[HN Gopher] US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after f...
___________________________________________________________________
US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash
Author : jjulius
Score : 166 points
Date : 2024-10-18 16:01 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| By now, most people have probably heard that Tesla's attempt at
| "Full Self Driving" is really anything but --- after a decade of
| promises. The vehicle owners manual spells this out.
|
| As I understand it, the contentious issue is the fact that unlike
| most others, their attempt works mostly from visual feedback.
|
| In low visibility situations, their FSD has limited feedback and
| is essentially driving blind.
|
| It appears that Musk may be seeking a political solution to this
| technical problem.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| It's really weird how much you comment about FSD being fake. My
| Tesla drives me 10+ miles daily and the only time I touch any
| controls is pulling in and out of my garage. Literally daily. I
| maybe disengage once every couple days just to be on the safe
| side in uncertain situations, it I'm sure it'd likely do fine
| there too.
|
| FSD works. It drives itself fine 99.99% of the time. It is
| better than most human drivers. I don't know how you keep
| claiming it doesn't or doesn't exist.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| So you agree with Musk, the main problem with FSD is
| political?
|
| _Tesla says on its website its "Full Self-Driving" software
| in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and
| does not make vehicles autonomous._
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-
| transportation/nhtsa-...
| sottol wrote:
| The claim was about _full_ driving being anything but, ie not
| _fully_ self-driving, not being completely fake. Disengaging
| every 10-110 miles is just not "full", it's partial.
|
| And then the gp went into details in which specific
| situations fsd is especially problematic.
| peutetre wrote:
| The problem is Tesla and Musk have been lying about full
| self-driving for years. They have made specific claims of
| full autonomy with specific timelines and it's been a lie
| every time: https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/
|
| In 2016 a video purporting to show full self-driving with the
| driver there purely "for legal reasons" was staged and faked:
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-
| sel...
|
| In 2016 Tesla said that "as of today, all Tesla vehicles
| produced in our factory - including Model 3 - will have the
| hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety
| level substantially greater than that of a human driver."
| That was a lie: https://electrek.co/2024/08/24/tesla-deletes-
| its-blog-post-s...
|
| Musk claimed there would be 1 million Tesla robotaxis on the
| road in 2020. That was a lie:
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-
| promised-1-mil...
|
| Tesla claimed Hardware 3 would be capable of full self-
| driving. When asked about Hardware 3 at Tesla's recent
| robotaxi event, Musk didn't want to "get nuanced". That's
| starting to look like fraud:
| https://electrek.co/2024/10/15/tesla-needs-to-come-clean-
| abo...
|
| Had Tesla simply called it "driver assistance" that wouldn't
| be a lie. But they didn't do that. They doubled, tripled,
| quadrupled down on the claim that it is "full self-driving"
| making the car "an appreciating asset" that it would be
| "financially insane" not to buy:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/23/elon-musk-any-other-car-
| than...
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/03/cars/musk-tesla-cars-
| valu...
|
| It's not even bullshit artistry. It's just bullshit.
|
| Lying is part of the company culture at Tesla. Musk keeps
| lying because the lies keep working.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| Most of this is extreme hyperbole and it's really hard to
| believe this is a genuine good faith attempt at
| conversation instead of weird astroturfing, bc these tired
| inaccurate talking points are what come up in literally
| every single even remotely associated to Elon. It's like
| there's a dossier of talking points everyone is sharing
|
| The car drives itself. This is literally undeniable. You
| can test it today for free. Yeah it doesn't have the last
| 0.01% done yet and yeah that's probably a lot of work. But
| commenting like the GP is exhausting and just not
| reflective of reality
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _... not reflective of reality_
|
| Kinda like repeated claims of "Full Self Driving" for
| over a decade.
| peutetre wrote:
| > _bc these tired inaccurate talking points are what come
| up in literally every single even remotely associated to
| Elon_
|
| You understand that the false claims, the inaccuracies,
| and the lies come _from_ Elon, right? They 're associated
| with him because he is the source of them.
|
| They're only tired because he's been telling the same lie
| year after year.
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| Here's a video of FSD driving the same route as a waymo 42%
| faster with zero interventions. 23 min vs 33. This is my
| everyday. Enjoy.
|
| https://youtu.be/Kswp1DwUAAI?si=rX4L5FhMrPXpGx4V
| ck2 wrote:
| There are also endless videos of teslas driving into
| pedestrians, plowing full speed into emergency vehicles
| parked with flashing lights, veering wildly from strange
| markings on the road, etc. etc.
|
| "works for me" is a very strange response for someone on
| Hacker News if you have any coding background - you should
| realize you are a beta tester unwittingly if not a full blown
| alpha tester in some cases
|
| All it will take is a non-standard event happening on your
| daily drive. Most certainly not wishing it on you, quite the
| opposite, trying to get you to accept that a perfect drive 99
| times out of 100 is not enough.
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| Those are Autopilot videos this discussion is about FSD.
| FSD has driven ~2 billion miles at this point and had
| potentially 2 fatal accidents.
|
| The US average is 1.33 deaths/100 million miles. Tesla on
| FSD is easily 10x safer.
|
| Every day it gets safer.
| diggernet wrote:
| How many miles does it have on the latest software?
| Because any miles driven on previous software are no
| longer relevant. Especially with that big change in v12.
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| The miles driven are rising exponentially as the versions
| improve according to company filings. If the miles driven
| on previous versions are no longer relevant how can the
| NHTSA investigation of previous versions impact FSD
| regulation today?
|
| Given that the performance has improved dramatically over
| the last 6 months, it is very reasonable to assume that
| the miles driven to fatality ratio also improving.
|
| Using the value of 1.33 deaths per 100 million miles
| driven vs 2 deaths in 2 billion miles driven, FSD has
| saved approximately 24 lives so far.
| hilux wrote:
| Considering HN is mostly technologists, the extent of
| Tesla-hate in here surprises me. My best guess is that it
| is sublimated Elon-hate. (Not a fan of my former neighbor
| myself, but let's separate the man from his creations.)
|
| People seem to be comparing Tesla FSD to perfection, when
| the more fair and relevant comparison is to real-world
| American drivers. Who are, on average, pretty bad.
|
| Sure, I wouldn't trust data coming from Tesla. But we
| have government data.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Can it drive the same route without a human behind the wheel?
|
| Not legally and not according to Tesla either --- because
| Tesla's FSD is not "Fully Self Driving" --- unlike Waymo.
| knob wrote:
| Didn't Uber have something similar happen? Ran over a woman in
| Phoenix?
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| Yes. And Uber immediately shut down the program in the entire
| state of Arizona, halted all road testing for months, and then
| soon later eliminated their self driving unit entirely.
| daghamm wrote:
| While at it, please also investigate why it is sometimes
| impossible to leave a damaged vehicle. This has resulted in
| people dying more than once:
|
| https://apnews.com/article/car-crash-tesla-france-fire-be8ec...
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| The why is pretty well understood, no investigation needed. I
| don't like the design but it's because the doors are electronic
| and people don't know where the manual release is.
|
| In a panic people go on muscle memory, which is push the
| useless button. They don't remember to pull the unmarked
| unobtrusive handle that they may not even know exists.
|
| If it was up to me, sure have your electronic release, but make
| the manual release a big handle that looks like the ejection
| handle on a jet (yellow with black stripes, can't miss it).
|
| * Or even better, have the standard door handle mechanically
| connected to the latch through a spring loaded solenoid that
| disengages the mechanism. Thus when used under normal
| conditions it does the thing electronically but the moment
| power fails the door handle connects to the manual release.
| daghamm wrote:
| There are situations where manual release has not worked
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-manually-open-
| tesla-d...
| willy_k wrote:
| The article you provided does not say that. The only
| failure related to the manual release it mentions is that
| using it breaks the window.
|
| > Exton said he followed the instructions for the manual
| release to open the door, but that this "somehow broke the
| driver's window."
| Clamchop wrote:
| Or just use normal handles, inside and outside, like other
| cars. What they've done is made things worse by any objective
| metric in exchange for a "huh, nifty" that wears off after a
| few weeks.
| nomel wrote:
| I think this is the way. Light pull does the electronic
| thing. Hard pull does the mechanical thing. They could have
| done this with the mechanical handle that's there already
| (that I have pulled almost every time I've used a Tesla,
| getting anger and weather stripping inspection from the
| owner).
| carimura wrote:
| it's worse than that, at least in ours, the backseat latches
| are under some mat, literally hidden. i had no idea it was
| there for the first 6 months.
| Zigurd wrote:
| The inside trunk release on most cars has a glow-in-the-dark
| fluorescent color handle
| amluto wrote:
| I've seen an innovative car with a single door release. As
| you pull it, it first triggers the electronic mechanism
| (which lowers the window a bit, which is useful in a door
| with no frame above the window) and then, as you pull it
| farther, it mechanically unlatches the door.
|
| Tesla should build their doors like this. Oh, wait, the car
| I'm talking about is an older Tesla. Maybe Tesla should
| _remember_ how to build doors like this.
| crooked-v wrote:
| It's not very 'innovative' these days. My 2012 Mini Cooper
| has it.
| aanet wrote:
| About damn time NHTSA opened this full scale investigation.
| Tesla's "autonowashing" has gone on for far too long.
|
| Per Reuters [1] "The probe covers 2016-2024 Model S and X
| vehicles with the optional system as well as 2017-2024 Model 3,
| 2020-2024 Model Y, and 2023-2024 Cybertruck vehicles. The
| preliminary evaluation is the first step before the agency could
| seek to demand a recall of the vehicles if it believes they pose
| an unreasonable risk to safety."
|
| Roughly 2.4 million Teslas in question, with "Full Self Driving"
| software after 4 reported collisions and one fatality.
|
| NHTSA is reviewing the ability of FSD's engineering controls to
| "detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility
| conditions."
|
| Tesla has, of course, rather two-facedly called its FSD as SAE
| Level-2 for regulatory purposes, while selling its "full self
| driving" but also requiring supervision. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
|
| No other company has been so irresponsible to its users, and
| without a care for any negative externalities imposed on non-
| consenting road users.
|
| I treat every Tesla driver as a drunk driver, steering away
| whenever I see them on highways.
|
| [FWIW, yes, I work in automated driving and know a thing or two
| about automotive safety.]
|
| [1]
| https://archive.is/20241018151106/https://www.reuters.com/bu...
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| > Roughly 2.4 million Teslas in question, with "Full Self
| Driving" software after 4 reported collisions and one fatality.
|
| 45000 people die yearly just in the US in auto accidents. Those
| numbers and timeline you quoted seem insignificant at first
| glance magnified by people with an axe to grind like that guy
| running anti Tesla superbowl ads, who makes self driving
| software like you.
| dietsche wrote:
| I would like more details. There are definitely situations where
| neither a car nor a human could respond quickly enough to a
| situation on the road.
|
| for example, I recently hit a deer. The dashcam shows that I had
| less than 100 feet from when the deer became visible due to
| terrain to impact while driving at 60 mph. Keeping in mind that
| stopping a car in 100 feet at 60 mph is impossible. Most vehicles
| need more than triple that without accounting for human reaction
| time.
| ra7 wrote:
| Unfortunately, Tesla requests NHTSA to redact almost all useful
| information from their crash reports. So it's impossible to get
| more details.
|
| Here is the public database of all ADAS crashes:
| https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ffdd/sgo-2021-01/SGO-2021-01_In...
| Log_out_ wrote:
| just have a drone fly ahead and have the lidar pointcloud on
| hud. This are very bio-logic excuses :)
| nomel wrote:
| I've had a person, high on drugs, walk out from between bushes
| that were along the road. I screeched to a halt in front of
| them, but 1 second later and physics would have made it
| impossible, regardless of reaction time (or non-negligible
| speed).
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| This is called "overdriving your vision", and it's so common
| that it boggles my mind. (This opinion might have something to
| do with the deer I hit when I first started driving...)
|
| Drive according to the conditions, folks.
| Kirby64 wrote:
| On many roads if a deer jumps across the road at the wrong
| time there's literally nothing you can do. You can't always
| drive at 30mph on back country roads just because a deer
| might hop out at you.
| seadan83 wrote:
| World of difference between, 30, 40, 50 and 60. Feels like
| something I have noticed between west and east coast
| drivers. Latter really send it on country turns and just
| trust the road. West coast, particularly montana, when
| vision is reduced, speed slows down. Just too many animals
| or road obstacles (eg: rocks, planks of wood) to just trust
| the road.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > West coast, particularly montana
|
| Montana is not "West coast".
| seadan83 wrote:
| Yeah, I was a bit glib. My impression is more
| specifically of the greater northwest vs rest. Perhaps
| just "the west" vs "the east".
|
| Indiana drivers for example really do send it (in my
| experience). Which is not east coast of course.
|
| There is a good bit of nuance... I would perhaps say more
| simply east of Mississippi vs west, but Texas varies by
| region and so-Cal drivers vary a lot as well,
| particularly compared to nor-Cal and central+eastern
| california. (I don't have an impression for nevada and
| new mexico drivers - I dont have any experience on
| country roads in those states)
| Kirby64 wrote:
| Road obstacles are static and can be seen by not "out
| driving your headlights". Animals flinging themselves
| into the road cannot, in many instances.
| amenhotep wrote:
| You are responding in a thread about a person saying they
| were driving at 60 when the deer only became visible "due
| to terrain" at 100 feet away, and therefore hitting it is
| no reflection on their skill or choices as a driver.
|
| I suppose we're meant to interpret charitably here, but
| it really seems to me like there is a big difference
| between the scenario described and the one you're talking
| about, where the deer really does fling itself out in
| front of you.
| dietsche wrote:
| op here. you nailed it on the head. also, the car started
| breaking before i could!
|
| incidentally, i've also had the tesla dodge a deer
| successfully!
|
| autopilot has improved in BIG ways over the past 2 years.
| went 700 miles in one day on autopilot thru the
| mountains. no issues at all.
|
| that said expecting perfection from a machine or a human
| is a fools errand.
| Zigurd wrote:
| We will inevitably see "AVs are too cautious! Let me go
| faster!" complaints as AVs drive in more places. But, really
| humans just suck at risk assessment. And at driving. Driving
| like a human is comforting in some contexts, but that should
| not be a goal when it trades away too much safety.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| There is a difference between driving too fast around a
| corner to stop for something stationary on the road and
| driving through countryside where something might jump out.
|
| I live in a country with deer but the number of incidences of
| them interacting with road users is so low that it does not
| factor in to my risk tolerance.
| Zigurd wrote:
| The risks vary with speed. At 30mph a deer will be injured
| and damage your car, and you might have to call animal
| control to find the deer if it was able to get away. At
| 45mph there is a good chance the deer will impact your
| windshield. If it breaks through, that's how people die in
| animal collisions. They get kicked to death by a frantic,
| panicked, injured animal.
| freejazz wrote:
| The article explains the investigation is based upon visibility
| issues... what is your point? I don't think any reasonable
| person doubts there are circumstances where nothing could
| adequately respond in order to prevent a crash. It seems a
| rather odd assumption to reach that these crashes would be in
| one of those scenarios such that we should be explained to
| otherwise, no less so when the report facially explains this to
| not be the case.
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| > 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. Another crash under investigation
| involved a reported injury
|
| > The probe covers 2016-2024 Model S and X vehicles with the
| optional system as well as 2017-2024 Model 3, 2020-2024 Model Y,
| and 2023-2024 Cybertruck vehicles.
|
| This is good, but also for context 45 thousand people are killed
| in auto accidents in just the US every year, making 4 report
| crashes and 1 reported fatality for 2.4 million vehicles over 8
| years look miniscule by comparison, or even better than many
| human drivers.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Did you scale your numbers in proportion of miles driven
| autonomously vs manually?
| josephg wrote:
| Yeah, that'd be the interesting figure: How many deaths per
| million miles driven? How does Tesla's full self driving
| stack up against human drivers?
| gostsamo wrote:
| Even that is not good enough, because the "autopilot"
| usually is not engaged in challenging conditions making any
| direct comparisons not really reliable. You need similar
| roads in simila weather and similar time of the day for
| approximating good comparison.
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| How many of the 45,000 deaths on US roads( and an order
| of magnitude more injuries) occur due to 'challenging
| conditions' ?
| dekhn wrote:
| Those numbers aren't all the fatalities associated with tesla
| cars; IE, you can't compare the 45K/year (roughly 1 per 100M
| miles driven) to the limited number of reports.
|
| What they are looking for is whether there are systematic
| issues with the design and implementation that make it unsafe.
| moduspol wrote:
| Unsafe relative to what?
|
| Certainly not to normal human drivers in normal cars. Those
| are killing people left and right.
| dekhn wrote:
| I don't think the intent is to compare it to normal human
| drivers, although having some level of estimate of
| accident/injury/death rates (to both the driver, passenger,
| and people outside the car) with FSD enabled/disabled would
| be very interesting.
| moduspol wrote:
| > I don't think the intent is to compare it to normal
| human drivers
|
| I think our intent should be focused on where the
| fatalities are happening. To keep things comparable, we
| could maybe do 40,000 studies on distracted driving in
| normal cars for every one or two caused by Autopilot /
| FSD.
|
| Alas, that's not where our priorities are.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Those are good questions. We should investigate to find
| out. (It'd be different from this one but it raises a good
| question. What _is_ FSD safe compared to?)
| AlexandrB wrote:
| No they're not. And if you do look at human drivers you're
| likely to see a Pareto distribution where 20% of drivers
| cause most of the accidents. This is completely unlike
| something like FSD where accidents would be more evenly
| distributed. It's entirely possible that FSD would make 20%
| of the drivers safer and ~80% less safe even if the overall
| accident rate was lower.
| Veserv wrote:
| What? Humans are excellent drivers. Humans go ~70 years
| between injury-causing accidents and ~5,000 years between
| fatal accidents even if we count the drunk drivers. If you
| started driving when the Pyramids were still new, you would
| still have half a millennium until you reach the expected
| value between fatalities.
|
| The only people pumping the line that human drivers are bad
| are the people trying to sell a dream that they can make a
| self-driving car in a weekend, or "next year", if you just
| give them a pile of money and ignore all the red flags and
| warning signs that they are clueless. The problem is
| shockingly hard and underestimating it is the first step to
| failure. Reckless development will not get you there safely
| with known technology.
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> The agency is asking if other similar FSD crashes have
| occurred in reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if Tesla
| has updated or modified the FSD system in a way that may affect
| it in such conditions._
|
| Those four crashes are just the ones that sparked the
| investigation.
| tapoxi wrote:
| I don't agree with this comparison. The drivers are licensed,
| they have met a specific set of criteria to drive on public
| roads. The software is not.
|
| We are not sure when FSD is engaged with all of these miles
| driven, and if FSD is making mistakes a licensed human driver
| would not. I would at the very least expect radical
| transparency.
| fallingknife wrote:
| I too care more about bureaucratic compliance than what the
| actual chances of something killing me are. When I am on that
| ambulance I will be thinking "at least that guy met the
| specific set of criteria to be licensed to drive on public
| roads."
| tapoxi wrote:
| Are we really relegating drivers licenses to "bureaucratic
| compliance"?
|
| If FSD is being used in a public road, it impacts everyone
| on that road, not just the person who opted-in to using
| FSD. I absolutely want an independent agency to ensure it's
| safe and armed with the data that proves it.
| fallingknife wrote:
| What else are they? You jump through hoops to get a piece
| of plastic from the government that declares you "safe."
| And then holders of those licenses go out and kill 40,000
| people every year just in the US.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > making 4 report crashes and 1 reported fatality for 2.4
| million vehicles over 8 years look miniscule by comparison,
|
| that's the wrong comparison
|
| the correct comparison is the number of report crashes and
| fatalities for __unsupervised FSD__ miles driven (not counting
| Tesla pilot tests, but actual customers)
| jandrese wrote:
| That seems like a bit of a chicken and egg problem where the
| software is not allowed to go unsupervised until it racks up
| a few million miles of successful unsupervised driving.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| There's a number of state programs to solve this problem
| with testing permits. The manufacturer puts up a bond and
| does testing in a limited area, sending reports on any
| incidents to the state regulator. The largest of these,
| California's, has several dozen companies with testing
| permits.
|
| Tesla currently does not participate in any of these
| programs.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Similar to a Phase 3 clinical trial (and for similar
| reasons).
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > making 4 report crashes and 1 reported fatality for 2.4
| million vehicles over 8 years look miniscule by comparison, or
| even better than many human drivers.
|
| This is exactly what people were saying about the NHTSA
| Autopilot investigation when it started back in 2021 with 11
| reported incidents. When that investigation wrapped earlier
| this year it had identified 956 Autopilot related crashes
| between early 2018 and August 2023, 467 of which were confirmed
| the fault of autopilot and an inattentive driver.
| fallingknife wrote:
| So what? How many miles were driven and what is the record vs
| human drivers? Also Autopilot is a standard feature that is
| much less sophisticated than and has nothing to do with FSD.
| graeme wrote:
| Will the review assess overall mortality of the vehicles compared
| to similar cars, and overall mortality while FSD is in use?
| dekhn wrote:
| No, that is not part of a review. They may use some reference
| aggregated industry data, but it's out of scope to answwer the
| question I think you're trying to imply.
| infamouscow wrote:
| Lawyers are not known for their prowess in mathematics, let
| alone statistics.
|
| Making these arguments from the standpoint of an engineer is
| counterproductive.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Which is why they are the wrong people to run the country
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Whom? Because math is important and so is law, among a
| variety of other things.
|
| s/ Thankfully the US presidential choices are at least
| rational, of sound mind, and well rounded people. Certainly
| no spoiled man children among them. /s
| johnthebaptist wrote:
| Yes, if tesla complies and provides that data
| bbor wrote:
| I get where you're coming from and would also be interested to
| see, but based on the clips I've seen that wouldn't be enough
| in this case. Of course the bias is inherent in what people
| choose to post (not normal _and_ not terrible /litigable), but
| I think there's enough at this point to perceive a stable
| pattern.
|
| Long story short, my argument is this: it doesn't matter if you
| reduce serious crashes from 100PPM to 50PPM if 25PPM of those
| are _new_ crash sources, speaking from a psychological and
| sociological perspective. Everyone should know that driving
| drunk, driving distracted, driving in bad weather, and in rural
| areas at dawn or dusk is dangerous, and takes appropriate
| precautions. But what do you do if your car might crash because
| someone ahead flashed their high beams, or because the sun was
| reflecting off another car in an unusual way? Could you really
| load up your kids and take your hands off the wheel knowing
| that at any moment you might hit an unexpected edge condition?
|
| Self driving cars are (presumably!) hard enough to trust
| already, since you're giving away so much control. There's a
| reason planes have to be way more than "better, statistically
| speaking" -- we expect them to be nearly flawless, safety-wise.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > But what do you do if your car might crash because someone
| ahead flashed their high beams, or because the sun was
| reflecting off another car in an unusual way?
|
| These are -- like drunk driving, driving distract, and
| driving in bad weather -- things that actually do cause
| accidents with human drivers.
| hunter-gatherer wrote:
| The point is the choice of taking precaution part that you
| left out of the quote. The other day I was taking my kid to
| school, and when we turned east the sun was in my eyes and
| I couldn't see anything, so I pulled over as fast as I
| could and changed my route. Had I chosen to press forward
| and been in an accident, it is explainable (albeit still
| unfortunate and often unnecessary!). However, if I'm under
| the impression that my robot car can handle such
| circumstances because it does most of the time and then it
| glitches, that is harder to explain.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| This language is a bit of a sticking point for me. If
| you're drunk driving or driving distracted, there's no
| "accident". You're _intentionally_ doing something wrong
| and _committing a crime_.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Indeed, yet humans can anticipate such things and rely on
| their experience to reason about what's happening and how
| to react. Like slow down or shift lanes or just move ones
| head for a different perfective. A Tesla with only two
| cameras ("because that's all humans need") is unlikely to
| provably match that performance for a long time.
|
| Tesla could also change its software without telling the
| driver at any point.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| If you're trying to hint at Tesla's own stats, then at this
| point those are hopelessly, and knowingly, misleading.
|
| All they compare is "On the subsets of driving on only the
| roads where FSD is available, active, and has not or did not
| turn itself off because of weather, road, traffic or any other
| conditions" versus "all drivers, all vehicles, all roads, all
| weather, all traffic, all conditions".
|
| There's a reason Tesla doesn't release the raw data.
| rblatz wrote:
| I have to disengage FSD multiple times a day and I'm only
| driving 16 miles round trip. And routinely have to stop it
| from doing dumb things like stopping at green traffic lights,
| attempting to do a u turn from the wrong turn lane, or
| switching to the wrong lane right before a turn.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Why would you even turn it on at this point...
| akira2501 wrote:
| Fatalities per passenger mile driven is the only statistic that
| would matter. I actually doubt this figure differs much, either
| way, from the overall fleet of vehicles.
|
| This is because "inattentive driving" is _rarely_ the cause of
| fatalities on the road. The winner there is, and probably
| always will be, Alcohol.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > The winner there is, and probably always will be, Alcohol.
|
| I'd imagine mobile device use will overtake alcohol soon
| enough
| akira2501 wrote:
| Mobile devices have been here for 40 years. The volume of
| alcohol sold every year suggests this overtake point will
| never occur.
| porphyra wrote:
| Distracted driving cost 3308 lives in 2022 [1].
|
| Alcohol is at 13384 in 2021 [2].
|
| Although you're right that alcohol does claim more lives,
| distracted driving is still highly dangerous and isn't all
| that rare.
|
| [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving
|
| [2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-
| work/alcohol...
| akira2501 wrote:
| They do a disservice by not further breaking down
| distracted driving by age. Once you see it that way it's
| hard to accept that distracted driving on it's own is the
| appropriate target.
|
| Anyways.. NHTSA publishes the FARS. This is the definitive
| source if you want to understand the demographics of
| fatalities in the USA.
|
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-
| report...
| xvector wrote:
| My Tesla routinely tries to kill me on absolutely normal
| California roads in normal sunny conditions, especially when
| there are cars parked on the side of the road (it often brakes
| thinking I'm about to crash into them, or even swerves into them
| thinking that's the "real" lane).
|
| Elon's Unsupervised FSD dreams are a good bit off. I do hope they
| happen though.
| delichon wrote:
| Why do you drive a car that routinely tries to kill you? That
| would put me right off. Can't you just turn off the autopilot?
| ddingus wrote:
| My guess is the driver tests it regularly.
|
| How does it do X, Y, ooh Z works, etc...
| xvector wrote:
| It's a pretty nice car when it's not trying to kill me
| jrflowers wrote:
| > My Tesla routinely tries to kill me
|
| > Elon's Unsupervised FSD dreams are a good bit off. I do hope
| they happen though.
|
| It is very generous that you would selflessly sacrifice your
| own life so that others might one day enjoy Elon's dream of
| robot taxis without steering wheels
| massysett wrote:
| Even more generous to selflessly sacrifice the lives and
| property of others that the vehicle "self-drives" itself
| into.
| judge2020 wrote:
| If the data sharing checkboxes are clicked, OP can still help
| send in training data while driving on his own.
| Renaud wrote:
| And what if the car swerves, and you aren't able to correct in
| time and end up killing someone?
|
| Is that your fault or the car's?
|
| I would bet that since it's your car, and you're using a
| knowingly unproven technology, it would be your fault?
| ra7 wrote:
| The driver's fault. Tesla never accepts liability.
| LunicLynx wrote:
| And they have been very clear about that
| bogantech wrote:
| > My Tesla routinely tries to kill me
|
| Why on earth would you continue to use it? If it does succeed
| someday that's on you
| newdee wrote:
| > that's on you
|
| They'd be dead, doubt it's a concern at that point.
| left-struck wrote:
| That's hilariously ironic because I have a pretty standard
| newish Japanese petrol car (I'm not mentioning the brand
| because my point isn't that brand x is better than brand y),
| and it has no ai self driving functions just pretty basic radar
| adaptive cruise control and emergency brake assist where it
| will stop if there's a car brake hard in front of you... and it
| does a remarkable job at rejecting cars which are slowing down
| or stopped in other lanes, even when you're going around a
| corner and the car is pointing straight towards the other cars
| but not actually heading towards them since it's turning. I
| assume they are using the steering input to help reject other
| vehicles and dopler effects to detect differences in speed, but
| it's remarkable how accurate it is at matching the speed of the
| car in front of you and only the car in front of you, even when
| that car is over 15 seconds in front of you. If teslas can't
| beat that, it's sad
| gitaarik wrote:
| I wonder, how are you "driving"? Are you sitting behind the
| wheel doing nothing except watch really good everything the car
| does so you can take over when needed? Isn't that a stressful
| experience? Wouldn't it be more comfortable to just do
| everything yourself so you know nothing weird can happen?
|
| Also, if the car does something crazy, how much time do you
| have to react? I can imagine in some situations you might have
| too little time to prevent the accident the car is creating.
| botanical wrote:
| Only the US government can allow corporations to beta test
| unproven technology on the public.
|
| Governments should carry out comprehensive tests on a self-
| driving car's claimed capabilities. This is the same as cars
| without proven passenger safety (Euro NCAP) aren't allowed to be
| on roads carrying passengers.
| krasin wrote:
| > Only the US government can allow corporations to beta test
| unproven technology on the public.
|
| China and Russia do it too. It's not an excuse, but definitely
| not just the US.
| CTDOCodebases wrote:
| Meh. Happens all around the world. Even if the product works
| there is no guarantee that it will be safe.
|
| Asbestos products are a good example of this. A more recent one
| is Teflon made with PFOAs or engineered stone like Caesarstone.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| If it takes 3 months to approve where steel rocket falls you
| might as well give up iterating something as complex as FSD.
| bckr wrote:
| Drive it in larger and larger closed courses. Expand to
| neighboring areas with consent of the communities involved.
| Agree on limited conditions until enough data has been
| gathered to expand those conditions.
| romon wrote:
| While controlled conditions promote safety, they do not
| yield effective training data.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| That's how all autonomous testing programs currently work
| around the world. That is, every driverless vehicle
| system on roads today was developed this way. You're
| going to have to be more specific when you say that it
| doesn't work.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| There _are_ industry standards for this stuff. ISO 21448,
| UL-4600, UNECE R157 for example, and even commercial
| certification programs like the one run by TUV Sud for
| European homologation. It 's a deliberate series of decisions
| on Tesla's part to make their regulatory life as difficult as
| possible.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > Only the US government
|
| Any Legislative body can do so. There's no reason to limit this
| strictly to the federal government. States and municipalities
| should have a say in this as well. The _citizens_ are the only
| entity that _decide_ if beta technology can be used or not.
|
| > comprehensive tests on a self-driving car's claimed
| capabilities.
|
| This presupposes the government is naturally capable of
| performing an adequate job at this task or that the automakers
| won't sue the government to interfere with the testing regime
| and efficacy of it's standards.
|
| > aren't allowed to be on roads carrying passengers.
|
| According to Wikipedia Euro NCAP is a _voluntary_ organization
| and describes the situation thusly "legislation sets a minimum
| compulsory standard whilst Euro NCAP is concerned with best
| possible current practice." Which effectively highlights the
| above problems perfectly.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| What is FSD uptake rate. I bet it's less than 1% since in most
| countries it's not even available...
| massysett wrote:
| "Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles
| requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles
| autonomous."
|
| Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving."
|
| Tesla should be sued out of existence.
| bagels wrote:
| It didn't always say that. It used to be more misleading, and
| claim that the cars have "Full Self Driving Hardware", with an
| exercise for the reader to deduce that it didn't come with
| "Full Self Driving Software" too.
| peutetre wrote:
| And Musk doesn't want to "get nuanced" about the hardware:
|
| https://electrek.co/2024/10/15/tesla-needs-to-come-clean-
| abo...
| fhdsgbbcaA wrote:
| "Sixty percent of the time, it works every time"
| systemvoltage wrote:
| That seems extreme. They're the biggest force to combat Climate
| Change. Tesla existing is good for the world.
| mbernstein wrote:
| Nuclear power adoption is the largest force to combat climate
| change.
