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

391–400 of 449 posts

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

#391

Post by luckylion »

scarface_74 wrote: post #351
luckylion wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that airplanes would have to offer much more value for that to be accepted, but they are mostly a luxury while cars are a necessity - life as we know it in much of the Western world would come to a screeching halt without cars, but it continues mostly unchanged without planes. I don't think I agree that workplace accidents are that different. It's not primarily the workers who die who benefit from those mach…

> I don't think I agree that workplace accidents are that different. It's not primarily the workers who die who benefit from those machines that kill them - I'd say the workers _are_ someone else. I’m not saying only the workers benefit. I’m saying there is no outrage if some coal miners die in West Virginia and definitely there is no outrage about the working conditions of immigrant farmers, factory workers at Amazo…

But if little Becky got killed by a non-autonomous car, there's a lot of shrugs, because cars are awesome.

My point being that FSD cars are even more awesome and society will realize that once they are more numerous. They'll be safer and cheaper, and some collateral damage will be accepted just like it is today.

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

#392

Post by fzeroracer »

rayiner wrote: post #129
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…

> 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. Yeah, he was arguably wrong about one thing so his building both the world's leading EV company and the world's leading private rocket co…

> probability of Musk's genius being a fluke or fraud is close to zero.

We already know he's an objective fraud because he literally cheats at video games and was caught cheating. As in, he hired people to play for him and then pretended the accomplishments were his own. Which maps very well to literally everything he's done.

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

#393

Post by Veserv »

NHTSA Report ID 13781-3470 in Florida, April 2022 is most likely the fatal motorcycle crash Tesla influencer Chuck Cook was involved in as mentioned in his video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8B0pX8TSOk

In the video Chuck Cook states he was involved in a fatal motorcycle accident in Florida in April 2022 where the motorcycle wheel fell off and then careened into his Tesla while Navigate on Autopilot was engaged. The reporting source for that NHTSA incident is "Field Report" and "Media" which lines up with his statement that a Florida Highway Patrol officer reviewed the footage and that Tesla most likely first learned of the crash from Chuck Cook's page classified as "media".

If the incident was not the crash involving Chuck Cook, then Chuck Cook's crash would be a crash that Tesla has left illegally unreported as I can see no other identifiable crash that could correspond to Chuck Cook's crash.

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

#394

Post by [deleted] »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #279
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."

Ok, what other ADAS is driving over 2 billion miles a year? As for "best technology available," the galaxy brains in this thread are tossing out numbers assuming that sensor fusion never fails and that correlated failure modes can be neglected, which is wild. I never thought Elon was a genius -- he's a business guy willing to make big bets on interesting tech, nothing more nothing less -- but if the confidently incor…

[deleted]

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

#395

Post by tzs »

ben_w wrote: post #268
toddmorey wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was purely an effort to improve margins on the cars that they tried to sell with other types of rationale. From the way I've seen him operate his companies, treat his employees, and now work with the government, he has a high tolerance for risk paired with a very low tolerance for perceived inefficiencies plus too little patience to fully understand the problem. He really embodies the ethos of "move fast and bre…

Yup, it's a product development process known as "Muntzing": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntzing While it was absolutely vital to getting the costs of the original Tesla Roadster and SpaceX launches way down… it can only work when you are able to accept "no, stop" as an answer. Rockets explode when you get them wrong, you can't miss it. Cars crashing more than other models? That's statistics, which can be massaged…

After reading the Wikipedia article on Muntzing it is worth also reading the article about Muntz himself [1]. He may have been the first person to sell TVs by diagonal screen size instead of screen width.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_Muntz

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

#396

Post by gruez »

Veserv wrote: post #380
gruez wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty obvious from the context of the thread that "vision quality" refers to LIDAR vs cameras, and that human vision is good enough, not that being legally blind doesn't somehow doesn't affect driving quality.

