Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pedantic: Mobileye cut ties with Tesla, not the other way around.
Yes, after Mobileye (now Intel) learned there was an internal Tesla effort to replace them.
[deleted]
NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
151–160 of 546 posts
Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is exactly why all of these articles recently about how "great" it is that Tesla sends out frequent OTA updates are ridiculous. Frequent, unpredictable updates with changelogs that just read "Improvements and bug fixes" is fine when we're talking about a social media app, but is entirely unacceptable when we're talking about the software that controls a 2 ton hunk of metal flying at 70mph with humans inside…
This isn't an issue specific to Tesla as all automakers are now making cars that are more and more dependent on software. So what is the right way to handle these updates? You mentioned a clear flaw with OTA updates, but there are also numerous advantages. For example, the recent Tesla brake software issue was fixed with an OTA update. That immediately made cars safer. Toyota had a similar problem a few years ago and…
Certainly communication of any changes to all drivers inexperienced with the latest version; ideally user interaction required for the update to be applied, and potentially even the ability to reverse them if they are unhappy with the changes.
Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
#153NTSB: • At 8 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla was following a lead vehicle and was traveling about 65 mph. • At 7 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla began a left steering movement while following a lead vehicle. • At 4 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla was no longer following a lead vehicle. • At 3 seconds prior to the crash and up to the time of impact with the crash attenuator, the Tesla’s speed increas…
> This is the Tesla self-crashing car in action. Remember how it works. It visually recognizes rear ends of cars using a BW camera I'm sure Tesla's engineers are qualified and it is certainly easy to second-guess them, but it is beyond me why they would even consider a BW camera in a context where warning colors (red signs, red cones, black and yellow stripes, etc.) are an essential element of the domain.
For the same reason they refuse to use LIDAR: to cut down on costs.
Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't an issue specific to Tesla as all automakers are now making cars that are more and more dependent on software. So what is the right way to handle these updates? You mentioned a clear flaw with OTA updates, but there are also numerous advantages. For example, the recent Tesla brake software issue was fixed with an OTA update. That immediately made cars safer. Toyota had a similar problem a few years ago and…
>This isn't an issue specific to Tesla as all automakers are now making cars that are more and more dependent on software. Cars have been dependent on software for a long time (literally decades). This isn't something new. Even combustion engine cars have had software inside of them that controls the operation of the engine, and this software is vigorously tested for safety issues (because most car manufacturers unde…
I didn't say no car has ever relied on software. I said cars are becoming more reliant on software. I don't think that is a controversial statement. I also don't think it is controversial to say that other automakers also occasionally ship buggy code. The Toyota brake issue I mentioned in the previous post is one example.
Additionally, the argument that we should continue to handle updates this way simply because we have done it this way for decades is the laziest possible reasoning. It is frankly surprising to see that argument on HN of all places.
As for the evidence that OTA updates can make things safer, this is from Consumer Reports:
>Consumer Reports now recommends the Tesla Model 3, after our testers found that a recent over-the-air (OTA) update improved the car’s braking distance by almost 20 feet. [1]
That update going out immediately OTA is going to save lives compared to if Tesla waited for the cars to be serviced like other manufacturers. I don't think you can legitimately argue against that fact.
[1] - https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-model-3-get...
Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it hard to think that a group of engineers didn't consider stationary objects when _designing_ an autopilot system. I would no longer consider it a flaw if it was considered.
It's a hardware limitation. If you have a radar, the only way to get a signal out of it is to ignore all stationary stuff.
That is not accurate. In fact one of the key features of radar processing is to find objects in the clutter, usually by filtering on Doppler shifts.
As far back as the 1970s helicopter-mounted radars like Saiga were able to detect power lines and vertical masts. That one could do so when moving up to 270 knots and weighed 53kg.
Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This isn't an issue specific to Tesla as all automakers are now making cars that are more and more dependent on software. Cars have been dependent on software for a long time (literally decades). This isn't something new. Even combustion engine cars have had software inside of them that controls the operation of the engine, and this software is vigorously tested for safety issues (because most car manufacturers unde…
I didn't say no car has ever relied on software. I said cars are becoming more reliant on software. I don't think that is a controversial statement. I also don't think it is controversial to say that other automakers also occasionally ship buggy code. The Toyota brake issue I mentioned in the previous post is one example. Additionally, the argument that we should continue to handle updates this way simply because we…
> That update going out immediately OTA is going to save lives compared to if Tesla waited for the cars to be serviced like other manufacturers. I don't think you can legitimately argue against that fact.
There is again no evidence to support this fact. There is evidence that Tesla's OTA software updates have introduced safety issues with Tesla cars. That's a fact.
Better braking distance is of course a good thing but if anything, the fact that Teslas were on the road for so long with a sub-par braking distance is more evidence of a problem with Tesla than it is evidence of a benefit of OTA updates.
The other factor in that brake story is that it took mere days for Tesla to release an update to "fix" the brakes. This isn't a good thing. The fact that it was accomplished so quickly means that the OTA update was likely not tested very well. It also means that the issue was easy to fix, which calls into question why it wasn't fixed before. It also highlights the fact that Tesla, for some reason, failed to do the most basic testing on their own cars for braking distance. Comparing the braking distance of their cars should have been one of the very first things they did before even selling the cars, but apparently it took a third party to do that before Tesla was even aware of the issue. This doesn't inspire confidence in Tesla cars at all.
Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? Welcome to the automotive industry. Lives are at stake.
Is there an equivalent safety standard for ICE vehicles? I don't think a gas task would do particularly well in the exact same circumstance either
Gas can't cause itself to combust due to physical damage. It needs a spark of some sort. Li batteries can self-combust from physical damage.
Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say no car has ever relied on software. I said cars are becoming more reliant on software. I don't think that is a controversial statement. I also don't think it is controversial to say that other automakers also occasionally ship buggy code. The Toyota brake issue I mentioned in the previous post is one example. Additionally, the argument that we should continue to handle updates this way simply because we…
> That update going out immediately OTA is going to save lives compared to if Tesla waited for the cars to be serviced like other manufacturers. I don't think you can legitimately argue against that fact. There is again no evidence to support this fact. There is evidence that Tesla's OTA software updates have introduced safety issues with Tesla cars. That's a fact. Better braking distance is of course a good thing bu…
I simply don't know what to say to you if you are going to legitimately argue that shaving 20 feet off of braking distance will not make a car any safer.
EDIT: The comment I was replying to was heavily edited after I responded. It originally said something along the lines of improving braking distance is good but there is no evidence that it would improve safety.
Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
#159I am generally against often-called "excessive regulation," but the regulator -- perhaps FTC -- should aggressively prohibit the misleading marketing message here.
The entire problem manifests from calling this lane keeping mechanism "Autopilot." Tesla should be prohibited from using that language until they have achieved a provably safer self-driving level 3+.
The problem is exacerbated by Musk's aggressive marketing-driven language. Saying things like we're two years out from full self-driving (first said in 2015) and the driver was warned to put his hands on the steering wheel (15 minutes prior to the crash) makes Musk look like he is plainly the bad guy and attempting to be misleading.
"Provably safe" probably means some sort of acceptance testing -- a blend of NTSB-operated obstacle course (with regression tests and the like) and real world exposure.
Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> These vehicles will run into stationary obstacles at full speed with no warning or emergency braking at all. That is by design. This is not an implementation bug or sensor failure. A little off topic, but I'm curious: I usually use "by design" to mean "an intentional result." How do other people use the term? In this case, the behavior is a result of the design (as opposed to the implementation), but is surely not…
I find it hard to think that a group of engineers didn't consider stationary objects when _designing_ an autopilot system. I would no longer consider it a flaw if it was considered.
It is a ROC curve/precision-recall issue basically. Radar has a terrible lateral and even worse to non-existing elevation measurement. Potholes, man holes, Coke cans and ground clutter look all alike and can in fact be detected as "having the negative relative velocity as my car's own velocity". You want to stop for only very few of all those stationary objects, otherwise you won't drive at all. The problem is you can't classify the relevant ones with radar. Which is why the camera helps, but obviously (for false positive suppression and a high availability of the autopilot) only if it positively classifies a car's rear.