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| Are you proposing that cars should have nuclear reactors in
| them?
|
| Teslas run great on nuclear power, unlike fossil fuel ICE
| cars.
| mbernstein wrote:
| Of course not.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Why not? We just need to use Mr Fusion in everything
|
| https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| In a world where nuclear power helped with climate
| change, would also be a world where Teslas would
| eliminate a good chunk of harmful pollution by allowing
| cars to be moved by nuclear, so not sure what point you
| were trying to make.
|
| Even at this minute, Teslas are moving around powered by
| nuclear power.
| Retric wrote:
| Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear
| by a wide margin.
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-
| source-s...
|
| Looking forward Nuclear isn't moving the needle. Solar grew
| more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse
| nuclear can't ramp up significantly in the next decade
| simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago
| nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wasted that
| opportunity.
|
| It's been helpful, but suggesting it's going to play a
| larger role anytime soon is seriously wishful thinking at
| this point.
| UltraSane wrote:
| That just goes to show how incredibly short sighted
| humanity is. We new about the risk of massive CO2
| emissions from burning fossil fuels but just ignored it
| while irrationally demonizing nuclear energy because it
| is scawy. If humans were sane and able to plan earth
| would be getting 100% of all electricity from super-
| efficient 7th generation nuclear reactors.
| mbernstein wrote:
| 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 of which are a bit safer than hydro (still very
| safe).
| Retric wrote:
| I agree costs could have dropped significantly, but I
| doubt 100% nuclear was ever going to happen.
|
| Large scale dams will exist to store water, tacking
| hydroelectric on top of them is incredibly cost
| effective. Safety wise dams are seriously dangerous, but
| they also save a shocking number of lives by reducing
| flooding.
| valval wrote:
| There was adequate evidence that nuclear is capable of
| killing millions of people and causing large scale
| environmental issues.
|
| It's still not clear today what effect CO2 or fossil fuel
| usage has on us.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Nuclear reactors are not nuclear bombs. Nuclear reactors
| are very safe on a Joules per death bases
| mbernstein wrote:
| History is a great reference, but it doesn't solve our
| problems now. Just because hydro has prevented more CO2
| until now doesn't mean that plus solar are the
| combination that delivers abundant, clean energy. There
| are power storage challenges and storage mechanisms
| aren't carbon neutral. Even if we assume that nuclear,
| wind, and solar (without storage) all have the same
| carbon footprint - I believe nuclear is less that solar
| pretty much equivalent to wind - you have to add the
| storage mechanisms for scenarios where there's no wind,
| sun, or water.
|
| All of the above are significantly better than burning
| gas or coal - but nuclear is the clear winner from an CO2
| and general availability perspective.
| Retric wrote:
| Seriously scaling nuclear would involve batteries.
| Nuclear has issues being cost effective at 80+% capacity
| factors. When you start talking sub 40% capacity factors
| the cost per kWh spirals.
|
| The full cost of operating a multiple nuclear reactor for
| just 5 hours per day just costs more than a power plant
| at 80% capacity factor charging batteries.
| mbernstein wrote:
| > Seriously scaling nuclear would involve batteries.
| Nuclear has issues being cost effective at 80+% capacity
| factors.
|
| I assume you mean that sub 80% capacity nuclear has
| issues being cost effective (which I agree is true).
|
| You could pair the baseload nuclear with renewables
| during peak times and reduce battery dependency for
| scaling and maintaining higher utilization.
| Retric wrote:
| I meant even if you're operating nuclear as baseload
| power looking forward the market rate for electricity
| looks rough without significant subsidies.
|
| Daytime you're facing solar head to head which is already
| dropping wholesale rates. Off peak is mostly users
| seeking cheap electricity so demand at 2AM is going to
| fall if power ends up cheaper at noon. Which means
| nuclear needs to make most of its money from the duck
| curve price peaks. But batteries are driving down peak
| prices.
|
| Actually cheap nuclear would make this far easier, but
| there's no obvious silver bullet.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > Historically, hydro has
|
| done harm to the ecosystems where they are installed.
| This is quite often overlooked and brushed aside.
|
| There is no single method of generating electricity
| without downsides.
| Retric wrote:
| We've made dams long before we knew about electricity. At
| which point tacking hydropower to a dam that would exist
| either way has basically zero environmental impact.
|
| Pure hydropower dams definitely do have significant
| environmental impact.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I just don't get the premise of your argument. Are you
| honestly saying that stopping the normal flow of water
| has no negative impact on the ecosystem? What about the
| area behind the dam that is now flooded? What about the
| area in front of the dam where there is now no way to
| traverse back up stream?
|
| Maybe your just okay and willing to accept that kind of
| change. That's fine, just as some people are okay with
| the risk of nuclear, the use of land for solar/wind. But
| to just flat out deny that it has impact is just
| dishonest discourse at best
| Retric wrote:
| It's the same premise as rooftop solar. You're building a
| home anyway so adding solar panels to the roof isn't
| destroying pristine habitat.
|
| People build dams for many reasons not just electricity.
|
| Having a reserve of rainwater is a big deal in
| California, Texas, etc. Letting millions of cubic meters
| more water flow into the ocean would make the water
| problems much worse in much of the world. Flood control
| is similarly a serious concern. Blaming 100% of the
| issues from dams on Hydropower is silly if outlawing
| hydropower isn't going to remove those dams.
| porphyra wrote:
| I think solar is a lot cheaper than nuclear, even if you
| factor in battery storage.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Every year Musk personally flies enough in his private jet to
| undo the emissions savings of over 100,000 EVs...
|
| Remember that every time you get in your Tesla that you're
| just a carbon offset for a spoiled billionaire.
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| Hmmmm average car uses 489 gallons a year. Large private
| jet uses 500 gallons an hour. There are 9125 hours in a
| year.
|
| So if Elon lives in a jet that flys 24/7 you're only very
| wrong. Since that's obviously not the case you're
| colossally and completely wrong.
|
| Remember that the next time you try to make an argument
| that Tesla is not an incredible force for decarbonization.
| briansm wrote:
| I think you missed the 'EV' part of the post.
| valval wrote:
| As opposed to all the other execs whose companies aren't a
| force to combat climate change and still fly their private
| jets.
|
| But don't get me wrong, anyone and everyone can fly their
| private jets if they can afford such things. They will
| already have generated enough taxes at that point that
| they're offsetting thousands or millions of Prius drivers.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| _As opposed to all the other execs_
|
| Yes, actually.
|
| Other execs fly _as needed_ because they recognize that
| in this wondrous age of the internet that
| teleconferencing can replace most in-person meetings.
| Somehow, only a supposed technology genius like Elon Musk
| thinks that in-person meetings required for everything.
|
| Other execs also don't claim to be trying to save the
| planet while doing everything in their power to exploit
| its resources or destroy natural habitats.
| gitaarik wrote:
| As I understand, electric cars are more polluting than non-
| electric, because first of all manufacturing and resources
| footprint is larger, but also because they are heavier
| (because of the batteries), the tires wear down much faster,
| needing more tire replacement, which is so significantly much
| that their emission free-ness doesn't compensate for it.
|
| Besides, electric vehicles still seem to be very impractical
| compared to normal cars, because they can't drive very far
| without needing a lengthy recharge.
|
| So I think the eco-friendliness of electric vehicles is maybe
| like the full self-driving system: nice promises but no
| delivery.
| theyinwhy wrote:
| That has been falsified by more studies than I can keep
| track of. And yes, if you charge your electric with
| electricity produced by oil, the climate effect will be
| non-optimal.
| djaychela wrote:
| Pretty much everything you've said here isn't true. You are
| just repeating tropes that are fossil fuel industry FUD.
| hedora wrote:
| Our non-Tesla has steering assist. In my 500 miles of driving
| before I found the buried setting that let me completely
| disable it, the active safety systems never made it more than
| 10-20 miles without attempting to actively steer the car left-
| of-center or into another vehicle, even when it was "turned
| off" via the steering wheel controls.
|
| When it was turned on according to the dashboard UI, things
| were even worse. It'd disengage less than every ten miles.
| However, there wasn't an alarm when it disengaged, just a tiny
| gray blinking icon on the dash. A second or so after the
| blinking, it'd beep once and then pull crap like attempt a
| sharp left on an exit ramp that curved to the right.
|
| I can't imagine this model kills fewer people per mile than
| Tesla FSD.
|
| I think there should be a recall, but it should hit pretty much
| all manufacturers shipping stuff in this space.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| My Hyundai has a similar feature and it's excellent. I don't
| think you should be painting with such a broad brush.
| noapologies wrote:
| I'm not sure how any of this is related to the article. Does
| this non-Tesla manufacturer claim that their steering assist
| is "full self driving"?
|
| If you believe their steering assist kills more people than
| Tesla FSD then you're welcome, encouraged even, to file a
| report with the NHTSA here [1].
|
| [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem
| gamblor956 wrote:
| If what you say is true, name the car model and file a report
| with the NHTSA.
| HeadsUpHigh wrote:
| Ive had similar experience with a Hyundai with steering
| assist. It would get confused by messed road lining all the
| time. Meanwhile it had no problem climbing a road curb that
| was unmarked. And it would try to constantly nudge the
| steering wheel meaning I had to put force into holding it in
| place all the time since it which was extra fatigue.
|
| Oh and it was on by default, meaning I had to disable it
| every time I turned the car on.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| What model year? I'm guessing it's an older one?
|
| My Hyundai is a 2021 and I have to turn on the steering
| assist every time which I find annoying. My guess is that
| you had an earlier model where the steering assist was more
| liability than asset.
|
| It's understandable that earlier versions of this kind of
| thing wouldn't function as well, but it is very strange
| that they would have it on by default.
| m463 wrote:
| I believe it's called "Full Self Driving (Supervised)"
| maeil wrote:
| The part in parentheses has only recently been added.
| rsynnott wrote:
| And is, well, entirely contradictory. An absolute
| absurdity; what happens when the irresistible force of the
| legal department meets the immovable object of marketing.
| tharant wrote:
| Prior to that, FSD was labeled 'Full Self Driving (Beta)'
| and enabling it triggered a modal that required two
| confirmations explaining that the human driver must always
| pay attention and is ultimately responsible for the
| vehicle. The feature also had/has active driver monitoring
| (via both vision and steering-torque sensors) that would
| disengage FSD if the driver ignored the loud audible alarm
| to "Pay attention". Since changing the label to
| '(Supervised)', the audible nag is significantly reduced.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I love how the image in the article has a caption that says it
| tells you to pay attention to the road, but I had to zoom in all
| the way to figure out where that message actually was.
|
| I'd expect something big and red with a warning triangle or
| something, but it's a tiny white message in the center of the
| screen.
| valine wrote:
| It gets progressively bigger and louder the longer you ignore
| it. After 30ish seconds it sounds an alarm and kicks you out.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > After 30ish seconds it sounds an alarm and kicks you out.
|
| That's much better. When AP functionality was introduced, the
| alarm was _fifteen MINUTES_.
| taspeotis wrote:
| Ah yes, red with a warning like "WARNING: ERROR: THE SITUATION
| IS NORMAL!"
|
| Some cars that have cruise control but an analog gauge cluster
| that can't display WARNING ERRORs even hide stuff like "you
| still have to drive the car" in a manual you have to read yet
| nobody cares about that.
|
| Honestly driving a car should require some sort of license for
| a bare minimum of competence.
| 23B1 wrote:
| "Move fast and kill people"
|
| Look, I don't know who needs to hear this, but just stop
| supporting this asshole's companies. You don't need internet when
| you're camping, you don't need a robot to do your laundry, you
| don't need twitter, you can find more profitable and reliable
| places to invest.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Move slow and kill peo
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Move slow and kill people...
|
| GM ignition switch deaths 124
|
| https://money.cnn.com/2015/12/10/news/companies/gm-recall-ig...
| 23B1 wrote:
| And?
| wg0 wrote:
| In all the hype of AI etc, if you think about it then the
| foundational problem is that even Computer Vision is not a solved
| problem at the human level of accuracy and that's at the heart of
| the issue of both Tesla and that Amazon checkout.
|
| Otherwise as thought experiment, imagine just a tiny 1 Inch tall
| person glued to the grocery trolley and another sitting on each
| shelf - just these two alone are all you need for "automated
| checkout".
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Otherwise as thought experiment, imagine just a tiny 1 Inch
| tall person glued to the grocery trolley and another sitting on
| each shelf - just these two alone are all you need for
| "automated checkout".
|
| I don't think this would actually work, as silly a thought
| experiment as it is.
|
| The problem isn't the vision, it's state management and cost.
| It was very easy (but expensive) to see and classify via CV if
| a person picked something up, it just requires hundreds of
| concurrent high resolution streams and a way to stitch the
| global state from all the videos.
|
| A little 1 inch person on each shelf needs a good way to
| communicate to every other tiny person what they say, and come
| to consensus. If 5 people/cameras detect person A picking
| something up, you need to differentiate between every
| permutation within 5 discrete actions and 1 seen 5 times.
|
| In case you didn't know, Amazon actually hired hundreds of
| people in India to review the footage and correct mistakes (for
| training the models). They literally had a human on each shelf.
| And they still had issues with the state management. With
| people.
| wg0 wrote:
| Yeah - that's exactly is my point that humans were required
| to recognize and computer vision is NOT a solved problem
| regardless of tech bros misleading techno optimism.
|
| Distributed communication and state management on the other
| hand is a solved problem already mostly with known
| parameters. How else do you think thousand and thousands of
| Kubernetes work in the wild.
| gnuser wrote:
| I worked in 18 a wheeler automation unicorn.
|
| Never rode in one once for a reason.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Automate the transfer yards, shipping docks, and trucking
| terminals. Make movement of cargo across these limited use
| areas entirely automated and as smooth as butter. Queue drivers
| up and have their loads automatically placed up front so they
| can drop and hook in a few minutes and get back on the road.
|
| I honestly think that's the _easier_ problem to solve by at
| least two orders of magnitude.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Did you miss the news about the recent strike by the very
| people you are suggesting to eliminate? This automation was
| one of the points of contention.
|
| Solving the problem might not be as easy as you suggest as
| long as their are powerful unions involved
| akira2501 wrote:
| This automation is inevitable. The ports are a choke point
| created by unnatural monopoly and a labor union is the
| incorrect solution. Particularly because their labor
| actions have massive collateral damage to other labor
| interests.
|
| I believe that if trucking were properly unionized the port
| unions would be crushed. They're not that powerful they've
| just outlived this particular modernization the longest out
| of their former contemporaries.
| dylan604 wrote:
| So a union is okay for the trucking industry, but not for
| the dock workers?
|
| And what exactly will the truckers be trucking if the
| ports are crushed?
| porphyra wrote:
| There are a bunch of companies working on that. So far off
| the top of my head I know of:
|
| * Outrider: https://www.outrider.ai/
|
| * Cyngn: https://www.cyngn.com/
|
| * Fernride: https://www.fernride.com/
|
| Any ideas what other ones are out there?
