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

231–240 of 315 posts

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

#231

Post by bryanlarsen »

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 found it invaluable one time driving at night through Northern Ontario (Canada) (which is actually southwestern Ontario, but shrug). This is a really bad idea because of Moose. If you hit one they are tall enough that their body tends to go through your windshield and kill you.

Self driving watched the road, I watched the ditches. I didn't need to avoid a moose that time, but it may have saved a coyote's life.

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

#232

Post by kramerger »

93po wrote: post #207
kramerger wrote: post #186

How can this be the first death? Tesla is involved in 700+ court cases covering multiple deaths [1]. Tesla drivers are involved in more accidents for some reason [2]. I suspect the first death happened far before this. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-a... [2] https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/

It's pretty shitty journalism in general. The claim that it was on FSD mode was by a drunken, shell-shocked passenger. And the zero injuries and deaths was based on: > Two years ago, a Tesla shareholder tweeted that there “has not been one accident or injury” involving Full Self-Driving, to which Musk responded: “Correct.” And wapo clearly did zero research or effort beyond this statement. The key here is likely "FSD…

> a Tesla shareholder tweeted that

I think they simply wanted the most click baity title. They are contradicting themselves in the other article

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

#233

Post by Veserv »

px43 wrote: post #91
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.

No, that is what any competent researcher would do. Here is an example from Waymo:

https://storage.googleapis.com/waymo-uploads/files/documents...

But if you are like Tesla and can not even be bothered to put in a methodology section... or any analysis... or any data... really anything other than a soundbite conclusion then maybe you should not get a free pass on driving vehicles when you only demonstrate a level of safety analysis unfit for even a grade school science fair.

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

#235

Post by ijhuygft776 »

ra7 wrote: post #48

As I said in another comment, these two were idiots driving drunk. Let's get that out of the way. The bigger issue here is how this deniability is all too convenient for Tesla. The process goes like this: 1. Ship a clearly half baked system called "Full Self Driving". 2. Require driver's hands on the wheel at all times. 3. Be extremely non-transparent about your system's safety. Tesla's crash reports in the public NH…

Hopefully Tesla gets sued for false claims...

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

#236

Post by itishappy »

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…

They were idiots.

> Before enabling Autopilot, the driver first needs to agree to “keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times” and to always “maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.” Subsequently, every time the driver engages Autopilot, they are shown a visual reminder to “keep your hands on the wheel."

They read and accepted the warnings informing them how to use the system, and then did the opposite. They willfully and knowingly used a feature in an unsupported manner.

Sorry, this is not being misled by marketing.

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

#237

Post by rootusrootus »

mannyv wrote: post #198

The article totally ignores the fact that there have been 900 crashes reported since 2021, which is a ridiculously low number of crashes. This is basically a Tesla hit piece. Teslas are safer than human drivers by far, even when the systems are abused by their drivers. Using 2020 stats (Forbes) there were an estimated 5,250,837 car crashes in 2020. Of those, https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistic…

> Teslas are safer than human drivers by far

Can you back up that claim? What numbers are you using to assert that Teslas are safer, and why do you believe the comparison valid?

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

#238

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA »

samatman wrote: post #192
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…

This is a question with intersecting margins, and those are fiendishly hard to answer. Here's what I mean. There are people who will drive drunk. At the margin , there are people who will not drive drunk, but who will drive drunk using FSD. But how many? How much more drunk are they willing to be? On the other side, driving drunk with FSD is safer than doing it without. Criminally irresponsible, yes, but I think reas…

> FSD has a better track record than drunk drivers.

We don't know that.

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

#239

Post by Veserv »

mannyv wrote: post #198

The article totally ignores the fact that there have been 900 crashes reported since 2021, which is a ridiculously low number of crashes. This is basically a Tesla hit piece. Teslas are safer than human drivers by far, even when the systems are abused by their drivers. Using 2020 stats (Forbes) there were an estimated 5,250,837 car crashes in 2020. Of those, https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistic…

I do not understand what you are even trying to imply. Why even bring up that Are you trying to claim that these Tesla systems were only responsible for ~9 fatalities? You are aware that the very same dataset you are referencing has at least 23 confirmed fatalities. Are you trying to claim that there were actually 2300 crashes and Tesla only reported 900 of them? Or are you trying to say that Tesla crashes are 2.5x more deadly on average?

Are you trying to highlight how Tesla chooses not to investigate ~95% of crashes to avoid confirming if a fatality or serious injury occurred so the report numbers have insufficient data to draw any positive conclusions? Or are you trying to highlight how Tesla telemetry has missed ~60% of confirmed fatalities so is completely untrustworthy to estimate ground truth crash or fatality rates?

Or are you trying to highlight how this is not the first FSD incident since Tesla confirms there were already ~30 as of 1 year ago at the beginning of 2023, they just force NHTSA to redact which ones claiming that it is confidential information that might hurt their business?

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

#240

Post by loceng »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #29
loceng wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but everything after "the driver who's responsible for their decisions was drunk" is moot. But otherwise, yes, your statement otherwise about giving "toys" to "dumb" people stands no matter the technology. And knives can be used to cut steak or stab people.

> Sorry but everything after "the driver who's responsible for their decisions was drunk" is moot. It's not for the larger discussion about safety of these sorts of systems. Any such system _has_ to consider the dumb human that's in the loop, because to not do so is almost inevitable to lead to problems. If your driving assist system makes people more likely, and more able, to drive drunk, then it's not just a proble…

So the solution is dumbing down the curriculum to appease to the dumbest - which has externalized costs, of course.

But all this thread is great evidence towards requiring people of a certain ineptitude to be required to only use self-driving vehicles in the future, once they're proven ~100% safe, right?

But really what you're arguing is people needing to be raised to be responsible, as the root cause-problem.

Post reply on HN