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

Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 850 posts

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#251

Post by cmurf »

2bitencryption wrote: post #189
jijojv wrote: post #5

This is gonna be interesting as apparently the "Barrier" [1] bug is only in newer AP2 models per latest A/B tests done by cpddan (who did the very first crash reproduction scenario in Chicago [2]) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0bR_EQ47E Tesla Model X with AP2.5, SW 2018.6.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2Om8Q0IA MS 75, AP1, SW 2018.6.1 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... . "wor…

it definitely has to do with how the lane marker stripe on the road crosses into the other lane at the divider. you can see the Tesla hugs the left line divider. When the lanes split, the line doesn't -- it continues into the opposite lane. Regardless, that's a totally common occurrence on the road. It seems absurd that the car will trust a painted line over any type of radar or imagery showing a rapidly approaching…

Notice in the video where the car DOESN'T head towards the divider, the Tesla autopilot dashboard shows that it can see the car ahead of it.

Sorta ironic. In a sense autopilot is trusting/deferring to the judgment of the driver of the car in front of it for course determination.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#253

Post by mannykannot »

mulmen wrote: post #236
mannykannot wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An airplane under autopilot is not a second or two away from a fatal crash.

The fatal impact may not be seconds away but the event that sets in motion the series of actions that results in that fatal impact may take only seconds.

The issue is how long between the problem first manifesting itself and a crash becoming inevitable. Note that even as short a time as ten seconds is an order of magnitude longer than one second. There are at most only a few rare corner cases in aviation where proper use of the autopilot could take the airplane within a minute of an irretrievable situation that would not have occurred under manual control.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#254

Post by vkou »

mrb wrote: post #135
vkou wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They double down on it because they are shipping a system that is unsafe by design. Their engineers know it, their lawyers know it, and Elon Musk knows it. Blaming the user and pointing to the ToS is their fig leaf against liability. When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless. When it is used as advertised, it is dangerous. They know better, and they don't give a damn. First to market, and all tha…

« When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless » Really? Having an autopilot system with an incredibly fast reaction time able brake/swerve/avoid accidents faster than humans is "useless"?

According to the TOS, and given Tesla's statements, the system needs to be supervised by a 100% attentive human 24/7. From what we know of human physiology, and what we have observed from previous self-driving crashes, this level of attentiveness is impossible to maintain... Without being the one actively driving the car.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#255

Post by imh »

waitwhatt wrote: post #211
imh wrote: post #116

It should be noted that the 40% crash reduction they keep quoting is done with an extremely simplistic analysis and is only a brief paragraph of the full report. https://www.scribd.com/embeds/337007075/content?start_page=1... It's not nearly as definitive as people (and Tesla) seem to claim it as. edit: The full analysis (from page 10 of the link): >5.4 Crash rates. ODI analyzed mileage and airbag deployment data sup…

I would argue that the people who can afford a Tesla are rich people and thus likely well educated and are safer drivers. Poor people with bad cars, no education and unsafe driving practices probably have more accidents. I don't think these stats mean much.

It's not as bad as that. It looks their methods could take that into account, they just don't detail anything. I copied the analysis from the report into my original comment, so it's clearer what they did.

There's still no proper control, because people driving habits (and many other things) change with time and a before/after analysis has selection bias with time. Maybe they get used to the car as time goes on and crash less, for example. A nice way to get around this would be to look at people who didn't get autopilot and see how the autopilot reduction compares to the non-autopilot reduction (difference in differences). Only then can you start to say it may be due to autopilot, and it's still a fuzzy statement.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#256

Post by chipotle_coyote »

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #193
tathastu wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla's autopilot page ( https://www.tesla.com/autopilot ) says (as of today): Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

While it might imply otherwise, the message is clear about the _hardware_ being ready for self-driving. That doesn't mean the car is capable of self-driving in general.

"This television's hardware is ready for 4K. The television is not capable of displaying 4K in general."

"This speaker's hardware is ready for stereo sound. The speaker is not capable of playing stereo music in general."

"This smartphone's hardware is ready for multitouch input. The phone is not capable of responding to multitouch input in general."

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#257

Post by 2bitencryption »

cmurf wrote: post #251
2bitencryption wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it definitely has to do with how the lane marker stripe on the road crosses into the other lane at the divider. you can see the Tesla hugs the left line divider. When the lanes split, the line doesn't -- it continues into the opposite lane. Regardless, that's a totally common occurrence on the road. It seems absurd that the car will trust a painted line over any type of radar or imagery showing a rapidly approaching…

Notice in the video where the car DOESN'T head towards the divider, the Tesla autopilot dashboard shows that it can see the car ahead of it. Sorta ironic. In a sense autopilot is trusting/deferring to the judgment of the driver of the car in front of it for course determination.

I can see why that seems sensible, in a bizarre way.

There's a car ahead of us. It took Path A and didn't crash into a deadly wall.

Therefore, if we also take Path A, we won't crash into a deadly wall, regardless of what any paint on the ground says.

but damn, tighten this stuff up when people's lives are on the line, please.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#258

Post by ansible »

thebluehawk wrote: post #243
ansible wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Radar is not active if the speed is higher than a specific threshold; it looks like it is written on the manual. I'm having trouble understanding why that would be the case. Why anyone wouldn't want the radar active when going down the highway. It is not as if it doesn't work at highway speed...

That's because he is wrong. The radar is active at all speeds. In my experience, the radar basically only identifies cars and car shaped objects.

Radar on the Teslas, if it works like how I am familiar with, just detects "things". Things that have a decent radar return. This class of things does indeed include cars and other vehicles, but should also include walls and such.

It is likely that they're using at least 2-D radar, so the system should be able to discriminate between an object directly in the path of travel, and one that is off to the side.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#259

Post by ClassyJacket »

John_KZ wrote: post #89
otoburb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If the system detects that hands are not on, it provides visual and auditory alerts. This happened several times on Mr. Huang's drive that day. If the system detects that hands are not on the wheel, perhaps something else should be done that will incentivize the driver to disengage Autopilot. Perhaps, send warnings alerts to law enforcement, insurance companies, or emergency contacts? Not sure what the fallback pr…

>perhaps something else should be done that will incentivize the driver to disengage Autopilot. There's a very simple solution: Don't fucking include it in the car. Require the users to show up at the car dealership and sign a legal waiver to allow the activation of the new, insecure, and dangerous feature. There are no cars on the road with airbags that sometimes work and sometimes cause 3rd degree burns. There are…

"There are no cars on the road with airbags that sometimes work and sometimes cause 3rd degree burns."

... What about the millions of cars being recalled right now for deadly faulty Takata airbags?

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#260

Post by lorenzorhoades »

almost_usual wrote: post #249
fapjacks wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem. But I think you're right. I think the "best" way to move forward unt…

> I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem. I generally agree with this philosophy but this is very optimistic…

I think there is a key point that will result in the freedom of being able to drive being stripped long before assault rifles. Imagine if i create a private road from SF to LA and say that only self driving cars can drive on it. The vehicles on this road are all inter-connected, allowing them to travel at speeds in excess of 150+ MPH, and since the road that i've created is completely flat it still allows it to be a smooth ride. But if i allow cars who's actions can't be predicted (Car driven by a human), it then becomes impossible to safely drive at these speeds. So me, and the road owner, bans cars driven by people on my private toll road. As this becomes more prelevent, i will no longer have the want or need to drive my own car because then it takes me 6 Hours to get to LA instead of 2. All the while there no reason for me to get rid of my assault rifle, because i really enjoy firing it out the window of my self-driving car at 150MPH on the way to LA.
Post reply on HN