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

241–250 of 315 posts

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

#241

Post by loceng »

fwip wrote: post #50
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.

Knives don't come with self-guided-propulsion-and-steering while requiring you to be ready to stop them within seconds.

Fair point. So would you argue for attention-reaction time testing to make sure a person is fast enough? We'd certainly be able to gather data for the situations that end badly to very horrifically - with harm or injury - and determine first at least if there is a threshold that everyone should need to meet; currently are there any thresholds, like I believe handicap drivers with only one hand/arm - who at first thought, and maybe I'm wrong, won't be able to react as quickly or strongly in any situation - though they may in general be far more cautious because of their state.

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

#242

Post by itishappy »

ra7 wrote: post #100
judge2020 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Elon: "FSD is safer than humans."

This dude: "Neat, I'm going to use it!"

FSD, upon activation: "Full Self-Driving (Beta). Full Self-Driving is in early limited access Beta and must be used with additional caution. It may do the wrong thing at the worst time. Do not become complacent. ... Use FSD in limited Beta only if you will pay constant attention to the road, and be prepared to act immediately, specially around blind corners, crossing intersection, and in narrow driving situations. Do you want to enable FSD while it is in limited Beta?"

This dude: "Elon said it's safe, I'm going to drink and drive!"

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

#243

Post by loceng »

ra7 wrote: post #73
LeFantome wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 critic…

Don't all Tesla vehicles have the highest safety ratings ever?

I guess maybe though something being less dangerous isn't the same as something being relatively more safe?

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

#244

Post by loceng »

ra7 wrote: post #14
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.

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.

How about alcohol odour detection required in all vehicles?

How about attention-distraction monitoring, and perhaps first penalty or safeguard is forced reduced speed, where attention-distraction level determined determines the maximum speed the vehicle can go - whereby reducing the need for as fast of a reaction time?

Any other possible solutions?

I think in general coddling people is more harmful than good, and is lazy to not find nuanced solutions - just because blanket rules are "easier."

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

#245

Post by ra7 »

itishappy wrote: post #236
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…

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 o…

Ugh, the point is this "feature" shouldn't be allowed to use in an unsupported manner. It's not a button on a website, it's a safety critical system. There's a reason why real self driving companies are super conservative and use a geofence.

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

#246

Post by loceng »

freejazz wrote: post #112
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.

That's not how proximate cause works in a negligence case.

Can you explain?

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

#247

Post by ra7 »

itishappy wrote: post #242
ra7 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Elon: "FSD is safer than humans." This dude: "Neat, I'm going to use it!" FSD, upon activation: "Full Self-Driving (Beta). Full Self-Driving is in early limited access Beta and must be used with additional caution. It may do the wrong thing at the worst time. Do not become complacent. ... Use FSD in limited Beta only if you will pay constant attention to the road, and be prepared to act immediately, specially around…

> Elon: "FSD is safer than humans."

Well, this is false. So it's misleading right off the bat.

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

#248

Post by Veserv »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #208
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…

Correct take. Go and look up their fire statistics, and you'll get a similar conclusion. Its getting much better YoY. https://insideevs.com/news/501729/number-tesla-vehicle-fires... https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-deaths?op=1

Okay, now do the statistics for the number of people who burned to death. Actually, no need, I have them right here.

The NFPA (the same organization Tesla is quoting for vehicle fire counts) estimates 560 fire deaths per year in the US over 290 million registered vehicle years [2] or ~1.93 deaths per million vehicle-years.

Third party reports show at least 20 people burned to death in their Tesla's in the US in 2022 [1]. There were ~3.65 million Tesla's worldwide in 2022. If we divide US deaths by worldwide Teslas you get ~5.47 people burning to death per million vehicle-years or ~2.8x deadlier if every worldwide Tesla was in the US. By 2022 the US probably accounted for ~50% of vehicles, so you are probably ~5x more likely to burn to death in a Tesla than the average car (which by the way is ~10 years old, half the price, with fewer safety features).

That is not 500% more likely to burn to death given that you get into a fire, that is 500% more likely to burn to death total. If you get into a fire in a Tesla then you are ~5,000% more likely to die in it.

Quite odd how Tesla read the same reports yet only published analysis on the non-safety critical cases that make themselves look good instead of the safety critical cases that make them look dramatically more dangerous than the Pinto. Must be because their data analysis team consists of people with the analytical capability of grade schoolers since any competent individual could easily do this analysis. I mean, the only other possibility is that the analysts and their management are deliberately perpetrating criminal fraud by sacrificing human lives to line their own pockets. One or the other, pick one.

[1] https://www.tesla-fire.com/

[2] https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-re...

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

#249

Post by ra7 »

loceng wrote: post #243
ra7 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 critic…

Don't all Tesla vehicles have the highest safety ratings ever? I guess maybe though something being less dangerous isn't the same as something being relatively more safe?

Those safety ratings don't assess FSD performance.

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

#250

Post by itishappy »

ra7 wrote: post #247
itishappy wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon: "FSD is safer than humans." This dude: "Neat, I'm going to use it!" FSD, upon activation: "Full Self-Driving (Beta). Full Self-Driving is in early limited access Beta and must be used with additional caution. It may do the wrong thing at the worst time. Do not become complacent. ... Use FSD in limited Beta only if you will pay constant attention to the road, and be prepared to act immediately, specially around…

> Elon: "FSD is safer than humans." Well, this is false. So it's misleading right off the bat.

Is it? I'd heard Tesla was being too tight lipped for any conclusions to be made at this point, but if you've got a study or source I'd love to see it!
Post reply on HN