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

DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#51

Post by inglor_cz »

gamblor956 wrote: post #44
anonporridge wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all endanger lives every time we get behind the wheel of a manually driven car.

If you endanger lives every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you shouldn't be driving. Millions of people are able to drive safely, and do, every minute of every day.

Millions of people think they are able to drive safely. But 9 of 10 crashes are still caused by human error.

73 per cent of American drivers consider themselves above average [0].

[0] https://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-editorsnote/2...

I don't doubt that there are many safe drivers out there, but probably fewer than we think. With modern cars, you can risk a lot before having an accident.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#52

Post by mwill »

Rygian wrote: post #40
pengaru wrote: post #22

Sure took long enough, do your jobs already. The general public shouldn't be forced to share roads with FSD Beta vehicles having a tendency to veer into oncoming traffic among other unpredictable and dangerous behaviors shown in various twitter videos. Nevermind the autopilot failures smashing into stopped emergency vehicles and semi trailers. I'm pro-EV but Tesla is a reckless shit show.

When you say "having a tendency to," how often exactly does that happen? Have you been able to watch Twitter videos of all driving situations FSD is exposed to, or was your research biased to "videos that get a lot of views," itself a subset of "FSD driving that was caught on camera"?

I think it's fair to view Telsa's FSD as a single (very prolific) driver.

If there were multiple viral videos of a single person veering into oncoming traffic, I wouldn't care how many hours of video there was of them NOT veering into oncoming traffic there was tbh, I would still like to see some intervention.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#53

Post by gzer0 »

jjav wrote: post #27
anonporridge wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, still, try to compare it to equivalent brands and socio-economic groups. My point is that anti Tesla self driving sentiment is almost exclusively driven by emotion, not hard data. Show me the data that justifies why I need to be afraid of public FSD.

It is well-known that Teslas auto-brake-check cars at highway speeds (not with that intention of course, but same outcome). This is behavior for which non-AI drivers get arrested, for good reason. That's enough reason to be very wary of Teslas on the road. There are others, but even one is enough.

> Show me the data that justifies why I need to be afraid of public FSD.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#54

Post by sideshowb »

simion314 wrote: post #50
anonporridge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It fits because humans are objectively shit drives who cause massive amounts of death, suffering, and property damage through car crashes all the time. Unless there's hard data that FSD is worse than the status quo, attempts to curtail it's use is not only a waste of time, but potentially actively contributing to unnecessary suffering if in fact it's contributing to fewer accidents.

>It fits because humans are objectively shit drives who cause massive amounts of death, Why not maybe don't allow bad drivers to drive at all? Like don't give a license without 40 hours of driving school with a professor, have a test with traffic rules, then have a final test with an official. Have the drivers provide medical proof they are capable, Each time a driver does something dangerous like speeding remove his…

The trouble is it's still quite hard to model who will have a collision next, because collisions each year are still far fewer than the number of drivers. Although from a social standpoint they are too frequent, from a purely statistical point of view they are rare - in the sense of being the sort of event you might model with a poisson distribution. Sure, driving history can give an indication, but ultimately anyone could have one.

This is why when I had over 15 years of perfect driving record I still had to pay £350 in insurance. And the following year I caused a collision (fortunately without injuries). We are all human and fallible.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#55

Post by mellavora »

bpodgursky wrote: post #23
marricks wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a new technology which no one else is testing in the real world with actual drivers at such a scale. Onus is on Tesla to provide data for others to verify the claim that it’s safe.

I don't think this is a good faith answer; feels more like "I don't have a good answer for why this is a problem, so I'm going to punt it onto you to convince me"

Disagree. It is a good faith answer which states standard practice for safety standards.

Burden of proof is on Tesla to show that FSD is safe, not on the DMV to prove that it isn't.

You are welcome to argue that this principle is in need of reform. People may or may not agree with you. The discussion might be interesting.

