Hacker News Reader

Comment by yumraj | Hacker News Reader

At this point it is very clear, to me, that anyone using FSD/Autopilot is risking their lives by trusting their lives on a beta, or perhaps even alpha product.

It has issues during the day, at night it is downright dangerous.

I do agree that while watching the video the stopped truck is not visible till very late and based just on the video it is not clear if a human would have done any better. However, I'm not sure we can make that call since it's not clear what the quality/aperture of the video is and what the human eye was able to see.

Still, even then, a human would have slammed the breaks or swerved to the right to a free lane and depending on how good the Tesla breaks are, I don't own one, it may have stopped/slowed down substantially.

EDIT:

I think some people are underestimating their reaction time. I have had a case, once in my life, where I was driving on a Freeway at ~65 mph, 87 N for those from the Bay Area, and due to the curving of the Freeway I did not see the traffic stopped in front of me in the left most lane. It was very similar to this, but while the freeway was curving. I did not slam the breaks, but swerved to the right lane, which very luckily for me was empty till I could slam the breaks. It was purely reflex action driven, no thinking was involved.

In this case there are two things:

- human eye can see farther at night than a camera as others have also noted.

- swerving would/could have prevented a head on collision since there was no traffic in the middle lane (though the stopped truck is occupying a bit of it) and would have hit the Tesla on the left side. Much better than a full head on collision.

View on HN

> At this point it is very clear that anyone using FSD/Autopilot is risking their lives by trusting their lives on a beta, or perhaps even alpha product.

Somewhat. The product costs $10,000 and has been enabled since 2015 (originally $5000). Its reasonable for people to think that this thing works. Sure, perhaps those individuals should do better research, but there's a huge degree of misinformation coming in from the top here.

The root-cause of the problem is Tesla. Its unreasonable for Tesla to pretend it works, charge significant sums of money for the "feature", and ignore the difficult questions when this thing crashes into stopped Firetrucks over-and-over again (https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/nhtsa-saf...)

At some point, we as a society need to accept and admit that Tesla is __lying__ about this feature. That it is dangerous, and always has been dangerous.

There's a degree of blame we can assign to the Tesla-fanboys who accept this marketing without any level of critical thinking. But the root cause of the problem is Tesla's marketing.

It isn't just Tesla that is leading to confusion here. For example, both you and the comment you are responding to treat Autopilot and Full Self Driving as interchangeable when they are distinct features.

Autopilot has been on cars for years, has driven multiple billion miles, and now comes free with every Tesla. In reality it is just lane and traffic aware cruise control which numerous cars come with today.

Full Self Driving doesn't have near the track record, is still in beta (and maybe should still be in alpha), and has that 5 figure price tag you mentioned.

When you blur the lines between the two, it also results in people thinking Autopilot is more capable than it is or that Full Self Driving is safer than it is.

Not crashing into Firetrucks is an emergency-brake assist problem. This isn't a "beta" part of Tesla's suite.

I'd rather not use the crap marketing terms of Tesla. They're clearly misleading and just propaganda. You and I know that its emergency braking.

It doesn't matter if its on an intelligent-cruise control / lane assist mode, or if its in the hands of a driver. Emergency braking is supposed to kick in and work in these cases

Your original comment was speaking very broadly and not about this specific accident. I responded broadly and not about the specific accident. Your response was only about this accident and ignored my broader point.

Yes, this accident is a problem that Tesla needs to work to fix. But no system is going to ever be flawless and I would bet many humans and other manufacturer emergency braking systems would fail to avoid this accident.

In the meantime everyone, from Tesla fanboys to Tesla critics, should be mindful about how they talk about these things because confusion is dangerous regardless of its source.

I'm speaking broadly about this specific situation.

https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/nhtsa-saf...

Which is Tesla crashing into stopped trucks in the middle of the road. The fact is, we have a pattern here, and it is now documented.

As sad as it is, this Twitter-thread isn't "news". The NHTSA opened an investigation last year, but you know how slowly the government works. Everyone has known this.

There is a pattern here about Tesla's emergency braking, be it on the default package, the 2015-era Autopilot for $5000, or the modern 2021-era Autopilot for $10,000.

