9 ms·

Misfortune

224 points by dwaxe 10y ago

alfredxing 10y ago
Previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12046444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12046444
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
_sentient 10y ago
This is from July 6th BTW. There has since been a fair amount of back-and-forth on this between Musk and Stephen from Fortune. This episode has also granted us this particularly delightful AMA on reddit, wherein Stephen roundly ignores comments calling out the questionable links between recent Fortune coverage and the Koch's ongoing crusade against renewable energy: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4rqa6q/hey_i_am_stephen_gandel_a_senior_editor_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4rqa6q/hey_i_am_steph...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nl 10y ago
  I don't see why the Koch's campaign against electric cars and renewables is particularly relevant. Driverless cars can be powered by fossil fuels too. The problem here is Tesla's Autodrive implementation. I think it is fair that questions are asked.
cjensen 10y ago
From Tesla's statement: "contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all" I think this is a foolish statement: fatal accidents in the US are 1.3 per 100M miles driven. Tesla reports autopilot has driven 100M miles. That's not enough data collected to draw this kind of conclusion. There's a parallel here with software testing. I've seen bugs that happen 25% of the time, for example, and take 10 minutes to run a test. Our test guys have great intentions, but if they test 5 times and see no bug, they think the bug is gone. There is no instinctive understanding that they have insufficient data to draw a conclusion.
- cperciva 10y ago
  I think this is a foolish statement: fatal accidents in the US are 1.3 per 100M miles driven. Tesla reports autopilot has driven 100M miles. That's not enough data collected to draw this kind of conclusion. Also, not all miles are equal. I'd hope that people are enabling Autopilot primarily while driving on straightish roads with good driving conditions -- in other words, at times when the rate of fatalities with a human driver is far less than 1.3 per 100M miles.
  - usaphp 10y ago
    I thought most fatalities are on the highway during good driving conditions, where the road is so smooth and boring that humans lose attention, fall asleep or staring at their phones. Speed is much higher when driving on those roads and there is a bigger chance a car will rollover/bigger impact.
    - flohofwoe 10y ago
      At least in Germany, driving on the Autobahn is about 3x to 4x safer than driving on other road types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety, not sure how it compares to the US, but "fast and boring roads" seem to be safer.
      - whazor 10y ago
        Germany is a unsuitable country for comparison, as they have many highways without speed limits. I would argue that this invalidates the boring part.
        the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
        It's the same in all European countries.
        vladd 10y ago
aerovistae 10y ago
This is from 10 days ago. Why am I finding it at the top of HN now ?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dayaz36 10y ago
  Because HN loves to bash on Tesla and since nothing negative has come out in the last ten days they felt the need to re-discuss a two week old article
  - y4mi 10y ago
    every comment section on HN about tesla and musk in general was always extremely positive until they started to cover up their mistakes. seriously, these mistakes can result in governments outlawing autonomous driving outright.
    - aerovistae 10y ago
      "Cover up their mistakes"? Which part of the fact that fewer accidents occur with autopilot on, than when it's off, is arguable for you?
      - muraiki 10y ago
        Tesla has not shown that that is the case, despite proclaiming so. I've commented enough in this thread already, but see http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html I really would like to hear Tesla's response to this criticism of their apparently flawed statistical analysis.
cubaia 10y ago
"That Tesla Autopilot had been safely used in over 100 million miles [...] That contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all." That is such a weak statistical claim, that it border the disingenuous. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893
Theodores 10y ago
> We self-insure against the risk of product liability claims, meaning that any product liability claims will have to be paid from company funds, not by insurance. Why do they do this? I can understand it when government property is not insured, e.g. UK Civil Service, as the enterprise is so vast and general taxation can fill the gaps. I can also understand that some things can`t be insured, e.g. nuclear power plants, but why does Tesla `vertically integrate` insurance, particularly given that the product is statistically likely to kill someone in due course?
- spicyj 10y ago
  Insurance companies are profitable because they charge more then they pay out, in aggregate. If you have adequate capital, it is cheaper to self-insure since you don't need to pay for the profits of the insurance company.
- morgante 10y ago
  Many large corporations self-insure. If you have the assets to pay out expected claims, it makes sense to avoid paying premiums.
  - eru 10y ago
