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

German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

mobile.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 632 posts

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#601

Post by lolc »

atonalfreerider wrote: post #488
lolc wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being semantically right does not help against technically colliding. I can hook up an avian autopilot to a car to keep my bearing. While this is semantically a car with an autopilot, the contraption is useless on a road. When I talk about autopilots, I'm talking about a system that allows me to disengage from steering. Literally by employing a self-steerer. The Tesla "Autopilot" does not permit this because I still…

I'm sorry, I'm terribly confused by your logic. > hook up an [aircraft] autopilot to a car This sounds histrionic > semantically a car with an autopilot ?? > Literally by employing a self-steerer. The Tesla Autopilot does not permit this This is not how Tesla autopilot works. If you are genuinely asking my opinion, I would very much like to see this technology in the driver seat of more vehicles on the road as soon a…

Autopilots are reliable in aviation because they are simple. An autopilot for road steering cannot be that simple. The term transfers badly.

It is a false dilemma to say that we need autopilots to avoid road deaths. Because assistive tech is already successfully being used for exactly this.

We want self-driving cars to avoid the drudgery of driving. But the current batch of implementations needs very controlled conditions (Waymo), or close human supervision (Tesla).

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#602

Post by bleah1000 »

jedberg wrote: post #447
Piskvorrr wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people driving into things is considered to be a problem, not an insignificant quirk that's almost unworthy of mention.

In 2017, the last year we have data for, 10,230 accidents hit a stationary object, representing 30% of all fatal crashes. Tesla has had a total of 5 fatal crashes in its history, and only one of them was hitting a stationary object (20%). So objectively Tesla is doing better than humans.

You also need to figure out how many of those crashes are intentional suicides or a result of something else (such as someone having a heart attack and losing control of their car).

Basically, you would need to figure out how many of those accidents hits stationary objects on the highway that are the drivers fault. That's what Tesla cars have done. I don't think those stats are available.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#603

Post by waterhouse »

bosie wrote: post #546
waterhouse wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thought comes to mind: Twitter wasn't a thing for most of Steve Jobs's career. (Looking at Wiki pages, Jobs's time at Apple was 1976-1985, then 1997-2011; Twitter was created in 2006.) Meanwhile, my impression is that most of Musk's antics occur on Twitter. If Steve Jobs grew up in the Twitter age, would he have done that kind of stuff too? A Quora answer says Jobs didn't make any social media accounts at all, usin…

Musk isn't some young kid but a 49 year old. 2 years ago he baselessly accused a rescue diver as a pedophile and doubled down on it in court. For some reason, I doubt Steve Jobs would have done that. I don't know what "kind of personality" this is but if you have that kind of personality (CEO or not), yes, stay away from Twitter and all social media. Though that wouldn't be your biggest problem anyways.

For what it's worth, Musk's defense on that one is that, where he grew up, "pedo guy" was generally used as an insult not to be taken literally, any more than "idiot" seriously means "IQ between 0 and 25". He does seem to be telling the truth on that one; his judgment is questionable on multiple counts, but it's not a case of deliberately making up an accusation.

"Elon Musk is right, it seems: in the 1980s the phrase "pedo guy" was used as an insult in Pretoria, where he grew up – and it was a generic reference that did not necessarily mean someone was a pedophile. But telling a court in the United States that the slang was "common" in South Africa may be stretching the truth, according to other people's recollections."

https://www.businessinsider.co.za/elon-musk-pedo-guy-really-...

He did then hire a private investigator, who apparently produced some suggestive reports: "that Unsworth had met his wife when she was eleven or twelve, and that he had been unpopular in the cave rescue team because he was "creepy"". Apparently on the basis of this, Musk made further accustions in a later email to a third party—one prefaced "off the record", but that wasn't legally binding:

"“I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you fucking asshole,” Musk wrote in the email, according to BuzzFeed News. “He’s an old, single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years, mostly Pattaya Beach, until moving to Chiang Rai for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time," the email continued." http://web.archive.org/web/20200605035828/https://www.busine...

Clearly impulsive, and he seems to have leapt to conclusions from the PI's report (I don't know exactly what was in it and how much was Musk reading between the lines) that seem to be false. But at that time, the accusation didn't seem baseless to him.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#604

Post by seppel »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #586
seppel wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is: Cruise control maintains the speed without human supervision. Lane keep assist does not keep in a lane without human supervision (hence it is only assist).

> The thing is: Cruise control maintains the speed without human supervision. At which point you would immediately veer off the highway and smash into an overpass, so no it doesn't. It maintains speed without human involvement , which is the same thing lane keep assist does. It steers the car to keep it in the lane. Presumably even if the lane goes out to a pier and dumps the car in the sea.

Cruise control maintains the speed as long as it is physically possible. You don't need to supervise that it maintains the speed, it is able to do it on its own. It is (usually) even better than a human in maintaining the speed. Of course you still need to control the steering wheel or brake for obstacles -- but that's nothing cruise control promises to control.

On the other hand, lane assist is good, but it is not good enough to keep the lane without supervision. It can get confused by strange markings, obstacles, construction work, weather etc. It might fail to keep the car in its lane, although it is easily possible for a human.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#605

Post by dlp211 »

OnlyForF1 wrote: post #511
dlp211 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It likely inverted because vehicles don't come with two sets of steering instruments and therefore co-pilot/driver means something else in the driving world.

A co-driver in the driving world is either a Rally co-pilot who gives extremely detailed navigation instructions or someone who will literally get into the drivers seat to relieve the duties of the other driver on long road trips. It's a much more involved process than what an airplane autopilot can do.

