[HN Gopher] Government investigation finds Tesla FSD engaged dur...
___________________________________________________________________
Government investigation finds Tesla FSD engaged during the Bay
Bridge pileup
Author : gibsonf1
Score : 64 points
Date : 2023-01-21 19:07 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.notebookcheck.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.notebookcheck.net)
| redox99 wrote:
| > The accident in the Bay Bridge tunnel has occurred with Tesla's
| Full Self-Driving Beta mode active indeed, just as the driver
| claimed.
|
| This is almost certainly false. This kind of highway uses
| Autopilot, not FSD beta. In fact in the tweet that they show that
| simulates that same drive you can see on the screen that it's
| using Autopilot, not FSD beta.
| gibsonf1 wrote:
| Thats an interesting claim, that the highway would trigger use
| of autopilot and not FSD. How do you know that? I think Tesla,
| who would know for a fact the status of FSD during this
| accident, might want to tweet that FSD wasn't on if it wasn't.
| But they haven't. Also, as a human, why would you hit the
| breaks in the fast lane with cars approaching? This does not
| happen very often, especially on the incredibly crowded Bay
| Bridge.
|
| I actually was there at this accident and swerved just in time
| to miss the cars piling up (you can see my car in both videos
| of the accident just getting out). It was a truly scary thing.
| redox99 wrote:
| FSD does not support highways yet, so it automatically
| switches to autopilot when you enter a highway. You can tell
| because they use completely different UIs, visualizations,
| settings, etc (FSD and autopilot are fully separate
| software).
|
| Tesla has been promising FSD v11 which will support highways
| for a very long time already, but it isn't out yet.
| phkahler wrote:
| I'm assuming most people are like me and don't give a shit
| weather it was FSD or Autopilot or some other software. The car
| software was driving.
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| Driver is still responsible for vehicles actions.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| Both "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving" both heavily imply
| otherwise, even if you're technically correct.
| rising-sky wrote:
| Your counter claim is apparently false based on the attempt at
| recreation in this linked video. The driver engage FSD while
| driving into the same section of the Bay Bridge and tunnel
|
| https://twitter.com/TeslaOwnersEBay/status/16140836244581253...
| redox99 wrote:
| That's the very tweet I'm referring to. Look at the screen
| and you'll see it's autopilot, not FSD (ignore what they
| say).
|
| All these names are confusing to be honest, so it's
| understandable that people mix them up.
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| this is the exact kind of bullshit that corporations have
| gotten away with for too long. As a consumer, I do not give one
| flying fuck what the new hip-slang for computer vision is, call
| it "put your life in the hands of a company run by the most
| burned out divorced dad person of the year".
| yreg wrote:
| One claim is completely different than the other one and the
| truth is important here.
| boucher wrote:
| Not really. In this scenario there's no functional
| difference between these two supposedly distinct products.
| yreg wrote:
| They are two different products with two different tech
| stacks.
| shafyy wrote:
| This post doesn't link to a source. Is there an official
| statement somewhere?
| ajross wrote:
| It's been floating around for few days. No major media has
| picked up the story. This seems very fake, yeah.
|
| FWIW: the original Klippenstein story was sourced only from 2-3
| sentences in the police report too (a report that was
| _explicit_ about its inability to verify the claim, no less).
| The fact that an eyeball-driving story like this has gone this
| long with so much as an on the record quote from the driver...
|
| My original intuition looking at this was "Autopilot doesn't
| have this behavior", and the longer this goes the more
| convinced I am that the driver just fibbed to the cops. This
| absolutely looks like a classic distracted driving accident,
| and if it were _any_ other vehicle, even ones with assistive
| technology, no one would think otherwise.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| Meh. I think criticism/public outcries of self driving is
| neccessary. Needs tight regulations because as much as I
| think self driving is entirely moronic, it is becoming
| reality, and that reality needs a way for the law and justice
| systems to be able to deal with it acccordingly.
|
| The tech itself is impressive but not really a leap forward
| for humanity or transportation. More sideways meamdering than
| anything.
| ajross wrote:
| The question was "was autopilot engaged before this
| collision?" though. Increasingly the evidence (c.f. this
| decidedly fake story) seems questionable.
|
| Criticism is fine. Mistrusths are not. You agree with that
| much, right?
| epgui wrote:
| Untruths* ?
| themitigating wrote:
| What's a mistruth? Why not just use the word lie
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > decidedly fake story
|
| You type that, which is easy. Can you address the story
| on its merits?
