SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two Soylentils wrote in with news of a fatal accident involving a Tesla vehicle. Please note that the feature in use, called "Autopilot" is not the same as an autonomous vehicle. It provides lane-keeping, cruise control, and safe-distance monitoring, but the driver is expected to be alert and in control at all times. -Ed.
Man Killed in Crash of 'Self-Driving' Car
Tech Insider reports that an Ohio man was killed on 7 May when his Tesla Model S, with its autopilot feature turned on, went under a tractor-trailer.
Further information:
- Tesla Motors blog
- NHTSA report
- video uploaded by the victim, demonstrating use of the autopilot feature
Tesla Autopilot - Fatal Accident
Accident is reported to have happened in May, and reported to NHTSA/DOT immediately by Tesla. But not public until the end of June -- something a bit fishy about this reporting lag.
On the other hand, the accident is described as one that might have also been difficult for an alert human to have avoided:
The May crash occurred when a tractor trailer drove across a divided highway, where a Tesla in autopilot mode was driving. The Model S passed under the tractor trailer, and the bottom of the trailer hit the Tesla vehicle's windshield.
"Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied," Tesla wrote.
This was the first reporting found--by the time it makes the SN front page there may be more details. Because this is a "first" it seems likely that a detailed investigation and accident reconstruction will be performed.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @02:01AM
Was the driver of the tractor trailer at fault? If the truck unexpectedly crossed over the median strip that's one thing, but if it happened at an intersection that's quite another. And one would expect the intersection to be governed by traffic lights or stop signs - who had the right of way?
As far as the Tesla driver not noticing the truck either, that's pretty weak. S/he was probably messing around on his phone or something because the car was driving itself.
Eventually the Feds are going to step in and call for regulation. It's not going to be enough for the Silicon Valley guys to say we're the elite, we have engineers with multiple PhD's who are the cream of the crop, and besides, this is all in beta. That may be, but public safety is directly at stake here, just as it is with trad drivetrain vehicles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Friday July 01 2016, @02:08AM
Depending on the re-creation of the accident it might be to neither human of AI could have avoided it.
Even with the best of programing, I anticipate errors. The question will be the average accidents compared to a human driver. My suspicion is even poor AI will perform better than most drivers.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Friday July 01 2016, @02:12AM
And a hell of a lot better than my spelling correction.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday July 01 2016, @04:28PM
If only we had a spellcheck AI. :)
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Friday July 01 2016, @05:14AM
"This is the first known fatality in just over 130 million miles where Autopilot was activated. Among all vehicles in the US, there is a fatality every 94 million miles,"
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by butthurt on Friday July 01 2016, @06:52AM
If drivers tend to turn on the autopilot feature mainly when travelling on expressways, but turn it off for surface streets, then the statistics reflect different driving conditions.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 01 2016, @02:09AM
Eventually the Feds are going to step in and call for regulation.
Agreed. Auto pilot is not self driving, but its temptingly close enough to cause drivers to get careless.
It probably shouldn't be offered.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by black6host on Friday July 01 2016, @02:35AM
In the driver's video, in bumper to bumper traffic he states that although it's a slower drive at least he doesn't have to worry about anything. "You just let it go." I think it's quite possible if someone has spent a fair amount of time using autopilot that it would be easy to start taking things for granted.
I have no way of knowing if the driver was complacent or acutely alert when the accident happened. From his comments in the video I doubt he was acutely alert.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday July 01 2016, @03:16AM
Agreed. In fact it would be extremely difficult to maintain attention on the road for an extended period without any need to react to it. There's a name for such inactive attention: meditation. And most people find it quite unpleasant without a lot of practice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @08:20AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @03:18PM
exactly: very unpleasant without practice.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by CirclesInSand on Friday July 01 2016, @04:45AM
we have engineers with multiple PhD's who are the cream of the crop
So. Engineers who are well qualified, have a financial interest in performing well, and as you say are "the cream of the crop" aren't good enough.
You want government employees to be in charge. Perhaps that is not such a good idea.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @06:03AM
Government doesn't design, it makes something unlawful. Government regulation is nothing but a disincentive, and it ought to be there if my personal safety is being bargained against profit.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @05:07PM
the disincentive is supposed to be well informed consumers who vote with their currency, not your beloved slave master state. you're like a grown baby with a dirty diaper crying for your mommy to change you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday July 01 2016, @02:39PM
What if, and I know this is crazy talk, the government hires some of those engineers with multiple PhDs who are the cream of the crop, and has those engineers check their fellow engineers' work and make sure it won't break catastrophically? And we give them the power to nix management if management decides to overrule their engineers with multiple PhDs? Wouldn't that be effectively putting the smart engineers in charge, while reducing the power of not-so-smart or at least not-so-cream-of-the-crop management? Why is there this idea that as soon as somebody becomes a government employee, they lose all the skill and professionalism they had when they went into the job in the first place?
