Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

theautopian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 714 posts

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#351

Post by watwut »

Mawr wrote: post #142
macintux wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the recommended 2 second following distance is insufficient when the vehicle in front of you comes to an immediate halt and there’s no room to switch lanes.

The recommended following distance is "Never get closer than the overall stopping distance." [1], so even if the car in front somehow went from 70mph to 0 instantly, you should be able to stop. [1]: https://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/stay+safe+stay+back/HE_...

That is not possible. I know it is impossible, because I am trying. What will happen when you have that distance is that someone will change lanes to what he perceives as huge space between cars. And they will get very close to you initially.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#352

Post by watwut »

lucaslee wrote: post #184

Doesn't look like phantom break, which is usually very sudden and no lane change. Most likely the driver was hands off the wheel and was warned multiple times before the car pulled itself over.

The car pulling itself over too close to following vehicle and then stopping would still be car caused crash in this situation.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#353

Post by watwut »

lgeorget wrote: post #329
dusted wrote: post #321

Now, as much as I wanna take the piss on Tesla, I'm more interested in this American tradition of simply ramming into anything in front of you that's not moving at your current speed or faster.. Like, how do people reason about this? It seems uniquely American to me.. These videos of people simply driving into stuff that's in plain sight right in their lane? What do they do if there's a fallen tree, tire, shopping ca…

Your take very exaggerated to say the least. Note that the Tesla was not part of the pile-up, the car behind it braked in time. But it takes only one driver to be a little too close to the car in front of them or to react a little too slowly and this is what happens, everywhere in the world.

Tesla did not gave much space to that driver. It changed lanes to be very close to car suddenly behind.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#354

Post by shepherdjerred »

quink wrote: post #299
shepherdjerred wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains aren't really comparable to autonomous lanes. An autonomous car can travel on both normal roads, and in an autonomous lane. Roads are everywhere -- there's a road leading up to most people's place of residence. Trains rely on tracks which are not as common as roads. Trains are also not owned by individuals. Most people do not have a train station outside of their house.

> Trains are also not owned by individuals. Planes aren't either, what's your point? That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out of using _public_ infrastructure and require a personal investment currently in the tens of thousands for the cheapest autonomous cars? > Most people do not have a train station outside of their house. People have feet or a wheelchair, bicycles are a thing, trams and buses exi…

My overall point is that trains will not replace cars in the United States any time soon, so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes.

> Planes aren't either, what's your point?

My point is that the comment I replied to implied that trains can replace cars. Trains cannot replace cars because they are a form of public transportation, which cannot easily replace cars.

> That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out

This is quite the leap. My comment did not argue the merits of either, merely that trains would not be a very good replacement for autonomous vehicle lanes.

> have you ever even been outside of suburbia?

This isn't useful to your argument. Why are you resorting to a personal attack?

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#355

Post by shepherdjerred »

doctorwho42 wrote: post #267
shepherdjerred wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains aren't really comparable to autonomous lanes. An autonomous car can travel on both normal roads, and in an autonomous lane. Roads are everywhere -- there's a road leading up to most people's place of residence. Trains rely on tracks which are not as common as roads. Trains are also not owned by individuals. Most people do not have a train station outside of their house.

Perhaps we could dedicate the right most lane on every highway to becoming a train line instead of an autonomous vehicle lane? A train can move more tonnage (see people) per unit of energy (kWhr/gallon of diesel/etc.) Than almost any other mode of transportation (gosh darn sailboats and barges being so efficient!) . So why have 100's of electric motors and separate batteries to move people, when you can skip the batt…

This is a great idea, but wouldn't paving more road be significantly cheaper and quicker than building rail infrastructure?

I'm all for the US pouring money into rail, but the fact is that we're _very_ bad at big infrastructure projects right now. That's not to say that we can't get better though.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#356

Post by panick21_ »

TheChaplain wrote: post #301
doctorwho42 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor argument for underfunded and purposefully stymied train development in the early to mid 20th century. Just look to Europe for what a large swath of the US could have if it invested in train infrastructure. Train good, car bad.

