[HN Gopher] Federal investigators blast Tesla, call for stricter...
___________________________________________________________________
Federal investigators blast Tesla, call for stricter safety
standards
Author : AndrewDucker
Score : 71 points
Date : 2021-03-13 16:20 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| hartator wrote:
| Can't help to notice the sudden hate of the administration for
| anything Elon Musk related since the change of administration.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Something strange I have noticed in the last couple years on
| leftist social media is the contempt harbored by some for Musk.
| I can't quite place it but it feels like a mix of envy and a
| hatred of success, in part because he seems like proof that
| capitalism works. I think the emphasis on his character flaws -
| which we all have - is disproportionate and frankly totally
| irrelevant considering the scale of his achievements. But he is
| a centrist not a progressive, he solves problems within the
| framework of capitalism, and he has an aggressive disregard for
| the norms of society. That makes him a target for those who are
| ideologically committed, dislike market driven economies, and
| favor big government/centralized restrictions. Those sentiments
| have increasingly bled into the Democratic Party as it has
| lurched leftward.
|
| I'm not sure if this is it, but I wouldn't be surprised to see
| this administration try to reign him in. And when it happens, I
| wonder how news media and society will perceive it. Will they
| compare it to the relationship between China and Jack Ma? Or
| will they view these actions as virtuous, moral, and therefore
| justified?
| BluSyn wrote:
| If you pay attention it's been created by a carefully
| constructed narrative by certain media outlets. The switch to
| anti-tech and anti-billionaire biases was surprisingly swift,
| and few seemed to even notice. Add to that the complete
| removal of nuance from news reports, and any platforms (eg,
| Clubhouse / Podcasts) that attempt to add in nuance are
| either ignored/treated as fringe, or out-right demonized.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| You don't need a media conspiracy to tarnish Elon Musk's
| reputation, because Musk is the same man who used his
| platform to reach millions of people and call a literal hero
| who helped save children's lives a pedophile several
| times[1].
|
| [1] https://www.the-sun.com/news/126445/who-is-vernon-
| unsworth-t...
| worik wrote:
| "mix of envy and a hatred of success"
|
| No. It is distrust of such a erratic self loving obsessive
| fool.
|
| Yes he is very smart, and is capable of assembling teams of
| fantastic engineers. But he cannot shut up. If it is tweeting
| jokes about taking Tesla private, slandering peopel who are
| doing the dangerous work and do not want his foolish
| interference (pedo guy), advocating (Dog help us!) Bitcoin.
| The lawsuits against whistle blowers. And here: his tolerance
| of fatal failures in his technology in favour of marketing
| and cash flow.
|
| "aggressive disregard for the norms of society": If it were
| thought through and considered it would not be such a
| problem. If he were less intelligent, less driven, it would
| be less of a problem.
|
| He is a fool. But a fool with a big stick. And that is a very
| dangerous thing
| new_realist wrote:
| You can have self-driving progress without lax safety practices;
| look at Waymo, which is way ahead of Tesla. Tesla chooses not to
| behave ethically for marketing and cash flow reasons.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| This feels like the same flawed catastrophizing logic I see with
| anti-car movements like Vision Zero or discussions about
| coronavirus lockdowns - emphasis on negative outcomes and fear
| mongering without consideration of the positives or benefits that
| we are trading off against. Driving is a great convenience that
| saves us time by getting us directly from point A to point B
| quickly. It has a low rate of serious injuries and fatalities.
| The unregulated driver assistance tech from Tesla may have flaws
| and drawbacks that result in some rate of injuries and
| fatalities, but overall it reduces the rate of negative outcomes
| tremendously. Isn't that proof enough that it's a net positive?
| Why is regulation here a good thing when it may increase costs
| and inhibit the fast path to innovation we get otherwise?
|
| To me this sounds like an unproven and spurious claim that
| regulation will offer more benefit relative to letting a company
| like Tesla innovate freely. I don't buy it, and it feels like
| they're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| "but overall it reduces the rate of negative outcomes
| tremendously"
|
| Do you have a citation for that?
| bhupy wrote:
| I'm not the GP, but I think they're referring to:
| https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/01/tesla-autopilot-
| acciden...
