As these accidents demonstrate drivers can’t be relied upon to ‘monitor’ the autopilot and react if something goes wrong. It’s a deeply flawed design concept from an otherwise very innovative company.
As these accidents demonstrate drivers can’t be relied upon to ‘monitor’ the autopilot and react if something goes wrong. It’s a deeply flawed design concept from an otherwise very innovative company.
We don't know how many other accidents have been prevented by autopilot. A safety system should not be judged by whether it's perfect, but by whether having it is better than not having it.
The NHTSA did a study on exactly this issue by looking at accident rates in cars with autopilot hardware before and after autopilot was actually enabled via a software update. They found that accident rates went down by about 40% after autosteer was enabled.
This seems to suggest that either people are fine with monitoring and taking over when needed, or else autosteer was already so good in 2016 that it made fewer mistakes than humans.
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.pdf
No no no no no! The NHTSA report says nothing about whether Tesla's system is safer than humans. In that study there are two buckets, one which is total Tesla miles in TACC-enabled cars and then after the update total Tesla miles in cars with TACC + Autosteer and they calculated on airbag deployments. Human driven miles are going to dominate both of those buckets and there's a reason the NHTSA report makes zero claims about Tesla's safety relative to human drivers. It's totally outside the scope of the study. Then add in that some researchers who are skeptical of the methodology and have been asking for the raw data from NHTSA/Tesla have yet to receive it.
[1] It can do this, see: https://electrek.co/2017/06/07/tesla-software-update-airbag-...
Plus who does not work with a limited group of users while you are testing. That is true for tech that does not kill you and more so when it can.
What Tesla is doing is honestly close to criminal. Waymo approach makes far more sense.
Google has indicated this for years. There really should NOT be safety drivers behind the wheel.
What Tesla is doing is almost criminal. Having a autopilot button when the car really can not do auto pilot is about as wrong as it gets.
I do not believe you can do SDC directly to the consumer while it is really in beta.
Waiting until the technology is perfect will take a long time.
Here's a quick improvement on testing for the learning agent: watch the driver while he is driving, watch the road, AI predicts what do in the same situation, diff that with the driver; diff it offline if necessary. Bang! massive improvement in learning data, time and pinpointing blunders. If they are not already doing this, they should.
A lot of people want to treat Tesla like they're just a tech company, while ignoring that the "A/B test" conducted here could literally get people killed (and has).
For example, in the most recent death some owners are claiming that an over-the-air software update caused the issue (lane centering), it made their cars drive differently. In tech regular updates are common, but normally the biggest consequence for getting one wrong is angry customers, not dead customers.
And is it fair to put the blame solely on a cherrypicked action by Tesla engineering? A tragic coincidence is a compilation of events.
Conducting A/B tests with live human subjects and in a context where failures will kill people (including those not even associated with the experiment!) is the level of scientific rigor I expect from Josef Mengele.
If true, having that data would give Tesla an enormous amount of data on situations in which Autopilot might have failed if it was in control of the car, such as if Autopilot (when not engaged) didn't see an obstruction but the human driver swerved suddenly.
This is also an advantage of Tesla installing full Autopilot hardware on every car regardless of whether the Autopilot upgrade has been purchased.