5 ms·

Just a reminder that nowhere in the article is FSD mentioned. For all we know it could have been human error. If it was indeed an FSD failure then that’d be un

Just a reminder that nowhere in the article is FSD mentioned. For all we know it could have been human error. If it was indeed an FSD failure then that’d be unacceptable. Regulations need to be tightenedt at the very least, Tesla fined heavily and FSD banned I suppose. But we are not there yet; let’s wait and see

phtrivier 4y ago
Sure. However, using the words "Tesla" and "crash" in the title of an article is a surefire way to get traffic. (Exhibit A: the conversation we're having.) At least, the article is pretty factual, and does not had any inuendo about FSD. I would like to know who is conducting the investigation, though (how much is done by the police, how much by automotive regulatory body, how much by Telsa itself, etc...) Thoughts go to the family of the people inside the car, and to the people investigating.
- epgui 4y ago
  The article seems very factual and well-written. What worries me are the comments on here. There's clearly a very strong bias at play in the hacker news community (regardless of what one ought to think of Tesla or Elon).
- me_me_me 4y ago
  >However, using the words "Tesla" and "crash" in the title of an article is a surefire way to get traffic. You reap what you sow. Tesla created hype environment and now pays for the bullseye they painted on their forehead
jillesvangurp 4y ago
Even if it was on, failing to act would be the problem because you are supposed to pay attention while it is on. So, it's by definition a human error. And with some drivers being a danger to themselves and others, you might legitimately wonder if fsd wouldn't be the better alternative. People die every day on roads. Mostly because they are being people and get drunk, tired, distracted, reckless, etc. It's very likely the driver ticked one or more of these boxes. The simple explanations are usually the right ones.
chrisco255 4y ago
It's an odd wreck, given that the car had to pull off of the interstate and barrel through a rest stop area then crash into the back of a semi trailer parked in the separate parking area for trucks only. It's hard to even do this accidentally. And the fact the wreck took place at 2PM means it's unlikely the driver was tired.
- lloeki 4y ago
  > And the fact the wreck took place at 2PM means it's unlikely the driver was tired. Less likely, sure, unlikely, you'd be surprised about the amount of people driving for excessive durations or in a chronically or occasionally sleep deprived state.
mrjin 4y ago
Shouldn't all automated system assumed to be malfunctioned when an accident happened until proved otherwise?
- NSMyself 4y ago
  Was an automated system even being used when the accident happened?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

phtrivier 4y ago

Sure. However, using the words "Tesla" and "crash" in the title of an article is a surefire way to get traffic. (Exhibit A: the conversation we're having.) At least, the article is pretty factual, and does not had any inuendo about FSD. I would like to know who is conducting the investigation, though (how much is done by the police, how much by automotive regulatory body, how much by Telsa itself, etc...) Thoughts go to the family of the people inside the car, and to the people investigating.

epgui 4y ago
The article seems very factual and well-written. What worries me are the comments on here. There's clearly a very strong bias at play in the hacker news community (regardless of what one ought to think of Tesla or Elon).
me_me_me 4y ago
>However, using the words "Tesla" and "crash" in the title of an article is a surefire way to get traffic. You reap what you sow. Tesla created hype environment and now pays for the bullseye they painted on their forehead

jillesvangurp 4y ago

Even if it was on, failing to act would be the problem because you are supposed to pay attention while it is on. So, it's by definition a human error. And with some drivers being a danger to themselves and others, you might legitimately wonder if fsd wouldn't be the better alternative. People die every day on roads. Mostly because they are being people and get drunk, tired, distracted, reckless, etc. It's very likely the driver ticked one or more of these boxes. The simple explanations are usually the right ones.

chrisco255 4y ago

It's an odd wreck, given that the car had to pull off of the interstate and barrel through a rest stop area then crash into the back of a semi trailer parked in the separate parking area for trucks only. It's hard to even do this accidentally. And the fact the wreck took place at 2PM means it's unlikely the driver was tired.

lloeki 4y ago
> And the fact the wreck took place at 2PM means it's unlikely the driver was tired. Less likely, sure, unlikely, you'd be surprised about the amount of people driving for excessive durations or in a chronically or occasionally sleep deprived state.

mrjin 4y ago

Shouldn't all automated system assumed to be malfunctioned when an accident happened until proved otherwise?

NSMyself 4y ago
Was an automated system even being used when the accident happened?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]