Tesla I think has done a fantastic job at striking a balance between getting something into the market the generate real-world data and mitigating the risks that come with it. If this car really did crash into the fire truck at around 65 MPH then it did a pretty good job at keeping everyone safe.
I think I would be hard pressed to find any technological or mechanical innovation that did not initially involve risk or have an accident associated with it. I've seen more examples where a Autopilot has done the right thing and avoided an accident than I have read stories of it making a mistake and causing an accident.
I believe your definition of keeping everyone safe differs from the common usage.
I don't see any evidence that Tesla has more, or less for that matter, of the necessary high-quality data that is needed for self-driving cars. The fact that real people are driving those cars continuously, potentially generating reams of data, is pretty immaterial, since the majority of that data is going to be useless (let's face it, 10 million hours of driving in the same conditions isn't better than 1 million hours of driving).
In my view, driving is already boring enough that it's insufficiently attention-grabbing for safety's sake. That's why, e.g., the "naked streets" model is removing lane marking. Decreasing (false) certainty forces more cognitive engagement, making things safer: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...
If anything, for the decades [1] while we're waiting for full automation, I'd like to see the equivalent of Threat Image Projection. It's the technology for luggage scanning where they put images of fake guns, bombs, etc in the images of real luggage. If the operator doesn't press the "threat" button they are alerted that they slipped up. It brings the frequency of important events up into the range where humans can pay attention. It'd be great to have the same thing for cars, so that AR images of deer, cyclists, children, and fire trucks appear; if you don't attempt to take evasive action, you lose points. [2]
[1] E.g., iRobot founder Rodney Brooks says not before mid 2030s: http://rodneybrooks.com/my-dated-predictions/
[2] I am, of course, kidding.
This type of accident in Level 2 systems is never going to be zero.
I suspect the primary problem is not the partial autonomous technology, but the marketing which is convincing people they can trust it. Nobody ever told you your cruise control means you don't have to pay attention, so very few[1] incidents happen due to misuse of it.
First and foremost, Tesla should never have been allowed to release "Autopilot" being called that. From the very name it provides a false impression of what it can do.
[1]I know you can find one. Humans are remarkably stupid.
It's true that people may be in particular need of a refresher, since such features could be perceived as more than advanced cruise control. It should be strongly emphasized to all drivers that we need to take full control whenever we see any exceptional conditions, from hazards, obstructions, pedestrians or wildlife in or entering the road, to poor visibility, and even when passing or being passed by small vehicles.
More than half a century in mass-market automobiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_control#History
If the roads had sensors in the "bots dotts" and would track and steer all the volume of traffic - isnt that better than all the infantile-AI-cars doing it?
Engineers are required to to make some kind of input to verify that they're still alert, or the train stops[1] if they haven't done anything in X seconds.
Obviously you wouldn't want the car to just stop in the middle of the road, but there could be something like that designed.
[1] https://www.quora.com/If-a-train-driver-falls-asleep-what-ha...
I'd imagine Tesla wasn't thinking about how the driver alertness feature could be countered unfortunately. Perhaps we'll see Tesla adapting the eye tracking tech that Cadillac Hypercruise is using.
I wonder how to truly tell if a driver is attentive? The Cadillac indicates it uses head tracking technology. I wonder if that is sufficient? Seems you probably need even eye-tracking: an attentive driver keeps looking around or something.
Airbags also kill babies if used incorrectly.
There are warning placards in several places in your car saying such.
Sometimes an airbag can cause more injury than the accident.
A seatbelt may trap you in a sinking car.
But overall, airbags and seatbelts have significantly reduced traffic injuries and fatalities.
Autopilot saves lives. Autopilot used incorrectly can kill people. But overall, Autopilot has significantly reduced the number of accidents involving Teslas.
So do we take airbags away because using them incorrectly might hurt a child? Are they a safety feature or marketing value?
There is no evidence of this.
http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesla-autopilot-crash-safety-stati...
Time will tell as they ramp production.
> "The probability of having an accident is 50 per cent lower if you have Autopilot on," said Musk, speaking at an energy conference in Oslo, Norway. "Even with our first version, it's almost twice as good as a person."
> The results are from Tesla's first generation of Autopilot, which owners have already used to drive over 47 million miles since it launched in October 2015.
I don't know what the answer is, but there's certainly evidence.
Sorry, I don't get it. How do you use something incorrectly when by definition you aren't really using it at all? It seems like an oxymoron.