4 ms·

Waymo claims to already have a better record than human drivers. How long before we read a similar case where a driver is accused of creating unsafe conditions

by progne 3y ago

Waymo claims to already have a better record than human drivers. How long before we read a similar case where a driver is accused of creating unsafe conditions by taking control of the car?

mrtksn 3y ago
>Waymo claims to already have a better record than human drivers Elon Musk claims the same but there is a "terms and conditions apply" and they don't agree to assume responsibility.
rtkwe 3y ago
A while, there's only one car maker selling one car to the general public right now who's taking legal liability for crashes while their system is active.
- belltaco 3y ago
  That Mercedes-Benz system is a glorified adaptive cruise control and has several limitations that Tesla autopilot does not have. > There must be a vehicle in front of your car, reasonable road conditions with readable markings and lines, and clear weather and light conditions. Drive Pilot can’t be used at night or in the rain, and the headlights and wipers must be set to auto for it to work. > It’s also only available on freeways that have been mapped by Mercedes, with GPS positioning that is precise to the centimeter and even accounts for continental drift. Drive Pilot can’t be used in construction zones.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    AP will disengage or work poorly in poor weather too. Mercedes is actually being cautious about slowly rolling things out, not just yeeting it over the fence like Tesla. Little things like: > Mercedes shows us an EQS with an important visual indicator that is not yet legal: in the hopefully very near future, when Drive Pilot is active, the headlights, taillights, and side mirrors will have turquoise marking lights so other drivers know the Level 3 system is in use. and > Drive Pilot also has redundant braking and steering actuators and a separate onboard electrical system just in case one of them fails. are good things. And it drives better than Autopilot, despite being "glorified cruise control": > It does feel more precise and accurate in how the car stays in its lane and reacts to surrounding traffic, with fewer jerky movements and constant tiny adjustments. Drive Pilot even reacts to larger trucks or motorcycles that are lane splitting by moving slightly over in the lane without crossing the lines, and not only does it work in carpool lanes but also it can tell the difference between the carpool and FasTrak lanes and will let the driver decide which to use. This doesn't sound like Tesla at all: > and there’s not a single moment where Drive Pilot makes a mistake or reacts badly to a situation, even when surrounded by nightmarish LA drivers. Some of us applaud these kind of things. Remember the whole phantom braking thing a while back? And then it disappeared with an update, but another phantom braking problem arose, so then they reverted that update, and then released another update that fixed those two problems... A safety culture where a component manufacturer had firmware that took around 36 hours to work through the full test suite... released a new firmware to Tesla in response to issues. Got an email from Tesla 3 or 4 hours later saying "Thanks, this is working so much better", and when they responded with confusion about the test suite, etc., "Oh, we just flashed it onto one of our cars here and took it out on the road and tried".
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    It is just very fancy cruise control but it's still very significant to the whole "will a person ever get in trouble for taking over from the automated system" discussion that they're the only ones taking legal responsibility while the system is active. Everyone else including Tesla puts all the legal weight on you to stay constantly alert and take over for the system.
    - natch 3y ago
      Don’t worry, Mercedes will also put the legal weight on you by disabling the system well in advance of any potentially risky segments of road. So their promise is essentially PR fakery. Don’t fall for it.
      - rtkwe 3y ago
        As long as they're not cutting out moments before a crash to shift liability at the last second I don't see the problem. Disabling the system early when it's not sure it can operate safely is way better than not doing that and plowing into the side of a truck because the driver enabled it on a road with un-signaled cross traffic. (When the car could know from map data it's on a road it's not well equipped to handle mind you)
    - belltaco 3y ago
      It'd be interesting to read the legalese, one article states that it's on a case by case system. Since there are so many limitations, how will it deal with, say, there no longer being a car in front of you?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > they're the only ones taking legal responsibility while the system is active They are the only ones using the consequences of general principles of product liability as a selling point, might be more accurate.
- natch 3y ago
  Except that system turns itself off on the slightest hair trigger if it gets any inkling that another car might be present within ten miles.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    I haven't seen any video of it actually in use or reviews. Have a link showing that?
    - natch 3y ago
      No.
esjeon 3y ago
I guess until all autonomous vehicles are fully equipped with real sensors (likely both lidar and radar) so that cars can almost-mechanically stop before foreseeable collisions without worrying about AI hiccups. This is technically possible even now, but it's way too expensive for now.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  Unless a lot of money is paid out in campaign contributions, I suspect you're right. I'm worried about a time when the _statistical_ safety of AI driving is better than humans across the board, but there are horrifying correlations between AI induced accidents, like "Children on tricycles are not well recognized" or "slight fog in Seattle induces 150 car pileup". Or, AI causes worse accidents less frequently than humans. Whereas humans have lots more fender benders and minor injuries to older adults. Not saying this is true, but it's a scenario I think about a lot.
  - brandonagr2 3y ago
    A lot more minor injuries? You are aware that over 100 people are killed in cars every single day in the US alone right?
    - colonelpopcorn 3y ago
      TBH, that stat seems low.
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      I think you missed the part where I'm not saying this is current reality, just saying it's something I worry about. Continuing your example just for exposition / hypothetical, if those are 100 individual deaths with varying causes, vs 99 children run over by AI b/c they were walking in a line holding hands and were interpreted as road markers, well that's not _better_ is it? This is purely hypothetical, but statistics gloss over those human details.
  - richiebful1 3y ago
tibbydudeza 3y ago
The same cars that comes to a halt because people put a traffic cone on the bonnet.

