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

301–310 of 315 posts

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

#301

Post by cnity »

yardie wrote: post #211
cnity wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There are a lot of cases where you pass a line without indicating though. I'm curious to know what those circumstances are. I'm just a dumb American driver but even I was taught you always use your indicator when changing lanes: turning, passing, merging, parallel parking. I don't know where at any point you are not required to use the indicator.

Mainly during roadworks where temporary signage and barriers are put in place that override road markings. Maybe it's different in the UK (where I'm from) but it's pretty commonplace here, and would be really weird to indicate according to road markings when temporary cones are up.

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

#302

Post by abenga »

itishappy wrote: post #268
lotsofpulp wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Model S Plaid is not describing the paint scheme of the vehicle. Full Self Driving is the name of the feature specifically chosen to mislead about its capabilities.

> Full Self Driving is the name of the feature specifically chosen to mislead about its capabilities. Full Self Driving was chosen to describe its intended capabilities exactly. Was the SLS misleading before its first flight in 2022 because it had yet to launch to space? Were the James Webb or Hubble falsely advertised during production? "They want us to call that thing a 'Space Telescope' when it's obviously a pile…

If a space telescope is delivered to astrophysicists for use without being able to do what a telescope should do, hell yeah that's misleading.

There's a massive difference between "I want to build thing x -> I'm building x -> I have built x -> Pay me for x -> Ok, here's your x, go ahead and use x" and "I want to build x in the future -> pay me for x -> here's x, go ahead and use it -> I am building x -> I have built x (I may not be able to build it at all, btw)".

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

#303

Post by loceng »

ra7 wrote: post #299
loceng wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing or avoiding my point? Comparing similar accidents regardless of FSD or not - a Tesla's occupants are arguably kept safer, would fair better than being in any other vehicle, right?

You’re making an entirely irrelevant point. They’d fare better if they were in a bus too. We’re talking about cause of the accident here, not what happens after one.

Naw, you're just dismissing my valid point because it has weight to it - you want it to be irrelevant, it's not.

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

#304

Post by ra7 »

loceng wrote: post #303
ra7 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re making an entirely irrelevant point. They’d fare better if they were in a bus too. We’re talking about cause of the accident here, not what happens after one.

Naw, you're just dismissing my valid point because it has weight to it - you want it to be irrelevant, it's not.

Then please tell us how crash ratings of a vehicle is helpful in assessing FSD performance. The entire discussion is of who is responsible for causing the crash. Automated system collisions are counted regardless of severity.

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

#305

Post by fwip »

loceng wrote: post #241
fwip wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thou…

I don't think we specifically need a reaction-speed test for Level 2 driving systems, but maybe we could for driving in general.

The pernicious combination that makes L2 unsafe is that it encourages the driver to let their focus wander, and then unexpectedly demands that you have full attention. When 95% of your highway time requires almost no focus, your brain will naturally wander off and pay much less attention to the situation on the road. So when the 1-in-1000 dangerous situation occurs, you're less prepared to react to it than an unassisted driver would be.

Edit to be more clear: A reaction-speed test measures your best-case reaction time, because you know it's coming. Normal driving situations test your "normal" reaction time. Situations under L2 test your worse-than-normal reaction time.

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

#306

Post by xhkkffbf »

eganist wrote: post #13

So there's an interesting legal question here. If someone's drunk (i.e diminished reasoning) and steps into the car expecting that a feature named "full self driving" will safely drive them home, how is responsibility divided between the person who got drunk and the entity who created and named the "full self driving" feature? I don't think even a reasonable person could consistently conclude that "full self driving"…

If they're drunk, can they reasonably assess the quality of the code? Can they do a legit code audit while drunk? Seriously, can they even decide anything?

