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

NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#41

Post by strathmeyer »

PhaseBlue wrote: post #31
wpietri wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related, I wondered about this bit: "Tesla said Huang had not followed guidelines intended to ensure drivers are paying attention while the vehicle is in Autopilot mode." Even if the sensors were correct, I have deep questions about the human ability to follow instructions requiring them to be robot-like. I would love to see some studies measuring the extent to which people can really follow Tesla's guidelines to the…

The guidelines are pretty simple: When you engage autopilot it reminds you: Keep your hands on the wheel: Be prepared to take over at any time.

Didn't work for trains, now did it?

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#42

Post by cmsonger »

bordercases wrote: post #10

Does autopilot lead to overconfident drivers?

Background: My wife drives a Tesla Model S with AP.

Inattentive drivers more than overconfident drivers. You look down and stare at your phone for 10 seconds in a normal car and you are punished pretty quickly and learn not to do it.

You look down and start at your phone for 10 seconds in a Tesla with AP and "nothing bad happens" ... almost all of the time.

And that's the problem with this version of AP. Yes, Tesla says keep your eyes on the road. Yes, Tesla says keep your hands on the wheel. But it's pretty easy to get lax and start to slide.

For the record, I think her use is the one valid use. She has RSI issues with her hands and arms and she does a good bit of expressway driving. She absolutely keeps her eyes on the road and hands near the wheel when using it. But I bet she's in the minority of regular Tesla AP users.

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#43

Post by gsnedders »

ethbro wrote: post #40
gsnedders wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are a party to the investigation, ignoring the non-disclosure rules makes Tesla seem to me like a dodgy company willing to act against established norms designed to ensure transport safety, and I hope they get the book thrown at them for it. If they are not a party to the investigation, I'd question why not. When was the last time an aircraft manufacturer declined to be a party to the investigation? They reco…

Isn't that a lose/lose for Tesla? Are not a party to the investigation -- motives questioned, discovering facts takes longer or impossible Are a party to the investigation and information can only be released by NTSB -- share price gets hammered every time there's a crash and everyone else gets a chance to put out information I'm inclined to lead towards "special circumstances" here. Does every Ford crash make nation…

Is the same not true for Boeing?

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#44

Post by xvf22 »

TillE wrote: post #32
lafar6502 wrote: post #30

Both Uber and Tesla try to discredit the victim before any official investigation ends, and in both cases it’s quite clear they will try to cover their asses first. And they have all the data. How can we be sure they don’t selectively hide something or don’t tamper with the records before giving them to investigators?

Uber has said essentially nothing about their crash, it's the cops who rushed out and got nearly everything wrong. Uber clearly had a serious technical failure, but there's been no PR spin from them.

No you're right, the police happily pointed out that the woman was homeless and seemed to blame the victim. Why would they do that?

It's reasonable to assume it's to keep Uber happy.

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#45

Post by jijojv »

PhaseBlue wrote: post #31
wpietri wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related, I wondered about this bit: "Tesla said Huang had not followed guidelines intended to ensure drivers are paying attention while the vehicle is in Autopilot mode." Even if the sensors were correct, I have deep questions about the human ability to follow instructions requiring them to be robot-like. I would love to see some studies measuring the extent to which people can really follow Tesla's guidelines to the…

The guidelines are pretty simple: When you engage autopilot it reminds you: Keep your hands on the wheel: Be prepared to take over at any time.

They do for legal reasons. Are you saying autopilot is no better than adaptive cruise control and lane assist found on many cars - Not the impression they want you to have at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot ...

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#46

Post by ethbro »

gsnedders wrote: post #43
ethbro wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a lose/lose for Tesla? Are not a party to the investigation -- motives questioned, discovering facts takes longer or impossible Are a party to the investigation and information can only be released by NTSB -- share price gets hammered every time there's a crash and everyone else gets a chance to put out information I'm inclined to lead towards "special circumstances" here. Does every Ford crash make nation…

Is the same not true for Boeing?