by progne 3y ago

Waymo claims to already have a better record than human drivers. How long before we read a similar case where a driver is accused of creating unsafe conditions by taking control of the car?

mrtksn 3y ago

>Waymo claims to already have a better record than human drivers Elon Musk claims the same but there is a "terms and conditions apply" and they don't agree to assume responsibility.

rtkwe 3y ago

A while, there's only one car maker selling one car to the general public right now who's taking legal liability for crashes while their system is active.

belltaco 3y ago
That Mercedes-Benz system is a glorified adaptive cruise control and has several limitations that Tesla autopilot does not have. > There must be a vehicle in front of your car, reasonable road conditions with readable markings and lines, and clear weather and light conditions. Drive Pilot can’t be used at night or in the rain, and the headlights and wipers must be set to auto for it to work. > It’s also only available on freeways that have been mapped by Mercedes, with GPS positioning that is precise to the centimeter and even accounts for continental drift. Drive Pilot can’t be used in construction zones.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  AP will disengage or work poorly in poor weather too. Mercedes is actually being cautious about slowly rolling things out, not just yeeting it over the fence like Tesla. Little things like: > Mercedes shows us an EQS with an important visual indicator that is not yet legal: in the hopefully very near future, when Drive Pilot is active, the headlights, taillights, and side mirrors will have turquoise marking lights so other drivers know the Level 3 system is in use. and > Drive Pilot also has redundant braking and steering actuators and a separate onboard electrical system just in case one of them fails. are good things. And it drives better than Autopilot, despite being "glorified cruise control": > It does feel more precise and accurate in how the car stays in its lane and reacts to surrounding traffic, with fewer jerky movements and constant tiny adjustments. Drive Pilot even reacts to larger trucks or motorcycles that are lane splitting by moving slightly over in the lane without crossing the lines, and not only does it work in carpool lanes but also it can tell the difference between the carpool and FasTrak lanes and will let the driver decide which to use. This doesn't sound like Tesla at all: > and there’s not a single moment where Drive Pilot makes a mistake or reacts badly to a situation, even when surrounded by nightmarish LA drivers. Some of us applaud these kind of things. Remember the whole phantom braking thing a while back? And then it disappeared with an update, but another phantom braking problem arose, so then they reverted that update, and then released another update that fixed those two problems... A safety culture where a component manufacturer had firmware that took around 36 hours to work through the full test suite... released a new firmware to Tesla in response to issues. Got an email from Tesla 3 or 4 hours later saying "Thanks, this is working so much better", and when they responded with confusion about the test suite, etc., "Oh, we just flashed it onto one of our cars here and took it out on the road and tried".
- rtkwe 3y ago
  It is just very fancy cruise control but it's still very significant to the whole "will a person ever get in trouble for taking over from the automated system" discussion that they're the only ones taking legal responsibility while the system is active. Everyone else including Tesla puts all the legal weight on you to stay constantly alert and take over for the system.
  - natch 3y ago
    Don’t worry, Mercedes will also put the legal weight on you by disabling the system well in advance of any potentially risky segments of road. So their promise is essentially PR fakery. Don’t fall for it.
    - rtkwe 3y ago
      As long as they're not cutting out moments before a crash to shift liability at the last second I don't see the problem. Disabling the system early when it's not sure it can operate safely is way better than not doing that and plowing into the side of a truck because the driver enabled it on a road with un-signaled cross traffic. (When the car could know from map data it's on a road it's not well equipped to handle mind you)
  - belltaco 3y ago
    It'd be interesting to read the legalese, one article states that it's on a case by case system. Since there are so many limitations, how will it deal with, say, there no longer being a car in front of you?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > they're the only ones taking legal responsibility while the system is active They are the only ones using the consequences of general principles of product liability as a selling point, might be more accurate.
natch 3y ago
Except that system turns itself off on the slightest hair trigger if it gets any inkling that another car might be present within ten miles.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  I haven't seen any video of it actually in use or reviews. Have a link showing that?
  - natch 3y ago
    No.

esjeon 3y ago

I guess until all autonomous vehicles are fully equipped with real sensors (likely both lidar and radar) so that cars can almost-mechanically stop before foreseeable collisions without worrying about AI hiccups. This is technically possible even now, but it's way too expensive for now.

jvanderbot 3y ago
Unless a lot of money is paid out in campaign contributions, I suspect you're right. I'm worried about a time when the _statistical_ safety of AI driving is better than humans across the board, but there are horrifying correlations between AI induced accidents, like "Children on tricycles are not well recognized" or "slight fog in Seattle induces 150 car pileup". Or, AI causes worse accidents less frequently than humans. Whereas humans have lots more fender benders and minor injuries to older adults. Not saying this is true, but it's a scenario I think about a lot.
- brandonagr2 3y ago
  A lot more minor injuries? You are aware that over 100 people are killed in cars every single day in the US alone right?
  - colonelpopcorn 3y ago
    TBH, that stat seems low.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    I think you missed the part where I'm not saying this is current reality, just saying it's something I worry about. Continuing your example just for exposition / hypothetical, if those are 100 individual deaths with varying causes, vs 99 children run over by AI b/c they were walking in a line holding hands and were interpreted as road markers, well that's not _better_ is it? This is purely hypothetical, but statistics gloss over those human details.
- richiebful1 3y ago

tibbydudeza 3y ago

The same cars that comes to a halt because people put a traffic cone on the bonnet.