4 ms·

I really think Tesla needs to make autopilot's "hands-on" requirement less lenient, the driver had their hands off the wheel for a full two minutes and the car

by snuxoll 10y ago

I really think Tesla needs to make autopilot's "hands-on" requirement less lenient, the driver had their hands off the wheel for a full two minutes and the car didn't bark at him? I think (maybe I'm wrong and the other non-fatal one did) this is the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver, and probably the one that is going to put the screws to Tesla, unfortunately.

jdoliner 10y ago
Didn't the car bark it him though. The article says that Tesla claims the car repeatedly alerted the driver to take control of the vehicle and he didn't. I think you are wrong that this the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver. In the fatal crash responders found a portable DVD player inside the car and seemed confident it was in use at the time of the crash.
- taneq 10y ago
  The driver's response is moot. The larger issue here is that if autopilot doesn't provide for a safe stop under its own control when it encounters a situation it can't handle, any vehicle on autopilot becomes a lethal missile if the driver has some kind of medical problem. A traditional car won't get more than a few hundred meters if the driver on the freeway has a stroke, say. A car on autopilot could travel hundreds of kilometers and end up in a schoolyard at freeway speeds.
  - vkou 10y ago
    I hate to play Devil's advocate here, but a traditional car on cruise control will absolutely become a lethal missile if its driver has a stroke. I don't think automation makes that particular use case more dangerous.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      > I hate to play Devil's advocate here, but a traditional car on cruise control will absolutely become a lethal missile if its driver has a stroke. You're talking worst case scenario. This is a case where the driver was alive and chose to ignore warnings. > I don't think automation makes that particular use case more dangerous. It's more dangerous when the autopilot driver can easily misuse the system. Add a few requirements like hands on the wheel every few seconds before shut-off and you'll see this happen less frequently. Someone may still circumvent that measure. Nothing's perfect. There will be fewer people who abuse it.
      - vkou 10y ago
        Autopilot absolutely should start slowing the car down if the driver takes his hands off the wheel for more then a few seconds. Anything else is reckless. I was, however, responding to the specific scenario of 'Driver has a stroke --> Self-driving car becomes an unguided missile' by pointing out that it the exact same scenario as 'Driver has a stroke --> Regular car with cruise control becomes an unguided missile.'
  - BigJono 10y ago
    Also going to play devil's advocate here. Sure the car only goes a few hundred metres, but a slight knock of the wheel as they pass out or a small corner in the road could easily send said car into a crowded cafe. What is the chance that a Tesla car fails to continue safely and eventually pull over after the driver carks it? 0.1%? 1%? I doubt anywhere near 99% of strokes while driving end with the car just slowing down for a hundred metres and stopping safely in the middle of the road. I'd be surprised if the majority do. Not that it's a common occurance, but if I picture a typical stroke while driving alone, I'm picturing a car veering slowly off the road and hitting something at maybe 50-75% of the speed it was originally travelling. Tesla's self-driving would have to be abysmally bad to not beat that, and given we're only discussing 3 accidents so far, I don't believe that to be the case.
    - taneq 10y ago
      I agree with your analysis of how far each vehicle will get - in fact that's why I say the car on autopilot is more dangerous. A conventional car with cruise control enabled will 'fail early' and crash in fairly short order (most likely running off the road into a crash barrier or something) if the driver stops controlling it. A car on autopilot won't crash for some undefined but probably long time, which means that when things do go pear-shaped, it's much more likely to be on the road and in a significantly different environment from where it was driving.
ctrl_freak 10y ago
> this is the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver The other (fatal) crash involved an inattentive driver watching a Harry Potter movie: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-driver-killed-autopilot-self-driving-car-harry-potter https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-dri...
- ars 10y ago
  The latest data is that he was not watching anything. The claim claim from the truck driver hoping to avoid responsibility for crossing a highway in an unsafe manner.
venomsnake 10y ago
The problem is that you not only need a "hands on", but a "brains on" on the wheel. Which will turn autopilot driving in more unpleasant experience than regular driving.

by snuxoll 10y ago

jdoliner 10y ago

Didn't the car bark it him though. The article says that Tesla claims the car repeatedly alerted the driver to take control of the vehicle and he didn't. I think you are wrong that this the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver. In the fatal crash responders found a portable DVD player inside the car and seemed confident it was in use at the time of the crash.

taneq 10y ago
The driver's response is moot. The larger issue here is that if autopilot doesn't provide for a safe stop under its own control when it encounters a situation it can't handle, any vehicle on autopilot becomes a lethal missile if the driver has some kind of medical problem. A traditional car won't get more than a few hundred meters if the driver on the freeway has a stroke, say. A car on autopilot could travel hundreds of kilometers and end up in a schoolyard at freeway speeds.
- vkou 10y ago
  I hate to play Devil's advocate here, but a traditional car on cruise control will absolutely become a lethal missile if its driver has a stroke. I don't think automation makes that particular use case more dangerous.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    > I hate to play Devil's advocate here, but a traditional car on cruise control will absolutely become a lethal missile if its driver has a stroke. You're talking worst case scenario. This is a case where the driver was alive and chose to ignore warnings. > I don't think automation makes that particular use case more dangerous. It's more dangerous when the autopilot driver can easily misuse the system. Add a few requirements like hands on the wheel every few seconds before shut-off and you'll see this happen less frequently. Someone may still circumvent that measure. Nothing's perfect. There will be fewer people who abuse it.
    - vkou 10y ago
      Autopilot absolutely should start slowing the car down if the driver takes his hands off the wheel for more then a few seconds. Anything else is reckless. I was, however, responding to the specific scenario of 'Driver has a stroke --> Self-driving car becomes an unguided missile' by pointing out that it the exact same scenario as 'Driver has a stroke --> Regular car with cruise control becomes an unguided missile.'
- BigJono 10y ago
  Also going to play devil's advocate here. Sure the car only goes a few hundred metres, but a slight knock of the wheel as they pass out or a small corner in the road could easily send said car into a crowded cafe. What is the chance that a Tesla car fails to continue safely and eventually pull over after the driver carks it? 0.1%? 1%? I doubt anywhere near 99% of strokes while driving end with the car just slowing down for a hundred metres and stopping safely in the middle of the road. I'd be surprised if the majority do. Not that it's a common occurance, but if I picture a typical stroke while driving alone, I'm picturing a car veering slowly off the road and hitting something at maybe 50-75% of the speed it was originally travelling. Tesla's self-driving would have to be abysmally bad to not beat that, and given we're only discussing 3 accidents so far, I don't believe that to be the case.
  - taneq 10y ago
    I agree with your analysis of how far each vehicle will get - in fact that's why I say the car on autopilot is more dangerous. A conventional car with cruise control enabled will 'fail early' and crash in fairly short order (most likely running off the road into a crash barrier or something) if the driver stops controlling it. A car on autopilot won't crash for some undefined but probably long time, which means that when things do go pear-shaped, it's much more likely to be on the road and in a significantly different environment from where it was driving.

ctrl_freak 10y ago

> this is the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver The other (fatal) crash involved an inattentive driver watching a Harry Potter movie: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-driver-killed-autopilot-self-driving-car-harry-potter https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-dri...

ars 10y ago
The latest data is that he was not watching anything. The claim claim from the truck driver hoping to avoid responsibility for crossing a highway in an unsafe manner.

venomsnake 10y ago

The problem is that you not only need a "hands on", but a "brains on" on the wheel. Which will turn autopilot driving in more unpleasant experience than regular driving.