Slashdot Mirror


Second Tesla Autopilot Crash Under Review By US Regulators (time.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Wall Street Journal and many other publications are reporting that U.S. auto-safety regulators are currently reviewing a second crash that occurred while Tesla's Autopilot mode was activated. The Detroit Free Press reports that a Michigan art gallery owner told police that he survived a rollover crash that happened when his Tesla Model X was in self-driving mode last Friday. The newspaper didn't disclose any additional details regarding what led up to the accident and whether or not the driver was to blame. Last week, it was reported that U.S. regulators were investigating Tesla after a fatal crash occurred involving a vehicle using the Autopilot mode. Tesla said in a statement after that incident, "This is the first known fatality in just over 130 million miles where Autopilot was activated." They also said Autopilot "is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times."

392 comments

  1. Robots Revolt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The robots are starting to revolt and killing a few people at a time...

    1. Re:Robots Revolt! by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is just sloppy reporting. A Tesla crashed, must be another autopilot case, don't bother to actually check the facts. Even make up nonexisting statements from police reports, why not.

      The actual police report does not mention autopilot, contrary to what some news reports are claiming. Tesla has not been able to review the logs yet because the antenna got damaged in the accident. They have been trying to contact the owner in order to get access to the logs but so far have not been able to reach them.

      At this point, it looks like this accident has nothing to do with autopilot.

    2. Re:Robots Revolt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were the driver, I'd not let them have access. It can only cause him pain. Unfortunately, telsa will demand access before they do any repairs...

    3. Re: Robots Revolt! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Why would it cause him pain?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Robots Revolt! by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Insurance companies will total the car by policy of the wheels leave the ground. Some are more strict about this than others. Once the car is totaled out it's towed to a salvage yard where they auction the scrap off for parts.

      It might, or might not, benefit the Insurance companies to make sure autonomous cars never have a chance and use this opportunity to look at the logs themselves first. They own the car the moment the owner releases it to them. "Totaled" is just a purchase offer.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    5. Re:Robots Revolt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The robots are starting to revolt and killing a few people at a time...

      But they're killing rich people, so whose side are the robots on? I'm conflicted on this one.

    6. Re:Robots Revolt! by D.McG. · · Score: 1

      Not always true. In Massachusetts, I've totaled a vehicle before. The insurance company paid the total, and I kept the car. I could have fixed it myself if I wanted to, but I did not have to surrender the car to them in order to be paid.

      Think this through logically. Let's say my car is worth $5000 in the eyes of the insurance company. If the repair shop says that it will cost $4999 dollars to repair, then the insurance company writes a check for $4999 and I repair my car. If the repair shop says it will cost $5001 dollars to repair, the insurance company doesn't magically purchase my damaged car for only $2 more, they write a check for the maximum of $5000 and I find a dollar to make up the difference. The car is still repaired and I get to keep it.

    7. Re:Robots Revolt! by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I have run a wrecker company attached to a body shop in Florida and in some cases you *can* keep in the car if you accept payment below the cost the company has which is typically KBB. In other cases like Ford Expeditions they can get a LOT more for the car at the auction yard and will fight you tooth and claw to total it. It's not helped by the fact that people think the Insurance company is a govt entity because the law requires you to have Insurance.

      The context here was some Ins companies automatically total the car if it's wheels have left the pavement, as well as any car older than 10 years for anything needing more than a minor paint job. I don't know about brand new cars like the Tesla, and who their underwriter was though.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    8. Re:Robots Revolt! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      What I've seen is that the insurance company will sell you your old car back for essentially the scrap value. So if the car is worth $5000, the scrap value $300, so you keep the car and they write you a check for $4700. It can make sense to do this if you think you can get the car fixed cheaper, or in the case of older, low value cars that can be "totaled" from minor damage - just not fix the car and drive it as-is. I've seen them "total" cars for hail damage before.

  2. It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are deliberately crashing and dying in horrible gruesome accidents because the car companies pay them. It's all a conspiracy against my perfect car and its perfect software. /Musk.

    1. Re:It's a conspiracy! by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      People didn't die and Tesla hasn't gotten access to the data from the vehicle, obvious Musk conspiracy.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an obvious parody of Musk. Whenever there's a problem, instead of fessing up and fixing it, he attacks the messenger.

      So a Tesla drives under a parked truck, and he digs in the data and says the man engaged autopark while not safe. And the same flaw (ignoring stuff at windscreen height), then occurred again, this time with a man in the car, killed by a trailer across the road. Tesla's response? Blame the driver for failing to spot the trailer when the car is in autopilot mode.

      Now we get his recent claims that criticism by a magazine of Autopilot is a conspiracy against Tesla, well that's his usual bollocks.

    3. Re:It's a conspiracy! by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Conspiracies are the homeopathy of the paranoid delusional; the less evidence there is, the more true it must be!

