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

241–250 of 488 posts

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

#241

Post by gU9x3u8XmQNG »

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…

> I really wish all the car manufacturers would stop with this bullshit "you still have to be driving it" self driving nonsense.

To align with your statement, I can state; "I really wish all people would stop this bullshit "auto pilot means it can drive itself and I don't have to do anything" nonsense.

I feel this is quite a critical analysis of an ambiguous product title; [1]'Telsa Autopilot (& Enhanced Autopilot)'.

I read the title; "Tesla in Autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser"... and wondered how this article is even news..

Where, besides future plans for their vehicle product (Which, as suggested by Wikipedia - may be an independent product itself, and not an extension 'Tesla Autopilot / Enhanced Autopilot'), does Tesla's product in question indicate it's self driving? Autonomous Car? I do admit, the 'summon' feature of their vehicles makes this slightly confusing...

Additionally; what is the criteria to be 'self driving'? I assume; you are talking about 'auto pilot'..?

If so; this over-simplifies the entire scenario.

The very definition, and scope, of the title 'autopilot'/ 'automatic pilot' is far from specific. In fact; most of them are applicable only to [2]aerospace.

> 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.

This part of your post, I actually agree with. Having said that; I believe this is more so associated to an applied opinion of what a 'self driving' car is, and what we are seeing with these vehicles - and not because of any lack of technology advancements.

But again; I urge caution in applying your, or anyone else', opinion of what a 'self driving' car is.

FINALLY: I really wish we could start taking some responsibility of what we agree to. If the driver, even once, must agree to a clear scope of requirements to use the product - then blatantly disregards this; how, or why, is this even news?

We all accept terms and conditions of use, and privacy policies - with almost every product we use - and don't expect to be shown them every time we use that same product. I'm one of the few that read these documents - and more often than not; refuse to use the product. I made the choice not to agree.

There's other comments to this article that clearly indicate they believe a 'once off' popup is questionable at best - but I really don't understand this. Without a doubt; having to push a button to enable this Telsa/Enhanced 'Autopilot' feature, then scroll through a dialog to the end (Yes, okay, exaggerated) - and then click 'ok' would be a huge hazard.

I don't believe the user should be prompted with the same notice every time they use a product.

However; I do not necessarily believe prompted once is the right answer.

What if someone else uses the vehicle? Or you sell it?

I do not pretend to have the answers...

--

Disclaimer; I know Wikipedia is not gospel.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot [1.1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/dual-motor-model-s-and-autopilot [1.2] https://www.tesla.com/autopilot [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

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

#242

Post by manigandham »

jellicle wrote: post #147
jfim wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing, how do you make an UI that unambiguously conveys that the car hasn't seen an object in front of it, so that the driver can react to it? Maybe with AR the car could highlight the objects detected so that the driver can brake if the car doesn't see an object it knows about, but a head mounted display seems pretty clunky.

I don't think people realize that "Tesla Autopilot" will never, ever, ever stop for an object in front of it. Tesla has said repeatedly it isn't designed to do so. If you run a Tesla toward a brick wall with Autopilot on, it will crash into it 100 out of 100 times. It will hit ANYTHING in the lane ahead of you. It isn't designed to stop in such cases. So there's no need for a UI. If there's something ahead of you, yo…

They definitely can and do stop. There are plenty of videos of accidents avoided because of stopping, and this is a rather common feature on most mid to high-end cars now, commonly called a collision avoidance system and grouped under the umbrella of pre-crash safety systems.

The avoidance feature is designed to stop the car in the event of an unavoidable obstacle directly ahead. It doesn't guarantee a stop but it will still apply the brakes faster and more fully than a human can react and thus shed more speed from the impact. Pre-crash safety will also tighten the seatbelts, move seat positions, close windows, and inflate auxiliary airbags in preparation, and these are all well-tested and proven features.

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

#244

Post by admyral »

api wrote: post #216
admyral wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense but this is exactly the attitude that inhibits progress and led the auto industry to languish in mediocrity for years. If you wait until the technology would prevent all accidents, you'd be waiting forever.

