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

US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#821

Post by ra7 »

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #815

> NHTSA said it was opening the inquiry after four reports of crashes where FSD was engaged during reduced roadway visibility like sun glare, fog, or airborne dust. A pedestrian was killed in Rimrock, Arizona, in November 2023 after being struck by a 2021 Tesla Model Y, NHTSA said. This is going to be another extremely biased investigation. 1. A 2021 Model Y is not on HW4. 2. FSD in November 2023 is not FSD 12.5, the…

The perfect setup. By the time an incident in the “current” software is investigated, it will be outdated. All Tesla has to do is a rev a software version and ignore all incidents that occurred prior to it.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#822

Post by kjkjadksj »

crazygringo wrote: post #806
alexjplant wrote: post #216

> The collision happened because the sun was in the Tesla driver's eyes, so the Tesla driver was not charged, said Raul Garcia, public information officer for the department. Am I missing something or is this the gross miscarriage of justice that it sounds like? The driver could afford a $40k vehicle but not $20 polarized shades from Amazon? Negligence is negligence.

I'm genuinely not sure what the answer is. When you're driving directly in the direction of a setting sun, polarized sunglasses won't help you at all. That's what sun visors are for, but they won't always work if you're short, and can block too much of the environment if you're too tall. The only truly safe answer is really to pull to the side of the road and wait for the sun to set. But in my life I've never seen an…

No, polarized sunglasses work fine. I drive into a setting sun probably once a week to no incident.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#823

Post by lowbloodsugar »

bdcravens wrote: post #431
TheCleric wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. There’s a simple answer to this. As soon as it’s good enough for Tesla to accept liability for accidents. Until then if Tesla doesn’t trust it, why should I?

The liability for killing someone can include prison time.

And corporations are people now, so Tesla can go to jail.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#824

Post by UltraSane »

chgs wrote: post #689
mbernstein wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When talking to my parents, I hear a lot about Jane Fonda and the China Syndrome as far as the fears of nuclear power. She's made the same baseless argument for a long time: "Nuclear power is slow, expensive — and wildly dangerous" https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%... . CO2 issues aside, it's just outright safer than all forms of coal and gas and about as safe as solar and wind, all three o…

She’s two thirds right. It’s slow and expensive.

[dead]

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#825

Post by akira2501 »

kelnos wrote: post #604
blargey wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Non impaired people drive orders of magnitude better. That raises the question - how many impaired driver-miles are being baked into the collision statistics for "median human" driver-miles? Shouldn't we demand non-impaired driving as the standard for automation, rather than "averaged with drunk / phone-fiddling /senile" driving? We don't give people N-mile allowances for drunk driving based on the size of the drun…

No, that makes no sense, because we can't ensure that human drivers aren't impaired. We test and compare against the reality, not the ideal we'd prefer.

We can sample rate of impairment. We do this quite often actually. It turns out the rate depends on the time of day.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#826

Post by trompetenaccoun »

rvnx wrote: post #791
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All their sensors didn't prevent them from crashing into stationary object. You'd think that would be the absolute easiest to avoid, especially with both radar and lidar on board. Accidents like that show the training data and software will be much more important than number of sensors. https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/12/waymo-second-robotaxi-reca...

The issue was fixed, now handling 100'000 trips per week, and all seems to go well in the last 4 months, this is 1.5 million trips.

So they had "better understanding" of the problem as the other user put it, but their software was still flawed and needed fixing. That's my point. This happened two weeks ago btw: https://www.msn.com/en-in/autos/news/waymo-self-driving-car-...

I don't mean Waymo is bad or unsafe, it's pretty cool. My point is about true automation needing data and intelligence. A lot more data than we currently have, because the problem is in the "edge" cases, the kind of situation the software has never encountered. Waymo is in the lead for now but they have fewer cars on the road, which means less data.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#827

Post by kjkjadksj »

One thing thats a little weird with the constant tesla framing of fsd being better than the average driver, is this assumption that a tesla owner might be an average driver. The “average” driver includes people who total their cars, who kill pedestrians, who drive drunk, who go 40 over. Meanwhile I’ve never been in an accident. For me and probably for many other drivers, their own individual average performance is much better than the average of all drivers. And given that its a possibility that relying on fsd is much worse for you than not in terms of rate of risk.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#828

Post by jraby3 »

rvnx wrote: post #791
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All their sensors didn't prevent them from crashing into stationary object. You'd think that would be the absolute easiest to avoid, especially with both radar and lidar on board. Accidents like that show the training data and software will be much more important than number of sensors. https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/12/waymo-second-robotaxi-reca...

The issue was fixed, now handling 100'000 trips per week, and all seems to go well in the last 4 months, this is 1.5 million trips.

Any idea how many accidents and how many fatalities? And how that compares to human drivers?

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#830

Post by emmelaich »

deergomoo wrote: post #787

This is an opinion almost certainly based more in emotion than logic, but I don't think I could trust any sort of fully autonomous driving system that didn't involve communication with transmitters along the road itself (like a glideslope and localiser for aircraft approaches) and with other cars on the road. Motorway driving sure, there it's closer to fancy cruise control. But around town, no thank you. I regularly…

Potential problem with transmitters is that they could be faked.

You could certainly never rely on them alone.

Post reply on HN