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| Thank you, that's very informative!
| nabla9 wrote:
| Tesla usually goes for most technically advanced solution.
|
| But when it comes to driver alertness monitoring they pick the
| easiest to fool solution. I suspect it's intentional. Eye
| tracking would prevent their users from misusing autopilot. It
| would kill the hype.
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| The latest FSD Beta monitors driver alertness with cabin
| camera. Tesla has rejected beta testers who did not pay enough
| attention:
|
| https://twitter.com/TSLAgang/status/1370524705950724097
| mcot2 wrote:
| The latest FSD beta is now confirmed to be using the internal
| camera to monitor for alertness and Elon has just announced via
| twitter that they kicked people out of the Beta for misuse.
| [deleted]
| arminiusreturns wrote:
| I like Tesla, but... good. Having worked in the autonomous
| industry and seeing "how the sausage is really made" is scary as
| fuck.
|
| One thing to keep in mind, is thats its not just the feds, as you
| will notice testing is done in certain states that have less
| regulation (read: governors hands got greased)
|
| Ill leave you with one insight into the sausage factory to
| contemplate. I told a c-level we needed a code review, and he
| balked, saying something to the effect of "Do you know how much
| that costs, how long it takes, and how hard it is?! No" This
| company has vehicles on public roads already!...
| andrekandre wrote:
| "Do you know how much that costs, how long it takes, and how
| hard it is?! No" This company has vehicles on public roads
| already!...
|
| this is why imo "just let the market figure it out" is not
| always the answer to every problem...
| xnx wrote:
| From what I've read there's Waymo and then there's everybody
| else.
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| > Under then-President Donald Trump, NHTSA largely let automakers
| do what they liked when it came to advanced driver-assistance
| systems (ADAS) and prototype driverless vehicles.
|
| I have questions. Were the NHTSA's policies regarding ADAS
| different under Obama than Trump? Are they different under Biden
| than Trump? If so, what changed? If not, why mention it?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Not significantly from what I can tell.
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| Written policies don't change that quickly. Policing, aka the
| execution of those policies, can be swayed by firings,
| appointments, executive order, and political pressure. Trump
| used these avenues more than most.
| mcot2 wrote:
| I don't think the NTSB is properly weighing the safety benefits
| of these systems. They seem to be myopically focused on a few
| crashes/incidents. Cars are not planes. For better or worse we as
| the public have a lot more tolerance for car crashes than plane
| crashes.
|
| I don't think there is enough evidence that the current ADAS
| systems are better or worse than human drivers at this point. I'd
| say the best way to improve the situation is not to have heavy
| handed regulation at this stage and let the technology play out.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Yeah, the problem is the "high profile crashes" aspect.
|
| It's not that crashes with only humans behind the wheel are
| uncommon. They're common as dirt! But they're not "high
| profile." So arguably NTSB's perspective (since they only do
| "high profile" crashes) is heavily skewed toward dramatic
| anecdotes compared to NHTSA who have to take into account all
| the crashes, high profile or not.
|
| Data vs anecdote.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The staff of the NTSB is well aware of the broader context of
| automotive safety.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| I think NTSB is using data in the aggregate. What they seem
| to be focusing on is manufacturers, specifically Tesla,
| broadly allowing use of these systems in circumstances where
| it's possibly dangerous and also allowing advanced features,
| which can be more dangerous, for smaller groups. Their POV is
| that if manufacturers were more restrictive about where the
| comfort features could be used, there would be fewer deaths.
| I've never read about them criticizing the active safety
| components to these systems.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| But here is the thing. If you compare Tesla's with some of the
| other higher end cars, they have a higher mortality.
|
| https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Tesla isn't selling exclusively in the luxury market. If you
| want a high performance or road-trip capable electric car,
| you basically have just one option.
|
| So you should compare against overall cars, not just "high
| end" luxury cars. Being electric has made them more
| expensive, but they're not really true luxury cars for the
| most part and are not driven by the same people or under the
| same conditions or under the same driving style as luxury
| cars.
