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

671–680 of 714 posts

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

#671

Post by osigurdson »

93po wrote: post #635
ajross wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really very wrong. Human beings create exactly this kind of accident every day. There is absolutely nothing remotely"non-human" about cutting someone off and stopping in traffic.[1] Just go check /r/idiotsincars for an hour to see much, much worse. [1] In fact, this is so unlike FSD's behavior that I still think it's more likely that it will turn out not to have been in use at all. The only evidence at hand i…

People lie about having FSD enabled all the time. And the internet loves shitting on Tesla so they'll treat unverified claims as fact and then perpetuate it forever as long as it fits their narrative.

I don’t disagree. I think what is happening is we all thought FSD would be available by now. Since it is not, we are now collectively dismissing it. The world will be much better with FSD however so let’s give it a chance.

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

#672

Post by joshlemer »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #568
r_hoods_ghost wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could prosecute dangerous drivers who hit pedestrians for manslaughter / attempted manslaughter and work on the assumption that the person I charge of the most dangerous vehicle has a duty of care towards other road users and if they don't discharge that duty they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

If harsher punishments don’t deter intentional violent crime, why do people expect them to deter accidents?

At what margin is this true? Is the claim that at all margins, harshness of punishment never has any effect on violent crime? It seems unlikely to me that people would not adjust their behaviour with respect to a type of crime, between it being unenforced vs punished by death.

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

#673

Post by 93po »

osigurdson wrote: post #671
93po wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People lie about having FSD enabled all the time. And the internet loves shitting on Tesla so they'll treat unverified claims as fact and then perpetuate it forever as long as it fits their narrative.

I don’t disagree. I think what is happening is we all thought FSD would be available by now. Since it is not, we are now collectively dismissing it. The world will be much better with FSD however so let’s give it a chance.

Technically it is - it's just in beta. There has been a full rollout. Anyone who's purchased it can use it. And obviously needs work, but it's also not the death trap people like to make it out to be.

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

#674

Post by rad_gruchalski »

suslik wrote: post #368
MengerSponge wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But motorcyclists rank just above bicyclists, and just below deer. Nobody actually gets in trouble for hitting them on the road. I would love to see manslaughter charges for more accidents. If I do a whoopsie and stab someone in my home, I'm not going to get off with a "oh my god I'm so sorry! I was tired and it was foggy." People driving should be extended the same courtesy.

Or just solve the problem by banning motorcycles. Motorcycles should stay on race tracks where they belong, not on foggy roads with tired commuters. Same with normal bikes, by the way: cycling on the same road with fast-driving cars should not be an actual phenomenon. I cycle to work every day, and love it, but would never do it if there wasn't a separate bike lane.

Yes, and ban pedestrians. Walking belongs to a shopping mall. We cannot allow those pesky pedestrians endanger our Full Self Driving.

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

#675

Post by ajross »

osigurdson wrote: post #671
93po wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People lie about having FSD enabled all the time. And the internet loves shitting on Tesla so they'll treat unverified claims as fact and then perpetuate it forever as long as it fits their narrative.

I don’t disagree. I think what is happening is we all thought FSD would be available by now. Since it is not, we are now collectively dismissing it. The world will be much better with FSD however so let’s give it a chance.

It literally drives me around every day. Seems pretty good for a product that is "not available".

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

#676

Post by osigurdson »

ajross wrote: post #675
osigurdson wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree. I think what is happening is we all thought FSD would be available by now. Since it is not, we are now collectively dismissing it. The world will be much better with FSD however so let’s give it a chance.

It literally drives me around every day. Seems pretty good for a product that is "not available".

If it is ever necessary to take over then it is largely pointless. The only value is helping us get to the point where you can chill in the back seat.

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

#677

Post by quink »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #354
quink wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trains are also not owned by individuals. Planes aren't either, what's your point? That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out of using _public_ infrastructure and require a personal investment currently in the tens of thousands for the cheapest autonomous cars? > Most people do not have a train station outside of their house. People have feet or a wheelchair, bicycles are a thing, trams and buses exi…

My overall point is that trains will not replace cars in the United States any time soon, so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes. > Planes aren't either, what's your point? My point is that the comment I replied to implied that trains can replace cars. Trains cannot replace cars because they are a form of public transportation, which cannot easily replace cars. > That people who nee…

Autonomous Driving Lanes world-wide: 0 kilometres.

> so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes.

Railways world-wide: 1,400,000 kilometres.

> Why are you resorting to a personal attack?

Are you seriously considering my putting out there that your personal experiences might influence your arguments to the point of not being credible a personal attack?

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

#678

Post by quink »

TylerE wrote: post #302
quink wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trains are also not owned by individuals. Planes aren't either, what's your point? That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out of using _public_ infrastructure and require a personal investment currently in the tens of thousands for the cheapest autonomous cars? > Most people do not have a train station outside of their house. People have feet or a wheelchair, bicycles are a thing, trams and buses exi…

Plenty of privately owned planes, even privately owned airports. Not many privately owned railways beyond a few garden toys that are more like giant rideable models).

JR East has 12,500 bits of rolling stock and 50,000 employees. BNSF has 8,000 locomotives and 41,000 employees. They're listed on the stock exchange and clearly have more than a few garden toys.

Also, who implied that railways need to be privately owned?

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

#679

Post by quink »

redox99 wrote: post #487
quink wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trains are also not owned by individuals. Planes aren't either, what's your point? That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out of using _public_ infrastructure and require a personal investment currently in the tens of thousands for the cheapest autonomous cars? > Most people do not have a train station outside of their house. People have feet or a wheelchair, bicycles are a thing, trams and buses exi…

> Planes aren't either, what's your point? If it weren't because of price, I'm sure everybody would prefer flying private. Flying commercial is pretty much as awful as it gets.

> If it weren't because of price, I'm sure everybody would prefer flying private.

Oh, OK, the only reason we shouldn't move the 10,000 daily passengers between LAX and SFO in 10,000 planes a day is because of the price.

/s

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

#680

Post by throwanem »

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…

> this puts you in an unstable regime where you are “fighting” with the car

This and your following description sound a lot like analyses of the two 737 crashes caused by MCAS.

Post reply on HN