      =Smidge=

    4. Re:It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame the driver for failing to spot the trailer when the car is in autopilot mode.

      Use your fucking common sense while operating a moving vehicle. Autopilot doesn't mean you can leave the car unattended.

    5. Re: It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just rather it doesnt require you to keep hands on the wheel...

    6. Re:It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is

      -Smudge-

    7. Re:It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use your fucking common sense while operating a moving vehicle. Autopilot doesn't mean you can leave the car unattended.

      Over 90% of driving involves paying attention to what's on the road, especially on the freeway. Handling the steering wheel, changing acceleration or applying brakes takes very little time. So if "autopilot" is engaged, and I still have to watch the road, what's the point? I only saved like 10% of effort. You're the one with no common sense.

    8. Re:It's a conspiracy! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Whenever there's a problem, instead of fessing up and fixing it, he attacks the messenger.

      Yes, that's why the F9 strut didn't get fixed and that's why Tesla and the other company aren't fixing the car's vision system...oh, wait!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm beta testing software I'm going to assume it will fail at some point. Once the software has been released with it's 1st service pack I will be comfortable enough to eat breakfast. 2nd service pack and I will text. 3rd, watch a movie. By the 5th or 6th maybe I will be comfortable enough to take a nap.

    10. Re: It's a conspiracy! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Really? What messengers has musk attacked? He has gone after liars that are trying to pull a load of BS. Like you.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    11. Re: It's a conspiracy! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No, this is known to be a level 3 autonomy and requires watching. We are required to sign off on that. And those Tesla drivers that are making heavy use say that it not only works great, but makes life easy on them.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re: It's a conspiracy! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Why are you signing your bottom?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. Top signing is where it is at, Mr Coward.

    14. Re: It's a conspiracy! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      One of those Tesla fanbois is conspicuously missing lately, at least his head is.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re: It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, AC, but not only do you lack common sense, you lack logical sense as well. Do you not see the point in cruise control as well? You can't take a nap using it either. It saves maybe 10% effort as well, but that's a hell of a nice savings to have in my book. You simply want to hate for hates sake.

    16. Re:It's a conspiracy! by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      It sounds like "Autopilot" is a very useful feature, and one has to pay attention only when there's a giant trailer blocking the road in front of you. Otherwise, smooth sailing.

  3. Hoping by TimMD909 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Here's hoping that a few fools silly enough to trust their lives, and by extension others' lives, with something in beta doesn't mess up everything for autonomous vehicle research.

    1. Re:Hoping by speedplane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's hoping that a few fools silly enough to trust their lives, and by extension others' lives, with something in beta doesn't mess up everything for autonomous vehicle research.

      Here's hoping that companies have the ethics to not deceptively name their products as being more autonomous than they are. The term "autopilot" strongly suggests an automatic pilot, i.e., with little or no human intervention. Tesla created a media firestorm with their "Autopilot" feature, which very likely increased the number of deposits placed on the Model 3, bumping their bottom line. But the truth is that "Autopilot" is nothing at all like an autopilot. Tesla's branding, marketing and product information is misleading, deceptive, and already appears to have taken a life. I love technology, but I despise misleading claims, especially deadly ones.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    2. Re:Hoping by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Well that depends on what you think an Autopilot actually is, doesn't it? An avionics autopilot pretty much flies in a straight line and warns you if it notices something it doesn't know how to deal with, with the assumption that you have at least one or two pilots at the helm at all times monitoring for more complex problems. The Tesla autopilot is far more competent that that.

      On the other hand, in the air there's rarely any nearby obstructions, nor surprises other than turbulance, so the urgency of maintaining attention is far less - if it takes you 10 seconds to asses the situation you probably still have plenty of time to recover. So the autopilot doesn't need to be particularly competent to maintain adequate safety margins. And, even among pilots that should really know better, there are periodic airline crashes due to pilots assuming the autopilot is something more than "cruise control with course corrections".

      Regardless of what you think the name implies though, releasing such half-baked semi-autonomous driving systems is completely irresponsible - the entire purpose of the system is to diminish the required human input to the point that intervention is only required in rare "corner cases" separated by, on average, hundreds or thousands of hours of uneventful operation in which you learn to trust its infallibility. Given the well-understood weaknesses in human risk assessment and attention maintenance, there's no way such a won't be horribly abused by almost all operators.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re: Hoping by inking · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, it does not matter at all how you or I interpret the meaning of "autopilot" to be. Until Tesla limits their sales to licensed aviation specialists, the only thing that matters is what a legal reasonable man thinks as determined by the courts. I am curious as to where this is going to go, but I have some considerations about Tesla convincing anyone of this interpretation of "autopilot" being a common one.

    4. Re:Hoping by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Here's hoping that a few fools silly enough to trust their lives, and by extension others' lives, with something in beta doesn't mess up everything for autonomous vehicle research.

