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

Tesla issues strongest statement yet blaming driver for deadly crash

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 850 posts

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

#791

Post by Robotbeat »

sah2ed wrote: post #640
Robotbeat wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't major shifts in strategy possible? LIDAR may become very cheap (i.e. $1000, much less than drivers paid for the full self-driving package). Improvements in radar may also help. Requiring much lower speeds (driving like a Waymo grandma) and specific conditions (i.e. dry, well-lit, well-mapped) are also feasible. As the technology improves, conditions can be relaxed for full self-driving. The very fact that…

> flag problem areas geographically for autopilot, develop specific strategies that address the problem, and verify it has been fixed by examining how other Teslas on the road in "ghost" mode This is what I have been thinking as well, except it appears that Tesla doesn't currently have a way to handle such scenarios. Ideally, they should be recording when a driver makes a sharp swerve to correct autopilot's naïve lan…

Tesla's new Waze-like real-time traffic system as part of its mapping software update could help handle this. If the autopilot system (engaged or in ghost mode) generates an error signal (either binary or some variable degree of error) that is pushed to the traffic system along with the traffic data, it could easily alert other drivers (and hopefully the autopilot system) of such problems.

Considering they have enough data to do realtime traffic analysis, they easily should have enough data to determine problem areas for the autopilot.

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

#792

Post by buvanshak »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #775
buvanshak wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, people are terrible at detecting objects directly in front of them and just like computers, the human brain can be cheated, overloaded, inept or inexperienced leading to an accident. How many optical illusions do you usually see in the roads while driving, that can result in an accident? I am not even talking about the "people are terrible at detecting objects directly in front of them" part. I mean, how can…

Dips aren't quite an optical illusion; nor are blind spots, or obscured vehicles (behind frame of the car or behind another vehicle), but those are all quite common and are similar to illusions (you see imperfectly). Sometimes you'll see multiple white lines, or lanes that appear to vere off due to dirt on the road. A bit of litter looks like a person, a kid looks like they might run out. A lot of times I find I'm se…

> but those are all quite common and are similar to illusions

No. None of those qualify as brain being cheated.

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

#793

Post by sabareesh »

aiCeivi9 wrote: post #724
sabareesh wrote: post #234

I am not sure why there is so much anti Tesla sentiment here in HackerNews. I am a new model 3 owner and very well informed so many times that "Enhanced Autopilot" is nothing other than advanced cruise control and my attention is always on the road. This is a great technology but someone cannot be more obvious than this on how to use it responsibly.

We hated the name as soon as it was announced, before any incident. People thought it was misleading and we have another proof it is.

I dont think the driver was misinformed and he was clearly aware this is not level 5 autonomy.

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

#794

Post by sabareesh »

buvanshak wrote: post #387
sabareesh wrote: post #234

I am not sure why there is so much anti Tesla sentiment here in HackerNews. I am a new model 3 owner and very well informed so many times that "Enhanced Autopilot" is nothing other than advanced cruise control and my attention is always on the road. This is a great technology but someone cannot be more obvious than this on how to use it responsibly.

>I am not sure why there is so much anti Tesla sentiment here in HackerNews. I just hope it is not limited to HN, and there is more anti Tesla sentiment out there as well. They deserve every bit of it.

Please provide more info on why "They deserve every bit of it". I respect HN that is why i am surprised a lot, and regarding other places on Internet there is so much going on to manipulate the stock price.

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

#795

Post by hippich »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #781
hippich wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This is interesting idea, never thought about it! thanks!

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

#796

Post by abalone »

_ph_ wrote: post #714
abalone wrote: post #626

Tesla is recklessly using its own customers to train their fleet for level 5. AT BEST their response is, drivers need to be 100% as attentive as they would without autopilot. What then is the point of autopilot, except to train the fleet? They are in complete denial that autosteering can seduce reasonable people into lowering their guard and mentally relaxing. Again, what other immediate user benefit would it provide…

The training function is independant on autopilot being active on the car. The training happens during any drive, if the Tesla owner did opt into sharing the driving data. Actually it even happens on cars which don't have autopilot, as all Tesla cars are manufactured with the hardware. You buy the autopilot function just as a software feature. And in the car menu, "autopilot" is actually called "autosteering" as a fe…

Incorrect. Autopilot offers by far the most important training data: driver overrides. That is the dangerous part of the learning and Tesla makes its customers do it.

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

#797

Post by ndyg »

hyperbole wrote: post #370
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…

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…

You’re quoting the marketing copy of Telsa’s unreleased full selling driving capability.

Tesla have sold people that the hardware they buy now will be capable of this in the future, but not now.

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

#798

Post by frafra »

ansible wrote: post #212
frafra wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radar is not active if the speed is higher than a specific threshold; it seems it is written in the manual.

> Radar is not active if the speed is higher than a specific threshold; it looks like it is written on the manual. I'm having trouble understanding why that would be the case. Why anyone wouldn't want the radar active when going down the highway. It is not as if it doesn't work at highway speed...

Exactly.

"Automatic Emergency Braking operates only when driving between approximately 7 mph (10 km/h) and 90 mph (150 km/h)." -- Model S Manual (you can find it online)

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

#799

Post by frafra »

thebluehawk wrote: post #243
ansible wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Radar is not active if the speed is higher than a specific threshold; it looks like it is written on the manual. I'm having trouble understanding why that would be the case. Why anyone wouldn't want the radar active when going down the highway. It is not as if it doesn't work at highway speed...

That's because he is wrong. The radar is active at all speeds. In my experience, the radar basically only identifies cars and car shaped objects.

Sorry for not having quoted the exact paragraph in my very first comment. You can find the reference just above; it stops to work at around 90 mph (150 km/h) - Tesla Model S manual, Collision Avoidance Assist, page 95.

Additional limitations are listed in page 96.

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

#800

Post by slg »

tnegoshi wrote: post #713
slg wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it crazy to hold a driver to a higher standard than simply Googling "Tesla autopilot" and only reading the first paragraph of the first result? If you read that entire page, the difference between autopilot and full self-driving is clear. If you read the car's manual, the difference is clear. If you look at the configurator for the car, the difference is clear when you have to pay $3,000 extra for full self-drivin…

> Is it crazy to hold a driver to a higher standard than simply Googling "Tesla autopilot" and only reading the first paragraph of the first result? For this standard it would have to apply to every driver. Should drivers who do not google "Tesla autopilot", let alone ones that do and read on in a section about said autopilot feature, be punished with death in a two ton metal trap?

I really don't see how this is different than other features of a car like cruise control. It is up to the driver to educate themselves about cruise control. I was not part of my driver education class. There were no questions about it during the tests to get my license. I didn't learn how it worked until I was in my 20s when I first owned a car that had cruise control and I learned by reading that car's manual. I don't think anyone would have blamed the manufacturer if I killed myself because I didn't understand how cruise control worked or if I used it improperly.
Post reply on HN