A Tragic Loss • Hacker News Board

Re: A Tragic Loss

#191

Post by iraphael » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #174

morsch wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, GM sells more vehicles in a week than Tesla has sold in its entire history.

This. Notice how quick they are to bring up "this is the first fatality in 130 million miles", but AFAICT, traffic fatalities in the US occur at a frequency of around 10 per billion miles [1], which is the same. So even though this is just one data point, it's spot on the current average for fatality frequency in normal cars. Furthermore, to gather enough statistics to be able to say with confidence "semi-autonomous…

Is there a statistical difference in accident rate between high and low income populations? If so, do we know what the fatality/miles rate is in the group that would be able to afford a tesla? When I read the blog post, I couldn't help but think that while tesla's rate might be smaller than the national average, it is also not a fair comparison to draw conclusions from.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#192

Post by alkonaut » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

npizzolato wrote: post #160

alkonaut wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The autopilot doesn't drive the car, the driver does. The autopilot is a help just like cruise control. Tesla are very clear (apart from the naming of the feature) that the driver must still drive the car. The autopilot will avoid obstacles it can detect and the driver is expected to avoid others (since he has eyes on the wheel and eyes on the road the whole time). I think they misleading thing about Teslas Autopilot…

> The autopilot doesn't drive the car, the driver does. The autopilot is a help just like cruise control. Tesla are very clear (apart from the naming of the feature) that the driver must still drive the car. I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. What's the point of an autopilot if you have to avoid every single obstacle and react to every single thing as if the auto-pilot didn't exist? You can't say "autopilot is safer th…

> I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. What's the point of an autopilot if you have to avoid every single obstacle and react to every single thing as if the auto-pilot didn't exist?

You don't have to react - you have to supervise it though. It lets the driver monitor a system that micromanages steering, brakes and throttle, instead of doing that micromanagement himself. It requires the same attention but is less work.

> Unlike autopilot, cruise control has very limited functionality. No driver expects it to do anything other than keep their speed,

Well, these days you can often set it with a distance to the car in front using a radar. You then let the cruise control do something more than just keep constant speed, it will slow down if the car in front does etc. The driver has to pay full attention though for anything the cruise control can't handle.

You seem to imply "what's the point of an autopilot if I can't take a nap". - well the issue is that it's a little too good to be called a cruise control, but not good enough for a nap. We're simply not there quite yet. At least not legally.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#193

Post by funkysquid » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

I don't think they should have said anything at all in this case, beyond their condolences.

1. Autopilot didn't cause the accident, but they're sort of making it sound like it did by bringing it up

2. If people are arguing that autopilot contributed by making the driver feel like they didn't need to pay as much attention, the only way to defend against that is to blame the driver - why would you do that?

3. It's sort of invading the privacy of someone who recently died by detailing the crash, making it about Tesla. I don't believe other car companies would issue a PR release if one of their cars got in a crash, even with accident avoidance features on?

It somehow manages to feel self serving and make Tesla look bad at the same time.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#194

Post by ghaff » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #94

This is why driving AI is 'all or nothing' for me. Assisted systems will lead to drivers paying less attention as the systems get better. The figures quoted by Tesla seem impressive but you have to assume the majority of the drivers is still paying attention all the time . As auto-pilots get better you'll see them paying attention less and then the accident rate will go up, not down for a while at least until the bug…

It's pretty well established that humans (e.g. [1]) that humans have a lot of trouble paying when they don't need to be actively engaged most of the time and also have trouble taking back control. In a consumer driving context, I have zero doubt that, as systems like these develop, people will start watching videos and reading absent draconian monitoring systems to ensure they keep their eyes on the road. I'm not sure how we get past that "uncanny valley."

[1] http://hal.pratt.duke.edu/sites/hal.pratt.duke.edu/files/u7/...

Re: A Tragic Loss

#195

Post by uola » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #180

mdorazio wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some PR firm-level explaining. First, autopilot is not just lane assist, it's lane assist + adaptive cruise control + additional features (it can change lanes if you tell it to). Other OEMs have purposely shied away from enabling an autopilot-like feature set together, even though it's technically possible, because they are absolutely terrified of something exactly like this situation happening. Second, you're…

Much like if you make a car that does 0-60mph in 3 seconds or does 200mph you encourage doing that. The fact that the autopilot is so good that it "almost" works as a driver is an issue for Tesla as we can see here. I realize autopilot has a nice ring to it, but it's not a chauffeur... Tesla sure has balls to pick the name "Autopilot" when it really should be called "CoPilot" and that would have saved a lot of troubl…

> The fact that the autopilot is so good that it "almost" works as a driver is an issue for Tesla as we can see here.

If only someone could have foreseen these issues...

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11518826/volvo-tesla-autop... http://www.thedrive.com/news/3753/former-google-exec-and-ai-... http://www.thedrive.com/tech/3909/volvo-rd-chief-teslas-auto...

Re: A Tragic Loss

#196

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

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…

> They have to defend autopilot not only to protect the brand but to protect the public's perception of autonomous vehicles in general.

Why? Why not just build the cars people want? (including cars that people want but don't realize they want yet)

There shouldn't be a political agenda associated with engineering. Build what is needed. Build what people want. Build what people will need. But never "defend my reputation and the reputation of this device that I'm making"

EDIT: I mean, I get why Public Relations are important and so forth. So Tesla is certainly free to do what they want here. But lets not pretend that this carefully crafted "condolence" piece that has come out roughly one and a half months late is anything but damage control for this company.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#197

Post by maxxxxx » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

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…

They definitely sound very defensive to me.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#198

Post by kamaal » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #94

This is why driving AI is 'all or nothing' for me. Assisted systems will lead to drivers paying less attention as the systems get better. The figures quoted by Tesla seem impressive but you have to assume the majority of the drivers is still paying attention all the time . As auto-pilots get better you'll see them paying attention less and then the accident rate will go up, not down for a while at least until the bug…

Apart from the software part of it. I wonder how they handle issues like sensor malfunction.

If your eyes aren't at their best, you know well to go to a doctor and not be driving in the meanwhile. Will the car with autopilot refuse to start or go on autopilot if the camera/sensor/radar has an issue?

So yes you are right, its either full AI or nothing.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#199

Post by aetherson » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #172

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. Given that Autopilot is generally activated under safer, more routine driving scenarios -- decent weather, regular suburban traffic and so on; for which we can naturally expect significantly lower fatality rates -- it doesn't sound like it's off to a…

Also of note: Tesla often claims that their cars perform very well in an accident. It may be that a crash that would result in a fatality in the median vehicle on the road does not produce a fatality in a Tesla. So the salient number is not "fatalities per vehicle mile among all vehicles in the US," it is "fatalities per vehicle mile among non-autopilot-driven Teslas."

Re: A Tragic Loss

#200

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 9:51 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #190

prodmerc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah no kidding, thousands of people die every year in Fords and no one gives a shit, 1 guy dies in a Tesla and "these cars are unsafe, run for your lives, hide yo kids and yo wife, sell your stock, return your car!". I fucking hate modern media.

Ford sells 6-7 million cars each year, so there's going to be close to 100 million Fords driving around globally. There's a little over 100 000 Teslas. So since there is 1000x as many Fords, and assuming every Ford is just as safe as a Tesla, you quite literally get thousands of fatalities a year.

assuming every Ford is just as safe as a Tesla, you quite literally get thousands of fatalities a year.

Which is about right.