    And even if you don't have the assets, you can self-insure the first few million USD, and use reinsurance for the rest. That's what insurance companies do for risks with a long tail. Think of it as buying car insurance with a very high excess. Those can be very cheap.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      I have always wished that I could as an individual could reinsure my long tail risk. I am happy to take on the risk that I can afford to lose and just let me pass on the risk I can't.
      - ISL 10y ago
        If you chat with the right insurance agent, that might be possible. While it wouldn't go by the name 'reinsurance', look for a policy with a large deductible and a large maximum payout.
ghughes 10y ago
Belligerent as usual. I wonder if Musk writes these himself. edit: I'm being downvoted for this, but I wasn't using "belligerent" negatively here; I was wondering aloud whether Tesla's characteristically aggressive approach to damage control is the result of direct involvement from Musk. Doesn't seem that crazy to imagine that it is.
Animats 10y ago
I haven't found US figures, but for the UK, motorway driving has a far lower fatality rate than non-motorway driving. "Although motorways carry around 21 per cent of traffic, they only account for 6 per cent of fatalities and 5 per cent of injured casualties. In 2015, the number of fatalities on motorways rose from 96 deaths to 110."[1] Since Tesla's "autopilot" is only rated for motorway (freeway) driving, it should be compared against motorway fatality rates, which are about a third of general driving rates. So a realistic estimate of the fatal accident rate for human freeway driving is maybe 0.3 per 100 million miles driven. Tesla is doing much worse than that. To rate an automatic driving system, you want to look at accident rates, not fatality rates. Accident rates reflect how well the control system works. Fatality rates reflect crash survivability. Tesla needs to publish their crash data. That's going to be disclosed, because the NHTSA ordered Tesla to submit that information. [1] http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a5 http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a5
- kmm 10y ago
  A Tesla is also probably a much safer car than the average, skewing the statistics even more. And neither does Autopilot work in heavy rain and in other circumstances that are possibly higher in risk (although I'm not sure driving in the rain is actually more dangerous, due to risk compensation)
- baby 10y ago
  I don't think it's fair to compare Uk and US figures. In the UK you actually have to make an effort to get a driver's license.
  - Animats 10y ago
    I've found New York State figures.[1] But they don't have a breakdown by fatal/nonfatal. Like the UK data, they show much lower accident rates on divided, limited access highways. California has a fatality rate of 0.94 per 100 million miles traveled.[2] That's lower than the US average. But it's not broken down by freeway/non freeway. (You can request a login to query the database directly and download data, and it might be possible to compute freeway accident rates.) [1] https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway-repository/Table2_2014.pdf https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway-repo... [2] https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/services-information/switrs-internet-statewide-integrated-traffic-records-system/switrs-2013-report https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/services-informatio...
Dwolb 10y ago
I didn't really have a problem with Tesla or Autopilot's latest issues until I re-read this sentence: >Autopilot was not operating as designed and as described to users: specifically, as a driver assistance system that maintains a vehicle's position in lane and adjusts the vehicle's speed to match surrounding traffic. My problem is with Autopilot's branding - it's called AUTOPILOT. The name isn't "Maintain Lane Position" or "Cruise Distance" or something boring that describes it better - it has AUTO in the name. Typical drivers aren't airline pilots who complete thousands of hours in flight training and have heavily regulated schedules. We're just people who are busy and looking for solutions to our problems. If Tesla doesn't want people to think Autopilot functions as crash avoidance/smart vehicle control/better than humans in all situations or blame Tesla for accidents (whether human or machine is at fault) it should come up with a less sexy name.
- jasonjei 10y ago
  I agree with your post. Having said that, autopilot on airplanes is meant to be a "macro," rather than an autonomous flying function (in that they do not replace a human operator; in fact the pilot programs the instructions into the flight computer). Somehow autopilot's meaning was lost in translation, and people interpreted it to mean they don't have to take control when things go wrong. Perhaps the prefix auto- is what's wrong--people think the car will drive itself. Automobiles contain the prefix auto- yet nobody assumes the car is self-driving. Most people understand it to mean gears don't need to be changed manually (not applicable to Tesla since it's single gear and gains full torque).
  - wbillingsley 10y ago