      Here's hoping that companies have the ethics to not deceptively name their products as being more autonomous than they are. The term "autopilot" strongly suggests an automatic pilot, i.e., with little or no human intervention. Tesla created a media firestorm with their "Autopilot" feature, which very likely increased the number of deposits placed on the Model 3, bumping their bottom line. But the truth is that "Autopilot" is nothing at all like an autopilot. Tesla's branding, marketing and product information is misleading, deceptive, and already appears to have taken a life. I love technology, but I despise misleading claims, especially deadly ones.

      I have a label too; Darwin Award Winner, as I rather despise fucking idiots who can't read the manual. I'm fairly certain the flashing-lights-beta-mode warning signs were thought of well before putting this technology in the hands of the average moron with more money than brains.

    5. Re: Hoping by geekmux · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, it does not matter at all how you or I interpret the meaning of "autopilot" to be. Until Tesla limits their sales to licensed aviation specialists, the only thing that matters is what a legal reasonable man thinks as determined by the courts. I am curious as to where this is going to go, but I have some considerations about Tesla convincing anyone of this interpretation of "autopilot" being a common one.

      Is there still a steering wheel mounted in the car? Was it not printed in the manual as to the limitations of this technology, along with beta-tech-idiot warning lights that most likely come on when you engage this feature?

      I'd say the reasonable answer is rather obvious. It's called RTFM.

      Let's hope the courts aren't forced to side with Darwin (as in Awards).

    6. Re: Hoping by inking · · Score: 1

      By that logic, you may as well sell rat poison labeled as milk, as long as you put enough warning labels on the back. As for Darwin Awards, stay classy.

    7. Re:Hoping by bhv · · Score: 1

      Googletube is the knower of all, why read a "Manual" when you can watch one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    8. Re: Hoping by geekmux · · Score: 1

      By that logic, you may as well sell rat poison labeled as milk, as long as you put enough warning labels on the back. As for Darwin Awards, stay classy.

      No, not quite. By refusing to placate to idiots, perhaps we can dispense with do not use in bathtub warnings on blowdryers and curling irons, or hot coffee being dispensed with careful moron, this is hot labels.

      Sorry, but I grow tired of litigation needing to label every human as dumb as the dumbest one.

    9. Re: Hoping by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The presence of a steering wheel doesn't mean there isn't a safe autopilot mode. It can well be for situations where it's easier to maneuver the car than to tell the autopilot where to go. (It isn't, of course, but having a steering wheel isn't evidence that autopilot isn't safe.) People don't read manuals, in general.

      The problem of relying on the Darwin Awards is that people who screw up driving kill other people besides themselves. (They may also have reproduced already, in which case they're not eligible unless they also kill their offspring.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You know what would be awesome? A manual Tesla car. You know, a regular car with an electric motor. Why do they have to force the maximum bells and whistles? I can't be the only one who would want this.

    1. Re:Why not? by gweilo8888 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because they're operating solely on hype. Bells and whistles and form-before-function design are what generate hype. If anything, expect any negative publicity from these incidents to cause Tesla to double-down on the hype, and therefore, on the bells and whistles. (In fact, based on Musk's utterly disingenuous and insupportable claims about the number of people who would be saved if Tesla's autopilot function were standard in every car, they're already doubling down on it.)

    2. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't sound like you know much about car design in general or the Tesla in particular.

    3. Re: Why not? by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      ...he said, anonymously and without a single citation to back that up. Care to show a single incorrect statement I made in that post?

    4. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      autopilot is an add-on (something like $5k) depending on whether or not your car already has the needed sensors. You don't HAVE to buy it. You can have a "normal" electric Tesla.

    5. Re:Why not? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So then buy a Tesla.
      It's not like you need to use the functionality. Heck you need to jump through some serious hoops to use it.

  5. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every moron that keeps destroying the planet will die.

  6. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every moron that keeps destroying the planet will die.

    Yes with thier coal powerd electric cars billowing smug and blinding everyone.

  7. Autopilot by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like Elon, electric vehicles, and autonomous vehicles. But I hope they get hit hard for calling their adaptive cruise control feature "autopilot".

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But I hope they get hit hard for calling their adaptive cruise control feature "autopilot".

      Why? That is what it is...

      Do you think airplane pilots who are using the autopilot are allowed to just ignore what is going on and watch a movie?

      How about private pilots in little 4 seat planes that have autopilots? Can they just have a nap while the plane flies?

    2. Re:Autopilot by TroII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you think airplane pilots who are using the autopilot are allowed to just ignore what is going on and watch a movie?

