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

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 315 posts

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

#91

Post by px43 »

seles wrote: post #26

One thing I hate about Musk saying things like "They have fewer accidents than people" is that it is only able to be engaged in the easiest of scenarios. So per mile, self driving on the easiest roads barely has less accidents than a human in adverse conditions? That doesn't seem to actually be better than people yet.

It's important for metrics to be measurable. Throwing in a bunch of subjective criteria like how tricky a road is will only make the analysis less meaningful.

Yes, it's important to understand the limitations of the metrics, but the existence of limitations doesn't mean that the metrics should be thrown out entirely.

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

#92

Post by ceejayoz »

cptcobalt wrote: post #81

This is a sensationalized hit piece against Tesla Autopilot. It is definitely unfortunate the drunk employee operating the car was involved in a crash, that at least from the wp reporting sounds avoidable—Autopilot active or not. Any death is unfortunate, and an opportunity to improve vehicle safety. Tesla's Q4 2023 stats should speak for themselves: > In the 4th quarter, we recorded one crash for every 5.39 million…

Tesla continues to misleadingly use this comparison, and somehow people continue to fall for it.

Autopilot will refuse to engage in a wide variety of situations. It will only engage in the easiest, safest scenarios. You cannot compare those miles against all miles driven by human drivers, which include narrow winding mountain passes, two inches of snowy slush, etc.

Even the 1M non-autopilot comparison; you're comparing against a car population that includes 20 year old beaters with far fewer safety features.

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

#93

Post by toast0 »

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…

> 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.

I've got radar cruise control, lane keeping, and auto braking on one of my cars.

I just drive it like it's a normal car, and the computer helps me out from time to time. That's where the value is for me. I don't do a lot of driving with cruise control, so radar assisted isn't very helpful, but lane keeping nudges me when I drive on the line, and auto brake helps out in some situations (and prevents me from backing over flowers, and some other over reactions).

For my car, lane keeping doesn't nudge too hard, so it's not hard to push through, but it helps a bit if I lose attention.

I'm considering replacing this vehicle, and I'd get these systems again. If I replace my other vehicles, which don't get to go on long drives, it wouldn't be as big of a priority.

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

#94

Post by paulryanrogers »

ajross wrote: post #28
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…

Your contention is that having FSD the car makes accidents more likely because people will rely on it when they shouldn't be driving at all. So... does it? The statistics don't seem to bear that out. This is the first significant accident of that type we've seen, where there have been multiple "driver passed out and the car stopped on the road" incidents. Seems like the truth is the opposite, no? Tesla didn't invent…

We don't have apples-to-apples data in the public.

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

#95

Post by jeffbee »

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 are passing cyclists at 50 MPH you should be an entire lane to their left.

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

#97

Post by jeffbee »

cptcobalt wrote: post #81

This is a sensationalized hit piece against Tesla Autopilot. It is definitely unfortunate the drunk employee operating the car was involved in a crash, that at least from the wp reporting sounds avoidable—Autopilot active or not. Any death is unfortunate, and an opportunity to improve vehicle safety. Tesla's Q4 2023 stats should speak for themselves: > In the 4th quarter, we recorded one crash for every 5.39 million…

Drivers of late model, $50-100k vehicles slightly safer than fleet averages. More misleading news after this word from our sponsors...

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

#98

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

cnity wrote: post #86
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't turn on your turn signal and you weave to the left to pass them ...oh nice, the car scares you into remembering that you should always signal passing maneuver with your blinker! Another case where this system goes awry: in light drizzle, cars leave wet trails behind that shine and this system will mistake them for lane markings. I have to turn LTA off in such condition or it would steer me right off th…

There are a lot of cases where you pass a line without indicating though. There are also a lot of cases where a line ease off to the side in a turn-off that would guide the lane assisted vehicle off the road. Just do a google search for these kinds of cases. This technology is immature and dangerously fails in a lot of cases already.

Wait wait.

You are passing cyclists. Blinking serves two purposes: you are letting them know that you have noticed them (so they know you're not just going to plow right through them) and you are letting them know you are going to pass them (so they don't do stupid shit like decide to turn left at exactly this moment).

If a car behind me, in the same lane, was passing me without blinking, I would highly suspect a drunk or overtired driver.

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

#99

Post by cjbprime »

simion314 wrote: post #72
LeFantome wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why is it invalid to compare which of human vs. computer+human will save more lives?

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

#100

Post by ra7 »

judge2020 wrote: post #67
ra7 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wouldn't "bought into the marketing" only apply to something like "I got in this Turo'd Tesla, turned on Autopilot, then 10 seconds later it crashed into another car on an unprotected left-hand turn"? You literally can't believe in the marketing after having used it for as long as it sounds like he has; the car does too much driver monitoring to leave you with the impression it works flawlessly and without human inte…

Elon Musk: "FSD is already safer than humans, see our (misleading) safety report. If you use it and give us data, it will be a robotaxi by end of the year."

This dude: "Sounds good, let me put my baby in it. It's jerky, but I'm contributing for a bigger cause."

This counts as being misled by marketing to me.

Post reply on HN