| tzs wrote:
| He's questioning whether the story even has addressable
| merits.
|
| The story says the NHTSA report confirms FSD was on, but
| the story cites as its source and appears to have just
| cribbed their story from the CNN story.
|
| The CNN story just says that the NHTSA confirms that
| Tesla's "controversial driver-assist software" was
| engaged and later says that the NHTSA has been
| investigating both Autopilot and Full Self Driving.
| There's nothing in the CNN story that tells if
| "controversial driver-assist software" is Autopilot or
| FSD.
|
| CNN does not link to the actual NHTSA report. I could not
| find it with a brief search, and found on Reddit people
| who are much more familiar with NHTSA report procedures
| also failing to find out.
|
| I wouldn't call the submitted article a "fake story" like
| he did. It's more a pointless story that has no good
| reason to exist and should be replaced with the CNN story
| and the CNN story's title.
| jjulius wrote:
| >The CNN story just says that the NHTSA confirms that
| Tesla's "controversial driver-assist software" was
| engaged and later says that the NHTSA has been
| investigating both Autopilot and Full Self Driving.
| There's nothing in the CNN story that tells if
| "controversial driver-assist software" is Autopilot or
| FSD.
|
| Umm, this is from the CNN article linked to as a source
| at the bottom...
|
| >The Tesla's driver told authorities that the vehicle's
| "full self-driving" software braked unexpectedly and
| triggered the pileup on Thanksgiving day. CNN Business
| was first to report last month the driver's claim that
| "full self-driving" was active.
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/17/business/tesla-8-car-
| cras...
|
| Edit: This is not me taking a position in this
| discussion, just clarifying that the article does, in
| fact, say that.
| ajross wrote:
| Really? It's published on a laptop review link farm
| populated mostly with presumptively-auto-generated
| content, not written by a journalist with a byline in any
| major publication. It makes a blockbuster claim for which
| it fails to cite sources (which should be trivially easy,
| since it's claiming the DOT "released a report"!). It's
| by an author who seemingly (see his history page)
| generates one hit piece on Tesla or Musk properties every
| few days.
|
| If there's ever a fake source, this is it. If there was
| an NHTSA report corroborating this, then the direct link
| would be _everywhere_.
| dekhn wrote:
| Funny how Musk doesn't come out with a tweet saying "we checked
| the logs and Autopilot/FSD wasn't enabled" any more. And this is
| FSD, not Autopilot.
| drewg123 wrote:
| I thought FSD applied only to uncontrolled access surface
| roads, and the bay bridge would be simply autopilot.
|
| I know that in my car, the FSD stuff ends and regular autopilot
| takes over on highways and other controlled access roads. I've
| never driven the bay bridge in my Tesla (since I live thousands
| of miles away), but I remember it being a controlled access
| highway, so I assume it was the AP logic, not the FSD logic
| that was in control.
| elif wrote:
| Correct. On the highway, every tesla would be on the old
| 2016-born autopilot stack, not the FSD model. the only cars
| that have v11 fsd highway stack are internal tesla test cars.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| Does autopilot change lanes? What's the difference between
| autopilot and fsd?
| dekhn wrote:
| I came back to re-read this post and since I'm unable to find
| any real corroborating information, I'm inclined to agree
| that it makes much more sense it was on Autopilot.
|
| (I also haven't seen any commentary from musk, but it's hard
| to search twitter)
| yumraj wrote:
| He's busy selling Tesla stocks..
| olliej wrote:
| Weren't they also found to be disengaging so/fsd seconds prior
| to impact and reporting it as driver error (because of their BS
| "driver must always be ready to take control", with a more
| rapid response than we expect from trained pilots)
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| TBF, this is what level 2 and 3 are supposed to do. It's a
| shade more driver friendly than driving headlong into an
| obstacle and hoping the driver wrests control away from the
| computer.
| kube-system wrote:
| Level 3 is supposed to be smart enough to disengage and ask
| the driver to drive. Level 2 is not required to be that
| smart, and most level 2 cars are not.
| [deleted]
| labster wrote:
| Elon is too busy with Twitter to pay any attention to Tesla or
| SpaceX. SpaceX keeps going just fine without him, but Tesla,
| well...
| epgui wrote:
| Have you been actually tracking their financials? They're
| doing exceptionally well.
| jart wrote:
| How can you? They're a private company now.
