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

371–380 of 714 posts

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

#371

Post by Gordonjcp »

Alex3917 wrote: post #84
somethoughts wrote: post #65

I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. [Edit] From the video the Tesla is making a lane change and stopping simultaneously which means there could be a case of the Tesla FSD/driver doing a unsafe lane change.[1] Most of the time FSD just wrecks the Tesla itself or injures the driver of the Tesla (i.e. running int…

> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different…

At least in the UK, it would very much be the fault of the driver in front, especially if there was that much CCTV footage available (there won't be, which is why dashcams are important - the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage scores a point here).

The second car had left a more than adequate stopping distance. The Tesla changed lanes close in front of it and then immediately braked as hard as possible, deliberately. The driver of the Tesla should lose their driving licence.

The drivers following the second car weren't leaving enough distance or paying enough attention.

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

#372

Post by joshlemer »

suslik wrote: post #368
MengerSponge wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But motorcyclists rank just above bicyclists, and just below deer. Nobody actually gets in trouble for hitting them on the road. I would love to see manslaughter charges for more accidents. If I do a whoopsie and stab someone in my home, I'm not going to get off with a "oh my god I'm so sorry! I was tired and it was foggy." People driving should be extended the same courtesy.

Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters. Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.

You’re right, wherever there aren’t protected bike lanes, we should ban cars

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

#373

Post by mschuster91 »

suslik wrote: post #368
MengerSponge wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But motorcyclists rank just above bicyclists, and just below deer. Nobody actually gets in trouble for hitting them on the road. I would love to see manslaughter charges for more accidents. If I do a whoopsie and stab someone in my home, I'm not going to get off with a "oh my god I'm so sorry! I was tired and it was foggy." People driving should be extended the same courtesy.

Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters. Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.

That's just further entrenching car dominance. Every mode of transport should be allowed to safely use the roads, and for what it's worth motorcycles are way better for the climate as a mode of individual transport because they weigh maybe 10% of your average modern car.

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

#374

Post by Gordonjcp »

sokoloff wrote: post #107
Alex3917 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different…

If I brake check someone on the highway, causing an accident, and it’s discovered that that’s what happened, I’d be pretty shocked* if the trailing driver was found responsible. That video looks like a combined lane change and brake check on the part of the Tesla. * and disappointed

Not a brake check, that kind of implies cutting in and then a hard enough dab on the brake to freak out the guy behind and force them to brake sharply but not enough to stop.

This was the Tesla braking as hard as possible to a complete stop. The following driver reacted quickly and had they not been paying attention the accident would have been much much worse.

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

#375

Post by b4je7d7wb »

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…

>Is this not the case in California?

I don't think it is. I've never felt so unsafe in traffic as driving on highways in california. People keep an order of magnitude too little distance to the car in front. That density of cars would make any european highway slow down to a crawl but there they just practically touch eachother while driving 60kmph while doing crazy lane shifts left and right.

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

#376

Post by witheld »

alanfranz wrote: post #317
lamontcg wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Quebec woman who stopped for ducks, causing fatal crash, loses appeal https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses...

That’s an highway, you cannot randomly stop there. She didn’t crash into ducks.

The tesla crash in question happened on a freeway, in california where stopping on the freeway is illegal.

It was also an unsafe lane change which caused the pile up, not just the braking.

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

#377

Post by dmitriid »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #367
ht85 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the first car speeding? If not, how were they at fault?

It’s almost impossible to rear-end another car without being at least partially at fault. The lane change from the Tesla was obviously dangerous, but the first car to collide with it had sufficient warning and time to react. You can see that they did react, but they obviously didn’t expect the Tesla to come to a full stop, which is why the first collision took place. I believe the legal term for this is contributory…

It takes humans up to 5 seconds to even start breaking in the presence of danger.

Even at 40 miles per hour your speed is 58 feet per second (or, at 60kmh you speed is 16 meters per second).

So it's either "the driver had sufficient warning" or "the lane change from Tesla was dangerous". As you don't expect cars that are dangerously changing to suddenly slow down.

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

#378

Post by witheld »

mschuster91 wrote: post #370

There is one additional part in play: the drivers following the Tesla clearly didn't keep their distance. Normally, at least here in Germany, drivers are supposed to keep enough distance from those driving in front of them that, even in the situation that something like a brake defect forcing the car in front to a complete stop or a truck blowing a tire, they do not crash into it.

They weren’t following the tesla, it moved into their lane.

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

#379

Post by ncallaway »

modeless wrote: post #325
ncallaway wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason the driver needs to be aware of it. If the person operating the vehicle doesn't need to be aware of the difference, then the general public shouldn't need to either when analyzing an accident. It seems baffling to me that we could imagine a scenario where it's less important for the driver of a vehicle to be aware of the difference, than it is for the public when reacting to a news article. I don…

The difference comes when drawing inferences about the future development of Autopilot/FSD as these articles invariably do. This is completely different than day-to-day usage of the system. If you believe this was a failure of FSD, then maybe it's evidence we should stop the rollout of FSD or whatever. If it's a failure of Autopilot, then it is not evidence about the future behavior of FSD at all. FSD is a complete r…

> The difference comes when drawing inferences about the future development of Autopilot/FSD as these articles invariably do.

I guess I just didn't take that away from this article at all.

It seemed like a more general complaint about Level 2 automation using this instance of a crash with FSD/Autopilot as an example. The distinction seems, to me, relatively irrelevant to the main point of the article. A key paragraph for me was this one:

> While, yes, Tesla’s system was the particular one that appears to have failed here, and yes, the system is deceptively named in a way that encourages this idiotic behavior, this is not a problem unique to Tesla. It’s not a technical problem. You can’t program your way out of the problem with Level 2; in fact, the better the Level 2 system seems to be, the worse the problem gets. That problem is that human beings are simply no good at monitoring systems that do most of the work of a task and remaining ready to take over that task with minimal to no warning.

So, I guess I don't see the point in distinguishing between FSD/Autopilot when the thesis of the article isn't specific to Tesla, but rather applies to Level 2 systems across all cars.

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

#380

Post by [deleted] »

suslik wrote: post #368
MengerSponge wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But motorcyclists rank just above bicyclists, and just below deer. Nobody actually gets in trouble for hitting them on the road. I would love to see manslaughter charges for more accidents. If I do a whoopsie and stab someone in my home, I'm not going to get off with a "oh my god I'm so sorry! I was tired and it was foggy." People driving should be extended the same courtesy.

Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters. Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN