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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20 2022, @09:13PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20 2022, @09:13PM (#1254755)

    >redundancy doesn't automatically increase reliability or reduce risk.

    If you handle the information poorly, no.

    >It reminds me of a classic quip: a man with two watches doesn't know what time it is.

    This must make more sense to conservatives. Making decisions is certainly easier when your input information is limited, but wearing blinders doesn't enable better decision making - except to reduce confusion on the part of the decision maker, and that's more of a fault in the decision maker than anything else.

    I might suggest that a little maturity, training, learning how to deal with the additional information, learning how to tell good information from bad, all these things are apparently hard for a lot of people, but constructed decision making systems are not people - they can be taught how to use multiple input channels to check each other, and make at least as good of a decision as a single input system would all the time, but make better decisions when the additional information is available and valuable.

    As long as it's not like my robot lawnmower that packs it up and refuses to move when one sensor is detected out of expected range, but cheerfully mows along when a sensor is stuck in mid-range. Yes, constructed systems can be made like befuddled people, but it's not an actual required property of the constructed system.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @09:31PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20 2022, @09:31PM (#1254759) Journal

    It reminds me of a classic quip: a man with two watches doesn't know what time it is.

    This must make more sense to conservatives. Making decisions is certainly easier when your input information is limited, but wearing blinders doesn't enable better decision making - except to reduce confusion on the part of the decision maker, and that's more of a fault in the decision maker than anything else.

    Which watch has the right time? And reducing confusion on the part of the decision maker does sound helpful, even if that were the only reason to do this. Let's keep in mind that was the actual purpose of wearing blinders historically - horses and other draft animals could be distracted by stuff happening in their peripheral vision. Blinders helped with that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @08:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @08:50PM (#1255452)

      > It reminds me of a classic quip: a man with two watches doesn't know what time it is.

      A man with two watches has a choice.
      ftfy

      Reminds me of the wall clock at a popular college hangout (1970s)--it was set ~10 minutes fast on purpose. Even had a sign to that effect taped next to the clock. Was a big help in getting to classes on time!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @02:14AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @02:14AM (#1255181)

    I think it is the classic fallacy of mistaking an absence of evidence with evidence of absence. If a person has two watches and they disagree, all that adds is provide evidence that one or both of the watches is wrong. With just one watch, you have no such evidence even if it is wrong. The person with one watch doesn't have that additional evidence as to the accuracy of his watch. Consequently, they can't ever know what the time is now thanks to the Gettier Problem. Instead the single watch makes it so they can act as if they know, or believe in the belief as Dennett put it.