But like it or not, the underlying principle for an exception to an established safety principle is that the burden of proof is on Tesla.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#56

Post by martindbp »

erulabs wrote: post #32

This topic aside, I guess I just feel like if the Hacker community is saying “don’t build things! It’s dangerous! What if someone gets hurt! Go DMV! Put a stop to that!”, then maybe I don’t want to be a Hacker anymore.

Wholeheartedly agree. I don't give much weight to the negativity on HN anymore. VR bad, crypto bad, Tesla bad, autonomous vehicles bad, billionaires in space bad.

To me it's pretty clear that Tesla's audatiousness in pushing FSD could move up the advent of L4 by years, possibly saving hundreds of thousands of lives, for very little downside. In fact, I believe human+FSD is already safer on average, just due to the fact that FSD requires the driver to watch the road.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#57

Post by the8472 »

mwill wrote: post #52
Rygian wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "having a tendency to," how often exactly does that happen? Have you been able to watch Twitter videos of all driving situations FSD is exposed to, or was your research biased to "videos that get a lot of views," itself a subset of "FSD driving that was caught on camera"?

I think it's fair to view Telsa's FSD as a single (very prolific) driver. If there were multiple viral videos of a single person veering into oncoming traffic, I wouldn't care how many hours of video there was of them NOT veering into oncoming traffic there was tbh, I would still like to see some intervention.

No, that's not how you make reasonable policy. That's just listening to your gut reaction to such a video. Gut reactions do not work at this scale because this "single prolific driver" drives far more than a human in their lifetime. Therefore even rare events become common. Put a different way, as driven distances goes up the probability of having some scary event approaches 1. What we want to know at which rate it approaches 1. Twitter videos don't tell us that.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#58

Post by mellavora »

erulabs wrote: post #32

This topic aside, I guess I just feel like if the Hacker community is saying “don’t build things! It’s dangerous! What if someone gets hurt! Go DMV! Put a stop to that!”, then maybe I don’t want to be a Hacker anymore.

Yes, if.

If that is what the community is saying.

May I suggest an alternate "if", based not just on your statement, but on the general tone of this whole article?

I just feel like if the Hacker community is saying "react emotionally based on if we like Tesla or not and just yell at each other without trying to communicate", then maybe I don't want to be a Hacker anymore.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#59

Post by mellavora »

inglor_cz wrote: post #51
gamblor956 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you endanger lives every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you shouldn't be driving. Millions of people are able to drive safely, and do, every minute of every day.

Millions of people think they are able to drive safely. But 9 of 10 crashes are still caused by human error. 73 per cent of American drivers consider themselves above average [0]. [0] https://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-editorsnote/2... I don't doubt that there are many safe drivers out there, but probably fewer than we think. With modern cars, you can risk a lot before having an accident.

There was some interesting comment a few months ago about the "human error" aspect of crashes.

Basically saying that the quoted statistic (90% or whatever) is a way to NOT look at how road design contributes to the error.

Earlier on this threat, someone commented that a road marked as 50 mph often has cars driving 150 mph on it, because it is a shortcut which is build like a racetrack. Obviously 150mph in a 50mph zone is human error, but a few simple changes to road design could take away the 150mph attractiveness of this road.

Or see some of the articles on stroads, or badly placed left turns, etc.

FSD might be a step to better road safety, but a focus on designing roads for safety might also be a good step.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#60

Post by slg »

marricks wrote: post #14
anonporridge wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, still, try to compare it to equivalent brands and socio-economic groups. My point is that anti Tesla self driving sentiment is almost exclusively driven by emotion, not hard data. Show me the data that justifies why I need to be afraid of public FSD.

It’s a new technology which no one else is testing in the real world with actual drivers at such a scale. Onus is on Tesla to provide data for others to verify the claim that it’s safe.

Isn't it a catch 22? How do you provide the data that it is safe without testing it to collect the data?
Post reply on HN