10 ms·

Airline pilot training is designed to handle this, as well as they have a co-pilot who prevents them from being distracted and is able to take over if they are

by icc97 9y ago

Airline pilot training is designed to handle this, as well as they have a co-pilot who prevents them from being distracted and is able to take over if they are distracted. Tesla is just handing it out to anyone who can afford to buy a Model S/X (and now Model 3) with the absolute minimum of warnings that they can get away with.

sho_hn 9y ago
I would not be surprised if Musk coldly responded that this is a known problem with no solution, but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average. In other words, for the proponents it's a trade-off. And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers. Which of course will snowball when reliance on automation keeps making drivers worse than better, and at some point you're past the point of no return. Whether that's right data must show.
- gambiting 9y ago
  I don't think that's the correct answer. Flight autopilots have lowered accident rates tenfold, but every time there is a crash while on autopilot Boeing/Airbus will ground every single plane of that type and won't allow them to fly until the problem is found and fixed. If I know that my car's autopilot is statistically less likely to kill me than I am to kill myself, I would still much much rather drive myself.
  - icc97 9y ago
    If Tesla were to respond in a similar vein - that is turn off auto-pilot each time there was a fatal crash until the cause was fully investigated and fixed then I'd feel a lot more comfortable. From the videos in the article it's clear that auto-pilot should be disabled when there is bright low-light sunshine. Tesla should be prepared to tell customers there's certain times of the day when the reliability of the software is not high enough and turn it off. These are all 'beta' testers after all so they shouldn't complain too much.
    - cies 9y ago
      > Tesla should be prepared to tell customers there's certain times of the day when the reliability of the software is not high enough and turn it off. Imho, they should detect that situation (by using cameras and/or the current time + GPS) and not allow you to switch it on. You should not give drivers the choice between safety and lazy (from which I assume that auto-pilot driving when currently feasible it SAFER than manual -- which I assumes, but read elsewhere in the thread is not yet properly demonstrated).
  - nradov 9y ago
    That's really not how it works in aviation. Aircraft manufacturers and the FAA don't automatically ground every plane when a crash occurs when autopilot was in use. They conduct an investigation first. And even if the investigation finds an autopilot fault they're likely to just issue an airworthiness directive warning pilots about the failure mode rather than immediately grounding everything.
- icc97 9y ago
  At the moment Tesla haven't shown that auto-pilot does lower the death rate. They've only released statistics about auto-pilot enabled cars rather than statistics for when auto-pilot was in control. Any statistics released by Tesla should be compared against similar statistics from say modern Audis with lane-assist and collision detection.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    Also, the cohort that purchases Tesla vehicles may be a lower-risk group of drivers than average. This could happen because Tesla vehicles are more expensive than comparable conventional vehicles, less attractive to those with risky lifestyles, inconvenient for people who don't have regular driving patterns that allow charging to be planned, or more attractive to older consumers who wish to signal different markers of status than the young go-fast crowd. You'd possibly want to compare versus non-auto-pilot Tesla drivers on the same roads in similar conditions, but the problem remains that the situations where auto-pilot is engaged may be different from those when the driver maintains control. In sum, it's hard to mitigate the potential confounding variables.
    - icc97 9y ago
      > Also, the cohort that purchases Tesla vehicles may be a lower-risk group of drivers than average. Yes - that's why I suggest comparing it to modern Audi drivers. Basically any of the BMW/Mercedes/Audi drivers are where Tesla is getting most of its customers. Those companies all have similar albeit less extensive safety systems.
