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

US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#581

Post by kelnos »

eric_cc wrote: post #475
windexh8er wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe this at all. I don't own one but know about a half dozen people that got suckered into paying for FSD. All of them don't use it and 3 of them have stated it's put them in dangerous situations. I've ridden in an X, S and Y with it on. Talk about vomit inducing when letting it drive during "city" driving. I don't doubt it's OK on highway driving, but Ford Blue Cruise and GM's Super Cruise are better the…

You can believe what you want to believe. It works fantastic for me whether you believe it or not. I do wonder if people who have wildly different experiences than I have are living in a part of the country that, for one reason or another, Tesla FSD does not yet do as well in.

I think GP is going too far in calling you a liar, but I think for the most part your FSD praise is just kinda... unimportant and irrelevant. GP's aggressive attitude notwithstanding, I think most reasonable people will agree that FSD handles a lot of situations really well, and believe that some people have travel routes where FSD always handles things well.

But ok, great, so what? If that wasn't the case, FSD would be an unmitigated disaster with a body count in the tens of thousands. So in a comment thread about someone talking about the problems and unsafe behavior they've seen, a "well it works for me" reply is just annoying noise, and doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#582

Post by kelnos »

macintux wrote: post #219
alexjplant wrote: post #216

> The collision happened because the sun was in the Tesla driver's eyes, so the Tesla driver was not charged, said Raul Garcia, public information officer for the department. Am I missing something or is this the gross miscarriage of justice that it sounds like? The driver could afford a $40k vehicle but not $20 polarized shades from Amazon? Negligence is negligence.

I have no idea what the conditions were like for this incident, but I’ve blown through a 4-way stop sign when the sun was setting. There’s only so much sunglasses can do.

Your license should be suspended. If conditions don't allow you to see things like that, you slow down until you can. If you still can't, then you need to pull over and wait until conditions make it safe to drive again.

Gross.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#583

Post by mrjin »

TheCleric wrote: post #374
bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

> Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. There’s a simple answer to this. As soon as it’s good enough for Tesla to accept liability for accidents. Until then if Tesla doesn’t trust it, why should I?

Even if it does, can it resurrect the deceased?

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#584

Post by blackoil »

sokoloff wrote: post #563
ywvcbk wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> criminally liable for every death. The fact that people generally consume drugs voluntarily and make that decision after being informed about most of the known risks probably mitigates that to some extent. Being killed by someone else’s FSD car seems to be very different

Imagine that in 2031, FSD cars could exactly halve all aspects of auto crashes (minor, major, single car, multi car, vs pedestrian, fatal/non, etc.) Would you want FSD software to be developed or not? If you do, do you think holding devs or companies criminally liable for half of all crashes is the best way to ensure that progress happens?

Say cars have near 0 casualty in northern hemisphere but occasionally fails for cars driving topsy turvy in south. If company knew about it and chooses to ignore it because of profits, yes they should be charged criminally.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#585

Post by quailfarmer »

snypher wrote: post #355
modeless wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla jumped the gun on the FSD free trial earlier this year. It was nowhere near good enough at the time. Most people who tried it for the first time probably share your opinion. That said, there is a night and day difference between FSD 12.3 that you experienced earlier this year and the latest version 12.6. It will still make mistakes from time to time but the improvement is massive and obvious. More importantly,…

So just a few more years of death and injury until they reach a finished product?

If the answer was yes, presumably there’s a tradeoff where that deal would be reasonable.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#586

Post by mrjin »

bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

I would not even try. The reason is simple, there is absolutely no ability of understanding in any of current self claimed auto driving approach, no matter how well they market them.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#587

Post by kelnos »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #226

The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to se…

If Tesla's FSD was actually self-driving, maybe half the casualty rate of the median human driver would be fine.

But it's not. It requires constant supervision, and drivers sometimes have to take control (without the system disengaging on its own) in order to correct it from doing something unsafe.

If we had stats for what the casualty rate would be if every driver using it never took control back unless the car signaled it was going to disengage, I suspect that casualty rate would be much worse than the median human driver. But we don't have those stats, so we shouldn't trust it until we do.

This is why Waymo is safe and tolerated and Tesla FSD is not. Waymo test drivers record every time they have to take over control of the car for safety reasons. That was a metric they had to track and improve, or it would have been impossible to offer people rides without someone in the driver's seat.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#588

Post by kelnos »

gambiting wrote: post #266
blagie wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very much what I would like to see. The price of insurance is baked into the price of a car. If the car is as safe as I am, I pay the same price in the end. If it's safer, I pay less. From my perspective: 1) I would *much* rather have Honda kill someone than myself. If I killed someone, the psychological impact on myself would be horrible. In the city I live in, I dread ageing; as my reflexes get slower, I'm…

>> I would much rather have Honda kill someone than myself. If I killed someone, the psychological impact on myself would be horrible. Except that we know that it doesn't work like that. Train drivers are ridden with extreme guilt every time "their" train runs over someone, even though they know that logically there was absolutely nothing they could have done to prevent it. Don't see why it would be any different her…

Being in a vehicle that collides with someone and kills them is going to be traumatic regardless of whether or not you're driving.

But it's almost certainly going to be more traumatic and more guilt-inducing if you are driving.

If I only had two choices, I would much rather my car kill someone than I kill someone with my car. I'm gonna feel bad about it either way, but one is much worse than the other.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#589

Post by roca »

enslavedrobot wrote: post #179
gamblor956 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every year Musk personally flies enough in his private jet to undo the emissions savings of over 100,000 EVs... Remember that every time you get in your Tesla that you're just a carbon offset for a spoiled billionaire.

Hmmmm average car uses 489 gallons a year. Large private jet uses 500 gallons an hour. There are 9125 hours in a year. So if Elon lives in a jet that flys 24/7 you're only very wrong. Since that's obviously not the case you're colossally and completely wrong. Remember that the next time you try to make an argument that Tesla is not an incredible force for decarbonization.

Not Tesla exactly, but Musk has gone all-in trying to get a man elected to be US President who consistently says climate change is a hoax, or words to that effect.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#590

Post by tsimionescu »

jabroni_salad wrote: post #254
alexjplant wrote: post #216

> The collision happened because the sun was in the Tesla driver's eyes, so the Tesla driver was not charged, said Raul Garcia, public information officer for the department. Am I missing something or is this the gross miscarriage of justice that it sounds like? The driver could afford a $40k vehicle but not $20 polarized shades from Amazon? Negligence is negligence.

Negligence is negligence but people tend to view vehicle collisions as "accidents", as in random occurrences dealt by the hand of fate completely outside of anyone's control. As such, there is a chronic failure to charge motorists with negligence, even when they have killed someone. If you end up in court, just ask for a jury and you'll be okay. I'm pretty sure this guy didnt even go to court, sounds like it got pros…

That sounds like the justice system living up to its ideals. If the 12 jurors know they would have done the same in your situation, as would their family and friends, then they can't in good conscience convict you for negligence.
Post reply on HN