Yes, in racing, not in everyday driving.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#606

Post by MereInterest »

natch wrote: post #577
emn13 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent poster is trying to make the point that it's unreasonable to ask people to pay attention. In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. You cannot expect people to maintain constant attention when that attention almost never leads to anything; people simply aren't capable of that. That's also why similarly "boring" tasks are so failure prone (e.g. htt…

I find it easier to pay attention when autopilot is on, for a few reasons. The first reason will fade eventually: it's fascinating to see it in action, and to observe how it reacts to situations. Another reason is I am a bit more free to vary my attention safely, checking mirrors more often, seeing more of the scenery (don't worry, with fleeting glances, not long stares that would lead me to miss a truck crossing the…

> purported / alleged. The claims of this have been debunked.

Isn't this entire article about how the courts in Germany determined that it is, in fact, false advertising?

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#607

Post by jariel »

stetrain wrote: post #54
dkonofalski wrote: post #3

I agree with this wholeheartedly, even as a Tesla owner. Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the moniker "Autopilot" while shifting everything above that to "Full Self-Driving". They should have called it "CoPilot" since that infers that you're still the driver in charge of controlling the vehicle and it would have had exactly the same reception…

Actually I think the name "Autopilot" is the least troublesome part of the marketing. Other car makers call their systems CoPilot, ProPilot, SuperCruise, whatever and I think the name matters less than the communication and details of using the system. The main Autopilot marketing page shows a video of a Tesla driving itself, says the Driver is there for legal purposes only, and provides no other disclaimers about th…

All of it is too much.

It should be called 'Cruise Control Plus'.

Or 'Cruise Control Augmentation'.

It shouldn't really even hint at autonomy.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#608

Post by benzor »

antpls wrote: post #38

That's hypocrisy from the German court. This is 100% a push from German car industry lobby. Note that the case wasn't started from consumer complaints, it was instead started by an industrial group. I bet all Tesla buyers are aware about what they are actually buying. They can return the car and get a refund if they are not pleased with it. This ban is bullshit considering that many ads in many industries are decepti…

Please try refuting the ruling on its reasoning instead of peddling conspiracy theories.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#609

Post by emn13 »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #562
buran77 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. For the rest of your comment I agree and I implied something along the same lines. Tesla should have built a system that works to compensate for human failings, not take advantage of them to sell…

> public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle This is a common rumour, but is there anywhere which actually implements this?

Where I live, they're even rain-sensitive, giving bikers priority in rainy conditions.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#610

Post by emn13 »

natch wrote: post #577
emn13 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent poster is trying to make the point that it's unreasonable to ask people to pay attention. In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. You cannot expect people to maintain constant attention when that attention almost never leads to anything; people simply aren't capable of that. That's also why similarly "boring" tasks are so failure prone (e.g. htt…

I find it easier to pay attention when autopilot is on, for a few reasons. The first reason will fade eventually: it's fascinating to see it in action, and to observe how it reacts to situations. Another reason is I am a bit more free to vary my attention safely, checking mirrors more often, seeing more of the scenery (don't worry, with fleeting glances, not long stares that would lead me to miss a truck crossing the…

The numbers are hard to trivially analyze, because there is no source that tracks "deaths caused by tesla cars" - NHTSA tracks deaths in cars and pedestrians, but e.g. not in other cars involved in the accident, even if potentially there car without the fatality was a contributing factor (fault is kind of irrelevant).

But the numbers we do have make Tesla's look pretty dangerous. Tesla's overall fatality rate may be low, but that's true in general of luxury cars (perhaps because they're driven in safer areas, by safer drivers, have fewer safety related faults, or protect their occupants better). Compared to similarly priced cars, tesla does poorly (https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...).

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=no&tl=en&u=htt... - norwegian safety authority also concluding Tesla's are more dangerous.

Finally, specifically the autopilot is often compared incorrectly - autopilot isn't used on busy city streets or chaotic traffic situations (it's not capable of that yet) - but those are where most traffic fatalities occur. On the highway, fatalities are comparitively rare, even in "normal" cars. On interstates, in 2012 (I can't find more recent numbers), the fatality rate was 3.38 per billion miles travelled (source: http://www.bast.de/EN/Publications/Media/Unfallkarten-intern...) - and in some countries, much lower even than that (e.g. 0.72 in denmark). Since that includes old & cheap cars, you'd expect luxury cars to do better than that - that's the baseline autopilot should be compared against.

Comparing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_self-driving_car_fatal... with https://cleantechnica.com/2019/10/14/lex-fridmans-tesla-auto... I'd say a lower bound on autopilot's record is around 2 per billion miles - that's OK, but not very good. We may be missing autopilot related fatalities; if we missed even a single one, that would make these numbers look outright poor. That's a very rough estimate; but if we want any kind of reliable estimate on autopilot safety, you'd need much more data that we have (also more data on competitors!) Of course the very fact that we can't tell because data is so sparse is good! It means there are few deaths in this category; while driving in general may be dangerous, driving a luxury sedan on an interstate is fairly safe - exactly how safe doesn't really matter.

----

All in all - Tesla's safety record looks good compared to the average car, but not very convincing compared to similarly aged similarly priced cars - i.e. Tesla's competition. If you were to base your buying choice on safety, you probably should not buy a Tesla; but definitely should not buy the marketing nonsense. On the upside; it simply doesn't matter much, driving on autopilot-enabled roads is fairly safe anyhow, regardless of whether autopilot helps or harms safety.

Post reply on HN