| epgui wrote:
| I was referring to Tesla, which the other commenter
| appears to think is struggling.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I don't know why Tesla etc are not required to report the number
| of crashes per 1000km in different modes publicly. Until those
| numbers are available none of us can really judge, least of all
| based on single incidents...
| yreg wrote:
| >I don't know why
|
| Because no other car maker is mandated to report these numbers
| either. Tesla is not the only brand with adaptive cruise
| control or line assist.
|
| (I think sharing the data would be the right thing to do
| though.)
| jjulius wrote:
| >Tesla is not the only brand with adaptive cruise control or
| line assist.
|
| What about FSD?
| elif wrote:
| they've reported them since 2016
|
| tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
| culi wrote:
| They have never published any data. Also, those number are
| also obviously misleading. Comparing my 2008 extended van I
| bought for $5k to a luxury vehicle is obviously pointless and
| useless
|
| In addition, those "safety reports" continue to spout
| misinformation that the National Transportation Safety Board
| is currently suing Tesla for
| sidibe wrote:
| Luxury vs non luxury is always the first thing brought up
| with this report, but that's not the biggest issue IMO.
| Mainly it compares the easiest miles where people feel
| comfortable using Autopilot vs all miles. I wonder how many
| miles per accident there are with cruise control engaged.
| epgui wrote:
| You're commenting on a literal publishing of data. Just
| because the data doesn't look the way you want doesn't mean
| it's not data.
|
| (Edit: if you're going to downvote me, please explain how a
| literal interpretation of exactly what I wrote is
| technically incorrect.)
| culi wrote:
| This is a report containing unverifiable statements
| _about_ internal data that they explicitly refuse to
| release
| epgui wrote:
| It's still data. I'm not saying it's great data, I'm just
| saying it's some data. And I get downvoted?
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| If they don't release it, then it's vapor. Not data. Just
| a PR story.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > If they don't release it, then it's vapor.
|
| Plenty of analysis is based on data that isn't released.
| And do you have data that says otherwise? Why should we
| believe you?
| culi wrote:
| Yes I have data that says otherwise. No I won't release
| it.
| detaro wrote:
| why should we believe them, especially given their track
| record?
| epgui wrote:
| Well it is a general principle of _civility_ that we
| should believe people _by default_ , unless we have good
| reason not to. I'm not sure what you're referring to when
| you say "track record" though.
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| Technically speaking, I believe they've released
| statistics (analysis), but not data, meaning the
| individual data points the analysis is based on.
| epgui wrote:
| Derived data is still data. I did not say or imply it was
| raw or source data.
|
| Most data we use is derived and processed data. Much of
| the data we use is a statistic.
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| My analysis shows that your comments display a 98.36%
| bias in favor of Tesla.
|
| And now we have data to show it :)
| epgui wrote:
| Well that number is made up, but yes I do have highly
| favourable feelings for that company, and for full
| disclosure, I am also a shareholder. I believe in their
| mission to accelerate the world's transition to
| sustainable energy. (Note: this does not mean I approve
| of everything Elon does and says)
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| Anecdotes are not data. I can tell you this for a fact
| from my time spent on the lunar base last financial
| quarter.
| epgui wrote:
| When you say "anecdotes", what are you referring to here?
| Because we're talking about the summary data published by
| Tesla. We're not talking about someone's story or
| personal experiences.
| hbarka wrote:
| It's relatively easy to take over the controls which instantly
| disengages FSD or Autopilot. Why this Bay Bridge driver didn't do
| that just boggles me. It's almost like these drivers have lost or
| no sense of a mechanical aptitude and so when something like this
| happens they freak out and freeze. No mechanical sense at all and
| just stays there to get rear ended. No athletic sense either.
| Driving school ought to incorporate playing tag or pushing around
| a grocery cart in a supermarket for a day and equate all that you
| do as an analog to driving mechanics and athleticism. (Just don't
| use IKEA carts or you'll go mad.)
|
| It's really easy to step on the accelerator or brake or turn the
| wheel which instantly makes the car human operated again.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| The issue is the FSD, not the driver. Also, drivers might not
| react quickly enough; what reaction time is needed to OODA.
| Finaly, if drivers are 100% engaged, they have no use for FSD.
| epgui wrote:
| If this exact same thing had happened 20 years ago, we would
| all agree that the people to blame are the ones behind. The
| person who rear-ends another is almost always at fault.
|
| So even if FSD made the very poor decision to slow down or
| stop right there (and I will point out we have good reason to
| think this was not FSD, but rather autopilot or human
| driving), the blame still goes to the rear-ender.