  - martin_bech 9y ago
    Thats because all autopilot enabled cars, have the safety part enabled by default. Automatic Emergency Brakeing. Side collision avoidance, Lane detection etc.
    - icc97 9y ago
      Those systems are the great ones at the moment. But almost all modern cars have those. They're brilliant because they augment humans by leaving humans to do all the driving and staying focused on that but then taking over when the driver gets distracted and is about to hit something. Auto-pilot does it the opposite way round. It does the driving but not as well as the human but then the human can't stay as alert as the car so isn't ready to take over.
- codebolt 9y ago
  > And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers. Which of course will snowball when reliance on automation keeps making drivers worse than better, and at some point you're past the point of no return. I really hope it does get to the point were all drivers are automatic and interconnected. Cars could cooperate to a much higher extent and traffic could potentially be much more efficient and safe.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
    > all drivers are automatic and interconnected. Cars could cooperate Say, like computers on the Internet (information highway)? Rings a bell.
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    "Hello, fellow robot car, I am also a robot car, not a wifi pineapple notatall nooosir, and all lanes ahead are blocked. But hey, there's a shortcut, just turn sharp to the right. Yes, your map says you're on a bridge, but don't worry, I have just driven through there, trust me." Nothing could possibly go wrong and the idea of evil actors in such a network is absurd - right? Your idea reminds me of the 1990s Internet - cf today's, where every other node is potentially malicious.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      There's no reason such a system would have to be engineered to be totally trusting. The car, in that situation, would likely be set up to say "nope, my sensors say that's not safe" and hand off to the driver or reject the input. Use it just for additional input to err on the side of safety. If the car ahead says "hey, I'm braking at maximum" and my car's sensors show it's starting to slow down, I can apply more immediate braking power than if I'd just detected the initial slight slowdown. Or, "I'm a car, don't hit me!" pings might help where my car thinks it's a radar artifact, like the Tesla crash last year where it hit the semi crossing the highway.
- buvanshak 9y ago
  > but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average. I think the question of using self driving vehicles comes down to this. Do you want to be part of a statistics that you can control, or do you want to be part of one that you cannot? When we go in trains or planes, we are already being part of statistics that we cannot control. But those things also are extremely reliable. So there seems to be a threshold, where someone should opt for being part of a statistics that you cannot control. The people who are pushing SDV's, by some sleight of hand, seem to hide this aspect, and have successfully showcased raw, (projected) statistics that implicitly assumes the rate of progress with SDV's, also assume that SDV ll continue to progress until they reach that capability..... >And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers. But there is always are risk of catastrophic regressions [1] with each update, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_interference
  - edelans 9y ago
    > be part of a statistics that you can control well, even if you are in control with your hands on the wheel, you can still get heart (and even die) in a car accident where you have no responsibility at all. Sure you can control your car, but you cannot control others'... (this is even more obvious from a cyclist point of view)
    - XorNot 9y ago
      Also people vastly overestimate their driving competence.
      - buvanshak 9y ago
        That is certainly not the norm. People does not "vastly" overestimate their driving competence..
        quotemstr 9y ago
