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

Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 495 posts

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#191

Post by unityByFreedom »

natch wrote: post #112
jbritton wrote: post #57

I think self driving cars should have both high dynamic range cameras and LIDAR and maybe time of flight cameras. Input from a LIDAR system would be much more likely to detect that barrier, and computer vision via a camera much more likely to be fooled. I think an investigation into why the computer vision system failed to detect a barrier under clear daylight conditions will show the negligence on the part of Tesla.…

Yes it shuts off with a beep if it can’t handle current conditions. In case you think this kind of abrupt shutoff sounds dangerous, keep in mind this is in the current generation of the system which relies on a human driver being attentive and ready to take over at all times.

> In case you think this kind of abrupt shutoff sounds dangerous, keep in mind this is in the current generation of the system which relies on a human driver being attentive and ready to take over at all times.

What is a driver to do when the system randomly decides to brake? [1]

Phantom braking has been an issue for awhile, and has yet to be acknowledged by Tesla.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/b5yx1o/welp_th...

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#192

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #87

I hear people say “self driving cars don’t have to be perfect, they just need to be safer than humans.” Here is a good example of why that might be harder to achieve than expected. Apparently the car had gotten confused at that exact location repeatedly before. That’s what self driving cars are going to do—if there is something “weird” it’s likely that every self driving car (at least, every one from the same manufac…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#193

Post by unityByFreedom »

linsomniac wrote: post #176
areoform wrote: post #96

I would like to add over here that Tesla does indeed do sensor fusion in their cars. Their Autopilot combines radar and ultrasound with vision to decide where to drive. Commentators bringing up LIDAR are jumping the gun by assuming that this scenario isn't something that these sensors wouldn't have detected in either combination or individually to spot the anomaly. The problem over here is likely to be software due t…

One thing to remember here is that with RADAR it is, I have read, very hard to tell a soda can from a car from a above highway sign as you are cresting a hill. So they will often filter out anything that is stopped. I read this a few months ago and it blew my mind. Then I read about that LIDAR sensor burning a camera sensor and thought "how safe can that be?!?"

> with RADAR it is, I have read, very hard to tell a soda can from a car from a above highway sign

Yes, read about phantom braking, for example here,

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/b5yx1o/welp_th...

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#194

Post by CoolGuySteve »

zaroth wrote: post #187
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you bothered to click on the Car And Driver link, you would have seen that these systems (particularly Tesla's system) work at least up to 50mph with stationary objects.

In the video, that’s 50kph (30 mph). The most advanced Volvo system decelerated but still crashes pretty hard at 80kph (50mph) when approaching a stationary vehicle decoy. Note well, if the target was an inflatable rock or an inflatable jersey barrier parallel with the direction of travel, the results would be much, much worse. In those other cars the ACC is picking up a car-like object on the sensors. A non-car-like…

Again, you have failed to understand what I said. The CAR AND DRIVER link is this one: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-featu...

And it shows a Tesla's performance among other cars, not a Volvo's.

And anyways, that Volvo video does show AES invoking at 80km/h and 130 km/h, reducing the speed of the collision but not avoiding it.

Maybe you're right about the car vs rock distinction but so far your track record is pretty spotty. Provide a source for your claims.

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#195

Post by studentrob »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #186

The crux of the issue will be that autonomous capabilities will/have made cars overall safer. Tesla will be able to cite data and circumstances where the safety features saved lives, and likely more times than lives were lost. The problem is that the lives that are lost when the safety features fail are different lives than would have been lost without it at all. The families of those killed in this manner will have…

> Tesla will be able to cite data and circumstances where the safety features saved lives, and likely more times than lives were lost.

It would be great if Tesla would share such data, however their safety report is only a couple sentences [1] and Musk just recently refused to share more safety data because it would allow people to "turn a positive into a negative" [2]

[1] https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqvatzjHGyk&t=47m17s

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#196

Post by zaroth »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #135
zaroth wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These AEB features almost universally do not trigger on stationary objects when the car is moving more than 20 or 30mph.

https://youtu.be/kuxundRB1zM good aeb trigger at speed. they might not avoid the crash entirely, but try to mitigate it. Tesla is quite behind the state of the art here.

Teslas and other manufacturers will trigger at speed against a stationary vehicle detected by the adaptive cruise control system.

Teslas are beginning to trigger more at speed on perceived non-vehicle obstacles (added in a recent OTA update) but that is not without false positives which some have deemed the Tesla Brake Check.

I’ve experienced the errant braking, typically when a lane is partially obstructed but you are moving to avoid the obstruction, that is when it will trigger. I’m not a fan of this behavior. You can override it with a quick tap on the accelerator, but it jostles you.

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#198

Post by emef »

areoform wrote: post #96

I would like to add over here that Tesla does indeed do sensor fusion in their cars. Their Autopilot combines radar and ultrasound with vision to decide where to drive. Commentators bringing up LIDAR are jumping the gun by assuming that this scenario isn't something that these sensors wouldn't have detected in either combination or individually to spot the anomaly. The problem over here is likely to be software due t…

This is why we use a redundant geometric approach (with LiDAR) as a fallback to NNs in our perception stack. NNs can have false negatives which is unacceptable, but dealing with false positives is more manageable and safer.

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#199

Post by mindfulplay »

hackerpacker wrote: post #197

can we just make a law that the driver is responsible/liable for the car they drive, regardless how they drive it? I mean breaks failing while you are actively driving is one thing, but to completely surrender control, that is a choice.

But that's what Elon promises. He is careful never to publicly say it outright but his PR machinery wants you to believe this car can do things it literally cannot.

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#200

Post by ebg13 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #169
colordrops wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't the algorithms for extracting depth from stereo imagery already solved and thus also essentially "free"?

No, it's like this: Radar, LIDAR, ultrasound: returning packets have X value, where X is run through a single algorithm to return depth. In the case of ultrasound and radar, the strength of the return packet is generally directly proportional to depth (algorithmically). LIDAR systems might require an additional processing step depending on the type of LIDAR system used, since many systems use shifted-arrays or rotati…

> Each matrix is run through edge-detection and object-detection algorithms, and the resultant data is then run through more algorithms to match and compare objects between the two images. Finally, once objects have been matched up, a parallax algorithm determines their 3d positioning.

Where is your information coming from, and can you point me to a stereo algorithm that uses object detection?

Post reply on HN