| Hypocritelefty wrote:
| 10k for a fraud is not high end? Where does fraud Karen
| finds shills like you?
| worik wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_cars_current
| l...
|
| Tesla is right up there but there are many snapping at its
| heels, especially from China.
|
| I am hoping my next car will be a Chinese electric sports
| car. But, unlike a Tesla, one I own.
| hahahahe wrote:
| That's an interesting take. So you think we shouldn't have
| regulations on this new unproven technology where the
| government poured billions upon billions to help develop. And
| that's fine. Just don't take gov't money then.
| prophesi wrote:
| Not that there shouldn't be any regulations, but that the
| direction regulations are going in are pretty heavy-handed
| when you consider how accepting as a society we are to have
| thousands of car accidents every single day, and thousands of
| car-related deaths every year (in the USA at least). Self-
| driving cars are already much safer than human-driven cars.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| "Self-driving cars are already much safer than human-driven
| cars."
|
| Citation sorely needed. The few self driving cars currently
| on the road either require active human supervision or only
| operate in the absolute best circumstances so can't be
| compared to human drivers who operate in all conditions and
| all types of vehicles.
| hahahahe wrote:
| No they're not safer than human-driven cars. Not enough
| data to claim that. And how can you even collect that data
| when we don't even have fully automated cars in the wild?
| prophesi wrote:
| There's plenty of data on it. Safety is _the_ number one
| thing people are paying attention to in self-driving
| cars.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Society does not accept any level of car accidents. That's
| why there are safety regulations, that's why there are
| safety investigators, that's why there is a ton of safety-
| related R&D and testing, heck that's why there are
| stoplights and traffic laws and rules about using your
| mobile phone.
|
| Individually, no one ever wants to get into a car accident.
| Collectively, the desired number of accidents each year is
| zero. We're not there yet because it's hard to do, not
| because of acceptance.
|
| So any new mechanism for accidents is going to come in for
| very heavy scrutiny. And by mechanism I don't mean solely
| technology, but also human factors, which are huge issues
| when it comes to the current state of "self driving" cars.
| matz1 wrote:
| Society does accept some level of car accident otherwise
| there would be no car on the road at all.
|
| Safety regulations is good but too much safety regulation
| is bad.
| Hypocritelefty wrote:
| No point debating anything here as this place is full of
| Tesla shills
| Isinlor wrote:
| Companies should be required to monitor distances driven and
| report crashes when L2+ systems are active.
|
| If it's proven that a system performs significantly worse
| than a human then regulate it further.
| nojito wrote:
| There isn't even evidence that backup cameras reduce accidents.
| maxerickson wrote:
| If the system requires driver attention for the best safety
| outcomes, it seems a bit over the top to describe regulation
| requiring functional driver attention monitoring 'heavy
| handed'.
|
| Putting it another way, is there evidence that some ADAS are
| better than others? Because that's another way to choose
| regulations.
| mhb wrote:
| As usual, and as exemplified by virtually every decision in the
| Covid handling debacle, no mention of cost/benefit tradeoffs.
|
| What number of deaths will be due to slower progress due to
| needing to comply with whatever the NTSB believes will save
| lives?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Why is tesla the only company that has to exhibit this behavior
| to progress? GM for instance has two different programs for
| "self driving", their supercruise ADAS and cruise, the Waymo
| competitor. Are they farther away from superhuman self driving
| because they've never promised "FSD" in their ADAS?
| epistasis wrote:
| Is there evidence that we can expect a benefit? Could we put a
| probability distribution over that?
|
| In other life and death fields, like medicine, the promise of
| saving lives is made all the time, but even for great benefit
| we do not cut corners to prove benefit more quickly.
|
| Given the way that automobiles have little regard for life, I
| would rather that we take our queue from fields like medicine
| that have bothered to deal with the ethics and the cost benefit
| analysis.
|
| Similarly, your claims about COVID reactions not weighing the
| cost benefit analysis are unfounded, at least that I have seen.
| I have seen many self-motivated parties making ridiculous,
| absurd, and harmful suggestions, but nothing that could be
| taken intellectually seriously. It's just people scamming for
| their own personal gain at the expense of others' lives.
