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

Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

ktvq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#491

Post by taf2 »

abalone wrote: post #477
taf2 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its a bit harder than a double tap... You press and hold. Count to three. Now wait for the car to start blinking and make a shifting noise. Press either the front of the key or back of the key to move forward. Definitely not easy to engage so I can understand tesla view on this one... I do this every morning/night to pull my car out of the tiny garage since I can't get my door open inside the garage

False. Did you watch the video? It proves that you only had to double tap and exit. Tesla pushed an update that enabled this as a "convenient" shortcut to the more elaborate, safer method you describe. In fact the video author praises it. Seems like a nice handy feature.. At first. Safety-critical design needs more care than this though.

It is True. You have to press in two places on the key. First you have to press and Hold in the middle of the key. Next you have to press either in the Front of the key or the Back of the key. Show me the video? Am I missing something can I simply press in the Front Twice?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#492

Post by chronolitus »

dingo_bat wrote: post #252
cloakandswagger wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been trained to recognize the discrepancy between a product's by-the-book usage (which is often impractically stringent, as a CYA for the company) and its real world usage. Tesla could easily have the "autopilot" turn off if no hands are detected on the wheel for, say, 10 seconds. Putting a blurb in the instruction manual about keeping your hands on the wheel but then allowing users to use it hands-free i…

I don't know about most people but there are some things (like cars), that I treat as super-reliable machines that will protect me even if I do some dumb things. And most car systems are made like that. They assume that the driver is going to fuck up at some point and they try to handle that. It seems Tesla's auto-drive feature is not like that. It's like when Chrome has a silly bug, I just accept it as it is and try…

> I don't know about most people but there are some things (like cars), that I treat as super-reliable machines that will protect me even if I do some dumb things.

It still boggles my mind that people think this way. YOU put yourself in control a potentially deadly vehicle. You choose to do so. What will your super-reliable car do if you run into a pedestrian?

"It shouldn't be hard." It is. "We shouldn't expect people to read the manual." We should. If they don't, and injure someone or themselves, they are being criminally negligent.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#493

Post by verytrivial »

kirkbauer wrote: post #468
verytrivial wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this incident, the driver was using autopilot in a fashion that it should not be; twisting road at high speed. I don't understand why, if the car's GPS co-ordinates are known, the car even allows autopilot on anything but roads known to be within spec. > The driver IS at fault. I'm not sure legal liability is that clear cut.

I can't imagine that every road in the world can be determined to be "safe" or "not safe" via GPS coordinates alone.

Then the classification would fail-safe (i.e. no autopilot for you) and that's good[1]. The alternative with the current technology is apparently depending on humans to decide (poorly). This is to minimise deaths caused by engaging autopilot at the wrong time while you gather more data.

[1] If the goal is to stay out of court. I understand the AI drivers are better on average argument.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#494

Post by kirkbauer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #489
kirkbauer wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can autopilot know if it is safe to steer into the shoulder? It won't even change lanes without driver input.

> How can autopilot know if it is safe to steer into the shoulder? I would suggest that if it can't, its not ready for general use on consumer road vehicles.

Isn't that one of the reasons there is still a driver? Cruise control will drive you right off of the road until you crash with no awareness of the shoulder or other traffic or anything. But it is all over the place.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#495

Post by kirkbauer »

FireBeyond wrote: post #471
kirkbauer wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's stupid. Autopilot doesn't have the ability to determine if it is safe to pull over. It has a fallback mode; eventually it will come to a complete stop in the middle of the road and turn the hazards on. But since this is also dangerous it makes sense to give the driver time to stop it from happening.

It's stupid to come to a gradual slowdown with hazard lights, but it's not stupid to keep blazing away at speed, with an obviously inattentive (or perhaps completely disabled) driver? I'm confused - even you acknowledge it has that fallback, but it's 'stupid' to enact it after a couple of failed warnings? When should that threshold be crossed, then?