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

#307

Post by ajross »

Veserv wrote: post #289
ajross wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely curious what you're citing here? You're being really specific about this stuff but not actually linking to (or even mentioning) any sources. And as a Tesla owner who's been steeped in this complete shitfest of a debate here on HN for three years, I'd expect to have been exposed to some of that. Yet this is all new. Come on, link your stuff. I mean, what's the source for telemetry detecting different fra…

Given that I said reports to NHTSA it should be obvious that I am talking about the NHTSA SGO database [1]. But thanks for boldly calling me a conspiracy theorist when I quote data from official Tesla reports to the government. As to your other questions, go ask Tesla. It is not my job to speculate for Tesla’s benefit when Tesla has all the data and chooses to act in bad faith by not only refusing to disclose it, but…

That's just a spreadsheet. Can you link me to the analysis that pulls out the specifics you're claiming? I mean, yes, I can do it myself. But my experience is that when people point to raw data and not analysis when challenged, it's because they're simply wrong and trying to hide confusion and obfuscation.

> Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe.

No, but it's still a blow for good faith argument and worth pursuing.

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

#308

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

cnity wrote: post #298
itishappy wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are a lot of cases where you pass a line without indicating though. You are legally required to in the US. Edit: I'm not entirely confident in this. You are legally required to signal a turn. Lane changes may not meet the definition of a turn. In NYS where I live lane changes are indeed included.

I'm in the UK, to be fair, but it is common here when doing roadworks on a motorway to close one side of the motorway and set up cones which guide traffic onto the other side to share the "wrong" side of the motorway lanes (divided by cones). When entering the roadworks area and switch to the other side, this necessarily means crossing boundaries, but indicating at this stage would be weird and nobody does it. A rela…

Roadworks sort of temporarily change the layout of your lane. So as long as you keep inside whatever goes for the current lane, you don't need to indicate. But otherwise you do, since you temporarily go out of your lane. It's not about the line itself, it's signalling the maneuver and crossing the lane's boundary that does it.

Sure, the lane centering systems don't know that cones change how the lane goes. They also don't know much about temporary lanes painted in yellow (in my country road works do this) and that they override the usual white lanes. Needless to say, one needs to increase their attention when driving through such things anyway, so I turn LTA and adaptive cruise control off and slow down. A wild road worker may suddenly appear in my way at any moment.

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

#309

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

I thought we were talking about FSD, not autopilot, how is autopilot relevant in this conversation?

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

#310

Post by Veserv »

ajross wrote: post #307
Veserv wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that I said reports to NHTSA it should be obvious that I am talking about the NHTSA SGO database [1]. But thanks for boldly calling me a conspiracy theorist when I quote data from official Tesla reports to the government. As to your other questions, go ask Tesla. It is not my job to speculate for Tesla’s benefit when Tesla has all the data and chooses to act in bad faith by not only refusing to disclose it, but…

That's just a spreadsheet. Can you link me to the analysis that pulls out the specifics you're claiming? I mean, yes, I can do it myself. But my experience is that when people point to raw data and not analysis when challenged, it's because they're simply wrong and trying to hide confusion and obfuscation. > Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe. No, but it's still a blow fo…

You claimed Tesla systems are safe stating: “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. The statistics don't seem to bear that out. This is the first significant accident of that type we've seen…”

You have presented exactly zero analysis or data supporting your claim that machines that have demonstrably killed people are in actuality safe. The burden of proof is on you to present evidence, not me.

In fact, I have even presented you a new data source filled with official data that you apparently have never seen before that can bolster your point. So how about you engage in good faith argument and support your positive claims of Tesla safety instead of demanding I prove the negative?

Note that quoting unaudited statements by the Tesla marketing department are not support by the same token that official statement by VW about their emissions or Philip Morris about the safety of cigarettes are invalid. You should also not point to haphazard “analysis” derived from those statements.

Also try not to argue there is a absence of evidence that the systems are unsafe. That is only applicable before somebody dies. A death is sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof that a system is unsafe. The burden of proof then shifts to demonstrate that the rate of death is acceptable. If there is a absence of evidence to demonstrate the rate of death is acceptable, then we must conclude, based on the burden of proof already established, that the system is unsafe.

That is your real burden here. Demonstrating the available data is sufficiently unbiased, robust, and comprehensive to support your claim. Good luck, you’ll need it.

Post reply on HN