5 ms·

Wait what? Tesla should be the one providing the data showing that it is safe for their software to be on the road, not the other way round. Vehicles have alway

by NhanH 3y ago

Wait what? Tesla should be the one providing the data showing that it is safe for their software to be on the road, not the other way round. Vehicles have always need to be regulated to be on the road, rather than retroactive ban after they kill a bunch of people.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
> rather than retroactive ban after they kill a bunch of people. I grew up in the US, in the 1970s-80s, when we had [optional] seatbelts, that would cut you in half, and snap your spine, exploding [leaded] gas tanks, glass that would slice you to ribbons, and steering wheels that would impale the drivers. It's always been retroactive. Ralph Nader made his name on Unsafe at Any Speed[0]. Money speaks very loudly in the US, and we have always been willing to sacrifice quite a few things (as long as the non-money-makers are making the sacrifices), and take huge risks (as long as the non-money-makers are taking the risks), for money. It's just the way we are. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  The problems with this policy are obvious, but it brings benefits too: we are allowed to develop new technology. If self driving has to be rigorously proven before it can be tested, the chicken-egg problem simply resolves itself into "the tech won't be developed here." Is that really what HN wants?
  - kibwen 3y ago
    As a pedestrian and cyclist, what I want is to not become a statistic in a crash report. We can develop new things and test them under controlled conditions without having to put everyone outside the car at risk.
    - jjoonathan 3y ago
      AI is easily our best bet against the true menace, which is distracted drivers. No, "controlled conditions" don't do a very good job of training or proving an AI. Supervised cars on actual roads is the way it has to be.
      - acdha 3y ago
        Speed limiters and automatic braking get most of the benefits without any need for hard AI problems. What AI promises is a way for governments not to have to take the heat for holding drivers accountable, but hundreds of thousands of people are being killed waiting for it to materialize.
      - piva00 3y ago
        The best bet against the true menace is to deploy public policies that reduces the true menace: the number of cars/drivers on the streets. That's the most sound policy, provide the public with alternative means of transportation that are convenient and more environment-friendly, leave room on the streets for the ones that actually require a car for their transportation. If you leave in the middle of bumfuck nowhere and can't be served by public transportation, great, you probably need a car. If you drive your car in cities for trips of 5-10km because it's convenient then we, as a society, should find ways to disincentivise this usage.
- anotherhue 3y ago
  https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U Modern car crash test into older car.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    Looks like the Malibu driver gets out, and cusses out the splattered remains of the Belair driver, who is removed from his car, with a teaspoon and a sponge.
ajross 3y ago
> Tesla should be the one providing the data showing that it is safe for their software to be on the road The linked article is literally about the data Tesla provides showing that their vehicles are safe, and it doesn't even refute the conclusions. It's about nitpicking at the margins. To be clear: Tesla's data says autopilot use is about an order of magnitude safer than human driving. The author complains that this is confounded by the fact that AP is used in different conditions where the baseline accident rate is lower. You need a lot of confounding effect to make up for an order of magnitude delta! Seems like everyone wants to skip that part and yell about the CEO instead. The cars are safe. They are extremely common vehicles now. If they were unsafe we would know. We know they are safe. Any argument needs to treat with this truth, or it's basically just a conspiracy theory.
- ra7 3y ago
  > It's about nitpicking at the margins. The article is not nitpicking at the margins. It's showing how Tesla is making misleading claims out of their insufficient data by not accounting for operating conditions. That's literally how Tesla is claiming Autopilot is "an order of magnitude safer than human driving". > You need a lot of confounding effect to make up for an order of magnitude delta! Or you could just make misleading comparisons to claim that. That's pretty easy too.
  - ajross 3y ago
    It's just tiresome. You know the cars are safe. You want to say they're unsafe. But you can't, because they're safe. So you're yelling about what amounts to marketing strategy. Which, fine. Everyone does bad marketing, there's lots to yell about. Maybe consider yelling about the deceptive marketing practices of a product you do use? There are lots to choose from.
    - ra7 3y ago
      "Our cars are safe" "Show us unbiased data proving it" "If it were unsafe, we would know" Sigh. I own a Tesla and use FSD, but thanks for assuming.