The emergency braking simply doesn't work (https://www.carscoops.com/2020/09/tesla-model-3-fails-an-aut...).

> or the modern 2021-era Autopilot for $10,000.

Are you just trolling with that comment. You are making the same mistake again that I corrected you on in your first comment. Autopilot is free with the car.

Emergency braking systems are not foolproof. Tesla is not a market leader in that category, but these systems from other manufactures also fail in similar situations[1].

[1] - https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-featu...

I don't see the distinction. Both FSD and Autopilot would have crashed into this truck at full speed.

We both know they're on the same sensor suite on largely the same technology. "FSD" may have more software and "AI" behind it, but the fundamental "is a stopped car in front of me" logic is the same neural-network training through the Dojo-supercomputer or whatever else Tesla wants to talk about. Its just a software switch that's locked behind a $10,000 paywall, nothing more.

But the customer, and the people involved in crashes, don't care about the names of supercomputers, the different features of the car, or whether or not its in Beta or not.

--------------

Can Tesla's sensor suite + computer see a stopped car in front of it? Well... no. It can't. Not only does this case prove it, so have many other cases.

That's why there's an NHTSA probe on this very issue. Again, here's the link: https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/nhtsa-saf...

Once again, I am speaking generally and not about this specific accident. We have no idea how any other person or car would perform in this exact situation and I don't see much value in speculating.

I care much less about a singular accident than I do about trying to help prevent future accidents by clearing up the confusion. You are continuing to add to that confusion, seemingly intentionally by continuing to blur the lines that I have already clarified in previous comments.

You already admitted that a product being on the market for years would lead to a consumer being more confident in it. By telling people that FSD has been tested for years on public roads rather than months your criticism is counterintuitively also contributing to a false confidence in the technology.

> Once again, I am speaking generally and not about this specific accident. We have no idea how any other person or car would perform in this exact situation and I don't see much value in speculating.

But we have an NHTSA complaint documenting 11 other accidents of this form. That is, a stopped car in front of a Tesla that was provably on Autopilot. And then the Tesla crashes into the stopped car (most commonly: emergency vehicles like Firetrucks or Police cars). EDIT: These other examples from NHTSA were in broad-daylight, with flashing lights, at night, and a variety of different situations. So something is definitely wrong here.

And who knows about all the other situations where a crash was going to happen but the driver took emergency action and saved the day.

-----

This accident, the one in the twitter post, as well as the 11 other documented cases in the NHTSA investigation, prove that there's a systemic problem with the technology.

There are probably other accidents too where the emergency braking should have worked but aren't documented yet.

------

This is no longer a Rusell's Teapot scenario. We've got 12-examples (11 from the NHTSA complaint, and +1 from this Twitter thread / Twitter video). We've got the examples, live on camera. We can absolutely say without a doubt that Teslas have difficulty in this case.

> Autopilot has been on cars for years

Autopilot has not been on cars for years, Adaptive cruise control has been.

Moreover, while I’ll accept that my comment above confuses between them, I’ll argue its naming it as “ Autipilot” is what is at fault here since people overestimate its capabilities.

I am neither going to defend the feature's name or get into a debate about it. I am simply pointing out that the confusion does not have one single source like you originally implied.

Autopilot may be a marketing name and people can voice their opinion about it as not being appropriate or whatever but where did the notion come from that "Autopilot" means it works on its own without human?

Autopilot is a term most commonly used in aircraft and that's where almost everyone has head from it before. At the same time almost everyone should be fully aware that aircraft on autopilot do in fact need at least one human pilot. Almost all aircraft inevitably crash if left on autopilot with no further human interaction.

So where does this idea come from that the word "autopilot" somehow misleads people into believing that it does not require a human.

Most people aren’t pilots, most people have never flown an aircraft, most people have no idea how actual autopilot works. I bet most people think that autopilot is something you turn on while in air and makes the airplane fly on course without further inputs from the pilot. I bet for most people autopilot means computer does driving.

You dont have to be pilot or even remotely interested in aircraft to know the term. Its like "Blackbox" everyone with basic education has heard about it.

>I bet for most people autopilot means computer does driving.

That is the claim but there is no evidence at all. Everyone knows there is a pilot in almost every aircraft and that autopilot is just a computer that takes work away. If it would fly alone there would be no pilot.