| giantrobot wrote:
| The Tesla switched fucking lanes. You're can't fault
| someone in the second lane for not predicting some asshole
| will cut them off and slam on the brakes. The robot is a
| laughably bad driver. If a human had the collective record
| of either Autopilot or FSD they'd be uninsurable and have
| long ago lost their license.
| epgui wrote:
| Well, the police, the judges, and the insurance companies
| fault people for rear-ending others in similar situations
| all the time.
| jyxent wrote:
| Only due to the absence of other information. This is why
| lots of people have started using dashcams.
| epgui wrote:
| Yeah... But in the vast majority of cases, rear-ending is
| caused by some combination of inattention and tailgating
| rather than the malice of the leading car. Let's not
| forget that humans are really bad at driving in general,
| and that this is extremely frequent.
|
| And even if the leading car was non-malicious and merely
| incompetent, it's your responsibility to not hit anything
| in front of you. For liability, you worry about what's in
| front, not what's behind.
|
| The only way you get out of being liable for rear-ending
| someone is if the leading car maliciously caused you to
| rear-end them, or if something unpredictable happened
| that would have made it impossible for you to avoid
| hitting the other car.
| jyxent wrote:
| > The only way you get out of being liable for rear-
| ending someone is if the leading car maliciously caused
| you to rear-end them, or if something unpredictable
| happened that would have made it impossible for you to
| avoid hitting the other car.
|
| This is literally what happened in this situation. If you
| have a dashcam and something like this happens, you won't
| be found at fault.
| int_19h wrote:
| The Tesla is certainly at fault here, and the driver who
| rear-ended it is not at fault. The cars behind him are
| another matter, though.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > I will point out we have good reason to think this was
| not FSD, but rather autopilot or human driving
|
| No, the actual research says otherwise
|
| > If this exact same thing had happened 20 years ago, we
| would all agree that the people to blame are the ones
| behind.
|
| No, not if someone comes to a sudden stop in a busy lane.
| epgui wrote:
| What "actual research"? This article? There's no source.
| int_19h wrote:
| Coming to a sudden stop in a busy lane may well be
| necessary if there's some unexpected obstacle in front of
| you. Which is why road rules _require_ maintaining
| sufficient distance to the car in front of you that if it
| has to brake hard, you have enough time to react and do
| the same thing without ramming into it.
|
| IIRC police has already said that at least some cars
| involved in the accident did not maintain such a safe
| distance, and their drivers thus bear their share of
| responsibility for the crash.
| ragebol wrote:
| To start doing that, a driver needs situational awareness.
| Getting that takes time. If you truly believe it's fully self
| driving, you think you can afford to look away and loose that
| awareness.
|
| This gap between 'sometimes needs attention' and 'never needs
| attention' is hard to bridge and very dangerous, obviously
| hbarka wrote:
| I've seen the video. This driver had Autopilot on and
| experienced "phantom braking". If you drive a Tesla you'll
| have experienced phantom braking at some point, a false
| positive condition when the Autopilot cameras thinks there's
| a wall up ahead, for example if going under an overpass. It
| will literally brake. You step on the accelerator and cuss
| once or twice at Elon and you're good to move on. This Bay
| Bridge driver could not make a decision and let the car brake
| to a stop. It's not uncommon. Anecdotally I would say Teslas
| get rear-ended quite often.
| n0tth3dro1ds wrote:
| >"If you drive a Tesla you'll have experienced phantom
| braking at some point, a false positive condition when the
| Autopilot cameras thinks there's a wall up ahead, for
| example if going under an overpass. It will literally
| brake. You step on the accelerator and cuss once or twice
| at Elon and you're good to move on. This Bay Bridge driver
| could not make a decision and let the car brake to a stop.
| It's not uncommon. Anecdotally I would say Teslas get rear-
| ended quite often."
|
| This level of apologism is shocking. "Everyone knows Teslas
| emergency brake to a stop in the middle of highway traffic
| randomly, bro. Just gotta be ready for it! No biggie!"
|
| Yikes. Ever considered rental cars? Borrowing a friend's
| car that you're not familiar? Or just 100+ years of
| automotive history in which random no-input braking was
| considered completely unacceptable and not even a thing?
