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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by potato3732842 »

sangnoir wrote: post #311
dekhn wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You don't have a right of way over a slow moving vehicle that merged ahead of you. Most ramps are not long enough to allow merging traffic to accelerate to highway speeds before merging, so many drivers free up the right-most lane for this purpose (by merging left)

Most ramps are more than long enough to accelerate close enough to traffic speed if one wants to, especially in most modern vehicles.

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

#322

Post by danans »

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…

> The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it.

It's pretty simple: as good as it can be given available technologies and techniques, without sacrificing safety for cost or style.

With AVs, function and safety should obviate concerns of style, cost, and marketing. If that doesn't work with your business model, well tough luck.

Airplanes are far safer than cars yet we subject their manufacturers to rigorous standards, or seemingly did until recently, as the 737 max saga has revealed. Even still the rigor is very high compared to road vehicles.

And AVs do have to be way better than people at driving because they are machines that have no sense of human judgement, though they operate in a human physical context.

Machines run by corporations are less accountable than human drivers, not at the least because of the wealth and legal armies of those corporations who may have interests other than making the safest possible AV.

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

#323

Post by mavhc »

danans wrote: post #322
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…

> The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's pretty simple: as good as it can be given available technologies and techniques, without sacrificing safety for cost or style. With AVs, function and safety should obviate concerns of style, cost, and marketing. If that doesn't work with your business model, well tough luck. Airplanes are far safer than cars yet we subject t…

Surely the number of cars than can do it, and the price, also matters, unless you're going to ban private cars

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

#324

Post by potato3732842 »

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.

This sort of framing you're engaging in is exactly what the person you're replying to is complaining about.

Yeah, the person who got hit was technically a pedestrian but just using that word with no other context doesn't covey that it was a pedestrian on a limited access highway vs somewhere pedestrians are allowed and expected. Without additional explanation people assume normalcy and think that the pedestrian was crossing a city street or something pedestrians do all the time and are expected to do all the time when that is very much not what happened here.

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

#325

Post by potato3732842 »

danans wrote: post #229
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.

> 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…

Tesla's were famously poor at detecting partial lane obstructions for a long time. I wonder if that's what happened here.

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

#326

Post by jvanderbot »

modeless wrote: post #320
jvanderbot wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm. I thought that was the latest release but it looks like no. But there seems to be no improvements from the last trial, so maybe 12.6 is magically better.

A lot of people have been getting the free trial with 12.3 still on their cars today. Tesla has really screwed up on the free trial for sure. Nobody should be getting it unless they have 12.6 at least.

I have 12.5. maybe 12.6 is better but I've heard that before.

Don't get me wrong without a concerted data team building maps a priori, this is pretty incredible. But from a pure performance standpoint it's a shaky product.

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

#327

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

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.

Yes, officer, this one right here.

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

#328

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

jvanderbot wrote: post #326
modeless wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people have been getting the free trial with 12.3 still on their cars today. Tesla has really screwed up on the free trial for sure. Nobody should be getting it unless they have 12.6 at least.

I have 12.5. maybe 12.6 is better but I've heard that before. Don't get me wrong without a concerted data team building maps a priori, this is pretty incredible. But from a pure performance standpoint it's a shaky product.

The latest version is 12.5.6, I think he got confused by the .6 at the end. If you think that's bad then there isn't a better version available. However it is a dramatic improvement over 12.3, don't know how much you tested on it.

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

#329

Post by SoftTalker »

sangnoir wrote: post #311
dekhn wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You don't have a right of way over a slow moving vehicle that merged ahead of you. Most ramps are not long enough to allow merging traffic to accelerate to highway speeds before merging, so many drivers free up the right-most lane for this purpose (by merging left)

If you can safely move left to make room for merging traffic, you should. It’s considerate and reduces the chances of an accident.

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

#330

Post by quitit »

"Full Self-Driving" but it's not "full" self-driving, as it requires active supervision.

So it's marketed with a nod and wink, as if the supervision requirement is just a peel away disclaimer to satisfy old and stuffy laws that are out of step with the latest technology. When in reality it really does need active supervision.

But the nature of the technology is this approach invites the driver to distraction, because what's the use in "full self driving" if one needs to have their hands on the wheel and feet near the pedals ready to take control at a moments notice? Worsening this problem is that the Teslas have shown themselves to drive erratically at unexpected times such as phantom braking or misidentifying natural phenomena for traffic lights.

One day people will look back on letting FSD exist in the market and roll their eyes in disbelief of the recklessness.

Post reply on HN