| akira2501 wrote:
| Promising. I'm actually more familiar with the actual
| transportation and logistics side of the operation and
| strictly within the USA. I haven't seen anything new put
| into serious operation out here yet but I'll definitely be
| watching for them.
| xqcgrek2 wrote:
| Law fare can work both ways and this administration is basically
| a lame duck.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Asking genuinely: is FSD enabled/accessible in EU?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| FSD is currently neither legal nor enabled in the EU. That may
| change in the future.
| UltraSane wrote:
| I'm astonished at how long Musk has been able to keep his
| autonomous driving con going. He has been lying about it to
| inflate Tesla shares for 10 years now.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Without consequences, there is no reason to stop.
| UltraSane wrote:
| When is the market going to realize Tesla is NEVER going to
| have real level 4 autonomy where Tesla takes legal liability
| for crashes the way Waymo has?
| tstrimple wrote:
| Market cares far more about money than lives. Until the
| lives lost cost more than their profit, they give less than
| zero fucks. Capitalism. Yay!
| jjmarr wrote:
| There's no con. It works. You can buy a Tesla that can drive
| itself places and it's been technically capable of doing so for
| several years. The current restrictions on autonomous cars are
| legal, not technical.
| UltraSane wrote:
| It "works" if you mean often does incredibly stupid and
| dangerous things and requires a person to be ready to take
| over for it at any moment to prevent a crash. So far no Tesla
| car has ever legally driven even a single mile without a
| person in the driver's seat.
| jjmarr wrote:
| And? How does that make Elon Musk a con artist?
|
| It's possible to physically get in a Tesla and have it
| drive you from point A to point B. That's a self-driving
| car. You're saying it's unreliable, makes mistakes, and can
| be used illegally. That doesn't mean the car can't drive
| itself, just that it doesn't do a very good job at "self-
| driving"
| UltraSane wrote:
| "How does that make Elon Musk a con artist?"
|
| Because since 2014 he has made wildly unrealistic claims
| that he is smart enough to know were BS.
|
| December 2015: "We're going to end up with complete
| autonomy, and I think we will have complete autonomy in
| approximately two years."
|
| January 2016 In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere
| connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in
| LA and the car is in NY
|
| June 2016: "I really consider autonomous driving a solved
| problem, I think we are less than two years away from
| complete autonomy, safer than humans."
|
| October 2016 By the end of next year, said Musk, Tesla
| would demonstrate a fully autonomous drive from, say, a
| home in L.A., to Times Square ... without the need for a
| single touch, including the charging.
|
| "A 2016 video that Tesla used to promote its self-driving
| technology was staged to show capabilities like stopping
| at a red light and accelerating at a green light that the
| system did not have, according to testimony by a senior
| engineer."
|
| January 2017 The sensor hardware and compute power
| required for at least level 4 to level 5 autonomy has
| been in every Tesla produced since October of last year.
|
| March 2017: "I think that [you will be able to fall
| asleep in a Tesla] in about two years."
|
| May 2017 Update on the coast to coast autopilot demo? -
| Still on for end of year. Just software limited. Any
| Tesla car with HW2 (all cars built since Oct last year)
| will be able to do this.
|
| March 2018 I think probably by end of next year [end of
| 2019] self-driving will encompass essentially all modes
| of driving and be at least 100% to 200% safer than a
| person.
|
| February 2019 We will be feature complete full self
| driving this year. The car will be able to find you in a
| parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your
| destination without an intervention this year. I'm
| certain of that. That is not a question mark. It will be
| essentially safe to fall asleep and wake up at their
| destination towards the end of next year
|
| April 2019 We expect to be feature complete in self
| driving this year, and we expect to be confident enough
| from our standpoint to say that we think people do not
| need to touch the wheel and can look out the window
| sometime probably around the second quarter of next year.
|
| May 2019 We could have gamed an LA/NY Autopilot journey
| last year, but when we do it this year, everyone with
| Tesla Full Self-Driving will be able to do it too
|
| December 2020 I'm extremely confident that Tesla will
| have level five next year, extremely confident, 100%
|
| January 2021 FSD will be capable of Level 5 autonomy by
| the end of 2021
| two_handfuls wrote:
| I tried it. It drives worse than a teenager.
|
| There is absolutely no way this can safely drive a car
| without supervision.
| valval wrote:
| It's been safer than a human driver for years. It's also
| not meant to be unsupervised.
| gitaarik wrote:
| Something about these two statements seem to be in
| conflict with each other, but maybe that is just kinda
| Tesla PR talk.
| valval wrote:
| It's quite easy to be safer than a human driver, since
| humans are just human. Supervision is required because
| the system can face edge cases.
| gitaarik wrote:
| Ah ok so if humans would be supervised for their edge
| cases then humans would actually be safer!
| UltraSane wrote:
| Edge cases like intersections?
| UltraSane wrote:
| It is cultish doublespeak.
| lawn wrote:
| Safer than a human driver...
|
| According to Tesla.
| peutetre wrote:
| Musk believes Tesla without FSD is "worth basically zero":
| https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-worth-
| basica...
|
| Musk is now moving the FSD work to xAI, taking what
| supposedly makes the public company Tesla valuable and
| placing it into his private ownership:
| https://www.wsj.com/tech/tesla-xai-partnership-elon-
| musk-30e...
|
| Seems like a good way to privatize shareholder capital.
| porphyra wrote:
| Just because it has taken 10 years longer than promised doesn't
| mean that it will never happen. FSD has made huge improvements
| this year and is on track to keep up the current pace so it
| actually does seem closer than ever.
| UltraSane wrote:
| The current vision-only system is a clear technological dead-
| end that can't go much more than 10 miles between
| "disengagements". To be clear, "disengagements" would be
| crashes if a human wasn't ready to take over. And not needing
| a human driver is THE ENTIRE POINT! I will admit Musk isn't a
| liar when Tesla has FSD at least as good as Waymo's system
| and Tesla accepts legal liability for any crashes.
| valval wrote:
| You're wrong. Nothing about this is clear, and you'd be
| silly to claim otherwise.
|
| You should explore your bias and where it's coming from.
| UltraSane wrote:
| No Tesla vehicle has legally driven even a single mile
| with no driver in the driver's seat. They aren't even
| trying to play Waymo's game. The latest FSD software's
| failure rate is at least 100 times higher than it needs
| to be.
| fallingknife wrote:
| That's a stupid point. I've been in a Tesla that's driven
| a mile by itself. It makes no difference if a person is
| in the seat.
| UltraSane wrote:
| "It makes no difference if a person is in the seat." It
| does when Musk is claiming that Tesla is going to sell a
| car with no steering wheel!
|
| The current Tesla FSD fails so often that a human HAS to
| be in the driver seat ready to take over at any moment.
|
| You really don't understand the enormous difference
| between the current crappy level 2 Tesla FSD and Waymo's
| level 4 system?
| valval wrote:
| The difference is that Tesla has a general algorithm,
| while Waymo is hard coding scenarios.
|
| I never really got why people bring Waymo up every time
| Tesla's FSD is mentioned. Waymo isn't competing with
| Tesla's vision.
| porphyra wrote:
| Waymo uses a learned planner and is far from "hardcoded".
| In any case, imo both of these can be true:
|
| * Tesla FSD works surprisingly well and improving
| capabilities to hands free actual autonomy isn't as far
| fetched as one might think.
|
| * Waymo beat them to robotaxi deployment and scaling up
| to multiple cities may not be as hard as people say.
|
| It seems that self driving car fans are way too tribal
| and seem to be convinced that the "other side" sucks and
| is guaranteed to fail. In reality, it is very unclear as
| both strategies have their merits and only time will tell
| in the long run.
| UltraSane wrote:
| " Tesla FSD works surprisingly well and improving
| capabilities to hands free actual autonomy isn't as far
| fetched as one might think"
|
| Except FSD doesn't work surprisingly well and there is no
| way it will get as good as Waymo using vision-only.
|
| "It seems that self driving car fans are way too tribal
| and seem to be convinced that the "other side" sucks and
| is guaranteed to fail."
|
| I'm not being tribal, I'm being realistic based on the
| very public performance of both systems.
|
| If Musk was serious about his Robotaxi claims then Tesla
| would be operating very differently. Instead it is pretty
| obvious it all a con to inflate Tesla shares beyond all
| reason.
| UltraSane wrote:
| The difference is that Waymo has a very well engineered
| system using vision, LIDAR, and millimeter wave RADAR
| that works well enough in limited areas to provide tens
| of thousands of actual driver-less rides. Tesla has a
| vision only system that sucks so bad a human has to be
| ready to take over for it at any time like a parent
| monitoring a toddler near stairs.
| gitaarik wrote:
| Just like AGI and the year of the Linux desktop ;P
| porphyra wrote:
| Honestly LLMs were a big step towards AGI, and gaming on
| Linux is practically flawless now. Just played through
| Black Myth Wukong with no issues out of the box.
| UltraSane wrote:
| LLMs are to AGI
|
| as
|
| A ladder is to getting to orbit.
|
| I can seem LLMs serving as a kind of memory for an AGI
| but something fundamentally different will be needed for
| true reasoning and continues self-improvement.
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| Each version has improved. FSD is realistically the hardest thing
| humanity as ever tried to do. It involves an enormous amount of
| manpower, compute power and human discoveries, and has to work
| right in billions of scenarios.
|
| Building a self flying plane is comically easy by comparison.
| Building Starship is easier by comparison.
| gitaarik wrote:
| Ah ok, first it is possible within 2 years, and now it is
| humanity's hardest problem? If it's really that hard I think we
| better put our resources into something more useful, like new
| energy solutions, seems we have an energy crisis.
| Animats wrote:
| If Trump is elected, this probe will be stopped.
| gitaarik wrote:
| It concerns me that these Tesla's can suddenly start acting
| differently after a software update. Seems like a great target
| for a cyber attack. Or just a fail from the company. A little bug
| that is accidentally spread to millions of cars all over the
| world.
|
| And how is this regulated? Say the software gets to a point that
| we deem it safe for full self driving, then it gets approved on
| the road, and then Tesla adds a new fancy feature to their
| software and rolls out an update. How are we to be confident that
| it's safe?
| rightbyte wrote:
| Imagine all Teslas doing a full left right now. And full right
| in left steer countries.
|
| OTA updates and auto updates in general is just a thing that
| should not be in vehicles. The ecu:s should have to be air
| gaped to the internet to be considered road worthy.
| soerxpso wrote:
| For whatever it's worth, Teslas with Autopilot enabled crash
| about once every 4.5M miles driven, whereas the overall rate in
| the US is roughly one crash every 70K miles driven. Of course,
| the selection effects around that stat can be debated (people
| probably enable autopilot in situations that are safer than
| average, the average tesla owner might be driving more carefully
| or in safer areas than the average driver, etc), but it is a
| pretty significant difference. (Those numbers are what I could
| find at a glance; DYOR if you'd like more rigor).
|
| We have a lot of traffic fatalities in the US (in some states, an
| entire order of magnitude worse than in some EU countries), but
| it's generally not considered an issue. Nobody asks, "These
| agents are crashing a lot; are they really competent to drive?"
| when the agent is human, but when the agent is digital it becomes
| a popular question even with a much lower crash rate.
| deely3 wrote:
| > Gaps in Tesla's telematic data create uncertainty regarding
| the actual rate at which vehicles operating with Autopilot
| engaged are involved in crashes. Tesla is not aware of every
| crash involving Autopilot even for severe crashes because of
| gaps in telematic reporting. Tesla receives telematic data from
| its vehicles, when appropriate cellular connectivity exists and
| the antenna is not damaged during a crash, that support both
| crash notification and aggregation of fleet vehicle mileage.
| Tesla largely receives data for crashes only with pyrotechnic
| deployment, which are a minority of police reported crashes.3 A
| review of NHTSA's 2021 FARS and Crash Report Sampling System
| (CRSS) finds that only 18 percent of police-reported crashes
| include airbag deployments.
| alexjplant wrote:
| > 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.
| theossuary wrote:
| You know what they say, if you want to kill someone in the US,
| do it in a car.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| _Crash Course: If You Want to Get Away With Murder Buy a Car_
| Woodrow Phoenix
| immibis wrote:
| In the US it seems you'd do it with a gun, but in Germany
| it's cars.
|
| There was this elderly driver who mowed down a family in a
| bike lane waiting to cross the road in Berlin, driving over
| the barriers between the bike lane and the car lane because
| the cars in the car lane were too slow. Released without
| conviction - it was an unforeseeable accident.
| macintux wrote:
| I have no idea what the conditions were like for this incident,
| but I've blown through a 4-way stop sign when the sun was
| setting. There's only so much sunglasses can do.
| eptcyka wrote:
| If environmental factors incapacitate you, should you not
| slow down or stop?
| vortegne wrote:
| You shouldn't be on the road then? If you can't see, you
| should slow down. If you can't handle driving in given
| conditions safely for everyone involved, you should slow down
| or stop. If everybody would drive like you, there'd be a
| whole lot more death on the roads.
| alexjplant wrote:
| -\\_(tsu)_/- If I can't see because of rain, hail, intense
| sun reflections, frost re-forming on my windshield, etc. then
| I pull over and put my flashers on until the problem
| subsides. Should I have kept the 4700 lb vehicle in fifth
| gear at 55 mph without the ability to see in front of me in
| each of these instances? I submit that I should not have and
| that I did the right thing.
| ablation wrote:
| Yet so much more YOU could have done, don't you think?
