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

Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 850 posts

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#431

Post by LoSboccacc »

ansible wrote: post #164
jijojv wrote: post #5

This is gonna be interesting as apparently the "Barrier" [1] bug is only in newer AP2 models per latest A/B tests done by cpddan (who did the very first crash reproduction scenario in Chicago [2]) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0bR_EQ47E Tesla Model X with AP2.5, SW 2018.6.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2Om8Q0IA MS 75, AP1, SW 2018.6.1 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... . "wor…

I get that the vision system might have been fooled by how the lane widens before the split. What I don't get is why the radar doesn't pick up the barrier itself. It should have been getting a nice, healthy return signal from it, lots of metal at all kinds of angles. What I'm saying is, this is not a stealthy barrier.

if road marks have priority over radars then tesla has a huge security hole on their hand. people can just paint brighter lines at a diagonal and crash them.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#432

Post by FireBeyond »

dewski wrote: post #303
Twisell wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s on his daily commuting path? If the autopilot globallly function well and give him added security why should he disconnect it? But if the car consistently swerve toward the barrier in certains circumstances, doesn’t it increase the probability of a crash because it programmatically increase risk of accident in an otherwise safe situation. And then isn’t Tesla culpright of not treating bug report appropri…

Based on his complaints I don’t see how we can infer it gave him added security which would warrant continued use. If I knew a tool I used around the house wasn’t working completely as advertised I wouldn’t continue using the feature that wasn’t working for me. As a beta user of bank software where clicking transfer money ended up sending twice as much, wouldn’t it be my fault if I did it 7 more times when I acknowle…

> As a beta user of bank software where clicking transfer money ended up sending twice as much, wouldn’t it be my fault if I did it 7 more times when I acknowledged its behavior even if it wasn’t as advertised?

Bad example. "Hey, this is broken, it did this." You say. They say "Nope, no problem/ fixed." You do it again. "Still broken!" "All good!". Again...

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#433

Post by rootusrootus »

This reads like they're making a legal argument but in the court of public opinion. Maybe it will be effective, but as a PR move I am not at all impressed. Best to leave the legal wrangling for the real courtroom and stick to "We feel terrible about this tragedy, and have no further comment." when speaking to the public. Blaming the victim, especially when he is dead, is bad form. I have to think a reputable PR firm would understand this, which makes me think Musk is forcing his team to make these kinds of statements.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#434

Post by fmihaila »

dragonwriter wrote: post #418
fmihaila wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proximate cause is irrelevant. This is a product liability issue because the product failed, which means strict liability applies. I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me just yet that the product failed. We don't know what the investigation will show.

> I am not a lawyer, but it is not clear to me just yet that the product failed. It's not clear to me whether it was a design defect or a manufacturing defect, but it's pretty clear that the lane keeping system drove the vehicle into a barrier which was not, in fact, located in a traffic lane, killing the occupant, which is pretty obviously a failure.

> It's not clear to me whether it was a design defect or a manufacturing defect, but it's pretty clear that the lane keeping system drove the vehicle into a barrier which was not, in fact, located in a traffic lane, killing the occupant, which is pretty obviously a failure.

Reflecting on your reply and gamblor956's post below, and after reviewing the published photos, I concede this looks like the most likely scenario, and if that is what actually occurred, it would unequivocally be a failure.

(That said, there's still a chance, however small, that whatever seems obvious now ends up being invalidated by the investigation. I just don't like feeling certain about things like this, especially from a distance.)

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#435

Post by ricardobeat »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #421
greglindahl wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The driver was required to remain alert.

the car should stop itself to the emergency lane then when user disengagement is detected.

It does! Just not after 5 seconds.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#436

Post by tedivm »

osrec wrote: post #371
fapjacks wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem. But I think you're right. I think the "best" way to move forward unt…

I disagree with your initial sentiment. In my opinion, we can have self driving cars without a large human toll. I just think we need to stop trying to merge self driving cars into a road system designed for human operators. Moreover, we should not be "beta testing" our self driving cars on roads with human operators. Accidents will happen, as ML models can and do go unstable from time to time. Instead, we should loo…

To me beta testing should be a long period of time where the computer is running while humans are driving, with deviations between what the computer would do if it had control versus what the human actually does being recorded for future training. The value add is that the computer can still be used to alert to dangerous conditions, or potentially even overriding in certain circumstances (applying break when lidar sees an obstacle at night when the human driver didn't see it).

The problem is that Uber needs self driving cars in order to make money, and Tesla firmly believes that their system is safer than human drivers by themselves (even if a few people who wouldn't have otherwise died do, others who might have died won't and they believe those numbers make it worth it).

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#437

Post by hashbig »

Robotbeat wrote: post #41
dqpb wrote: post #38

> "Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel." By that definition every car I've ever driven has been fully self-driving.

It's called autopilot, not self-driving.

Autopilot is a miss-leading product name. It implies automation of the process of driving.

It doesn't function like an autopilot and requires no co-pilot. Taking a technical term used in aviation is meaningless and dangerous.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#438

Post by mentos »

Most surprising part of the crash to me was not that the car followed the wrong lane markers but that it had no concept of a completely static barrier in its path.

This should have resolved with the driver calling Tesla to complain about whiplash from last minute breaking.. not plowing full speed into a concrete barrier tearing the front of the car off.

Tesla will definitely now make a point to update their tests for this case and similar deaths will definitely be avoided in the future. That is value that has been added to Tesla's system at the cost of Mr. Huang's life. If I was a lawyer on this case I'd probably take that position.

"What does Tesla feel Mr. Huang's life is worth for this improvement to their system?"

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#439

Post by Silhouette »

mozumder wrote: post #426
fapjacks wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem. But I think you're right. I think the "best" way to move forward unt…

People love their cars too much. Cars should just be phased out in favor of mass transit everywhere. Yes, you can live without the convenience of your car. No really, you can. Now think about how you would enable that to happen. What local politicians are you willing to write to, or support, in order to enable a better mass transit option for you? And how would you enable more people to support those local politician…

Yes, you can live without the convenience of your car. No really, you can.

Maybe, but unless you can change the laws of nature, you can't build a mass transit system that can serve everyone full-time with reasonable efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and that's just meeting the minimum requirement of getting from A to B, without getting into all the other downsides of public vs. private transportation in terms of health, privacy, security, etc.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#440

Post by efraim »

otalp wrote: post #2

Full statement: "We are very sorry for the family's loss. According to the family, Mr. Huang was well aware that Autopilot was not perfect and, specifically, he told them it was not reliable in that exact location, yet he nonetheless engaged Autopilot at that location. The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is i…

> The crash happened on a clear day with several hundred feet of visibility ahead, which means that the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road, despite the car providing multiple warnings to do so.

This is very misleading, he might have seen the barrier well in time but the car could have steered towards it in the last second, like it does in several of the videos demonstrating this issue.

Post reply on HN