by NhanH 3y ago

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

> rather than retroactive ban after they kill a bunch of people. I grew up in the US, in the 1970s-80s, when we had [optional] seatbelts, that would cut you in half, and snap your spine, exploding [leaded] gas tanks, glass that would slice you to ribbons, and steering wheels that would impale the drivers. It's always been retroactive. Ralph Nader made his name on Unsafe at Any Speed[0]. Money speaks very loudly in the US, and we have always been willing to sacrifice quite a few things (as long as the non-money-makers are making the sacrifices), and take huge risks (as long as the non-money-makers are taking the risks), for money. It's just the way we are. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

jjoonathan 3y ago
The problems with this policy are obvious, but it brings benefits too: we are allowed to develop new technology. If self driving has to be rigorously proven before it can be tested, the chicken-egg problem simply resolves itself into "the tech won't be developed here." Is that really what HN wants?
- kibwen 3y ago
  As a pedestrian and cyclist, what I want is to not become a statistic in a crash report. We can develop new things and test them under controlled conditions without having to put everyone outside the car at risk.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    AI is easily our best bet against the true menace, which is distracted drivers. No, "controlled conditions" don't do a very good job of training or proving an AI. Supervised cars on actual roads is the way it has to be.
    - acdha 3y ago
      Speed limiters and automatic braking get most of the benefits without any need for hard AI problems. What AI promises is a way for governments not to have to take the heat for holding drivers accountable, but hundreds of thousands of people are being killed waiting for it to materialize.
    - piva00 3y ago
      The best bet against the true menace is to deploy public policies that reduces the true menace: the number of cars/drivers on the streets. That's the most sound policy, provide the public with alternative means of transportation that are convenient and more environment-friendly, leave room on the streets for the ones that actually require a car for their transportation. If you leave in the middle of bumfuck nowhere and can't be served by public transportation, great, you probably need a car. If you drive your car in cities for trips of 5-10km because it's convenient then we, as a society, should find ways to disincentivise this usage.
anotherhue 3y ago
https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U Modern car crash test into older car.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Looks like the Malibu driver gets out, and cusses out the splattered remains of the Belair driver, who is removed from his car, with a teaspoon and a sponge.

ajross 3y ago

> Tesla should be the one providing the data showing that it is safe for their software to be on the road The linked article is literally about the data Tesla provides showing that their vehicles are safe, and it doesn't even refute the conclusions. It's about nitpicking at the margins. To be clear: Tesla's data says autopilot use is about an order of magnitude safer than human driving. The author complains that this is confounded by the fact that AP is used in different conditions where the baseline accident rate is lower. You need a lot of confounding effect to make up for an order of magnitude delta! Seems like everyone wants to skip that part and yell about the CEO instead. The cars are safe. They are extremely common vehicles now. If they were unsafe we would know. We know they are safe. Any argument needs to treat with this truth, or it's basically just a conspiracy theory.

ra7 3y ago
> It's about nitpicking at the margins. The article is not nitpicking at the margins. It's showing how Tesla is making misleading claims out of their insufficient data by not accounting for operating conditions. That's literally how Tesla is claiming Autopilot is "an order of magnitude safer than human driving". > You need a lot of confounding effect to make up for an order of magnitude delta! Or you could just make misleading comparisons to claim that. That's pretty easy too.
- ajross 3y ago
  It's just tiresome. You know the cars are safe. You want to say they're unsafe. But you can't, because they're safe. So you're yelling about what amounts to marketing strategy. Which, fine. Everyone does bad marketing, there's lots to yell about. Maybe consider yelling about the deceptive marketing practices of a product you do use? There are lots to choose from.
  - ra7 3y ago
    "Our cars are safe" "Show us unbiased data proving it" "If it were unsafe, we would know" Sigh. I own a Tesla and use FSD, but thanks for assuming.