Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#71

Post by Sebb767 » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:32 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #44

redserk wrote: post #3

> Von Ohain and Rossiter had been drinking, and an autopsy found that von Ohain died with a blood alcohol level of 0.26 — more than three times the legal limit — a level of intoxication that would have hampered his ability to maintain control of the car, experts said. The details make this seem less of an autonomous driving issue and more of an incredibly irresponsible operation issue.

I’m not sure what “0.26” exactly means, but if it’s what I interpret to be that’s about one beer for a typical male adult. It’s not nothing but it’s not a lot either.

BAC is given in percent (parts per 100, %), whereas a lot of countries use permille (parts per 1000, ‰). This would equate to 2.6 permille, which is quite a lot, especially for non-drinkers.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#72

Post by simion314 » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:33 PM UTC

LeFantome wrote: post #31

ra7 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These two were idiots, but this highlights the dangers of L2 driver assistance systems (misleadingly marketed as "Full Self Driving") that requires driver attention at all times to prevent accidents. It gives you a false sense of security and there's no guarantee you'll take over in time to prevent an accident. If you give dumb toys to people, they will use it in dumb ways. This is why Waymo/Google abandoned their dr…

I totally agree with what you say. Certainly “Full Self Driving” should be illegal marketing for level 2 autonomy. That said, cars are dumb toys to give people. Certainly access to cars is dangerous for people that are going to use them while drunk. “Sense of security” or not, why were these guys in control of a vehicle? While autonomous vehicles are not ready, this event just cements the need for them in my mind. I…

>evidence suggests that the bar is very low

There is no real evidence (not biased or cherry picked) that replacing all drivers with Tesla's would actually be better/ I am aware of Tesla's numbers but those are invalid statistics , not comparing apples to apples. We would need something like how many miles does a car drive before a driver takes over, not comparing number of accidents since those are comparing human vs computer+human

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#73

Post by ra7 » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:33 PM UTC

LeFantome wrote: post #43

ra7 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could be perfectly sober and still not be able to intervene in time to prevent a crash. Systems like this encourage inattention, but still expect drivers to turn on attention in a fraction of a second. That's the entire point. So no, it's not moot.

It depends on the discussion you are having. I agree that it is not “moot” in either case. Your point is that these systems need to be save even in the face of incapable drivers and that, despite the misleading marketing, they are not that ( yet ). The other point though is that people already have access to cars and, according to the evidence, cars with these features are LESS dangerous. Encouraging over-reliance is…

There are no statistics that categorically prove cars with these features are less dangerous. Tesla's own "safety report" is extremely misleading and has no controls for geography, weather, time of day, average age of cars, demographics, etc.

If you're developing an autonomous system, you have a moral and ethical obligation not to roll it out when it's half baked and unsafe. You can't give an unfinished safety critical system to the general public and then blaming them for misusing it.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#74

Post by ec109685 » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:33 PM UTC

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #47

While I don't know how good Tesla's self-driving is, I do have experience with a limited keep-your-lane system in a BMW. The one that actually steers. It requires a lot of force to override it. And remember, it requires you to keep the hands on the wheel. But you are not expecting to have to fight it, so there are some delays there. Then you're fighting a system that you don't know how much force it takes to override…

Teslas don’t require much force at all to disengage.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#75

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:33 PM UTC

ra7 wrote: post #52

ajross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I totally agree with what you say. Certainly “Full Self Driving” should be illegal marketing for level 2 autonomy. The driver was literally a Tesla Inc. employee. Do you really think that they were fooled by marketing into believing the system was more capable than it was? No, they were just drunk and made a terrible decision. I mean, I'm tempted to just agree. Let's call it something else. Will that stop these rid…

Did you read the article? > Von Ohain used Full Self-Driving nearly every time he got behind the wheel, Bass said, placing him among legions of Tesla boosters heeding Musk’s call to generate data and build the technology’s mastery. While Bass refused to use the feature herself — she said its unpredictability stressed her out — her husband was so confident in all it promised that he even used it with their baby in the…

> > “It was jerky, but we were like, that comes with the territory of” new technology, Bass said. “We knew the technology had to learn, and we were willing to be part of that.”

That's a frightening attitude. Something I keep in mind every time I see another Tesla on the road. And I'm driving one myself.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#76

Post by kristjansson » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:34 PM UTC

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #47

While I don't know how good Tesla's self-driving is, I do have experience with a limited keep-your-lane system in a BMW. The one that actually steers. It requires a lot of force to override it. And remember, it requires you to keep the hands on the wheel. But you are not expecting to have to fight it, so there are some delays there. Then you're fighting a system that you don't know how much force it takes to override…

> If you don't turn on your turn signal ... the car will literally steer back

This kills me about BMW's lane-keep system. It doesn't just lane-keep in the absence of input, it actively fights driver input that would take it over the lane lines.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#77

Post by lupire » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:34 PM UTC

jgalt212 wrote: post #41

There is no difference between advertising "Full Self Driving" and advertising "Guaranteed Investment Returns", but only the latter is illegal. Your move, Lina.

All my investments have guaranteed returns between -100% and +100000000000%. (I don't sell puts)

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#78

Post by lancesells » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:34 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #44

redserk wrote: post #3

> Von Ohain and Rossiter had been drinking, and an autopsy found that von Ohain died with a blood alcohol level of 0.26 — more than three times the legal limit — a level of intoxication that would have hampered his ability to maintain control of the car, experts said. The details make this seem less of an autonomous driving issue and more of an incredibly irresponsible operation issue.

I’m not sure what “0.26” exactly means, but if it’s what I interpret to be that’s about one beer for a typical male adult. It’s not nothing but it’s not a lot either.

It means blood-alcohol percentage and the limit is usually 0.08%. The article correctly states that it's over three times the limit. I believe your math would mean four beers equals 1% of alcohol per 100ml of blood.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#79

Post by themaninthedark » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:34 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #6

As someone who works in the autonomous driving space, it is absolutely mind boggling to me how much blind faith Tesla fans put into FSD. When you compare it to any true L4 system it’s not even close and very unlikely to get close any time soon.

As an engineer, it boggles my mind how much people trust software in general.

Toyota was put under a microscope after the Prius crashes....do you think anything has changed since? Do you think the software running the cars has gotten any better?

VW cheated on emissions, they payed civil and criminal fines and a couple engineers got charged. No one from managment....Since then, it has come out that almost everyone was cheating. Cummins was most recently caught and it is now a civil fine(also being called record breaking in the news, at 1.6B where VW was 1.5B civil but 4.3B total...)

We normalize the behavior and decrease the penalties.

Re: Tesla worker killed in fiery crash may be first 'Full Self-Driving' fatality

#80

Post by throwway120385 » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:35 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #57

ra7 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These two were idiots, but this highlights the dangers of L2 driver assistance systems (misleadingly marketed as "Full Self Driving") that requires driver attention at all times to prevent accidents. It gives you a false sense of security and there's no guarantee you'll take over in time to prevent an accident. If you give dumb toys to people, they will use it in dumb ways. This is why Waymo/Google abandoned their dr…

Totally agree. As a driver with a car with advanced "driver assistance features", I honestly don't understand how people get value out of most of these. That is, I'd rather just use a system where I know I have to be in control at all times, vs one where "You only have to be in control 1% of the time, oh and if you miss that 1%, you're dead." For example, I recently tried using the adaptive cruise control/lane center…

I would settle for being able to see out my back window. It's one of the reasons I still have my crappy little truck from 2006. The windows are all low enough that I don't need a backup camera to back up. I can just turn my head around and see everything through the rear windshield.