Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 488 posts

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#161

Post by twblalock »

userbinator wrote: post #17
melling wrote: post #4

“You are about to hit a solid object. Stop.” Why can’t we solve the most basic use case? We don’t have the sensors and it’s all done with cameras?

Too many false positives; sensors would only be usable for cars that moved a few km/h at most. Even if you're driving normally, various other objects appear in your path all the time.

And yet the forward collision warning on a lot of inexpensive cars like Hondas would have warned the driver and then hit the brakes in this situation.

We clearly don't have an epidemic of cars with forward collision warning systems slamming on their brakes for no reason, so those systems must be able to deal with the false positives somehow.

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#162

Post by ebikelaw »

mikeash wrote: post #104
bdcravens wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they should require the same level of training for car auto-pilot as for plane auto-pilot

I don’t think airplane autopilots require any specific training. If you’re allowed to fly the plane, you’re allowed to use the autopilot.

If your aircraft is equipped with automation you may be required to demonstrate proficient use of the automation during your check ride. Any piece of equipment installed in the aircraft is fair game for the evaluator during a practical test.

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#163

Post by Cogito »

s_m_t wrote: post #154
Cogito wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that they detect moving obstacles much more easily than stationary. This is because almost everything in the environment is stationary to the car, so it is hard to distinguish between stationary things in your way and stationary things just off to the side. So if the car in front of you slows down, it's obvious that you'll hit it if you don't slow down. A car parked partially in your lane might ju…

How dumb of an idea is it to attach the camera/lidar/what have you to a 2 axis rail and move it around at a high speed to introduce some parallax movement to the scene?

I assume you could achieve the same thing with less complexity and more cheaply using a fixed system.

Either having more than one sensor or using mirrors or something.

In fact, I'm sure that the camera systems in place are already doing this to some degree. I think it's more that it's not yet good enough at picking out these stationary objects that are in the path of travel.

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#164

Post by ashleyn »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #14
olliej wrote: post #6

I really wish all the car manufacturers would stop with this bullshit "you still have to be driving it" self driving nonsense. Claiming that the driver is still responsible for driving the car, while using a system designed to encourage the "driver" to not pay attention is a dumb idea, and all I can see is this kind of thing leading to regulations the delay actual self driving cars. I'm not a self-driving car fanboy…

Blame Elon Musk. I'm serious. He's been promising "self-driving" for years, except the damn technology isn't ready/safe enough for what people are clearly using this from. The manufacturer puts a warning label, but the usage model/UI is clearly flawed. His engineers know this, which is why Tesla's self-driving group has had such a high turnover rate over the last few years. Musk keeps overriding them.

I test drove a Volvo S90 recently. The Pilot Assist feature almost feels like a gimmick due to the attention required. If you don't give steering input in five seconds, Pilot Assist disables itself. It basically requires enough of your attention that there's little difference between using it and not using it.

It seems pretty clear to me that Volvo only has Pilot Assist in the first place as a method to gather data via telemetry for the next generation of self-driving vehicles, because it otherwise doesn't seem to add anything useful to the driving experience. Consequently, I haven't heard of any notable incidents where Pilot Assist caused an accident.

I haven't test driven Enhanced Autopilot but I see people on YouTube taking their hands off the wheel completely for much longer than the Volvo let me do. Tesla seems like they're pushing something half-baked out and representing it as something it isn't.

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#165

Post by cma »

hedora wrote: post #153
olliej wrote: post #6

I really wish all the car manufacturers would stop with this bullshit "you still have to be driving it" self driving nonsense. Claiming that the driver is still responsible for driving the car, while using a system designed to encourage the "driver" to not pay attention is a dumb idea, and all I can see is this kind of thing leading to regulations the delay actual self driving cars. I'm not a self-driving car fanboy…

From the article: > "Tesla has always been clear that Autopilot doesn't make the car impervious to all accidents, and before a driver can use Autopilot, they must accept a dialogue box which states that 'Autopilot is designed for use on highways that have a center divider and clear lane markings,'" a Tesla spokesperson said in an emailed statement. From the picture at the top of the story, it is clear there is no div…

Musk demos auto-pilot to the press in response to a recent crash in an area that is: A) not a highway, and B) has no lane dividers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO33rOofFpg&t=2m18s

Also takes his hands off the wheel while using it in a manner that if someone else did and died, Tesla would slam them in the press for doing so, using dodgy-from-a-privacy-perspective and potentially-inaccurate (frequent reports of hands on wheel false negatives) telemetry.

