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

US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#151

Post by porphyra »

akira2501 wrote: post #124
graeme wrote: post #40

Will the review assess overall mortality of the vehicles compared to similar cars, and overall mortality while FSD is in use?

Fatalities per passenger mile driven is the only statistic that would matter. I actually doubt this figure differs much, either way, from the overall fleet of vehicles. This is because "inattentive driving" is _rarely_ the cause of fatalities on the road. The winner there is, and probably always will be, Alcohol.

Distracted driving cost 3308 lives in 2022 [1].

Alcohol is at 13384 in 2021 [2].

Although you're right that alcohol does claim more lives, distracted driving is still highly dangerous and isn't all that rare.

[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving

[2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/alcohol...

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#152

Post by amluto »

MadnessASAP wrote: post #17
daghamm wrote: post #13

While at it, please also investigate why it is sometimes impossible to leave a damaged vehicle. This has resulted in people dying more than once: https://apnews.com/article/car-crash-tesla-france-fire-be8ec...

The why is pretty well understood, no investigation needed. I don't like the design but it's because the doors are electronic and people don't know where the manual release is. In a panic people go on muscle memory, which is push the useless button. They don't remember to pull the unmarked unobtrusive handle that they may not even know exists. If it was up to me, sure have your electronic release, but make the manual…

I’ve seen an innovative car with a single door release. As you pull it, it first triggers the electronic mechanism (which lowers the window a bit, which is useful in a door with no frame above the window) and then, as you pull it farther, it mechanically unlatches the door.

Tesla should build their doors like this. Oh, wait, the car I’m talking about is an older Tesla. Maybe Tesla should remember how to build doors like this.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#153

Post by taspeotis »

Aeolun wrote: post #68

I love how the image in the article has a caption that says it tells you to pay attention to the road, but I had to zoom in all the way to figure out where that message actually was. I’d expect something big and red with a warning triangle or something, but it’s a tiny white message in the center of the screen.

Ah yes, red with a warning like “WARNING: ERROR: THE SITUATION IS NORMAL!”

Some cars that have cruise control but an analog gauge cluster that can’t display WARNING ERRORs even hide stuff like “you still have to drive the car” in a manual you have to read yet nobody cares about that.

Honestly driving a car should require some sort of license for a bare minimum of competence.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#154

Post by porphyra »

akira2501 wrote: post #129
gnuser wrote: post #90

I worked in 18 a wheeler automation unicorn. Never rode in one once for a reason.

Automate the transfer yards, shipping docks, and trucking terminals. Make movement of cargo across these limited use areas entirely automated and as smooth as butter. Queue drivers up and have their loads automatically placed up front so they can drop and hook in a few minutes and get back on the road. I honestly think that's the _easier_ problem to solve by at least two orders of magnitude.

There are a bunch of companies working on that. So far off the top of my head I know of:

* Outrider: https://www.outrider.ai/

* Cyngn: https://www.cyngn.com/

* Fernride: https://www.fernride.com/

Any ideas what other ones are out there?

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#155

Post by shepherdjerred »

hedora wrote: post #132
massysett wrote: post #64

"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving." Tesla should be sued out of existence.

Our non-Tesla has steering assist. In my 500 miles of driving before I found the buried setting that let me completely disable it, the active safety systems never made it more than 10-20 miles without attempting to actively steer the car left-of-center or into another vehicle, even when it was "turned off" via the steering wheel controls. When it was turned on according to the dashboard UI, things were even worse. It…

My Hyundai has a similar feature and it's excellent. I don't think you should be painting with such a broad brush.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#156

Post by AlotOfReading »

romon wrote: post #130
bckr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drive it in larger and larger closed courses. Expand to neighboring areas with consent of the communities involved. Agree on limited conditions until enough data has been gathered to expand those conditions.

While controlled conditions promote safety, they do not yield effective training data.

That's how all autonomous testing programs currently work around the world. That is, every driverless vehicle system on roads today was developed this way. You're going to have to be more specific when you say that it doesn't work.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#157

Post by UltraSane »

porphyra wrote: post #147
UltraSane wrote: post #125

I'm astonished at how long Musk has been able to keep his autonomous driving con going. He has been lying about it to inflate Tesla shares for 10 years now.

Just because it has taken 10 years longer than promised doesn't mean that it will never happen. FSD has made huge improvements this year and is on track to keep up the current pace so it actually does seem closer than ever.

The current vision-only system is a clear technological dead-end that can't go much more than 10 miles between "disengagements". To be clear, "disengagements" would be crashes if a human wasn't ready to take over. And not needing a human driver is THE ENTIRE POINT! I will admit Musk isn't a liar when Tesla has FSD at least as good as Waymo's system and Tesla accepts legal liability for any crashes.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#158

Post by noapologies »

hedora wrote: post #132
massysett wrote: post #64

"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving." Tesla should be sued out of existence.

Our non-Tesla has steering assist. In my 500 miles of driving before I found the buried setting that let me completely disable it, the active safety systems never made it more than 10-20 miles without attempting to actively steer the car left-of-center or into another vehicle, even when it was "turned off" via the steering wheel controls. When it was turned on according to the dashboard UI, things were even worse. It…

I'm not sure how any of this is related to the article. Does this non-Tesla manufacturer claim that their steering assist is "full self driving"?

If you believe their steering assist kills more people than Tesla FSD then you're welcome, encouraged even, to file a report with the NHTSA here [1].

[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#159

Post by Retric »

mbernstein wrote: post #134
Retric wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wa…

History is a great reference, but it doesn't solve our problems now. Just because hydro has prevented more CO2 until now doesn't mean that plus solar are the combination that delivers abundant, clean energy. There are power storage challenges and storage mechanisms aren't carbon neutral. Even if we assume that nuclear, wind, and solar (without storage) all have the same carbon footprint - I believe nuclear is less th…

Seriously scaling nuclear would involve batteries. Nuclear has issues being cost effective at 80+% capacity factors. When you start talking sub 40% capacity factors the cost per kWh spirals.

The full cost of operating a multiple nuclear reactor for just 5 hours per day just costs more than a power plant at 80% capacity factor charging batteries.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#160

Post by Retric »

dylan604 wrote: post #137
Retric wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wa…

> Historically, hydro has done harm to the ecosystems where they are installed. This is quite often overlooked and brushed aside. There is no single method of generating electricity without downsides.

We’ve made dams long before we knew about electricity. At which point tacking hydropower to a dam that would exist either way has basically zero environmental impact.

Pure hydropower dams definitely do have significant environmental impact.

Post reply on HN