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

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341

Post by rad_gruchalski »

rblatz wrote: post #118
FireBeyond wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're trying to hint at Tesla's own stats, then at this point those are hopelessly, and knowingly, misleading. All they compare is "On the subsets of driving on only the roads where FSD is available, active, and has not or did not turn itself off because of weather, road, traffic or any other conditions" versus "all drivers, all vehicles, all roads, all weather, all traffic, all conditions". There's a reason Tesl…

I have to disengage FSD multiple times a day and I’m only driving 16 miles round trip. And routinely have to stop it from doing dumb things like stopping at green traffic lights, attempting to do a u turn from the wrong turn lane, or switching to the wrong lane right before a turn.

Why would you even turn it on at this point…

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

#342

Post by valval »

_ea1k wrote: post #273
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.

Because it is bad enough that people really do supervise it. I see people who say that wouldn't happen because the drivers become complacent. Maybe that could be a problem with future versions, but I don't see it happening with 12.3.x. I've also heard that driver attention monitoring is pretty good in the later versions, but I have no first hand experience yet.

Very good point. The product that requires supervision and tells the user to keep their hands on the wheel every 10 seconds is not good enough to be used unsupervised.

I wonder how things are inside your head. Are you ignorant or affected by some strong bias?

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

#343

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

Unpopular take: Even with perfect FSD which is much better than the average human driver (say having the robotic equivalent of a Lewis Hamilton in every car) the productivity and health gains won't be as great as people anticipate.

Sure way less traffic deaths but the spike in depression especially among males would be something very big. Life events are much outside of our control, having a 5000lbs thing that can get to 150mph if needed and responds exactly to the accelerator, brake and steering wheel input...well that makes people feel in control and very powerful while behind the aforementioned steering wheel.

Also productivity...I don't know...people think a whole lot and do a whole lot of self reflection while they are driving and when they arrive at destination they just implement the thoughts they had while driving. The ability to talk on the phone has been there for quite some time now too, so thinking and communicating can be done while driving already, what would FSD add?

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

#344

Post by valval »

timabdulla wrote: post #278
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.

> If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on? Even if it is true that the data show that with FSD (not Autopilot) enabled, drivers are in fewer crashes, I would be worried about other confounding factors. For instance, I would assume that drivers are more likely to engage FSD in situations of lower complexity (less traffic, little construction or other impe…

[flagged]

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

#345

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#346

Post by __loam »

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 problem is that Tesla is way behind the industry standards here and it's misrepresenting how good their tech is.

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

#347

Post by danans »

mavhc wrote: post #323
danans wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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

Indeed, like this: the more cars sold that claim fully autonomous capability, and the more affordable they get, the higher the standards should be compared to their AV predecessors, even if they have long eclipsed human driver's safety record.

If this is unpalatable, then let's assign 100% liability with steep monetary penalties to the AV manufacturer for any crash that happens under autonomous driving mode.

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

#348

Post by aantix »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #261
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…

I think we should not be satisfied with merely “better than a human”. Flying is so safe precisely because we treat any casualty as unacceptable. We should aspire to make automobiles at least that safe.

Before FSD is allowed on public roads?

It’s a net positive, saving lives right now.

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

#349

Post by singleshot_ »

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.

> There’s only so much sunglasses can do.

For everything else, you have brakes.

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

#350

Post by hilux »

enslavedrobot wrote: post #9
ck2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also endless videos of teslas driving into pedestrians, plowing full speed into emergency vehicles parked with flashing lights, veering wildly from strange markings on the road, etc. etc. "works for me" is a very strange response for someone on Hacker News if you have any coding background - you should realize you are a beta tester unwittingly if not a full blown alpha tester in some cases All it will take…

Those are Autopilot videos this discussion is about FSD. FSD has driven ~2 billion miles at this point and had potentially 2 fatal accidents. The US average is 1.33 deaths/100 million miles. Tesla on FSD is easily 10x safer. Every day it gets safer.

Considering HN is mostly technologists, the extent of Tesla-hate in here surprises me. My best guess is that it is sublimated Elon-hate. (Not a fan of my former neighbor myself, but let's separate the man from his creations.)

People seem to be comparing Tesla FSD to perfection, when the more fair and relevant comparison is to real-world American drivers. Who are, on average, pretty bad.

Sure, I wouldn't trust data coming from Tesla. But we have government data.

Post reply on HN