Live data from Hacker News

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

theautopian.com

471–480 of 714 posts

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

#471
post #385

From what I can tell, the car behind the tesla didn't crash into the tesla but stopped before. And so did the car behind that one. It is the cars after that that crashed into each others. While automatic cars doing random things is certainly problematic, clearly the cause of the crash here isn't the tesla, it is other cars not respecting minimum safety distances and not able to stop when there is a traffic jam ahead.

Suddenly stopping at high speed is generally considered (at least in the UK) dangerous driving and will get you prosecuted and probably mean you lose your license at the very least. If it results in a death then you can get a life sentence in prison for it. Intentionally stopping inside a tunnel is a pretty clear cut case of dangerous driving over here.

> If it results in a death then you can get a life sentence in prison for it.

Can you provide an example of someone getting a life sentence because of an accident caused due to braking? That doesn't sound right.

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

#472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not let them take the space?

Because then you have to slow down to keep a safe following distance again. Then it happens again, and again, and again.

Why is this a problem?

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

#473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that disengaging the system is difficult. The problem is that deciding whether to disengage is difficult. If you're catching up to a slower car, maybe you should disengage the cruise control. Or maybe you shouldn't. You can't tell. This means that cruise control goes from being something that relieves stress on you to something that causes additional stress.

Every single adaptive cruise control system I've seen allows the driver to set a follow distance that is far too short. For example, on my Subaru, 4 bars is really the minimum "comfortable, relaxing" amount. But if traffic starts to get a little heavy, 3 bars works a little better, but you do have to be more vigilant. If you are down to using 2 bars or a single bar, you had better be hyper vigilant. I can't imagine a…

In my German vehicle, ACC reverts to max distance every time it's engaged. You have to manually shorten the distance every time with the steering wheel buttons. I hope that this behavior is standard, but wouldn't be surprised at all to learn different systems have a less safety-oriented behavior.

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

#474
post #385

From what I can tell, the car behind the tesla didn't crash into the tesla but stopped before. And so did the car behind that one. It is the cars after that that crashed into each others. While automatic cars doing random things is certainly problematic, clearly the cause of the crash here isn't the tesla, it is other cars not respecting minimum safety distances and not able to stop when there is a traffic jam ahead.

I was thinking the same. One earlier article about this had a rather inflammatory photo of some twisted-up cars next to an empty baby buggy. But if you watch the video, that’s clearly where some human drivers ploughed straight into the back of the pile-up. The Tesla autopilot failure is really bad, for sure, but those human drivers should be banned for life. There’s no excuse for ramming into a traffic jam because yo…

I believe there is a dynamic effect.

The first driver has some reaction time needed so he’ll start breaking after the Tesla starts breaking. Which means, assuming they were at the same speed initially, that the 1st car will have to break a bit harder than the Tesla.

Then the second car will be in the same situation, it will have to break a bit harder than then first. 5 cars later, you are at the hardest possible breaking power, as it’s ultimately limited by adherence.

So, if there’s not a larger gap in the thread of cars somewhere to allow for breaking less hard than the car in front, it’s more or less inevitable.

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

#475
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you watched the video? Its freeway speeds, a decently busy freeway, at a tunnel entrance that’s curving. Plus the car switched to the passing lane and abruptly stopped. This wasn’t going straight on a highway stopping in the same lane the driver was already in. I can understand how the conditions probably made it worse.

