Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

fuelarc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 449 posts

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#361

Post by polygamous_bat »

BeetleB wrote: post #204
btrettel wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The base rate was discussed early in the article, but not by that name: > It’s not just that self-driving cars in general are dangerous for motorcycles, either: this problem is unique to Tesla. Not a single other automobile manufacturer or ADAS self-driving technology provider reported a single motorcycle fatality in the same time frame.

That is not addressing the base rate. To take a hypothetical extreme: If all cars but one on the road were Teslas, it would not be meaningful to point out that there have been far more fatalities with Teslas. Even more illustrative, if 10 people on motorcycles had died from Teslas, and 1 person had died from that sole non-Tesla, then that non-Tesla would be deemed much, much more dangerous than Tesla.

> To take a hypothetical extreme: If all cars but one on the road were Teslas, it would not be meaningful to point out that there have been far more fatalities with Teslas.

However, in such a case, “base rate fallacy” would prevent you from blaming Tesla even if it had a 98% fatality rate. How do you square that? What happens if other companies aren’t putting self driving cars out yet because they aren’t happy with the current rate of accidents, but Tesla just doesn’t care?

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#362

Post by dragonwriter »

ReptileMan wrote: post #353
dragonwriter wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well. No, we don't. We have evidence that visual detection (well, the whole human set of senses, but for driving most of the reliance is on visual detection), combined with human level intelligence , is sufficient for the human-level driving which is the absolute minimum bar for fully automated driving. Which is very different than “visual detec…

Why are you disagreeing with me while proving my point? The signal we get is enough. It is the processing that is still lacking. And that is why there should be benchmarks to be passed. Cameras and microphones do provide enough information for successful driving.

> Why are you disagreeing with me while proving my point?

I'm not sure what your point is, but what you actually said overstates the case for visual detection.

> The signal we get is enough.

Sure, we know that with processing far beyond what we currently can replicate, it can at least just meet the minimum bar.

> And that is why there should be benchmarks to be passed

Is it? I would think there should be proof and validation no matter which pieces were demonstrated adequate and which have not yet been.

But the thing is that we don't even know enough to make a set of benchmarks that can be tested that provide confidence, and we maybe won't until we've had the several systems that demonstrate that they work well enough in real conditions from which to generalize a minimum set of standards that can be verified prior to getting into real conditions.

So we do supervised testing in progressively-less-limited real world conditions of each system until we get to that point.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#363

Post by josephcsible »

breadwinner wrote: post #358
josephcsible wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many strangers' lives is a loved one's life worth? If your answer is anything other than "1", how does that square with other people having their own loved ones, and your loved ones being strangers to them?

Don't understand your point. Everyone's life is important, which is why I said: the expectation is that in each individual injury accident a human clearly could not have handled the situation any better. It is insufficient for self-driving cars to be as safe as, or even slightly better than human drivers. Which is why, better-than-human sensors are needed.

I'm saying that the only way "slightly better than human drivers" wouldn't be good enough is if some people's lives are worth more than others'.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#364

Post by sidibe »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #188
Workaccount2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gets me is that there are no other brands in Tesla's league. Tesla is the only consumer car that has "FSD" level ability. The competitors have to use pre-mapped roads and availability is spotty at best. There is also risk as Chevy already deprecated their first gen "FSD", leaving early adopters with gimped ability and shutout from future expansions.

Nobody has level 5. Waymo did 5 million miles in 2024 with nobody behind the wheel. Tesla did way more but required a human driver due to frequent disengagement. These are not the same. https://electrek.co/2024/09/26/tesla-full-self-driving-third... Level 4 is a commercially viable product. Mapping allows verification by simulation before deployment. Tesla offers level 3, which is not monetizable beyond being a gimmi…

I dont really care about the levels but I think Tesla has been building level 2 product, that will always supposedly be level 4 next year but they have never shown any intention of doing level 3.

What is clear is Tesla is not currently capable of self driving and he has lied year after year after year about it.

I think carmakers should have to be liable for their cars capabilities in the areas they allow them to be used.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#365

Post by dgrin91 »

liendolucas wrote: post #99
xbmcuser wrote: post #22

The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…

> instead he is a fraud/charlatan and... Just see him talking about things at NeuraLink. Musk wouldn't exist if it weren't for the people working for him. It's a clown that made it to the top in a very dubious way.

I see this get thrown around once in a while and I really don't get it. Isn't this true of basically every leader? Gates, Jobs, Buffet, Obama, they all wouldn't existing without their teams. Isn't that just obvious? Isn't one of the important markers of a good leader to be able to build a good team?

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#367

Post by dzhiurgis »

xbmcuser wrote: post #22

The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…

Data point. The only lidar equipped car in US is volvo ex90 which sold 3k cars in almost a year. Lidar is not enabled yet.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#368

Post by marxisttemp »

marxisttemp wrote: post #252
Workaccount2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gets me is that there are no other brands in Tesla's league. Tesla is the only consumer car that has "FSD" level ability. The competitors have to use pre-mapped roads and availability is spotty at best. There is also risk as Chevy already deprecated their first gen "FSD", leaving early adopters with gimped ability and shutout from future expansions.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#369

Post by pfannkuchen »

crazygringo wrote: post #329
shepherdjerred wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question was: > Put another way - would giving humans superhuman vision significantly reduce the accident rate? I'm saying that human vision is not the cause of most accidents. Most accidents are caused by distraction, incorrect decisions/errors of judgement, road conditions, etc.

And I'm saying a ton of those "incorrect decisions/errors of judgement" would no longer exist if we had superhuman LIDAR abilities. You're using existing human vision as your baseline, which is not the right comparison here. The question is a baseline of superhuman abilities . So there's a ton of accidents we wouldn't get into if we had those superhuman abilities. Basically everything involving a collision with an ob…

> No more blind spots, no more missing objects because you were looking in one spot instead of another. No more missing dark objects at night.

Of these, only dark objects at night is related to lidar vs vision. What percent of accidents is attributable to not seeing dark objects at night?

Limited field of view is solved by having a bunch of cameras, that is what is orthogonal to LiDAR vs vision.

I’m open to an argument here, but you have not provided any compelling rebuttal. You apparently feel like you have, though.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#370

Post by dzhiurgis »

crazygringo wrote: post #329
shepherdjerred wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question was: > Put another way - would giving humans superhuman vision significantly reduce the accident rate? I'm saying that human vision is not the cause of most accidents. Most accidents are caused by distraction, incorrect decisions/errors of judgement, road conditions, etc.

And I'm saying a ton of those "incorrect decisions/errors of judgement" would no longer exist if we had superhuman LIDAR abilities. You're using existing human vision as your baseline, which is not the right comparison here. The question is a baseline of superhuman abilities . So there's a ton of accidents we wouldn't get into if we had those superhuman abilities. Basically everything involving a collision with an ob…

Instant 360 vision doesn’t guarantee awareness. Most crashes happen in perfect conditions.
Post reply on HN