Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by toast0 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

ypzhang2 wrote: post #172

The issue with the statements from Tesla is that they seem to prioritize PR and obfuscation before actual relevant factual statements. The fact that the driver received disengagement warnings prior in the drive is not very relevant to the accident per se. Might as well say the driver has received multiple disengagement warnings during his ownership of the Tesla. It is not relevant to the actual circumstances of the a…

> The issue with the statements from Tesla is that they seem to prioritize PR and obfuscation before actual relevant factual statements.

The issue with their statements is that they have no problem throwing their customers under the bus. The proper release is simply "We are investigating the circumstances of this tragic event in cooperation with the NTSB. something something nice words about the family"

If pushed, refuse to discuss the issue while it's under investigation. This is a perfectly justifiable position, lots of groups don't make statements while an issue is under investigation; and you let the NTSB report throw the customer under the bus.

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

#282

Post by fmihaila » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

omega3 wrote: post #275

fmihaila wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla is extremely clear that these are only driver assistance features Promoting the system with the name 'Autopilot' is, to my mind, quite a bit less than extremely clear communication. This name provides Tesla's critics with a constant line of attack, which will continue right up until they reach level 5. I consider myself a hardcore Tesla fan but I think they've botched their messaging, and this latest statemen…

Are you really suggesting that highly educated software engineer got "confused"?

> Are you really suggesting that highly educated software engineer got "confused"?

No, not at all; the discussion I was responding to was specifically about Tesla's messaging (see my other comments at [1] and [2]).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16815827

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16815563

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

#283

Post by dbasedweeb » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

keepper wrote: post #280

Ryudas wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this argument so often. Autopilot has never been a term for autonomous, just as its used in aviation. Just because people don't know the proper term or have an erroneous idea of the term, doesn't mean tesla has to have the burden of people misinterpreting what it says.

Uh, yes, they do. See, I'm not sure if you know this... but most people are not Pilots.. ( disclaimer, I'm not only a programmer, but also hold an A&P and avionics license, as well as a few engine ratings ). It is ABSOLUTELY on a manufacturer to make sure their potentially life ending feature, is not named in a way that can confuse the target audience. You know. NON PILOT car drivers. auto means "by itself, automatic…

Arguing with Tesla/Musk fanatics now is like arguing with Facebook/Zuck fanatics was ten years ago, or saying that a Google was bad news in their “don’t be evil” days. You’re right, but only time and loads of evidence will convince some people that what they desperately want to believe isn’t true.

Of course “Autopilot” is intended to evoke the common meaning as a marketing tool, and not the nuanced, highly technical meaning understood by pilots. Understand though, that when someone argues against that point the pedantry is just a proxy for their fanaticism, and until the fanaticism dies, the excuses will be generated de novo. You’re bringing reason and logic to an emotional fight.

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

#284

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #278

CPLX wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing you're describing is called a train.

Are you going to having a train running every few minutes to really make the delays comparable? And you need a fleet of rental cars so that people can actually get to their destination. What's the relative cost of all that vs. pavement?

I'm pretty sure that the rail is more expensive... until you start paying for the gas for all the cars. Railroads kill highways on energy efficiency.

If the cars are electric, I'm less sure.

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

#285

Post by plussed_reader » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

I think autopilot is worth it if it cuts down the drunk driving rate.

I can't imagine the edge cases that result in fatality for Autopilot would be greater than the damage done by drunk driving.

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

#286

Post by Rebelgecko » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

tathastu wrote: post #106

eridius wrote: post #8

I have to wonder why Tesla keeps doubling down on victim-blaming. Is this a case of Elon Musk being insecure about criticism (since he's demonstrated a tendency in the past to react poorly to it)? Or is Tesla trying to actually lower their legal liability? Edit: To clarify, in most of these crashes, it's usually a combination of Tesla's fault and the driver's fault. Which is to say, the driver could have avoided the…

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.

That seems like an incredibly misleading way to market it. I could throw a LIDAR[0] and some cameras on my car and say "wow I have all the hardware necessary for autonomy". That's irrelevant if self-driving is dependent on some software updates that are coming at an unspecified point in the future (or gradually over time, with some surprise regressions like this one along the way).

[0] Tesla thinks they'll have full self driving with just cameras but I'm not convinced. Regardless of how level 4+ autonomy is achieved, there's still some serious work that needs to happen on the software side

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

#287

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

ptaipale wrote: post #222

skrause wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planes don't suddenly crash into a mountain because you have looked away for two seconds, there is much more time to react in case the autopilot doesn't behave correctly.

They can very suddenly crash into another plane because you have looked away for two seconds. It has actually happened (though nowadays, technology has made it easier to avoid these accidents).

Planes are supposed to maintain a 5 mile separation distance. You aren't going to break that down in two seconds. (But head on, with both planes traveling 600 MPH, you can do it in 15 seconds. But both pilots would have to be inattentive for that time.)

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

#288

Post by throwaway2048 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:21 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #180

txcwpalpha wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone elsewhere in this thread put it, this is a case where silicon valley's posterchild slogan "move fast and break things" has turned into a reality of "move fast and end lives". Fast updates can be a great thing, but companies (in this case, Tesla) need to do a better job of figuring out when to apply this mentality of "move fast" and when to instead apply a mentality of "move slower because even the slightes…

It is the classic trolley[1] problem and Tesla is flipping the switch on the tracks. I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths. Considering there has only been two confirmed fatalities in which autopilot was partially at fault (AFAIK), I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended". Whether that is the right ethical or…

there is also no indication that it is _saving_ lives either, stats that are about easy, relatively safe situations, where humans take over when challenges occur are not any kind of meaningful indicator.

Not to mention the market telsa courts self selects for safer driving in general (rich, and informed).

To act like this is a clearcut case of the trolley dilemma and telsa is making a moral choice that saves life is misinformed bordering on disingenous.

There is a huge amount of indication that Telsa is acting both irresponsibly (refusing to admit fault, when its clear fault exists, refusing to address concerns, only answering with deflections), and recklessly (misleading marketing about fully capable autodriving hardware, calling a system that requires constant, careful manual attention "autopilot", enabling it by default, absolutely refusing to back down even a little)

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

#289

Post by Rychard » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:21 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #277

Ryudas wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this argument so often. Autopilot has never been a term for autonomous, just as its used in aviation. Just because people don't know the proper term or have an erroneous idea of the term, doesn't mean tesla has to have the burden of people misinterpreting what it says.

Do you believe Tesla bears the burden of maintaining its own homepage? tesla.com/autopilot currently has "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" as its top headline and has had that for awhile now.

Well, they do have the hardware, that isn't the issue.

The cars simply lack the software to enable a fully autonomous vehicle. The phrasing indicates that if/when the software becomes available, the car would be theoretically capable of driving itself.

It's just a typical misleading marketing blurb; nothing more.

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

#290

Post by mulmen » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:22 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #253

mulmen wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not a pilot so I do not know the most dangerous situations when flying under autopilot. What I was trying to emphasize is that even under autopilot airplanes require constant attention. My understanding is that if the pilot or co-pilot leaves the cockpit for any reason the remaining pilot puts on an oxygen mask in case of decompression because the time frame before blackout is so tiny. The point is that autopilot in aviation is a tool that can be employed by pilots but cannot function safely on its own. From this viewpoint Tesla's Autopilot is accurately named although the public does not have the same understanding.