4 ms·

Tesla driver killed after plowing into firetruck on freeway

14 points by magic_man 4y ago

bamboozled 4y ago
At least 14 Teslas have crashed into emergency vehicles while using the system. Seems like quite a lot?
- wyldfire 4y ago
  It does seem like a lot. But it's also important to consider how many miles were driven by the fleet and how many hams crashed into emergency vehicles over the same amount driven. I'm not a Tesla apologist, I just can't make sense of raw numbers where we would naturally try to make a comparison.
- qzw 4y ago
  No, you see, there’s no problem here because people would’ve been crashing into things at an even higher rate without Tesla Telepathic Full Self Driving and Penile Embiggening All Natural Herbal Vision AI Sentient System (Beta).
- graderjs 4y ago
  Maybe the robot thinks: Heck, if I'm gonna crash, may as well crash into the safest place to do it. At least they can rescue me/put out the fire/solve it somehow. Or to take a leaf from the film I, Robot: SPOONER: The truck smashed our cars together... and pushed us into the river. I mean, metal gets pretty pliable at those speeds. She's pinned. I'm pinned. The water's coming in. I'm a cop, so I already know everybody's dead. Just a few more minutes before we figure it out. An NS-4 was passing by... saw the accident and jumped in the water. [flashback] NS-4 ROBOT: You are in danger. SPOONER: Save her! NS-4 ROBOT: You are in danger. SPOONER: Save her! Save the girl! Save her! [realtime] SPOONER: But it didn't. It saved me. CALVIN: The robot's brain is a difference engine. It reads vital signs. It must have calculated... SPOONER: --It did. I was the logical choice. It calculated that I had a 45 percent chance of survival. Sarah only had an 11 percent chance. That was somebody's baby. Eleven percent is more than enough. A human being would have known that. Robots, nothing here. Just lights and clockwork. *Go ahead and you trust them if you want to.*
roseway4 4y ago
Cheap driver assistance technologies such as collision warning systems and emergency braking are nearly ubiquitous on new cars. It’s puzzling why Tesla hasn’t taken a layered approach to safety, with these supplementing the camera systems they have in place. I can’t imagine it’s a cost thing and the sensor fusion problem is likely tractable.
- qzw 4y ago
  Tesla has the highest profit margin in the car business. They didn’t get there by putting in layered safety systems. That kind of redundancy wouldn’t be optimal for profit generation.
40four 4y ago
I have a feeling these type of articles are never going to end. Anytime a Tesla is involved in a crash, it’s always going to be a question if Self driving mode was on. Whether it was on or not is a moot point in my opinion. As a driver, if you slam your car into into another vehicle or object, the responsibility is 100% on you. We have to stop blaming technology for wrecks. If you have a Tesla (or other vehicle with advanced cruise control) and wreck while it’s activated, it’s not the tech’s fault. The driver has to be paying attention to everything regardless, and if they don’t then get mad at them, not the car maker.
- quantified 4y ago
  Would this be a rephrasing that matches your intent? "When a Tesla slams into anything, the person in the driver's seat of a Tesla is at fault. If they thought FSB meant they didn't need to be driving, they were willfully ignoring the truth."
  - 40four 4y ago
    That’s probably a better phrasing, thanks :)
- oblib 4y ago
  The problem is people are using that technology. What you're saying is akin to "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", and that's true. But it's also true that people who don't have guns don't kill people with guns and if no one had guns no one would be killed by them. I think it's fair to "get mad" at those who produce and profit by making and selling guns and hold them responsible for murders committed with them. Same with Tesla. In both of those cases the manufacturer knows they can be deadly, and that they cause deaths. I won't make any leaps to try and disconnect those facts. I make and sell software. If my software was causing folks to die I would stop selling it. It wouldn't matter at all if the users misused it.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    > What you're saying is akin to "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", and that's true. And to extend that analogy, let's say Smith and Wesson made a gun that was marketed as having a safety, but in reality the safety didn't fully work and every now and then someone was killed because the gun unexpectedly went off. I'm gonna guess we wouldn't have folks coming out defending Smith and Wesson and blaming the owner.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