        Discussions of driving among lay people are generally useless and interminable, due largely to the supercharged Dunning-Kruger effect that driving for whatever reason produces. No matter where you are or who's talking, the speaker is always a good, careful driver, other drivers are reckless morons, and the city in which they all live has the worst drivers in the country. Everyone everywhere says the same thing. It's information-free discourse.
- namelost 9y ago
  A high rate of road deaths isn't a fait accompli. Musk would have us believe that technology is the only answer. The UK has the 2nd-lowest rate of road deaths in the world (after Sweden). The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them. However, the UK has strict driver education programme. It is not easy to pass the driving test, with some people failing multiple times. It means that people only get a license when they are ready for it. Drink-driving will also get you a prison sentence and a driving ban.
  - jaggederest 9y ago
    > The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them. Actually, paradoxically that means they are actually safer. People drive slower on narrower roads, which means that accidents are within the safe energy envelope that modern cars can absorb. Very, very few people will ever die as a passenger or driver in a car accident at 25 mph / 40 kph. At 65mph / 100kph, the story is completely different.
    - namelost 9y ago
      You say that but people will happily drive at 50+ down a narrow country road. I think the "narrow = slower" only works for a limited period of time before people get normalised to it.
      - wastedhours 9y ago
        Had to thread a van through a temporary concrete width restriction the other day - when it's that narrow, even the Uber behind me wasn't giving me grief for going that slowly! The country roads one has always dumbfounded me though - why some of those have national speed limits I will never know.
        tikkabhuna 9y ago
        As far as I'm aware, they're national speed limits because they don't have the resource to work out the limit, or police them. I learnt on country roads and my instructor was very clear that although I could go at 60mph, I should drive to the conditions of the road.
- greendestiny 9y ago
  Actually despite your skepticism Tesla's PR spin has already beaten you. "but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average" That's not what they said, they said the death rate was lower than the average. And yet you can't help hearing that it lowered the death rate. I think it's very likely turning on autopilot massively increases the rate of death for Tesla drivers, but they've managed to deflect from that so skilfully.
  - drexlspivey 9y ago
    I don't get it. These two are the same thing.
    - Fraterkes 9y ago
      The comment above you supposes that people who drive teslas have fewer accidents on average, even without autopilot. Saying that autopilot "lowers the average" would mean that autopilot lowers the amount of accidents for tesla drivers, while "lower than average" could mean that while a tesla with autopilot is safer than the average, it is less safe than a tesla without autopilot. Pretty complicated
venomsnake 9y ago
I think you misunderstand the GP - he is stating that - even if pilots with their rigorous training can make such disastrous mistakes, with car autopilots it will be way worse.
YetAnotherNick 9y ago
I don't remember the source, but I have read somewhere that it is very lightly enforced in a plane and many pilots sleep in the plane for a long time.
Confusion 9y ago
> Airline pilot training is designed to handle this It is certainly designed to do that, but even for airline pilots there are limits to what is possible. You cannot train a human to react within 1ms; that's just physiologically impossible. Nor can you train a human to fully comprehend a situation within x ms, where x depends on the situation. So the autopilot would have to warn a human say 2x ms before an event that requires attention, where it can of course not yet know of the event, so that amounts to 'any time there could possibly be an event 2x ms in the projected future'. Which is probably: most of the time. Making the autopilot useless.
- userbinator 9y ago
  The other big difference is that in a plane high up in the sky and relatively far away from any others, even if the autopilot demands the human take over, there is still a lot of time to react. Many seconds to even minutes, depending on the situation. In a car, the requirement is fractions of a second.