    > Automobiles contain the prefix auto- yet nobody assumes the car is self-driving. Actually, in that regard yes they do -- "auto-mobile" = "moves itself", as in, you don't have to pedal or Fred Flintstone it... > Most people understand it to mean gears don't need to be changed manually No, that'd be "automatic gearbox". As in "Do you drive a manual or an automatic?" So "autopilot" would suggest it does the piloting as well (ie, the stuff the person sitting at the controls -- the common view of a "pilot" -- normally does)
- 10y ago
euske 10y ago
Is there such a thing as the universally acknowledged definition of "car safety"? When you start combining the word "statistically" and "safe", I feel that the statement loses its scientific rigor. To me "safe" is a very vague term and it's mostly used in a subjective context. It makes me wonder if their assumption was really valid when they were testing this feature.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
  > Is there such a thing as the universally acknowledged definition of "car safety" you might try the "deaths per passenger mile" metric, or "deaths per million passenger-miles". On that metric, long-distance air travel is very safe, as one trip transports hundreds of people a very long way, and motorcycles are at the other end of the scale. See: http://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer-than-planes-statistics-are-clear-about-which-mode-of-transportation-is-safest http://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer-than-p...
0xmohit 10y ago
> there is no evidence to suggest that Autopilot was not operating as designed Obviously, a dead man wouldn't be available to testify. > That Tesla Autopilot had been safely used in over 100 million miles of driving by tens of thousands of customers worldwide, with zero confirmed fatalities and a wealth of internal data demonstrating safer, more predictable vehicle control performance when the system is properly used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statist...
free2rhyme214 10y ago
Once again this confirms Aaron Swartz was right about the news - http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
smegel 10y ago
I don't get Tesla. What is so special about them? Why does everyone want one? If the demand for electric vehicles is so high, why hasn't all the big makers already started offering electric versions of their little hot hatches? That way you get an electric vehicle AND a build quality based on decades and decades of quality control engineering. Autopilot seems to be a curio rather than a drawcard, but again, surely the big makers, with access to billions of metric readouts from existing cars would be best place to develop AI to control them. Is it the Elon Musk factor? Seems to be a strange reason to buy a car. The fan factor might be justified for an Apple car...but I just don't get the buzz and hype around Tesla.
- jasonlingx 10y ago
  You said it, they are the Apple of cars. Musk is the new Jobs. They make the best cars.
- __david__ 10y ago
  Have you ever driven one? They are nice cars that don't burn fossil fuels. The super-car level acceleration is a huge draw for some. The range is also more or less unmatched, as far as I know. Their software upgrade policy makes it feel like the car is always up-to-date with the latest stuff—something that I can't ever picture other car makers ever doing. Also you don't have to deal with car dealerships (and almost every encounter I've had with a car dealership has been negative). Are they perfect cars? No. But the company operates in a fundamentally different manner than the rest of the auto industry, and that is exciting to some.
  - evgen 10y ago
    They are nice cars that burn fossil fuels somewhere else, preferably places where rich people and SV types do not live. As their PR spin after the recent "autopilot" fatality shows, they are just another car company with much better marketing.
    - ferbivore 10y ago
      Power plants are vastly more efficient than car engines.
nl 10y ago
I don't get why people are so eager to defend Tesla autopilot. We've had Andrew Ng call it irresponsible[1] and Li Fei Fei say she wouldn't let it drive with her family in the car[2]. These aren't anti-tech luddites, but people with a very good understanding of the current state of the art. I love Tesla, but they are SO weak at taking criticism or realising when they make a mistake. [1] http://electrek.co/2016/05/30/google-deep-learning-andrew-ng-tesla-autopilot-irresponsible/ http://electrek.co/2016/05/30/google-deep-learning-andrew-ng... [2] http://a16z.com/2016/06/29/feifei-li-a16z-professor-in-residence/ http://a16z.com/2016/06/29/feifei-li-a16z-professor-in-resid... (you'll need to listen to the podcast though)
- wbillingsley 10y ago
  > I don't get why people are so eager to defend Tesla autopilot. I think there's a strong recognition that self-driving vehicles, when they can be made to happen generally, will be a significant social good. And that it's tricky to get there unless society is willing to put something out onto the streets. It's taken fifty or more years of popular human-driven vehicles to get to the stage that most of our cars are pretty safe, and quite a lot of effort in improving road design too. Eventually, though, I suspect it won't be solved until we redesign the roads. A significant part of rail safety is that the signalling system can sense whether there is a train on a stretch of line. (via the rather simple technique that the axles form an electrical connection between the two rails) Right now, it's as if we're trying to do autonomous traffic by an ant colony model -- independent agents that know nothing about each other except what they can sense. Which is always going to be harder than if the road can help them out too.
