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

61–70 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#61

Post by yes_or_gnome »

itg wrote: post #13
kilroy123 wrote: post #3

I hate to say it, but there are going to be some deaths on the road to full autonomous cars. (no pun intended) The problem I see is, Tesla is the only one actively testing autonomous driving. The fact that over 100 million miles driven, and we're finally starting to see accidents, is a good sign.

Or you can test the cars the way Google does, without involving the public and having deaths on your hand from overhyping your product. https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/

There are tens of thousands of people either walking or driving the streets of Mountain View and Sunnyvale where Google is testing its self-driving cars. So, the members of the public are at risk.

But, I understand that you mean behind the wheel. Which is fun because the Google cars do not have a wheel. As I'm sure you may know, instead of a traditional steering wheel they have horizontally mounted, valve wheel with a handle. It looks a little bizarre when you first see it, but I would imagine it could be a safer, smoother alternative to the current standards steering wheel.

Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly provide an image; I've seen it multiple times on my walk to and from work.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#62

Post by yladiz »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #30
readams wrote: post #9

We'll just have to see how liability laws and juries treat these technologies. We may well see a situation where thousands of lives could be saved from automation, but any accident leads to millions in lawsuits and the technology is killed. Hopefully this isn't the outcome. Airbags occasionally kill or injure people also despite on balance saving lives. So there is precedent for this sort of math, but this is a very…

Takata airbags have been in the news the last several years because at least two people have died and more than a hundred have been injured. I've heard commenters opine that this "could mean the end of Takata as a company." But I haven't heard anyone say this "could mean the end of airbags as a feature in cars." I guess what the Tesla autopilot needs is a lot of good publicity every time it avoids an accident which a…

> I guess what the Tesla autopilot needs is a lot of good publicity every time it avoids an accident which a human driver would otherwise have actually caused.

Even if that happened, people will cling to the negative news much more than the positive news, aka Negativity Bias. Even if Tesla has a stellar record overall, one bad incident, especially with a somewhat unknown technology, will be much more in people's minds than the countless positive incidents.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#63

Post by readams »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #30
readams wrote: post #9

We'll just have to see how liability laws and juries treat these technologies. We may well see a situation where thousands of lives could be saved from automation, but any accident leads to millions in lawsuits and the technology is killed. Hopefully this isn't the outcome. Airbags occasionally kill or injure people also despite on balance saving lives. So there is precedent for this sort of math, but this is a very…

Takata airbags have been in the news the last several years because at least two people have died and more than a hundred have been injured. I've heard commenters opine that this "could mean the end of Takata as a company." But I haven't heard anyone say this "could mean the end of airbags as a feature in cars." I guess what the Tesla autopilot needs is a lot of good publicity every time it avoids an accident which a…

There are things like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X-5fKzmy38

and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I5rraWJq6E

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#64

Post by ethanbond »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #44
ethanbond wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including "put your hands on the wheel" x2

If you're instructing the driver to do something, and they don't, your last option is to fail as gracefully as possible (which is "what is the best path forward in the distance I need to stop at emergency braking rate + I must notify the vehicle behind me as soon as its clear I will take automated action, even if that's before I apply braking force").

That's fair! I guess no one wants automated cars forcing those behind them to rear-end, but eventually it does have to make this sort of decision.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#65

Post by ModernMech »

arrty88 wrote: post #24
readams wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll find suddenly braking in the middle of the road poses its own dangers.

I'm sure it.can detect whether or not there are vehicles behind it.

As long as it's not too bright out and the object isn't highly reflective and there's no glare and it's not too high and...

Given that the sensors can't detect a semi completely blocking the road, I'm reluctant to make any statements about what the Tesla can and can't detect.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#66

Post by lucb1e »

What I don't understand is why Tesla doesn't whitelist roads where this feature can be used, since the manual sets very specific conditions. Especially given that the feature is currently enabled, they must know which roads work with high confidence values.

Or assume they wanted to do the right thing from the start, and they don't have this dataset. It's not as if we don't have OpenStreetMap (or as if they couldn't buy a commercial dataset) in which you can easily filter out straight highways.

With this it could probably even work without being attentive as a driver, which would be a killer feature over the current state of affairs (currently it has no benefits whatsoever, if you follow the instructions, which is why probably almost nobody does).

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#67

Post by heurist »

lucb1e wrote: post #58
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…

> They should change the name to "driver assist" or something more accurate given that mis-interpreting the system's function can lead to death of the driver or others. While I definitely agree on the name change, it should be accompanied by a feature change. In its current mode, and especially if people know it has been renamed, the same stuff will happen. When you take your hands off the wheel, it turn on warning l…

That's what it does - it alerts drivers, and when their hands are off for some amount of time the car will pull off to the shoulder and stop until your hands are back on the wheel (IIRC).

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#69

Post by ethanbond »

yladiz wrote: post #56
ethanbond wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see a survey of how many Tesla drivers think Tesla advocates complete cession of control to Autopilot. My suspicion is zero.

It doesn't matter what they advocate for, it matters the perception of the technology. Just because Tesla doesn't explicitly say that it's a perfect system and says that the driver has to be aware at all times doesn't mean that actually happens, and with a lenient time frame without hands on the wheel it's not surprising that drivers would essentially give control to the car.

What I'm saying is I don't think it has anything to do with calling it autopilot, and even less to do with it not meeting the technical definition of autopilot.

People are using it in this way because they're able to, and they'll continue to do so until they're not able to. I think we agree here actually. The name isn't the problem really the issue.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#70

Post by lucb1e »

heurist wrote: post #67
lucb1e wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They should change the name to "driver assist" or something more accurate given that mis-interpreting the system's function can lead to death of the driver or others. While I definitely agree on the name change, it should be accompanied by a feature change. In its current mode, and especially if people know it has been renamed, the same stuff will happen. When you take your hands off the wheel, it turn on warning l…

That's what it does - it alerts drivers, and when their hands are off for some amount of time the car will pull off to the shoulder and stop until your hands are back on the wheel (IIRC).

Ah okay, I don't own a Tesla and this wasn't covered in news articles.

In that case, it sounds like it might actually work more or less as it should. It's just a bit useless in its current form.

Post reply on HN