That is exactly what it does; apparently the accident happened before it could complete its "slow down and stop with the hazard lights on" process.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#496

Post by kirkbauer »

jessaustin wrote: post #406
talmand wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Google admitted fault, took the blame Let's wait until Google's car kills someone and then compare their reaction to that of Tesla's.

Still waiting...

My understanding is that most of Google's cars are limited to around 30mph. Seems unlikely to kill an occupant at least.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#497

Post by chronolitus »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #338
givinguflac wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, they shouldn't be responsible for distracted driving. Autopilot can certainly get better, but you're being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that these Tesla drivers with their hands off the wheel don't fall under distracted driving. Could autopilot improve? Yes. Is the driver at fault here for not staying alert and responsible for the car they chose to drive? Absolutely. Please show me a source for th…

> Please show me a source for the claim that they're "implying far more automation" It is literally called "autopilot."

Are you implying that the drivers involved were not even aware that they were using the feature negligently?

Even after they used it for miles, it having certainly audibly reminded them many times, over months, that they must have their hands on the wheel?

Maybe if someone is deaf, reads "autopilot", jumps in the car and crashes, the name is at fault. Otherwise, unlikely.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#498

Post by kirkbauer »

Shivetya wrote: post #327
Animats wrote: post #109

With three accidents on "autopilot" in a short period, the defects in Tesla's design are becoming clear. 1. Tesla's "hands on wheel" enforcement is much weaker than their competitors. BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes have similar systems, but after a few seconds of hands-off-wheel, the vehicle will start to slow. Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. Tesla i…

I still say they best damn well rename the feature. The connotations of the work autopilot are too strong as to be misleading to what it can actually do. when the technology matures then bring the name back, but until then call it something else. I am still amused that most of these self driving implementations only drive when people are least likely to need the assistance, good visibility conditions. They are the op…

I can see how the name could be misleading to some people. However, I think the term is quite accurate. In an aircraft, Autopilot takes care of the basics of flying the plane while the pilot is fully responsible for what is happening, watching out for traffic, and ready to take over if necessary. This is exactly what it means for Tesla as well.

In any case, as somebody who has used it off and on for 6 months in all kinds of situations it is clear that it has limitations but it is also easy to know when to be worried. Its best use is in stop-and-go freeway traffic. Its worse use is on smaller curvy surface streets. It is also really nice for distance driving on freeways.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#499

Post by kirkbauer »

aresant wrote: post #29

I wrote this on a previously buried thread: Naming their system "autopilot" goes beyond the marketing dept overstepping and into the territory of irresponsibility. The "average" definition of autopilot per Wikipedia is "autopilot is a system used. . . WITHOUT CONSTANT 'HANDS-ON' control by a human operator being required." And yet Tesla's disclaimer states: "Tesla requires drivers to remain engaged and aware when Aut…

I can see how the name could be misleading to some people. However, I think the term is quite accurate. In an aircraft, Autopilot takes care of the basics of flying the plane while the pilot is fully responsible for what is happening, watching out for traffic, and ready to take over if necessary. This is exactly what it means for Tesla as well.

In any case, as somebody who has used it off and on for 6 months in all kinds of situations it is clear that it has limitations but it is also easy to know when to be worried. Its best use is in stop-and-go freeway traffic. Its worse use is on smaller curvy surface streets. It is also really nice for distance driving on freeways.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#500

Post by ghaff »

Scarblac wrote: post #246
ghaff wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luxury cars do tend to do pretty well among late model cars in terms of fatality rates--haven't seen rates for accidents overall. But the biggest correlation is probably that bigger cars are safer and smaller cars less so: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-lists-cars-with-highest-a... The fatality rates are probably also notably better on late model cars relative to clunkers because of safety features.

But this is overanalyzing, if we use only the "1 fatality in 130 million miles" stat. That 1 fatality was a car driving under a truck at speed and losing its entire top half. I don't think more expensive cars are less likely to have that kind of accident, nor would it be less fatal.

I was responding to a specific comment. I agree that fatality statistics are utterly meaningless based on one event.
Post reply on HN