I live in Europe and commute by train. I need to order tickets 10 days ahead to get the cheapest price, and they're non-refundable as well as non-changeable. That means I have fixed times, there is no flexibility if I wish to leave earlier or need to stay longer. If I do, I lose the initial charge plus a new 3 times more expensive ticket. Ticket prices also varies depending on time, which means I have to leave really…

Trains in Europe are not magical and the best they could ever be.

They could be a lot better in a lot of ways. In Europe there is still a huge investment in car infrastructure. And while land use wasnt as bad as in the US its still far from optimal.

I do dislike the selling of these specific tickets. I much prefer a system where you can just take the train.

When I used the ICE in Germany I would never get a reservation, just a general ticket. So if I missed one it didnt matter.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#357

Post by watwut »

moduspol wrote: post #119
epivosism wrote: post #35

The question that is never answered in this kind of story is: 1. How many fatalities per mile does tesla FSD have, compared to its best alternative if we ban it? 2. Focusing on specific failure cases is not relevant since the political decision to allow it is all or nothing. 3. It'd be perfectly logical to accept road testing FSD, even if it's significantly worse in some areas, as long as this is not exploitable, AND…

I think every discussion like this should start with each commenter counting verbally to 3,700. That's the number of people killed on roadways worldwide every single day. [1] And that's daily. It's only every few months that we see a story like this, and this one had no fatalities. It's totally fair to criticize Tesla, Autopilot, and/or FSD, but these discussions always implicitly accept that the status quo is accept…

> Delaying self-driving cars by one year comes at a cost of up to 1.35 million human lives [1]. That doesn't excuse failures like these, but the context should be understood.

Citation needed. There is nothing so far proving that self driving cars currently have less crashes then humans in comparable conditions. And they disengage in difficult conditions when most crashes happen.

Dont just start with assumption "self driving is currently safer" and then go on blame people for not trusting it.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#358

Post by prmoustache »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #343
justapassenger wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very unlikely it’s a first time FSD caused accident for others. People using FSD allow it to do reckless things, just to see “if it’ll figure it out”. You can cause accident, without being involved in it, especially if you drive in unpredictable way. Like this one - if driver would stop sudden breaking and moved forward, cars behind him could have still crashed. That’s the thing about testing on the public roads…

Most of the fault in this video seems attributable to the other motorists. I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Is this not the case in California? Because the first car seems at least partially at fault in this respect, and every other contributor to the pile up is si…

This is mostly applicable if there is no sudden lane change. True you should always keep a safe enough distance for you to react and brake in any case with the car in front of you. If that car was too close on another lane, switch to yours and brake simultaneously this is a bit different.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#359

Post by AmericanChopper »

prmoustache wrote: post #358
AmericanChopper wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the fault in this video seems attributable to the other motorists. I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Is this not the case in California? Because the first car seems at least partially at fault in this respect, and every other contributor to the pile up is si…

This is mostly applicable if there is no sudden lane change. True you should always keep a safe enough distance for you to react and brake in any case with the car in front of you. If that car was too close on another lane, switch to yours and brake simultaneously this is a bit different.

The first car to collide with the Tesla is least at fault, but obviously still partially at fault. None of the other cars in the pileup have that excuse though.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#360

Post by throw827474737 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #228
int_19h wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should, and I said as much. It does not absolve the other person from responsibility for not following the required safety protocol. The car in front of them might have had to brake for a perfectly legitimate reason. I mean, suppose that the other driver was driving while drunk. They might have arrived to their destination safely without the asshole in front, but that's not an excuse against a DUI ticket.

How do you maintain safe distance from those in adjacent lanes? Especially if they may come from behind you, suddenly change lanes in front, then break hard?

You don't, but as soon as you see the car in front of you change the lane (or just indicating via turn signal), you should? And to be honest, this looks more like slowing down and not a hard break, and at least the first following driver slept quite a bit... agreed the stopping had no reason, so (as someone quoted German laws) for that you would be too blame... but for crashing into the car with that video footage, I'm sure the following driver would get at least 80% if not 100% blame.
Post reply on HN