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

361–370 of 462 posts

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

#361

Post by Dylan16807 »

gefhfffh wrote: post #360
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you know what? All I want out of the first fifteen years of self-driving is a really good highway autopilot. As in one I can hopefully sleep at the wheel on a late night trip between midwestern US cities. John Henryism can navigate the suburbs, stroads, and drivethrus. If they achieve a backup safety system that monitors the humans, well, ok great. But right now, I want long distance automation, and I can handle…

Actually, seems like you want a train

Sure, and let me know where I can effectively vote and petition for extensive trains.

But until they get built freeway autopilot is nice.

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

#362

Post by Yaggo »

gefhfffh wrote: post #360
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you know what? All I want out of the first fifteen years of self-driving is a really good highway autopilot. As in one I can hopefully sleep at the wheel on a late night trip between midwestern US cities. John Henryism can navigate the suburbs, stroads, and drivethrus. If they achieve a backup safety system that monitors the humans, well, ok great. But right now, I want long distance automation, and I can handle…

Actually, seems like you want a train

Trains don't operate from door to door. The last mile problem persist, unless you travel between railway connected city centres. Not everyone lives anywhere near a railway station.

(I live in Europe which has relatively good railway network, still I prefer my Tesla as transport method.)

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

#363

Post by ActorNightly »

heavyset_go wrote: post #295
ActorNightly wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its kinda amazing to see the cognitive dissonance that people have when it comes to "regulators". When these regulators get swayed by the car industry into stupid stuff like 25 year import rule, or how they still keep speed limits around which have nothing to do with safety as they are based on outdated MPG savings initiative and end up disproportionally affecting lower income people, they rightfully are criticized.…

People with different opinions than yours are not a monolithic entity, so please don't paint me with the same brush as others just because my opinion has more similarities with theirs than with yours. Similarly, regulators are not a monolithic entity, and it is completely possible to want regulators to do one thing while also criticizing them about other things. Otherwise, your post has big "You criticize regulators,…

The issue isn't about what you want them to do, the issue is that you are expecting a bunch of non technical people that have no vested interest other than monetary gains through staying in office to create some sort of regulation that notionally protects people from themselves based on the supposed advertising of a piece of tech, and that is an incredibly silly position to ever take for multiple reasons.

Tesla clearly outlines what the autopilot is and isn't, and is not forcing people to use it. If you don't wanna beta test, don't use it. Simple as that. No need for any regulations in the first place. If someone thinks that autopilot means they can go to sleep being the wheel, and they crash, its is 100% their fault, not Teslas, or regulators. You don't blame mountain bike companies because someone decides to take their bike of a jump, go tail up nose down, and smack into the ground, even though their advertising often shows people doing big jumps on said bikes. Be consistent in what you believe.

Also, as far as self driving goes, Waymo isn't as much as pushing for safety as it is burning through VC cash in a giant scam. It started 13 years ago and has zero products. Meanwhile, startup shop Comma AI managed to get self driving highway autonomy system out in 5 years that you can actually buy, on a fraction of the budget.

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

#364

Post by Dylan16807 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #357
laen wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are moments a pilot has seconds to react and disengage autopilot. Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time and 2.5 seconds for any follow-on reactions. This reaction time includes the time to disengage autopilot and also put the aircraft into a climb-or-dive. Studies show that a situationally aware pilot takes at least 2 seconds to start the reaction, and another second to achieve…

"Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time" When the Autopilot swerves into a concrete wall for no reason, you will have 0.5 seconds left to live. Rwacting in the last 0.1 secons bwf9re collision will not save you - you must react in like 200ms. It is physically impossible to react in time to some autopilot mistakes, stop defending this idiocy. https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-drivers…

The problem is bad enough that it killed someone; you don't need to use exaggerated made-up numbers.

In the example video the car starts turning at 40 seconds and passes the barrier at 47 seconds.

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

#365

Post by sgustard »

paxys wrote: post #22

I have felt since day 1 that "autopilot is better than the average driver!" is the most misleading fact/statistic in the industry. The "average driver" involved in an accident includes drunk drivers, road ragers, habitual speeders, teenagers, people driving in bad conditions (rain, snow), people driving without sleep and several other risky groups that most people buying Teslas aren't part of. To be worth it, the car…

In my case, I'm happy to engage Autopilot even though I'm under no illusion that it makes me safer. It's just a very useful convenience feature.