There should be no people with a driver license who think autopilot means no human needed. Its completely absurd. That word never meant that and its not people misinterpreting the word that sleep in their cars and crash it. These people are not mislead by a word they are just irresponsible and fully aware of it or drunk.

I guess we won’t know until we ask a random sample. Until then—and unless Tesla has conducted a survey and is not sharing—we can assume at best negligence and at worst intentional market manipulation.

I guess we assume word have meaning and are mostly understood by everyone according to the meanings or people dont understand the word at all if they never heard it.

Assuming wide spread misinterpretation is a bit far fetched especially for a word that the average teenager knows what it means.

I think people do think that for the most part, the airplane goes on autopilot, requiring minimal input from the pilot, and when everything goes smoothly, no input is required from the pilot. Input is only required when things go wrong. I think this is what people think, but I am just speculating.

> Autopilot may be a marketing name and people can voice their opinion about it as not being appropriate or whatever but where did the notion come from that "Autopilot" means it works on its own without human?

When Tesla Marketing videos said "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself".

You can find this quote all over the internet. Since this is Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26858525, you can see people discussing this and proving that the video said that.

Quote end-quote. Tesla literally said that and posted it all over the internet. Elon Musk then came on after that video was aired and said they'll have "Coast to coast Full-self driving" in 2017, and repeatedly double-downed on that claim.

I didn't say anything about Tesla, I dont care about Tesla. The word was "Autopilot" and the claim was that people interpret the word wrong. There is zero evidence that this is the case. I've never talked to anyone who doesn't know what the word means and no one ever expressed that it means "drives/flies without a human". Not even Tesla said that. The "Full Self-Driving Capability" that they promised and never delivered was not named "Autopilot" yet people keep bring up that "misleading" word as the reason why people crash cars. It makes no sense.

But you're posting in a Tesla thread, where a Tesla-car with the Autopilot feature crashed into a stopped car in front of it.

I have to imagine that your postings here have something to do with the accident that this entire topic is about.

Because the claim that people dont understand the word comes up in such threads. Other than that my post had nothing to do with the thread/article it was a reply to the parent post stating the claim.

Well the name for one. But a plane on autopilot can fly itself for a long time.

That depend on the plane and all kinds of external circumstances as well as how it is programmed etc. etc.

But I can assure you even modern passenger plane on autopilot do not avoid crashes with other planes, buildings or ground (mountains etc.) It also wont start or land a plane.

In a worst case scenario the autopilot would crash the plane immediately because it was give the task to fly into something and in best case scenario the plane flies according to the programmed route and corrects for wind and all that and if nothing is in the way it eventually runs out of fuel and crashes. AFAIK it would not even slow down and certainly it would not do an emergency landing.

“Auto” here being short for automatic, so “automatic pilot.”

I understand your explanation of the term with regards to airplanes, but not everybody understands that. Even if the term ‘autopilot’ is technically correct, it might be better to just call it driver assist for now.

I’m not laying the blame on Tesla for these sorts of accidents though. Regardless of the name, I think Tesla makes it explicitly clear how the function should be used.

I do think there is some friction here between Tesla’s branding and marketing goals, and the long and complex road to safe autonomous driving.

That is correct and therefore the autopilot does automatic piloting which is obviously spectrum that can include more or less capabilities but certainly its not to be confuse with "autonomous piloting" or "self-driving/operating".

People being confused by Tesla's confusing marketing is Tesla's fault.

> watching the video [...] it is not clear if a human would have done any better.

Anyone who's ever taken a photograph in low light conditions knows that in the dark, cameras fail to capture loads of detail that humans can make out just fine.

I'd wager a human driving in such circumstances would have seen the truck much more easily than we can see it in some dark, blurry dashcam footage.

And as bad as it looks like on that camera, its a way better camera than the 1.2MP 1/3" CMOS sensor that Tesla uses for its "self-driving" cameras.

In any case, our human eyes are actually really, really good. Far better than typical CMOS technology at capturing dynamic range and whatnot. Our Iris opens/closes depending on a variety of conditions, and our retina itself is 22 mm, far larger than typical camera CMOS sensors (but smaller than the top-of-the-line 35mm cameras).

