Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash • Hacker News Board

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

#451

Post by arh68 » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:01 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #166

arh68 wrote: post #153

Insurance rates will probably go up on "self-crashing cars" if this trend continues. For some reason, people aren't dying so dramatically due to cruise control. I love cruise control, because it helps me focus on "driving" (which I consider steering + observing). The Tesla autopilot feature seems to do the opposite: it helps you focus on not driving . This ain't Volvo, folks.

Cruise control DOES cause deaths: http://www.indianainjury.com/trucking-accident-verdict-leads... ...but it's not Tesla, so a single death isn't plastered over every news site and discussed ad nauseum by tech sites. EDIT: More cruise control deaths: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/24/skoda-drive... https://www.levylaw.com/cruise-control-accidents-defective-p... https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5645195/m1-m…

The last one with the truck does count, I agree. If it enables inattentiveness, it's likely to cause harm.

The Skoda driver makes less sense: if you are trying (like he was) to stop, brakes should always outpower the engine. Unless the brakes failed. Toyota went through a huge ordeal just like that (possibly floormats, possibly ECU stack overflow, who knows). An attentive & trained driver should be able to handle it. The truckers were willfully ignoring what pretty much every driving manual tells you. If you drive at night without lights, in a blizzard, with summer tires, I don't see how you can blame the car manufacturer if you hit something. But if all you do is consistently go over potholes, and consistently lose power steering & lights when the serpentine belt comes loose, I think you can blame the manufacturer.

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

#452

Post by jijojv » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:09 AM UTC

jijojv wrote: post #101

dragonwriter wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the crux here is the naming of the not-really-self-driving feature It should be called, ”I’m Feeling Lucky.”

All their amazing technology is ”I’m Feeling Lucky.” https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/autopark-fail-dont-use...

Others like Bolt and Leaf give you 360 surround view parking. Tesla instead gives you Autopark but if it fails/crashes, you're at fault.

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

#453

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:09 AM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #160

fmihaila wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla is extremely clear that these are only driver assistance features Promoting the system with the name 'Autopilot' is, to my mind, quite a bit less than extremely clear communication. This name provides Tesla's critics with a constant line of attack, which will continue right up until they reach level 5. I consider myself a hardcore Tesla fan but I think they've botched their messaging, and this latest statemen…

Promoting the system with the name 'Autopilot' is, to my mind, quite a bit less than extremely clear communication. Is it, though? Autopilot has never in the history of those systems meant hands off controls, attention off driving. Pilots with their autopilots on in airplanes are still flying and watching gauges.

The comparison to autopilot is a good one, I agree, but the implication is just the same: it's potentially dangerous. The aviation had to address this issue back in the 80s and 90s, noting that simply failing to properly observe gauges or other indicators contributed to 31 of 37 airline disasters in the 80s: http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/safety-s...

It remains an issue, and a very well-explored one that is extremely relevant to car automation. https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/hazards-au...

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

#454

Post by mrb » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:10 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #368

mrb wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you engage the trigger, firearms require a responsible human to aim with attention. When you engage the autopilot, the system requires a responsible human to watch the road with attention. I really don't see any difference.

A gun is deliberately aimed at a target. The bullet isn't responsible because it has no agency; it is a propelled piece of mass. A self-shooting gun has agency, and does not require the human to aim with attention. (There are currently no self-shooting guns on the market absent hacked firearms.) A Tesla Autopilot is like a self-shooting gun. Autopilot decides where to go, independently of the human. The car is in con…

«The car does not actually require the human to watch the road»

By law it is required. The autopilot instructions also require it. Of course the autopilot software should be improved. But ultimately—the keyword is ultimately— it was the human driver's fault for not paying attention, for assuming the autopilot had a 0% failure rate.