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| Yes, officer, this one right here.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| > There's only so much sunglasses can do.
|
| For everything else, you have brakes.
| smdyc1 wrote:
| Not to mention that when you can't see, you slow down? Does the
| self-driving system do that sufficiently in low visibility?
| Clearly not if it hit a pedestrian with enough force to kill
| them.
|
| The article mentions that Tesla's only use cameras in their
| system and Musk believes they are enough, because humans only
| use their eyes. Well firstly, don't you want self-driving
| systems to be _better_ than humans? Secondly, humans don 't
| just respond to visual cues as a computer would. We also hear
| and respond to feelings, like the sudden surge of anxiety or
| fear as our visibility is suddenly reduced at high speed.
| pmorici wrote:
| The Tesla knows when it's cameras and blinded by sun and act
| accordingly or tells the human to take over.
| kelnos wrote:
| Expect when it doesn't actually do that, I guess? Like when
| this pedestrian was killed?
| eptcyka wrote:
| If we were able to know when a neural net is failing to
| categorize something, wouldn't we get AGI for free?
| plorg wrote:
| I would think one relevant factor is that human vision is
| different than and in some ways significantly better than
| cameras.
| hshshshshsh wrote:
| I think one of the reasons they focus only on vision is
| basically the entire transportation infra is designed using
| human eyes a primary way to channel information.
|
| Useful information for driving are communicated through
| images in form of road signs, traffic signals etc.
| nkrisc wrote:
| I dunno, knowing the exact relative velocity of the car in
| front of you seems like it could be useful and is something
| humans can't do very well.
|
| I've always wanted a car that shows my speed and the
| relative speed (+/-) of the car in front of me. My car's
| cruise control can maintain a set distance so obviously
| it's capable of it but it doesn't show it.
| SahAssar wrote:
| We are "designed" (via evolution) to perceive and
| understand the environment around us. The signage is
| designed to be easily readable for us.
|
| The models that drive these cars clearly either have some
| more evolution to do or for us to design the world more to
| their liking.
| hshshshshsh wrote:
| Yes. I was talking why Tesla choose to use vision. Since
| they can't control designing the transport infra to their
| liking at least for now.
| jsight wrote:
| Unfortunately there is also an AI training problem embedded
| in this. As Mobileye says, there are a lot of driver
| decisions that are common, but wrong. The famous example is
| rolling stops, but also failing to slow down for conditions
| is really common.
|
| It wouldn't shock me if they don't have nearly enough
| training samples of people slowing appropriately for
| visibility with eyes, much less slowing for the somewhat
| different limitations of cameras.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Negligence is negligence but people tend to view vehicle
| collisions as "accidents", as in random occurrences dealt by
| the hand of fate completely outside of anyone's control. As
| such, there is a chronic failure to charge motorists with
| negligence, even when they have killed someone.
|
| If you end up in court, just ask for a jury and you'll be okay.
| I'm pretty sure this guy didnt even go to court, sounds like it
| got prosecutor's discretion.
| rKarpinski wrote:
| 'Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading
|
| "Two vehicles collided on the freeway, blocking the left lane. A
| Toyota 4Runner stopped, and two people got out to help with
| traffic control. A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one
| of the people who exited from it. "
|
| edit: Parent article was changed... I was referring to the title
| of the NPR article.
| Retric wrote:
| More clarity may change people's opinion of the accident, but
| IMO pedestrian meaningfully represents someone who is limited
| to human locomotion and lacks any sort of protection in a
| collision.
|
| Which seems like a reasonable description of the type of
| failure involved in the final few seconds before impact.
| rKarpinski wrote:
| Omitting that the pedestrian was on a freeway meaningfully
| mis-represents the situation.
| Retric wrote:
| People walking on freeways may be rare from the perspective
| of an individual driver but not a self driving system
| operating on millions of vehicles.
| rKarpinski wrote:
| What does that have to do with the original article's
| misleading title?
| Retric wrote:
| I don't think it's misleading. It's a tile not some
| hundred word description of what exactly happened.
|
| Calling them motorists would definitely be misleading by
| comparison. Using the simple "fatal crash" of the linked
| title implies the other people might in be responsible
| which is misleading.
|
| Using accident but saying Tesla was at fault could open
| them up to liability and therefore isn't an option.
| rKarpinski wrote:
| > I don't think it's misleading. It's a tile not some
| hundred word description of what exactly happened.
|
| "Pedestrian killed on freeway" instead of "pedestrian
| killed" doesn't take 100 words and doesn't give the
| impression Tesla's are mowing people down on crosswalks
| (although that's a feature to get clicks, not a bug).
| Retric wrote:
| Without context that implies the pedestrians shouldn't
| have been on the freeway.
|
| It's not an issue for Tesla, but it does imply bad things
| about the victims.
| rKarpinski wrote:
| A title of "U.S. to probe Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving'
| system after pedestrian killed on freeway" would in no
| way imply bad things about the pedestrian who was killed.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| This sort of framing you're engaging in is exactly what the
| person you're replying to is complaining about.
|
| Yeah, the person who got hit was technically a pedestrian but
| just using that word with no other context doesn't covey that
| it was a pedestrian on a limited access highway vs somewhere
| pedestrians are allowed and expected. Without additional
| explanation people assume normalcy and think that the
| pedestrian was crossing a city street or something
| pedestrians do all the time and are expected to do all the
| time when that is very much not what happened here.
| Retric wrote:
| Dealing with people on freeways is the kind of edge case
| humans aren't good at but self driving cars have zero
| excuses. It's a common enough situation that someone will
| exit a vehicle after a collision to make it a very
| predictable edge case.
|
| Remember all of the bad press Uber got when a pedestrian
| was struck and killed walking their bike across the middle
| of a street at night? People are going to be on limited
| access freeways and these systems need to be able to deal
| with it. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54175359
| potato3732842 wrote:
| I'd make the argument that people are very good at
| dealing with random things that shouldn't be on freeways
| as long as they don't coincide with blinding sun or other
| visual impairment.
|
| Tesla had a long standing issue detecting partial lane
| obstructions. I wonder if the logic around that has
| anything to do with this.
| neom wrote:
| That is the correct use of pedestrian as a noun.
| echoangle wrote:
| Sometimes using a word correctly is still confusing because
| it's used in a different context 90% of the time.
| szundi wrote:
| I think parent commenter emphasized the context.
|
| Leaving out context that would otherwise change the
| interpretation of most or targeted people is the main way to
| misled those people without technically lying.
| neom wrote:
| I mean it's the literal language they use in the report[1].
| Personally, would much prefer a publication to be
| technically correct, a person on foot on a motorway is
| referred to as a pedestrian, that is the name for that.
|
| [1]https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2024/INOA-
| PE24031-23232.pdf
| varenc wrote:
| By a stricter definition, a pedestrian is one who _travels_
| by foot. Of course, they are walking, but they're traveling
| via their car, so by some interpretations you wouldn't call
| them a pedestrian. You could call them a "motorist" or a
| "stranded vehicle occupant".
|
| For understanding the accident it does seem meaningful that
| they were motorists that got out of their car on a highway
| and not pedestrians at a street crossing. (Still inexcusable
| of course, but changes the context)
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Cars and drivers ideally shouldn't hit people who exited
| their vehicles after an accident on a highway. Identifying
| and avoiding hazards is part of driving.
| neom wrote:
| As far as I am aware, pes doesn't carry an inherent meaning
| of travel. Pedestrian just means foot on, they don't need
| to be moving, they're just not in carriage. As an aside,
| distinguishing a person's mode of presence is precisely
| what reports aim to capture.
|
| (I also do tend to avoid this level of pedantry, the points
| here are all well taken to be clear. I do think the
| original poster was fine in their comment, I was just
| sayin' - but this isn't a cross I would die on :))
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| That's why he said misleading rather than an outright lie. He
| is not disputing that it is techincally correct to refer to
| the deceased as a pedestrian, but this scenario (someone out
| of their car on a freeway) is not what is going to spring to
| the mind of someone just reading the headline.
| danans wrote:
| > Pedestrian' in this context seems pretty misleading
|
| What's misleading? The full quote:
|
| "A red Tesla Model Y then _hit the 4Runner and one of the
| people who exited from it_. A 71-year-old woman from Mesa,
| Arizona, was pronounced dead at the scene. "
|
| If you exit a vehicle, and are on foot, you are a pedestrian.
|
| I wouldn't expect FSD's object recognition system to treat a
| human who has just exited a car differently than a human
| walking across a crosswalk. A human on foot is a human on foot.
|
| However, from the sound of it, the object recognition system
| didn't even see the 4Runner, much less a person, so perhaps
| there's a more fundamental problem with it?
|
| Perhaps this is something that lidar or radar, if the car had
| them, would have helped the OR system to see.
| jfoster wrote:
| The description has me wondering if this was definitely a
| case where FSD was being used. There have been other cases in
| the past where drivers had an accident and claimed they were
| using autopilot when they actually were not.
|
| I don't know for sure, but I would think that the car could
| detect a collision. I also don't know for sure, but I would
| think that FSD would stop once a collision has been detected.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Did the article say the Tesla didn't stop after the
| collision?
| jfoster wrote:
| If it hit the vehicle and then hit one of the people who
| had exited the vehicle with enough force for it to result
| in a fatality, it sounds like it might not have applied
| any braking.
|
| Of course, that depends on the speed it was traveling at
| to begin with.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > FSD would stop once a collision has been detected.
|
| Fun fact, at least until very recently, if not even to this
| moment, AEB (emergency braking) is not a part of FSD.
| pell wrote:
| > There have been other cases in the past where drivers had
| an accident and claimed they were using autopilot when they
| actually were not.
|
| Wouldn't this be protocoled by the event data recorder?
| danans wrote:
| > There have been other cases in the past where drivers had
| an accident and claimed they were using autopilot when they
| actually were not.
|
| If that were the case here, there wouldn't be a government
| probe, right? It would be a normal "multi car pileup with a
| fatality" and added to statistics.
|
| With the strong incentive on the part of both the driver
| and Tesla to lie about this, there should strong
| regulations around event data recorders [1] for self
| driving systems, and huge penalties for violating those. A
| search across that site doesn't return a hit for the word
| "retention" but it's gotta be expressed in some way there.
|
| 1. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter
| -V/p...
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Tesla's were famously poor at detecting partial lane
| obstructions for a long time. I wonder if that's what
| happened here.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be
| before people tolerate it.
|
| It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance
| traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a
| quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of
| the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not
| newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is.
| It's all too easy to see a potential future where many people die
| needlessly because technology that could save lives is regulated
| into a greatly reduced role.
| iovrthoughtthis wrote:
| at least 10x better than a human
| becquerel wrote:
| I believe Waymo has already beaten this metric.
| szundi wrote:
| Waymo is limited to cities that their engineers has to map
| and this map maintained.
|
| You cannot put a waymo in a new city before that. With
| Tesla, what you get is universal.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| Waymo is robust to removing the map / lidars / radars /
| cameras or adding inaccuracies to any of these 4 inputs.
|
| (Not sure if this is true for the production system or
| the one they're still working on.)
| triyambakam wrote:
| Hesitation around self-driving technology is not just about the
| raw accident rate, but the nature of the accidents. Self-
| driving failures often involve highly visible, preventable
| mistakes that seem avoidable by a human (e.g., failing to stop
| for an obvious obstacle). Humans find such incidents harder to
| tolerate because they can seem fundamentally different from
| human error.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Exactly -- it's not just the overall accident rate, but the
| rate _per accident type_.
|
| Imagine if self-driving is 10x safer on freeways, but on the
| other hand is 3x more likely to run over your dog in the
| driveway.
|
| Or it's 5x safer on city streets overall, but actually 2x
| _worse_ in rain and ice.
|
| We're fundamentally wired for loss aversion. So I'd say it's
| less about what the total improvement rate is, and more about
| whether it has categorizable scenarios where it's still worse
| than a human.
| becquerel wrote:
| My dream is of a future where humans are banned from driving
| without special licenses.
| gambiting wrote:
| So.........like right now you mean? You need a special
| licence to drive on a public road right now.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| Geez, clearly they mean like a CDL
| nkrisc wrote:
| The problem is it's obviously too easy to get one and keep
| one, based on some of the drivers I see on the road.
| gambiting wrote:
| That sounds like a legislative problem where you live,
| sure it can be fixed by overbearing technology but we
| already have all the tools we need to fix it, we are just
| choosing not to for some reason.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| And yet Tesla's FSD never passed a driving test.
| Arainach wrote:
| This is about lying to the public and stoking false
| expectations for years.
|
| If it's "fully self driving" Tesla should be liable for when
| its vehicles kill people. If it's not fully self driving and
| Tesla keeps using that name in all its marketing, regardless of
| any fine print, then Tesla should be liable for people acting
| as though their cars could FULLY self drive and be sued
| accordingly.
|
| You don't get to lie just because you're allegedly safer than a
| human.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| I think this is the answer: the company takes on full
| liability. If a Tesla is Fully Self Driving then Tesla is
| driving it. The insurance market will ensure that dodgy
| software/hardware developers exit the industry.
| blagie wrote:
| This is very much what I would like to see.
|
| The price of insurance is baked into the price of a car. If
| the car is as safe as I am, I pay the same price in the
| end. If it's safer, I pay less.
|
| From my perspective:
|
| 1) I would *much* rather have Honda kill someone than
| myself. If I killed someone, the psychological impact on
| myself would be horrible. In the city I live in, I dread
| ageing; as my reflexes get slower, I'm more and more likely
| to kill someone.
|
| 2) As a pedestrian, most of the risk seems to come from
| outliers -- people who drive hyper-aggressively. Replacing
| all cars with a median driver would make me much safer (and
| traffic, much more predictable).
|
| If we want safer cars, we can simply raise insurance
| payouts, and vice-versa. The market works everything else
| out.
|
| But my stress levels go way down, whether in a car, on a
| bike, or on foot.
| gambiting wrote:
| >> I would _much_ rather have Honda kill someone than
| myself. If I killed someone, the psychological impact on
| myself would be horrible.
|
| Except that we know that it doesn't work like that. Train
| drivers are ridden with extreme guilt every time "their"
| train runs over someone, even though they know that
| logically there was absolutely nothing they could have
| done to prevent it. Don't see why it would be any
| different here.
|
| >>If we want safer cars, we can simply raise insurance
| payouts, and vice-versa
|
| In what way? In the EU the minimum covered amount for any
| car insurance is 5 million euro, it has had no impact on
| the safety of cars. And of course the recent increase in
| payouts(due to the general increase in labour and parts
| cost) has led to a dramatic increase in insurance
| premiums which in turn has lead to a drastic increase in
| the number of people driving without insurance. So now
| that needs increased policing and enforcement, which we
| pay for through taxes. So no, market doesn't "work
| everything out".
| blagie wrote:
| > Except that we know that it doesn't work like that.
| Train drivers are ridden with extreme guilt every time
| "their" train runs over someone, even though they know
| that logically there was absolutely nothing they could
| have done to prevent it. Don't see why it would be any
| different here.
|
| It's not binary. Someone dying -- even with no
| involvement -- can be traumatic. I've been in a position
| where I could have taken actions to prevent someone from
| being harmed. Rationally not my fault, but in retrospect,
| I can describe the exact set of steps needed to prevent
| it. I feel guilty about it, even though I know rationally
| it's not my fault (there's no way I could have known
| ahead of time).
|
| However, it's a manageable guilt. I don't think it would
| be if I knew rationally that it was my fault.
|
| > So no, market doesn't "work everything out".
|
| Whether or not a market works things out depends on
| issues like transparency and information. Parties will
| offload costs wherever possible. In the model you gave,
| there is no direct cost to a car maker making less safe
| cars or vice-versa. It assumes the car buyer will even
| look at insurance premiums, and a whole chain of events
| beyond that.
|
| That's different if it's the same party making cars,
| paying money, and doing so at scale.
|
| If Tesla pays for everyone damaged in any accident a
| Tesla car has, then Tesla has a very, very strong
| incentive to make safe cars to whatever optimum is set by
| the damages. Scales are big enough -- millions of cars
| and billions of dollars -- where Tesla can afford to hire
| actuaries and a team of analysts to make sure they're at
| the optimum.
|
| As an individual car buyer, I have no chance of doing
| that.
|
| Ergo, in one case, the market will work it out. In the
| other, it won't.
| tensor wrote:
| I'm for this as long as the company also takes on liability
| for human errors they could prevent. I'd want to see cars
| enforcing speed limits and similar things. Humans are too
| dangerous to drive.
| stormfather wrote:
| That would be good because it would incentivize all FSD
| cars communicating with each other. Imagine how safe
| driving would be if they are all broadcasting their speed
| and position to each other. And each vehicle
| sending/receiving gets cheaper insurance.
| Terr_ wrote:
| It goes kinda dsytopic if access to the network becomes a
| monopolistic barrier.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| That's just reducing the value of a life to a number. It
| can be gamed to a situation where it's just more profitable
| to mow down people.
|
| What's an acceptable number/financial cost is also just an
| indirect approximated way of implementing a more
| direct/scientific regulation. Not everything needs to be
| reduced to money.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| There is no way to game it successfully; if your
| insurance costs are much higher than your competitors you
| will lose in the long run. That doesn't mean there can't
| be other penalties when there is gross negligence.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It's your car, so ultimately the liability is yours. That's
| why you have insurance. If Tesla retains ownership, and just
| lets you drive it, then they have (more) liability.
| mrpippy wrote:
| Tesla officially renamed it to "Full Self Driving
| (supervised)" a few months ago, previously it was "Full Self
| Driving (beta)"
|
| Both names are ridiculous, for different reasons. Nothing
| called a "beta" should be tested on public roads without a
| trained employee supervising it (i.e. being paid to pay
| attention). And of course it was not "full", it always
| required supervision.
|
| And "Full Self Driving (supervised)" is an absurd oxymoron.
