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

251–260 of 1001 posts

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

#251

Post by gambiting »

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…

>>. How about a quarter? Or a tenth?

The answer is zero. An airplane autopilot has increased the overall safety of airplanes by several orders of magnitude compared to human pilots, but literally no errors in its operation are tolerated, whether they are deadly or not. The exact same standard has to apply to cars or any automated machine for that matter. If there is any issue discovered in any car with this tech then it should be disabled worldwide until the root cause is found and eliminated.

>> 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.

I really don't like this argument, because we could already prevent literally all automotive deaths tomorrow through existing technology and legislation and yet we are choosing not to do this for economic and social reasons.

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

#252

Post by blagie »

jeremyjh wrote: post #244
Arainach wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is very much what I would like to see.

The price of insurance is baked into the price of a car. If the car is as safe as I am, I pay the same price in the end. If it's safer, I pay less.

From my perspective:

1) I would *much* rather have Honda kill someone than myself. If I killed someone, the psychological impact on myself would be horrible. In the city I live in, I dread ageing; as my reflexes get slower, I'm more and more likely to kill someone.

2) As a pedestrian, most of the risk seems to come from outliers -- people who drive hyper-aggressively. Replacing all cars with a median driver would make me much safer (and traffic, much more predictable).

If we want safer cars, we can simply raise insurance payouts, and vice-versa. The market works everything else out.

But my stress levels go way down, whether in a car, on a bike, or on foot.

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

#253

Post by gambiting »

becquerel wrote: post #237
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.

So.........like right now you mean? You need a special licence to drive on a public road right now.

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

#254

Post by jabroni_salad »

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.

Negligence is negligence but people tend to view vehicle collisions as "accidents", as in random occurrences dealt by the hand of fate completely outside of anyone's control. As such, there is a chronic failure to charge motorists with negligence, even when they have killed someone.

If you end up in court, just ask for a jury and you'll be okay. I'm pretty sure this guy didnt even go to court, sounds like it got prosecutor's discretion.

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

#255

Post by szundi »

becquerel wrote: post #240
iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at least 10x better than a human

I believe Waymo has already beaten this metric.

Waymo is limited to cities that their engineers has to map and this map maintained.

You cannot put a waymo in a new city before that. With Tesla, what you get is universal.

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

#256

Post by testfrequency »

I was in a Model 3 Uber yesterday and my driver had to serve onto and up a curb to avoid an (idiot) who was trying to turn into traffic going in the other direction.

The Model 3 had every opportunity in the world to brake and it didn’t, we were probably only going 25mph. I know this is about FSD here, but that moment 100% made me realize Tesla has awful obstacle avoidance.

I just happen to be looking forward and it was a very plain and clear T-Bone avoidance, and at no point did the car handle or trigger anything.

Thankfully everyone was ok, but the front lip got pretty beat up from driving up the curb. Of course the driver at fault that caused the whole incident drove off.

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

#257

Post by bastawhiz »

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous.

- It failed with a cryptic system error while driving

- It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene.

- In my opinion, the default setting accelerates way too aggressively. I'd call myself a fairly aggressive driver and it is too aggressive for my taste.

- It tried to make way too many right turns on red when it wasn't safe to. It would creep into the road, almost into the path of oncoming vehicles.

- It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first place.

- It would switch lanes to go faster on the highway, but then missed an exit on at least one occasion because it couldn't make it back into the right lane in time. Stupid.

After the system error, I lost all trust in FSD from Tesla. Until I ride in one and feel safe, I can't have any faith that this is a reasonable system. Hell, even autopilot does dumb shit on a regular basis. I'm grateful to be getting a car from another manufacturer this year.

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

#258

Post by FireBeyond »

becquerel wrote: post #237
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.

And yet Tesla's FSD never passed a driving test.

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

#259

Post by croes »

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…

> It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable.

Were the Teslas driving under all weather conditions at any location like humans do or is it just cherry picked from the easy travelling conditions?

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

#260

Post by bastawhiz »

frabjoused wrote: post #232

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…

Autopilot is not FSD.
Post reply on HN