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

Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 184 posts

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#61

Post by hexane360 »

_ea1k wrote: post #22
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #17

You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…

To be honest, I've only really heard this misunderstanding from non-owners. The really scary ones are the ones that own it, know about the limitations, and intentionally bypass the safeguards.

I don't disagree, but I honestly have not really heard much from owners. Definitely not nearly enough to call it a representative sample.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#62

Post by jsjohnst »

fleitz wrote: post #28
jsjohnst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

There's lots of autopilot systems that smash into shit, sailboats are one of them, you can put your sailboat on autopilot and it's going to smash into stuff. Samething with an airliner, autopilot will not avoid another aircraft.

> Samething with an airliner, autopilot will not avoid another aircraft.

Wrong! There are autopilots which integrate TCAS into the autopilot (A380 among them).

Source: http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2009/08/eas...

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#63

Post by taneq »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #31
michaelmior wrote: post #11

> The California Highway Patrol and Culver City Fire Department confirmed the southbound Tesla had struck the fire truck, but could not immediately confirm whether the vehicle had been on Autopilot. It sounds like it's not 100% confirmed that Autopilot was at fault. The first sentence of the article also reads " reportedly on 'Autopilot'"

The more I think about it, the more I think that there should be an outward signal, such as a special light, that a car is in self-driving mode. We already require signals when changing lanes, reversing, and for electric cars to be audible at low speeds (starting in 2019). Those nearby shouldn’t have to guess if a car is under computer control.

Self-driving mine trucks have indicator lights for just this reason. Green indicates the truck is under the control of a human driver, flashing orange indicates the truck is under automatic control, and flashing red indicates the truck has a fault and will not move.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#64

Post by taneq »

justasitsounds wrote: post #60
imron wrote: post #32

I guess it's not all bad news - a collision with a stationary object at 65mph and the driver was able to walk away > Because of the force of the impact, firefighters advised the Tesla driver that he should be taken for a medical evaluation, but he showed no significant injuries and refused treatment,

Bets the driver was voluntarily impaired?

Are you implying they may not have been sober? (Which is a fair guess if they can afford a Tesla but want to avoid a medical examination, I guess.)

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#65

Post by jsjohnst »

rileymat2 wrote: post #35
jsjohnst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

I would be curious about the stats though, If accidents are less frequent, is it at fault for accidents, or did it save us from a bunch of accidents?

> or did it save us from a bunch of accidents?

I do not believe Tesla’s are equipped with the necessary hardware to scientifically show beyond a reasonable doubt they assisted in preventing accidents.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#66

Post by akira2501 »

rileymat2 wrote: post #35
jsjohnst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.

I would be curious about the stats though, If accidents are less frequent, is it at fault for accidents, or did it save us from a bunch of accidents?

266 Billion Miles are driven on US roadways each _month_. It's going to be a while before we have a predictive dataset.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#68

Post by jsjohnst »

kalleboo wrote: post #45
hndamien wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't called full self driving, it is called auto-pilot. In aviation, auto-pilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators but assist them in controlling aircraft, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operations.

The thing is that almost nobody knows what an Autopilot actually does. Even here on Hacker News you see comments to the effect of "why do we still need pilots, planes take off fly and land by themselves!"

I do not know of a commercial airline autopilot that does taxi / takeoff.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#69

Post by sjwright »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #39
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more I think about it, the more I think that there should be an outward signal, such as a special light, that a car is in self-driving mode. We already require signals when changing lanes, reversing, and for electric cars to be audible at low speeds (starting in 2019). Those nearby shouldn’t have to guess if a car is under computer control.

What do you think human drivers should do differently when driving near a car that is under computer control?

Aggressively cut in whenever they want with impunity and zero consequences? Self driving cars will always avoid obstacles where possible and never suffer road rage.

The only thing that keeps a check on the impulses of the most aggressive human drivers is the unpredictability of other human drivers.

Re: Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on freeway

#70

Post by michael_storm »

kuschku wrote: post #10
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so is non (human-) visible wavelengths not part of the autopilot system?

Tesla, to save money, is trying to build autopilot from regular video cameras in visible spectrum. EDIT: Some models still contain other sensors, but Musk has been trying to go with purely optical for a long time.

Why is this person downvoted? That is a true, relevant, and dispassionate statement.
Post reply on HN