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

#291

Post by nkrisc » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

hshshshshsh wrote: post #248

smdyc1 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dunno, knowing the exact relative velocity of the car in front of you seems like it could be useful and is something humans can’t do very well.

I’ve always wanted a car that shows my speed and the relative speed (+/-) of the car in front of me. My car’s cruise control can maintain a set distance so obviously it’s capable of it but it doesn’t show it.

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

#292

Post by neom » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

varenc wrote: post #246

neom wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cross…

As far as I am aware, pes doesn't carry an inherent meaning of travel. Pedestrian just means foot on, they don't need to be moving, they're just not in carriage. As an aside, distinguishing a person's mode of presence is precisely what reports aim to capture.

(I also do tend to avoid this level of pedantry, the points here are all well taken to be clear. I do think the original poster was fine in their comment, I was just sayin' - but this isn't a cross I would die on :))

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

#293

Post by smitty1110 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:51 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…

There’s two things going on here with there average person that you need to overcome: That when Tesla dodges responsibility all anyone sees is a liar, and that people amalgamate all the FSD crashes and treat the system like a dangerous local driver that nobody can get off the road.

Tesla markets FSD like it’s a silver bullet, and the name is truly misleading. The fine print says you need attention and all that. But again, people read “Full Self Driving” and all the marketing copy and think the system is assuming responsibility for the outcomes. Then a crash happens, Tesla throws the driver under the bus, and everyone gets a bit more skeptical of the system. Plus, doing that to a person rubs people the wrong way, and is in some respects a barrier to sales.

Which leads to the other point: People are tallying up all the accidents and treating the system like a person, and wondering why this dangerous driver is still on the road. Most accidents with dead pedestrian start with someone doing something stupid, which is when they assume all responsibility, legally speaking. Drunk, speeding, etc. Normal drivers in poor conditions slow down and drive carefully. People see this accident, and treat FSD like a serial drunk driver. It’s to the point that I know people that openly say they treat teslas on roads like they’re erratic drivers just for existing.

Until Elon figures out how to fix his perception problem, the calls for investigations and to keep his robotaxis is off the road will only grow.

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

#294

Post by pell » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

jfoster wrote: post #250

danans wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There have been other cases in the past where drivers had an accident and claimed they were using autopilot when they actually were not.

Wouldn’t this be protocoled by the event data recorder?

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

#295

Post by rvnx » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:52 PM UTC

frabjoused wrote: post #262

bastawhiz wrote: post #257

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 accelera…

The thing that doesn't make sense is the numbers. If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on? When I did the trial on my Tesla, I also noted these kinds of things and felt like I had to take control. But at the end of the day, only the numbers matter.

There is an easy way to know what is really behind the numbers: look who is paying in case of accident.

You have a Mercedes, Mercedes takes responsibility.

You have a Tesla, you take the responsibility.

Says a lot.

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

#296

Post by gambiting » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:53 PM UTC

esaym wrote: post #275

gambiting wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>. 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…

You can't equate airplane safety with automotive safety. I worked at an aircraft repair facility doing government contracts for a number of years. In one instance, somebody lost the toilet paper holder for one of the aircraft. This holder was simply a piece of 10 gauge wire that was bent in a way to hold it and supported by wire clamps screwed to the wall. Making a new one was easy but since it was a new part going o…

No, I'm pretty sure I can in this regard - any automotive "autopilot" has to be held to the same standard. It's either zero accidents or nothing.

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

#297

Post by jfoster » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:53 PM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #265

jfoster wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did the article say the Tesla didn't stop after the collision?

If it hit the vehicle and then hit one of the people who had exited the vehicle with enough force for it to result in a fatality, it sounds like it might not have applied any braking.

Of course, that depends on the speed it was traveling at to begin with.

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

#298

Post by Rebuff5007 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:53 PM UTC

Tesla testing and developing FSD with normal consumer drivers frankly seems criminal. Test drivers for AV companies get advanced driver training, need to filed detailed reports about the cars response to various driving scenarios, and generally are paid to be as attentive as possible. The fact that any old tech-bro or un-assuming old lady can buy this thing and be on their phone when the car could potentially turn into oncoming traffic is mind boggling.

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

#299

Post by dekhn » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:54 PM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #257

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 accelera…

I don't think you're supposed to merge left when people are merging on the highway into your lane- you have right of way. I find even with the right of way many people merging aren't paying attention, but I deal with that by slightly speeding up (so they can see me in front of them).

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

#300

Post by gambiting » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:54 PM UTC

travem wrote: post #279

gambiting wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>. 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…

> The answer is zero If autopilot is 10x safer then preventing its use would lead to more preventable deaths and injuries than allowing it. I agree that it should be regulated and incidents thoroughly investigated, however letting perfect be the enemy of good leads to stagnation and lack of practical improvement and greater injury to the population as a whole.

>>If autopilot is 10x safer then preventing its use would lead to more preventable deaths and injuries than allowing it.

And yet whenever there is a problem with any plane autopilot it's preemptively disabled fleet wide and pilots have to fly manually even though we absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt know that it's less safe.

If an automated system makes a wrong decision and it contributes to harm/death then it cannot be allowed on public roads full stop, no matter how many lives it saves otherwise.