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

841–850 of 850 posts

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

#841

Post by Ryudas »

dbasedweeb wrote: post #283
keepper wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, yes, they do. See, I'm not sure if you know this... but most people are not Pilots.. ( disclaimer, I'm not only a programmer, but also hold an A&P and avionics license, as well as a few engine ratings ). It is ABSOLUTELY on a manufacturer to make sure their potentially life ending feature, is not named in a way that can confuse the target audience. You know. NON PILOT car drivers. auto means "by itself, automatic…

Arguing with Tesla/Musk fanatics now is like arguing with Facebook/Zuck fanatics was ten years ago, or saying that a Google was bad news in their “don’t be evil” days. You’re right, but only time and loads of evidence will convince some people that what they desperately want to believe isn’t true. Of course “Autopilot” is intended to evoke the common meaning as a marketing tool, and not the nuanced, highly technical…

I would really prefer not being called a fanatic just because i believe that the term "autopilot" isn't a proxy for "autonomous". I've always seen that autonomous is a goal of tesla but they have always said their system is limited, and that it requires vigilance.

Forgive me but I've never seen any plane where, once in autopilot, the pilot/s are not checking and observing the conditions of the plane and making sure everything is alright.

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

#842

Post by Ryudas »

keepper wrote: post #280
Ryudas wrote: 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.

Uh, yes, they do. See, I'm not sure if you know this... but most people are not Pilots.. ( disclaimer, I'm not only a programmer, but also hold an A&P and avionics license, as well as a few engine ratings ). It is ABSOLUTELY on a manufacturer to make sure their potentially life ending feature, is not named in a way that can confuse the target audience. You know. NON PILOT car drivers. auto means "by itself, automatic…

And yet, I don't recall ever in any documentary or so, having seen the pilots get up and leave once the autopilot is on? They have humongous checklists to parse, do they not?

I want you to go on wikipedia(is that not mainstream enough) and search for the term Autopilot. Reads its ACTUAL definition and come back.please.

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

#843

Post by kbutler »

Fins wrote: post #840
kbutler wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but every year we delay replacing human drivers with something much safer, we incur huge distributed costs. It is thus very important.

Thnat's assuming that the replacement actually is safer, which in case of the Auto-Pilot is not the case now, and not necessarily the case ever. There is a reason Waymo isn't unleashing their stuff onto unsuspecting public.

> "I am not really sure if development of SDVs is really that important"

For the 1.3 million people and their loved ones and to 20-50 million injured EVERY YEAR, yeah, it's really that important.

Is it ready today? No. We're in pretty violent agreement on that.

Will we get there? I don't see much reason to doubt that we will, eventually. It may require significant infrastructure changes.

It's pretty clear Waymo/Uber are pushing the envelope too hard, without adequate safeguards, but "only be acceptable if it were you and Mr. Musk...on Tesla's private proving grounds" is probably not pushing the envelope enough.

Even Waymo is "unleashing their stuff onto unsuspecting public" by driving them on public roads - lots of innocent bystanders potentially at risk there.

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

#844

Post by kbutler »

osrec wrote: post #752
kbutler wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really, the road would still be fully usable by a standard car.

"I just think we need to stop trying to merge self driving cars into a road system designed for human operators. Moreover, we should not be "beta testing" our self driving cars on roads with human operators."

Sounds like requiring exclusive access - I apologize if that was a misinterpretation.

If you have human and automated drivers in the same roads, the computers have to be able to cope with the vagaries of human drivers.

How can you then get away from '"beta testing" our self driving cars on roads with human operators' if that is their deployment environment?

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

#845

Post by kafquaesque »

ehnto wrote: post #407
kafquaesque wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person uses a device while using autopilot, (which seems highly likely—not sure in thi instance) wouldn’t it be advisable to have the alerts come to them directly on whichever device they are using? The alert breaks them out of whatever task they are focusing on. If the alert is coming from the car I can see how a lot of us could ignore it.

What a world. Where we can't even take enough responsibility to be present enough to hear the "You are about to die" bell chime. Imagine the possible breaking components in that chain too. Bluetooth can fail, satellite can fail, cell can fail, WiFi can fail, a USB cable can fail, there isn't a single piece of connectivity technology that would make me confident enough to delegate alerts to another device. There is al…

It seems like we are in an “in-between” state where we are using humans to assuage the fears of people that aren’t sure if neural networks can drive better than humans. The goal is to eventually focus on something else. If it’s just about making driving safer I would think it’s more of an incremental innovation step versus the breakthrough concept of being able to do something else while being commuted completely by a neural-network driven vehicle. The bridge to get to this breakthrough hopefully isn’t hacked apart by naysayers. Every death should be met with empathy and a desire to strengthen this bridge and quicken the speed of crossing it.