But Tesla Vision is, currently, legally below minimum human vision requirements and has historically been sold despite being nearly legally blind. Driving requirements in many states demand 20/40 vision in at least one eye [1]. 20/20 visual acuity is a arc-resolution of approximately 1 arc-minute [2] thus 20/40 vision is approximately a arc-resolution of 2 arc-minutes or 30 pixels per degree of field of view. Legally…

>We observe that the HW3 forward cameras have a horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels resulting in a arc-resolution of ~25.6 pixels per degree for the 150m camera and ~11 pixels per degree for the 60m camera, the camera used for the majority of actions. Both values are below minimum vision requirements for driving with most states with the wide angle view within a factor of two of being considered legally blind.

This isn't as much as a slam dunk as you think it is. The fallacy is that assuming visual acuity requirements are chosen because they're required for safe maneuvering, when in reality they're likely chosen for other tasks, like reading signs. A Tesla doesn't have to do those things, so it can potentially get away with lower visual acuity. Moreover if you look at camera feeds from HW3/HW4 hardware, you'll see they're totally serviceable for discerning cars. It definitely doesn't feel like I'm driving "legally blind" or whatever.

https://youtu.be/Odu9O4MhfW0

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

#397

Post by scarface_74 »

luckylion wrote: post #391
scarface_74 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think I agree that workplace accidents are that different. It's not primarily the workers who die who benefit from those machines that kill them - I'd say the workers _are_ someone else. I’m not saying only the workers benefit. I’m saying there is no outrage if some coal miners die in West Virginia and definitely there is no outrage about the working conditions of immigrant farmers, factory workers at Amazo…

But if little Becky got killed by a non-autonomous car, there's a lot of shrugs, because cars are awesome. My point being that FSD cars are even more awesome and society will realize that once they are more numerous. They'll be safer and cheaper, and some collateral damage will be accepted just like it is today.

I’m not saying that FSD wouldn’t be technically awesome. I am saying there would be a lot of political posturing if Becky got killed.

The American citizens won’t accept vaccines, fluoride, and believe that immigrants are eating pets. The very definition of “conservative” is not accepting change.

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

#398

Post by dathinab »

robocat wrote: post #382
dathinab wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think such out of context nihilistic arguments are helpful at all, actually I'm pretty sure they are harmful to getting any change done.

I also never said there aren't many other things bad about Musk.

And comparing doing decisions out of greed which will straight forward risk the live of many and you aren't even gaining that much from it (compared with what you already do gain from the same source) with "we as a society could if we where a hive mind life more frugal and help another society else where" is just a very pointless thing.

But even if they where the same, what does that change, just because you also do something bad doesn't mean it's less bad or more tolerable or should be tolerated.

> 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.

But we can't, or more specifically any specific individual can't, they can at best try to influence things by voting with their money and votes. But that is a completely different context.

And that doesn't mean you shouldn't spend you money with care and donate money if you can afford it.

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

#399

Post by 4d4m »

kelipso wrote: post #244
toddmorey wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was purely an effort to improve margins on the cars that they tried to sell with other types of rationale. From the way I've seen him operate his companies, treat his employees, and now work with the government, he has a high tolerance for risk paired with a very low tolerance for perceived inefficiencies plus too little patience to fully understand the problem. He really embodies the ethos of "move fast and bre…

It's pretty funny because lidar used to be many thousands of dollars and now it's down to hundreds and they're still sticking to just regular cameras. Funny in the sense that Teslas are many times more dangerous than lidar enabled cars but anyway.

How much is a solid state lidar now?

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

#400

Post by fragmede »

labrador wrote: post #259
kelipso wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty funny because lidar used to be many thousands of dollars and now it's down to hundreds and they're still sticking to just regular cameras. Funny in the sense that Teslas are many times more dangerous than lidar enabled cars but anyway.

Yes, it's become clear to me that it's only a matter of time before Tesla adds LiDAR and says that was the plan all along. Meanwhile, what better way to test vision-only than by releasing it to the beta testing public? Elon Musk knows people will die but in his ketamine addled brain he's convinced himself that a vision only self-driving Tesla is safer than a human driver so it's ok. People were going to die anyway st…

it's okay. the media will be along to tell us how unsafe ketamine is because they don't like Elon.
Post reply on HN