14 points by magic_man 4y ago

bamboozled 4y ago

At least 14 Teslas have crashed into emergency vehicles while using the system. Seems like quite a lot?

wyldfire 4y ago
It does seem like a lot. But it's also important to consider how many miles were driven by the fleet and how many hams crashed into emergency vehicles over the same amount driven. I'm not a Tesla apologist, I just can't make sense of raw numbers where we would naturally try to make a comparison.
qzw 4y ago
No, you see, there’s no problem here because people would’ve been crashing into things at an even higher rate without Tesla Telepathic Full Self Driving and Penile Embiggening All Natural Herbal Vision AI Sentient System (Beta).
graderjs 4y ago
Maybe the robot thinks: Heck, if I'm gonna crash, may as well crash into the safest place to do it. At least they can rescue me/put out the fire/solve it somehow. Or to take a leaf from the film I, Robot: SPOONER: The truck smashed our cars together... and pushed us into the river. I mean, metal gets pretty pliable at those speeds. She's pinned. I'm pinned. The water's coming in. I'm a cop, so I already know everybody's dead. Just a few more minutes before we figure it out. An NS-4 was passing by... saw the accident and jumped in the water. [flashback] NS-4 ROBOT: You are in danger. SPOONER: Save her! NS-4 ROBOT: You are in danger. SPOONER: Save her! Save the girl! Save her! [realtime] SPOONER: But it didn't. It saved me. CALVIN: The robot's brain is a difference engine. It reads vital signs. It must have calculated... SPOONER: --It did. I was the logical choice. It calculated that I had a 45 percent chance of survival. Sarah only had an 11 percent chance. That was somebody's baby. Eleven percent is more than enough. A human being would have known that. Robots, nothing here. Just lights and clockwork. *Go ahead and you trust them if you want to.*

roseway4 4y ago

Cheap driver assistance technologies such as collision warning systems and emergency braking are nearly ubiquitous on new cars. It’s puzzling why Tesla hasn’t taken a layered approach to safety, with these supplementing the camera systems they have in place. I can’t imagine it’s a cost thing and the sensor fusion problem is likely tractable.

qzw 4y ago
Tesla has the highest profit margin in the car business. They didn’t get there by putting in layered safety systems. That kind of redundancy wouldn’t be optimal for profit generation.

40four 4y ago

I have a feeling these type of articles are never going to end. Anytime a Tesla is involved in a crash, it’s always going to be a question if Self driving mode was on. Whether it was on or not is a moot point in my opinion. As a driver, if you slam your car into into another vehicle or object, the responsibility is 100% on you. We have to stop blaming technology for wrecks. If you have a Tesla (or other vehicle with advanced cruise control) and wreck while it’s activated, it’s not the tech’s fault. The driver has to be paying attention to everything regardless, and if they don’t then get mad at them, not the car maker.

quantified 4y ago
Would this be a rephrasing that matches your intent? "When a Tesla slams into anything, the person in the driver's seat of a Tesla is at fault. If they thought FSB meant they didn't need to be driving, they were willfully ignoring the truth."
- 40four 4y ago
  That’s probably a better phrasing, thanks :)
oblib 4y ago
The problem is people are using that technology. What you're saying is akin to "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", and that's true. But it's also true that people who don't have guns don't kill people with guns and if no one had guns no one would be killed by them. I think it's fair to "get mad" at those who produce and profit by making and selling guns and hold them responsible for murders committed with them. Same with Tesla. In both of those cases the manufacturer knows they can be deadly, and that they cause deaths. I won't make any leaps to try and disconnect those facts. I make and sell software. If my software was causing folks to die I would stop selling it. It wouldn't matter at all if the users misused it.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > What you're saying is akin to "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", and that's true. And to extend that analogy, let's say Smith and Wesson made a gun that was marketed as having a safety, but in reality the safety didn't fully work and every now and then someone was killed because the gun unexpectedly went off. I'm gonna guess we wouldn't have folks coming out defending Smith and Wesson and blaming the owner.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]