OTOH: Tesla could still claim that if you replace all the distracted/drunk drivers in beat-up cars with new Teslas running Autopilot, the roads would be safer.

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

#366

Post by erosenbe0 »

hangonhn wrote: post #105
NikolaNovak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... I am "Tesla Hater" in that I don't like the direction they're proceeding in; but every human being I ever met in real actual life does rolling stops under some conditions. Last time I can confidently state that "I never rolled through a stop at very slow speed" is when I was 17, and only NOW do I realize how much of an annoying bum I was :P. So if a car does a rolling stop through a stop sign when there are…

I wonder if that might be a function of how roads near you are designed. I live in the Bay Area and there are definitely certain roads and intersections where I don't feel safe not coming to a full stop and looking both ways. It might be because of hills or that the other direction has no stop sign, etc. Maybe where you live roads have better visibility but at least in my experience in my part of the Bay Area, I ofte…

Some people have never seen sidewalks, tall hedges, or kids riding bikes on said sidewalks blocked by said tall hedges, because they don't exist in modern suburbia, particularly in certain climates.

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

#367

Post by shaklee3 »

Yaggo wrote: post #362
gefhfffh wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, seems like you want a train

Trains don't operate from door to door. The last mile problem persist, unless you travel between railway connected city centres. Not everyone lives anywhere near a railway station. (I live in Europe which has relatively good railway network, still I prefer my Tesla as transport method.)

highways don't go door to door, and that's what they were suggesting.

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

#368

Post by fedorareis »

shaklee3 wrote: post #367
Yaggo wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains don't operate from door to door. The last mile problem persist, unless you travel between railway connected city centres. Not everyone lives anywhere near a railway station. (I live in Europe which has relatively good railway network, still I prefer my Tesla as transport method.)

highways don't go door to door, and that's what they were suggesting.

They were suggesting they want to use the same vehicle door to door with it being automated during the freeway bit. A train would still mean find some transport to the station, wait for the train, ride train, find transport from station.

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

#369

Post by dmitriid »

waffle_maniac wrote: post #349
dmitriid wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or buy Škoda which is usually "last year's VW with everything included, for a lower price" :)

It looks like most of their cars have ~110 horsepower? Seems weak.

Depends on the car and where you're driving it.

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

#370

Post by AtlasBarfed »

gefhfffh wrote: post #360
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you know what? All I want out of the first fifteen years of self-driving is a really good highway autopilot. As in one I can hopefully sleep at the wheel on a late night trip between midwestern US cities. John Henryism can navigate the suburbs, stroads, and drivethrus. If they achieve a backup safety system that monitors the humans, well, ok great. But right now, I want long distance automation, and I can handle…

Actually, seems like you want a train

I'll answer that with another piece of prognostication: good highway self-driving will cause massive disruption to the airline industry.

Would you rather do this for a business trip to a 400-500 mile away city:

- fixed time to depart (and fixed for leaving your destination!)

- have to book ticket weeks in advance for a reasonable flight

- no flexiblity if plans change

- pack a small bag

- transit to an airport (parking or cab or whatever)

- arrive a sufficient amount of time in advance

- check in

- go through security

- get on plane, stuck in seat, no/crappy food

- get off plane, go to car rental place

- rent car (not yours, sucks)

- cost: 100-200$, and if you want to bring anyone it's a multiple of that.

- no cell phone, restricted to plane wifi if they have it

- door-to-door is what, 4 hours? Man I hope there isn't a delay....

Or, with self-driving:

- pack your car or minivan to the brim with stuff you need

- leave when you want

- sleep / stop to eat / stop to bathroom when you need it

- full cell coverage / hotspot

- take additional people

- EV cost is like... 20-40$ for the trip if you include wear and tear?

- door to door is... 5-6 hours

If the car is driving for you, it is far less stressful, flexible, much cheaper, especially if you want to take your family.

Trains are a ... bit ... better than airplanes, but still inflexible, surprisingly expensive, won't have your car at the other end, have to haul around your luggage rather than chuck it into YOUR CAR.

When good highway self-driving comes, I will probably never fly anything less than 1000 miles. If I get a self-driving RV that's EV self-recharging at charge stations? Hell I might get rid of my apartment.

Post reply on HN