| matz1 wrote:
| Many government all of the word chose lockdown, thats prime
| example of not weighing cost benefit analysis.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| It's a theme I notice across society. We no longer are
| consequentialists. We value the means over then ends. I believe
| this switch in ethics will hurt our society in the long run.
| Guzba wrote:
| Isn't 'The ends justify the means' the argument of every
| villain ever? Unrelated to this Tesla stuff, it seems
| reasonable to observe that the means do actually matter.
| rhino369 wrote:
| But it shouldn't be just a villain argument. Sometimes the
| ends justify the means and sometimes they don't. Depends--
| entirety--on what the ends and the means are and the
| relationship between the two.
|
| But the end to Telsa throwing out unreliable Not-Even-
| Close-to-FULL-SELF-DRIVING is to sell cars--not to usher in
| a glorious era without traffic collisions.
| hoseja wrote:
| Villains are those the media makers want you to dislike.
| Try sometimes noticing how many "villains" only want to
| disrupt the status quo, with some murder superficially
| tacked on for easy moral superiority.
| donovanian wrote:
| > We value the means over then ends.
|
| I find this hard to square with a large segment of society
| just matter-of-factly espousing "equity", which is a less
| obvious way of saying what was expressed in the past as
| "equality of outcome".
|
| Of course, through societies of the past experimenting, it
| was largely recognized as only possible through systems that
| end up being miserable and authoritarian.
|
| So it's easier to push it again to a new generation under a
| vague, benign-sounding new term.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Equity does not mean "equality of outcome," it means that
| unequal outcomes are proportional to relevant factors only.
|
| For example an equitable approach to criminal prosecution
| is that people are exonerated or convicted based on the
| best available evidence, with no variance attributable to
| their ability to afford a lawyer (an equitable approach
| enshrined in our Constitution but still a challenge for
| society).
|
| And an equitable approach of salary is that people are paid
| in proportion to their contributions to the business, with
| no variance attributable to the color of their skin (for
| example).
|
| We have to measure inputs and outcomes to infer the state
| of equity because we don't have a reliable deterministic
| model of society.
| perardi wrote:
| On the one hand: _caveat emptor_ , you should study the manual
| and docs before you engage the limited automatic driving system
| on your car.
|
| On the other hand: calling something "Full Self-Driving", when it
| is in fact definitely not fully self-driving, kind of flies in
| the face of the obvious plain text reading of the phrase "Full
| Self-Driving".
| airhead969 wrote:
| _What is really important in the world of doublespeak [that is,
| marketing] is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or
| unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use
| lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those
| that don't fit an agenda or program._
|
| - Edward S. Herman
| IshKebab wrote:
| "You should study the manual before you use this potentially
| deadly system" is about the dumbest way to design a potentially
| deadly system ever.
|
| Decades of experience has repeatedly taught that people are not
| perfect robots that always read manuals, and if you design your
| system under the assumption that they are then it is you that
| is at fault, not them.
|
| There's a reason we have safety interlocks and dead man
| switches and seat belts and helmets and ... It's no use having
| a manual that says "do not open the microwave door while it is
| running".
| impostervt wrote:
| I just test drove a model 3 today. Fun car! I ended up ordering
| one.
|
| But as a software developer myself..there is no WAY I'd let the
| car drive itself. I'm a pretty decent developer, and maybe
| Tesla's developers are better, but knowing how many mistakes I
| make in code...just hell no.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| The fact that they're talking about finishing QA weeks before
| releasing beta FSD software tells me everything I need to know.
| Watching any random YouTube video of the functionality fills in
| the gaps.
