Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#301

Post by tremon » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:41 AM UTC

kbart wrote: post #136

turbohedgehog wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the driver is medically incapacitated?

You have to pass a medical examination to get a driving license. Driving while medically incapacitated is irresponsible and illegal the same as driving drunk or on drugs. Unless we have a real self driving car, which Tesla is clearly not.

Driving while medically incapacitated is irresponsible

Sane people don't set out to drive while medically incapacitated. That doesn't mean it can't happen while on the road (heart attack, TIA, severe allergic reaction to e.g. a bug).

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#302

Post by gkya » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:44 AM UTC

Draiken wrote: post #298

a3n wrote: post #86

I don't understand why Tesla is allowed to release a safety critical system on to the roads when it requires buyers to acknowledge its not-finishedness. They're putting beta systems into an uncontrolled environment. No driver in the nearby lanes has been given that choice.

Am I the only one that thinks people should be held responsible for their own choices? This argument is completely bogus. No driver in the nearby lanes is aware the other driver is drunk, a bad driver or emotionally unstable. The entire idea of beta testing is to have your system on an "uncontrolled environment". The system has bugs, as any beta system does, and whoever uses it should be fully responsible for it. Yes…

"Tell me what's the difference between using a beta system and not caring (leaving hands off the wheel, etc) and drunk driving?"

The latter is a clearly defined criminal offence whereas the former is currently unclear. While the driver is certainly liable for reckless driving, that the marketing seems to have suggested that the feature is usable, is a fact.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#303

Post by throwaway7767 » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:47 AM UTC

Draiken wrote: post #298

a3n wrote: post #86

I don't understand why Tesla is allowed to release a safety critical system on to the roads when it requires buyers to acknowledge its not-finishedness. They're putting beta systems into an uncontrolled environment. No driver in the nearby lanes has been given that choice.

Am I the only one that thinks people should be held responsible for their own choices? This argument is completely bogus. No driver in the nearby lanes is aware the other driver is drunk, a bad driver or emotionally unstable. The entire idea of beta testing is to have your system on an "uncontrolled environment". The system has bugs, as any beta system does, and whoever uses it should be fully responsible for it. Yes…

Comparing this to a drunk driver is not relevant, as driving drunk is already illegal, whereas autopilot is not.

> We can discuss if they should try to improve how they handle people that remove their hands from the wheel, but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately the choice to be careless was made by the driver, not the car manufacturer.

Yes, the driver is to blame for that, just as tesla is to blame for allowing that to happen in the first place. They have sensors to detect whether the driver has his hands on the wheel, and yet they allow the vehicle to keep going for minutes in a situation it can't control.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#304

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:48 AM UTC

Can someone who has a Tesla answer this for me:

Does the autopilot routinely alert for short duration events where it's confused but the situation passes quickly and it's not a problem or is there a very low false positive rate and an alert is pretty much a guarantee that you'll need to take over?

Basically, does the system train you to ignore most alerts because of a high false positive ratio?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#305

Post by obj-g » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:56 AM UTC

I just really don't understand the whole self-driving car craze. What is so attractive about it? Why do people want it so badly? Personally, I like driving, rarely even use cruise control. I would never fully trust these auto-pilots. Ever. So what's the point? If I can't crawl into the backseat and take a nap and wake up at my destination, then what's the use?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#306

Post by throwaway7767 » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:56 AM UTC

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #234

azernik wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But OTA updates can disable the feature, which is the essential safety response right now. Even if they wanted to recall and add sensors, I don't think that would make this system safe enough - the bigger issue is the human factor involved in a not-quite-good-enough autonomous vehicle.

With the PS/Linux decision, not sure they can just 'disable' the feature.

The most likely reason I see for them disabling the feature in OTA would be if countries pass legislation forcing them to. In that case, the car owner would likely not have recourse like in the PS/Linux case since they were legally required to remove it.

To be honest, I'm really surprised this hasn't happened in EU countries. If you'd asked me 10 years ago whether the EU would allow their entire road system to be used for a public beta test of half-baked semi-auto driving systems, I'd have said there is no way. Yet tesla just went ahead and pushed that feature out in a firmware update and noone really seems to have challenged them on it. I expect with this recent coverage, we'll see that.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#307

Post by madaxe_again » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:56 AM UTC

HNaTTY wrote: post #132

greendestiny wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again Tesla have made the discussion about the driver. They have put an auto-control system out in the wild that steers the car into hard obstacles at high speed. Beeps to warn the driver at some stage in the preceding interval do not make this control systems failure any more acceptable. It still misjudged situation as acceptable to continue and it still drove into obstacles. Those are significant failures and…

I agree; I think it's despicable that Tesla is acting in such a defensive manner. -- "No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel. "As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel," sa…

Suppose I'm driving a "normal" car. I have my hands on the wheel, but I am reading a book. I hit a tree.

Is the auto-maker responsible? They advertised the car as having cruise control.

Call me old, but I remember similar hysteria when cruise control systems started appearing. People honestly thought it would be like autopilot or better - and ploughed into highway dividers, forests, other traffic, you name it, at 55mph.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#308

Post by ben_jones » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:02 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #267

ben_jones wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans write the software that powers computers FYI.

It's the reaction times I don't trust. And the ability to judge distances precisely enough.

It's their BAC and amount of sleep I don't trust. Also the prescription medication, the status of any relationships they might have, and the competency of their managers.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#309

Post by userbinator » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:03 AM UTC

cpncrunch wrote: post #92

oconnore wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this sort of auto->manual transition of control does not work [1]. 1: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Robots-Ourselves-Robotics-Autonom...

Actually, that's precisely how (real) autopilots work. If the autopilot can't reliably continue flying (e.g. in extreme turbulence, severe icing, or failure of some part of the system), it will immediately disengage with a loud warning sound, and the pilot has to take immediate control.

Even then, the pilots usually have more than a second to react. As fast as planes fly, they're high enough and there's plenty of empty space around them when they're cruising.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#310

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:04 AM UTC

ekidd wrote: post #299

wyldfire wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or in fact a legitimate reason to swerve? Reasoning about what's legitimate can be a really fine line. Oncoming car, raccoon, fawn, human, doe, coyote, elk: some of these obstacles might actually be net-safer to not swerve around [perhaps depending on speed]. I'd be really curious if any of the autopilots have a value system that tries to minimize damage/loss of life. And how does it value the exterior obstacle aga…

> elk I'm pretty sure that hitting a full-grown elk is a poor choice, and often a fatal one. A large, full-grown elk can weigh 600 pounds and stand 5 feet tall at the shoulder, which means it will probably go over the crumple zone and directly strike the windshield. This happens commonly with moose in New England, which run up to 800 pounds and 6.5 feet tall at the shoulder. A car will knock their legs out from under…

The cost of swerving is very, very minimal (especially in a modern car that won't go sideways no matter what you do).

Imagine a two lane road with a car traveling toward an obstruction in its lane. The distance required to get the car out of the obstructed lane via the steering wheel is much less than stopping it via the brakes.

There's a reason performance driving has the concept of brakes being an aid to your steering wheel as opposed to being operated as a standalone system.