Live data from Hacker News

Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

globalnews.ca

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#81
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it's regulation issue. I say it's because it's overtrust for an almost working system. If something gets good enough you will rely on it more and more. It will work, until it doesn't.

And the systems fail in ways that a human wouldn’t which makes it more dangerous. Teslas often “shadow brake” when driving under overpasses or overhead signs because the radar system gets confused.

>And the systems fail in ways that a human wouldn’t which makes it more dangerous

Not necessarily, because humans fail in ways that Tesla autopilot wouldn't.

1.5 million people are killed in road accidents every year. 54 million people are injured.

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#82
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car is not your mother. It has no obligation to prevent you from speeding or driving the wrong way down a one way street or otherwise being an idiot. And it shouldn't try, because sometimes the car has an inaccurate map or doesn't know that something unusual is happening or the sensor is broken etc.

> A car is not your mother. Rhetoric like this works until it won't anymore. And that rhetoric breaks when innocent bystanders start getting killed in numbers. Line up enough grieving families in front of congress and congress will act, and then the new rhetoric will be "The car should be your mother."

If so,why aren't cars locked to the maximum speed in a country?

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#83
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car is not your mother. It has no obligation to prevent you from speeding or driving the wrong way down a one way street or otherwise being an idiot. And it shouldn't try, because sometimes the car has an inaccurate map or doesn't know that something unusual is happening or the sensor is broken etc.

> A car is not your mother. Rhetoric like this works until it won't anymore. And that rhetoric breaks when innocent bystanders start getting killed in numbers. Line up enough grieving families in front of congress and congress will act, and then the new rhetoric will be "The car should be your mother."

> Rhetoric like this works until it won't anymore.

Let it continue to work forever then.

> And that rhetoric breaks when innocent bystanders start getting killed in numbers. Line up enough grieving families in front of congress and congress will act, and then the new rhetoric will be "The car should be your mother."

Do I get to line up mine? Cars doing what idiots tell them to is remedied by punishing those idiots. Cars not doing what people need them to results in fatalities.

Bob is a big dude. He weighs 400 pounds and can only fit in the car by putting the seat all the way back. There are a million Bobs and you just prohibited any of them from ever using driver assist, which would have improved safety and saved lives.

Your car won't let you drive more than 10MPH over the speed limit. But then it thinks you're on a service road with a 30MPH speed limit when you're really on the highway with a 70MPH speed limit, forces you to decelerate to a speed 30MPH slower than the traffic flow, and you get rear-ended and cause a twelve car pile up with nine fatalities.

You're on a family vacation driving through a deserted area in the middle of nowhere and stop to stretch your legs. When you get back in the car, some sensor has failed and the vehicle's computer won't let you put the vehicle back into motion again, but there is no wireless coverage or anyone else around, so you and your family die in the wilderness.

You need to drive your car the wrong way down a one way street because you need to get to a hospital and the other road is blocked, or you're currently impeding a fire truck answering an emergency call, or you need to get away from a forest fire. The computer refuses.

"I can't let you do that, Dave." -> People die.

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#84
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you should read that website, and perhaps try to buy a Tesla and see the materials. It says clearly that it's the hardware and that the software is not there yet.

Maybe you should read it again, because that's clearly not what it says. It lists several features which are available right now under the "full self-driving" moniker, and two which will arrive in the future. As it is right now, the system has more functions available than it is planned to have.

The screenshot I replied to says it exactly, near the bottom. It's not about number of bullet points, it's about what the bullet points say.

There is no "full self driving" button in a Tesla, and the Autopilot button will first produce a notice about the capabilities and it says you absolutely can not stop driving, you have to confirm it before it engages.

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#85
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word 'autopilot' never meant reacting to anything happening around the vehicle, much less intelligently. Not a single autopilot can do more than keep the vehicle going in the direction you set (using a knob). Autonomous features are not called autopilot anywhere, ever. 'Full self driving capability' is a hardware capability, not a feature that you can turn on - it is there so you don't need to replace the hardwar…

Imagine I am a John Smith that doesn't know anything about Tesla and how the tech works. I want to buy their car because maybe I like the idea of an electric car and they seem to be well reviewed. I go through the configurator, then tick the box next to the option called "Full Self-Driving capability". In your opinion, in front of the court of law, would you consider that John Smith has purchased a car that has somet…

Adaptive cruise control is one component of autopilot. Mercedes has "drive pilot" (and ACC is one of the features included in that package), why is that okay? To me that sounds way more autonomous than autopilot - sounds like I don't need to drive (I still need to drive with autopilot, both in a car and in an aircraft).

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#86
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word 'autopilot' never meant reacting to anything happening around the vehicle, much less intelligently. Not a single autopilot can do more than keep the vehicle going in the direction you set (using a knob). Autonomous features are not called autopilot anywhere, ever. 'Full self driving capability' is a hardware capability, not a feature that you can turn on - it is there so you don't need to replace the hardwar…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot#Autopilot_for_ILS_la... Specifically in the case of fail-operational autopilots "[...] the approach, flare and landing can still be completed automatically." There is a whole organization responsible for defining these features of autopilots! You can argue wikipedia isn't a valid source, but IMO that's not in good faith. So, 'autopilot' has a shifting meaning depending on aircr…

Well yeah, that's in case of failure - the Tesla autopilot can also save you in case of failure.

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the systems fail in ways that a human wouldn’t which makes it more dangerous. Teslas often “shadow brake” when driving under overpasses or overhead signs because the radar system gets confused.

This is what gets me. A big part driving safety is defensive, ie monitoring the other drivers around you. It's relatively easy to pick out distracted, erratic or risk-taking drivers from a handful of simple queues. Very much not the case with software driven autopilot routines from an increasing number of vendors. So accidents may go down where humans are at fault, but I find it more unsettling overall, as I have les…

Yes, defensive driving is the norm because we humans are fallible. If all the cars on the road were self-driven, then it would be a different story.

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#88
post #65

> “They are not self-driving systems,” said Supt. Gary Graham of Alberta RCMP Traffic Services. > “These technologies assist drivers, but do not replace them,” said the statement from the federal institution responsible for transportation policies and programs ... > Tesla’s website states, “All new Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features today, and full self-driving cap…

Even with certification, person behind the wheel will still be responsible (as long as he / she has control over vehicle). Once vehicles ship without steering wheels / pedals, that will not be the case anymore.

As someone else suggested, manufacturer should be made liable in case of an accident for "self-driving" vehicles.

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what gets me. A big part driving safety is defensive, ie monitoring the other drivers around you. It's relatively easy to pick out distracted, erratic or risk-taking drivers from a handful of simple queues. Very much not the case with software driven autopilot routines from an increasing number of vendors. So accidents may go down where humans are at fault, but I find it more unsettling overall, as I have les…

Yes, defensive driving is the norm because we humans are fallible. If all the cars on the road were self-driven, then it would be a different story.

Assuming self driving cars will be infallible.

Re: Man accused of dangerous driving for sleeping in self-driving, speeding Tesla

#90
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A car is not your mother. Rhetoric like this works until it won't anymore. And that rhetoric breaks when innocent bystanders start getting killed in numbers. Line up enough grieving families in front of congress and congress will act, and then the new rhetoric will be "The car should be your mother."

Then IMO it doesn't seem too invasive to have a breathalyzer test attached to all vehicles, which will certainly save a lot of lives. The data can be all local and regularly wiped to mitigate the privacy concern. Are the numbers behind alcohol-related vehicular injuries and deaths not high enough to be a political or public priority?

Looks like there's plenty of laws and support surrounding drunk driving.

https://www.madd.org/laws/

Post reply on HN