US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by willy_k » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:22 PM UTC

daghamm wrote: post #18

MadnessASAP wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The why is pretty well understood, no investigation needed. I don't like the design but it's because the doors are electronic and people don't know where the manual release is. In a panic people go on muscle memory, which is push the useless button. They don't remember to pull the unmarked unobtrusive handle that they may not even know exists. If it was up to me, sure have your electronic release, but make the manual…

There are situations where manual release has not worked https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-manually-open-tesla-d...

The article you provided does not say that. The only failure related to the manual release it mentions is that using it breaks the window.

> Exton said he followed the instructions for the manual release to open the door, but that this "somehow broke the driver's window."

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

#232

Post by frabjoused » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:22 PM UTC

I don't understand why this debate/probing is not just data driven. Driving is all big data.

https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

This report does not include fatalities, which seems to be the key point in question. Unless the above report has some bias or is false, Teslas in autopilot appear 10 times safer than the US average.

Is there public data on deaths reported by Tesla?

And otherwise, if the stats say it is safer, why is there any debate at all?

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

#233

Post by iovrthoughtthis » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #226

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 se…

at least 10x better than a human

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

#234

Post by Moombla » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #229

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…

[dead]

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

#235

Post by triyambakam » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #226

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 se…

Hesitation around self-driving technology is not just about the raw accident rate, but the nature of the accidents. Self-driving failures often involve highly visible, preventable mistakes that seem avoidable by a human (e.g., failing to stop for an obvious obstacle). Humans find such incidents harder to tolerate because they can seem fundamentally different from human error.

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

#236

Post by Moombla » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #221

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.

[dead]

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

#237

Post by becquerel » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #226

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 se…

My dream is of a future where humans are banned from driving without special licenses.

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

#238

Post by pmorici » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:25 PM UTC

smdyc1 wrote: post #224

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, human…

The Tesla knows when it's cameras and blinded by sun and act accordingly or tells the human to take over.

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

#239

Post by vortegne » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:25 PM UTC

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.

You shouldn't be on the road then? If you can't see, you should slow down. If you can't handle driving in given conditions safely for everyone involved, you should slow down or stop. If everybody would drive like you, there'd be a whole lot more death on the roads.

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

#240

Post by becquerel » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:25 PM UTC

iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #233

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #226

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 se…

at least 10x better than a human

I believe Waymo has already beaten this metric.