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

New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

theautopian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 714 posts

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#91

Post by katbyte »

barbazoo wrote: post #52
MBCook wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the Tesla changed lanes, into the passing lane no less, and then immediately slowed down significantly. So the first car to hit it may have had a very safe distance between it in the next car, but the Tesla cut that significantly with its sudden maneuver.

It's a popular opinion but I think it's wrong. If they weren't all so close together some of that could habe been avoided. The Tesla indicated for a very long time telling other what it's gonna do.

> . The Tesla indicated for a very long time

3 seconds is a very long time? Also: 3 seconds of turn signal is a clear indication of "i am going to change lanes and fully come to a stop"? And then turning off all signals and coming to a full stop without hazards on is a clear indication of "i am stopping"?

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#92

Post by MBCook »

marktolson wrote: post #29
herodotus wrote: post #2

I have a VW Golf and it has what it calls "adaptive cruise control". What makes it different from my older (simple) cruise control is that it will slow down and speed up again as necessary without my intervention. For example, if I set the speed to 70 mph and it gets close to a car ahead that is only going 65 mph, it will slow down and maintain what the software believes is a safe distance. Similarly, if a car in an…

My friend was using adaptive cruise control while towing a caravan. A car merged in front of him, his car applied heavy braking to maintain the desired distance (not necessarily to avoid a crash) but didn't compensate for the weight of the caravan. Almost lost traction, lead to heavy swerving. He's vowed to never use it again.

I think the new F-150 lightning (and I would think equivalent ICE models) can handle that scenario.

I would think the manual likely said not to use it while towing. I’m not sure why one would be afraid of it when used correctly because it didn’t handle something it wasn’t designed to well.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#93

Post by epivosism »

epivosism wrote: post #74
remarkEon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people have said it before, but the issue is that the Tesla crashes we are seeing are ones that a human would trivially avoid. Most people, especially non technical people, aren’t going to care about numbers that say it’s safer or better on net when the car still occasionally does things that humans view as crazy or stupid.

I'm interested in understanding why you would want every subdivision of "type of crash" to strictly improve, rather than being content that the combined crash rate goes down? i.e. if Tesla causes 100 new crashes of type A but saves 200 of type B, isn't that a gain? Even if type A crashes are one which humans don't normally make. A way in which I agree with you is if type B crashes are more avoidable by conscientious…

If you were hiring a human chauffeur would you insist they be better than your current driver in all conditions (rain, night-time, snow, off-road)? Or would you more likely ask that they be minimally competent in all likely conditions, and that his driving style in aggregate, for your current driving profile, be an improvement?

Insisting on not replacing a driver until every subcategory of driving type is strictly improved seems too stringent.

You still have an out here by saying that you're willing to accept more net risk due to "meta" factors like "driver not meeting minimal competence factors". But it would still be more honest in that case to fully admit that this reasoning requires knowingly accepting likely real-world increased fatalities.

And as an aside, for humans, "minimal competence" testing is reasonable - but at large scales & in statistical realms, such metrics value in protection from false claims are of less value since we already have millions of miles of real-world performance tests.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#94

Post by [deleted] »

pengaru wrote: post #85

You know what else is "semi-automated driving"? A six year old behind the wheel sitting in your lap. That's also known plainly as "illegal". I have no fucking idea why this is being tolerated on our public roads, nor why SAE has even classified these child-equivalent levels of autonomy as if they're acceptable .

[deleted]

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#95

Post by nkrisc »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #69
threeseed wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pulled over best it could If that is its best then FSD has no business being on the road. It was erratic and didn't give clear intent to other cars what it was trying to do.

IMO the car signaled, changed lane and stopped without slamming the brakes. It didn't collide with anything, the pileup was formed by human drivers driving too close and too fast for their reaction time. If it had been a human driver that saw a kitten or a rock in the road, it would probably slam the brakes. I'm not defending Tesla's FSD, which I think is inferior for Tesla's reluctance to use LIDAR in addition to ca…

If it caused a crash it stopped too quickly. Unless there was an immediate, life-threatening need to stop it should simply not have stopped and continued until it was safe to stop. Any halfway competent driver could plainly see there is no safe place to stop there and you should never stop there unless your car is literally on fire or the road bed is missing.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#96

Post by MBCook »

gfodor wrote: post #81
nanidin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any case, navigate on autopilot can change lanes on the highway without user intervention so it seems like an insignificant detail.

Not sure what you mean. If autopilot has a bug then there is a good chance a lot of other cars do too, since (afaik) autopilot is not at its core Tesla proprietary tech like FSD.

I think it is proprietary. Other cars have similar features, but I don’t think they run the same system.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#98

Post by nanidin »

gfodor wrote: post #81
nanidin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any case, navigate on autopilot can change lanes on the highway without user intervention so it seems like an insignificant detail.

Not sure what you mean. If autopilot has a bug then there is a good chance a lot of other cars do too, since (afaik) autopilot is not at its core Tesla proprietary tech like FSD.

My point is that as an end user, there is basically no difference between autopilot and FSD if the FSD beta is enabled on the car. It's a technical detail that doesn't seem significant.

If the end user said they were driving on FSD, it likely means they are enrolled in the FSD beta and were using autopilot - in the car there is no distinction between autopilot and FSD. They are the same thing in the car if the FSD beta is enabled.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#99

Post by MBCook »

jayd16 wrote: post #82

This is an honest question here but why is the pile up so bad if driving conditions were ideal? The next 6 drivers were not keeping a safe distance or paying attention?

Have you watched the video? Its freeway speeds, a decently busy freeway, at a tunnel entrance that’s curving. Plus the car switched to the passing lane and abruptly stopped.

This wasn’t going straight on a highway stopping in the same lane the driver was already in.

I can understand how the conditions probably made it worse.

Re: New video of Tesla crash demonstrates the problem of semi-automated driving

#100

Post by not2b »

epivosism wrote: post #74
remarkEon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people have said it before, but the issue is that the Tesla crashes we are seeing are ones that a human would trivially avoid. Most people, especially non technical people, aren’t going to care about numbers that say it’s safer or better on net when the car still occasionally does things that humans view as crazy or stupid.

I'm interested in understanding why you would want every subdivision of "type of crash" to strictly improve, rather than being content that the combined crash rate goes down? i.e. if Tesla causes 100 new crashes of type A but saves 200 of type B, isn't that a gain? Even if type A crashes are one which humans don't normally make. A way in which I agree with you is if type B crashes are more avoidable by conscientious…

Is there any evidence that you can point to that Teslas are saving more crashes than they are causing, compared to some other vehicle with basic collision avoidance features?
Post reply on HN