It needs to be as good as an average human. Do we have enough stats to compare yet?

As good as a human at what? It's 100% better at not falling asleep behind the wheel or driving while under the influence which statistically are the most common cause of traffic accidents.

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

#245

Post by danepowell »

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…

It's not even necessarily a matter of inattention. Imagine that the autopilot was driving along just fine, and when it was just a few feet away from the parked cruiser suddenly veered towards it for whatever reason. It might be physically impossible for any human, no matter how well they are paying attention, to intervene and avoid a collision.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's certainly possible. The mere fact that it's possible to me casts doubt on this entire design philosophy.

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

#246

Post by Sylos »

hndamien wrote: post #144
imh wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things are nothing alike. Some are facts that can be checked, others are definitions. If people all agree that the sun won't come up tomorrow, it's still coming up. If people all agree to start using a word in a new way, then it's time to change the dictionary.

So we should just start calling Monero Bitcoin because many people are consistently wrong?

No, we shouldn't.

But a company that advertises software against JavaScript-Bitcoin-miners knows exactly that people will think their software helps against JavaScript-Monero-miners.

If it's a reasonable company, they'll try to deal with this public misunderstanding and point out that their software can't help with Monero-miners.

If it's an asshole company, they'll cash in on people mistakenly buying their software. And even worse, those people will then think they're safe when they're not.

Such an asshole company deserves all of the negative PR, so that they're hopefully at some point forced to change their business practices.

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

#247

Post by hndamien »

Someone1234 wrote: post #212
hndamien wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those accidents and these comments and downvotes are a greater proof that people like to mislead themselves. You must have missed the definition of autopilot in my comment.

I thought the car crashing into the parked police car, a parked fire engine, decapitated, and driving straight into a road divider at full speed were better proof that people are mislead by the term "autopilot." Tesla likes to play both sides, it is "autopilot" when it works, but when it doesn't then the driver has literally under six seconds (according to Tesla) to avert a fatal accident.

No, it is always autopilot, you must pay attention and it never is or has been fully self driving.

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

#248

Post by ravenstine »

dpiers wrote: post #24
bazooka2th wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Wired's "People Keep Confusing Their Teslas for Self-Driving Cars" ( https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-crash-dui/ ): A spokesperson pointed out that the owner's manual reads, “Autosteer is not designed to, and will not, steer Model S around objects partially or completely in the driving lane”. I haven't seen the encouragement to not pay attention. In some ad on TV, maybe it was for a new Cadillac, the…

Yes, because people are known for diligently reading fine print. /s Cadillac has an eye-tracking system that deactivates the self-driving features if you aren't watching the road, and their system is limited to specific highways they have mapped. Tesla has a ridiculously inadequate attentiveness control, and they do little to nothing to remind people who regularly fail to keep their hands on the wheel. They don't nag…

> Cadillac has an eye-tracking system that deactivates the self-driving features if you aren't watching the road, and their system is limited to specific highways they have mapped.

I don't even get the point of that. Why even take one's hands off the wheel(or if knee-steering, one's foot off the pedal) if they can't even take their eyes off the road? I haven't driven one of these vehicles so maybe I'm missing something. It seems intuitive that automation would free us to do other tasks, but I'm not seeing that in these early "self-driving" implementations. It's more like these car companies are actually selling these cars as experiments, at the expense of people's wallets and possibly their lives.

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

#249

Post by Natsu »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #167
dirkgently wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Move fast and break things" was Facebook's idea, not Tesla's.

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

#250

Post by dingo_bat »

To successfully develop self-driving cars, without spending NASA moon mission like time and money, we need to put a value on a human life. Maybe even different values for passenger, driver, pedestrian, other motorists, policemen, etc. Then the risk, time, and money to spend will be easily defined. If some task will take a software engineer (paid $150k/year) half year to develop but only increase safety enough to save 1 pedestrian per decade, and a pedestrian is valued at $50k, then maybe the dev can work on something else. Numbers are made up just to illustrate the point. But this is how Tesla, or any other self-driving car-maker can quickly bring self-driving tech to the public in a cost-effective manner, and within reasonable time-frames.
Post reply on HN