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

Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 462 posts

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#281

Post by maxdo »

FireBeyond wrote: post #226
maxdo wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, https://www.tesla.com/safety https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KR2N_Q8ep8 Tesla roll out cars in generations. So just take a $40k Model 3/Y platform was introduced in 2017 and compare it with any car been introduced that year. My friend bought a BMW in 2019 for similar money, it doesn't have half of that. Maybe you can have them but you have to buy extra packages for extra money. Tesla don't sell safety features…

Automatic emergency braking is a required standard feature in the US. Forward collision warning became standard in 2016 by at least ten manufacturers: Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo. Without speaking to Blind Spot, my Audi does similar intelligent things. If you change lanes next to a vehicle or just in front of it, but you have a positive speed differentia…

It's not about how to calculate it. It' about how can you understand what's around. And Audi is not super good about it. Tesla is far better at understanding the context. This year they will switch to FSD stack. The car will not drive me itself. But security features while driver engaged will have a huge boost. And that will be available for any car that was released from 2015-17 with some minor exceptions. That's how security should be handled.

And yes for these minor exceptions Tesla offers a retrofit.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#282

Post by ipaddr »

sandworm101 wrote: post #174
ipaddr wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a ticket to fight as the cop working at 4am would have a hard time showing up to court.

A) Cops don't work such shifts for the weeks/months it takes to get a court date. B) Cops don't normally "show up" in traffic courts. They can often appear via electronic means. C) Cops have great respect for courts. If called, they show up. D) If your only defense is the faint hope that the cop doesn't show, the judge is going to rain hellfire on you for wasting everyone's time. Court costs. Amended tickets. Contemp…

In this case you should go and ask the judge for a smaller ticket regardless. Getting a ticket so large that we are talking about it on hn 40 years later? Go to court.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#283

Post by LeifCarrotson »

FireBeyond wrote: post #244
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's practially a trope how in sci-fi movies with flying futuristic cars, it's a demonstration of extreme competence for a character to demand "manual controls" to pilot the vehicle...like every normal driver does today. I expect that will become more and more real-world. Even today, most drivers don't know how to drive a manual transmission vehicle, much less how to double-clutch one without synchros or how to stop…

Perhaps pedantic, but also genuine curiosity, thinking about it: > how to stop on ice without ABS My understanding is that ABS won't do anything to help you stopping on ice, anyway. On ice, braking is hampered by lack of traction on tires, whereas ABS is trying to avoid the challenges of tires locking up, so you can maintain (some semblance of) directionality.

ABS absolutely does help you stop on ice. Locking up on ice makes traction even worse; you get a miserable coefficient of dynamic friction and a film of liquid water instead of the already poor coefficient of approximately static friction you get while there's limited relative motion between the tire and the road.

It's not a panacea, but ABS definitely reduces the distance you slide compared to if you lock your tires.

Citation: Towed a trailer a few weeks ago in the snow, and even with my beloved Tekonsha P3 trailer brake controller it was a challenge keeping the trailer behind the truck while coming to a stop on curves. It's easy to test the effects of locking the tires on ice with an empty trailer trying to stop a coasting truck...the truck brakes, with ABS, do most of the work.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#284

Post by jlmorton »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #256
jlmorton wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the company that decided to have its cars not stop at stop signs. Normal rules don't apply to Tesla. It's a driving profile which must be turned on that implements behavior extremely common among the driving public. My Honda with Traffic Sign Recognition and adaptive cruise control lets me set the speed above the speed limit, too. Our traffic laws are in many ways ambiguous, such that even the police office…

The driving public knows when it can't take such calculated risks. Does the ML classifier know what it isn't seeing?

I think there are two arguments here: legality, and actual safety. I would argue that the slow rolling stop is perfectly safe in all cases, but the law exists as it is only to reduce ambiguity for enforcement. It's not a calculated risk - there is no circumstance where it's unsafe.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#285

Post by ceejayoz »

ipaddr wrote: post #279
ceejayoz wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my area, cops have specific court dates; all their tickets are set to be handled on the same day that's already part of the cop's schedule.

Those are traffic cops working daylight hours who pull over many cars and it makes sense to stack those cases. We have a 4am case with a very high bill. If the officer keeps that shift chances are they are not going to want to show up 9am one day before going back to nights the next.

The cop working at 4am might be working a schedule like 12am-12pm and have their cases handled at 9am one day a month.

Or they switch between night and day shifts, like lots of nurses do.

They’ll make it work.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#286

Post by rootusrootus »

tempnow987 wrote: post #255
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would injury crashes go unreported?