  - pm90 10y ago
    Rail safety and autonomy were designed without the use of advanced machine learning/computer vision that we have today. Also, redesigning highways seems like a rather expensive proposition: the US is already not investing enough in its existing infrastructure.
    - wbillingsley 10y ago
dayaz36 10y ago
This is two weeks old and is on front page of HN for the first time on a sat night...a little late to the discussion
taneq 10y ago
I think their points here are valid, but I must admit that it's starting to shake my confidence the way that, every time something bad happens, they instantly respond with such strident defensiveness.
pastagawins 10y ago
It could end up in a legal historical litigation. You Know the story with the microwave and the cat inside. The old ma that just wanted a Quick solution to dry its beloved pet. That's the same thing with the guy driving in its Tesla with the Autopilot on. He just believed in the marketing campaing
Alexey_Nigin 10y ago
While I agree that Tesla's article is not perfectly logical and its marketing campaign is not impeccable, I would like to demonstrate that people at Tesla Motors have a point. 1. "STATISTICALLY SAFER" CUSTOMERS. Yes, this statement makes no sense. One fatal crash is not a large enough sample size to make such conclusion. However, this article was aimed not at Hacker News readers, but at average buyers. Most of them do not have a firm grasp of high school math, so for them "statistically safer" means just "don't worry." And indeed there are reasons for them to worry, given that independent news agencies continually publish hysterical things (It is a “a wake-up call!” “Reassess” self-driving cars! The crash “is raising safety concerns for everyone in Florida!” [1]). Tesla's response was nothing but a necessary defence. Or did you expect them to say, "You know, there are not enough data yet, so let's wait until 10 or so more people die, and then we will draw conclusions." This is much more logical, but I feel that customers wouldn't like it. 2. WHY IT IS CALLED "AUTOPILOT." This is just marketing. They couldn't sell it under the name "The Beta Version Of The System That Keeps Your Vehicle In Lane As Long As You Keep Your Hands On The Steering Wheel And Are Ready To Regain Control At Any Moment™." And honestly, I do not think that even relatively stupid customers will just press the button and hope for the best without reading what the Autopilot is all about in advance. In my opinion, it is now a difficult time for Tesla, and we should not criticise it for trying to stay afloat. [1] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/how-the-media-screwed-up-the-fatal-tesla-accident http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/how-the-media-screwed... EDIT: You might think that the phrase "trying to stay afloat" is unnecessary pathos, since a single crash, even coupled with a bunch of nonsense news articles, cannot lead to anything serious. However, the history shows it can. In 2000, Concorde crashed during takeoff, killing all people on board [2]. The event was caused by metal debris on the runway, not by some problem with the plane itself. Nevertheless, Concorde lost it reputation of one of the safest planes in the world. The passenger numbers plummeted, and Concorde retired three years later. That crash is the number one reason why it now takes 12 hours to get from Europe to America. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
XJOKOLAT 10y ago
Of course, I sympathize with any casualties. However, this seems to be a question of responsibility in my eyes. If you're not aware that potential dangers still exist when you step into a car, you shouldn't be driving the car (which is a shame as it's a fantastic car). Sorry. Tesla is not at fault here - however much people want to call it that way. The Model S is not some magical car designed by aliens. It's a machine. Problems may occur. We are not at autonomous-vehicle stage yet. However Autopilot is a damned comfortable upgrade compared to the old cruise control. I can't believe people are blaming Mr Musk or the marketing department for people not taking responsibility or being careful when they get into a car. As they should in any car. Especially any car with autopilot like capabilities.
abalone 10y ago
Labeling this a "statistical inevitability" obscures the issue. It seems clear from numerous demos posted to YouTube that some autopilot users are very comfortable taking their hands off the wheel. That's an outright violation of the TOS. Yet, lots of people do it. Some erroneously refer to it as "hands free" mode.[1] Some even observe the fact that they're not supposed to do it while doing it.[2] The human factors here are tough. But safe design needs to account for human factors. The enthusiast community seems especially prone to over-trusting the autopilot, and that's something Tesla should be examining in their safeguards. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2geQ4hvvkNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2geQ4hvvkNA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H1qUhpjE5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H1qUhpjE5M
known 10y ago
Tesla success depends on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densit...
calgaryeng 10y ago
Sue them for libel then?