> Have you watched the video? Its freeway speeds, a decently busy freeway, at a tunnel entrench that’s curving. Plus the car switched to the passing lane and abruptly stopped. The Tesla car switching and abruptly stopping was a big problem, and I can understand that first car having trouble, but for cars behind the first one they should ideally all be keeping a distance ready for suddenly hitting the brakes in an eme…

its very difficult for cars behind to judge the level of braking. in a Freeway everyone assumes to break enough for a slowdown and not full stop. In Italian Highways there is a very practical custom. the cars that see a full stop not only break but signal full stop to behind cars so they know to fully break an not only slowdown

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

#476

I have a VW Golf and it has what it calls "adaptive cruise control". What makes it different from my older (simple) cruise control is that it will slow down and speed up again as necessary without my intervention. For example, if I set the speed to 70 mph and it gets close to a car ahead that is only going 65 mph, it will slow down and maintain what the software believes is a safe distance. Similarly, if a car in an…

I have an older BMW with ACC and had a Tesla Model 3 as well. The ACC on the BMW rocks, it reacts quicker than I do when a car slows in front of me, but never vigorously breaks. Phantom breaking is unheard of. It only needs attention when the car in front leaves the highway and starts slowing down. But the manual specifically addresses this.

On the other hand, I found the dumbest 'cruise control' mode on T3 downright dangerous, you always had to have foot on the gas to be ready to override it. They just took something that was solved a long time ago and made it worse, I really do not get it.

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

#477
post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other day I was driving behind a car on a country road, he did an emergency stop to avoid a rabbit in the road. I avoided hitting him, I stopped about 2m from him because I was careful to leave enough space. If I had hit him I'm sure the insurance companies would have placed blame on me and it would have been my insurance that paid out. But ultimately it would have been his "fault" for doing something utterly unp…

This reasoning makes very little sense to me. Why drive assuming that it will be a rabbit most of the time and not a child or a deer or whatever you deem worthy of stopping for? If the possibility exists that a driver in front of you may stop suddenly why not always leave a minimum amount of space for a safe stop considering there is virtually no downside to doing so?

> This reasoning makes very little sense to me.

The reasoning doesn't make sense because it is applied retroactively. The parent poster doesn't want to take responsibility for their unsafe driving practice and tries to place the blame on the other driver.

Cars suddenly stopping in front of you isn't some unpredictable rare event. You are told this as part of the licensing procedure, and this is the reason minimum safety distance exists. The solution is obvious and known to any licensed driver. As such, it is unreasonable and unacceptable, to not follow the minimum safety distance.

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

#478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an accident exactly like that. Car in front of me fully stopped all of a sudden as I was accelerating. This was right passed the lights. No traffic or anything in front him. I don't know why he stopped. My insurance told me he was 100% at fault.

Here in the UK, that happened to me on a roundabout. Elderly driver in front pulled out and then, for no visible reason, slammed on the brakes. I ran into the back of her. It was deemed to be be 100% my fault. Here, if you run into the back of the car in front, it is always your fault. No exceptions. It makes sense: you should always leave enough room to stop, so I couldn't really complain. But, if everybody did that…

I've heard a story from a friend that was in an accident like that. A police officer who did the paperwork smiled and said "It's the most common type of accident - people just stop paying attention to the car in front that started moving, and develop sort of a blind spot to that".

I drive for several years, and can say my brain relies heavily on this sort of predictable stuff like "that car has free intersection in front of it, it will move forward".

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

#479
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also like it because without having to stay so heavily focused on my speed I can spend more time on situational awareness of the other cars around me than I would with traditional CC or no CC.

I use ACC even in short bursts when merging onto the highway or changing lanes. Turn on ACC, then look over shoulder to check blind spot without worrying about the car in front slamming on brakes while my head is turned.

This is the way. Driver aids should fill in gaps and give new capabilities, not replace driver attention. Sort of like DSC or antilock brakes.

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

#480
post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you crash into the car in front of you in your lane, the responsibility is yours both morally and legally. The only car which has a valid excuse is the car immediately following the tesla since the tesla inserted itself into its lane then immediately stopped, not allowing it to build a safety distance.

I had an accident exactly like that. Car in front of me fully stopped all of a sudden as I was accelerating. This was right passed the lights. No traffic or anything in front him. I don't know why he stopped. My insurance told me he was 100% at fault.

Would he still be 100% at fault if he was stopping for a child you didn't see?
Post reply on HN