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

#241

Post by Arainach » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:25 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…

This is about lying to the public and stoking false expectations for years.

If it's "fully self driving" Tesla should be liable for when its vehicles kill people. If it's not fully self driving and Tesla keeps using that name in all its marketing, regardless of any fine print, then Tesla should be liable for people acting as though their cars could FULLY self drive and be sued accordingly.

You don't get to lie just because you're allegedly safer than a human.

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

#242

Post by alexjplant » 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.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If I can't see because of rain, hail, intense sun reflections, frost re-forming on my windshield, etc. then I pull over and put my flashers on until the problem subsides. Should I have kept the 4700 lb vehicle in fifth gear at 55 mph without the ability to see in front of me in each of these instances? I submit that I should not have and that I did the right thing.

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

#243

Post by plorg » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:26 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…

I would think one relevant factor is that human vision is different than and in some ways significantly better than cameras.

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

#244

Post by jeremyjh » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:28 PM UTC

Arainach wrote: post #241

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…

This is about lying to the public and stoking false expectations for years. If it's "fully self driving" Tesla should be liable for when its vehicles kill people. If it's not fully self driving and Tesla keeps using that name in all its marketing, regardless of any fine print, then Tesla should be liable for people acting as though their cars could FULLY self drive and be sued accordingly. You don't get to lie just b…

I think this is the answer: the company takes on full liability. If a Tesla is Fully Self Driving then Tesla is driving it. The insurance market will ensure that dodgy software/hardware developers exit the industry.

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

#245

Post by neom » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:28 PM UTC

szundi wrote: post #228

neom wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean it's the literal language they use in the report[1]. Personally, would much prefer a publication to be technically correct, a person on foot on a motorway is referred to as a pedestrian, that is the name for that.

[1]https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2024/INOA-PE24031-23232.pdf

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

#246

Post by varenc » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:28 PM UTC

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.

By a stricter definition, a pedestrian is one who travels by foot. Of course, they are walking, but they’re traveling via their car, so by some interpretations you wouldn’t call them a pedestrian. You could call them a “motorist” or a “stranded vehicle occupant”.

For understanding the accident it does seem meaningful that they were motorists that got out of their car on a highway and not pedestrians at a street crossing. (Still inexcusable of course, but changes the context)

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

#247

Post by tharant » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:29 PM UTC

maeil wrote: post #184

m463 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's called "Full Self Driving (Supervised)"

The part in parentheses has only recently been added.

Prior to that, FSD was labeled ‘Full Self Driving (Beta)’ and enabling it triggered a modal that required two confirmations explaining that the human driver must always pay attention and is ultimately responsible for the vehicle. The feature also had/has active driver monitoring (via both vision and steering-torque sensors) that would disengage FSD if the driver ignored the loud audible alarm to “Pay attention”. Since changing the label to ‘(Supervised)’, the audible nag is significantly reduced.

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

#248

Post by hshshshshsh » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:30 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…

I think one of the reasons they focus only on vision is basically the entire transportation infra is designed using human eyes a primary way to channel information.

Useful information for driving are communicated through images in form of road signs, traffic signals etc.

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

#249

Post by crazygringo » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:30 PM UTC

triyambakam wrote: post #235

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.

Exactly -- it's not just the overall accident rate, but the rate per accident type.

Imagine if self-driving is 10x safer on freeways, but on the other hand is 3x more likely to run over your dog in the driveway.

Or it's 5x safer on city streets overall, but actually 2x worse in rain and ice.

We're fundamentally wired for loss aversion. So I'd say it's less about what the total improvement rate is, and more about whether it has categorizable scenarios where it's still worse than a human.

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

#250

Post by jfoster » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:31 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…

The description has me wondering if this was definitely a case where FSD was being used. There have been other cases in the past where drivers had an accident and claimed they were using autopilot when they actually were not.

I don't know for sure, but I would think that the car could detect a collision. I also don't know for sure, but I would think that FSD would stop once a collision has been detected.