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

#846

Post by astrodust »

vsl wrote: post #819
astrodust wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It drove in a straight line right into the wall. What part of that, other than hitting the wall, are you going to "feel"?

The way it diverted from the trajectory you would take. It got off the expected path, or drivers a few km/h faster in a road arc that you would, that sort of thing raises alarm in the driver right away. A funny feeling like that, I’m ready to disengage immediately and then 1s is plenty of time. But I wouldn’t use Autopilot near an obstacle like that to begin with - anticipate, take over for the weird stretches.

1000ms is plenty of time, but in this particular crash you have 500ms total between the car veering out of the lane and impacting the wall.

Regardless, you're saying that if you're not paying attention every single second of the trip, instantly ready to rect to even the slightest deviation from your intended trajectory, then you're doing it wrong.

What, exactly, is the point of an auto-pilot system if you need to be in that state of absolute alertness?

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

#847

Post by astrodust »

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #815
michaelt wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me in the video there's no intervention needed at the 21 second mark, and the car's already hit the barrier at the 22 second mark. Youtube doesn't provide sub-second time marks, but I'd estimate it's 21.5 second before I'd expect the car to start turning, giving the driver 0.5 seconds to notice the failure, take control of the vehicle, and execute the swerve required. The Queensland government estimates it t…

What video? I'm just talking about my actual experience driving the car. And yeah, people can react in less than one second. One second is a long time when reacting to an imminent collision.

If you've been driving on a very long, very straight, exceedingly boring stretch of road with zero traffic then your reaction times will go down. It's very difficult to stay alert in those situations and there's a frighteningly high level of single vehicle collisions on those sorts of roads caused by a sudden change in conditions or even the angle of the road.

Auto-pilot will make driving a lot more like flying is for pilots: 99% extremely dull, 1% terrifying.

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

#848

Post by Fins »

kbutler wrote: post #843
Fins wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thnat's assuming that the replacement actually is safer, which in case of the Auto-Pilot is not the case now, and not necessarily the case ever. There is a reason Waymo isn't unleashing their stuff onto unsuspecting public.

> "I am not really sure if development of SDVs is really that important" For the 1.3 million people and their loved ones and to 20-50 million injured EVERY YEAR, yeah, it's really that important. Is it ready today? No. We're in pretty violent agreement on that. Will we get there? I don't see much reason to doubt that we will, eventually. It may require significant infrastructure changes. It's pretty clear Waymo/Uber…

Did Waymo kill anyone yet?

Both Waymo and even Uber do not pretend that their systems are ready for public use and at least allegedly have people who are paid to take over (granted, in Uber's case it's done as shadily as anything else Uber does). Tesla sells their half-baked stuff to everyone, with marketing that strongly implies that they can do self-driving now, if only not for those pesky validations and regulations. I think there's quite a bit of a difference.

A lot of deaths and injuries on the road happen in countries with bad infrastructure and rather cavalier attitude to rules of the road. Fixing those could save more people sooner than SDVs that they won't be able to afford any time soon. Not to consider that an SDV designed in the first world (well, Bay Area's roads are closer to third world, but still...) aren't going to work too well when everyone around drives like a maniac on a dirt road.

Not to say that SDVs wouldn't be neat, when they actually work, but this is a very SV approach, throwing technology to create overpriced solution to problems that could be solved much cheaper, but in a boring way that doesn't involve AI, ML, NN, and whatever other fashionable abbreviations.

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

#850

Post by lorenzorhoades »

CPLX wrote: post #268
lorenzorhoades wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a key point that will result in the freedom of being able to drive being stripped long before assault rifles. Imagine if i create a private road from SF to LA and say that only self driving cars can drive on it. The vehicles on this road are all inter-connected, allowing them to travel at speeds in excess of 150+ MPH, and since the road that i've created is completely flat it still allows it to be a…

The thing you're describing is called a train.

In a train I have to physically go to the train station, park my car, walk and find which train/subway to hop on, sit next to other people on a crowded, confined space, possibly get off and get on another train going to a different destination, get off the the train and walk/ get a rental car to where i want to actually go.

Compare the above to hop in my car, drive to the freeway, turn on self-driving, turn off self-driving once i get off the freeway, find parking near where i'm going and walk in.

As a society, we've done alot more in the name of convenience.

Post reply on HN