Hacker News Reader

Comment by greendestiny | Hacker News Reader

Once again Tesla have made the discussion about the driver. They have put an auto-control system out in the wild that steers the car into hard obstacles at high speed. Beeps to warn the driver at some stage in the preceding interval do not make this control systems failure any more acceptable. It still misjudged situation as acceptable to continue and it still drove into obstacles. Those are significant failures and a blanket statement of responsibility going to the driver isn't going to cut it.

View on HN

I agree; I think it's despicable that Tesla is acting in such a defensive manner.

-- "No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel.

"As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel," said Tesla. "He did not do so and shortly thereafter the vehicle collided with a post on the edge of the roadway." --

Bruh-slow the car down then. If you're storing information that points to the fact that that the driver is not paying attention, and you're not doing anything about it, that's on you 100%.

We are in the midst of a transition period between autonomous and semi-autonomous cars, and blaming the driver for the fact that the car, in auto-steer mode, steered into obstacles, is counter-productive in the long term. You need to make auto-steer not work under these conditions. The driver will quickly figure out the limits of your system as their car decelerates with an annoying beeping sound.

Right. When the AP detected road conditions that it couldn't handle, it should have reduced vehicle speed as much as necessary for handling them. Yes, it was dumb to trust AP at 50-60 mph on a two-lane canyon road. But it was also dumb to ship AP that can't fail gracefully.

I do admit, however, that slowing down properly can be hard. It can even be that hitting an inside post is the best option. Still, I doubt that consumer AP would have put the vehicle into such an extreme situation.

I think it also needs AP confidence indicator, so the driver could get ready to pick up the wheel.

> No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel.

That would seem to me to be reason to steer the car to the shoulder and disengage the auto-pilot.

Tesla is trying to take too big a step here and blaming the driver(s) of these cars is really really bad PR.

> That would seem to me to be reason to steer the car to the shoulder and disengage the auto-pilot.

Agreed. Or where a shoulder isn't available engage hazard flashers and drop speed to 10 miles an ho

Except for that one case where there is no shoulder, just a 500 foot drop to death.

Restrict auto-steering to very specific roads which have sufficient information. That's basically the vast majority of roads.

How can autopilot know if it is safe to steer into the shoulder? It won't even change lanes without driver input.

> How can autopilot know if it is safe to steer into the shoulder?

I would suggest that if it can't, its not ready for general use on consumer road vehicles.

Isn't that one of the reasons there is still a driver? Cruise control will drive you right off of the road until you crash with no awareness of the shoulder or other traffic or anything. But it is all over the place.

Suppose I'm driving a "normal" car. I have my hands on the wheel, but I am reading a book. I hit a tree.

Is the auto-maker responsible? They advertised the car as having cruise control.

Call me old, but I remember similar hysteria when cruise control systems started appearing. People honestly thought it would be like autopilot or better - and ploughed into highway dividers, forests, other traffic, you name it, at 55mph.

>Is the auto-maker responsible?

Why would the auto-maker be responsible for your distracted driving, and what does it have to do with cruise control?

Some of the uproar about these incidents is related to the fact that Tesla marketing is implying far more automation and safety here than the technology can actually provide. And apparently it can cost lives.

Exactly, they shouldn't be responsible for distracted driving. Autopilot can certainly get better, but you're being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that these Tesla drivers with their hands off the wheel don't fall under distracted driving. Could autopilot improve? Yes. Is the driver at fault here for not staying alert and responsible for the car they chose to drive? Absolutely.

Please show me a source for the claim that they're "implying far more automation" as everything I've ever seen from Tesla on this says hey dummy, don't stop paying attention or take your hands off the wheel.

> Please show me a source for the claim that they're "implying far more automation"

It is literally called "autopilot."

Are you implying that the drivers involved were not even aware that they were using the feature negligently?

Even after they used it for miles, it having certainly audibly reminded them many times, over months, that they must have their hands on the wheel?

Maybe if someone is deaf, reads "autopilot", jumps in the car and crashes, the name is at fault. Otherwise, unlikely.

Sure, the driver is at fault, but Tesla is almost encouraging this by not having a shorter threshold for keeping hands off the wheel.

>Please show me a source for the claim that they're "implying far more automation"

Th key word is "implying". Of course they say "keep your hands on the wheel" in the instruction manual.

What if the manufacturer is permitting conditions that incentivizes distracting driving? Like not requiring hands on the wheel?

It's also a problem if it permits driving faster than the speed limit.

Its normal to exceed the speed limit e.g. passing. No absolute limit can be arbitrarily set without tying the pilot's hands/limiting their options which could make the roads more dangerous.

It may be common to exceed to speed limit when passing, but it is illegal. The setting of these speed limits is meant to be objective, maybe are sometimes subjective, but it is wrong to call them arbitrary.

If the car autopilot software permits faster than legal speed driving, the manufacturer is taking on liability in the case of speed related accidents and damage.

No its not actually illegal. Here's an example regulation from Washington state:

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425

It costs lives because folks are toying with this new thing. If they'd just use it as intended, they'd achieve the higher levels of safety demonstrated in testing.

Yeah, I just blamed the victims for misusing autopilot. Like anything else, its a tool for a certain purpose. Its not foolproof. Testing its limits can get you hurt, just like a power saw.

It's a completely different conversation. Cruise control maintains speed only. It still requires positive driver control.

It's controls are such that it disengages gracefully. You notice a problem, instinctually hit the brake and disability cruise.

Cruise control is supposed to control the speed of the car. If you set it for 55 and the car accelerated to 90 it would be considered dangerous and defective.

The steering control is supposed to control the steering of the car. If you set it for "road" and it decides to steer for "hard fixed objects" how should we regard it?

It's certainly a major fault of Tesla's - if you know it's not safe, you've got no excuse to keep going.

But the driver shouldn't be allowed to escape blame either. When your car is repeatedly telling you that you need to take control, then you should be taking control.

If the robocar were to warn once, and then steadily slow, all drivers would learn to take over when warned.

I don't disagree - like I say, none of my comment was intended to let Tesla off the hook in any way.

My point was simply that the drivers who use semi-automatic cars and choose to ignore warnings to retake control need to be responsible for their actions as well.

Incapacitated? The software needs to fail more gracefully than this when the driver is a dependency and isn't responding.

I've worked on highly safety related (classification ASIL D) automotive systems. There are rules about how to think about the driver.

The driver is not considered a reliable component of such a system, and must not be used to guide decisions.

Yes, the driver clearly was a fool, but system design should not have taken his decision into account, and come to its own conclusion for a safe reaction (e.g., stopping the car).

I agree with that, and as I say I'm not attempting to defend Tesla in the slightest.

My point was simply that the driver has to take responsibility for their actions in this situation as well.

Exactly! In this case the driver may have been at fault.

What happens next time, when the driver has a stroke?

"Well, he didn't put his hand on the wheel when the car told him to, it's not our fault!"

Like you say, slow it down. Sure, the driver of a non-autonomous vehicle who has a stroke might be in a whole world of trouble, but isn't (semi-) autonomy meant to be a _better_ system?

It is about the driver you turn on a test feature (it warns you it's a test feature) and ignore all the procedures you must follow to use this not yet production feature it's your fault.

> Those are significant failures and a blanket statement of responsibility going to the driver isn't going to cut it.

That will be the communication pattern for the next two decades; we better get used to it.

I would never buy a Tesla for this reason.

You drive their cars, and you're always driving around with a third party with its own interests.

Like a faulty GM ignition switch?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com