Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#751

Post by grogers » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:26 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #552

Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles. Here's a good example - a Tesla on autopilot crashing into a temporary road barrier which required a lane change.[1] This is a view from the dashcam of the vehicle behind the Tesla. At 00:21, things look norm…

Yes, the problem is that you don't know the car has done something stupid until after it's already happened. By then, it's likely too late because obstacles on the road are very nearby.

It might not solve all these accidents but I think a HUD showing where the car plans to travel would work better. If you knew the car was aiming off the road before it turned, you could override the controls in time to correct. It still would require lots of attention and fast reaction time (and still may be less safe than manual driving), but it would at least be better than the situation we are in now.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#752

Post by osrec » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:28 AM UTC

kbutler wrote: post #556

osrec wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it'll take years to update our infrastructure. For example, we could embed beacons into catseyes to make it easier to know where the road boundaries are etc. Also, we could make sections of the highway available with the new infrastructure piece by piece. It is just as progressive as your suggestion, but the problem becomes a whole lot easier to solve when you target change towards infrastructure as wel…

These will take a lane from regular traffic and give it to rich people who buy an expensive car. It also will not ensure exclusion of manual vehicles, so it won't create the exclusion necessary for the predictable driving environment.

Not really, the road would still be fully usable by a standard car.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#753

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:38 AM UTC

culturestate wrote: post #688

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what it's commonly called currently. Not super weird if you consider that there is an autopilot on planes - which only keeps direction and altitude. You also have to keep en eye on it and of course steer it to where you want it to go.

Autopilot on a modern commercial aircraft does much more than hold heading and altitude. It's quite possible for autopilot to fly the plane autonomously almost entirely from takeoff to landing.

The dumbest possible version is still called Autopilot.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#754

Post by gambiting » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:48 AM UTC

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #593

maxxxxx wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles." I have been thinking that too. At what point do you decide that the autopilot is making a mistake and take over? That's an almost impossible task to perform within the available time.

Try it. it’s not impossible. I do it all the time. Have you ever noticed how passengers are still paying attention to what’s going on and sometimes even turn their head to see where the car is turning? it’s like that, except you’re in the drivers seat. it’s not more work than driving.

Ok, imagine if you are a passenger in a car, sitting next to the driver. You are heading towards a turn, with a solid barrier in your path if you don't turn. Your driver is awake, holding the wheel firmly with eyes wide open. Do you think there's any chance you could intervene between realizing that the driver is not turning and the car hitting the barrier? You could be paying 200% attention to the road, but there's just not enough time - by the time you even realize that the driver is not turning the wheel to impact there is like 1 second of time, maybe two - could you grab the wheel and pull it to one side in that time? And even if you could, can you guarantee that you won't pull it too much and into the path of fully loaded 18-wheeler which will promptly flatten your car?

It's just not good enough. Semi-autonomous cars can't be hitting stationary objects without reacting at all. If they fail at this basic task, then they shouldn't be allowed on the road.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#755

Post by spockz » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:52 AM UTC

txcwpalpha wrote: post #168

greglindahl wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Tesla was shipping a Level 3 system, your analysis would be great. But they aren't. They're shipping a Level 2 system where you're reminded each time that you enable it that you've got to remain alert. And which dings at you if you don't keep your hands on the steering wheel.

This is irrelevant. Before his death, Tesla told the driver that there was no issue with the autopilot feature. This likely contributed to his continued use of the feature. That feature, because of the same issue (which Tesla denied existed) killed him. And now Tesla is saying that there is an issue, and that it's his fault for using the system. Whether or not it's a full self-driving mode, or if it's an assisted aut…

Could you please point to the source where it says that Tesla said it wasn’t an issue? All I read describes that they couldn’t reproduce the issue. That is something different.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#756

Post by mijamo » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:58 AM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #557

mozumder wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. Anything else you want to make up? Let's see what that imagination can craft.

There's no need to make anything up. Mass transit systems are relatively efficient if and only if they are used on routes popular enough to replace enough private vehicles to offset their greater size and operating costs (both physical and financial). That usually means big cities, or major routes in smaller cities at busier times. Achieving 24/7 mass transit, available with reasonable frequency for journeys over bot…

Why so big though? I lived in a 25 000 people town in Sweden and did not need a car more than a few week ends per year. There was 5 bus lines for local transport, and long distance busses and trains with quite high frequency.

