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

251–260 of 315 posts

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

#251

Post by simion314 »

cjbprime wrote: post #99
simion314 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

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

I think it is not relevant for real self driving. I can "invent" also a computer that will not let drunk people start the car, it will have good statistics, the issue I am not a bilionaire to get people install my invention in their cars.

if we the society want to reduce the deaths we could have already done a lot more for preventing drunk drivers, bad drivers, speeding etc.

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

#252

Post by itishappy »

ra7 wrote: post #245
itishappy wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There's a reason why real self driving companies are super conservative and use a geofence.

What reason is that? If they're safety critical systems, why are they putting them on the road at all?

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

#253

Post by ra7 »

itishappy wrote: post #250
ra7 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

Their safety report is a joke and their methodology is full of holes. There are a bunch of replies to this comment that explain why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39359437

As far as proving how unsafe it is, no one can do it unless Tesla is transparent with their data. Deliberately hiding that data doesn't automatically mean it's safer than humans, so yes, their claims are indeed highly misleading.

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

#254

Post by ra7 »

itishappy wrote: post #252
ra7 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There's a reason why real self driving companies are super conservative and use a geofence. What reason is that? If they're safety critical systems, why are they putting them on the road at all?

Because they are validated extensively inside that geofence and any operations inside that area are "supported". They don't let the vehicles go anywhere they want and they don't ever allow you to use it in an unsupported manner. You want a Waymo stop right in the middle of a busy intersection? The vehicle will refuse and keep going until it finds a safe place to stop.

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

#255

Post by aeonik »

aeonik wrote: post #214
baxtr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have no idea what some of the other commenters are talking about, but - 0.26 is around "blackout drunk" (I am not sure I have ever drank this much) - 0.20 is when I know that I have made a terrible mistake, definitely "wasted" as we say (though I haven't drank like this for many *many* years). - I begin to feel dizzy and ill at around 0.15ish... - 0.1 is a drunk feeling. - 0.8 is the legal driving limit in most US…

Correction: - 0.08 is the legal driving limit in most US states.

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

#256

Post by ra7 »

Veserv wrote: post #222
ajross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are no third party statistics since Tesla lawyers actively force NHTSA to redact information from any reports they do make. Even ignoring the fact that Tesla habitually lies and acts in bad faith to consumers and investors alike, the “statistics” their marketing department publishes are worthless. They present no analysis, methodology, or even data to support it. It is literally just a conclusion. The level of…

There's more statistics in your comment than in the Tesla safety report :)

I'm curious where the data is about their telemetry systems' failure to detect incidents. It seems very fishy.

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

#257

Post by bradjohnson »

judge2020 wrote: post #136
ceejayoz wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will you accept Tesla's word for it? https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-101D1BF... > In addition, these features may not work as intended when: The road has sharp curves or significant changes in elevation.; Road signs and signals are unclear, ambiguous, or poorly maintained.; Visibility is poor (due to heavy rain, snow, hail, etc. or poorly lit roadways at night); You are driving in a tunnel or nex…

This is basically my point at the bottom of my original post. It isn't supposed to be used in those scenarios. That doesn't change the reality that my car's Autopilot can and does work on dirt roads, when the sun is directly in the middle of its FOV, on the curvy suburban roads of Georgia, in heavy rain, etc.

Sure, but that's not the argument being made here. The data that Tesla uses is obviously massaged to make their product have the illusion of superior safety. To what extent is unclear, but it is clear that this data has an agenda. It doesn't compare like with like and can't be piecemeal interpreted to make an unbiased observation. To bring it up at all is just marketing.

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

#258

Post by samatman »

aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA wrote: post #238
samatman wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We do, in fact, know that.

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

#259

Post by seles »

amomchilov wrote: post #229
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.

Not defending Tesla or anything, but don’t we want to take the W where we can? If a self-driving feature is safer than humans in nice conditions, don’t we want it enabled under those conditions? What’s the issue? Of course, the risk is that it’s misapplied in worse conditions where it fares worse.

The issue is that it isn't safer, seemingly under any conditions. If it had lower accident rate per mile, that the stat for humans includes adverse conditions while the stat for tesla only includes ideal conditions. Presumably humans are safer than their average on highways...

Also the original quote is flat out wrong as they are deemed 10x more likely to crash according to this: https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2023-06-1...

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

#260

Post by bluGill »

thejazzman wrote: post #178
judge2020 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most people have not bought a Tesla and so arbitration will not apply. Any by stander in a situation has standing to sue Tesla.

Though that doesn't mean they will. Just because you can sue doesn't mean it is worth it.

Post reply on HN