by icc97 9y ago

sho_hn 9y ago

I would not be surprised if Musk coldly responded that this is a known problem with no solution, but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average. In other words, for the proponents it's a trade-off. And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers. Which of course will snowball when reliance on automation keeps making drivers worse than better, and at some point you're past the point of no return. Whether that's right data must show.

gambiting 9y ago
I don't think that's the correct answer. Flight autopilots have lowered accident rates tenfold, but every time there is a crash while on autopilot Boeing/Airbus will ground every single plane of that type and won't allow them to fly until the problem is found and fixed. If I know that my car's autopilot is statistically less likely to kill me than I am to kill myself, I would still much much rather drive myself.
- icc97 9y ago
  If Tesla were to respond in a similar vein - that is turn off auto-pilot each time there was a fatal crash until the cause was fully investigated and fixed then I'd feel a lot more comfortable. From the videos in the article it's clear that auto-pilot should be disabled when there is bright low-light sunshine. Tesla should be prepared to tell customers there's certain times of the day when the reliability of the software is not high enough and turn it off. These are all 'beta' testers after all so they shouldn't complain too much.
  - cies 9y ago
    > Tesla should be prepared to tell customers there's certain times of the day when the reliability of the software is not high enough and turn it off. Imho, they should detect that situation (by using cameras and/or the current time + GPS) and not allow you to switch it on. You should not give drivers the choice between safety and lazy (from which I assume that auto-pilot driving when currently feasible it SAFER than manual -- which I assumes, but read elsewhere in the thread is not yet properly demonstrated).
- nradov 9y ago
  That's really not how it works in aviation. Aircraft manufacturers and the FAA don't automatically ground every plane when a crash occurs when autopilot was in use. They conduct an investigation first. And even if the investigation finds an autopilot fault they're likely to just issue an airworthiness directive warning pilots about the failure mode rather than immediately grounding everything.
icc97 9y ago
At the moment Tesla haven't shown that auto-pilot does lower the death rate. They've only released statistics about auto-pilot enabled cars rather than statistics for when auto-pilot was in control. Any statistics released by Tesla should be compared against similar statistics from say modern Audis with lane-assist and collision detection.
- totalZero 9y ago
  Also, the cohort that purchases Tesla vehicles may be a lower-risk group of drivers than average. This could happen because Tesla vehicles are more expensive than comparable conventional vehicles, less attractive to those with risky lifestyles, inconvenient for people who don't have regular driving patterns that allow charging to be planned, or more attractive to older consumers who wish to signal different markers of status than the young go-fast crowd. You'd possibly want to compare versus non-auto-pilot Tesla drivers on the same roads in similar conditions, but the problem remains that the situations where auto-pilot is engaged may be different from those when the driver maintains control. In sum, it's hard to mitigate the potential confounding variables.
  - icc97 9y ago
    > Also, the cohort that purchases Tesla vehicles may be a lower-risk group of drivers than average. Yes - that's why I suggest comparing it to modern Audi drivers. Basically any of the BMW/Mercedes/Audi drivers are where Tesla is getting most of its customers. Those companies all have similar albeit less extensive safety systems.
- martin_bech 9y ago
  Thats because all autopilot enabled cars, have the safety part enabled by default. Automatic Emergency Brakeing. Side collision avoidance, Lane detection etc.
  - icc97 9y ago
    Those systems are the great ones at the moment. But almost all modern cars have those. They're brilliant because they augment humans by leaving humans to do all the driving and staying focused on that but then taking over when the driver gets distracted and is about to hit something. Auto-pilot does it the opposite way round. It does the driving but not as well as the human but then the human can't stay as alert as the car so isn't ready to take over.
codebolt 9y ago
> And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers. Which of course will snowball when reliance on automation keeps making drivers worse than better, and at some point you're past the point of no return. I really hope it does get to the point were all drivers are automatic and interconnected. Cars could cooperate to a much higher extent and traffic could potentially be much more efficient and safe.
- B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
  > all drivers are automatic and interconnected. Cars could cooperate Say, like computers on the Internet (information highway)? Rings a bell.
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  "Hello, fellow robot car, I am also a robot car, not a wifi pineapple notatall nooosir, and all lanes ahead are blocked. But hey, there's a shortcut, just turn sharp to the right. Yes, your map says you're on a bridge, but don't worry, I have just driven through there, trust me." Nothing could possibly go wrong and the idea of evil actors in such a network is absurd - right? Your idea reminds me of the 1990s Internet - cf today's, where every other node is potentially malicious.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    There's no reason such a system would have to be engineered to be totally trusting. The car, in that situation, would likely be set up to say "nope, my sensors say that's not safe" and hand off to the driver or reject the input. Use it just for additional input to err on the side of safety. If the car ahead says "hey, I'm braking at maximum" and my car's sensors show it's starting to slow down, I can apply more immediate braking power than if I'd just detected the initial slight slowdown. Or, "I'm a car, don't hit me!" pings might help where my car thinks it's a radar artifact, like the Tesla crash last year where it hit the semi crossing the highway.
