NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash • Hacker News Board

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#521

Post by buvanshak » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 2:37 AM UTC

JoshCole wrote: post #518

blub wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tesla's safety record" is misleading: * every update to the software makes the record irrelevant, because one is no longer driving the same car which set the previous record. Lane centering for instance was introduced in an OTA update and it likely contributed to this accident. * most of the safe miles driven by Teslas are not with autopilot on. The NTSB explicitly said they did not test autopilot. * finally, some H…

I agree that there are aspects of the Tesla safety record which have caveats, but even when I take those caveats into account, I still come out thinking of the Tesla as being relatively safe. The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update. Eventually for example, that same update feature is expected to bring the car to the point of being superhuman…

>The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update...

You don't work in software, right?

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#522

Post by candiodari » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 5:44 AM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #97

Animats wrote: post #42

NTSB: • At 8 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla was following a lead vehicle and was traveling about 65 mph. • At 7 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla began a left steering movement while following a lead vehicle. • At 4 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla was no longer following a lead vehicle. • At 3 seconds prior to the crash and up to the time of impact with the crash attenuator, the Tesla’s speed increas…

One more thing to note - anecdotal evidence indicates that Tesla cars did not attempt to center within a lane prior to an OTA update, after which multiple cars exhibited this "centering" action into gore sections (and thus required manual input to avoid an incident) on video. To me, that this behavior was added via an update makes it even harder to predict - your car can pass a particular section of road without inci…

You know, I must say as a European driving in America I've done this on occasion. Combined with drivers not letting you in, it's tempting to follow the gore sections into the (barely visible) barrier. I mean, I slow down when that happens, but otherwise I seem to react pretty much the same as this Tesla car. Why can't the "gore" sections be marked like this ?

1) https://goo.gl/maps/iWEcY7hU4DJ2

2) https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3314532,4.799684,3a,60y,221....

Differences:

a) Clearly different road markings between the gore section and normal lanes

b) BIG brightly colored and lit sign above the barrier

c) the barrier itself has a shock absorber/deflection thing like 10 meters in front of the concrete

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#523

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 5:44 AM UTC

AceyMan wrote: post #367

erikpukinskis wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t flying mostly safe because of post hoc safety analysis followed by operating requirements? I don’t think the FAA tests every change made to aircraft before they can fly?

De facto the FAA indeed does that very thing. First, any change in design (or in configuration, in the case of repairs) is backed by PEs or A&P mechanics who sign off on the changes. Their career rides on the validity of their analysis so that's a better guarantee than some commit message by a systems programmer. Second, the FAA basically says "show us what you are changing" after which they will absolutely require p…

That's fascinating, it's kind of a collectivizing of the responsibility for safety.

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#524

Post by JoshCole » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 5:50 AM UTC

buvanshak wrote: post #520

JoshCole wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not sure how the safety of vehicles with assistive tech is relevant. I am not at all disagreeing on that aspect. You were saying that fact that vehicles with assistive tech are safer is reflected in tesla's marketing and PR. I am still not sure how that could be the case. How does it justify calling a half baked self driving tech as autopilot and selling them to unsuspecting people? I brought up driver assista…

> Its a claim about the performance of the system which you have claimed we can not characterize with the currently available statistics. I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). But the naming of the feature and its marketing inspires false confidence in the drivers, leading to accidents. This is a very simple fact, and it should hav…

> I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation).

In citing their documentation, you acknowledge that there communication is enough to deduce the limits of their technology. In claiming that there is not enough data to make declarations about safety, you disavow the validity of your own proclamation of (a lack of) safety. In doing so, you've refuted many of the premises of your own argument.

> But the naming of the feature and its marketing inspires false confidence in the drivers, leading to accidents.

How is this different from any other name? Every word concept pair starts out without the word and the concept linked together. For example, the name given to our species is 'homo sapien' which means roughly 'wise human being'. But humans aren't always wise. So why isn't the person who coined the term 'homo sapien' blatantly evil for coining the term?

> If they are not really interested in the "long term", then their actions cease to be part of "what allows [the] long term to exist".

Maybe we're talking past each other but this is... an absurd idea. And wrong. So very wrong.

If someone wakes up in the morning and they say they got up because they wanted to see the face of their loved one, but really they got up because they wanted to pee, they still got up out of bed. The existence of imperfectly stated motivations doesn't cause a cessation of causal history.

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#525

Post by buvanshak » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 7:35 AM UTC

JoshCole wrote: post #524

buvanshak wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its a claim about the performance of the system which you have claimed we can not characterize with the currently available statistics. I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). But the naming of the feature and its marketing inspires false confidence in the drivers, leading to accidents. This is a very simple fact, and it should hav…

> I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). In citing their documentation, you acknowledge that there communication is enough to deduce the limits of their technology. In claiming that there is not enough data to make declarations about safety, you disavow the validity of your own proclamation of (a lack of) safety. In doing so, you've…

> there communication is enough to deduce the limits of their technology..