| Given the deaths and crashes that we've already seen, I'm
| skeptical of the entire concept of a system that works 98% of
| the time, but also needs to be closely supervised for the 2%
| of the time when it tries to kill you or others (with no
| alerts).
|
| It's an abdication of duty that NHTSA has let this continue
| for so long, they've picked up the pace recently and I
| wouldn't be surprised if they come down hard on Tesla (unless
| Trump wins, in which case Elon will be put in charge of
| NHTSA, the SEC, and FAA)
| gambiting wrote:
| >>. How about a quarter? Or a tenth?
|
| The answer is zero. An airplane autopilot has increased the
| overall safety of airplanes by several orders of magnitude
| compared to human pilots, but literally no errors in its
| operation are tolerated, whether they are deadly or not. The
| exact same standard has to apply to cars or any automated
| machine for that matter. If there is any issue discovered in
| any car with this tech then it should be disabled worldwide
| until the root cause is found and eliminated.
|
| >> It's all too easy to see a potential future where many
| people die needlessly because technology that could save lives
| is regulated into a greatly reduced role.
|
| I really don't like this argument, because we could already
| prevent literally all automotive deaths tomorrow through
| existing technology and legislation and yet we are choosing not
| to do this for economic and social reasons.
| esaym wrote:
| You can't equate airplane safety with automotive safety. I
| worked at an aircraft repair facility doing government
| contracts for a number of years. In one instance, somebody
| lost the toilet paper holder for one of the aircraft. This
| holder was simply a piece of 10 gauge wire that was bent in a
| way to hold it and supported by wire clamps screwed to the
| wall. Making a new one was easy but since it was a new part
| going on the aircraft we had to send it to a lab to be
| certified to hold a roll of toilet paper to 9 g's. In case
| the airplane crashed you wouldn't want a roll of toilet paper
| flying around I guess. And that cost $1,200.
| gambiting wrote:
| No, I'm pretty sure I can in this regard - any automotive
| "autopilot" has to be held to the same standard. It's
| either zero accidents or nothing.
| travem wrote:
| > The answer is zero
|
| If autopilot is 10x safer then preventing its use would lead
| to more preventable deaths and injuries than allowing it.
|
| I agree that it should be regulated and incidents thoroughly
| investigated, however letting perfect be the enemy of good
| leads to stagnation and lack of practical improvement and
| greater injury to the population as a whole.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>If autopilot is 10x safer then preventing its use would
| lead to more preventable deaths and injuries than allowing
| it.
|
| And yet whenever there is a problem with any plane
| autopilot it's preemptively disabled fleet wide and pilots
| have to fly manually even though we absolutely beyond a
| shadow of a doubt know that it's less safe.
|
| If an automated system makes a wrong decision and it
| contributes to harm/death then it cannot be allowed on
| public roads full stop, no matter how many lives it saves
| otherwise.
| exe34 wrote:
| > And yet whenever there is a problem with any plane
| autopilot it's preemptively disabled fleet wide and
| pilots have to fly manually even though we absolutely
| beyond a shadow of a doubt know that it's less safe.
|
| just because we do something dumb in one scenario isn't a
| very persuasive reason to do the same in another.
|
| > then it cannot be allowed on public roads full stop, no
| matter how many lives it saves otherwise.
|
| ambulances sometimes get into accidents - we should ban
| all ambulances, no matter how many lives they save
| otherwise.
| CrimsonRain wrote:
| So your only concern is, when something goes wrong, need
| someone to blame. Who cares about lives saved. Vaccines
| can cause adverse effects. Let's ban all of them.
|
| If people like you were in charge of anything, we'd still
| be hitting rocks for fire in caves.
| penjelly wrote:
| I'd challenge the legitimacy of the claim that it's 10x
| safer, or even safer at all. The safety data provided isn't
| compelling to me, it can be games or misrepresented in
| various ways, as pointed out by others.
| yCombLinks wrote:
| That claim wasn't made. It was a hypothetical, what if it
| was 10x safer? Then would people tolerate it.
| V99 wrote:
| Airplane autopilots follow a lateral & sometimes vertical
| path through the sky prescribed by the pilot(s). They are
| good at doing that. This does increase safety, because it
| frees up the pilot(s) from having to carefully maintain a
| straight 3d line through the sky for hours at a time.
|
| But they do not listen to ATC. They do not know where other
| planes are. They do not keep themselves away from other
| planes. Or the ground. Or a flock of birds. They do not
| handle emergencies. They make only the most basic control-
| loop decisions about the control surface and power (if even
| autothrottle equipped, otherwise that's still the meatbag's
| job) changes needed to follow the magenta line drawn by the
| pilot given a very small set of input data (position,
| airspeed, current control positions, etc).
|
| The next nearest airplane is typically at least 3 miles
| laterally and/or 500' vertically away, because the errors
| allowed with all these components are measured in hundreds of
| feet.
|
| None of this is even remotely comparable to a car using a
| dozen cameras (or lidar) to make real-time decisions to drive
| itself around imperfect public streets full of erratic
| drivers and other pedestrians a few feet away.
|
| What it is a lot like is what Tesla actually sells (despite
| the marketing name). Yes it's "flying" the plane, but you're
| still responsible for making sure it's doing the right thing,
| the right way, and not and not going to hit anything or kill
| anybody.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Autopilots aren't held to a zero error standard let alone a
| zero accident standard.
| peterdsharpe wrote:
| > literally no errors in its operation are tolerated
|
| Aircraft designer here, this is not true. We typically
| certify to <1 catastrophic failure per 1e9 flight hours. Not
| zero.
| croes wrote:
| > It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance
| traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable.
|
| Were the Teslas driving under all weather conditions at any
| location like humans do or is it just cherry picked from the
| easy travelling conditions?
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| I think we should not be satisfied with merely "better than a
| human". Flying is so safe precisely because we treat any
| casualty as unacceptable. We should aspire to make automobiles
| _at least_ that safe.
| aantix wrote:
| Before FSD is allowed on public roads?
|
| It's a net positive, saving lives right now.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable.
|
| It's completely acceptable. In fact the numbers are lower than
| they have been since we've started driving.
|
| > Accidents caused by human drivers
|
| Are there any other types of drivers?
|
| > are one of the largest causes of injury and death
|
| More than half the fatalities on the road are actually caused
| by the use of drugs and alcohol. The statistics are very clear
| on this. Impaired people cannot drive well. Non impaired people
| drive orders of magnitude better.
|
| > technology that could save lives
|
| There is absolutely zero evidence this is true. Everyone is
| basing this off of a total misunderstanding of the source of
| fatalities and a willful misapprehension of the technology.
| blargey wrote:
| > 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
| drunk driver population, after all.
| aithrowawaycomm wrote:
| Many people don't (and shouldn't) take the "half the casualty
| rate" at face value. My biggest concern is that Waymo and Tesla
| are juking the stats to make self-driving cars seem safer than
| they really are. I believe this is largely an unintentional
| consequence of bad actuary science coming from bad qualitative
| statistics; the worst kind of lying with numbers is lying to
| yourself.
|
| The biggest gap in these studies: I have yet to see a
| comparison with human drivers that filters out DUIs, reckless
| speeding, or mechanical failures. Without doing this it is
| simply not a fair comparison, because:
|
| 1) Self-driving cars won't end drunk driving unless it's made
| mandatory by outlawing manual driving or ignition is tied to a
| breathalyzer. Many people will continue to make the dumb
| decision to drive themselves home because they are drunk and
| driving is fun. This needs regulation, not technology. And DUIs
| need to be filtered from the crash statistics when comparing
| with Waymo.
|
| 2) A self-driving car which speeds and runs red lights might
| well be more dangerous than a similar human, but the data says
| nothing about this since Waymo is currently on their best
| behavior. Yet Tesla's own behavior and customers prove that
| there is demand for reckless self-driving cars, and
| manufacturers will meet the demand unless the law steps in.
| Imagine a Waymo competitor that promises Uber-level ETAs for
| people in a hurry. Technology could in theory solve this but in
| practice the market could make things worse for several decades
| until the next research breakthrough. Human accidents coming
| from distraction are a fair comparison to Waymo, but speeding
| or aggressiveness should be filtered out. The difficulty of
| doing so is one of the many reasons I am so skeptical of these
| stats.
|
| 3) Mechanical failures are a hornets' nest of ML edge cases
| that might work in the lab but fail miserably on the road.
| Currently it's not a big deal because the cars are shiny and
| new. Eventually we'll have self-driving clunkers owned by
| drivers who don't want to pay for the maintenance.
|
| And that's not even mentioning that Waymos are not self-
| driving, they rely on close remote oversight to guide AI
| through the many billions of common-sense problems that
| computets will not able to solve for at least the next decade,
| probably much longer. True self-driving cars will continue to
| make inexplicably stupid decisions: these machines are still
| much dumber than lizards. Stories like "the Tesla slammed into
| an overturned tractor trailer because the AI wasn't trained on
| overturned trucks" are a huge problem and society will not let
| Tesla try to launder it away with statistics.
|
| Self-driving cars might end up saving lives. But would they
| save more lives than adding mandatory breathalyzers and GPS-
| based speed limits? And if market competition overtakes
| business ethics, would they cost more lives than they save? The
| stats say very little about this.
| smitty1110 wrote:
| There's two things going on here with there average person that
| you need to overcome: That when Tesla dodges responsibility all
| anyone sees is a liar, and that people amalgamate all the FSD
| crashes and treat the system like a dangerous local driver that
| nobody can get off the road.
|
| Tesla markets FSD like it's a silver bullet, and the name is
| truly misleading. The fine print says you need attention and
| all that. But again, people read "Full Self Driving" and all
| the marketing copy and think the system is assuming
| responsibility for the outcomes. Then a crash happens, Tesla
| throws the driver under the bus, and everyone gets a bit more
| skeptical of the system. Plus, doing that to a person rubs
| people the wrong way, and is in some respects a barrier to
| sales.
|
| Which leads to the other point: People are tallying up all the
| accidents and treating the system like a person, and wondering
| why this dangerous driver is still on the road. Most accidents
| with dead pedestrian start with someone doing something stupid,
| which is when they assume all responsibility, legally speaking.
| Drunk, speeding, etc. Normal drivers in poor conditions slow
| down and drive carefully. People see this accident, and treat
| FSD like a serial drunk driver. It's to the point that I know
| people that openly say they treat teslas on roads like they're
| erratic drivers just for existing.
|
| Until Elon figures out how to fix his perception problem, the
| calls for investigations and to keep his robotaxis is off the
| road will only grow.
| danans wrote:
| > The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be
| before people tolerate it.
|
| It's pretty simple: as good as it can be given available
| technologies and techniques, without sacrificing safety for
| cost or style.
|
| With AVs, function and safety should obviate concerns of style,
| cost, and marketing. If that doesn't work with your business
| model, well tough luck.
|
| Airplanes are far safer than cars yet we subject their
| manufacturers to rigorous standards, or seemingly did until
| recently, as the 737 max saga has revealed. Even still the
| rigor is very high compared to road vehicles.
|
| And AVs do have to be way better than people at driving because
| they are machines that have no sense of human judgement, though
| they operate in a human physical context.
|
| Machines run by corporations are less accountable than human
| drivers, not at the least because of the wealth and legal
| armies of those corporations who may have interests other than
| making the safest possible AV.
| mavhc wrote:
| Surely the number of cars than can do it, and the price, also
| matters, unless you're going to ban private cars
| danans wrote:
| > Surely the number of cars than can do it, and the price,
| also matters, unless you're going to ban private cars
|
| Indeed, like this: the more cars sold that claim fully
| autonomous capability, and the more affordable they get,
| the higher the standards should be compared to their _AV_
| predecessors, even if they have long eclipsed human driver
| 's safety record.
|
| If this is unpalatable, then let's assign 100% liability
| with steep monetary penalties to the AV manufacturer for
| any crash that happens under autonomous driving mode.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance
| traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable.
|
| Even if we optimistically assume no "gotchas" in the statistics
| [0], distilling performance down to a casualty/injury/accident-
| rate can still be dangerously reductive, when the have a
| different _distribution_ of failure-modes which do /don't mesh
| with our other systems and defenses.
|
| A quick thought experiment to prove the point: Imagine a system
| which compared to human drivers had only half the rate of
| accidents... But many of those are because it unpredictably
| decides to jump the sidewalk curb and kill a targeted
| pedestrian.
|
| The raw numbers are encouraging, but it represents a risk
| profile that clashes horribly with our other systems of road
| design, car design, and what incidents humans are expecting and
| capable of preventing or recovering-from.
|
| [0] Ex: Automation is only being used on certain _subsets_ of
| all travel which are the "easier" miles or circumstances than
| the whole gamut a human would handle.
| __loam wrote:
| The problem is that Tesla is way behind the industry standards
| here and it's misrepresenting how good their tech is.
| alkonaut wrote:
| > How about a quarter? Or a tenth?
|
| Probably closer to the latter. The "skin in the game"
| (physically) argument makes me more willing to accept drunk
| drivers than greedy manufacturers when it comes to making
| mistakes or being negligent.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance
| traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable.
|
| Are you sure? Right now FSD is active with no one actually
| knowing its casualty rate, and the for the most part the only
| people upset about it are terminally online people on twitter
| or luddites on HN.
| frabjoused wrote:
| I don't understand why this debate/probing is not just data
| driven. Driving is all big data.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
|
| This report does not include fatalities, which seems to be the
| key point in question. Unless the above report has some bias or
| is false, Teslas in autopilot appear 10 times safer than the US
| average.
|
| Is there public data on deaths reported by Tesla?
|
| And otherwise, if the stats say it is safer, why is there any
| debate at all?
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Autopilot is not FSD.
| frabjoused wrote:
| That's a good point. Are there no published numbers on FSD?
| JTatters wrote:
| Those statistics are incredibly misleading.
|
| - It is safe to assume that the vast majority of autopilot
| miles are on highways (although Tesla don't release this
| information).
|
| - By far the safest roads per mile driven are highways.
|
| - Autopilot will engage least during the most dangerous
| conditions (heavy rain, snow, fog, nighttime).
| notshift wrote:
| Without opening the link, the problem with every piece of data
| I've seen from Tesla is they're comparing apples to oranges.
| FSD won't activate in adverse driving conditions, aka when
| accidents are much more likely to occur. And/or drivers are
| choosing not to use it in those conditions.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Unless the above report has some bias or is false
|
| Welcome to Tesla.
|
| The report measures accidents in FSD mode. Qualifiers to FSD
| mode: the conditions, weather, road, location, traffic all have
| to meet a certain quality threshold before the system will be
| enabled (or not disable itself). Compare Sunnyvale on a clear
| spring day to Pittsburgh December nights.
|
| There's no qualifier to the "comparison": all drivers, all
| conditions, all weather, all roads, all location, all traffic.
|
| It's not remotely comparable, and Tesla's data people are not
| that stupid, so it's willfully misleading.
|
| > This report does not include fatalities
|
| It also doesn't consider any incident where there was not
| airbag deployment to be an accident. Sounds potentially
| reasonable until you consider:
|
| - first gen airbag systems were primitive: collision exceeds
| threshold, deploy. Currently, vehicle safety systems consider
| duration of impact, speeds, G-forces, amount of intrusion,
| angle of collision, and a multitude of other factors before
| deciding what, if any, systems to fire (seatbelt tensioners,
| airbags, etc.) So hit something at 30mph with the right
| variables? Tesla: "this is not an accident".
|
| - Tesla also does not consider "incident was so catastrophic
| that airbags COULD NOT deploy*" to be an accident, because
| "airbags didn't deploy". This umbrella could also include
| egregious, "systems failed to deploy for any reason up to and
| including poor assembly line quality control", as also not an
| accident and also "not counted".
|
| > Is there public data on deaths reported by Tesla?
|
| They do not.
|
| They also refuse to give the public much of any data beyond
| these carefully curated numbers. Hell, NHTSA/NTSB also mostly
| have to drag heavily redacted data kicking and screaming out of
| Tesla's hands.
| jsight wrote:
| The report from Tesla is very biased. It doesn't normalize for
| the difficulty of the conditions involved, and is basically for
| marketing purposes.
|
| IMO, the challenge for NHTSA is that they can get tremendous
| detail from Tesla but not from other makes. This will make it
| very difficult for them to get a solid baseline for collisions
| due to glare in non-FSD equipped vehicles.
| testfrequency wrote:
| I was in a Model 3 Uber yesterday and my driver had to serve onto
| and up a curb to avoid an (idiot) who was trying to turn into
| traffic going in the other direction.
|
| The Model 3 had every opportunity in the world to brake and it
| didn't, we were probably only going 25mph. I know this is about
| FSD here, but that moment 100% made me realize Tesla has awful
| obstacle avoidance.
|
| I just happen to be looking forward and it was a very plain and
| clear T-Bone avoidance, and at no point did the car handle or
| trigger anything.
|
| Thankfully everyone was ok, but the front lip got pretty beat up
| from driving up the curb. Of course the driver at fault that
| caused the whole incident drove off.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be
| before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and
| turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous.
|
| - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving
|
| - It started making a left turn far too early that would have
| scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually
| intervene.
|
| - In my opinion, the default setting accelerates way too
| aggressively. I'd call myself a fairly aggressive driver and it
| is too aggressive for my taste.
|
| - It tried to make way too many right turns on red when it wasn't
| safe to. It would creep into the road, almost into the path of
| oncoming vehicles.
|
| - It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto the
| highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system should
| have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first place.
|
| - It would switch lanes to go faster on the highway, but then
| missed an exit on at least one occasion because it couldn't make
| it back into the right lane in time. Stupid.
|
| After the system error, I lost all trust in FSD from Tesla. Until
| I ride in one and _feel_ safe, I can 't have any faith that this
| is a reasonable system. Hell, even autopilot does dumb shit on a
| regular basis. I'm grateful to be getting a car from another
| manufacturer this year.
| frabjoused wrote:
| The thing that doesn't make sense is the numbers. If it is
| dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers
| show more accidents when FSD is on?
|
| When I did the trial on my Tesla, I also noted these kinds of
| things and felt like I had to take control.
|
| But at the end of the day, only the numbers matter.
| akira2501 wrote:
| You can measure risks without having to witness disaster.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Maybe other human drivers are reacting quickly and avoiding
| potential accidents from dangerous computer driving? That
| would be ironic, but I'm sure it's possible in some
| situations.
| jsight wrote:
| Because it is bad enough that people really do supervise it.
| I see people who say that wouldn't happen because the drivers
| become complacent.
|
| Maybe that could be a problem with future versions, but I
| don't see it happening with 12.3.x. I've also heard that
| driver attention monitoring is pretty good in the later
| versions, but I have no first hand experience yet.
| valval wrote:
| Very good point. The product that requires supervision and
| tells the user to keep their hands on the wheel every 10
| seconds is not good enough to be used unsupervised.
|
| I wonder how things are inside your head. Are you ignorant
| or affected by some strong bias?
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Is Tesla required to report system failures or the vehicle
| damaging itself? How do we know they're not optimizing for
| the benchmark (what they're legally required to report)?
| rvnx wrote:
| If the question is: "was FSD activated at the time of the
| accident: yes/no", they can legally claim no, for example
| if luckily the FSD disconnects half a second before a
| dangerous situation (eg: glare obstructing cameras), which
| may coincide exactly with the times of some accidents.
| Uzza wrote:
| All manufacturers have for some time been required by
| regulators to report any accident where an autonomous or
| partially autonomous system was active within 30 seconds of
| an accident.
| timabdulla wrote:
| > If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the
| reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on?
|
| Even if it is true that the data show that with FSD (not
| Autopilot) enabled, drivers are in fewer crashes, I would be
| worried about other confounding factors.
|
| For instance, I would assume that drivers are more likely to
| engage FSD in situations of lower complexity (less traffic,
| little construction or other impediments, overall lesser
| traffic flow control complexity, etc.) I also believe that at
| least initially, Tesla only released FSD to drivers with high
| safety scores relative to their total driver base, another
| obvious confounding factor.
|
| Happy to be proven wrong though if you have a link to a
| recent study that goes through all of this.
| valval wrote:
| Either the system causes less loss of life than a human
| driver or it doesn't. The confounding factors don't matter,
| as Tesla hasn't presented a study on the subject. That's in
| the future, and all stats that are being gathered right now
| are just that.
| unbrice wrote:
| > Either the system causes less loss of life than a human
| driver or it doesn't. The confounding factors don't
| matter.
|
| Confounding factors are what allows one to tell appart
| "the system cause less loss of life" from "the system
| causes more loss of life yet it is only enabled in
| situations were fewer lives are lost".
| nkrisc wrote:
| What numbers? Who's measuring? What are they measuring?
| rvnx wrote:
| There is an easy way to know what is really behind the
| numbers: look who is paying in case of accident.
|
| You have a Mercedes, Mercedes takes responsibility.
|
| You have a Tesla, you take the responsibility.
|
| Says a lot.
| tensor wrote:
| You have a Mercedes, and you have a system that works
| virtually nowhere.
| therouwboat wrote:
| Better that way than "Oh it tried to run red light, but
| otherwise it's great."
| tensor wrote:
| "Oh we tried to build it but no one bought it! So we gave
| up." - Mercedes before Tesla.
|
| Perhaps FSD isn't ready for city streets yet, but it's
| great on the highways and I'd 1000x prefer we make
| progress rather than settle for the status quo garbage
| that the legacy makers put out. Also, human drivers are
| the most dangerous, by far, we need to make progress to
| eventual phase them out.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Mercedes had the insight that if no one is able to actually
| use the system then it can't cause any crashes.
|
| Technically, that is the easiest way to get a perfect
| safety record and journalists will seemingly just go along
| with the charade.
| lawn wrote:
| > The thing that doesn't make sense is the numbers.
|
| Oh? Who are presenting the numbers?
|
| Is a crash that fails to trigger the airbags still not
| counted as a crash?
|
| What about the car turning off FSD right before a crash?
|
| How about adjusting for factors such as age of driver and the
| type of miles driven?
|
| The numbers don't make sense because they're not good
| comparisons and are made to make Tesla look good.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| The numbers collected by the NHTSA and insurance companies do
| show that FSD is dangerous...that's why the NHTSA started
| investigating and its why most insurance companies won't
| insure Tesla vehicles or charge significantly higher rates.
|
| Also, Tesla is known to disable self-driving features right
| before collisions to give the appearance of driver fault.
|
| And the coup de grace: if Tesla's own data showed that FSD
| was actually safer, they'd be shouting it from the moon,
| using that data to get self-driving permits in CA, and
| offering to assume liability if FSD actually caused an
| accident (like Mercedes does with its self driving system).
| throwaway562if1 wrote:
| AIUI the numbers are for accidents where FSD is in control.
| Which means if it does a turn into oncoming traffic and the
| driver yanks the wheel or slams the brakes 500ms before
| collision, it's not considered a crash during FSD.
| Uzza wrote:
| That is not correct. Tesla counts any accident within 5
| seconds of Autopilot/FSD turning off as the system being
| involved. Regulators extend that period to 30 seconds, and
| Tesla must comply with that when reporting to them.
| concordDance wrote:
| Several people in this thread have been saying this or
| similar. It's incorrect, from Tesla:
|
| "To ensure our statistics are conservative, we count any
| crash in which Autopilot was deactivated within 5 seconds
| before impact"
|
| https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/VehicleSafetyReport
|
| Situations which inevitably cause a crash more than 5
| seconds later seem like they would be extremely rare.
| johnneville wrote:
| are there even transparent reported numbers available ?
|
| for whatever does exist, it is also easy to imagine how they
| could be misleading. for instance i've disengaged FSD when i
| noticed i was about to be in an accident. if i couldn't
| recover in time, the accident would not be when FSD is on and
| depending on the metric, would not be reported as a FSD
| induced accident.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| It's not just about relative safety compared to all human
| driving.
|
| We all know that some humans are sometimes terrible drivers!
|
| We also know what that looks like: Driving too fast or slow
| relative to surroundings. Quickly turning every once in a while
| to stay in their lane. Aggressively weaving through traffic.
| Going through an intersection without spending the time to
| actually look for pedestrians. The list goes on..
|
| Bad human driving can be seen. Bad automated driving _is
| invisible_. Do you think the people who were about to be hit by
| a Tesla even realized that was the case? I sincerely doubt it.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| > Bad automated driving is invisible.
|
| I'm literally saying that it is visible, to me, the
| passenger. And for reasons that aren't just bad vibes. If I'm
| in an Uber and I feel unsafe, I'll report the driver. Why
| would I pay for my car to do that to me?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| GP means that the signs aren't obvious to other drivers. We
| generally underestimate how important psychological
| modelling is for communication, because it's transparent to
| most of us under most circumstances, but AI systems have
| _very_ different psychology to humans. It is easier to
| interpret the body language of a fox than a self-driving
| car.
| dekhn wrote:
| I don't think you're supposed to merge left when people are
| merging on the highway into your lane- you have right of way. I
| find even with the right of way many people merging aren't
| paying attention, but I deal with that by slightly speeding up
| (so they can see me in front of them).
| sangnoir wrote:
| You don't have a right of way over a slow moving vehicle that
| merged _ahead_ of you. Most ramps are not long enough to
| allow merging traffic to accelerate to highway speeds before
| merging, so many drivers free up the right-most lane for this
| purpose (by merging left)
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Most ramps are more than long enough to accelerate close
| enough to traffic speed if one wants to, especially in most
| modern vehicles.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Unless the driver in front of you didn't.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| If you can safely move left to make room for merging
| traffic, you should. It's considerate and reduces the
| chances of an accident.
| dekhn wrote:
| Since a number of people are giving pushback, can you point
| to any (California-oriented) driving instructions
| consistent with this? I'm not seeing any. I see people
| saying "it's curteous", but when I'm driving I'm managing
| hundreds of variables and changing lanes is often risky,
| given motorcycles lanesplitting at high speed (quite
| common).
| davidcalloway wrote:
| Definitely not California but literally the first part of
| traffic law in Germany says that caution and
| consideration are required from all partaking in traffic.
|
| Germans are not known for poor driving.
| dekhn wrote:
| Right- but the "consideration" here is the person merging
| onto the highway actually paying attention and adjusting,
| rather than pointedly not even looking (this is a very
| common merging behavior where I life). Changing lanes
| isn't without risk even on a clear day with good
| visibility. Seems like my suggestion of slowing down or
| speeding up makes perfect sense because it's less risky
| overall, and is still being considerate.
|
| Note that I personally do change lanes at times when it's
| safe, convenient, I am experienced with the intersection,
| and the merging driver is being especially unaware.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Just because you have the right of way doesn't mean the
| correct thing to do is to remain in the lane. If remaining in
| your lane is likely to make _someone else_ do something
| reckless, you should have been proactive. Not legally, for
| the sake of being a good driver.
| dekhn wrote:
| Can you point to some online documentation that recommends
| changing lanes in preference to speeding up when a person
| is merging at too slow a speed? What I'm doing is following
| CHP guidance in this post:
| https://www.facebook.com/chpmarin/posts/lets-talk-about-
| merg... """Finally, if you are the vehicle already
| traveling in the slow lane, show some common courtesy and
| do what you can to create a space for the person by slowing
| down a bit or speeding up if it is safer. """
|
| (you probably misinterpreted what I said. I do sometimes
| change lanes, even well in advance of a merge I know is
| prone to problems, if that's the safest and most
| convenient. What I am saying is the guidance I have read
| indicates that staying in the same lane is generally safer
| than changing lanes, and speeding up into an empty space is
| better for everybody than slowing down, especially because
| many people who are merging will keep slowing down more and
| more when the highway driver slows for them)
| modeless wrote:
| Tesla jumped the gun on the FSD free trial earlier this year.
| It was nowhere near good enough at the time. Most people who
| tried it for the first time probably share your opinion.
|
| That said, there is a night and day difference between FSD 12.3
| that you experienced earlier this year and the latest version
| 12.6. It will still make mistakes from time to time but the
| improvement is massive and obvious. More importantly, the rate
| of improvement in the past two months has been much faster than
| before.
|
| Yesterday I spent an hour in the car over three drives and did
| not have to turn the steering wheel at all except for parking.
| That _never_ happened on 12.3. And I don 't even have 12.6 yet,
| this is still 12.5; others report that 12.6 is a noticeable
| improvement over 12.5. And version 13 is scheduled for release
| in the next two weeks, and the FSD team has actually hit their
| last few release milestones.
|
| People are right that it is still not ready yet, but if they
| think it will stay that way forever they are about to be very
| surprised. At the current rate of improvement it will be quite
| good within a year and in two or three I could see it actually
| reaching the point where it could operate unsupervised.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| _If_ this is the case, the calls for heavy regulation in this
| thread will lead to many more deaths than otherwise.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I have yet to see a difference. I let it highway drive for an
| hour and it cut off a semi, coming within 9 to 12 inches of
| the bumper for no reason. I heard about that one believe me.
|
| It got stuck in a side street trying to get to a target
| parking lot, shaking the wheel back and forth.
|
| It's no better so far and this is the first day.
| modeless wrote:
| You have 12.6?
|
| As I said, it still makes mistakes and it is not ready yet.
| But 12.3 was much worse. It's the rate of improvement I am
| impressed with.
|
| I will also note that the predicted epidemic of crashes
| from people abusing FSD never happened. It's been on the
| road for a long time now. The idea that it is
| "irresponsible" to deploy it in its current state seems
| conclusively disproven. You can argue about exactly what
| the rate of crashes is but it seems clear that it has been
| at the very least no worse than normal driving.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Hm. I thought that was the latest release but it looks
| like no. But there seems to be no improvements from the
| last trial, so maybe 12.6 is magically better.
| modeless wrote:
| A lot of people have been getting the free trial with
| 12.3 still on their cars today. Tesla has really screwed
| up on the free trial for sure. Nobody should be getting
| it unless they have 12.6 at least.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I have 12.5. maybe 12.6 is better but I've heard that
| before.
|
| Don't get me wrong without a concerted data team building
| maps a priori, this is pretty incredible. But from a pure
| performance standpoint it's a shaky product.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| The latest version is 12.5.6, I think he got confused by
| the .6 at the end. If you think that's bad then there
| isn't a better version available. However it is a
| dramatic improvement over 12.3, don't know how much you
| tested on it.
| modeless wrote:
| You're right, thanks. One of the biggest updates in
| 12.5.6 is transitioning the highway Autopilot to FSD. If
| he has 12.5.4 then it may still be using the old non-FSD
| Autopilot on highways which would explain why he hasn't
| noticed improvement there; there hasn't been any until
| 12.5.6.
| hilux wrote:
| > ... coming within 9 to 12 inches of the bumper for no
| reason. I heard about that one believe me.
|
| Oh dear.
|
| Glad you're okay!
| eric_cc wrote:
| Is it possible you have a lemon? Genuine question. I've had
| nothing but positive experiences with FSD for the last
| several months and many thousands of miles.
| ben_w wrote:
| I've had nothing but positive experiences with
| ChatGPT-4o, that doesn't make people wrong to criticise
| either as modelling their training data too much and
| generalising too little when they need to use it for
| something where the inference domain is too far outside
| the training domain.
| snypher wrote:
| So just a few more years of death and injury until they reach
| a finished product?
