An Update on Last Week’s Accident • Hacker News Board

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#261

Post by irq11 » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:55 PM UTC

heliodor wrote: post #260

irq11 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.” This is critical. No matter how many notices you give, slamming into something at speed is the wrong answer. It’s almost unbelievable that they’re trying to use that as an excuse.

I'm finding it hard to believe the wording on this crucial sentence was so misleading by accident. Upon first reading it, the wording seemed a little off and seemed to me that the two statements should have been two separate sentences instead.

Even then, I fail to see how it’s relevant information.

I’m supposed to trust an “autopilot” that warns me six seconds before it slams me into a wall?

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#262

Post by zethraeus » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 12:59 PM UTC

obeattie wrote: post #224

To me there is a stunning lack of compassion and decency in the response to these incidents by both Tesla and Uber. Uber made sure to point out that the victim of their incident was homeless. Tesla is pointing out how the driver received unrelated cues earlier in the journey. None of this information is relevant. They’re trying to bamboozle the reader in an effort to improve their images at the expense of victims who…

Could you source the assertion that Uber (as opposed to the local police) has indicated the victim in the crash was homeless?

(That would be an inexcusable and cynical deflection.)

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#263

Post by emiliobumachar » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:03 PM UTC

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #5

Really not much additional info here aside from the number of warnings the driver had. Also, the standard "Tesla is 10x safer" metrics that get pulled out each time a crash gets sensationalized. What I think they fail to address, especially in this case, is that the autopilot did something a human driver who was paying attention would never do. Autopilot does a great job of saving people from things even a wary drive…

"the autopilot did something a human driver who was paying attention would never do"

"this isn't an average accident statistic, a lapse in attention or evasive maneuvering. "

"That's not a mistake a healthy human will make."

Almost every driver thinks they're significantly better than average. Few are.

If a human driver's lapse of attention causes a similar crash, how much less of a tragedy is it just because we can less ambiguously blame the victim?

My opinion is that the statistics compare just fine.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#264

Post by misun78 » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:03 PM UTC

zethraeus wrote: post #262

obeattie wrote: post #224

To me there is a stunning lack of compassion and decency in the response to these incidents by both Tesla and Uber. Uber made sure to point out that the victim of their incident was homeless. Tesla is pointing out how the driver received unrelated cues earlier in the journey. None of this information is relevant. They’re trying to bamboozle the reader in an effort to improve their images at the expense of victims who…

Could you source the assertion that Uber (as opposed to the local police) has indicated the victim in the crash was homeless? (That would be an inexcusable and cynical deflection.)

Uber never came out mentioning the homelessness of the person. The police did. This is typical HN banter on Uber, thanks for calling it out.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#265

Post by crdoconnor » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:07 PM UTC

vizzah wrote: post #252

barnabes wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but it seems that they may be, statistically speaking, right. The fears that surround self driving cars may be unfounded, and if they are unfounded, then it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They're right when they say we don't speak of the accidents that didn't happen, and I bet there's a ton of them. As someone who's been in multiple car crashes, as a passenger, I really on longer wan…

Exactly. It's very important to ensure negative (and unjustified!) publicity do not affect technology perception, adoption and growth. There are so many Luddites who take every chance to hammer another nail.. It's understandable that any tech pioneer can easily sense being attacked and has to quiveringly rebuff any hysteria attempts.

The main thing that would make me convinced of the safety of self driving cars would be if the executives of self driving car companies took criminal liability for accidents caused by their cars or software.

When the cost of them killing somebody by having a deficient QA process is minimal (and just affects shareholders), then the cars will be rolled out before they are ready.

What will happen to liability at present is still unclear but if the self driving car companies are successful in dodging most of it (and it appears they are trying) then self driving cars are going to kill a lot of people unnecessarily - quite possibly more than humans would.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#266

Post by heavenlyblue » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:09 PM UTC

leggomylibro wrote: post #109

meganibla wrote: post #107

I’m not saying it happened here because I don’t know any details about the person but there could be something like suicide by Tesla People could purposely set their cars on collision courses

Doesn't seem like a great idea. It would probably fall under the usual ~29/30 chance you wind up in the hospital with more problems instead of succeeding, and with all those lithium batteries you'd have a good chance of going out burning which I think most people would prefer to avoid. At that point, why not just drive off a cliff or find a tall building?

And besides, a car w/out an autopilot is probably easier to crash into a wall.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#267

Post by obeattie » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:13 PM UTC

heliodor wrote: post #260

irq11 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”Nor does it explain the fact the car plowed into a barrier.” This is critical. No matter how many notices you give, slamming into something at speed is the wrong answer. It’s almost unbelievable that they’re trying to use that as an excuse.

I'm finding it hard to believe the wording on this crucial sentence was so misleading by accident. Upon first reading it, the wording seemed a little off and seemed to me that the two statements should have been two separate sentences instead.

I'm willing (and almost hope) to be proven wrong on this, but I personally find it hard to believe that the ambiguity around this in the statement is accidental. A statement of this nature will have been extensively wordsmithed.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#268

Post by makomk » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:19 PM UTC

1123581321 wrote: post #49

jijojv wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 40% has nothing to do with Autopilot and applies to any cars with auto braking. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says automatic braking — which can bring the car to a stop if it senses an imminent collision — can reduce rear-end crashes by 40 percent.

My bad -- I thought that was one of the features of Autopilot. It still looks like the safety improved after the Autopilot rollout, but hopefully some public numbers with more granularity in regards to these software features can be released.

Tesla likes to market their version of automatic braking as part of Autopilot because it makes the safety of Autopilot look better, but it's a fairly common feature that is available on many models of cars, that the entire industry plans to make standard on all new cars in a few years, and that operates even when Autopilot mode - the controversial feature that drives Teslas into concrete barriers and trucks - is not engaged.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#269

Post by pfarnsworth » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:19 PM UTC

obeattie wrote: post #224

To me there is a stunning lack of compassion and decency in the response to these incidents by both Tesla and Uber. Uber made sure to point out that the victim of their incident was homeless. Tesla is pointing out how the driver received unrelated cues earlier in the journey. None of this information is relevant. They’re trying to bamboozle the reader in an effort to improve their images at the expense of victims who…

That is utter bullshit that Uber said the victim was homeless. It was the police chief, Uber never mentioned it once and their response was completely appropriate.

Re: An Update on Last Week’s Accident

#270

Post by corey_moncure » Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 1:22 PM UTC

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #5

Really not much additional info here aside from the number of warnings the driver had. Also, the standard "Tesla is 10x safer" metrics that get pulled out each time a crash gets sensationalized. What I think they fail to address, especially in this case, is that the autopilot did something a human driver who was paying attention would never do. Autopilot does a great job of saving people from things even a wary drive…

>That's not a mistake a healthy human will make.

This statement is meaningless circular logic. You can handwave away any incident with a human driver by saying he wasn't "healthy".

A human pilot has intentionally driven an airplane full of passengers into the ground with full control because he wanted to kill himself. The airline believed he was "healthy".