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

Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 462 posts

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#441

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #364
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time" When the Autopilot swerves into a concrete wall for no reason, you will have 0.5 seconds left to live. Rwacting in the last 0.1 secons bwf9re collision will not save you - you must react in like 200ms. It is physically impossible to react in time to some autopilot mistakes, stop defending this idiocy. https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-drivers…

The problem is bad enough that it killed someone; you don't need to use exaggerated made-up numbers. In the example video the car starts turning at 40 seconds and passes the barrier at 47 seconds.

Surely you can see how you might have less than a second to react if Autopilot swerves into the oncoming traffik? I can't search all tesla accidents by 'least time to react'

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#442

Post by waffle_maniac »

secult wrote: post #394
waffle_maniac wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like most of their cars have ~110 horsepower? Seems weak.

Usually there is this thing called transmission in a car that effectively make the car able to accelerate enough for most of the situations. The only problem with having less horsepower than other cars is that the maximal achievable speed is lower. But for sure riding above 100mph is much more comfortable in other brands.

Low horsepower vehicles feel downright dangerous. Especially in the third world where executing moves quickly is very important. I suppose there is a way of driving that takes this into account but it feels so unnatural to me.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#443

Post by LeifCarrotson »

rodgerd wrote: post #345
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's practially a trope how in sci-fi movies with flying futuristic cars, it's a demonstration of extreme competence for a character to demand "manual controls" to pilot the vehicle...like every normal driver does today. I expect that will become more and more real-world. Even today, most drivers don't know how to drive a manual transmission vehicle, much less how to double-clutch one without synchros or how to stop…

> much less how to double-clutch one without synchros Yes, well, people don't generally know how to make a horse change directions either.

Nor how to goad an ox team into drawing a plow! What is the world coming to?

Seriously, though, I think it remains to be seen which of these are going to be mainstream requirements that drivers should be able to depend on.

Power brakes and ABS? If those fail on an otherwise well-maintained vehicle, you're likely to be excused of personal/moral blame in a collision.

Merge into someone that your camera-based blind spot driver aid didn't detect? Back into something because you were looking at your rear camera rather than your mirrors? That's your fault, the manual for the vehicle and the text on the rear camera display say so explicitly, and it seems people agree.

There's currently a marketing battle in the court of public opinion over whether radar/vision cruise, forward collision prevention, and vision-based lanekeeping driver aids are in the former or latter category. I think they're more likely to fall into the latter category and remain driver aids only for a long time, it remains to be seen if Cruise-like LIDAR systems are as rock-solid as ABS.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#444

Post by josefx »

HWR_14 wrote: post #438
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be confused as to the context. Or else I am, let me check. Ok, so this is a check done after the car has been used for 3 years. So, it's not QC before the car leaves the factory, it's fixing things before the government checks them and puts them into the public stats for test "failures".

I may have misunderstood. These statistics are generated by the government checking vehicles after they've been in service for 3 years by an end consumer? And only after the dealer gives it an immediately preceding check? If so, that invalidates my point. If it's just the results of regular dealer maintenance, it's fuzzier.

> And only after the dealer gives it an immediately preceding check?

Some dealers are qualified to perform the checks and also offer to perform a pre check for free. However cars checked by a dealer would not end up on a statistic of cars checked by TüV.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#445

Post by dawnerd »

zzt123 wrote: post #393
dawnerd wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It for sure does. Where I live, Oxnard it fails so badly I don't know how I was allowed into the beta. But if I drive down a few cities over it works well enough that if I didn't know better I'd say it's ready for public. It's just wild.

I will have to stop by Oxnard and check it out. I’d been thinking that I must have an atypical experience since FSD is quite wonderful for me. But if a few dozen miles over and you get a city where FSD becomes awful…

Along Gonzales rd it struggles when taking turns, in particular on and from Oxnard Blvd and Rose Ave. Every time I drive west past Ventura rd it violently swerves when the lanes shift next to the Popeyes. For fun try the residential areas around. It does 'ok' but often will do flying left turns where it doesn't even bother to slow down even though theres cars parked blocking visibility.

Westlake on the other hand haven't really had an issue. Thousand Oaks has been pretty smooth as well.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#446

Post by originalvichy »

HWR_14 wrote: post #429
originalvichy wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go find the HN discussion on this report. German processes and bureaucracy surrounding road worthiness checks is not favourable towards non-established car brands like Tesla. In short: big car brands' cars go through a preliminary check at manufacturers' licensed dealerships, and only after that get sent to the government's checks. It enables manufacturers to fix cars before independent verification so their safety n…

You're explaining (one of) the reasons Tesla is failing at the metric. Far from showing the metric is flawed, you're exposing the value of a dealer system and what Tesla's customers are losing because there isn't one.

If your mom warned you a day in advance that she is going to see how lean your room is, is she going to get a true understanding of your cleanliness, or just a snapshot of what your room is like?

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#447

Post by _ea1k »

_ea1k wrote: post #218
caditinpiscinam wrote: post #70

How is it that Tesla (and other companies developing self-driving capabilities) are allowed to deploy their products in the real world? We make people take a test to get a drivers license -- why don't we have requirements for self-driving systems? We require that cars pass routine mechanical inspections -- why isn't the software controlling these cars regulated?

Because based upon this data it is at least as safe as not deploying it. This data actually suggests that it is marginally safer.

LOL at this getting downvoted when its literally what the report says. Bandwagoning?

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#448

Post by Robotbeat »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #375
Robotbeat wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People often save up especially for a Tesla (incorporating gas and maintenance savings in the price), including a lot of people who wouldn't be buying a BMW, so I'm not sure price would be the right metric there.

Are you saying just because more people are being financially irresponsible when buying Teslas, we should cease such comparisons?

No, I’m saying that people incorporate a $10k price of gasoline into the price of the vehicle instead of paying for them separately as you would with a BMW.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#449

Post by Robotbeat »

beberlei wrote: post #374
Robotbeat wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People often save up especially for a Tesla (incorporating gas and maintenance savings in the price), including a lot of people who wouldn't be buying a BMW, so I'm not sure price would be the right metric there.

Parent does not include price as a metric, but cars of the same age and class, which probably have many of the same default extra safety features. Older cars might not even have ESC, they certainly don't have cameras that help you detect cars in blind angles and so on.

“Class” here refers to pricing, does it not? Luxury car owners will be quick to point out that the Model 3 and Y are not “luxury” class even if the cost ranges aren’t far apart.

Re: Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims

#450

Post by freediver »

magicroot75 wrote: post #422
freediver wrote: post #253

As a Tesla driver, I do not trust the autopilot yet and think it is years away (if ever achievable) from level 5... The reason this study has this outcome can be because of the survivorship bias - people are letting autopilot drive only in easiest road conditions where chance for something to go wrong is smaller to begin with. I would have hard time imagining people are letting autopilot drive regularly in a tight, w…

I agree with the premise. However, this isn't survivorship bias, it's just a selection bias.

Care to explain the difference in this case?
Post reply on HN