I'd argue Boeing (and most other companies) have the benefit of amortizating "fear" over the total installed base of similar technologies.

A Chevy engine turns out to have a design flaw, investors say "Yes, but Ford produces and sells tons of engines, so here's how much we think fixing it will cost."

It seems like the recent Uber / Tesla self-driving impact is more of the form of "Gee, maybe this isn't even possible."

If the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor were the only aircraft Boeing made... then I'd say it would be a more similar analogy.

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#47

Post by protomyth »

xvf22 wrote: post #44
TillE wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has said essentially nothing about their crash, it's the cops who rushed out and got nearly everything wrong. Uber clearly had a serious technical failure, but there's been no PR spin from them.

No you're right, the police happily pointed out that the woman was homeless and seemed to blame the victim. Why would they do that? It's reasonable to assume it's to keep Uber happy.

I'm not terribly sure its Uber. It actually looks like something to do with keeping the Governor happy. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/28/uber-ariz...

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#48

Post by cmurf »

jijojv wrote: post #9

> “The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive" This is completely irrelevant to the crash. Anyone who uses autopilot knows that throughout the drive even if you have two hands but don't apply enough pressure on the wheel, you will get a warning and you have to jiggle the wheel for it to recognize you're there.

Call me cynical, but it sounds like designing the wheel sensors to tend toward not sensing hands on, increases the chance the company can use the narrative being used "driver received hands-on warning and (apparently) ignored them" etc.

False negative seems likely. False positive seems unlikely, maybe nearly impossible.

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#49

Post by mannykannot »

TillE wrote: post #32
lafar6502 wrote: post #30

Both Uber and Tesla try to discredit the victim before any official investigation ends, and in both cases it’s quite clear they will try to cover their asses first. And they have all the data. How can we be sure they don’t selectively hide something or don’t tamper with the records before giving them to investigators?

Uber has said essentially nothing about their crash, it's the cops who rushed out and got nearly everything wrong. Uber clearly had a serious technical failure, but there's been no PR spin from them.

I think it is possible that the Tempe police chief and mayor anticipated the incident could be a problem for them, especially given the secret agreement that later came out, and chose to try to spin the story on their own account. It is not hard to imagine that, in that frame of mind, they might be receptive to someone from Uber saying "clearly this was unavoidable", but I have no way of knowing whether any such conversation took place.

Then there is the question of whether the Uber-supplied video accurately represents the lighting conditions at the time... This may seem unduly conspiratorial, but I gave both Uber and the Tempe administration the benefit of the doubt until it became clear that the initial reports were innaccurate and less complete than they could have been.

Re: NTSB ‘unhappy’ with Tesla release of investigative information in fatal crash

#50

Post by mannykannot »

ethbro wrote: post #40
gsnedders wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are a party to the investigation, ignoring the non-disclosure rules makes Tesla seem to me like a dodgy company willing to act against established norms designed to ensure transport safety, and I hope they get the book thrown at them for it. If they are not a party to the investigation, I'd question why not. When was the last time an aircraft manufacturer declined to be a party to the investigation? They reco…

Isn't that a lose/lose for Tesla? Are not a party to the investigation -- motives questioned, discovering facts takes longer or impossible Are a party to the investigation and information can only be released by NTSB -- share price gets hammered every time there's a crash and everyone else gets a chance to put out information I'm inclined to lead towards "special circumstances" here. Does every Ford crash make nation…

> share price gets hammered every time there's a crash.

Instituting a more responsible testing program would both signal that they are dealing with the matter and also reduce the possibility of further deaths.

> Does every Ford crash make national news?

Those that indicate a major screw-up do, such as the Explorer rollovers (or Chevvy's ignition switch issue, for that matter).

I don't think the NTSB would be upset if the statements about these autonomous-vehicle accidents were purely factual, relevant and without self-serving commentary and innuendo.

Post reply on HN