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

Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 348 posts

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#111

Post by userbinator »

Walter took it into dealership addressing the issue, but they couldn't duplicate it there

Why not get a mechanic to ride along with him to that location, perhaps with extra diagnostic equipment connected? I could see how a bug that is dependent upon being at that location would certainly not be reproducible somewhere else.

Here's an automotive service booklet from almost 70 years ago which recommends the same thing for troubleshooting:

http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/021/Page14.htm

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#113

Post by CobrastanJorji »

jijojv wrote: post #74

SW/HW Bugs happen - fact of life. More concerning is that Tesla denying this was ever reported to them... I had my driver side view mirror stuck issue fixed and they put in the notes that they re-filled all my tires during repair service allegedly as reqd. by some CA law. Later that week I got an alert that my tire pressure was low and had to get it air pumped so obviously they didn't do that despite having claimed t…

> More concerning is that Tesla denying this was ever reported to them.

This is how Tesla reacts to all bad publicity. Bad review on battery life comes out? Data dump indicating the reviewer might've done something wrong. Accident? Statistical dump showing that most cars don't do this. I like this technique more than generic "we can't comment" responses, but I'm pretty confident they heavily cherry pick, looking for something that people who glom onto data can see and say "oh good, Tesla's right."

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#114

Post by rconti »

dirtae wrote: post #93
antirez wrote: post #61

"Our data shows that Tesla owners have driven this same stretch of highway with Autopilot engaged roughly 85,000 times since Autopilot was first rolled out in 2015. ... There are over 200 successful Autopilot trips per day on this exact stretch of road." Who wrote this statement does not understand software. If there is some kind of Heisenbug, those numbers are too small to prove that the software is ok, and actually…

I believe the accident happened on US 101, which is a multi-lane highway with 5 or 6 lanes at the spot where the accident occurred. How many of the trips Tesla is citing occurred with the vehicle in the same lane as this guy? Comparing apples to apples would probably greatly reduce these 85,000 / 200 per day figures.

Well, it's a carpool lane which EVs can use with a solo driver, so likely a large % of them, but your point still stands.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#115

Post by greedo »

veemjeem wrote: post #79
twblalock wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd definitely blame an airline pilot who crashed because he relied on autopilot in a situation he knew was not handled well by the autopilot. (I would also blame the autopilot.) I don't see why the driver of a car with any kind of semi-automated system should be held to a lesser standard. It sucks that the driver died, and it sucks that the Tesla autopilot system had problems handing that kind of situation, but that…

If a plane crashes, the survival rate is pretty low. Most likely everyone on the plane is dead. People get into car accidents often enough to feel that crashing one's car rarely leads to death. Walter probably felt safe enough to use autopilot knowing that if the car crashed, he could still walk away from it.

Completely untrue. The survival rate for plane crashes is extremely high.[1]

1.https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NTSB_releases...

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#116

Post by Rapzid »

iaabtpbtpnn wrote: post #17
fludlight wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how fast they replace crushed barriers.

The crash was at the 101 and 85 flyover for the carpool lane. Next to that lane there is a sign warning of upcoming construction closures... in fall 2017. Does that answer your question?

It sounds like CalTrans had a lot of tolerance for shoddy work.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#117

Post by SteveCoast »

utopcell wrote: post #69

Why call something "auto-pilot" when it is clearly not remotely ready to do what its name implies ?

Unless someone has ever used an auto pilot in something like a Cessna, that person would probably have a wildly overoptimistic idea of what an autopilot does. Even on a passenger jet it's really not that smart, there's just lots more volume to explore so it's hard to kill everyone.

A better analogy would be cruise control. It controls essentially one variable. As does lane keeping. You combine a couple of these things and you think it's smart, and it isn't. We learnt this (edge cases between single variable trackers) ~40 years ago in aircraft, that there are places in the flight envelope that combinations of single variable trackers will still let you go, but will also kill you.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#118

Post by freehunter »

fludlight wrote: post #26
iaabtpbtpnn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crash was at the 101 and 85 flyover for the carpool lane. Next to that lane there is a sign warning of upcoming construction closures... in fall 2017. Does that answer your question?

I would hope that removing a outdated construction sign is lower priority than replacing a spent crash barrier.

It’s broken windows. If they can’t take down a simple sign three years later, how long does it take to reset a barrier that takes actual work?

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#119

Post by freehunter »

zamalek wrote: post #106

My opinion: EVs, self-driving or directed, need an ejection mechanism for their batteries. Petrol has the advantage that it may ignite, where batteries are almost guaranteed to when damaged. Ideally, it would be an active system (launching the batteries no more than a meter away) - but that could fail under the conditions which caused the damage to the batteries. An alternative would be a passive system made of mater…

So your system would throw a burning pile of lithium into the woods to start a forest fire, into oncoming traffic to cause another crash, into a pedestrian on the sidewalk, etc?
Post reply on HN