That's where government involvement can be valuable: Stopping companies with an incentive to think as follows: "Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 01 2016, @05:13PM
Why is there this idea that as soon as somebody becomes a government employee, they lose all the skill and professionalism they had when they went into the job in the first place?
I think you'll find those that have all that much skill and professionalism invariably end up in government, which often pays well enough to attract just these. For every Warner Von Braun employed by government, there tend to be a lot of posers and industrial washouts.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Friday July 01 2016, @11:14PM
It is a sign of political immaturity to talk about goals rather than policies.
The policy you want to put in place is "create a government organization that has veto power over which products go to market". In your imagination, this achieves a goal of government employees hiring the best and brightest engineers who for some reason are out for hire rather than working in the industry. The motivation of the business owners not to kill their customers isn't enough, those government employees have a better motivation: altruism. So the government employees will save us from the greedy businessmen who don't realize that killing your customers is bad business.
Now this is what happens in reality. The government program is created. They are immediately swamped by lobbyists hired by the incumbent owners in the industry. Those lobbyists will tell the government employees which "engineers" to hire. Those government fake engineers will pretend to understand safety better than the actual designers. The government employees now have 3 groups of people to try to appease: (1) the incumbent business owners who have a lot of money and clout enough to make life and election hell for the regulators, (2) customers, who never had a problem anyway, because the business owners don't want to kill their customers, and (3) voters who don't actually know what the new government program does. Guess which one will have the most influence.
This is called regulatory capture. They pretend it takes a long time for this to happen, but in reality it happens immediately and people pretend not to notice for as long as possible.
Now you have an organization with the power to shut down competition with no one to worry about except the incumbent business owners. The business owners are now compelled by law to exploit every legal ability they have to promote their own business (it is called fiduciary responsibility), not to mention a personal interest in doing so. So what do you think happens when a new company shows up with a competing product? If you said "healthy competition, both sides trying to show customers that their product is safer", you got zero points. The new company will be forced to go through a gauntlet of hurdles put in place by the government, none of them will be motivated by safety, all of them will be motivated by the lobbyists of the incumbent industry. A time tested technique is to simply make tests expensive, rather than useful, so that only the incumbent businesses can afford to pass them. Another common technique is to make the tests subjective, so it all is decided by who can bribe the regulators more.
A lack of competition actually makes things less safe because no one is at the mercy of customers any more. Management will be replaced by those who are better at litigating rather than those who are better at designing (Steve Jobs was exactly this).
If anyone at this point is thinking "well, we'll create a regulatory agency to regulate the regulators", then I pity them.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday July 01 2016, @05:24PM
Most intersections do NOT have traffic lights or stop signs in rural areas. Many places where a truck would be turning off a road into a factory or warehouse lot would also not have traffic lights.
OTOH should the truck have turned left at that time? Not if the truck driver saw the car approaching, but if there was a curve or hill shortening distance of view, or if the car was speeding (suggested by the distance traveled after the collision), then the truck driver's judgement would have been incomplete.
OTOOH would an attentive driver have seen a white truck against a bright sky, in time to hit the brakes? Again, distance of view matters a lot. And a driver might have noticed the tractor and not been as sure of the trailer, but still slowed down just in case.
I have seen white and grey trailers that would blend with a cloudy sky; one would think that reflective strips all along the length of a truck (if there is no other bright logo) would not be an impairment of aerodynamic efficiency. A very minor change for a big improvement in visibility.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday July 01 2016, @05:38PM
Reflective material all along the trailer is already the law in the US, But that only works if your headlights are on and bright enough to over power a setting sun in your eyes.
This was a 4 lane divided highway. These are seldom built with at-grade "unprotected crossings" in the US. (Where unprotected means no lights or stop signs). You will occasionally see them as temporary work-site access, with plenty of warnings about crossing trucks etc.
If the divide highway had stop signs for a truck crossing that's a design flaw, but very occasionally you find such.
If the truck crossing didn't have stop signs that's a design flaw.
If the truck failed to stop that's a moving violation.
If the truck pulled out in front of oncoming traffic, that's a moving violation. (A 12 point violation usually).
UNLESS there was some form of stop sign/signal for the divided highway, this accident was probably caused by the truck driver.
Autopilot and car driver inattention and setting sun were merely contributory, not causal.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.