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| We need an infrastructure architect here in the us. The bus I
| commute on went under, and I can't be trusted to drive 120 miles
| a day and keep my speed in check. I started looking at the most
| automated rides I could find (Tesla is leagues ahead if I'm not
| mistaken), and I'm still... driving.
|
| I for one, would be more than happy to prolong my commute, on a
| dedicated, reduced speed lane, if it meant I could sit in the
| back seat and work. The belief that we'll incrementally get to
| level 5 besides human drivers on the extant infrastructure
| (lanes) is very misplaced.
|
| Fingers crossed that the feds can develop a roadmap (sorry!) to
| support the transition from level 2 to level 5. It will not
| happen on open roadways--lidar or not!
| [deleted]
| ph2082 wrote:
| Whoever come up with a this levels in autonomous driving
| (L1-L5) must be marketing genius. Ideally it should have been
| Yes or No answer to "does your car support autonomous driving
| ?", just like alive or dead. Right now, it is just another
| reason in list of Road accident deaths, till it perfected.
| Karunamon wrote:
| This is law, so now you have to define "autonomous driving"
| in an unambiguous way.
|
| Hence, levels. Besides, we're in a transitional period on
| this tech, so I think there's value in defining "how"
| automatic the experience is.
| ghaff wrote:
| It seems a fairly reasonable set of levels. For example, L4
| seems like something that may be achievable in the
| foreseeable future if it means something like full autonomy
| on designated interstates in some weather conditions. That
| actually sounds like something that would be very useful for
| a lot of people (and probably a big safety benefit). It just
| doesn't do anything about eliminating private car ownership
| or the need to be able to drive at all. But, personally,
| those are of less interest to me anyway.
| xirbeosbwo1234 wrote:
| >Tesla is leagues ahead if I'm not mistaken
|
| You are. Pretty much every other manufacturer offers adaptive
| cruise control, lane keeping, and the like. They're just honest
| about their capabilities.
| SECProto wrote:
| Comparing Tesla's "full self driving" features to adaptive
| cruise control or lanekeeping is a very dishonest
| representation of the capabilities.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > The bus I commute on went under, and I can't be trusted to
| drive 120 miles a day and keep my speed in check.
|
| I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest part of the problem
| here is a 60 mile commute twice a day. That's an absurd
| distance to drive for a job.
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| Totally agree but I serve two masters; both of which treat me
| very well--so not only is the commute the worst part of my
| day, it's also the only negative part of the day.
| zhdc1 wrote:
| > I can't be trusted to drive 120 miles a day and keep my speed
| in check
|
| If it's a matter of occasionally going over or under the speed
| limit (or if the speed limit on your route has sudden changes),
| you may want to look into getting a vehicle with a manual speed
| limiter. That, along with something like Waze, can be a big
| help.
| eganist wrote:
| I believe Jag and Land Rover (same company) both have this,
| and it's immensely helpful. It's basically the inverse of
| cruise: rather than setting a speed floor that the car
| cruises at, it sets a speed ceiling that you can't exceed
| (unless you push through the kickdown on the throttle in some
| cars with a limiter, in which case the car assumes an
| emergent circumstance and bypasses the limiter for that
| circumstance)
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| My wife's bmw has it too--but that's too easy to disengage.
| Needing to pull over and get out to change the limiter
| would cool any road rage. I should have said: I'm willing
| to accept a longer commute and up to twice as costly
| autonomous vehicle over the alternative which is me having
| to pay attention and frustrated for 60 minutes twice a day
| ---even once a week!
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| Tesla has that too (speed limit mode).
| [deleted]
| effingwewt wrote:
| Or you know, cruise control.
| random5634 wrote:
| I've thought this would be great for longer runs. Put a wire in
| the road or something for the vehicles to follow. Once you are
| on the wire some protocol for merge points (also marked on the
| wire) etc.
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| This is one of the options, have radar on board pointing down
| to follow the line, sensors are each end of the car...
| zapita wrote:
| You're in luck. The Democratic majority in US congress has just
| announced yesterday that their next priority after passing the
| American Rescue Act will be a national infrastructure plan.
|
| https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1370488211034755072
| ablekh wrote:
| I don't understand why Tesla has been and still is allowed to use
| the term _Full Self Driving_ (FSD) to imply, that is advertise,
| something that clearly is not and will not be in the near(est)
| future. Where is FTC, which is supposed to protect and enforce
| _truth in advertising_ in the U.S. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-
| events/media-resources/truth-advert...)? Especially considering
| that relevant false advertising (in terms of the naming / use of
| the FSD term, not the actual feature set) clearly can negatively
| affect the driver's judgement on manually controlling a car in
| various situations and, thus, ultimately, the safety of the
| driver and passengers.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| Probably because of the small print/legalese.
