New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

Post by lamontcg » Thu, Jan 12, 2023, 4:37 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #84

somethoughts wrote: post #65

I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. [Edit] From the video the Tesla is making a lane change and stopping simultaneously which means there could be a case of the Tesla FSD/driver doing a unsafe lane change.[1] Most of the time FSD just wrecks the Tesla itself or injures the driver of the Tesla (i.e. running int…

> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different…

Post by saalweachter » Thu, Jan 12, 2023, 4:41 AM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #163

projektfu wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tesla cut into the lane with 3 car-lengths or less behind it and rapidly decelerated. The two cars behind are going to collide because the first one, who was safely positioned before the Tesla changed lanes, didn't have time to react and the second car was probably not able to either, because the brake lights in front didn't come on until too late. Then, there was a couple cars that were probably tailgating, and…

It’s also just not realistic. If everyone was that defensive (5+ seconds distance) on such a busy road it would severely lower its capacity, leading to constant traffic jams. Leaving that gap will just mean others taking it.

Post by axelfontaine » Thu, Jan 12, 2023, 4:41 AM UTC

throwaway892238 wrote: post #200

I'm still waiting for autonomous-only lanes. For extremely long and boring highways (usually full of trucks), this just seems like the logical conclusion of all self-driving tech to me. Dedicate one lane to self-driving, have the vehicles all on autonomous mode, and have them keep enough distance so their braking performance prevents them from crashing in an unexpected stop. You should be able to literally just sleep…

Post by remarkEon » Thu, Jan 12, 2023, 4:43 AM UTC

epivosism wrote: post #74

remarkEon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people have said it before, but the issue is that the Tesla crashes we are seeing are ones that a human would trivially avoid. Most people, especially non technical people, aren’t going to care about numbers that say it’s safer or better on net when the car still occasionally does things that humans view as crazy or stupid.

I'm interested in understanding why you would want every subdivision of "type of crash" to strictly improve, rather than being content that the combined crash rate goes down? i.e. if Tesla causes 100 new crashes of type A but saves 200 of type B, isn't that a gain? Even if type A crashes are one which humans don't normally make. A way in which I agree with you is if type B crashes are more avoidable by conscientious…

Post by maerF0x0 » Thu, Jan 12, 2023, 4:47 AM UTC

axelfontaine wrote: post #205

throwaway892238 wrote: post #200

I'm still waiting for autonomous-only lanes. For extremely long and boring highways (usually full of trucks), this just seems like the logical conclusion of all self-driving tech to me. Dedicate one lane to self-driving, have the vehicles all on autonomous mode, and have them keep enough distance so their braking performance prevents them from crashing in an unexpected stop. You should be able to literally just sleep…

We have this technology today. It's called trains.