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

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

#781

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

hippich wrote: post #223

patcheudor wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>t's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred. This needs far more discussion. I just don't buy it. I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive. I think our psychology won't allow it. When driving, I find that I must be engaged and on long trips I don't even enable cruise control because taking the accelerator input away from me is…

Quite a lot years ago I had to drive for 6 hours straight at night to get on time to place where I needed to be (air flight was not available back then for me) What I noticed that when I was following posted/safe speed limit, I was quickly losing focus, mind started wandering and eventually I felt I was falling asleep. I do not remember what made me to speed up, but once I was about 30% faster than posted speed limit…

Assuming you were in a vehicle with ICE speed relates to vibration/noise which can, at the wrong pitch, cause drowsiness easily. This is why parents will take their children out in the car if a child is not sleeping well.

I find rough motorway surfaces in my current vehicle induce heavy drowsiness at motorway speed limits (slight reduced at marginally higher speeds when the pitch is higher).

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

#782

Post by fapjacks » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #536

fapjacks wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem. But I think you're right. I think the "best" way to move forward unt…

> I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem. This is the definition of a false dichotomy and it implicitly puts…

This reply is a classic straw man (and one of the main reasons I left Facebook behind). You are making an assumption here that's wrong and I hate that I have to speak to what you've said here because you are reading words that I didn't type. I personally would not choose to put profits ahead of people. But I didn't say anything about profit. I deliberately left profit and money completely out of my post for a reason. You also seem to be suggesting that throwing money at the problem is going to magically make it perfectly safe. You are looking for guarantees and I'm sorry to break it to you, but there are no guarantees in life. "Screws fall out all the time". People are going to die in the process of developing self-driving automobile technology. People are going to die in situations that have nothing to do with self-driving automobile technology. Deaths are inevitable and I am saying that it is worth a perceived significant loss of human life to close the gap using technology so that the number of people dying on the roads every year approaches zero.

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

#783

Post by refurb » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 3:01 PM 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…

Related to this, Musk's latest statement says the driver who died did not have his hands on the wheel for "6 seconds".

Is that supposed to make me feel better? If the car can go from fine to crashing into a barrier in only 6 seconds, that seems like a damnation of Autopilot more so than the driver.

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

#784

Post by neffy » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

danmaz74 wrote: post #652

tim333 wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>obvious orange obstacle Apparently they loose the colour info and process black and white because it is easier. https://electrek.co/2017/05/16/tesla-autopilot-2-0-can-see/ This seems to have been an issue in some of the crashes and maybe was a mistake. See also for example the trailer an earlier Tesla crashed into https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/20/tesla_death_crash_a... Kind of obvious in colour but at the ti…

> Apparently they loose the colour info and process black and white because it is easier. https://electrek.co/2017/05/16/tesla-autopilot-2-0-can-see/ If that's true, it looks like a very big mistake to me, considering that we use distinguishable color a lot to signal risks.

I (and I'm sure many others) did this for my Ph.D. project (group robotics) because it was the only way to get anything close to an acceptable frame rate on real time video using the ARM boards available. Colour processing is a big overhead, and the higher the definition of the camera, the worse it gets - so there's a definite trade off between the extra information from colour, and getting more frames/s to process. When you're extracting information from movement - i.e. the differences between frames, colour isn't what you're looking at in any case.

But knowing all that, and now knowing Tesla made that short cut, there is no way on the face of this earth I am ever driving a Tesla, or for that matter, driving a car anywhere in the USA that has them on the road.

You guys have a really good train network, right?

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

#785

Post by Symmetry » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #684

hnaccy wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is there any evidence that this is the case? Yes. >the Model S had higher claim frequencies, higher claim severities and higher overall losses than other large luxury cars. Under collision coverage, for example, analysts estimated that the Model S's mileage-adjusted claim frequency was 37 percent higher than the comparison group, claim severity was 64 percent higher, and overall losses were 124 percent higher. http:…

>>Is there any evidence that this is the case? >Yes. If there is evidence for it, this isn't it. Tesla cars having higher claim frequencies compared to say the puny Fiat 500 Electric (noted in the article) could just as well be explained by people driving it dangerously because it has "Ludicrous Mode". Porsche also has 3x the accident rate of Daewoo. That doesn't mean Daewoo cars are 3x as safe, it just means that pe…

Evidence isn't the same as conclusive proof. Yes, the different demographics meant that we can't conclude that any difference is due to Telsa's autopilot. However it is evidence that Teslsa is more crash prone.

