should a product that flawed really be deployed on an honor system basis?

How should one deploy such a product at all? Actual usage is really the only way anyone will know if the models are trained appropriately to handle most/all situations they will encounter in the real world.

> Actual usage is really the only way anyone will know if the models are trained appropriately to handle most/all situations they will encounter in the real world.

Because testing stuff before throwing it on the market isn't a thing anymore?

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

#702

Post by sokoloff » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:10 AM UTC

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?

Hypothetically, it might say that all Tesla cars being built today have both the hardware and software to make full self-driving possible.

It doesn’t; what it does say is perfectly clear to me.

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

#703

Post by secabeen » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:11 AM UTC

ansible wrote: post #164

jijojv wrote: post #5

This is gonna be interesting as apparently the "Barrier" [1] bug is only in newer AP2 models per latest A/B tests done by cpddan (who did the very first crash reproduction scenario in Chicago [2]) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0bR_EQ47E Tesla Model X with AP2.5, SW 2018.6.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2Om8Q0IA MS 75, AP1, SW 2018.6.1 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... . "wor…

I get that the vision system might have been fooled by how the lane widens before the split. What I don't get is why the radar doesn't pick up the barrier itself. It should have been getting a nice, healthy return signal from it, lots of metal at all kinds of angles. What I'm saying is, this is not a stealthy barrier.

The thing is, there are a lot of stationary objects alongside/near major highways (signs, bridge supports, barriers, etc.). The radar systems are not 100% accurate about whether a particular stationary object is in the lane. In nearly all cases, stationary objects are not in your lane (if they were, the previous driver in the lane would have hit them). Thus the radars are tuned to detect non-stationary objects, as those are slowing cars, merging cars, etc. all of which are commonly in one's lane, and which require action from the Autopilot.

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

#704

Post by product50 » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:15 AM UTC

eh78ssxv2f wrote: post #691

product50 wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, comparison with airplanes is not fair in my opinion. The purpose of the autopilot is to increase safety for drivers that are not attentive. However, it turns out that Tesla requires drivers to be even more attentive than regular vehicles. This is not a sign of progression.

Not true in my opinion. While for now the positioning of autopilot is to increase safety for non attentive drivers, eventually autopilot's main goal is to have completely self driven cars and that is where the industry is heading (and Tesla wants to be in the forefronts of it).

We can differ in opinions but I strongly feel that the eventual utopia of self driving cars will be much safer than the current world. And we are making progress on this daily. There will be few unfortunate incidents but in the long term a lot more lives will be saved.

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

#705

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:15 AM UTC

[deleted]

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

#706

Post by claudius » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:18 AM UTC

avar wrote: post #684

hnaccy wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 pe…

> 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".

This is not the claim in the linked article. The linked article claims that Tesla cars have a higher claim frequency than comparable gasoline-powered cars (i.e. large luxury cars such as a Porsche), whereas for example the Nissan Leaf has a lower claim frequency than comparable gasoline-powered cars (namely the Nissan Versa).

Put another way, if your choice is between a Tesla and a gasoline-powered large luxury car, the Tesla is more dangerous. If your choice is between the Nissan Leaf and the Nissan Versa, the Leaf is less dangerous. There was no comparison between the relative danger from a Tesla and a Leaf.

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

#707

Post by namdnay » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:21 AM UTC

avar wrote: post #684

hnaccy wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 pe…

"than other large luxury cars" - seems like a fair comparison, no?

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

#708

Post by lmm » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:24 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #392

lmm wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you going to having a train running every few minutes to really make the delays comparable? Commuter rail systems run at 2 minute headways or less. Long-distance trains mostly don't but that's largely due to excessive safety standards - for some reason we regulate trains to a much higher safety standard than cars. Even then, the higher top speeds of trains can make up for a certain amount of waiting and indirec…

> for some reason we regulate trains to a much higher safety standard than cars That "some reason" is physics. According to a quick Google search, an average race car needs 400m of track length from 300 km/h to 0 km/h. A train will require something around 2500m, over 5x the distance, to brake from the same speed. Trains top out at -1.1m/s² deceleration, an ordinary car can get -10m/s² deceleration. Part of the reaso…

My point is that the overall safety standard is wildly disproportionate even so. The rate of deaths/passenger/mile that we accept as completely normal for cars would be regarded as disastrous for a train system.

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

#709

Post by astrodust » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:27 AM UTC

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #593

maxxxxx wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

Try it. it’s not impossible. I do it all the time. Have you ever noticed how passengers are still paying attention to what’s going on and sometimes even turn their head to see where the car is turning? it’s like that, except you’re in the drivers seat. it’s not more work than driving.

That crash in the video is one you'd have very little time to avoid. Recognizing that the car isn't just going a bit wide but is on a direct collision course with the barrier takes time, and then you need to determine a course of action, reacting without over-reacting.

You probably have 100ms to begin your action, 500ms to complete it.

Good luck with that if you're not perfectly alert.

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

#710

Post by Tempest1981 » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 8:31 AM UTC

kid0m4n wrote: post #113

cjhopman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> STILL took his hands off the wheel That's not clear. The car didn't detect his hands on the wheel, but that doesn't mean his hands weren't on it. Tesla's implementation of hand detection (like many of their other systems) is rather unreliable.

So he had his hands on the wheel and took no action for 6 seconds while driving straight to the barrier. Doesn't make it look any better for the driver TBH.

> 6 seconds while driving straight to the barrier

You mentioned "straight" -- do we know that?

Is it possible that the car steered toward the barrier during those 6 seconds, like in this video? https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil...