4 ms·

> Tesla autopilot drove the vehicle full-speed into a tractor-trailer The tractor trailer drove across the divided highway without seeing an oncoming car. I've

by sago 10y ago

> Tesla autopilot drove the vehicle full-speed into a tractor-trailer The tractor trailer drove across the divided highway without seeing an oncoming car. I've seen this accident happen in front of me with a fatality, no auto-pilot involved. A vehicle moves in front of you when you're sufficiently close and you've no time to react. Anything (like glare) that makes such a vehicle harder to spot reduces your available reaction time. Making it sound like there was a static obstacle in front of the car, and it drove into it at high speed is very tendentious, and not warranted by the report, I feel. It is exactly the kind of 'omg AI kills driver' fearbait that we don't need. If self-driving systems were ten-times safer than people, then there'd still be a lot of people being killed in them. We need to get a sane perspective on their risk.

cameldrv 10y ago
It is essentially AI kills driver. The truck was making a left turn in front of the Tesla, which was in the right lane of a 4 lane divided highway. The truck would have had to accelerate in the left turn lane, cross the divider, cross the left lane, then drive further so that the middle of the trailer was in the right lane. This takes at least 5-6 seconds for a semi, and if the semi were detected, there would have been ample time to apply the brakes to give the truck enough time to clear the intersection. If the autopilot system can't detect and respond to this situation appropriately, it shouldn't be able to be activated on a non-controlled access highway.
- amalag 10y ago
  Yeah i can't believe this is not bigger news. The Tesla AI was almost good enough to replace an attentive driver. But almost is not good enough.
  - fdsaaf 10y ago
    > replace an attentive driver It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time. Autopilot never gets tired, never eats, never applies makeup, never sneezes, and never gets distracted by screaming children. You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the idea that real humans pay attention to the road with 100% fidelity at all times.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - amalag 10y ago
      I read it more closely and they do try to enforce that a driver has his hands on the wheel, etc. I am not convinced of the benefits though. I think something that enforces people to pay attention when driving is a better solution.
    - crpatino 10y ago
      > It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time... Yes, this is an unfortunate fact of life that human beings are no angels. However, most modern societies agree that reckless drivers are to be held accountable for their less than perfect behavior. If a police officer (or more recently, surveillance camera) catches you while DUI, or texting, or some other of the most blatant irresponsible behaviors, they will give you a big ticket. And if the consequences of your own idiocity happen to materialize you will suffer much sterner punishment (up to criminal charges for manslaughter, if it came down to that). That's assuming the infractor does survive. It is a known fact that a non trivial amount of people responsible for accidents end up loosing their lives (or those of loved ones) in the very tragedies they caused themselves. Death is the ultimate judge, and a merciless one at that. > You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. Why? Neither the engineers who created those subpar systems - nor the executives who pushed for an unfeasible schedule, nor the shareholders that benefited from the whole deal, - will ever face the same consequences as described above. Corporations raison-d'etre is precisely to shield people engaging in economic activities from the unintended consequences of their actions; that's why they must be held to a higher standard than the everyman down the road. Would you imagine Tesla's Board of Directors having approved the green light for this impressive-yet-still-limited technology, if the company was required to pay for every traffic ticket that every Model S accrued while being in autopilot mode, nationwide? What about being accountable for every accident, no disclaimer licensing or such nonsense? > I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the idea that real humans pay attention to the road with 100% fidelity at all times. People will make statements about road transit, because it is literally a life-or-death situation. Maybe you do prefer the cattle to shut up and die quietly, so your utopic techno-fantasies are never challenged?
- mthoms 10y ago
  I think that your conclusion is disingenuous. Where I'm from if you make a left turn and get side-swiped then it's your fault, period. You made an unsafe turn, plain and simple[1]. If what you describe is true, then human error is the main cause of the accident (although the AI failed to prevent it and absolutely should share the blame). I just think "AI kills driver" is a bit sensationalist don't you? [1]Of course assuming that all other vehicles present were obeying the law (e.g. not speeding) and there were no other extenuating circumstances.

by sago 10y ago

cameldrv 10y ago

It is essentially AI kills driver. The truck was making a left turn in front of the Tesla, which was in the right lane of a 4 lane divided highway. The truck would have had to accelerate in the left turn lane, cross the divider, cross the left lane, then drive further so that the middle of the trailer was in the right lane. This takes at least 5-6 seconds for a semi, and if the semi were detected, there would have been ample time to apply the brakes to give the truck enough time to clear the intersection. If the autopilot system can't detect and respond to this situation appropriately, it shouldn't be able to be activated on a non-controlled access highway.

amalag 10y ago
Yeah i can't believe this is not bigger news. The Tesla AI was almost good enough to replace an attentive driver. But almost is not good enough.
- fdsaaf 10y ago
  > replace an attentive driver It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time. Autopilot never gets tired, never eats, never applies makeup, never sneezes, and never gets distracted by screaming children. You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the idea that real humans pay attention to the road with 100% fidelity at all times.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - amalag 10y ago
    I read it more closely and they do try to enforce that a driver has his hands on the wheel, etc. I am not convinced of the benefits though. I think something that enforces people to pay attention when driving is a better solution.
  - crpatino 10y ago
    > It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time... Yes, this is an unfortunate fact of life that human beings are no angels. However, most modern societies agree that reckless drivers are to be held accountable for their less than perfect behavior. If a police officer (or more recently, surveillance camera) catches you while DUI, or texting, or some other of the most blatant irresponsible behaviors, they will give you a big ticket. And if the consequences of your own idiocity happen to materialize you will suffer much sterner punishment (up to criminal charges for manslaughter, if it came down to that). That's assuming the infractor does survive. It is a known fact that a non trivial amount of people responsible for accidents end up loosing their lives (or those of loved ones) in the very tragedies they caused themselves. Death is the ultimate judge, and a merciless one at that. > You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. Why? Neither the engineers who created those subpar systems - nor the executives who pushed for an unfeasible schedule, nor the shareholders that benefited from the whole deal, - will ever face the same consequences as described above. Corporations raison-d'etre is precisely to shield people engaging in economic activities from the unintended consequences of their actions; that's why they must be held to a higher standard than the everyman down the road. Would you imagine Tesla's Board of Directors having approved the green light for this impressive-yet-still-limited technology, if the company was required to pay for every traffic ticket that every Model S accrued while being in autopilot mode, nationwide? What about being accountable for every accident, no disclaimer licensing or such nonsense? > I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the idea that real humans pay attention to the road with 100% fidelity at all times. People will make statements about road transit, because it is literally a life-or-death situation. Maybe you do prefer the cattle to shut up and die quietly, so your utopic techno-fantasies are never challenged?
mthoms 10y ago
I think that your conclusion is disingenuous. Where I'm from if you make a left turn and get side-swiped then it's your fault, period. You made an unsafe turn, plain and simple[1]. If what you describe is true, then human error is the main cause of the accident (although the AI failed to prevent it and absolutely should share the blame). I just think "AI kills driver" is a bit sensationalist don't you? [1]Of course assuming that all other vehicles present were obeying the law (e.g. not speeding) and there were no other extenuating circumstances.