Misfortune

224 points by dwaxe 10y ago

alfredxing 10y ago

Previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12046444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12046444

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

_sentient 10y ago

This is from July 6th BTW. There has since been a fair amount of back-and-forth on this between Musk and Stephen from Fortune. This episode has also granted us this particularly delightful AMA on reddit, wherein Stephen roundly ignores comments calling out the questionable links between recent Fortune coverage and the Koch's ongoing crusade against renewable energy: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4rqa6q/hey_i_am_stephen_gandel_a_senior_editor_at/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4rqa6q/hey_i_am_steph...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nl 10y ago
I don't see why the Koch's campaign against electric cars and renewables is particularly relevant. Driverless cars can be powered by fossil fuels too. The problem here is Tesla's Autodrive implementation. I think it is fair that questions are asked.

cjensen 10y ago

From Tesla's statement: "contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all" I think this is a foolish statement: fatal accidents in the US are 1.3 per 100M miles driven. Tesla reports autopilot has driven 100M miles. That's not enough data collected to draw this kind of conclusion. There's a parallel here with software testing. I've seen bugs that happen 25% of the time, for example, and take 10 minutes to run a test. Our test guys have great intentions, but if they test 5 times and see no bug, they think the bug is gone. There is no instinctive understanding that they have insufficient data to draw a conclusion.

cperciva 10y ago
I think this is a foolish statement: fatal accidents in the US are 1.3 per 100M miles driven. Tesla reports autopilot has driven 100M miles. That's not enough data collected to draw this kind of conclusion. Also, not all miles are equal. I'd hope that people are enabling Autopilot primarily while driving on straightish roads with good driving conditions -- in other words, at times when the rate of fatalities with a human driver is far less than 1.3 per 100M miles.
- usaphp 10y ago
  I thought most fatalities are on the highway during good driving conditions, where the road is so smooth and boring that humans lose attention, fall asleep or staring at their phones. Speed is much higher when driving on those roads and there is a bigger chance a car will rollover/bigger impact.
  - flohofwoe 10y ago
    At least in Germany, driving on the Autobahn is about 3x to 4x safer than driving on other road types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety, not sure how it compares to the US, but "fast and boring roads" seem to be safer.
    - whazor 10y ago
      Germany is a unsuitable country for comparison, as they have many highways without speed limits. I would argue that this invalidates the boring part.
      - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
        It's the same in all European countries.
        vladd 10y ago

aerovistae 10y ago

This is from 10 days ago. Why am I finding it at the top of HN now ?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dayaz36 10y ago
Because HN loves to bash on Tesla and since nothing negative has come out in the last ten days they felt the need to re-discuss a two week old article
- y4mi 10y ago
  every comment section on HN about tesla and musk in general was always extremely positive until they started to cover up their mistakes. seriously, these mistakes can result in governments outlawing autonomous driving outright.
  - aerovistae 10y ago
    "Cover up their mistakes"? Which part of the fact that fewer accidents occur with autopilot on, than when it's off, is arguable for you?
    - muraiki 10y ago
      Tesla has not shown that that is the case, despite proclaiming so. I've commented enough in this thread already, but see http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html I really would like to hear Tesla's response to this criticism of their apparently flawed statistical analysis.

cubaia 10y ago

"That Tesla Autopilot had been safely used in over 100 million miles [...] That contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all." That is such a weak statistical claim, that it border the disingenuous. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893

Theodores 10y ago

> We self-insure against the risk of product liability claims, meaning that any product liability claims will have to be paid from company funds, not by insurance. Why do they do this? I can understand it when government property is not insured, e.g. UK Civil Service, as the enterprise is so vast and general taxation can fill the gaps. I can also understand that some things can`t be insured, e.g. nuclear power plants, but why does Tesla `vertically integrate` insurance, particularly given that the product is statistically likely to kill someone in due course?

spicyj 10y ago
Insurance companies are profitable because they charge more then they pay out, in aggregate. If you have adequate capital, it is cheaper to self-insure since you don't need to pay for the profits of the insurance company.
morgante 10y ago
Many large corporations self-insure. If you have the assets to pay out expected claims, it makes sense to avoid paying premiums.
- eru 10y ago
  And even if you don't have the assets, you can self-insure the first few million USD, and use reinsurance for the rest. That's what insurance companies do for risks with a long tail. Think of it as buying car insurance with a very high excess. Those can be very cheap.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    I have always wished that I could as an individual could reinsure my long tail risk. I am happy to take on the risk that I can afford to lose and just let me pass on the risk I can't.
    - ISL 10y ago
      If you chat with the right insurance agent, that might be possible. While it wouldn't go by the name 'reinsurance', look for a policy with a large deductible and a large maximum payout.

