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

New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

theautopian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 714 posts

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#611

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #605
jackmott wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Tesla, when using just cruise control it has slammed the brakes: because of shadows that confused it because of concern about cars crossing the intersection ahead where there is only the need to gently slow because of a car crossing an intersection ahead that has already crossed! because of a steep bridge that confused it we can’t use cruise control in the car basically, we decided it is too dangerous at wor…

The worst part of phantom braking is not just the need for a sudden human intervention. It’s that the required human intervention is extremely non-intuitive. Intuitively when a car suddenly slows down it feels like the right response is to press on the accelerator: however in my experience this puts you in an unstable regime where you are “fighting” with the car. That is, autopilot continues to try to stop but tempor…

There's a button on the steering wheel of my Impreza that I can press to turn off the cruise. I press that and then brake or accelerate as needed

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#612

Post by mikestew »

smaudet wrote: post #579
jiriro wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 seconds is nonsense. The average driver’s reaction time is 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. This is before the driver’s foot moves. Then there is approx 1 second before the brakes take effect (foot movement, applying the force, brakes responding) So 1.5 second before the car starts breaking. There is a rule of “be at least 2 seconds behind the car in front” which gives a safe distance to handle any emergency braking. Of course…

It's absolutely not nonsense, I suggest taking some basic high-school physics. Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop, not for the driver to first notice an issue. At 60 mph it will take many meters and seconds to deaccelerate, assuming the driver can take exactly the correct action: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=time+to+brake+at+70+met... Estimate here is about 4 seconds, under perfect co…

Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop

You seem to have your terminology confused. Reaction time doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with driving. I suggest a quick web search next time before assigning people remedial physics.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#613

Post by Gordonjcp »

mhb wrote: post #576
Gordonjcp wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the UK, it would very much be the fault of the driver in front, especially if there was that much CCTV footage available (there won't be, which is why dashcams are important - the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage scores a point here). The second car had left a more than adequate stopping distance. The Tesla changed lanes close in front of it and then immediately braked as hard as possible, delibe…

the US's obsession with blanket CCTV coverage Ha ha ha. London, UK?

No more and no fewer cameras than any city in the US.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#614

Post by projektfu »

abigail95 wrote: post #393
m_mueller wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also just not realistic. If everyone was that defensive (5+ seconds distance) on such a busy road it would severely lower its capacity, leading to constant traffic jams. Leaving that gap will just mean others taking it.

In my opinion the optimal following distance for traffic flow is probably slightly higher than what people are doing. There might be a "laffer curve" where increasing the follow distance of other cars and limiting overcorrections would increase capacity, rather than decrease it, at the current level. If we're getting regular "phantom jams", we're probably following too closely.

I agree there. There's a lot an individual can do to dampen the compression waves if they leave 3 seconds instead of 2. I was being facetious with 5 seconds, but in some situations the 3 second distance is still not enough time to react. For example, when there is a stationary obstruction and the car in front obscuring it swerves instead of braking.

Additionally, there's a lot to be said about vehicles not acting like they have human drivers. This Tesla basically acted like a psychopath.

I have one car with regular cruise control and one with adaptive cruise. I am more relaxed with the standard one because I get the signals I need visually to know if I need to pass the car in front or not. I can't tell if my other car is going to drop from 80mph to 60mph all of a sudden until it's basically happened. Better autopilot could help, but then would I end up in this situation?

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#615

Post by jjav »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #343
justapassenger wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very unlikely it’s a first time FSD caused accident for others. People using FSD allow it to do reckless things, just to see “if it’ll figure it out”. You can cause accident, without being involved in it, especially if you drive in unpredictable way. Like this one - if driver would stop sudden breaking and moved forward, cars behind him could have still crashed. That’s the thing about testing on the public roads…

Most of the fault in this video seems attributable to the other motorists. I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops. Is this not the case in California? Because the first car seems at least partially at fault in this respect, and every other contributor to the pile up is si…

> I was always taught that it was my responsibility to ensure that I have enough following distance, and am paying close enough attention, to stop if the car in front of you abruptly stops.

Brake testing (suddenly braking hard for no reason, what the Tesla did here) has always been a cause for the leading car to be the guilty party when they get rear ended.

In times prior to dashcams, it was difficult to prove the car ahead did brake to cause the accident, so the rule of thumb was the rear car is probably guilty. But if there was a way to show the lead car did brake, they're guilty.

Nowadays with dashcams, it's a lot easier to prove, so brake testers don't get away with it as much.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#616

Post by amelius »

tpxl wrote: post #480
apigalore wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an accident exactly like that. Car in front of me fully stopped all of a sudden as I was accelerating. This was right passed the lights. No traffic or anything in front him. I don't know why he stopped. My insurance told me he was 100% at fault.

Would he still be 100% at fault if he was stopping for a child you didn't see?

Why do you think that matters here?

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#617

Post by jjav »

smaudet wrote: post #579
jiriro wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 seconds is nonsense. The average driver’s reaction time is 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. This is before the driver’s foot moves. Then there is approx 1 second before the brakes take effect (foot movement, applying the force, brakes responding) So 1.5 second before the car starts breaking. There is a rule of “be at least 2 seconds behind the car in front” which gives a safe distance to handle any emergency braking. Of course…

It's absolutely not nonsense, I suggest taking some basic high-school physics. Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop, not for the driver to first notice an issue. At 60 mph it will take many meters and seconds to deaccelerate, assuming the driver can take exactly the correct action: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=time+to+brake+at+70+met... Estimate here is about 4 seconds, under perfect co…

> Reaction time is the time for the vehicle to come to a stop, not for the driver to first notice an issue.

No, reaction time means the time from noticing the need to brake to the time brake pressue is getting applied.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#618

Post by jjav »

Alex3917 wrote: post #84
somethoughts wrote: post #65

I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. [Edit] From the video the Tesla is making a lane change and stopping simultaneously which means there could be a case of the Tesla FSD/driver doing a unsafe lane change.[1] Most of the time FSD just wrecks the Tesla itself or injures the driver of the Tesla (i.e. running int…

> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different…

> In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something.

Brake checking (what the Tesla did) does definitely make the front car the guilty party. It's usually done for insurance fraud, here presumably done just by AI gone mad. But same result and same guilt.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#619

Post by maerF0x0 »

antoineMoPa wrote: post #216
maerF0x0 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but we already have a network of asphalt, not rails.

Here is a map of the rail network in North America (just to confirm that it does not exist /s) https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=96ec...

clearly rails exist. I highly doubt you, or anyone, believes that rails reach the number of destinations that roads do. Yes you could argue to move more by rail for most destinations, and last mile it by truck. But with that change I still think we're running into contention for that left lane ...

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#620

Post by ndyg »

MBCook wrote: post #99
jayd16 wrote: post #82

This is an honest question here but why is the pile up so bad if driving conditions were ideal? The next 6 drivers were not keeping a safe distance or paying attention?

Have you watched the video? Its freeway speeds, a decently busy freeway, at a tunnel entrance that’s curving. Plus the car switched to the passing lane and abruptly stopped. This wasn’t going straight on a highway stopping in the same lane the driver was already in. I can understand how the conditions probably made it worse.

Cars are traveling at 'freeway speeds' in the video, but they are breaking the law. The Bay Bridge is signed for 50 MPH. This issue is endemic. When I lived in the Bay area, I'd set cruise control to 60MPH on the Bay Bridge, and would be practically run off the road by traffic speeding by.
Post reply on HN