4 ms·

Based on my experience with drivers and driving at night, it is very unlikely that humans would do better in most circumstances. > till, even then, a human wou

Based on my experience with drivers and driving at night, it is very unlikely that humans would do better in most circumstances. > till, even then, a human would have slammed the breaks or swerved to the right to a free lane Most humans unfortunately do not have the experience of knowing what to do at the right time; they may swerve to the left here in this video and crash into a more dangerous object (another high-speed car or truck) and cause a more dangerous pileup. There is no right or wrong answer in this situation, we don't do drills (at least in US) that at least tell people what to do in bad situations like this. This may be a practical question but in reality, no one has the training or experience to deal with this _instantly_ and worse, in dark environments. Also, most people is likely to be tired if they're driving at night such as coming home from work. What this proves is that we need emergency lighting systems in the event of a crash. Like if an airbag has been deployed, lights around need to be visible to avoid this kind of scenario. It would be awesome if we could provide VR training and use videos like this as examples to train folks.

badRNG 5y ago
> What this proves is that we need emergency lighting systems in the event of a crash. This is the first time I've been introduced to this idea, and it now feels immediately obvious that we should've been doing this for a long time.
- encoderer 5y ago
  Mercedes does this, along with a lot of other cool things they call “pre safe”, like playing a loud noise on the speakers to prepare your ear drum for the sudden change in air pressure. I’m sure other cars are doing the flashing lights now but few companies have invested as much in safety as Mercedes.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    I set off the hazard lights in the '94 BMW I fixed up in college when I turned up my subwoofer too loud once, so I think the accelerometer-triggered lights are, or should be, widespread already.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  There’s two parts to this. First, robust response to a crash. Maybe this is lighting (flood LEDs on the back of first responder vehicles), maybe this is emergency vehicles with crash shock absorbers (Scorpion Impact Attenuators is a well known brand) that sit behind the accident in lanes of travel to protect responders at the accident scene. Cars should attempt to detect this, but it should be expected this may fail. The crash absorber will take the brunt of the crash, but everyone is going home to their families with some tears shed by the insurers. This applies to all vehicles with traffic aware cruise control and lane keeping who can’t reliably detect stoped vehicles (which is all automakers). Second, first responders (through dispatch) should be able to issue an alert to Google Maps and any other traffic aggregator to alert about an accident in a lat long “bubble” (think a TFR in air navigation, pushed out over ADS-B or a data link) with an expiration time. Vehicles would receive this event and temporarily apply a reduced speed limit in the area (one that the driver could override, but that’ll be logged in the black box when they push the accelerator past the temporary limit). This also provides alerting to the driver to be attentive about an upcoming event, just like Waze alerts you to an upcoming accident or speed trap. The vehicle integration is key, as the robotics is what needs the safety context and awareness. Now, if you’re not paying attention as a driver, no amount of tech and effort helps, and these folks end up killing themselves and others every day with inattentive and distracted driving.
  - mikhailt 5y ago
    I believe there was an attempt to make car to car communication system mandatory in US so that every single car on the road can talk to each other but I admit, I do not know how all of this worked and what happened in the end or if this is still ongoing.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      I can’t speak to consortium work such that you mention (V2V comms), but Google and Tesla could, today, use their existing traffic data feeds and mapping tools to both allow first responders to create events and for the vehicles to interpret and action that data. This is also vastly cheaper than LiDAR on every vehicle in the short term.
vanusa 5y ago
Most humans unfortunately do not have the experience of knowing what to do at the right time; What's worrying isn't that the autopilot didn't "know what to do"; but that it didn't detect the oncoming parked car at all. Also, most people is likely to be tired if they're driving at night such as coming home from work. I'd say more like around 10 percent would be significantly impaired. Heck, I'll give you 20. "Most" (meaning > 50 percent) is just off the page, and doesn't jibe with reality. Sounds like you're a bit too eager to give Tesla a pass, here.
- mikhailt 5y ago
  > What's worrying isn't that the autopilot didn't "know what to do"; but that it didn't detect the oncoming parked car at all. This is not simply a parked car, this is a dark non-reflective crashed pick-up truck sideway on a highway lane that's CURVED at night. There are multiple variables all of which are bad; non-reflective, driving high speed (75mph) in a curved lane, and night-time. Worse, this car's detection system is based on video camera only, it does not have LIDAR. That's where Tesla has a big problem with and it clearly shows here. Video camera-only system has blind spots and using auto-pilot or self-driving system with this only is not a good idea, period. In addition, we're not supposed to rely on autopilot only regardless of how good anything is; this is all is supposed to be a complimentary tool just like every other safety feature within the car; the cruise control feature is not supposed to be used blindly on its own and excellent human drivers with cruise control can still hit that car. There's no 100% foolproof algorithm or method to predict every single scenario. If the driver was relying on the auto-pilot and some kind of detection system and didn't pay attention, then it is not the system that failed, it is the driver's fault entirely. > "Most" (meaning > 50 percent) is just off the page, and doesn't jibe with reality. Sounds like you're a bit too eager to give Tesla a pass, here. I'm not giving anyone a pass, I'm pointing out that humans have their own weaknesses and blind spots that machines can help with but humans on their own, will not be doing better in this specific scenario with all of these variables. I can actually understand why the system failed to do anything given the technology with limited sensor data but I don't understand why they didn't use more sensors like lidar, infrared or emergency breaking system or so on. I may be missing something here. Regardless, we're not looking at a scenario where it happens every day, it only takes one bad accident and one tired human to turn an uncommon scenario into a disaster. So, it doesn't matter what percentage we deal with.
barbazoo 5y ago
Maybe just driving a bit slower would help in those conditions. Easy as that.