It isn't clear whether the demographics of Tesla drivers are more reckless than that of other luxury brands or not, as you point out Porsche drivers might tend to be more interested in going fast than Daewoo drivers. For Tesla on the one hand you attract people who are interested in helping the environment who I expect to be more conscientious and maybe therefore better drivers. But on the other hand there is Ludicrous Mode.

But since Tesla could have had a lower or higher crash rate than other brands and does have a higher rate we have to update our beliefs in the direction of the car being more likely to crash by conservation of expected evidence. Unless you'd argue that a lower crash rate means that Tesla's safety features prevent lots of crashes.

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

#786

Post by andrei_says_ » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 3:30 PM UTC

Bizarro wrote: post #411

andrei_says_ wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the core of the issue lies in what “using autopilot” means. If the driver had used it according to the instructions (with hands on the wheel, while driving the car, watching the road as a driver always should), the crash would not have occurred. Tesla is between a rock and a hard place, they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected. The message is not intended for the deceased driver’s…

I've never driven a Tesla or any other kind of "autopilot" car. But for the current kind of systems, what I would really like is something to take evasive action, not drive for me. I know some non autopilot cars have those systems in place, but not sure what more a Tesla car would give me in protection. I guess I need to take one for a spin one of these days.

Some interesting research on “assist” functionality was mentioned as a part of this fascinating talk on self driving cars and their perception of the world.

https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_...

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

#787

Post by rhlsthm » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 3:56 PM 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…

This isn't true at all. I have driven my Model S almost every day with autopilot for the past couple years. After getting used to it, you can very easily "feel" when turning and braking is supposed to happen and have plenty of time to take over if it doesn't. At first when I was getting used to it I would disengage frequently. Now I hardly do, and when I need to I have plenty of time to react.

Honestly the autopilot has changed my driving experience and I hate when I have to drive cars without it.

I do agree that you need to be aware of your surroundings and ready to take over, though.

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

#788

Post by rhlsthm » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #496

hyperbole wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Systems that are semi autonomous where there's some expectation of intervention work well in those scenarios, keep the car in lane markers on the highway, etc. Make sure the users hands are on the wheel but for fully autonomous even if your hands are on the wheel, how does it know your paying attention?

Just turn off autopilot if no human input is detected. Hands on the wheel may not be enough input but some other combination may be enough.

This is exactly what the Tesla does. It periodically "checks" that you are there by prompting you to hold the steering wheel (requiring a firm grip, not just hands on the wheel). If you don't, the car slows to a stop and disables autopilot for the remainder of the drive.

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

#789

Post by jhall1468 » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

rohit2412 wrote: post #188

jhall1468 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twice now people using absolutely stupid arguments to defend the driver here. He knew what Autopilot was and STILL took his hands off the wheel. Autopilot is a name in the same way Amazon.com isn't a damn rain forest. It's a term taken from aviation, but "autopilot" in a plane and "Autopilot" in a Tesla aren't even remotely the same thing. And literally everyone understands that, yet any time this occurs we start bla…

> Twice now people using absolutely stupid arguments to defend the driver here. He knew what Autopilot was and STILL took his hands off the wheel. And you guys miss the forest for some shrubs. Yes, the driver was negligent. But do you not see the constant barrage about autonomy for Ap2, Tesla network, FSD, coast to coast drives constantly misleading people? Do you not see why the driver was negligent? Or are you too…

Nobody is being mislead. This guy told his wife, specifically, that the Tesla was having issues with this barrier and still managed to drive the car straight into that exact barrier. This wasn't being mislead, this was pure unadulterated negligence. I'm not biased. While I like Tesla's I think their autonomy is absolutely the wrong tech and Waymo is on the correct path.

The response here has been absolute in its blaming of Tesla for its marketing. If Tesla really were the problem here we'd have vastly more fatal accidents as a result of people being mislead. We don't have that, entirely because every Tesla owner knows that this isn't autonomous driving.

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

#790

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

scoggs wrote: post #531

hyperbole wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this either nor should we it's not how the feature is marketed. "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat." The result of this statement and the functionality that matches it is it creates a re-enforced false sense of security. Does it matter whether the driver of the model X whose auto pilot drove straight into a…

> I'm not opposed to Tesla's sale of such functionality, sell whatever you want, but I am opposed to the marketing material selling this in a way that contradicts the legal language required to protect Tesla... First let me state that I agree with this 110%! I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at but I'm seeing a difference between the engineers exact definition of what the system is, what it does, and how i…

[deleted]