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

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

Post by stormfather »

jeremyjh wrote: post #244
Arainach wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about lying to the public and stoking false expectations for years. If it's "fully self driving" Tesla should be liable for when its vehicles kill people. If it's not fully self driving and Tesla keeps using that name in all its marketing, regardless of any fine print, then Tesla should be liable for people acting as though their cars could FULLY self drive and be sued accordingly. You don't get to lie just b…

I think this is the answer: the company takes on full liability. If a Tesla is Fully Self Driving then Tesla is driving it. The insurance market will ensure that dodgy software/hardware developers exit the industry.

That would be good because it would incentivize all FSD cars communicating with each other. Imagine how safe driving would be if they are all broadcasting their speed and position to each other. And each vehicle sending/receiving gets cheaper insurance.

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

#362

Post by bastawhiz »

dekhn wrote: post #299
bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

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).

Just because you have the right of way doesn't mean the correct thing to do is to remain in the lane. If remaining in your lane is likely to make someone else do something reckless, you should have been proactive. Not legally, for the sake of being a good driver.

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

#363

Post by immibis »

theossuary wrote: post #218
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.

You know what they say, if you want to kill someone in the US, do it in a car.

In the US it seems you'd do it with a gun, but in Germany it's cars.

There was this elderly driver who mowed down a family in a bike lane waiting to cross the road in Berlin, driving over the barriers between the bike lane and the car lane because the cars in the car lane were too slow. Released without conviction - it was an unforeseeable accident.

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

#364

Post by lawn »

frabjoused wrote: post #262
bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

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.

> The thing that doesn't make sense is the numbers.

Oh? Who are presenting the numbers?

Is a crash that fails to trigger the airbags still not counted as a crash?

What about the car turning off FSD right before a crash?

How about adjusting for factors such as age of driver and the type of miles driven?

The numbers don't make sense because they're not good comparisons and are made to make Tesla look good.

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

#365

Post by bastawhiz »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #290
bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

It's not just about relative safety compared to all human driving. We all know that some humans are sometimes terrible drivers! We also know what that looks like: Driving too fast or slow relative to surroundings. Quickly turning every once in a while to stay in their lane. Aggressively weaving through traffic. Going through an intersection without spending the time to actually look for pedestrians. The list goes on.…

> Bad automated driving is invisible.

I'm literally saying that it is visible, to me, the passenger. And for reasons that aren't just bad vibes. If I'm in an Uber and I feel unsafe, I'll report the driver. Why would I pay for my car to do that to me?

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

#366

Post by dreamcompiler »

bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

> It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first place.

This is what bugs me about ordinary autopilot. Autopilot doesn't switch lanes, but I like to slow down or speed up as needed to allow merging cars to enter my lane. Autopilot never does that, and I've had some close calls with irate mergers who expected me to work with them. And I don't think they're wrong.

Just means that when I'm cruising in the right lane with autopilot I have to take over if a car tries to merge.

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

#367

Post by wizzwizz4 »

potato3732842 wrote: post #321
sangnoir wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless the driver in front of you didn't.

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

#368

Post by paulcole »

bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

> Until I ride in one and feel safe, I can't have any faith that this is a reasonable system

This is probably the worst way to evaluate self-driving for society though, right?

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

#369

Post by KoolKat23 »

jeremyjh wrote: post #244
Arainach wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about lying to the public and stoking false expectations for years. If it's "fully self driving" Tesla should be liable for when its vehicles kill people. If it's not fully self driving and Tesla keeps using that name in all its marketing, regardless of any fine print, then Tesla should be liable for people acting as though their cars could FULLY self drive and be sued accordingly. You don't get to lie just b…

I think this is the answer: the company takes on full liability. If a Tesla is Fully Self Driving then Tesla is driving it. The insurance market will ensure that dodgy software/hardware developers exit the industry.

That's just reducing the value of a life to a number. It can be gamed to a situation where it's just more profitable to mow down people.

What's an acceptable number/financial cost is also just an indirect approximated way of implementing a more direct/scientific regulation. Not everything needs to be reduced to money.

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

#370

Post by crooked-v »

amluto wrote: post #152
MadnessASAP wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The why is pretty well understood, no investigation needed. I don't like the design but it's because the doors are electronic and people don't know where the manual release is. In a panic people go on muscle memory, which is push the useless button. They don't remember to pull the unmarked unobtrusive handle that they may not even know exists. If it was up to me, sure have your electronic release, but make the manual…

I’ve seen an innovative car with a single door release. As you pull it, it first triggers the electronic mechanism (which lowers the window a bit, which is useful in a door with no frame above the window) and then, as you pull it farther, it mechanically unlatches the door. Tesla should build their doors like this. Oh, wait, the car I’m talking about is an older Tesla. Maybe Tesla should remember how to build doors l…

It's not very 'innovative' these days. My 2012 Mini Cooper has it.
Post reply on HN