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

#455

Post by Someone1234 » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:11 AM UTC

spurgu wrote: post #359

exotree wrote: post #10

This is a very upsetting response. Yes, the driver could have paid more attention, and yes, he shouldn't have activated Autopilot in an area where he knew Tesla's autopilot was not working correctly. However, Tesla calling it "Autopilot" should be no longer allowed. It's clear that it is most certainly not that, and customers are not treating this feature in a careful and cautious fashion, and I do believe that's due…

>However, Tesla calling it "Autopilot" should be no longer allowed. Meh, autopilots on boats don't do anything more than steer a straight compass course.

That's inaccurate.

Many marine autopilots integrate with AIS, sonar, and charts for accident avoidance and alerts. For example on some larger ships it is able to calculate if at the current speed a collision would occur and reduce speed to avoid it. Some can do "port to port" auto-steer, taking the vesicle through narrow channels.

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

#456

Post by LoSboccacc » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:11 AM UTC

drdeadringer wrote: post #441

LoSboccacc wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How is this, or can be, detected?

tesla's already detect people not having the hands on the wheel, for starters. then you can fairly easily see where the eyes are looking and I guess with some more effort if the eyes are engaged or wandering.

this is a paper from a hundred years ago about the subject, this is not rocket science https://www.jstor.org/stable/1412972?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...

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

#457

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:12 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #14

eridius wrote: post #8

I have to wonder why Tesla keeps doubling down on victim-blaming. Is this a case of Elon Musk being insecure about criticism (since he's demonstrated a tendency in the past to react poorly to it)? Or is Tesla trying to actually lower their legal liability? Edit: To clarify, in most of these crashes, it's usually a combination of Tesla's fault and the driver's fault. Which is to say, the driver could have avoided the…

Tesla is exerting and reinforcing that it is not liable for poor driver decisions. If you use any vehicle safety aid while not paying attention, and you die or kill someone while in control of the vehicle, that is your liability. Whether they call their system "Autopilot" is immaterial. You are the responsibly party as the driver, and this is made clear both at purchase time and during vehicle use.

Boy, could you imagine what things would be like if the aviation industry reacted this way? Airline automation has played a huge role in so many major disasters, and only through careful reflection has the measured and careful use of automation lead to ever-better outcomes for air travel safety.

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

#458

Post by pstuart » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:14 AM UTC

hyperbole wrote: post #423

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…

No one dies so someone 10 years from now can watch a full episode of the family guy unimpeded for the duration of their commute. The human toll is irrelevant to the conversation, what's relevant is whether risks taken are being taken knowingly - you cannot market a self driving vehicle whose functionality "is 2x better than any human being" while simultaneously stating in your legal language to protect yourself: don'…

Plenty of people die right now because they just got a text or they had no other way home from the bar, etc.

The human toll is absolutely relevant to the conversation: this is about people dying now and in the future. It seems cruel to discuss it in a "I'll sacrifice X to save Y" later, but it can reasonably be reduced to that.

I think it's safe to assume that this will drastically reduce driving related injuries and deaths.

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

#459

Post by philliphaydon » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:14 AM UTC

"We know that he's not the type who would not have his hands on the steering wheel, he's always been (a) really careful driver," said Will.

Isn’t it obvious he didn’t have his hands on the wheel?!? If he did he would have corrected the car.

I’m not saying Tesla or the driver are to blame. I know very little about this incident cos I haven’t followed it. But can’t say he always has his hands on the wheel when they’d clearly not the case.

Likewise everyone says he apparently reported it to Tesla 7-10 times? But he still felt the need to not pay attention on this particular stretch of road he was worried about?

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

#460

Post by mrb » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 1:14 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #254

mrb wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

« When autopilot is used as required by their ToS, it is useless » Really? Having an autopilot system with an incredibly fast reaction time able brake/swerve/avoid accidents faster than humans is "useless"?

According to the TOS, and given Tesla's statements, the system needs to be supervised by a 100% attentive human 24/7. From what we know of human physiology, and what we have observed from previous self-driving crashes, this level of attentiveness is impossible to maintain... Without being the one actively driving the car.

Still doesn't make autopilot "useless".