Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday June 20 2022, @09:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the say-goodnight-elon dept.

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.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @05:13PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @05:13PM (#1254668)

    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)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20 2022, @06:59PM (#1254702) Journal

    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.

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @08:45PM (#1254744)

      > 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.