SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
While it may not be all that surprising to SN readers, some data on "self driving" cars has now hit the big time, WaPo reports: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/15/tesla-autopilot-crashes/
Tesla vehicles running its Autopilot software have been involved in 273 reported crashes over roughly the past year, according to regulators, far more than previously known and providing concrete evidence regarding the real-world performance of its futuristic features.
The numbers, which were published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for the first time Wednesday, show that Tesla vehicles made up nearly 70 percent of the 392 crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems reported since last July, and a majority of the fatalities and serious injuries — some of which date back further than a year. Eight of the Tesla crashes took place before June 2021, according to data released by NHTSA on Wednesday morning.
And 5 of 6 fatalities were linked with Tesla cars, the other was one of the competing Level 2 systems offered by other automakers.
WaPo continues,
The new data set stems from a federal order last summer requiring automakers to report crashes involving driver assistance to assess whether the technology presented safety risks. Tesla's vehicles have been found to shut off the advanced driver-assistance system, Autopilot, around one second before impact, according to the regulators.
The NHTSA order required manufacturers to disclose crashes where the software was in use within 30 seconds of the crash, in part to mitigate the concern that manufacturers would hide crashes by claiming the software wasn't in use at the time of the impact. [Ed: Emphasis provided by the submitter.]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20 2022, @04:03PM (16 children)
So, which is better? Adding $1000 per year maintenance, or being involved in an accident? I would rather replace two or three sensors annually, than to run over some stupid kid who ran out in front of me to fetch a ball, and the car didn't see him because his shirt was the same color as the parked car he ran from behind. Or, whatever other excuse the software engineers came up with.
Self driving cars have one major selling point: they are supposed to be safer than human drivers. If the computer is not safer than humans, you have no real selling points.
Put the array of sensors on the vehicle, wait for the maintenance problems to occur, then go about fixing those problems. Given time, someone will create a better sensor, someone will find a way to better integrate all those sensors, someone else will come up with a better driving program, then yet again, someone will improve the sensitivity of the senors to produce fewer false positives, etc etc. Early adopters pay the cost, of course. That's the way it always has been, no need to change now.
(Score: 1, Funny) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @04:38PM (5 children)
That's a lot of maintenance. I'm going with the accident.
That's not much of a scenario.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @05:13PM (1 child)
Externalized costs, not my problem. The kid was probably a dumbass anyway, it's not like we lost a cure for cancer here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @07:59PM
So is that $1k in additional maintenance costs.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20 2022, @06:26PM (2 children)
Why did I already know your answer to that question?
That's not much of a scenario.
We can draw and paint real life scenarios all day long. Snowy day, heavy snowfall, gusting winds blowing the snow around at random. An infrared sensor is almost certainy going to "see" a warm, glowy, human body in all that cold. But, your visible light sensors don't see the guy who just stepped (or even slipped) into the street ahead of you, because the snow is swirling in an opaque wall. But, you don't care about him, as much as you care about replacing a faulty sensor or two.
That is precisely why I find fault with Elon, as well as yourself. Give the car as many senses as reasonably possible. Without those added senses, the cars can't become any safer than a good human driver.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @07:56PM (1 child)
You can kill more people with defective transportation systems than you can with sensor edge cases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @07:58PM
Indeed, of the visibility is that bad, you shouldn't be driving. Sensors don't change that, they just change what constitutes as so bad that you're going to run into it over something if you drive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @05:13PM (2 children)
Yep, and I'm sure before too long that they'll have the cost of any sensors that need be replacing down to something reasonable, or that it would be covered by not needing to spend so much on insurance. Yes, the example $1k a year is a lot compared with the cost of insurance, but insurance covers potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses when something does happen.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @06:59PM (1 child)
Does that $1k per year reduce liability or increase it? Consider this all-too-common scenario. The manufacturer's vehicle is involved in a collision. It is found that prior to the crash the lidar system (one of the three sensor channels) had a couple of defective sensors. The owner of the vehicle was ignoring the sensor warning light and the hardware engineered slower speed of the vehicle. They (and the drivers of the other vehicle) argue that they aren't at fault. Everyone sues the manufacturer, arguing that they allowed a malfunctioning vehicle to be auto-drived.
Consider a second scenario. There's a couple of sensors out in the visual light sensors, the only sensors on the vehicle. Auto-driving is outright disabled with suitable warnings. Since the owner was driving the vehicle, they are deemed at fault. The manufacturer isn't sued.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @08:45PM
> There's a couple of sensors out in the visual light sensors, the only sensors on the vehicle. Auto-driving is outright disabled with suitable warnings. Since the owner was driving the vehicle, they are deemed at fault. The manufacturer isn't sued.
Except: I've heard of cases where manufacturer A was sued for not providing something that manufacturers B & C did supply. For example, if B & C supplied redundant cameras, or camera-cleaning systems, A could be sued for not supplying said feature(s). The problem is that the manufacturer usually has the deepest pockets, so they are always sued by product liability lawyers (aka ambulance chasers), along with other parties that are closer to the accident.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @05:24PM (6 children)
Are all sensors perfectly capable of telling the computer their broken/failing? The more sensors there are, the more combinations of uncommon/hard-to-predict-in-testing failure cases it runs into. Sure the care will be safer when everything's working, but it will be expensive to figure out how it fails when X sensor is in degraded state Y and sensor Z is in state W ... and it doesn't sound like Tesla will be spending that money in closed laboratory testing paid out of their pockets alone.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20 2022, @06:32PM (5 children)
It would be nice if failing sensors inform the computer of that fact.
But, we don't even need to experience failures for the system to fail. All we need are common occurrences that cause people to fail. Glare off of windows or ice, for instance. Fog, blowing snow, torrential rainfall, even blowing leaves might obstruct your view, and likewise, a visible light sensor's view. Or a dazzling sunrise/sunset. In each case, the sensors may be working perfectly within specs, but they fail to report an obstruction because the environment has gone out of spec.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @07:01PM (3 children)
Sorry, in that case, they should detect said obstruction, report that the environment has gone out of spec, and the vehicle should modify its driving behavior appropriately - just like a human driver would in the same situation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20 2022, @11:16PM (2 children)
Likewise, if a gust of snow laden wind obstructs your view for a critical 2 seconds, you should still detect the obstruction that has moved in front of you, and you should take the appropriate action to avoid the obstruction.
You're completely failing to make sense today. People frequently have accidents in inclement weather. You can expect sensors to also have accidents more frequently in inclement weather. And, once again, redundant sensors of different types should overcome some of mankind's failings.
Put visible light, lidar, and one other sensor type on the vehicle, even if it costs khallow an extra thousand dollars.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 21 2022, @02:09AM (1 child)
Indeed. It doesn't take me that long to determine my vision has been blocked. And I would slow down from an already slow speed.
Except when they don't because they fail so often that they are worse than useless.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 21 2022, @02:14AM
And, you naturally have statistics to back up that claim.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Monday June 20 2022, @11:05PM
Sensors of the sorts used in self-driving cars don't "report", they sense. That means they convert light, or other electromagnetic radiation, or sound, into electrical signals. A processor evaluates those signals to produce what could be called a report, which is then either used in the same processor to initiate action or sent to another processor to do that.