buvanshak 9y ago
> but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average. I think the question of using self driving vehicles comes down to this. Do you want to be part of a statistics that you can control, or do you want to be part of one that you cannot? When we go in trains or planes, we are already being part of statistics that we cannot control. But those things also are extremely reliable. So there seems to be a threshold, where someone should opt for being part of a statistics that you cannot control. The people who are pushing SDV's, by some sleight of hand, seem to hide this aspect, and have successfully showcased raw, (projected) statistics that implicitly assumes the rate of progress with SDV's, also assume that SDV ll continue to progress until they reach that capability..... >And also the idea that an automatic driver is easier to improve over time (skewing the trade-off better and better) than human drivers. But there is always are risk of catastrophic regressions [1] with each update, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_interference
- edelans 9y ago
  > be part of a statistics that you can control well, even if you are in control with your hands on the wheel, you can still get heart (and even die) in a car accident where you have no responsibility at all. Sure you can control your car, but you cannot control others'... (this is even more obvious from a cyclist point of view)
  - XorNot 9y ago
    Also people vastly overestimate their driving competence.
    - buvanshak 9y ago
      That is certainly not the norm. People does not "vastly" overestimate their driving competence..
      - quotemstr 9y ago
        Discussions of driving among lay people are generally useless and interminable, due largely to the supercharged Dunning-Kruger effect that driving for whatever reason produces. No matter where you are or who's talking, the speaker is always a good, careful driver, other drivers are reckless morons, and the city in which they all live has the worst drivers in the country. Everyone everywhere says the same thing. It's information-free discourse.
namelost 9y ago
A high rate of road deaths isn't a fait accompli. Musk would have us believe that technology is the only answer. The UK has the 2nd-lowest rate of road deaths in the world (after Sweden). The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them. However, the UK has strict driver education programme. It is not easy to pass the driving test, with some people failing multiple times. It means that people only get a license when they are ready for it. Drink-driving will also get you a prison sentence and a driving ban.
- jaggederest 9y ago
  > The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them. Actually, paradoxically that means they are actually safer. People drive slower on narrower roads, which means that accidents are within the safe energy envelope that modern cars can absorb. Very, very few people will ever die as a passenger or driver in a car accident at 25 mph / 40 kph. At 65mph / 100kph, the story is completely different.
  - namelost 9y ago
    You say that but people will happily drive at 50+ down a narrow country road. I think the "narrow = slower" only works for a limited period of time before people get normalised to it.
    - wastedhours 9y ago
      Had to thread a van through a temporary concrete width restriction the other day - when it's that narrow, even the Uber behind me wasn't giving me grief for going that slowly! The country roads one has always dumbfounded me though - why some of those have national speed limits I will never know.
      - tikkabhuna 9y ago
        As far as I'm aware, they're national speed limits because they don't have the resource to work out the limit, or police them. I learnt on country roads and my instructor was very clear that although I could go at 60mph, I should drive to the conditions of the road.
greendestiny 9y ago
Actually despite your skepticism Tesla's PR spin has already beaten you. "but autopilot still lowers the death rate on average" That's not what they said, they said the death rate was lower than the average. And yet you can't help hearing that it lowered the death rate. I think it's very likely turning on autopilot massively increases the rate of death for Tesla drivers, but they've managed to deflect from that so skilfully.
- drexlspivey 9y ago
  I don't get it. These two are the same thing.
  - Fraterkes 9y ago
    The comment above you supposes that people who drive teslas have fewer accidents on average, even without autopilot. Saying that autopilot "lowers the average" would mean that autopilot lowers the amount of accidents for tesla drivers, while "lower than average" could mean that while a tesla with autopilot is safer than the average, it is less safe than a tesla without autopilot. Pretty complicated

venomsnake 9y ago

I think you misunderstand the GP - he is stating that - even if pilots with their rigorous training can make such disastrous mistakes, with car autopilots it will be way worse.

YetAnotherNick 9y ago

I don't remember the source, but I have read somewhere that it is very lightly enforced in a plane and many pilots sleep in the plane for a long time.

Confusion 9y ago

> Airline pilot training is designed to handle this It is certainly designed to do that, but even for airline pilots there are limits to what is possible. You cannot train a human to react within 1ms; that's just physiologically impossible. Nor can you train a human to fully comprehend a situation within x ms, where x depends on the situation. So the autopilot would have to warn a human say 2x ms before an event that requires attention, where it can of course not yet know of the event, so that amounts to 'any time there could possibly be an event 2x ms in the projected future'. Which is probably: most of the time. Making the autopilot useless.

userbinator 9y ago
The other big difference is that in a plane high up in the sky and relatively far away from any others, even if the autopilot demands the human take over, there is still a lot of time to react. Many seconds to even minutes, depending on the situation. In a car, the requirement is fractions of a second.