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

381–390 of 449 posts

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

#381

Post by marxisttemp »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #156
erikpukinskis wrote: post #5

I’m normally quite skeptical of these kinds of “Tesla More Dangerous Than Other Brands” headlines since they tend to be B.S. But this seems like a pretty legitimate accusation, and certainly a well researched write-up at the very least.

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.

Aren’t you ignoring Waymo?

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

#382

Post by robocat »

dathinab wrote: post #154
energy123 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane instead of just one pilot. The chance of a fatal error (false negative identification of an object near the car) decreases from p to p^n. The size of that decrease is not intuitive: if p=0.0001 it now becomes a much smaller number with the introduction of a second pilot or second independent sensor stream (0.0001^2). Now the errors are not…

> Musk did not understand this. more likely he is a ruthless ** who doesn't care about people dying and slightly increasing the profit margin is for him worth more then a some people dying regulators/law allowing self driving companies to wriggle out of responsibility didn't help either lidar was interesting for him as long as it seemed light Tesla could maybe dominate the self driving marked through technological ex…

> and slightly increasing the profit margin is for him worth more then a some people dying

The same argument likely applies to you (assuming you are in a wealthy nation) so you are likely just as ruthless::

We could all slightly decrease our disposable incomes (spent on shit we don't need) and increase the life expectancy or QoL for someone in a poor country.

Me too: I spent thousands on a holiday (profit for my soul) and I didn't give the money to a worthy charity. I'm no fan of Musk, but I think there's better arguments for dumping on him if you really need to do that.

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

#383

Post by sroussey »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #237
vachina wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System It’s actually more a testament to Mercedes Benz’s ability to navigate regulatory slog. VW would’ve passed emissions if the technicians didn’t take it out of the lab to test for on-road conditions.

I see that you have also said "You can literally watch how (Tesla) FSD perform all readily live on YouTube" I for one find this line of argument - that videos on YouTube are a stronger signal than regulatory approval - to be absolutely wrongheaded, delusional and laughable. YouTube proves nothing, and as a platform, was never intended to. Unlike regulatory approval.

"But I read it on the internet!"

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

#384

Post by crazygringo »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #369
crazygringo wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argume…

What are you even talking about?

You use some made-up idea like "superhuman vision" and then you're asserting that I haven't provided a "compelling rebuttal"?

You're not engaging in good-faith conversation here. If you want to understand the clear, obvious benefits of LIDAR over cameras, it's a Google search away. And it's not just about at night -- it's about weather, it's about greater accuracy, especially at greater distances, it's about more accurate velocity, and so forth. It's not rocket science to understand that earlier, more confident detection of a car or deer or child suddenly moving into the street is going to reduce collisions.

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

#385

Post by EasyMark »

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…

Good point. You don't get rid of a technology that improves your results drastically until you have a replacment. His visual systems are still a failure when compared to lidar based ones. Just see how well other self driving systems are doing in comparison.

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

#386

Post by catlikesshrimp »

timschmidt wrote: post #116
catlikesshrimp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine a "full self driving" car that performs worse than humans be allowed in the streets. In medicine, the ethics commitee would shot the project early. Edit: Comparing "ev vehicle" with "autonomous vehicle"

I wouldn't use medicine as an example in this case. Medicine does all kinds of ill advised things because they're worse for the disease than the patient. And all kinds of things they know will kill the patient if there's opportunity to learn and improve other lives. It seems like Tesla's been pretty clear with drivers who've opted in to FSD that they're helping to test and develop a system which isn't perfect. Just o…

> "It seems like Tesla's been pretty clear with drivers who've opted in to FSD that they're helping to test and develop a system which isn't perfect."

Strawman No matter how many contracts and disclaimers they get in their favor. The "Full self driving" system is causing accidents (and deaths)

Turn lights, rearview cameras, safety belts, all exist and are regulated to prevent the manufacturer dumping responsibility on the drivers.

I emphasize "Full self driving" Tesla brand because the name was declared unlawful in California. https://www.govtech.com/policy/new-california-law-bans-tesla...

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

#387

Post by treis »

Timon3 wrote: post #309
treis wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called night and people drive in it just fine.

You are aware that more accidents happen per mile at night? If people drove at night just fine, this wouldn't be the case.

That just means we're successful 99.998% of the time instead of 99.999% of the time. It's not a particularly significant difference.

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

#388

Post by Timon3 »

treis wrote: post #387
Timon3 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are aware that more accidents happen per mile at night? If people drove at night just fine, this wouldn't be the case.

That just means we're successful 99.998% of the time instead of 99.999% of the time. It's not a particularly significant difference.

It's significant enough to directly prove that degraded vision leads to worse driving. This is very significant if we decide whether a driving system should only use vision, which can degrade.

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

#389

Post by TheBicPen »

josephcsible wrote: post #349
toddmorey wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument here isn't against self-driving. Flying is also 100x safer than driving, but there's still real value in continuing to use the best technology we have available to make flying even safer. "Not a single other automobile manufacturer or ADAS self-driving technology provider reported a single motorcycle fatality in the same time frame."

> there's still real value in continuing to use the best technology we have available to make flying even safer. That's true, but it would obviously be completely unreasonable to stop all flying in the meantime.

Grounding entire fleets of aircraft when a safety issue is discovered is completely normal, and that's the way things should happen. Remember when the MCAS issue was discovered on Boeing 737 MAXes after 2 fatal crashes? They were all grounded for a while, and rightfully so.

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

#390

Post by rad_gruchalski »

robwwilliams wrote: post #314
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do not believe any statistic you didn’t manipulate yourself.

As others have pointed out in this thread you need to correct for miles driven by Teslas in autopilot versus other vehicles driven in autopilot mode. Without this adjustment, the data are meaningless. And with counts of 5 versus 0 you are deep into Poisson noise level. So yes, I stand by “pathetic”.

There’s no such thing as „other vehicles driven on autopilot”. There’s cruise control, adaptive cruise control, and limited rollouts of level 3 autonomous driving locked to certain regions. You know why? Because everyone else except of Musk knows the tech is NOT ready. It doesn’t matter how many miles driven. What matters is Teslas don’t have radars and every other brand has.
Post reply on HN