ghughes 10y ago

Belligerent as usual. I wonder if Musk writes these himself. edit: I'm being downvoted for this, but I wasn't using "belligerent" negatively here; I was wondering aloud whether Tesla's characteristically aggressive approach to damage control is the result of direct involvement from Musk. Doesn't seem that crazy to imagine that it is.

Animats 10y ago

I haven't found US figures, but for the UK, motorway driving has a far lower fatality rate than non-motorway driving. "Although motorways carry around 21 per cent of traffic, they only account for 6 per cent of fatalities and 5 per cent of injured casualties. In 2015, the number of fatalities on motorways rose from 96 deaths to 110."[1] Since Tesla's "autopilot" is only rated for motorway (freeway) driving, it should be compared against motorway fatality rates, which are about a third of general driving rates. So a realistic estimate of the fatal accident rate for human freeway driving is maybe 0.3 per 100 million miles driven. Tesla is doing much worse than that. To rate an automatic driving system, you want to look at accident rates, not fatality rates. Accident rates reflect how well the control system works. Fatality rates reflect crash survivability. Tesla needs to publish their crash data. That's going to be disclosed, because the NHTSA ordered Tesla to submit that information. [1] http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a5 http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a5

kmm 10y ago
A Tesla is also probably a much safer car than the average, skewing the statistics even more. And neither does Autopilot work in heavy rain and in other circumstances that are possibly higher in risk (although I'm not sure driving in the rain is actually more dangerous, due to risk compensation)
baby 10y ago
I don't think it's fair to compare Uk and US figures. In the UK you actually have to make an effort to get a driver's license.
- Animats 10y ago
  I've found New York State figures.[1] But they don't have a breakdown by fatal/nonfatal. Like the UK data, they show much lower accident rates on divided, limited access highways. California has a fatality rate of 0.94 per 100 million miles traveled.[2] That's lower than the US average. But it's not broken down by freeway/non freeway. (You can request a login to query the database directly and download data, and it might be possible to compute freeway accident rates.) [1] https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway-repository/Table2_2014.pdf https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway-repo... [2] https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/services-information/switrs-internet-statewide-integrated-traffic-records-system/switrs-2013-report https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/services-informatio...

Dwolb 10y ago

I didn't really have a problem with Tesla or Autopilot's latest issues until I re-read this sentence: >Autopilot was not operating as designed and as described to users: specifically, as a driver assistance system that maintains a vehicle's position in lane and adjusts the vehicle's speed to match surrounding traffic. My problem is with Autopilot's branding - it's called AUTOPILOT. The name isn't "Maintain Lane Position" or "Cruise Distance" or something boring that describes it better - it has AUTO in the name. Typical drivers aren't airline pilots who complete thousands of hours in flight training and have heavily regulated schedules. We're just people who are busy and looking for solutions to our problems. If Tesla doesn't want people to think Autopilot functions as crash avoidance/smart vehicle control/better than humans in all situations or blame Tesla for accidents (whether human or machine is at fault) it should come up with a less sexy name.

jasonjei 10y ago
I agree with your post. Having said that, autopilot on airplanes is meant to be a "macro," rather than an autonomous flying function (in that they do not replace a human operator; in fact the pilot programs the instructions into the flight computer). Somehow autopilot's meaning was lost in translation, and people interpreted it to mean they don't have to take control when things go wrong. Perhaps the prefix auto- is what's wrong--people think the car will drive itself. Automobiles contain the prefix auto- yet nobody assumes the car is self-driving. Most people understand it to mean gears don't need to be changed manually (not applicable to Tesla since it's single gear and gains full torque).
- wbillingsley 10y ago
  > Automobiles contain the prefix auto- yet nobody assumes the car is self-driving. Actually, in that regard yes they do -- "auto-mobile" = "moves itself", as in, you don't have to pedal or Fred Flintstone it... > Most people understand it to mean gears don't need to be changed manually No, that'd be "automatic gearbox". As in "Do you drive a manual or an automatic?" So "autopilot" would suggest it does the piloting as well (ie, the stuff the person sitting at the controls -- the common view of a "pilot" -- normally does)
10y ago

euske 10y ago

Is there such a thing as the universally acknowledged definition of "car safety"? When you start combining the word "statistically" and "safe", I feel that the statement loses its scientific rigor. To me "safe" is a very vague term and it's mostly used in a subjective context. It makes me wonder if their assumption was really valid when they were testing this feature.

SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
> Is there such a thing as the universally acknowledged definition of "car safety" you might try the "deaths per passenger mile" metric, or "deaths per million passenger-miles". On that metric, long-distance air travel is very safe, as one trip transports hundreds of people a very long way, and motorcycles are at the other end of the scale. See: http://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer-than-planes-statistics-are-clear-about-which-mode-of-transportation-is-safest http://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer-than-p...

0xmohit 10y ago

> there is no evidence to suggest that Autopilot was not operating as designed Obviously, a dead man wouldn't be available to testify. > That Tesla Autopilot had been safely used in over 100 million miles of driving by tens of thousands of customers worldwide, with zero confirmed fatalities and a wealth of internal data demonstrating safer, more predictable vehicle control performance when the system is properly used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statist...

free2rhyme214 10y ago

Once again this confirms Aaron Swartz was right about the news - http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

smegel 10y ago

I don't get Tesla. What is so special about them? Why does everyone want one? If the demand for electric vehicles is so high, why hasn't all the big makers already started offering electric versions of their little hot hatches? That way you get an electric vehicle AND a build quality based on decades and decades of quality control engineering. Autopilot seems to be a curio rather than a drawcard, but again, surely the big makers, with access to billions of metric readouts from existing cars would be best place to develop AI to control them. Is it the Elon Musk factor? Seems to be a strange reason to buy a car. The fan factor might be justified for an Apple car...but I just don't get the buzz and hype around Tesla.

jasonlingx 10y ago
You said it, they are the Apple of cars. Musk is the new Jobs. They make the best cars.
__david__ 10y ago
Have you ever driven one? They are nice cars that don't burn fossil fuels. The super-car level acceleration is a huge draw for some. The range is also more or less unmatched, as far as I know. Their software upgrade policy makes it feel like the car is always up-to-date with the latest stuff—something that I can't ever picture other car makers ever doing. Also you don't have to deal with car dealerships (and almost every encounter I've had with a car dealership has been negative). Are they perfect cars? No. But the company operates in a fundamentally different manner than the rest of the auto industry, and that is exciting to some.
- evgen 10y ago
  They are nice cars that burn fossil fuels somewhere else, preferably places where rich people and SV types do not live. As their PR spin after the recent "autopilot" fatality shows, they are just another car company with much better marketing.
  - ferbivore 10y ago
    Power plants are vastly more efficient than car engines.

nl 10y ago

I don't get why people are so eager to defend Tesla autopilot. We've had Andrew Ng call it irresponsible[1] and Li Fei Fei say she wouldn't let it drive with her family in the car[2]. These aren't anti-tech luddites, but people with a very good understanding of the current state of the art. I love Tesla, but they are SO weak at taking criticism or realising when they make a mistake. [1] http://electrek.co/2016/05/30/google-deep-learning-andrew-ng-tesla-autopilot-irresponsible/ http://electrek.co/2016/05/30/google-deep-learning-andrew-ng... [2] http://a16z.com/2016/06/29/feifei-li-a16z-professor-in-residence/ http://a16z.com/2016/06/29/feifei-li-a16z-professor-in-resid... (you'll need to listen to the podcast though)

wbillingsley 10y ago
> I don't get why people are so eager to defend Tesla autopilot. I think there's a strong recognition that self-driving vehicles, when they can be made to happen generally, will be a significant social good. And that it's tricky to get there unless society is willing to put something out onto the streets. It's taken fifty or more years of popular human-driven vehicles to get to the stage that most of our cars are pretty safe, and quite a lot of effort in improving road design too. Eventually, though, I suspect it won't be solved until we redesign the roads. A significant part of rail safety is that the signalling system can sense whether there is a train on a stretch of line. (via the rather simple technique that the axles form an electrical connection between the two rails) Right now, it's as if we're trying to do autonomous traffic by an ant colony model -- independent agents that know nothing about each other except what they can sense. Which is always going to be harder than if the road can help them out too.
- pm90 10y ago
  Rail safety and autonomy were designed without the use of advanced machine learning/computer vision that we have today. Also, redesigning highways seems like a rather expensive proposition: the US is already not investing enough in its existing infrastructure.
  - wbillingsley 10y ago

dayaz36 10y ago

This is two weeks old and is on front page of HN for the first time on a sat night...a little late to the discussion

taneq 10y ago

I think their points here are valid, but I must admit that it's starting to shake my confidence the way that, every time something bad happens, they instantly respond with such strident defensiveness.