And that's not taking into account the fact that bicycle is a very viable way to move around in cities I have actually never owned a car, I just rent some once in a while to go out somewhere where regular transports don't get me. I have lived in Sweden, France and Spain, in 10 cities from 25 000 to 12 million inhabitants. Never felt restricted. I actually feel much more restricted when I drive because I have to worry about parking, which is horrible in both Paris and Stockholm. Many people I know, even in rural Sweden or France, don't own a car because it is just super costly and the benefit is not worth it. It's very much a generation thing tough because my friends are mostly around 26-32 whereas nearly all the person I know over 35 owns a car, even if they don't actually have that much money and sometimes complain about it.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#757

Post by maxxxxx » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 12:00 PM UTC

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #593

maxxxxx wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles." I have been thinking that too. At what point do you decide that the autopilot is making a mistake and take over? That's an almost impossible task to perform within the available time.

Try it. it’s not impossible. I do it all the time. Have you ever noticed how passengers are still paying attention to what’s going on and sometimes even turn their head to see where the car is turning? it’s like that, except you’re in the drivers seat. it’s not more work than driving.

When I am a passenger I do not always pay attention, only sometimes. And if something happens it will the driver's fault, not mine. It would be a very stressful ride if I had to always observe the driver and if I didn't intervene anytime every problem would be my responsibility.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#758

Post by simias » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 12:01 PM UTC

corney91 wrote: post #742

shawabawa3 wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had the ability to measure confidence in the system, they would use it to issue warnings or disable autopilot The "confidence meter" would almost certainly be 100% right up until it crashes into an obvious obstacle

> If they had the ability to measure confidence in the system, they would use it to issue warnings or disable autopilot Yeah, that's basically what I'm asking for, maybe a warning light at a certain threshold would be a better default, personally I'd still find a number more trustworthy though. > The "confidence meter" would almost certainly be 100% right up until it crashes into an obvious obstacle If image recognit…

>I'd be surprised something more complicated like road navigation was 100% certain all the time.

If for instance it failed to detect an obstacle how could it tell you that it failed detecting an obstacle? Or that it got the road markings wrong?

Given that the consequences for making a mistake might be people dying I certainly hope that's not how it works under the hood. Anything less than "I'm absolutely sure that I'm not currently speeding towards an obstacle" should automatically trigger a safety system that would cause the autopilot to disengage and give the control back to the driver, maybe engaging the emergency lights to let the other drivers know that something is amiss.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the moments preceding these crashes the autopilot algorithm was completely sure it was doing the right thing.

Of course these various crashes show that in fact the algorithm makes mistakes sometimes but I certainly hope that it's not aware that it's making mistakes, it just messes up while it thinks everything is going as planned.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#759

Post by skgoa » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 12:23 PM UTC

icc97 wrote: post #749

skgoa wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why, as the head of Google's self driving effort once said, partial self driving "assistance" is inherently unsafe. Sorry, but this is the exact wrong conclusion to make from the available data. Partially automated cars have been driven by average people on the public roads since 2006, when the Mercedes S class got active steering and ACC. There is no data that says that these systems, which are available o…

> Partially automated cars have been driven by average people on the public roads since 2006, What the GP was referring to, which is what I've see it referred to in Google presentations is level 3 automation. That is what autopilot is supposed to be, where you can take you hands off the wheel and the car can drive itself but needs constant supervision. What you're referring to is passive assistance such as collision…

I'm talking about active level 2 systems, which the Autopilot is an example of.

A level 2 system has to be monitored 100% of the time, because it can not be trusted to warn the driver and fall back to manual automatically in every situation. A level 3 system is robust enough to make this guarantee, which means that the driver can take his/her hands off the wheel until prompted to take back control.

Autopilot is a level 2 system, because you can not take your hands of the wheel of a Tesla and expect to not die. In fact the car itself will tell you to put your hands back on the wheel after a short while. After the fatal crashes started getting into the media, Tesla themselves have stated that it's only a level 2 system. Their CEO's weird claims of Autopilot being able to handle 90% of all driving tasks, there being a coast-to-coast Autopilot demonstration run in 2017 etc. are just marketing BS.

Re: Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

#760

Post by skgoa » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 12:28 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #716

skgoa wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why, as the head of Google's self driving effort once said, partial self driving "assistance" is inherently unsafe. Sorry, but this is the exact wrong conclusion to make from the available data. Partially automated cars have been driven by average people on the public roads since 2006, when the Mercedes S class got active steering and ACC. There is no data that says that these systems, which are available o…

I don't think it's a problem specific to Tesla; the main difference is that Tesla's system instills a lot more confidence in drivers than tools like lane assist and adaptive cruise control (source: I have those; I don't trust them). It's a marketing and user experience problem; marketing because Tesla still insists on calling it autopilot, and user experience because it works pretty good most of the time - in normal…

I agree with you. You express precisely what I believe is going wrong with Tesla/Autopilot right now.