| misiti3780 wrote:
| i have the same experience 12.5 is insanely good. HN is full
| of people that dont want self driving to succeed for some
| reason. fortunately, it's clear as day to some of us that
| tesla approach will work
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Curiousity about why they're against it and enunciating
| your why you think it will work would be more helpful.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| It's evident to Tesla drivers using Full Self-Driving
| (FSD) that the technology is rapidly improving and will
| likely succeed. The key reason for this anticipated
| success is data: any reasonably intelligent observer
| recognizes that training exceptional deep neural networks
| requires vast amounts of data, and Tesla has accumulated
| more relevant data than any of its competitors. Tesla
| recently held a robotaxi event, explicitly informing
| investors of their plans to launch an autonomous
| competitor to Uber. While Elon Musk's timeline
| predictions and politics may be controversial, his
| ability to achieve results and attract top engineering
| and management talent is undeniable.
| eric_cc wrote:
| Completely agree. It's very strange. But honestly it's
| their loss. FSD is fantastic.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| > At the current rate of improvement it will be quite good
| within a year
|
| I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not sure "quite good" is
| the next step after "feels dangerous".
| delusional wrote:
| > That said, there is a night and day difference between FSD
| 12.3 that you experienced earlier this year and the latest
| version 12.6
|
| >And I don't even have 12.6 yet, this is still 12.5;
|
| How am i supposed to take anything you say seriously when
| your only claim is a personal anecdote that doesn't even
| apply to your own argument. Please, think about what you're
| writing, and please stop repeating information you heard on
| youtube as if it's fact.
|
| The is one of the reasons (among many) that I can't take
| Tesla booster seriously. I have absolutely zero faith in your
| anecdote that you didn't touch the steering wheel. I bet it's
| a lie.
| modeless wrote:
| The version I have is already a night and day difference
| from 12.3 and the current version is better still. Nothing
| I said is contradictory in the slightest. Apply some basic
| reasoning, please.
|
| I didn't say I didn't touch the steering wheel. I had my
| hands lightly touching it most of the time, as one should
| for safety. I occasionally used the controls on the wheel
| as well as the accelerator pedal to adjust the set speed,
| and I used the turn signal to suggest lane changes from
| time to time, though most lane choices were made
| automatically. But I did not _turn_ the wheel. All turning
| was performed by the system. (If you turn the wheel
| manually the system disengages). Other than parking, as I
| mentioned, though FSD did handle some navigation into and
| inside parking lots.
| eric_cc wrote:
| I can second this experience. I rarely touch the wheel
| anymore. I'd say I'm 98% FSD. I take over in school zones,
| parking lots, and complex construction.
| wstrange wrote:
| I have a 2024 Model 3, and it's a a great car. That being
| said, I'm under no illusion that the car will _ever_ be self
| driving (unsupervised).
|
| 12.5.6 Still fails to read very obvious signs for 30 Km/h
| playgrounds zones.
|
| The current vehicles lack sufficient sensors, and likely do
| not have enough compute power and memory to cover all edge
| cases.
|
| I think it's a matter of time before Tesla faces a lawsuit
| over continual FSD claims.
|
| My hope is that the board will grow a spine and bring in a
| more focused CEO.
|
| Hats off to Elon for getting Tesla to this point, but right
| now they need a mature (and boring) CEO.
| jeffbee wrote:
| If I had a dime for every hackernews who commented that FSD
| version X was like a revelation compared to FSD version X-e
| I'd have like thirty bucks. I will grant you that every
| release has surprisingly different behaviors.
|
| Here's an unintentionally hilarious meta-post on the subject
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29531915
| modeless wrote:
| Sure, plenty of people have been saying it's great for a
| long time, when it clearly was not (looking at you, Whole
| Mars Catalog). _I_ was not saying it was super great back
| then. I have consistently been critical of Elon for
| promising human level self driving "next year" for like 10
| years in a row and being wrong every time. He said it this
| year again and I still think he's wrong.
|
| But the rate of progress I see right now has me thinking
| that it may not be more than two or three years before that
| threshold is finally reached.
| ben_w wrote:
| The most important lesson I've had from me incorrectly
| predicting in 2009 that we'd have cars that don't come
| with steering wheels in 2018, and thinking that the
| progress I saw each year up to then was consistent with
| that prediction, is that it's really hard to guess how
| long it takes to walk the fractal path that is software
| R&D.
|
| How far are we now, 6 years later than I expected?
|
| Dunno.
|
| I suspect it's gonna need an invention on the same level
| as Diffusion or Transformer models to be able to get all
| the edge cases we can get, and that might mean we only
| get it with human level AGI.
|
| But I don't know that, it might be we've already got all
| we need architecture-wise and it's just a matter of
| scale.
|
| Only thing I can be really sure of is we're making
| progress "quite fast" in a non-objective use of the words
| -- it's not going to need a re-run of 6 million years of
| mammilian evolution or anything like that, but even 20
| years wall clock time would be a disappointment.
| modeless wrote:
| Waymo went driverless in 2020, maybe you weren't that far
| off. Predicting that in 2009 would have been pretty good.
| They could and should have had vehicles without steering
| wheels anytime since then, it's just a matter of hardware
| development. Their steering wheel free car program was
| derailed when they hired traditional car company
| executives.
| ben_w wrote:
| Waymo for sure, but I meant also without any geolock
| etc., so I can't claim credit for my prediction.
|
| They may well best Tesla to this, though.
| Laaas wrote:
| Doesn't this just mean it's improving rapidly which is a
| good thing?
| potato3732842 wrote:
| If you were a poorer driver who did these things you wouldn't
| find these faults so damning because it'd only be say 10%
| dumber than you rather than 40% or whatever (just making up
| those numbers).
| bastawhiz wrote:
| That just implies FSD is as good as a bad driver, which isn't
| really an endorsement.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| > It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto
| the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system
| should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first
| place.
|
| This is what bugs me about ordinary autopilot. Autopilot
| doesn't switch lanes, but I like to slow down or speed up as
| needed to allow merging cars to enter my lane. Autopilot never
| does that, and I've had some close calls with irate mergers who
| expected me to work with them. And I don't think they're wrong.
|
| Just means that when I'm cruising in the right lane with
| autopilot I have to take over if a car tries to merge.
| paulcole wrote:
| > Until I ride in one and feel safe, I can't have any faith
| that this is a reasonable system
|
| This is probably the worst way to evaluate self-driving for
| society though, right?
| TheCleric wrote:
| > 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?
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| I think this is probably both the most concise and most
| reasonable take. It doesn't require anyone to define some
| level of autonomy or argue about specific edge cases of how
| the self driving system behaves. And it's easy to apply this
| principle to not only Tesla, but to all companies making self
| driving cars and similar features.
| concordDance wrote:
| Whats the current total liability cost for all Tesla drivers?
|
| The average for all USA cars seems to be around $2000/year,
| so even if FSD was half as dangerous Tesla would still be
| paying $1000/year equivalent (not sure how big insurance
| margins are, assuming nominal) per car.
|
| Now, if legally the driver could avoid paying insurance for
| the few times they want/need to drive themselves (e.g. snow?
| Dunno what FSD supports atm) then it might make sense
| economically, but otherwise I don't think it would work out.
| Retric wrote:
| Liability alone isn't nearly that high.
|
| Car insurance payments include people stealing your car,
| uninsured motorists, rental cars, and other issues not the
| drivers fault. Further insurance payments also include
| profits for the insurance company, advertising, billing,
| and other overhead from running a business.
|
| Also, if Tesla was taking on these risks you'd expect your
| insurance costs to drop.
| TheCleric wrote:
| Yeah any automaker doing this would just negotiate a flat
| rate per car in the US and the insurer would average the
| danger to make a rate. This would be much cheaper than
| the average individual's cost for liability on their
| insurance.
| concordDance wrote:
| Good points, thanks.
| bdcravens wrote:
| The liability for killing someone can include prison time.
| TheCleric wrote:
| Good. If you write software that people rely on with their
| lives, and it fails, you should be held liable for that
| criminally.
| beej71 wrote:
| And such coders should carry malpractice insurance.
| mike_d wrote:
| > Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be
| before we tolerate it.
|
| When I feel as safe as I do sitting in the back of a Waymo.
| eric_cc wrote:
| That sucks that you had that negative experience. I've driven
| thousands of miles in FSD and love it. Could not imagine going
| back. I rarely need to intervene and when I do it's not because
| the car did something dangerous. There are just times I'd
| rather take over due to cyclists, road construction, etc.
| windexh8er wrote:
| I don't believe this at all. I don't own one but know about a
| half dozen people that got suckered into paying for FSD. All
| of them don't use it and 3 of them have stated it's put them
| in dangerous situations.
|
| I've ridden in an X, S and Y with it on. Talk about vomit
| inducing when letting it drive during "city" driving. I don't
| doubt it's OK on highway driving, but Ford Blue Cruise and
| GM's Super Cruise are better there.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| These "works for me!" comments are exhausting. Nobody
| believes you "rarely intervene", otherwise Tesla themselves
| would be promoting the heck out of the technology.
|
| Bring on the videos of you in the passenger seat on FSD for
| any amount of time.
| concordDance wrote:
| This would be more helpful with a date. Was this in 2020 or
| 2024? I've been told FSD had a complete rearchitecting.
| dchichkov wrote:
| > I'm grateful to be getting a car from another manufacturer
| this year.
|
| I'm curious, what is the alternative that you are considering?
| I've been delaying an upgrade to electric for some time. And
| now, a car manufacturer that is contributing to the making of
| another Jan 6th, 2021 is not an option, in my opinion.
| pbasista wrote:
| > I'm grateful to be getting a car from another manufacturer
| this year.
|
| I have no illusions about Tesla's ability to deliver an
| unsupervised self-driving car any time soon. However, as far as
| I understand, their autosteer system, in spite of all its
| flaws, is still the best out there.
|
| Do you have any reason to believe that there actually is
| something better?
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| I believe they're fine with losing auto steering
| capabilities, based on the tone of their comment.
| geoka9 wrote:
| > It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto
| the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system
| should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first
| place.
|
| I've been on the receiving end of this with the offender being
| a Tesla so many times that I figured it must be FSD.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Come on US, regulate interstate commerce and tell them to delete
| these cameras
|
| Lidar is goated and if tesla didn't want that they can pursue a
| different perception solution, allowing for innovation
|
| But just visual cameras aiming to replicate us, ban that
| xqcgrek2 wrote:
| Lawfare by the Biden administration
| jsight wrote:
| In this case, I do not think so. NHTSA generally does an
| excellent job of looking at the big picture without bias.
|
| Although I must admit that their last investigation felt like
| an exception. The changes that they enforced seemed to be
| fairly dubious.
| bastloing wrote:
| It was way safer to ride a horse and buggy
| jgalt212 wrote:
| The SEC is clearly afraid of Musk. I wonder what the intimidation
| factor is at NHTSA.
| Rebuff5007 wrote:
| Tesla testing and developing FSD with normal consumer drivers
| frankly seems criminal. Test drivers for AV companies get
| advanced driver training, need to filed detailed reports about
| the cars response to various driving scenarios, and generally are
| paid to be as attentive as possible. The fact that any old tech-
| bro or un-assuming old lady can buy this thing and be on their
| phone when the car could potentially turn into oncoming traffic
| is mind boggling.
| quitit wrote:
| "Full Self-Driving" but it's not "full" self-driving, as it
| requires active supervision.
|
| So it's marketed with a nod and wink, as if the supervision
| requirement is just a peel away disclaimer to satisfy old and
| stuffy laws that are out of step with the latest technology. When
| in reality it really does need active supervision.
|
| But the nature of the technology is this approach invites the
| driver to distraction, because what's the use in "full self
| driving" if one needs to have their hands on the wheel and feet
| near the pedals ready to take control at a moments notice?
| Worsening this problem is that the Teslas have shown themselves
| to drive erratically at unexpected times such as phantom braking
| or misidentifying natural phenomena for traffic lights.
|
| One day people will look back on letting FSD exist in the market
| and roll their eyes in disbelief of the recklessness.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| Unpopular take: Even with perfect FSD which is much better than
| the average human driver (say having the robotic equivalent of a
| Lewis Hamilton in every car) the productivity and health gains
| won't be as great as people anticipate.
|
| Sure way less traffic deaths but the spike in depression
| especially among males would be something very big. Life events
| are much outside of our control, having a 5000lbs thing that can
| get to 150mph if needed and responds exactly to the accelerator,
| brake and steering wheel input...well that makes people feel in
| control and very powerful while behind the aforementioned
| steering wheel.
|
| Also productivity...I don't know...people think a whole lot and
| do a whole lot of self reflection while they are driving and when
| they arrive at destination they just implement the thoughts they
| had while driving. The ability to talk on the phone has been
| there for quite some time now too, so thinking and communicating
| can be done while driving already, what would FSD add?
| HaZeust wrote:
| As a sports car owner, I see where you're coming from -- but
| MANY do not. We are the 10%, the other 90% see their vehicle as
| an A-B tool, and you can clearly see that displayed with the
| average, utilitarian car models that the vast majority of the
| public buy. There will be no "spike" in depression; simply put,
| there's not enough people that care about their car, how it
| gets from point A to point B, or what contribution they give,
| if any, into that.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| Maybe they don't care about their car to be a sports car but
| they surely enjoy some pleasure out of the control of being
| at the helm of something powerful like a car (even though
| it's not a sports car)
|
| Also even people in small cars they think a lot while driving
| already, and they also communicate, how much more productive
| they could be with FSD?
| HaZeust wrote:
| I really don't think you're right about the average person,
| or even a notable size of people, believing in the idea of
| their car being their "frontier of freedom" as was popular
| in the 70-80's media. I don't think that many people _care_
| about driving nowadays.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| This feels like more lawfare from the Biden administration.
|
| They're doing this based on four collisions? Really?
| drodio wrote:
| I drive a 2024 Tesla Model Y and another person in my family
| drives a 2021 Model Y. Both cars are substantially similar (the
| 2021 actually has _more_ sensors than the 2024, which is strictly
| cameras-only).
|
| Both cars are running 12.5 -- and I agree that it's dramatically
| improved over 12.3.
|
| I really enjoy driving. I've got a #vanlife Sprinter that I'll do
| 14 hour roadtrips in with my kids. For me, the Tesla's self-
| driving capability is a "nice to have" -- it sometimes drives
| like a 16 year old who just got their license (especially around
| braking. Somehow it's really hard to nail the "soft brake at a
| stop sign" which seems like it should be be easy. I find that
| passengers in the car are most uncomfortable when the car brakes
| like this -- and I'm the most embarrassed because they all look
| at me like I completely forgot how to do a smooth stop at a stop
| sign).
|
| Other times, the Tesla's self-driving is magical and nearly
| flawless -- especially on long highway road trips, like up to
| Tahoe. Even someone like me who loves doing road trips really
| appreciates the ability to relax and not have to be driving.
|
| But here's one observation I've had that I don't see quite
| sufficiently represented in the comments:
|
| The other person in my family with the 2021 Model Y does not like
| to drive like I do, and they really appreciate that the Tesla is
| a better driver than they feel themselves to be. And as a
| passenger in their car, I also really appreciate that when the
| Tesla is driving, I generally feel much more comfortable in the
| car. Not always, but often.
|
| There's so much variance in us as humans around driving skills
| and enjoyment. It's easy to lump us together and say "the car
| isn't as good as the human." And I know there's conflicting data
| from Tesla and NHTSA about whether in aggregate, Teslas are safer
| than human drivers or not.
|
| But what I definitely know from my experience is that the Tesla
| is already a better driver than _many_ humans are -- especially
| those that don 't enjoy driving. And as @modeless points out, the
| rate of improvement is now vastly accelerating.
| fortran77 wrote:
| I have FSD in my Plaid. I don't use it. Too scary.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-19 23:01 UTC)