3 ms·
> "we wanted to avoid nuisance braking so we put in a delay when the system was confused." As someone who used to work in safety-critical software, it blows my
by baud147258 5y ago
> "we wanted to avoid nuisance braking so we put in a delay when the system was confused." As someone who used to work in safety-critical software, it blows my mind that you would deliberately hobble one of your main risk mitigations because your system gets confused
Maybe it was put in place to avoid erratic braking in absence of obstacle, in order to avoid getting hit in the rear by other vehicles (whose driver wouldn't see any obstacle and be unprepared for the Tesla car braking).
- bumby 5y agoThat's a good point and might have been their rationale, but I would argue it wasn't a very good risk mitigation because while they reduced the risk in one area (being rear ended) they increased their risk elsewhere. Worse yet, it increased the risk in an area more prone to higher severity incidents (e.g., hitting pedestrians - I assume - carries a higher severity than being rear-ended)
- ricardobeat 5y agoThere’s a big risk of spine injuries, and a rear end collision might not activate the airbag. Not a simple trade off.
- bumby 5y agoI’m not saying there’s no risk. I’m saying the risk is lower. The same hazards you mentioned are also present to the pedestrian, plus the risk of TBI or death. The way this analysis is done is that a hazard gets assigned a risk score based severity x probability. I’m saying the severity of hitting a pedestrian is higher. Put another way, if you had to choose between being struck as a pedestrian or rear ended as a driver, which would you choose?