5 ms·

"Almost hitting pedestrians" isn't how I'd describe what I saw in the video.

by loceng 5y ago

kevinmgranger 5y ago
Which makes it even more confusing as to why they'd Streisand effect themselves.
- aquadrop 5y ago
  I doubt DMCA came from Tesla, they let worse videos take thousands of views on youtube and never done anything.
devb 5y ago
Ok, I’ll ask. How would you describe it?
- soheil 5y ago
  "Car slightly spooks a couple of people including the driver who safely took over and resumed driving"
- aquadrop 5y ago
  "Car doesn't yield to pedestrians". For "almost hit" I would expect car to run by pedestrian in less than half a meter or for pedestrian having to react quickly to avoid car.
  - stagger87 5y ago
    It makes more sense when you realize the car wasn't even supposed to be turning. Look at the nav screen. If this guy didn't take over, where exactly was the car going? I think it's very easy to speculate it wouldn't have ended well.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      It looks like it re-routed down the side street at exactly that moment. You can see the projected path line shift to that street immediately before. It doesn't look like it would have hit anyone to me (it was only partway through turning, so was facing people when it or he aborted it, but that's not the path shown on the display), but it was definitely an illegal move.
      - mwint 5y ago
        Step through the video frame by frame; you can see the car begin turning back to the left before the driver takes over. He actually stopped the left turn; the car would have recovered quicker without his actions. Not that the driver was wrong to do what he did; we have the advantage of frame-by-frame replay. But the frame-by-frame does show that this is not what it appears at first glance.
    - aquadrop 5y ago
      Yes, it's weird that car decided to turn right. But I don't agree that's it's easy to speculate that it would hit the pedestrians, they were pretty far. I would think some emergency braking would take over or something. We have many thousands of tesla cars out there, lots of people are making videos about autopilot, but I don't think we have an example of a car actually hitting a pedestrian?
      - devb 5y ago
        Two seconds of googling: Here's one: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-probing-fatal-tesla-crash-that-killed-pedestrian-2021-09-03/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-pro... Here's another: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/business/tesla-autopilot-accident.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/business/tesla-autopilot-... Oh, another one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2020/05/16/lawsuit-against-tesla-for-autopilot-engaged-pedestrian-death-could-disrupt-full-self-driving-progress/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2020/05/16/lawsuit-a... This appears to be the first one, in 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self... I'd keep going but maybe you get the point.
  - sleepybrett 5y ago
    "Car decides to turn for no reason and in the process fails to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk."
hnthrow917 5y ago
Watch again. Those pedestrians were in the crosswalk before the car turns. That's illegal at best, and definitely dangerous for those pedestrians. The car wasn't taking a tight right turn either.
- soheil 5y ago
  Haha how is that illegal? The driver took over way before the car entered the crosswalk section.
  - maybeOneDay 5y ago
    "Entered the crosswalk section" is a rather euphemistic way of describing "drove directly through where the people were going to be"
    - kbenson 5y ago
      That's not what I saw. I saw the car abort it's turn that would have taken it through the crosswalk in front of the people and not impeding them. Still illegal, but a far cry from almost hitting them. The car aborted (or was aborted by the driver) and stopped before finishing it's turn on the road from what I saw, leaving it at about a 45 degree angle instead of the 90 degrees it would eventually reach if it continued turning.
      - maybeOneDay 5y ago
        I think it's the devil in the details here. "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing, nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible.
        kbenson 5y ago
        > "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing Was it though? Look closely, and maybe replay it a few times (I just did, another response to a different comment of mine had made this point so I looked). The car seems to have recovered itself, and the driver grabbed it a second later after it was already correcting. That it decided it needed to turn all of a sudden us perplexing, and something that should be looked into, but it also went back to a straight path a moment later, either because of pedestrians too close or because of some other reason. > nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible. "drove directly through where the people were going to be" most definitely implies that to my eyes. People die for exactly that reason all the time. Maybe I'm confused as to what you're trying to communicate.