pastagawins 10y ago

It could end up in a legal historical litigation. You Know the story with the microwave and the cat inside. The old ma that just wanted a Quick solution to dry its beloved pet. That's the same thing with the guy driving in its Tesla with the Autopilot on. He just believed in the marketing campaing

Alexey_Nigin 10y ago

While I agree that Tesla's article is not perfectly logical and its marketing campaign is not impeccable, I would like to demonstrate that people at Tesla Motors have a point. 1. "STATISTICALLY SAFER" CUSTOMERS. Yes, this statement makes no sense. One fatal crash is not a large enough sample size to make such conclusion. However, this article was aimed not at Hacker News readers, but at average buyers. Most of them do not have a firm grasp of high school math, so for them "statistically safer" means just "don't worry." And indeed there are reasons for them to worry, given that independent news agencies continually publish hysterical things (It is a “a wake-up call!” “Reassess” self-driving cars! The crash “is raising safety concerns for everyone in Florida!” [1]). Tesla's response was nothing but a necessary defence. Or did you expect them to say, "You know, there are not enough data yet, so let's wait until 10 or so more people die, and then we will draw conclusions." This is much more logical, but I feel that customers wouldn't like it. 2. WHY IT IS CALLED "AUTOPILOT." This is just marketing. They couldn't sell it under the name "The Beta Version Of The System That Keeps Your Vehicle In Lane As Long As You Keep Your Hands On The Steering Wheel And Are Ready To Regain Control At Any Moment™." And honestly, I do not think that even relatively stupid customers will just press the button and hope for the best without reading what the Autopilot is all about in advance. In my opinion, it is now a difficult time for Tesla, and we should not criticise it for trying to stay afloat. [1] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/how-the-media-screwed-up-the-fatal-tesla-accident http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/how-the-media-screwed... EDIT: You might think that the phrase "trying to stay afloat" is unnecessary pathos, since a single crash, even coupled with a bunch of nonsense news articles, cannot lead to anything serious. However, the history shows it can. In 2000, Concorde crashed during takeoff, killing all people on board [2]. The event was caused by metal debris on the runway, not by some problem with the plane itself. Nevertheless, Concorde lost it reputation of one of the safest planes in the world. The passenger numbers plummeted, and Concorde retired three years later. That crash is the number one reason why it now takes 12 hours to get from Europe to America. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590

XJOKOLAT 10y ago

Of course, I sympathize with any casualties. However, this seems to be a question of responsibility in my eyes. If you're not aware that potential dangers still exist when you step into a car, you shouldn't be driving the car (which is a shame as it's a fantastic car). Sorry. Tesla is not at fault here - however much people want to call it that way. The Model S is not some magical car designed by aliens. It's a machine. Problems may occur. We are not at autonomous-vehicle stage yet. However Autopilot is a damned comfortable upgrade compared to the old cruise control. I can't believe people are blaming Mr Musk or the marketing department for people not taking responsibility or being careful when they get into a car. As they should in any car. Especially any car with autopilot like capabilities.

abalone 10y ago

Labeling this a "statistical inevitability" obscures the issue. It seems clear from numerous demos posted to YouTube that some autopilot users are very comfortable taking their hands off the wheel. That's an outright violation of the TOS. Yet, lots of people do it. Some erroneously refer to it as "hands free" mode.[1] Some even observe the fact that they're not supposed to do it while doing it.[2] The human factors here are tough. But safe design needs to account for human factors. The enthusiast community seems especially prone to over-trusting the autopilot, and that's something Tesla should be examining in their safeguards. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2geQ4hvvkNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2geQ4hvvkNA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H1qUhpjE5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H1qUhpjE5M

known 10y ago

Tesla success depends on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densit...

calgaryeng 10y ago

Sue them for libel then?