badRNG 5y ago

> What this proves is that we need emergency lighting systems in the event of a crash. This is the first time I've been introduced to this idea, and it now feels immediately obvious that we should've been doing this for a long time.

encoderer 5y ago
Mercedes does this, along with a lot of other cool things they call “pre safe”, like playing a loud noise on the speakers to prepare your ear drum for the sudden change in air pressure. I’m sure other cars are doing the flashing lights now but few companies have invested as much in safety as Mercedes.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  I set off the hazard lights in the '94 BMW I fixed up in college when I turned up my subwoofer too loud once, so I think the accelerometer-triggered lights are, or should be, widespread already.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
There’s two parts to this. First, robust response to a crash. Maybe this is lighting (flood LEDs on the back of first responder vehicles), maybe this is emergency vehicles with crash shock absorbers (Scorpion Impact Attenuators is a well known brand) that sit behind the accident in lanes of travel to protect responders at the accident scene. Cars should attempt to detect this, but it should be expected this may fail. The crash absorber will take the brunt of the crash, but everyone is going home to their families with some tears shed by the insurers. This applies to all vehicles with traffic aware cruise control and lane keeping who can’t reliably detect stoped vehicles (which is all automakers). Second, first responders (through dispatch) should be able to issue an alert to Google Maps and any other traffic aggregator to alert about an accident in a lat long “bubble” (think a TFR in air navigation, pushed out over ADS-B or a data link) with an expiration time. Vehicles would receive this event and temporarily apply a reduced speed limit in the area (one that the driver could override, but that’ll be logged in the black box when they push the accelerator past the temporary limit). This also provides alerting to the driver to be attentive about an upcoming event, just like Waze alerts you to an upcoming accident or speed trap. The vehicle integration is key, as the robotics is what needs the safety context and awareness. Now, if you’re not paying attention as a driver, no amount of tech and effort helps, and these folks end up killing themselves and others every day with inattentive and distracted driving.
- mikhailt 5y ago
  I believe there was an attempt to make car to car communication system mandatory in US so that every single car on the road can talk to each other but I admit, I do not know how all of this worked and what happened in the end or if this is still ongoing.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    I can’t speak to consortium work such that you mention (V2V comms), but Google and Tesla could, today, use their existing traffic data feeds and mapping tools to both allow first responders to create events and for the vehicles to interpret and action that data. This is also vastly cheaper than LiDAR on every vehicle in the short term.

vanusa 5y ago

Most humans unfortunately do not have the experience of knowing what to do at the right time; What's worrying isn't that the autopilot didn't "know what to do"; but that it didn't detect the oncoming parked car at all. Also, most people is likely to be tired if they're driving at night such as coming home from work. I'd say more like around 10 percent would be significantly impaired. Heck, I'll give you 20. "Most" (meaning > 50 percent) is just off the page, and doesn't jibe with reality. Sounds like you're a bit too eager to give Tesla a pass, here.

mikhailt 5y ago
> What's worrying isn't that the autopilot didn't "know what to do"; but that it didn't detect the oncoming parked car at all. This is not simply a parked car, this is a dark non-reflective crashed pick-up truck sideway on a highway lane that's CURVED at night. There are multiple variables all of which are bad; non-reflective, driving high speed (75mph) in a curved lane, and night-time. Worse, this car's detection system is based on video camera only, it does not have LIDAR. That's where Tesla has a big problem with and it clearly shows here. Video camera-only system has blind spots and using auto-pilot or self-driving system with this only is not a good idea, period. In addition, we're not supposed to rely on autopilot only regardless of how good anything is; this is all is supposed to be a complimentary tool just like every other safety feature within the car; the cruise control feature is not supposed to be used blindly on its own and excellent human drivers with cruise control can still hit that car. There's no 100% foolproof algorithm or method to predict every single scenario. If the driver was relying on the auto-pilot and some kind of detection system and didn't pay attention, then it is not the system that failed, it is the driver's fault entirely. > "Most" (meaning > 50 percent) is just off the page, and doesn't jibe with reality. Sounds like you're a bit too eager to give Tesla a pass, here. I'm not giving anyone a pass, I'm pointing out that humans have their own weaknesses and blind spots that machines can help with but humans on their own, will not be doing better in this specific scenario with all of these variables. I can actually understand why the system failed to do anything given the technology with limited sensor data but I don't understand why they didn't use more sensors like lidar, infrared or emergency breaking system or so on. I may be missing something here. Regardless, we're not looking at a scenario where it happens every day, it only takes one bad accident and one tired human to turn an uncommon scenario into a disaster. So, it doesn't matter what percentage we deal with.

barbazoo 5y ago

Maybe just driving a bit slower would help in those conditions. Easy as that.