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

171–180 of 315 posts

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

#171

Post by bluGill »

themaninthedark wrote: post #79
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…

I trust humans even less than software. At least software can be debugged over time and is consistent so if we get it working...

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

#172

Post by sokoloff »

itishappy wrote: post #163
xenadu02 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full disclosure: participated in Tesla's IPO, own a Tesla. Tesla should be doing two things that would greatly reduce their liability while also keeping customers happy. Overall I think it wouldn't change the number of people buying into FSD anyway so there wouldn't be much downside for them. 1. Offer refunds for those for paid for FSD. Full refund until FSD has been enabled for a year and used more than N times, pro…

> Be clearer in their marketing and on the purchase page about the feature. Do you have any examples in mind of where this feature was billed confusingly? The product page and Model S purchase page both include clear disclaimers in both the first sentence or directly below the bulleted feature list. > Full Self Driving > Your vehicle will be able to drive itself almost anywhere with minimal driver intervention and wi…

Just the 140 characters you quoted contains a confusing billing, IMO.

Is it "Full Self Driving" xor is "Minimal driver intervention" required?

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

#173

Post by AlexandrB »

sokoloff wrote: post #126
EA-3167 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the quote from the article really sums it up in plain language, and the argument Musk presents should be familiar to anyone here, who's heard the "Robots > Humans in a car" argument. > “Regardless of how drunk Hans was, Musk has claimed that this car can drive itself and is essentially better than a human,” Bass said. “We were sold a false sense of security.”

I'm no Tesla fan boy, but it seems entirely possible that even the limited capability of FSD was better/safer than a driver whose BAC was 0.26%, even if this one ended up in a fatal crash, as that happens to drunk human drivers at the rate of more than 10K deaths per year in the US. If this is the first FSD death in the world, Tesla is probably thankful that it was someone who was hammered.

The problem is that someone who was hammered might have taken a Taxi home if they didn't have a car that claimed it could drive them home autonomously. In which case it doesn't matter how much better FSD is than a drunk driver. A colleague of mine actually bought a Tesla for this reason - to get them home safely from the bar. Tesla's marketing is way out of step from their actual capabilities and it gives people a false sense of security.

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

#174

Post by throwaway5959 »

itishappy wrote: post #163
xenadu02 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full disclosure: participated in Tesla's IPO, own a Tesla. Tesla should be doing two things that would greatly reduce their liability while also keeping customers happy. Overall I think it wouldn't change the number of people buying into FSD anyway so there wouldn't be much downside for them. 1. Offer refunds for those for paid for FSD. Full refund until FSD has been enabled for a year and used more than N times, pro…

> Be clearer in their marketing and on the purchase page about the feature. Do you have any examples in mind of where this feature was billed confusingly? The product page and Model S purchase page both include clear disclaimers in both the first sentence or directly below the bulleted feature list. > Full Self Driving > Your vehicle will be able to drive itself almost anywhere with minimal driver intervention and wi…

Minimal driver intervention isn’t keeping your hands on the wheel at all time and paying attention.

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

#175

Post by itishappy »

KaiserPro wrote: post #32
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.

>seems less of an autonomous driving issue and more of an incredibly irresponsible operation issue. if the car is truly autonomous, then no, its failure of a life critical system if the car is not autonomous, then calling it "Full Self Driving" is a wilful misrepresentation of it's capability. To a normal person (no ignore the driver's employment history) full self drive, means that, it drives it's self, safely. You…

> Everyone is rightly chewing Boeing out for lax safety standards, but that door didn't kill anyone.

The door was only part of the issue. 346 people died in a pair of crashes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302

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

#176

Post by robertlagrant »

KaiserPro wrote: post #90
robertlagrant wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To a normal person (no ignore the driver's employment history) But in this case, which is what the previous comment is talking about, this doesn't apply.

No, it really does. For example kinder eggs are illegal in the USA, because even though the small(ish) plastic parts are inside a plastic inedible case, too many kids ate the small plastic parts. Now, the vast majority of people eating kinder eggs, don't eat the toy. However because its reasonable that an unsupervised child would eat the plastic, they were banned. But. The point of FSD is that it is safe. If its safe…

The driver in question worked for Tesla and would be aware to not trust the marketing name of the feature. That's why it doesn't apply.

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

#177

Post by itishappy »

sokoloff wrote: post #172
itishappy wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Be clearer in their marketing and on the purchase page about the feature. Do you have any examples in mind of where this feature was billed confusingly? The product page and Model S purchase page both include clear disclaimers in both the first sentence or directly below the bulleted feature list. > Full Self Driving > Your vehicle will be able to drive itself almost anywhere with minimal driver intervention and wi…

Just the 140 characters you quoted contains a confusing billing, IMO. Is it "Full Self Driving" xor is "Minimal driver intervention" required?

Maybe 2 lines down will clear things up?

> The currently enabled Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.

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

#178

Post by thejazzman »

judge2020 wrote: post #130
bluGill wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be legal, but in court what you advertise the car can do generally has high weight than what you put in the warning documentation. Thus Tesla is stupid for making any such claims as now they have admitted in court they think their car is fully self driving which means the car should be liable. Even if Tesla can prove that the car was under manual control the courts are still justified for finding Tesla for a…

What absurd logical leaps. If this is so clearly the case, then I don't know why every single law firm in the country isn't scrambling to sue Tesla via a class-action right this minute.

Don't arbitration agreements signed by most buyers the reason we'll never see any class actions here?

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

#179

Post by hnthrowaway0328 »

I just hope future cars don't take controls from my hands. I don't particularly enjoy driving but it is one thing I want to take some control with. The current division between automation and manual is perfect for me.

Neither do I want it to record too many details. The state might use that to sue you and the insurance company might use that to "improve" their profit margin.

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

#180

Post by itishappy »

throwaway5959 wrote: post #174
itishappy wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Be clearer in their marketing and on the purchase page about the feature. Do you have any examples in mind of where this feature was billed confusingly? The product page and Model S purchase page both include clear disclaimers in both the first sentence or directly below the bulleted feature list. > Full Self Driving > Your vehicle will be able to drive itself almost anywhere with minimal driver intervention and wi…

Minimal driver intervention isn’t keeping your hands on the wheel at all time and paying attention.

It is if it requires minimal intervention.

Intervention and attention are not the same.

Post reply on HN