Not only is our surface-area larger... our rods / cones seem to be superior in dynamic range than CMOS technology.

----------

That being said: I think a big problem for Tesla's system is that they use tiny and cheap 1/3" CMOS sensors at low resolutions, and then expect AI to magically fix all their problems.

Other companies are willing to not only buy more expensive cameras, but also more-expensive sensors, such as RADAR or LIDAR, to assist the camera.

> In any case, our human eyes are actually really, really good.

A dark-adapted human eye may be able to detect light levels as low as a single photon:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172

(Not reliably, mind you. But the fact that this works at all is incredible.)

Based on my experience with drivers and driving at night, it is very unlikely that humans would do better in most circumstances.

> till, even then, a human would have slammed the breaks or swerved to the right to a free lane

Most humans unfortunately do not have the experience of knowing what to do at the right time; they may swerve to the left here in this video and crash into a more dangerous object (another high-speed car or truck) and cause a more dangerous pileup. There is no right or wrong answer in this situation, we don't do drills (at least in US) that at least tell people what to do in bad situations like this. This may be a practical question but in reality, no one has the training or experience to deal with this _instantly_ and worse, in dark environments.

Also, most people is likely to be tired if they're driving at night such as coming home from work.

What this proves is that we need emergency lighting systems in the event of a crash. Like if an airbag has been deployed, lights around need to be visible to avoid this kind of scenario.

It would be awesome if we could provide VR training and use videos like this as examples to train folks.

> What this proves is that we need emergency lighting systems in the event of a crash.

This is the first time I've been introduced to this idea, and it now feels immediately obvious that we should've been doing this for a long time.

Mercedes does this, along with a lot of other cool things they call “pre safe”, like playing a loud noise on the speakers to prepare your ear drum for the sudden change in air pressure.

I’m sure other cars are doing the flashing lights now but few companies have invested as much in safety as Mercedes.

I set off the hazard lights in the '94 BMW I fixed up in college when I turned up my subwoofer too loud once, so I think the accelerometer-triggered lights are, or should be, widespread already.

There’s two parts to this.

First, robust response to a crash. Maybe this is lighting (flood LEDs on the back of first responder vehicles), maybe this is emergency vehicles with crash shock absorbers (Scorpion Impact Attenuators is a well known brand) that sit behind the accident in lanes of travel to protect responders at the accident scene. Cars should attempt to detect this, but it should be expected this may fail. The crash absorber will take the brunt of the crash, but everyone is going home to their families with some tears shed by the insurers. This applies to all vehicles with traffic aware cruise control and lane keeping who can’t reliably detect stoped vehicles (which is all automakers).

Second, first responders (through dispatch) should be able to issue an alert to Google Maps and any other traffic aggregator to alert about an accident in a lat long “bubble” (think a TFR in air navigation, pushed out over ADS-B or a data link) with an expiration time. Vehicles would receive this event and temporarily apply a reduced speed limit in the area (one that the driver could override, but that’ll be logged in the black box when they push the accelerator past the temporary limit). This also provides alerting to the driver to be attentive about an upcoming event, just like Waze alerts you to an upcoming accident or speed trap. The vehicle integration is key, as the robotics is what needs the safety context and awareness.

Now, if you’re not paying attention as a driver, no amount of tech and effort helps, and these folks end up killing themselves and others every day with inattentive and distracted driving.

I believe there was an attempt to make car to car communication system mandatory in US so that every single car on the road can talk to each other but I admit, I do not know how all of this worked and what happened in the end or if this is still ongoing.

I can’t speak to consortium work such that you mention (V2V comms), but Google and Tesla could, today, use their existing traffic data feeds and mapping tools to both allow first responders to create events and for the vehicles to interpret and action that data.

This is also vastly cheaper than LiDAR on every vehicle in the short term.

Most humans unfortunately do not have the experience of knowing what to do at the right time;

What's worrying isn't that the autopilot didn't "know what to do"; but that it didn't detect the oncoming parked car at all.

Also, most people is likely to be tired if they're driving at night such as coming home from work.

I'd say more like around 10 percent would be significantly impaired. Heck, I'll give you 20.

"Most" (meaning > 50 percent) is just off the page, and doesn't jibe with reality. Sounds like you're a bit too eager to give Tesla a pass, here.