|
| _The currently enabled features require active driver
| supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The
| activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving
| reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by
| billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory
| approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these
| self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously
| upgraded through over-the-air software updates._
| garmaine wrote:
| That doesn't matter. You don't get claim something which is
| clearly false in commonsensical interpretation, but get away
| with it because the fine print.
|
| You can't say "the sky is green[1]" and then in footnote [1]
| say "by green, we mean blue." That's not allowed, and the FTC
| is supposed to prosecute this. You _can_ say "the sky is
| cerulean[1]" and then note that although cerulean can be
| categorized as either green or blue, in this context you mean
| blue. But calling the feature "full self driving" when it is
| not full self driving is more akin to outright calling the
| sky green.
| ablekh wrote:
| I understand it. That is why I have emphasized above ( _" in
| terms of the naming / use of the FSD term, not the actual
| feature set"_) that, regardless of the small print / legalese
| / disclaimers / clarifications etc., I believe that using
| confusing and not matching current capabilities terms should
| not be allowed. I might be wrong (as I'm not a lawyer), but I
| think that it is well within FTC's jurisdiction and power to
| enforce _both truthfulness and clarity_ of advertising in the
| U.S.
| saganus wrote:
| I wonder if they could try to switch to something like
| "Fully-assisted Self Driving" to keep the original FSD
| accronym, if the term ends up being regulated.
| ablekh wrote:
| Use of an acronym requires a prior use of a relevant
| definition (spell out), which is _the_ term. The
| expression "Fully-assisted Self Driving" is no less
| incorrect / ambiguous than the original one. Therefore,
| Tesla would continue violating the same principle of
| truth and clarity in advertising as well as, perhaps,
| some policies and/or laws.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| Not to mention the Term "Full Self Driving" was
| originally created to disambiguate "self driving", which
| may still require driver assistance. FSD was sold as a
| robotaxi software that could make you money while you
| sleep, while it has always been nothing more than a level
| 2 system, as Tesla admits in the fine print and to
| regulators. Musk on Twitter contradicts this
| consistently.
| fma wrote:
| Someone can successfully sue Subway for advertising a
| footlong sub that isn't always 12"...but Tesla and
| FSD...slapping fine print lets them off the hook...
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| That lawsuit wasn't successful, partially because Subway's
| use of the term "footlong" is not supposed to be taken as
| literally a foot long.
| totalZero wrote:
| I invite anyone who is interested in learning about the
| arguments, as I was, to check out this article:
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2016/02/29/why-
| the-...
| azinman2 wrote:
| I'm shocked they even settled. Probably they felt it was
| the cheapest action, but such a lawsuit feels quite
| predatory. An important legal concept is harms done, and
| as this Forbes article points out, there really weren't
| any material harms done.
|
| Now Tesla on the other hand, absolutely falls into the
| realm of material harms done...
| heavyset_go wrote:
| What blows my mind is that this promotional Tesla video[1] has
| been online for almost 5 years, with this claim in the video
| description:
|
| > _The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal
| reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself._
|
| [1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-
| hardware...
| Animats wrote:
| Tesla is not allowed to do that in Europe.[1] In the US, they
| got away with a lot during the Trump administration. That seems
| to be changing. From the NTSB statement:
|
| _" The success of these AVs depends on the driver completing a
| monitoring task that requires sustained attention; however,
| humans generally perform poorly in the role of monitor. Also,
| if the automated control system behaves consistently and
| reliably for prolonged periods, the user of that system can
| become complacent about its operation and may not respond
| appropriately when a situation requires him or her to act."_
|
| The NTSB people see this clearly because they investigate
| aviation accidents. Over reliance on automation is a known
| problem in aviation. The aviation systems are pretty good, but
| they are not yet good enough to be the pilot in command. Pilot
| training covers this in detail. Drivers are not trained that
| way.
