Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway0a5e | Hacker News Reader

>seems odd that it can meet with unexpected resistance and not trigger some sort of emergency measure. (eg. stopping)

This is a requirement unless you want it getting stuck on minor bumps and whatnot.

As this is unfinished software which should have extremely high safety requirements: I would very much like for it to be stuck on minor bumps and whatnot. In fact, I would like it to stop moving the car, sound a very loud alarm, and immediately notify the operator on multiple channels if anything even remotely out of the ordinary happens. Tesla should devote as many resources to detecting abnormal conditions as they are on making the car drive in the first place.

The owners here are alpha testing a complex and dangerous system and they should expect nothing less.

While I do agree with your skepticism, how would stopping immediately work on the highway? There are often bumps and ground shifts on the highway. Don't want to stop automatically then.

This is smart summon, a feature you should rather not use on a highway.

Ah, yeah. That makes sense.

> The owners here are alpha testing a complex and dangerous system and they should expect nothing less.

This is the part of Tesla's business that upsets me. Their marketing department is being allowed to do what marketing departments do, rather than biting the bullet and letting it be known that this is a complex, dangerous, young, and known to fail system.

There are simple decisions here that should be made but weren't, e.g. "keep the product code-name until it is out of beta"; nothing on a current model Tesla deserves being called "self-driving" in any way.

My understanding is that a human is //supposed// to be observing the vehicle the entire time that smart summon is in use, hence why the end-user has to hold down a button on the app the entire time the vehicle is in motion.

My understanding is that smart summon operates on a completely different set of rules than navigate on city streets, even though they might share some common functionality, like object detection and mapping.

Ahh, see that's the give and take of Tesla - marketing vs legal.

The marketing text for Summon literally says "Your car comes to you while you deal with a fussy child".

Disclaimer: do not use while distracted (like by a fussy child, for example) and always pay attention.

As a baseline it's supposed to avoid running into objects. It doesn't seem to be able to do this relatively simple task very well even at 5mph, which is why you need to watch it like a hawk. Basically nobody sane ever uses it at all after they've tested it a few times.

It runs into the tail of the plane, which is sticking out over the place it wants to travel, and pretty high up (it appears to collide with the top of the windshield).

It's understandable why it may not be designed to check that situation, as it is not one you'd normally find in a parking lot (unless maybe a parking lot full of semi trailers).

I guess they assume they don’t have to check for high objects because if it’s in a height restricted parking garage when smart summon is activated, then by definition it must have fit past any restrictions originally on the way in.

It is absolutely not understandable or excusable! This is a company who claims that they have self-driving technology at or above the level of human safety. Driving into something that your car can't fit under isn't an edge case. It's just baseline, minimum viable product.

Tesla is going to do more harm to the prospects of self-driving cars than anyone. Their "test in production" attitude is going to not only cost (more) lives but also force the government to strictly regulate the tech delaying the other companies that are acting responsibly.

> It's understandable why it may not be designed to check that situation, as it is not one you'd normally find in a parking lot (unless maybe a parking lot full of semi trailers).

Sounds pretty similar to the accidents involving trailers, where the top of the cars were sheared off because it didn't detect anything there.

> Neither Brown nor the car braked for a tractor-trailer, which had turned left in front of the Tesla and was crossing its path. Brown’s Tesla also went beneath the trailer and its roof was sheared off. After that crash Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company made changes in its system so radar would play more of a role in detecting objects.

They got rid of radar, so I wonder if that's made it again more difficult to detect these scenarios.

Also because accidents involving slow moving cars crashing into above ground objects tend to result in property damage not injuries.

It seems like nothing irreplaceable (like human life or health) was lost or even at risk in this case.

Can't Tesla having satellite maps, the position of the owner and the car make sure a line of sight is even possible?

I keep rolling my eyes at Tesla's passing the buck onto the human element.

Oh, whoops, our FSD car hit a deer. The driver should've been prepared to stop the car.

Well of course, but when a Volvo with last generation technology can safely stop the car, that's not an excuse.

There should be some sensor to distinguish hits on the chassis or on the wheels, at the very least it should create distinct noises on an accellerometer.

Should be able to tell from the suspension. If front extends before back, rocking the chassis backwards at all, then you hit something above the axle line.

But… minor bumps != airplane…

Does an airplane provide substantially more resistance than trying to roll through a decent sized pothole without the benefit of much momentum?

That airplane is small enough it probably gets dragged around by hand when it's not chocked. The chocks small airports tend to use are pretty small to fit under the wheel fairings many small planes have. I can see it pushing the aircraft around by the tail.

Fair enough. So judging by resistance alone may not be enough….

Needs additional forward facing sensors then? (For both long and short distance object detection?)

Earlier on in Autopilot/FSD beta testing it was easier to overlook edge cases like this but I think we’re several years into this now and I’m starting to feel that at this stage it should be almost impossible for these cars to be driving into stationary objects.

I’m a proponent of what Tesla are doing but they need to solve this ASAP now, whether by hardware or software, before it erodes too much more confidence (especially as it’s all too easy for people to extrapolate from these documented edge cases and believe these vehicles to be less safe than they actually are).

> That airplane is small enough it probably gets dragged around by hand when it's not chocked.

Vision Jet weighs 6,000 lb at MTOW. So, unlikely.

6,000 pounds rolling weight is nothing much, it probably does get moved by hand using a tow bar.

I've moved similar planes myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com