Not deducing. By what they explicitly state in the manual. About the "need to keep hands on the wheel always". So again. I am not "deducing" it.

>So why isn't the person who coined the term 'homo sapien' blatantly evil for coining the term?

I don't know. Was the person who coined the the term trying to sell human beings as being wise? Are people suffering because of this word? What is your goddamn point?

Tesla is evil because they use lies to SELL. use lies and project a false image to get INVESTMENT. Please keep this in mind when coming up with further examples.

>The existence of imperfectly stated motivations doesn't cause a cessation of causal history.

Ha. Now you are talking about "history" that does not exist yet. Are you really this misguided or just faking it?

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#526

Post by stolsvik » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 9:13 AM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #97

Animats wrote: post #42

NTSB: • At 8 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla was following a lead vehicle and was traveling about 65 mph. • At 7 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla began a left steering movement while following a lead vehicle. • At 4 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla was no longer following a lead vehicle. • At 3 seconds prior to the crash and up to the time of impact with the crash attenuator, the Tesla’s speed increas…

One more thing to note - anecdotal evidence indicates that Tesla cars did not attempt to center within a lane prior to an OTA update, after which multiple cars exhibited this "centering" action into gore sections (and thus required manual input to avoid an incident) on video. To me, that this behavior was added via an update makes it even harder to predict - your car can pass a particular section of road without inci…

«Lethal Regression»

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#527

Post by Robotbeat » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 5:11 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #502

Robotbeat wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's "rather unlikely" to the point of implausibility, that even the human drivers who have crashed into that barrier. So implausible that the barrier was destroyed just weeks earlier by a human driver?

I find it equally implausible that you willfully ignored the context of my quotes. To the extent that you literally changed the colon that lead to the context of those quotes into a period to make it sound like that was the extent of my statement. Yes, human drivers crash into crash barriers, as noted. Now, how many of those human drivers "actively aimed at the barrier", as the NTSB stated? And how many of those huma…

I ignored it intentionally because that is a mischaracterization of what the NTSB report said. That is what clickbait headlines said (misleadingly). The autopilot was following the lines, which looked a lot like a lane. Human drivers make similar mistakes, and it is quite likely that’s what happened earlier and why the barrier was destroyed beforehand. The lines are about the same size as a lane and lead you straight into the barrier.

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#528

Post by hfdgiutdryg » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #517

hfdgiutdryg wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep them on the road. They're still safer than a huge percentage of the awful drivers that I see every day.

They really aren't. At least you can rely on 99% of humans to try to act according to self-preservation instinct MOST of the time. I see a Tesla, and I try to get away from them as soon as possible.

At least you can rely on 99% of humans to try to act according to self-preservation instinct MOST of the time.

Nope. I see tremendous numbers of distracted drivers who don't even realize there's a threat. I also see many utterly incompetent drivers who will not take any evasive action, including braking, because they simply don't understand basic vehicle dynamics or that one needs to react to unexpected circumstances.

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#529

Post by hexane360 » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

koyote wrote: post #483

workinthehead wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, perhaps something to do with there being more road miles in the US than in all of Europe combined?

The European road network is actually slightly larger than the US one (~6.5 million km vs ~7 million km).

Which makes the point just fine, when you compare the U.S's 326 million to the EU's 508 million.

Re: NTSB: Autopilot steered Tesla car toward traffic barrier before deadly crash

#530

Post by hexane360 » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

crote wrote: post #275

hexane360 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty apples-to-oranges. You see things like this in a lot of less dense U.S. areas as well. But in the crash example, it's right in the middle of an interchange, with the lane needing to form and rise quickly. Additionally, the gently rising metal barriers aren't safe in many situations because of their ability to launch cars. That's why they've been replaced by crash attenuators and sand/water barrels. Unf…

Well, yes and no. First, your counter-example is, ironically, pretty apples-to-oranges, as it is literally in the middle of nowhere. Meanwhile, the municipality where my interchange is located has a population density 1.5x that of Mountain View. About the A20: it was built around 1970, inspired by American designs. Something like this would probably not be built today. Meanwhile, the specific ramp where the accident…

You're right that my first example is in the middle of nowhere, but there's a good reason for that. American and Dutch city designs differ so much to make them incomparable. Even NYC has 0.63 vehicles per household (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-of-v...), and San Jose (the closest to Mountain View I could find) has 2.12. There's a lot more traffic to deal with, and a lot more sprawl, meaning less space for interchanges and long ramps.