"Almost hitting pedestrians" isn't how I'd describe what I saw in the video.

by loceng 5y ago

"Almost hitting pedestrians" isn't how I'd describe what I saw in the video.

kevinmgranger 5y ago

Which makes it even more confusing as to why they'd Streisand effect themselves.

aquadrop 5y ago
I doubt DMCA came from Tesla, they let worse videos take thousands of views on youtube and never done anything.

devb 5y ago

Ok, I’ll ask. How would you describe it?

soheil 5y ago
"Car slightly spooks a couple of people including the driver who safely took over and resumed driving"
aquadrop 5y ago
"Car doesn't yield to pedestrians". For "almost hit" I would expect car to run by pedestrian in less than half a meter or for pedestrian having to react quickly to avoid car.
- stagger87 5y ago
  It makes more sense when you realize the car wasn't even supposed to be turning. Look at the nav screen. If this guy didn't take over, where exactly was the car going? I think it's very easy to speculate it wouldn't have ended well.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    It looks like it re-routed down the side street at exactly that moment. You can see the projected path line shift to that street immediately before. It doesn't look like it would have hit anyone to me (it was only partway through turning, so was facing people when it or he aborted it, but that's not the path shown on the display), but it was definitely an illegal move.
    - mwint 5y ago
      Step through the video frame by frame; you can see the car begin turning back to the left before the driver takes over. He actually stopped the left turn; the car would have recovered quicker without his actions. Not that the driver was wrong to do what he did; we have the advantage of frame-by-frame replay. But the frame-by-frame does show that this is not what it appears at first glance.
  - aquadrop 5y ago
    Yes, it's weird that car decided to turn right. But I don't agree that's it's easy to speculate that it would hit the pedestrians, they were pretty far. I would think some emergency braking would take over or something. We have many thousands of tesla cars out there, lots of people are making videos about autopilot, but I don't think we have an example of a car actually hitting a pedestrian?
    - devb 5y ago
      Two seconds of googling: Here's one: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-probing-fatal-tesla-crash-that-killed-pedestrian-2021-09-03/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-pro... Here's another: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/business/tesla-autopilot-accident.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/business/tesla-autopilot-... Oh, another one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2020/05/16/lawsuit-against-tesla-for-autopilot-engaged-pedestrian-death-could-disrupt-full-self-driving-progress/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2020/05/16/lawsuit-a... This appears to be the first one, in 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self... I'd keep going but maybe you get the point.
- sleepybrett 5y ago
  "Car decides to turn for no reason and in the process fails to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk."

hnthrow917 5y ago

Watch again. Those pedestrians were in the crosswalk before the car turns. That's illegal at best, and definitely dangerous for those pedestrians. The car wasn't taking a tight right turn either.

soheil 5y ago
Haha how is that illegal? The driver took over way before the car entered the crosswalk section.
- maybeOneDay 5y ago
  "Entered the crosswalk section" is a rather euphemistic way of describing "drove directly through where the people were going to be"
  - kbenson 5y ago
    That's not what I saw. I saw the car abort it's turn that would have taken it through the crosswalk in front of the people and not impeding them. Still illegal, but a far cry from almost hitting them. The car aborted (or was aborted by the driver) and stopped before finishing it's turn on the road from what I saw, leaving it at about a 45 degree angle instead of the 90 degrees it would eventually reach if it continued turning.
    - maybeOneDay 5y ago
      I think it's the devil in the details here. "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing, nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible.
      - kbenson 5y ago
        > "Was aborted by the driver" is the key thing Was it though? Look closely, and maybe replay it a few times (I just did, another response to a different comment of mine had made this point so I looked). The car seems to have recovered itself, and the driver grabbed it a second later after it was already correcting. That it decided it needed to turn all of a sudden us perplexing, and something that should be looked into, but it also went back to a straight path a moment later, either because of pedestrians too close or because of some other reason. > nobody is arguing this error was so bad it could have killed civilians even if the driver was responsible. "drove directly through where the people were going to be" most definitely implies that to my eyes. People die for exactly that reason all the time. Maybe I'm confused as to what you're trying to communicate.