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-
| driving...
| prox wrote:
| That creates a strange situation where a monitor would need
| more training vs a driving license? Or would that require an
| overhaul of the training itself?
| neltnerb wrote:
| I think that's not especially strange when these partially
| automated systems aren't fully autonomous yet.
|
| I would have a hard time arguing against requiring a few
| hours of class time learning about exactly what the systems
| do and what pitfalls there are because those things are not
| at all like what anyone has ever been taught in drivers ed
| before.
| airhead969 wrote:
| 100% natural, cage-free, hormone-free self-driving.
|
| Or as George Carlin called it: bullshit.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I don't understand why they even attempt to push beyond even
| basic driver assistance. I'd buy a well built car with good
| battery tech and a decent cruise control and never look back. I
| don't mind driving for another 20 years if the car is reliable
| and has good enough range. Making my car clever is so far down
| on my car wishlist it's not even visible. The elephant in the
| room is that even if there are _technological_ breakthroughs
| shortenig "FSD" from perhaps my pessismistic guess of 50 years
| to an almost laghably optimistic 20 years, the legal mess it
| will be stuck in will be at least as long as the technical one
| was. Tesla seem to make very competitive cars even without
| wasting money on self-driving ones. I'd try to keep that spot
| instead of risking it by going down the FSD rabbit hole.
| effingwewt wrote:
| Indeed wasn't Germany the first to stop them from pulling this
| shit? We in the US allow our advertisers to lie to us about
| any- and everything, and they wonder why we hate advertising in
| general.
|
| Maybe we need to stop getting mad at the method and start
| getting mad at the companies doing the lying.
|
| I've said repeatedly I was ready to leave this country, but
| only in the last 2 years have I begun actually making plans to
| leave.
|
| I'm voting with my feet, but where to go? Shouldn't take years
| of careful planning to just up and go somewhere else.
| ipsocannibal wrote:
| Having driven a Model Y and a Model 3 I can say that until Tesla
| removes that huge ass distraction magnet touchscreen from their
| vehicles I won't buy one. In order to determine anything about
| the status of the vehicle or change a setting you have to train
| all of your attention off of the road and onto an overly
| complicated cellphone interface. Autopliot is an optional
| feature, that damn tablet is not. Adding a simple HUD that comes
| standard on most Mazda's would be a huge improvement in safety.
| airhead969 wrote:
| There's something to be said for manual switches and gauges.
|
| Another case in point: F-35.
|
| _Please swipe up and to the left to apply the brakes or draw a
| peace symbol if you 'd like to eject instead of dying._ -
| megacorp UX of the future
| jonathankoren wrote:
| I took a test drive in an S a few years ago, and also found the
| interior ugly and the infotainment system lacking. The sales
| guy was pushing the car hard with misdirection and
| deceptions[0][1], even calling me days later. Eventually I had
| just tell them to stop calling and told them exactly why I'd
| never buy the car.
|
| [0] "It has a streaming service like Pandora!" "Is it Pandora?"
| "It's Sketcher. It's like Pandora!" "So it's not Pandora."
| "No."
|
| [1] "This car has full self driving." "So is it going to turn
| here?" "No. It has FSD capability, but it's not on because of
| regulatory approval. It should be here in a year to two." (That
| was four years ago.)
| BluSyn wrote:
| Never going to happen. Some of us are the opposite, I can't
| stand cars with a thousand nobs and dials that take a 100 page
| manual to understand. I find the clutter 100x more distracting.
| prepend wrote:
| The choice isn't between a touchscreen and a thousand knobs.
|
| My current car, a random 5 year old sedan has about 4-5 knobs
| on the console I use- volume, heated seats, ac mode,
| temperature, and nav knob that rotates, pushes in, and pushed
| in 4 directions.
|
| I can do all this without taking my eyes off the road.
|
| I also have an 8 inch touchscreen that I never use because
| it's too hard while driving.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Can you explain how buttons are a distraction? Also, by
| "distracting", do you mean that the present of physical knobs
| prevent you from paying attention to the road?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-13 23:01 UTC)