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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by rvnx »

bastawhiz wrote: post #274
frabjoused wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is Tesla required to report system failures or the vehicle damaging itself? How do we know they're not optimizing for the benchmark (what they're legally required to report)?

If the question is: “was FSD activated at the time of the accident: yes/no”, they can legally claim no, for example if luckily the FSD disconnects half a second before a dangerous situation (eg: glare obstructing cameras), which may coincide exactly with the times of some accidents.

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

#302

Post by gambiting »

nkrisc wrote: post #289
gambiting wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem is it’s obviously too easy to get one and keep one, based on some of the drivers I see on the road.

That sounds like a legislative problem where you live, sure it can be fixed by overbearing technology but we already have all the tools we need to fix it, we are just choosing not to for some reason.

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

#303

Post by blargey »

akira2501 wrote: post #276
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…

> traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. It's completely acceptable. In fact the numbers are lower than they have been since we've started driving. > Accidents caused by human drivers Are there any other types of drivers? > are one of the largest causes of injury and death More than half the fatalities on the road are actually caused by the use of drugs and alcohol. The statistics are very clear on thi…

> Non impaired people drive orders of magnitude better.

That raises the question - how many impaired driver-miles are being baked into the collision statistics for "median human" driver-miles? Shouldn't we demand non-impaired driving as the standard for automation, rather than "averaged with drunk / phone-fiddling /senile" driving? We don't give people N-mile allowances for drunk driving based on the size of the drunk driver population, after all.

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

#304

Post by lawn »

valval wrote: post #190
two_handfuls wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried it. It drives worse than a teenager. There is absolutely no way this can safely drive a car without supervision.

It’s been safer than a human driver for years. It’s also not meant to be unsupervised.

Safer than a human driver...

According to Tesla.

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

#305

Post by _ea1k »

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…

The report from Tesla is very biased. It doesn't normalize for the difficulty of the conditions involved, and is basically for marketing purposes.

IMO, the challenge for NHTSA is that they can get tremendous detail from Tesla but not from other makes. This will make it very difficult for them to get a solid baseline for collisions due to glare in non-FSD equipped vehicles.

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

#306

Post by ablation »

macintux wrote: post #219
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.

I have no idea what the conditions were like for this incident, but I’ve blown through a 4-way stop sign when the sun was setting. There’s only so much sunglasses can do.

Yet so much more YOU could have done, don’t you think?

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

#307

Post by _ea1k »

xqcgrek2 wrote: post #270

[flagged]

In this case, I do not think so. NHTSA generally does an excellent job of looking at the big picture without bias.

Although I must admit that their last investigation felt like an exception. The changes that they enforced seemed to be fairly dubious.

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

#308

Post by RivieraKid »

szundi wrote: post #255
becquerel wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Waymo is robust to removing the map / lidars / radars / cameras or adding inaccuracies to any of these 4 inputs.

(Not sure if this is true for the production system or the one they're still working on.)

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

#309

Post by rKarpinski »

Retric wrote: post #221
rKarpinski wrote: post #217

'Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading "Two vehicles collided on the freeway, blocking the left lane. A Toyota 4Runner stopped, and two people got out to help with traffic control. A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one of the people who exited from it. " edit: Parent article was changed... I was referring to the title of the NPR article.

More clarity may change people’s opinion of the accident, but IMO pedestrian meaningfully represents someone who is limited to human locomotion and lacks any sort of protection in a collision. Which seems like a reasonable description of the type of failure involved in the final few seconds before impact.

Omitting that the pedestrian was on a freeway meaningfully mis-represents the situation.

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

#310

Post by SahAssar »

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.

We are "designed" (via evolution) to perceive and understand the environment around us. The signage is designed to be easily readable for us.

The models that drive these cars clearly either have some more evolution to do or for us to design the world more to their liking.

Post reply on HN