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

Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 184 posts

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#21

Post by justin66 »

michaelmior wrote: post #11

> The California Highway Patrol and Culver City Fire Department confirmed the southbound Tesla had struck the fire truck, but could not immediately confirm whether the vehicle had been on Autopilot. It sounds like it's not 100% confirmed that Autopilot was at fault. The first sentence of the article also reads " reportedly on 'Autopilot'"

We'll know soon enough based on stored vehicle telemetry. Experience suggests that the right to privacy is the first thing to go in the event of a newsworthy crash in a Tesla.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#22

Post by _ea1k »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #17

You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…

To be honest, I've only really heard this misunderstanding from non-owners.

The really scary ones are the ones that own it, know about the limitations, and intentionally bypass the safeguards.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#23

Post by ebbv »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #17

You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…

Agreed. I am a big fan of Tesla and I used to make excuses for them on this but I think it’s b.s. they didn’t rename it after the incident where the guy died. Cool marketing names do not outweigh being totally honest and up front.

If I made rat poison that looked like candy and named it “Yummy Candy Rat Poison” and some kid died coz they ate it, I’d deserve some blame regardless of parents keeping poison away from kids.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#24

Post by jcranmer »

c0nducktr wrote: post #6
rootusrootus wrote: post #2

I wonder if it is imprudent to create too many vehicles that have partial self-driving capability before we have ones that can do 100% of it. Instead of to the point where you can take your attention away from the road, but not to the point where it can reliably avoid accidents on your behalf. Too many people aren't wise enough to use the partial autonomous technology without abusing it.

Maybe they could take some ideas from the rail industry, which have been dealing with this issue for quite some time now. Engineers are required to to make some kind of input to verify that they're still alert, or the train stops[1] if they haven't done anything in X seconds. Obviously you wouldn't want the car to just stop in the middle of the road, but there could be something like that designed. [1] https://www.qu…

All smart-assist cars are required to sense if the drivers are actually maintaining their hands of the wheel. I don't know if they are to disengage or merely to annoy the user, but Tesla is notorious for skirting these regulations.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#25

Post by jsjohnst »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #17

You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#26

Post by WiseWeasel »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #12
rootusrootus wrote: post #2

I wonder if it is imprudent to create too many vehicles that have partial self-driving capability before we have ones that can do 100% of it. Instead of to the point where you can take your attention away from the road, but not to the point where it can reliably avoid accidents on your behalf. Too many people aren't wise enough to use the partial autonomous technology without abusing it.

People have been safely and intelligently using cruise control for... decades? It is a partial automation solution that reduces half of what you have to manage when controlling the car (how fast you're going). I suspect the primary problem is not the partial autonomous technology, but the marketing which is convincing people they can trust it. Nobody ever told you your cruise control means you don't have to pay atten…

It seems like an apt name to me; it pilots your car automatically. The only detail omitted is how often it pilots you into plainly visible large objects at full speed.

It's true that people may be in particular need of a refresher, since such features could be perceived as more than advanced cruise control. It should be strongly emphasized to all drivers that we need to take full control whenever we see any exceptional conditions, from hazards, obstructions, pedestrians or wildlife in or entering the road, to poor visibility, and even when passing or being passed by small vehicles.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#27

Post by seanmcdirmid »

CPLX wrote: post #20
typicalbender wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as there is a human variable I severely doubt we will every get to a system that is 100%. The raw truth of it is to make a system that can do it close to 100% you need data. Tesla has chosen to put a semi-autonomous system into the hands of consumers in order to generate the massive amounts of data necessary to achieve full automation. Other companies have chosen to log a crazy amount of hours using technicia…

> If this car really did crash into the fire truck at around 65 MPH then it did a pretty good job at keeping everyone safe. I believe your definition of keeping everyone safe differs from the common usage.

I believe parent is referring to the survivability of a 65 MPH head on crash into a heavy object.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#28

Post by fleitz »

jsjohnst wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #17

You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

There's lots of autopilot systems that smash into shit, sailboats are one of them, you can put your sailboat on autopilot and it's going to smash into stuff.

Samething with an airliner, autopilot will not avoid another aircraft.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#29

Post by hndamien »

ebbv wrote: post #23
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #17

You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…

Agreed. I am a big fan of Tesla and I used to make excuses for them on this but I think it’s b.s. they didn’t rename it after the incident where the guy died. Cool marketing names do not outweigh being totally honest and up front. If I made rat poison that looked like candy and named it “Yummy Candy Rat Poison” and some kid died coz they ate it, I’d deserve some blame regardless of parents keeping poison away from ki…

It isn't called full self driving, it is called auto-pilot. In aviation, auto-pilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators but assist them in controlling aircraft, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operations.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#30

Post by sidcool »

jsjohnst wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #17

You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

From Elon's interview, he mentioned that 'autopilot' was a name akin to the flight autopilots. Pilots are never expected to get their eyes off the controls.

This crash is unfortunate and should be investigated. But autopilot naming is something I don't think is the problem.

Post reply on HN