> What's worrying isn't that the autopilot didn't "know what to do"; but that it didn't detect the oncoming parked car at all.

This is not simply a parked car, this is a dark non-reflective crashed pick-up truck sideway on a highway lane that's CURVED at night. There are multiple variables all of which are bad; non-reflective, driving high speed (75mph) in a curved lane, and night-time.

Worse, this car's detection system is based on video camera only, it does not have LIDAR. That's where Tesla has a big problem with and it clearly shows here. Video camera-only system has blind spots and using auto-pilot or self-driving system with this only is not a good idea, period.

In addition, we're not supposed to rely on autopilot only regardless of how good anything is; this is all is supposed to be a complimentary tool just like every other safety feature within the car; the cruise control feature is not supposed to be used blindly on its own and excellent human drivers with cruise control can still hit that car.

There's no 100% foolproof algorithm or method to predict every single scenario.

If the driver was relying on the auto-pilot and some kind of detection system and didn't pay attention, then it is not the system that failed, it is the driver's fault entirely.

> "Most" (meaning > 50 percent) is just off the page, and doesn't jibe with reality. Sounds like you're a bit too eager to give Tesla a pass, here.

I'm not giving anyone a pass, I'm pointing out that humans have their own weaknesses and blind spots that machines can help with but humans on their own, will not be doing better in this specific scenario with all of these variables. I can actually understand why the system failed to do anything given the technology with limited sensor data but I don't understand why they didn't use more sensors like lidar, infrared or emergency breaking system or so on. I may be missing something here.

Regardless, we're not looking at a scenario where it happens every day, it only takes one bad accident and one tired human to turn an uncommon scenario into a disaster. So, it doesn't matter what percentage we deal with.

> If the driver was relying on the auto-pilot and some kind of detection system and didn't pay attention, then it is not the system that failed, it is the driver's fault entirely.

IMO it’s the fault of the engineers who did not take human factors into account. We all know that humans are terrible at following instructions or even using common sense — hence warnings about not using your toaster in the bathtub — so when engineers pretend that users will do the right thing, the engineers are at fault for not addressing the behaviours of the multitudes who will not do the right thing.

TLDR: the driver is at fault for being a dumbass using autopilot at night, and Tesla is at fault for not considering how real humans will use the product.

Tesla is at fault for not considering how real humans will use the product.

I think they know perfectly well, on some level.

As they are of the fact that large portion of their drivers will be perfect dumbasses.

But they're invested too deeply in the promise of an "Autopilot" product (which of course consumers will take to mean exactly what it says) by this point that they're not going to backpedal or change course -- unless forced to do so.

Maybe just driving a bit slower would help in those conditions. Easy as that.

I know too much about computer and software to trust any driving auto pilot. Heck, even normal adaptive cruise control makes me very nervous.

> even normal adaptive cruise control makes me very nervous

Thank you, it seems I'm not the only one. My foot hurts much more when I'm using adaptive cruise control since it's always hovering over the brake but not touching it - unless there is absolutely not traffic whatsoever. Due to this, I almost never use it.

I used adaptive cruise in a Nissan Murano and it maintained assured safe distance perfectly. First time using adaptive cruise and I found it very confidence inspiring.

> At this point it is very clear, to me, that anyone using FSD/Autopilot is risking their lives by trusting their lives on a beta, or perhaps even alpha product

Are you using population-level accident statistics to make this assessment?

I’ve seen analysis that suggests the overall safety numbers for self-driving mode are better than human drivers, though I’ve not dug deeply enough to be confident in them.

I’d caution against extrapolating from individual incidents though. I think we should expect that at the point that self driving is safer than a human driver, it will be worse than humans in some cases - simply because it can pick up a lot of gains by never being tired, distracted, or drunk. If one just looks at the pathological cases and says “I could have avoided that accident, therefore self-driving is a worse driver than me”, I believe one would be making an error of reasoning.

