251–260 of 507 posts
I don't know how Tesla ever presumes to achieve FSD when they cannot detect stopped objects in the road, especially emergency vehicles. This is incredibly disappointing. Does anyone know if the FSD Beta has this ability?
Neither can Volvo or VW.
Actually my 2015 Ap1.5 Model S does detect stopped vehicles, unfortunately not reliably.
There is about 36000 death on the road per year in the USA for 280 millions vehicles, that's 128.5 death/million vehicule/year If we assume the number of tesla autopilot death double this year to 8 (from 4 at the time of probe launch), for about 900 thousand tesla on the road in USA, that's 8.9 autopilot death/million tesla/year. Ratio between the numbers of 14.4. Tesla reporting says for Q1 2021 one crash on autopil…
1. generally speaking the right way to think about accidents/fatalities/hard breaking events is per miles driven given that risk scales with time spent on road (and miles driven is the best proxy we have at the moment, insurance companies use this stat)
2. If wearing a seat belt prevents a ton of fatalities as advertised and generally proven, it would make sense that of the road fatalities that do happen, many are due to not wearing a seat belt.
10% of people not wearing seat belts is still hundreds of millions of miles driven without seat belts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually disagree. (And before you respond, please read my post because it’s not a trivial point.) The fact that an huge formal investigation happened with just a single casualty is proof that it may actually be superior for safety in the long-term (when combined with feedback from regulators and government investigators). One death in conventional vehicles is irrelevant. But because of the high profile of Tesla’s…
Then why not flip the scheme. Instead of have the human as backup to the machine, make the machine backup the human. Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake. Telemetry can then record all the situations where the human and the machine disagreed. That should provide all the necessary data, with the benefit of the robot perhaps preventing many accidents. Of course…
>>How about a Tesla that is electronically incapable of speeding. Good luck selling that one.
From 2022 all cars sold in the EU have to have an electronic limiter that keeps you to the posted speed limit(by cutting power if you are already going faster) - the regulation does allow the system to be temporarily disabled however.
This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average driver breaks multiple laws on every trip. Most of the time no one gets hurt. But calibrating performance against folks violating traffic and criminal laws sets the bar too low for an automated system. We should be aiming for standards that either match European safety levels or the safety of modes of air travel or rail travel.
I disagree. Perfect is the enemy of good, and rejecting a better system because it isn't perfect seems like an absurd choice. I'm not saying improvements should stop there, but once the system has reached parity, it's OK to deploy it and let it improve from there.
Nothing absurd about thinking a system which has parity with the average human driver is too risky to buy unless you consider yourself to be below average at driving. (As it is, most people consider themselves to be better than average drivers, and some of them are even right!) The accident statistics that comprise the "average human accident rate" are also disproportionately caused by humans you'd try to discourage from driving in those circumstances...
Another very obvious problem is that an automated system which kills at the same rate per mile as an average human drivers will tend to be driven a lot more because no effort (and probably replace better-than-average commercial drivers long before teenagers and occasional-but-disproportionately-deadly drivers can afford it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument is flawed, because when regulators investigate a Tesla crash, Waymo doesn't care the slightest. The technologies (emphasis on having skeuomorphic cameras vs a lidar), approaches (emphasis on generating as many situations as possible in simulated worlds and carefully transitioning to the business case vs testing as early in the real world with background data captation) and results are so different betwe…
well when regulators investigate Boing, Airbus probably doesn't care either. Until it leads to something systemic, that then regulator mandates for all vehicles
Not the case at all between lidars and cameras.
There is about 36000 death on the road per year in the USA for 280 millions vehicles, that's 128.5 death/million vehicule/year If we assume the number of tesla autopilot death double this year to 8 (from 4 at the time of probe launch), for about 900 thousand tesla on the road in USA, that's 8.9 autopilot death/million tesla/year. Ratio between the numbers of 14.4. Tesla reporting says for Q1 2021 one crash on autopil…
Of course, highway driving is the least dangerous (per passenger mile) since everything is so predictable, I don’t know how many deaths are caused by t-bones at intersections but that at least should disappear now that auto-radar brakes are a thing… (tesla thinks it’s too good for radar of course, even tho it can’t recognize a god damn fire truck is in the way)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why not flip the scheme. Instead of have the human as backup to the machine, make the machine backup the human. Let the human do all the driving and have the robot jump in whenever the human makes a mistake. Telemetry can then record all the situations where the human and the machine disagreed. That should provide all the necessary data, with the benefit of the robot perhaps preventing many accidents. Of course…
On most or all roads below 100km/h autopilot won’t allow speeding, and therefore I drive at the limit, which I know I would not have done if I controlled it. It also stays in the lane better than I do, keeps distance better, and more. Sometimes it’s wonky when the street lines are unclear. It’s not perfect but a better driver than I am in 80% of cases. My insurance company gives a lower rate if you buy the full autop…
If following the speed limit makes cars safer, another way to achieve that without autopilot is to just have all cars limit their speed to the speed limit.
Sometimes it’s wonky when the street lines are unclear. It’s not perfect but a better driver than I am in 80% of cases
The problem is in those 20% of cases where you'd lulled into boredom by autopilot as you concentrate on designing your next project in your head, then suddenly autopilot says "I lost track of where the road is, here you do it!" and you have to quickly gain context and figure out what the right thing to do is.
Some autopilot systems use eye tracking to make sure that the driver is at least looking at the road, but that doesn't guarantee that he's paying attention. But at least that's harder to defeat than Tesla's "nudge the steering wheel once in a while" method.
Glad the regulators are looking into this. It bothers me that now Tesla seems to have no liability at all for the system not working, since it's always the driver's fault for not paying enough attention. As Teslas get better at driving the drivers will be paying less attention inevitably, Tesla needs to start being responsible at some point
Every year young drivers die because they were inexperienced and didn't realize they were going too fast to too slow for a certain situation. Once full self driving is statistically safer than humans how will you not let people use it? It is like saying you would rather have 10 children die because of bad driving skills rather than 1 child die because they were not paying attention at all times.
This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
It therefore isn't a clean swap of a human paying attention to a human who isn't. It becomes a complicated equation that we can't just dismiss with "people won't pay attention". It is possible that a 90%/10% split of drivers paying attention to not paying attention is more dangerous when they are all driving manually than a 70%/30% split if those drivers are all using self-driving tech to cover for them. Wouldn't you feel safer if the driver behind you who is answering texts was using this incremental self-driving tech rather than driving manually?
No one has enough data on the performance of these systems or how the population of drivers use them to say definitively that they are either safer or more dangerous on the whole. But it is definitely something that needs to be investigated and researched.