After college I lived with roommates for a while. One went on a joyride of sorts and damaged a bunch of parking meters, crashed and injured themselves. They had a friend drive them home and repaired the vehicle with no reporting. In some cities currently even if you want to have police respond to a traffic accident, you'd need to wait a VERY long time - they will tell you that unless you need EMS to try and get a saf…

Depending on the state, though, reporting all injury crashes and any property damage over a certain (fairly low) amount is required by law. Not necessarily to the police, but to the DMV. I assume that statistically that would count in the 'reported to police' column.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#287

Post by starwind »

brk wrote: post #19

Nobody working in machine vision is surprised by this. We are a LONG way from having self-driving vehicles as a general thing, particularly when Tesla wants to rely on MV as their source of environment analysis.

My last job we did CV mostly focused on satellite images. When someone on the team mentioned she had a Tesla the director who set up the team was like "you see the results we get here. Why do you feel safe getting in a self-driving car?"

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#288

Post by FireBeyond »

tshaddox wrote: post #273
FireBeyond wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your conclusion relies on the - quite faulty - assumption that "situations that inherently difficult for FSD to handle" are automatically "also more dangerous for human drivers". In snowy conditions, humans do just fine, generally, at following "lanes", be they the actual lane, or the safest route that everyone else is following. Humans are also capable of deducting lane direction, orientation, even when there are co…

You don't think that human driver accident rates in snowy conditions are much higher than in fair weather conditions?

I was referring to the lane "following" aspect. FSD disengages, but most humans can follow lanes in snow. Of course there are separate concerns.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#289

Post by rgmerk »

Natsu wrote: post #4
gnicholas wrote: post #2

Underlying study is here. [1] Full disclosure, I co-wrote the piece for The Daily Beast [2] that originally suggested that Tesla's methodology was seriously flawed. I am not a Tesla-hater though — I just thought it was odd that the company was playing quite so fast and loose with their safety claims. 1: https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/1973/3986 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-tesla-and-elon-musk-exagge...

The study says this: > An estimated 15% of injury crashes and 24% of property damage-only crashes are never reported to police (M. Davis and Company, Inc., 2015), while9% of injury crashes and 24% of property damage-only crashes are reported but not logged (Blincoe et al., 2015). Even with robust data, establishing the statistical significance of automated vehicle safety can be expensive. Kalra and Paddock (2016)demo…

Kalra and Paddock's analysis is correct as far as it goes, but it's easy to misuse to claim that we couldn't feasibly demonstrate an autonomous vehicle is acceptably safe.

It never got accepted for publication because the reviewers didn't think it was significant enough, but I wrote a paper presenting an alternative way to analyse autonomous vehicle reliability data (you'll have to take my word for it, but the reviewers didn't quibble about the results presented, just whether it was important):

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.08901.pdf

The major technical contribution was demonstrating that a class of mathematical models called software reliability growth models are a reasonable way to estimate the "anomalous behaviour" rates of an AV system as bugs are found and fixed.

My second point was that using fatal accidents as a way to measure safety is not necessary; you can use more common events such as non-fatal accidents, or in the case of AV systems in development, even the number of occasions the safety driver overrode the automatic control.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#290

Post by dmitriid »

maxdo wrote: post #231
dmitriid wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Autopilot is a tool. You can miss use it, sure. But if you care about safety it's hard to match with what they offer. 1. It's not autopilot, by any measurable criteria 2. As the adjusted data clearl shows, it's not that hard to match it. And since you mention Volvo, they definitely match it. They are honest enough though not to call it "autopilot", or "full safe driving" or pin the plame for its failures on the dri…

The author is projecting his assumptions based on 400 people questioned. Is it fair. Most Cars volvo produced is not as safe simply because Volvo is still making most of the money on Gasoline car, and they are less safe vs electric. Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"? Again volvo is a premium brand, so they don't want to invest more in EV to mak…

> Most Cars volvo produced is not as safe simply because Volvo is still making most of the money on Gasoline car

That's... quite a leap.

> Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"?

That would be just that: a screaming article.

> so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe.

Ah, yes. Because the only way to make a car safe is to make it electric.

1. I was responding to the ridiculous claim of "if you care about safety it's hard to match with what Tesla offers".

This claim is bullshit, and Volvo easily matches what Tesla offers when it comes to car safety

2. Volvo XC40 Recharge, C40 Recharge are the cars that exist, but you chose to ignore them

> Naming of an optional feature is so much more important compares to real tech, crash tests etc.

I tried to parse this sentense, and I couldn't. Are you saying that Volvo doesn't do real tech, or doesn't do crash tests etc.? If so, are you delusional?

BTW, here's Volvo's purpose-built crash-test laboratory: https://www.media.volvocars.com/se/sv-se/media/videos/154740...

Post reply on HN