There’s an interesting philosophical/legal question at play here. Does self-driving have to be strictly superior - ie no edge-cases where it is worse than a human - to be acceptable? Or can it be worse at some tasks if it’s killing fewer people overall? Many people will die if we are too strict here. And yet, people need to trust the system as well. I suspect this will be optimized based on expected costs of lawsuits, which is a poor proxy for morality…

People expect self-driving cars to be better than human drivers and not just statistically better. Any accident a self-driving car gets into that most humans would have avoided should be considered a fault of the self-driving system. There shouldn't be wholly new ways to get killed on the highway and us just shrug it off as yeah but fewer people are dying overall. That's not gonna fly.

We must demand better.

Of course it is going to fly. If we can, overall, save lives with these systems, then we are letting people die if we wait too long to deploy them. A lot of people think that way.

> I’ve seen analysis that suggests the overall safety numbers for self-driving mode are better than human drivers, though I’ve not dug deeply enough to be confident in them.

All similar analysis I've seen compared all-road all-vehicle driving stats against autopilot stats. Of course, the correct comparison would be against luxury cars (with similar safety features) and only on the same kinds of roads that autopilot gets used on (i.e. primarily easier highway driving). As far as I can tell we are extremely far away from the hypothetical you raise where self-driving is better than human.

> Are you using population-level accident statistics to make this assessment?

I’m making a rather simple assessment. I’ve seen Tesla autopilot/FSD fail catastrophically in situations where I would have been fine. This does not inspire confidence that it will do better in situations where I would have failed. As such, I’m not willing to put my life in its hand. And, I really hope no effing Tesla hits me.

Cadillacs have had infrared night vision since the year 2000, how is it teslas cannot see in the dark?

at 75mph, even with a very quick reaction time of 0.7 seconds to shift your foot from gas to brake, your already approching 80', and haven't even started slowing down. Yanking the wheel sideways on most vehicles that speed means you either roll-over, or side-swipe a vehicle in the next lane, since you didn't have time to check that lane before swerving. I think you are drastically overrating your driving abilities.

Really if its that dark out and you can't see that far, on autopilot or otherwise, you shouldn't be going that fast. It's the same thing with people speeding in dense fog.

In most states a driver who runs into a stationary object is always considered at fault and can be cited for a moving violation. That rule applies even if the object is difficult to see. The driver is legally required to reduce speed based on the conditions.

Not to be pedantic but do you have a source? I actually want to know. It seems like such laws would have a reasonable exemption for unexpected objects in roadways. For example, I have a friend who successfully sued the LA City government after running into a downed light pole on a city street that was not visible due to low lighting.

Personally I consider it my responsibility, as a driver, to avoid any collisions with stationary objects. That means managing my speed and visibility accordingly.

Isn't that just basic, competent driving?

IMO your foot should be on break if you're in FSD mode. That's where my foot is using just cruise control even. The slightest tap on the break turns off cruise control.

Also, if it's so dark that you can't stop before hitting a car in front of you, then you're going too fast. The speed limit is a max, not a min, and it changes depending on prevailing road conditions no matter what the posted signs say. For example, if it's raining and you get into an accident, you can be fined for speeding even if you were going the speed limit. Going 75mph in pea-soup fog is a recipe for disaster. The dead of night has the same calculus. You should only go as fast as you can see. A good rule of thumb is you should always be able to see 12 seconds clearly ahead of you. That's how some professional human drivers manage to drive literal millions of miles over a career without a single accident.

Frankly, all this talk about how Teslas will improve the safety of traffic because they perform at a superhuman level is belied by this video evidence. Apparently these machines only drive as well as the drivers who programmed them. I wonder if there are even any professional drivers on the engineering team consulting on this project.

If the car can't even operate within the envelope of its own sensing and computing limitations, then how can we make any claims about its safety? It's driving at top speed in situations where it's essentially blind. When I'm blinded, I pull over. When the Tesla is blinded, it doesn't even know. See also, the guy who ran full speed into a tractor trailer and lost his head. It's been years since that incident and Teslas are still driving full speed into things they can't see. How is that a basis for platform that will save us all due to how safe it is?

They're not going to roll unless it's something incredibly top heavy like a Jeep. It's a car, turning the wheel 90 degrees only turns the wheels like 10 degrees.

Also, a sideswipe is almost certainly preferable for everyone than plowing head on at full speed.

Take a guess where that truck is going to go after it gets hit at 75 mph. Probably into another lane, potentially into oncoming traffic.