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#166

Post by mikeash »

desdiv wrote: post #159
mikeash wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are easter eggs. I was replying to a comment that said “video games.”

The screen displays a Mars rover. You turn the steering wheel to control where that Mars rover goes. I'd consider that a video game. I guess you don't consider that a video game, which is a perfectly valid opinion. But I'd just wish you had made your first comment "I don't consider Tesla's interactive easter eggs to be video games" instead. That way you clearly communicate your intent and this whole needless bikeshed…

"You turn the steering wheel to control where that Mars rover goes."

No you don't. The Mars map is exactly like the Earth map, with a Mars texture instead of the map, and a rover instead of an arrow. Technically you control where the rover goes by using the steering wheel, because the steering wheel controls where your car goes, and the rover's movements come from your car's GPS. But it's not the sort of video game you describe. There's no way it could possibly work as you describe. The steering wheel is mechanically connected to the front wheels and still steers the car even when Autopilot is engaged, so it could not possibly be used as a video game control.

The problem isn't my failure to disclose my opinion of the easter eggs, it's your misunderstanding of what they actually are.

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#167

Post by TAForObvReasons »

dirkgently wrote: post #62
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blame Elon Musk. I'm serious. He's been promising "self-driving" for years, except the damn technology isn't ready/safe enough for what people are clearly using this from. The manufacturer puts a warning label, but the usage model/UI is clearly flawed. His engineers know this, which is why Tesla's self-driving group has had such a high turnover rate over the last few years. Musk keeps overriding them.

Tesla's "Auto-pilot" is one of the most blatant market-speak lies I have come across lately, and they have been getting away it.

"Move fast and break things" is probably the worst philosophy to sweep over SV. It encourages a worldview where externalities that potentially break laws and maim or kill other people should be disregarded in the pursuit of "progress" and profits. But it's nice to see the HN community finally start to come to this realization

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#168

Post by Alex3917 »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #14
olliej wrote: post #6

I really wish all the car manufacturers would stop with this bullshit "you still have to be driving it" self driving nonsense. Claiming that the driver is still responsible for driving the car, while using a system designed to encourage the "driver" to not pay attention is a dumb idea, and all I can see is this kind of thing leading to regulations the delay actual self driving cars. I'm not a self-driving car fanboy…

Blame Elon Musk. I'm serious. He's been promising "self-driving" for years, except the damn technology isn't ready/safe enough for what people are clearly using this from. The manufacturer puts a warning label, but the usage model/UI is clearly flawed. His engineers know this, which is why Tesla's self-driving group has had such a high turnover rate over the last few years. Musk keeps overriding them.

> Blame Elon Musk. I'm serious.

If you want to fix the problem, just charge him with attempted murder of a cop.

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#169

Post by mikeash »

DannyBee wrote: post #155
mikeash wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What data is there? I didn’t realize there was enough to reach a conclusion yet.

Start with: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170912.as... Also, 18 crashes so far where autopilot was enabled? vs so far, literally zero known crashes across everyone else? Do you not find it somewhat interesting that in zero other cases has the NTSB found that TACC or the design of a TACC played a role in the crash? I'd also point out: the supplier of their original crash tech broke up with them an…

I'm extremely skeptical that there have been zero TACC-involved crashes with other cars. Has the NTSB or other organization actually put out a statement to that effect somewhere, or are you just basing this on an inability to locate any when searching?

Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser

#170

Post by abalone »

childintime wrote: post #139
confiscate wrote: post #91

I don't get it, why is it so hard to detect stationary objects in front of you? wouldn't that be the "hello world" of any self-driving tech? Every time I ask this question, the response is "radar as a technology has too much noise, not accurate enough to detect stationary objects". But it DOES detect stationary objects. Otherwise no one would even turn on Tesla AP at all. Why is it so hard to detect stationary object…

The usual answer is that the signal that reflects of many stationary objects, like trees, cars, all of which have the same dopler shift and must normally be discarded. Still, this answer doesn't quite satisfy, because it ignores the very strong signal that exists right before a crash, which crash avoidance technologies do (seem to) use.

The difference is in the compare. A collision avoidance system is there to help correct driver errors, so even if it only works 50% of the time it is still a massive reduction in the accident rate. Whereas with autopilot the expectation is that it should be recognizing objects as good or better than drivers, so a 50% failure rate would be considered massively buggy.

Note: Tesla also has a collision avoidance system, which is actually on all the time and a distinct feature from autopilot (although it uses the same underlying sensors).

Post reply on HN