| hbarka wrote:
| Hey you're misquoting me. I'm no Tesla apologist actually
| looking to get rid of it but this is the way you live
| with Autopilot. I'm done with Musk and his hypocrisy. All
| I'm saying is that everyone and their neighbor now drive
| Teslas but don't have a mechanical sense for what lane
| keeping assist is.
| clouddrover wrote:
| You're not making a good case for Tesla. Maybe the best
| thing to do is to not buy a Tesla in the first place.
| flandish wrote:
| The byproduct of the migration of the modern automobile into a
| rolling living room will, no doubt, result in people driving
| who should not. I don't mean to sound like a "standard shift
| get off my lawn and into a jeep" old man but...
|
| Yes, it's all anecdotal evidence from both my time as a vehicle
| owning adult and in my nearly 20 years picking up people from
| car accidents as a firefighter.
|
| But yeah, super easy to just zone out these days.
| pjc50 wrote:
| It's also really easy to criticize from an armchair.
|
| Nothing to do with mechanical sense or athleticism, all to do
| with attention and surprise. Self-driving encourages people to
| reduce their vigilance - after all, that's what they bought it
| for, so they could do less driving - while at the same time it
| introduces a whole new category of surprises.
|
| People are trained for normal driving. They are not trained to
| deal with _this kind_ of emergency.
|
| A self-driving system that can't be relied on and needs
| constant vigilance has turned the "driver" into a driving
| instructor who needs to do nothing except for occasionally
| correct the mistakes of the computer. This is a harder job than
| regular driving.
| Ntrails wrote:
| It drives me nuts that we could expect people who are not
| driving to maintain the same level of engagement as someone
| actively driving. It is absurd.
|
| Not to mention as peoples skills at controlling a car
| atrophy, via being a passenger, we expect them to be able to
| immediately switch on in a high pressure high context
| situation and make good decisions.
|
| I will happily use a car that drives itself. But only once I
| am sat facing backwards, purely a passenger.
| n0tth3dro1ds wrote:
| >It's relatively easy to take over the controls which instantly
| disengages FSD or Autopilot.
|
| What a naive assertion. Have you read takeover studies? Driver
| assistance systems put drivers in a state of inattention
| (universally, not just ones named "Autopilot" or "Full Self-
| Driving", which undoubtedly makes it worse). Regaining
| attention and building a model of actors and hazards around you
| takes time -- too much time to make the necessary split second
| maneuver to avoid an accident at highway speeds.
|
| So, if you constantly have to maintain full attention even with
| FSD engaged, what are you really buying for $15k? You don't get
| to sleep. You don't get to watch a movie. You don't even get to
| relax your awareness at all. If you do, the company that you
| paid $15k to for "Full Self-Driving" will say YOU were the one
| being irresponsible.
|
| Basically, I see Tesla's FSD as the following proposition:
| "Would you like to pay $15k to allow an overly-cautious and
| sometimes-erratic beginner driver to drive you around
| everywhere? Most of the time, this driver will drive so
| cautiously that it will frustrate you and confuse other drivers
| on the road. This driver may also get confused by shadows and
| abnormal visual phenomena, and this may lead to inexplicable
| emergency braking or incorrect path selection at any time. To
| help this driver, we'll install a second steering wheel and
| pedals at your passenger seat so that you can take over driving
| at any time (which you WILL be required to do regularly and
| immediately). If you guys get in an accident, YOU will be at
| fault, no matter what." Sooner or later, people will stop
| buying this garbage and just opt to drive themselves.
| nullish_signal wrote:
| Much as Teslas navigate through "un-occluded space" I wonder if
| they do not sufficiently factor in their own Occlusion (blocking)
| of space.
|
| What kind of idiot STOPS ON A DIME with speeding cars hot on his
| tail? Only a Computer... It's unfortunate that the Driver did not
| have the sense to Slam on the Gas -The idea of "Slow == Safe" can
| be disastrous...
| nullish_signal wrote:
| As an aside, I wish that Stoplights would factor in Aggregate
| Kinetic Energy of the Traffic they manage. I feel a bit bad
| every time my Single Stopped Car gets a Green, causing a group
| of 10 Cars at 40 mph to Stop, then later Re-Accelerate. If the
| stupid Junction had waited some time, the 10 Cars would happily
| carry their 40 mph through, allowing me to go once the Large
| Kinetic Energy Traffic had passed uninterrupted.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The aggregate kinetic energy of any number of stopped cars is
| zero so I don't see how your algorithm will work.
