07-02-2016, 11:14 AM | #1501 | |
Chief title editor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 26,599
|
Quote:
The only alternative would be NHTSA demanding Tesla turn off Autopilot until further notice. Not sure they have that authority, though. Certainly a poster case of speed of government vs technological innovation and real world change.
__________________
OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11 Team WTF?! What are you gonna do? |
|
07-02-2016, 11:46 AM | #1502 | |
Mugwump
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: E46 330i, Chevy Colorado, Tesla Model 3
Location: NY
Posts: 17,475
|
Quote:
Are you sure about that? |
|
07-02-2016, 12:30 PM | #1503 | |
Chief title editor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 26,599
|
Quote:
The point, though, is that Tesla's semi-autonomous driving is not ready for use on public roads and is endangering all people that may find themselves in some kind of proximity to public roads. They clearly understand this, yet think they can shift the burden of responsible use to their customers. Disruptive business models and technologies are great. Until they start killing people in "public beta tests."
__________________
OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11 Team WTF?! What are you gonna do? |
|
07-02-2016, 12:34 PM | #1504 |
Chief title editor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 26,599
|
And the other thing about this crash, why is everyone excusing Autopilot's failure to detect the truck turning across the car's path as an acceptable failure? Because it was white and the sky was bright? The fuck? The logic so many are using to blame the driver apply equally to the car and its technology which clearly is ready to be used on public highways.
__________________
OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11 Team WTF?! What are you gonna do? |
07-02-2016, 12:36 PM | #1505 | |
Mugwump
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: E46 330i, Chevy Colorado, Tesla Model 3
Location: NY
Posts: 17,475
|
Quote:
At no point have I been able to comprehend how anyone thought this was a good idea. |
|
07-02-2016, 03:14 PM | #1506 |
195
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24,611
|
I agree with all of Clyde's broader points. I don't think that it makes sense to have the car slam on the brakes when it has a sensor problem, though. When the system is that compromised, adding another control input might be the right move...or it might not.
Better in my view to have it just shut down the assist and stop trying. In fact, I think that there's a pretty good chance that the car cut the High Voltage power completely on impact. The 12V systems would have continued to function, but it's pretty likely that the main traction battery contactors opened, to isolate the main pack from the rest of the car. You *absolutely* want the car to do that, but of course it would prevent any further motive force. Though, as I type that, I realize it probably wouldn't affect the computer's ability to apply the brakes, which run off the 12V system. |
07-02-2016, 04:22 PM | #1507 |
Chief title editor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 26,599
|
If I wasn't clear, I'm not advocating having the car stomp the brakes if a single sensor fails. If multiple sensors suddenly fail/disappear, airbags fire or disappear, an impact is "sensed," unexpected and non-ordinary changes beyond a reasonable extent occur in speed, heading, yaw, pitch, and/or bank all within milliseconds of each other, the car needs to do everything it can to bring itself to a stop as quickly as possible. All has already been lost at that point. It may not be the best choice control input for all situations that could have caused those things to happen at once, but it's likely to be much better more often than anything else.
And according to Reuters, the car traveled 900 feet after impact. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKCN0ZH5BW
__________________
OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11 Team WTF?! What are you gonna do? |
07-02-2016, 04:38 PM | #1508 |
195
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24,611
|
Should that same rule apply to all cars? And should it apply whether or not the car has Autopilot engaged?
Not saying it's not a good idea. I just don't necessarily see why it has anything to do with autopilot. Here, the problem was that the driver was killed on impact. Even if the car had been running without AP, after the crash it would have done the same thing. In other words, whatever the proximate cause of the original impact, the car's post-crash behavior is a separate problem. |
07-02-2016, 05:13 PM | #1509 | |
Mugwump
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: E46 330i, Chevy Colorado, Tesla Model 3
Location: NY
Posts: 17,475
|
Quote:
If you're going to introduce technology that sometimes makes people less safe, and you argue that's OK because it increases safety overall, there is indeed some obligation to "do good" in the broader sense. Helping bring a car to a stop when the driver is dead is a huge opportunity to demonstrate value of autopilot and help justify its existence, and the risks associated with it. In this case it would have been difficult to ask for praise for how nicely it brought itself to a stop after killing the driver. But imagine the scenario where someone was driving and had a stroke, the car crashed into a truck and then went barreling towards a playground filled with children. Autopilot kicks in and saves the day. Suddenly the small number of accidents that may or may not have been caused by autopilot might start to seem like an OK trade-off. Cliff notes: if Tesla is allowed to lower the bar in some cases, I'm allowed to raise it in others. Last edited by rumatt; 07-02-2016 at 05:42 PM. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|