Human reactions are poor. Houseplant reactions are worse. Tesla acted more like a houseplant than a human

> a sideswipe is almost certainly preferable for everyone than plowing head on at full speed.

I’m fairly sure this is not true. Modern cars have lots of energy-absorbing crumple zones in the front, plus airbags. Head-on is the most highly-optimized crash orientation. Side-swipes are I believe the worst case, because there is so little protection for the driver.

I think some people are underestimating their reaction time.

Agreed; the human brain has special chemicals which significantly amplify our processing capabilities during moments of acute danger. I was once going up freeway, in the dead of night, and spotted a (darkly painted) car fully flipped over, about 2 seconds ahead of me. Managed to both decelerate (just enough) and bear gently to the right (not swerve), with room to spare.

Granted I was going 60, not 75. But I'm not the one telling people to drive on AP at 75, in the dead of night, no less

I think the fact that the human didn’t intervene means that no, human eye can’t see further in these conditions. There’s more to eyesight than maximum possible sensitivity and no the driver’s night vision is not going to be particularly good thanks to oncoming headlights. What you see on the video is the result of transcoding the actual CCCR camera feed to RGGB, reducing resolution from image native to what YouTube wants, and then compression to minimise the file size of a video with lots of black and lots of blown out areas.

Swerving could have prevented the collision, but braking is always the safer option. Swerving would still require the object to be detected, which neither the AP nor the human did in this instance.

Regardless you are still correct that people trusting their lives to AP instead of monitoring it like they are nagged to do by Tesla software are being foolish. I would never have been in the inside lane in this scenario, most likely if using AP I would be happily cruising behind the coach, meaning in any collision with a stationary object the coach would absorb the bulk of the collision energy.

Making this incident about AP is putting the cart well and truly before the horse.

I also feel like the way Tesla drives is really aggressive, I basically can't use is adaptive cruise control in slow/stop-and-go traffic because it ZOOMs right up the the car in front and then slams on the brakes, rather than just going along at a reasonable pace. Similarly, in this scenario with this visibility I might choose not to drive 10mph over the speed limit.

Assuming the driver was paying attention to the road, even taking ~2 seconds (About how long it took me to clearly recognize the truck in the video) and slowed down from 70MPH from 40MPH, it would reduce amount of kinetic energy in the collision by ~300%. It could be the difference between a survivable accident and a lethal one.

A 100% energy reduction would leave zero energy. 300% doesn’t make sense.

7^2 is 49, 4^2 is 16, all the other factors cancel. Yes, of course the right way to say it is "reduces the energy by 67%," but it's not that hard to see what was meant.

> I was driving on a Freeway at ~65 mph, 87 N for those from the Bay Area, and due to the curving of the Freeway I did not see the traffic stopped in front of me

I always shudder when I hear that people drive too fast to be able to stop in time based on visibility. Same with the crash in the video. Way to high a speed for that visibility.

While it might be the case that the human eye can see father than a camera at night, the car should have other sensors that should enable the car to see further. That is the whole point

i think driving tech will get there but right now i wouldn't trust it with my life. Humans are basically short sighted, they basically rely on their short term sense of induction and gain a sense of over confidence. Oh it works once? ok i feel a little better, works twice? ohh even better, works for the 10th time? Hell yea, let me whip out my phone and watch videos while the car drives itself. I think for my i will trust this amazing thing in my head.

There are cases where a human driver is better, but there are significantly more cases where Autopilot is better. For example when you drive for 4 hours straight or driving through stop and go traffic. Think about about the lives being saved and be sure any conclusion we reach is based on rigorous analytics and not just gut feeling after having watched a horrific video, which also happens numerous times on daily basis to all types of cars.

This sounds like shilling.

No it sounds like experience with actually owning a Tesla.

> For example when you drive for 4 hours straight or driving through stop and go traffic.

If I had a uninterrupted four hours of drive as part of my regular commute I wouldn't buy a Tesla, I would buy a gun and a single bullet with my name on it. Two hours one way every day were already enough to drive me almost insane.

Naming plays a big role. "Autopilot" implies something that people might not fully comprehend.

> it is very clear

I would really be interested in your source on this.

I’ve clarified in my comment that it is clear to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com