| tzs wrote:
| For simplicity lets assume all the cars in this discussion
| are the same mass and travel at the same speed except when
| they slow and stop for a traffic light or are accelerating
| back up to speed after the light changes. Let E be the
| kinetic energy of each car when it is not dealing with a
| traffic light. Let's assume no regenerative braking. Let's
| assume that a car idling at rest uses R energy
|
| So we have 1 car that approaches the light, gets a red, and
| stops. It has to shed E kinetic energy. Then 10 cars
| approach the intersection on the perpendicular road. Before
| they reach it the light changes and they all have to stop,
| shedding 10 E kinetic energy. The first car resumes its
| journey. The light changes again and the other 10 resume.
|
| The net result is that encountering the intersection caused
| this 11 car system to shed 11 E kinetic energy more and to
| consume 11 R idling energy more than would have been
| consumed if the intersection had not been there (e.g., if
| the crossing had been an overpass).
|
| What he's proposing is that some sort of smart traffic
| light system could notice the 10 approaching cars and hold
| their green a little longer so that the 10 cars do not have
| to stop. Suppose it has to hold the light long enough that
| car 1 has to wait twice as long.
|
| The energy cost of the intersection on the 11 car system
| under that scenario is E shed kinetic energy and 2 R idling
| energy. That's going to be much less that 11 E + 11 R.
| hgsgm wrote:
| In English, we don't capitalize common nouns.
| sidlls wrote:
| Have you ever driven the 101 in the Bay Area? I've never seen
| so many purely shit drivers in my life. And I lived in Florida
| for years. People routinely merge across from their on-ramp to
| the express lane doing 5-10 mph _under_ the speed limit, brake
| suddenly when the car a dozen or more car lengths ahead of them
| flashes their lights, etc. It's a pure shitshow.
| [deleted]
| flandish wrote:
| All drivers should drive with the assumption the person in
| front of them will, at some point, instantly turn into a wall
| like a Wile E Coyote drawing of a mountainside cave.
| notfish wrote:
| I've always thought of it more like "will slam on their
| breaks" than "turn into a wall". In most states, rearending
| is your fault unless the person in front of you stopped
| faster than is normal (i.e. was hit head on by an oncoming
| car), and I think that sets a good standard for what you
| should be prepared for.
|
| If a tree falls on the car in front of you and you hit them
| because they stopped instantly, it's hardly your fault.
| cjensen wrote:
| Indeed. Transmission failures, bearing failures, tire
| blowouts, and throwing a rod all can cause a car on a freeway
| to stop quickly. The onus of avoiding this is entirely on the
| following car.
| 13of40 wrote:
| Kind of makes me wonder what would have happened if all the
| cars involved had been on autopilot. Would there have been
| a collision at all?
| epgui wrote:
| We'll never know, but I would wager not.
|
| If the stopping car had been an old Toyota and we all had
| the same footage... well, it probably wouldn't even make
| the news in the first place... but if it did, we'd all be
| blaming the rear-enders. But because it's a Tesla, and
| there is a possibility that AI was involved, suddenly we
| shift our blame from the rear-enders and tailgaters to
| the computer.
|
| We've always had double standards for humans and
| machines.
| hgsgm wrote:
| 1. Didn't stop on a dime. Slowed down, and was hit while still
| movin5.
|
| 2. It's impossible to be safe if someone is (illegally!)
| tailgating.
| pseudo0 wrote:
| > What kind of idiot STOPS ON A DIME with speeding cars hot on
| his tail? Only a Computer...
|
| Humans do it on a pretty regular basis unfortunately. I have
| seen people slam on the brakes at highway speed for minor road
| debris, small animals, and a couple of times for no apparent
| reason. The only thing you can do as a driver is minimize your
| own risk by leaving sufficient following distance.
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| The follow distance thing really pisses me off. I was
| recently read ended as a result of the person behind me both
| not paying attention and having been way to close to me to
| stop in time. And since other drivers don't understand the
| concept of a safe following distance they cut in front of me
| and now we're practically bumper to bumper.
|
| Ironically this is one of the areas where driver assist can
| be helpful. Adaptive cruise control that maintains following
| distance though in practice I don't think people use it much.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > pretty regular basis
|
| It's very rare. I've never seen it, IIRC.
| slenk wrote:
| No offense, but what makes you the authority on all driving
| everywhere? Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean
| it doesn't happen on a pretty regular basis.
|
| Dolphins die on a pretty regular basis and I've never seen
| it. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen on a regular
| basis...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-21 23:02 UTC)