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

431–440 of 488 posts

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

#431

Post by xbmcuser »

slg wrote: post #348
userbinator wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but then if you strictly follow this rule, what is the benefit of autopilot? Indeed. When reading Tesla's statement, "The Palo Alto-based automaker, led by Elon Musk, has said it repeatedly warns drivers to stay alert, keep their hands on the wheel and maintain control of their vehicle at all times while using the Autopilot system." ...one can't help but think, "then WTF is it good for , if I still have to drive the…

>This is subtly different from cruise control, which lets you concentrate on steering and rest your foot on the brake so you can use it quickly if needed. Cruise control doesn't encourage lowering attention, but enhances it. What has lead you to this conclusion? Autopilot is really just advanced cruise control. You can treat it the exact same way by leaving your foot on the brake and leaving a hand on the wheel. If p…

The biggest problem with this is that Tesla calls it autopilot. Had they called it advanced cruise control or something like that I think people would have used it with more caution. The more accidents that are happening makes me realize how far is Waymo/Google is actually ahead of the rest.

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

#432

Post by InternetOfStuff »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #388
djsumdog wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really bothers me manufacturers are pushing incremental updates to car safety systems. Does anyone besides me think this is a terrible idea?

Aren't cars doing that today with their physical saftey systems? How else would they do it than incremental?

> How else would they do it than incremental?

How about... not?

I'm not being disingenious here.

If there's autonomus tech, then I find it scary that it might change its behaviour. You see, I've learned how (say) Autopilot responds in certain situations. I know when to trust it, and when not to.

If this behaviour changes (perhaps even if it changes for the better!), that's a very dangerous thing. Some of my experience is now invalidated, but I don't know which part. But it mostly works as before, which gives me a false sense of security.

Changing the driving behaviour of a vehicle, especially in totally un-obvious ways, is super dangerous, and such changes must have very strong justifications.

Just think of that poor guy whose Tesla drove into the divider. Oh look, it behaves just like before -- except for its lane following behaviour.

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

#433

Post by mrgordon »

ams6110 wrote: post #228
mrgordon wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t totally disagree with you but I will point out that planes land everyday in white out conditions with no visibility due to level 3 landing systems. The pilot can’t see anything and thus can’t help really even if they are awake. They’re mostly just there to talk to air traffic control for these kinds of landings. One pilot told me the Airbus planes no longer allow manual control.

Accoring to Wikipedia, you still need to have a minimum runway visibility unless you are landing CAT-IIIc, which is not used commercially (yet). CAT-III landings are automatic, but the pilot needs some visibility to decide if the plane is going to touch down in the landing zone. If they are totally blind they will divert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_...

From the "Special CAT II and CAT III operations" you linked:

Some commercial aircraft are equipped with automatic landing systems that allow the aircraft to land without transitioning from instruments to visual conditions for a normal landing. Such autoland operations require specialized equipment, procedures and training, and involve the aircraft, airport, and the crew. Autoland is the only way some major airports such as Paris–Charles de Gaulle Airport remain operational every day of the year. Some modern aircraft are equipped with Enhanced flight vision systems based on infrared sensors, that provide a day-like visual environment and allow operations in conditions and at airports that would otherwise not be suitable for a landing. Commercial aircraft also frequently use such equipment for takeoffs when takeoff minima are not met.

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

#434

Post by watwat1 »

DanBC wrote: post #421
austenallred wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose they determine that you’re a part of the EU if not by IP address and if they can’t track members of the EU?

The point is that they're i) blocking people who aren't covered by GDPR. ii) not actually exempting themselves from GDPR because they still have all the data from EU residents from before the blocking. Blocking EU residents as a GDPR protection is dumb.

No it’s not.

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

#435

Post by watwat1 »

azinman2 wrote: post #392
soziawa wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many times does "attention needed" beep is needed before customer can be considered reasonably informed that it is not fully self-driving? I mean there is a warning telling you that it's not self driving. People are dumb, that's it.

I don’t think it’s helpful or even correct to say “people are dumb,” as if this is purely a user problem. The system exists in a bad gray zone — one that works well enough most of the time you stop paying attention. But it’s not full proof, so you get the worst of cognitive bias here. Personally I think this faux self driving (literally falsely named auto pilot) should be outlawed. We cannot depend on people to take…

Good thing you’re not actually in charge of anything.

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

#436

Post by mirceal »

yason wrote: post #390
mirceal wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I was already doing this even though I don’t know of any law that requires it where I live. You learn something every day.

I would assume they would teach you basic things like these in the driving school? I suppose that's not the case? Learning a "new" thing like that would probably make me hastily begin to wonder what else I might be missing.

I think you need to differentiate between knowing about something and knowing about the precise label something has.

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

#437

Post by dogma1138 »

pavelludiq wrote: post #429
dogma1138 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they aren’t the fact that you can bypass their restrictions does not matter it’s the intent that does.

Still, using ip addresses to try to determine where a request is originating from is not a good idea. I'm also not intending to bypass a block, I just happen to be in a network right now that that doesn't have a public ip in the EU, I'm using the internet as intended, the fact that ips sometimes correspond to geography is mostly accidental.

It doesn’t violate GDPR you do not need conscent for this level of profiling.

And again using or not using the internet as intended isn’t the issue here but rather if they intend to provide services to the EU or not a message saying EU users should leave in the same manner as age conscent is verified is technically sufficient to indicate that you do not provide service to EU residents, geoblocking the IP also sufficient even if it’s not perfect.

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

#438

Post by LoSboccacc »

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…

two things to consider: as speed increase, braking distance increase squared

as distance increase, the angular size of an object decreases inversely.

a radar requires an increase in power both to see at a longer distance and to see a smaller object, because the signature reduces with 2*distance^4

( this is an oversimplification to help introduce the topic, you can see the details here http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/The%20Radar%20Range%20... )

a static object is the worst case scenario: you can't use its doppler signature because it's not moving against the background and the radar becomes less efficient the moment you need it the most (at high speed)

as an aside, given the problem statement it should be possible to find a maximum speed that allows for timely detection and stopping.

chances are it's still slow.

I wonder why the radar/lidar isn't helped by an ir coincidence rangefinder.

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

#439

Post by forgottenpass »

dingaling wrote: post #424
userbinator wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but then if you strictly follow this rule, what is the benefit of autopilot? Indeed. When reading Tesla's statement, "The Palo Alto-based automaker, led by Elon Musk, has said it repeatedly warns drivers to stay alert, keep their hands on the wheel and maintain control of their vehicle at all times while using the Autopilot system." ...one can't help but think, "then WTF is it good for , if I still have to drive the…

> ...one can't help but think, "then WTF is it good for, if I still have to drive the car myself while using it?" And why are Tesla burning karma by promoting this technology? For SpaceX, self-landing rockets are a direct method of reducing costs. For Tesla, sort-of-self-driving cars are a distraction from the core product and are tainting the brand. Stick to selling top-tier electric vehicles with human-driving, peo…

>To me it's am example of what happens when software developers run the asylum.

Except if the rumors about turnover in the Tesla software team are true, the exact opposite is the case. The hot goss is that they're under pressure to meet unrealistic goals, not vomiting their own hubris into the product.

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

#440

Post by sly010 »

admyral wrote: post #215
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.

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.

And you would be alive.
Post reply on HN