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

A Tragic Loss

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 511 posts

Re: A Tragic Loss

#161

Post by ceejayoz »

joemi wrote: post #72
georgecmu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot engaged when a tractor trailer drove across the highway perpendicular to the Model S. Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. How is this not an "Autopilot did something very very wrong" story? Tesla autopilot drove the vehicle full-speed into a tractor-trailer, which wasn't registered by its sensor systems. It'…

If the driver didn't notice it either, why is it Autopilot's fault?

The autopilot may reduce driver attentiveness, making the edge cases in its automation more deadly than they might've been without it.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#162

Post by chillacy »

twinkletwinkle wrote: post #144
jackpirate wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement is also disengenuous: This is the first known fatality in just over 130 million miles where Autopilot was activated. Among all vehicles in the US, there is a fatality every 94 million miles. Worldwide, there is a fatality approximately every 60 million miles. The wording implies that these numbers are directly comparable, but they are not. I would guess that Autopilot is much more likely to be activate…

Wouldn't it be hilarious if they were being really tacit about something like this? In an exceptional scenario, the autopilot disengages and tells the human user to take over. So maybe the autopilot drives into an untenable situation, disengages, the car crashes and kills the "driver", and then the statistics say "Well, Autopilot drove X miles and it was fine. The crash occurred while under human control..." As they…

A few weeks ago there was a case where a model S crashed because the human driver tapped the brakes, disengaging autopilot, but the driver did not know, and his car hit another car.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#163

Post by wrsh07 »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #150

Nobody is talking about whether it is safe to put Beta software of such an advanced autopilot system in real world? I mean they are giving choice to people to turn on this Autopilot functionality as if it were just another driver assistance safety feature like 'Honda Sensing' but in reality it is much more advanced system and it seems Tesla is doing this to use the data to feed to it's upcoming autonomous technology.…

Tesla doesn't need autopilot to gather data -- just having the sensors on the vehicles is enough.

The current cost seems to be about 3/4 as many casualties as one would expect from the # of miles they've driven.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#164

Post by wpietri »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #21

I mean I understand Tesla has to make a statement here and I understand they want to ensure everyone that it's not really their fault but to title a post "A Tragic Loss" and then spend the majority of the post discussing all of your car's safety features and how it wasn't your fault just seems tone deaf and distasteful to me. Maybe they had to do it for legal reasons I don't know (I'm certainly not a lawyer) and I'd…

Yeah, I had the same issue with the writing. I think it would have gone much better if the meat of the concluding paragraph came first, possibly with a matching paragraph at the bottom.

Personally, I would have used a more neutral title, led with sympathies for the family, and then gone into the technical detail.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#165

Post by hermannj314 »

mikeash wrote: post #45
petercooper wrote: post #16

Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, I'm intrigued that the color is relevant in the car's case - wouldn't it be using some sort of radar to detect and map objects rather than vision? I appreciate I am probably missing something.

Tesla's Autopilot uses a radar unit, a front-facing camera, and twelve ultrasonic sensors on the front and back bumper. The ultrasonic sensors are short range and are for detecting adjacent cars and obstacles while parking, the camera is used for detecting lanes, and the camera and radar work together to detect cars. The radar is low to the ground and probably doesn't pick up a trailer that's high off the ground. The…

Do you think they will/should change this? I understand the radar can't see an obstruction above x feet, but that doesn't do any good when the car is x+y feet tall.

From what I read about humans, you need +/- 30 degrees up/down vision to get a license (varies by jurisdiction). And we kill a little over a million people each year on roads. Not sure what this should imply about a car's radar though.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#166

Post by CobrastanJorji »

curiousgal wrote: post #95
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #81

> It is important to note that Autopilot is...still in a public beta phase... No, it's not important to note that. You should not be able to hide behind the word "Beta" for systems that could kill people. Either you're willing to let people risk their lives on your software or you're not, and you were.

Judging from the description the accident would've happened either ways.

In this press release, they argue that it's important to note that their feature is in beta. If the accident would have happened either way, then it was not important to mention the beta status.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#167

Post by mdorazio »

derekp7 wrote: post #106
georgecmu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot engaged when a tractor trailer drove across the highway perpendicular to the Model S. Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. How is this not an "Autopilot did something very very wrong" story? Tesla autopilot drove the vehicle full-speed into a tractor-trailer, which wasn't registered by its sensor systems. It'…

Replace "autopilot" with "cruise control" -- would you have the same situation? Autopilot is basically advanced cruise control plus steering assist. From what I make of this story, this same accident would have happened with any other car with cruise control turned on.

I disagree. In a car with normal or even advanced cruise control, the driver would still be paying attention to the road and ostensibly would have seen the truck ahead and applied the brakes. Autopilot makes it very easy to not pay attention at all and let the car drive itself for minutes at a time.

I'm sure you'll say, "yes but that's a driver attention problem, not a technology problem", but to me they're the same thing. If you give drivers technology that encourages them to not pay attention then accidents caused as a result of that are partially your fault.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#168

Post by ceejayoz »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #150

Nobody is talking about whether it is safe to put Beta software of such an advanced autopilot system in real world? I mean they are giving choice to people to turn on this Autopilot functionality as if it were just another driver assistance safety feature like 'Honda Sensing' but in reality it is much more advanced system and it seems Tesla is doing this to use the data to feed to it's upcoming autonomous technology.…

I'm very curious about the car insurance implications of using the beta autopilot. I can't imagine Allstate's going to be all that happy paying a $100k claim caused by a product that's explicitly marked as being a beta.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#169

Post by CaptSpify »

angusb wrote: post #123
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #21

I mean I understand Tesla has to make a statement here and I understand they want to ensure everyone that it's not really their fault but to title a post "A Tragic Loss" and then spend the majority of the post discussing all of your car's safety features and how it wasn't your fault just seems tone deaf and distasteful to me. Maybe they had to do it for legal reasons I don't know (I'm certainly not a lawyer) and I'd…

It's not just about Tesla though. They have to defend autopilot not only to protect the brand but to protect the public's perception of autonomous vehicles in general. Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. So from a utilitarian perspective, it's probably justified to take extraordinary measures to make sure reactionary media and public whim doesn't kill it off, however uncomfortable that might seem in…

I can already hear a lot of people that I know: "See! I told you them automagic cars were the devil!"

I personally can't wait for fully self-driving cars, but it's going to be a big PR battle in the US

Re: A Tragic Loss

#170

Post by ceejayoz »

wrsh07 wrote: post #163
gordon_freeman wrote: post #150

Nobody is talking about whether it is safe to put Beta software of such an advanced autopilot system in real world? I mean they are giving choice to people to turn on this Autopilot functionality as if it were just another driver assistance safety feature like 'Honda Sensing' but in reality it is much more advanced system and it seems Tesla is doing this to use the data to feed to it's upcoming autonomous technology.…

Tesla doesn't need autopilot to gather data -- just having the sensors on the vehicles is enough. The current cost seems to be about 3/4 as many casualties as one would expect from the # of miles they've driven.

> The current cost seems to be about 3/4 as many casualties as one would expect from the # of miles they've driven.

That statistic is misleading, though. Tesla's comparing autopilot miles to all driven miles in other vehicles, but they're not directly comparable. Autopilot can only be engaged in certain (favorable) conditions - no residential streets, no undivided highways, and you're probably not turning it on during a thunderstorm or in snow/ice.

Post reply on HN