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

US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#221

Post by Retric »

rKarpinski wrote: post #217

'Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading "Two vehicles collided on the freeway, blocking the left lane. A Toyota 4Runner stopped, and two people got out to help with traffic control. A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one of the people who exited from it. " edit: Parent article was changed... I was referring to the title of the NPR article.

More clarity may change people’s opinion of the accident, but IMO pedestrian meaningfully represents someone who is limited to human locomotion and lacks any sort of protection in a collision.

Which seems like a reasonable description of the type of failure involved in the final few seconds before impact.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#222

Post by neom »

rKarpinski wrote: post #217

'Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading "Two vehicles collided on the freeway, blocking the left lane. A Toyota 4Runner stopped, and two people got out to help with traffic control. A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one of the people who exited from it. " edit: Parent article was changed... I was referring to the title of the NPR article.

That is the correct use of pedestrian as a noun.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#223

Post by littlestymaar »

theossuary wrote: post #218
alexjplant wrote: post #216

> The collision happened because the sun was in the Tesla driver's eyes, so the Tesla driver was not charged, said Raul Garcia, public information officer for the department. Am I missing something or is this the gross miscarriage of justice that it sounds like? The driver could afford a $40k vehicle but not $20 polarized shades from Amazon? Negligence is negligence.

You know what they say, if you want to kill someone in the US, do it in a car.

Crash Course: If You Want to Get Away With Murder Buy a Car Woodrow Phoenix

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#224

Post by smdyc1 »

alexjplant wrote: post #216

> The collision happened because the sun was in the Tesla driver's eyes, so the Tesla driver was not charged, said Raul Garcia, public information officer for the department. Am I missing something or is this the gross miscarriage of justice that it sounds like? The driver could afford a $40k vehicle but not $20 polarized shades from Amazon? Negligence is negligence.

Not to mention that when you can't see, you slow down? Does the self-driving system do that sufficiently in low visibility? Clearly not if it hit a pedestrian with enough force to kill them.

The article mentions that Tesla's only use cameras in their system and Musk believes they are enough, because humans only use their eyes. Well firstly, don't you want self-driving systems to be better than humans? Secondly, humans don't just respond to visual cues as a computer would. We also hear and respond to feelings, like the sudden surge of anxiety or fear as our visibility is suddenly reduced at high speed.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#225

Post by eptcyka »

macintux wrote: post #219
alexjplant wrote: post #216

> The collision happened because the sun was in the Tesla driver's eyes, so the Tesla driver was not charged, said Raul Garcia, public information officer for the department. Am I missing something or is this the gross miscarriage of justice that it sounds like? The driver could afford a $40k vehicle but not $20 polarized shades from Amazon? Negligence is negligence.

I have no idea what the conditions were like for this incident, but I’ve blown through a 4-way stop sign when the sun was setting. There’s only so much sunglasses can do.

If environmental factors incapacitate you, should you not slow down or stop?

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#226

Post by AlchemistCamp »

The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it.

It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to see a potential future where many people die needlessly because technology that could save lives is regulated into a greatly reduced role.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#227

Post by echoangle »

neom wrote: post #222
rKarpinski wrote: post #217

'Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading "Two vehicles collided on the freeway, blocking the left lane. A Toyota 4Runner stopped, and two people got out to help with traffic control. A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one of the people who exited from it. " edit: Parent article was changed... I was referring to the title of the NPR article.

That is the correct use of pedestrian as a noun.

Sometimes using a word correctly is still confusing because it’s used in a different context 90% of the time.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#228

Post by szundi »

neom wrote: post #222
rKarpinski wrote: post #217

'Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading "Two vehicles collided on the freeway, blocking the left lane. A Toyota 4Runner stopped, and two people got out to help with traffic control. A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one of the people who exited from it. " edit: Parent article was changed... I was referring to the title of the NPR article.

That is the correct use of pedestrian as a noun.

I think parent commenter emphasized the context.

Leaving out context that would otherwise change the interpretation of most or targeted people is the main way to misled those people without technically lying.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#229

Post by danans »

rKarpinski wrote: post #217

'Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading "Two vehicles collided on the freeway, blocking the left lane. A Toyota 4Runner stopped, and two people got out to help with traffic control. A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one of the people who exited from it. " edit: Parent article was changed... I was referring to the title of the NPR article.

> Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading

What's misleading? The full quote:

"A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one of the people who exited from it. A 71-year-old woman from Mesa, Arizona, was pronounced dead at the scene."

If you exit a vehicle, and are on foot, you are a pedestrian.

I wouldn't expect FSD's object recognition system to treat a human who has just exited a car differently than a human walking across a crosswalk. A human on foot is a human on foot.

However, from the sound of it, the object recognition system didn't even see the 4Runner, much less a person, so perhaps there's a more fundamental problem with it?

Perhaps this is something that lidar or radar, if the car had them, would have helped the OR system to see.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#230

Post by Moombla »

neom wrote: post #222
rKarpinski wrote: post #217

'Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading "Two vehicles collided on the freeway, blocking the left lane. A Toyota 4Runner stopped, and two people got out to help with traffic control. A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one of the people who exited from it. " edit: Parent article was changed... I was referring to the title of the NPR article.

That is the correct use of pedestrian as a noun.

[dead]
Post reply on HN