221–230 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why was this not widely reported?
Last I heard, nobody has been able to verify if the car was actually in autopilot mode. However, the emergency braking also clearly failed, if the police report that no attempt to stop was made is true.
Brad Templeton, who's been working on self-driving cars for a few years now, analyzed this in http://ideas.4brad.com/critique-nhtsas-newly-released-recomm... . He says, "Broadly, this is very much the wrong direction... the progress of robocar development in the USA may be seriously negatively affected." This is a big deal.
I'm not sure I would put much weight behind what he has to say.
From the regulations: "Fall back strategies should take into account that—despite laws and regulations to the contrary—human drivers may be inattentive, under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or physically impaired in some other manner." NHTSA, which, after all, studies crashes, is being very realistic. Here's the "we're looking at you, Tesla" moment: "Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehic…
Nobody is above level 2.
Google's self driving system only basically works with the route preplanned and premapped ahead of time, specifically for that car. Even small changes in the environment are potentially devastating. And even mundane weather changes it isn't prepared to handle.
It should be well understood that if the only people who can safely handle the vehicle are professional test drivers on a preplanned route, the car isn't ready to say its at the level it claims it is.
From the regulations: "Fall back strategies should take into account that—despite laws and regulations to the contrary—human drivers may be inattentive, under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or physically impaired in some other manner." NHTSA, which, after all, studies crashes, is being very realistic. Here's the "we're looking at you, Tesla" moment: "Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehic…
The idea that Google is anywhere near level 3 is merely some incredibly good marketing, and a fat pile of deception. Google has an impressive tech demo, not a product nor a reliable technology. Nobody is above level 2. Google's self driving system only basically works with the route preplanned and premapped ahead of time, specifically for that car. Even small changes in the environment are potentially devastating. An…
From the regulations: "Fall back strategies should take into account that—despite laws and regulations to the contrary—human drivers may be inattentive, under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or physically impaired in some other manner." NHTSA, which, after all, studies crashes, is being very realistic. Here's the "we're looking at you, Tesla" moment: "Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehic…
I don't understand this anti-autonomy cheerleading. It's like people on HN live in a parallel universe where there have been a bunch of deaths from cars running Autopilot, whereas in the world I live in, it seems to be somewhat safer than a human alone. Like, people can mess up either way, but they seem to be less likely to do so when the car is also looking out for them. What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this anti-autonomy cheerleading. It's like people on HN live in a parallel universe where there have been a bunch of deaths from cars running Autopilot, whereas in the world I live in, it seems to be somewhat safer than a human alone. Like, people can mess up either way, but they seem to be less likely to do so when the car is also looking out for them. What am I missing?
You have to compare the one death using autopilot to one death of people driving Teslas without autopilot. Musk tried to compare it against the universe of drivers (Teslas, kids driving crappy cars, etc), which was a complete false comparison. So the reason it was a big deal is because it was a huge fatality. Tesla drivers are generally a pretty safe bunch. Statistically, if autopilot hadn't been engaged, that death…
From the regulations: "Fall back strategies should take into account that—despite laws and regulations to the contrary—human drivers may be inattentive, under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or physically impaired in some other manner." NHTSA, which, after all, studies crashes, is being very realistic. Here's the "we're looking at you, Tesla" moment: "Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehic…
For the Tesla comment, what more could you expect from them right now? If you have auto pilot on your hands have to be on the wheel or it vibrates and then it starts slowing down e eventually since it knows it's not safe. People can work around any system for this, but stuff like this makes it have to do it consciously. Seems pretty reasonable on Tesla's part.
An eye-tracking system might work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion, you mentioned the core reason why you find the excitement baffling, i.e. that you don't drive often but you find it exciting when you do. Now imagine the scenario for most of the US, a public-transport-hostile country for the most part, where millions upon millions of people burn their precious lives waiting in traffic and sucking in traffic fumes. In my mind, this is one of the most appalling wastes o…
Thanks for the response and totally agree with the sitting in traffic, wasted time thing ,but with all due respect it still seems inefficient, wouldn't public transport and telecommuting be better options in a connected world? How will there still be no traffic jams, or the car will be like an office? In that case why not just work from home and come to work for meetings here and there? Might flexible / less work hou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the Tesla comment, what more could you expect from them right now? If you have auto pilot on your hands have to be on the wheel or it vibrates and then it starts slowing down e eventually since it knows it's not safe. People can work around any system for this, but stuff like this makes it have to do it consciously. Seems pretty reasonable on Tesla's part.
You could expect them to not call it autopilot, and instead call it lane keeping, like it really is. The name does a really good job at setting a terrible expectation, almost to the point of undoing any attention grabbing mechanism to keep users engaged.