      Joe Average buying a car probably does think that, yes. Look at the comments anytime there's a news article about a crashed airliner and you'll see the ridiculous misconceptions the general public has about aviation. After Germanwings 9525, it became clear that a substantial number of people fully believe that the autopilot does everything from rotate to landing on every commercial flight, and that human pilots are an outmoded concept. (I'm aware that CATIII autoland exists, but it's rarely used.) I lost track of how many times I heard or saw someone say "the planes fly themselves these days anyway, if there wasn't a pilot, nobody would be in there to fly the plane into a mountain, we should get rid of pilots" etc.

    3. Re:Autopilot by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Auto means self. Pilot means pilot.
      If you call something an autopilot it must pilot itself.

    4. Re:Autopilot by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      Do you think airplane pilots who are using the autopilot are allowed to just ignore what is going on and watch a movie?

      Why watch a movie if you can also sleep: https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

    5. Re:Autopilot by speedplane · · Score: 1

      Auto means self. Pilot means pilot. If you call something an autopilot it must pilot itself.

      I agree with your premise, but just to nit here, "auto" is short for "automatic", which means working by itself with little or no direct human control. So technically autopilot means piloting with little or no direct human control.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    6. Re:Autopilot by speedplane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you think airplane pilots who are using the autopilot are allowed to just ignore what is going on and watch a movie?

      Pilots operating under autopilot do not need to "keep [their] hands on the steering wheel at all times." Tesla's "Autopilot" is not an autopilot. They created a media sensation with the deceptive "autopilot" marketing, and now they are rightly bearing the brunt of it.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    7. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything after the word "but" negated everything before it. You obviously don't like Elon. You logged in to bitch about him over something stupid. And aren't you one of the first people on this site to throw a republitard fit over "political correctness"? So what does it matter what they call it, hmmm?

    8. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, log out next time. No one is going to take anything a poster with your username is gonna say seriously. I know I don't.

    9. Re:Autopilot by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      I agree with your premise, but just to nit here, "auto" is short for "automatic",

      Not necessarily. "auto-" can be a prefix which means "self", as the GP posted. It can mean "automatic", when used in some compound words, but if you look at those words, the "self" is implied. So "autopilot" really does mean "self-piloting". The alternative would be "remote control".

      TL;DR: "auto" implies that the device does not rely on external control for its function.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    10. Re:Autopilot by sexconker · · Score: 2

      If you want to claim it comes from automatic, and not autonomous or anything else, then auto means self and matic means moving or thinking, from matos. Automatons are literally automatic things.

      If you claim autopilot means automatic pilot then that means the pilot is an automaton.

    11. Re: Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Auto" is short for "automobile" and "pilot" is short for "pilotages" so clearly an "autopilot" is a set of landmarks for guiding car voyages.

      In related news, "trade" is an act of commercial exchange and "mark" is a visual indicator of an object or location.

    12. Re:Autopilot by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I'd expect that (in large planes) the autopilot could land the plane, but that usually the pilot would land the plane when conditions are good, while if conditions are bad he'd have the autopilot land.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    13. Re:Autopilot by fnj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I like Elon, electric vehicles, and autonomous vehicles. But I hope they get hit hard for calling their adaptive cruise control feature "autopilot".

      Insightful, MY ASS. This is an ignorant observation. An autopilot is EXACTLY what the fuck it is. In an airplane, an autopilot controls the speed, altitude, and attitude including course. It doesn't do SHIT about collision avoidance. That is the subject of OTHER systems, and of manual vigilance.

      The Tesla's autopilot controls the speed and direction. There is no "altitude" control in a car, and the analog to "course" control is simply holding the lane. The Tesla does exactly this, PLUS it does collision avoidance, which an airplane autopilot does not.

      Now, how good is the Tesla's autopilot, is a separate issue. But claiming the name "autopilot" is misleading is just STUPID.

    14. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Large airplanes have been able to land themselves since the 1970s...

      That still doesn't mean the pilot can watch Netflix while the plane lands and if it crashes, it is still his fault...

    15. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      Pilots operating under autopilot do not need to "keep [their] hands on the steering wheel at all times."

      You're nitpicking, that is a minor detail that isn't material to the situation...

      Tesla's "Autopilot" is not an autopilot

      Yes, it is, in every way you could possibly consider it, it is an autopilot...

      What it is NOT is a "self-driving car"... Just like an airplane with an autopilot is not a "self-flying drone"...

    16. Re:Autopilot by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      Why? Autopilot is an accurate definition of what the system is and is not capable of. It is 100% consistent with the term we all know, a system which helps airplanes fly towards their destination which can't be left without pilot supervision and which hands over to the pilot when it doesn't know what is going on or when it needs to get ready to land.

    17. Re:Autopilot by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Because the term "auto-pilot" is deceptive in this context, despite your attempts to make parallels to a context that most people don't understand, and have no experience with. Most of your comments I agree with, but your attempt to defend Tesla's use of the word here is just dumb.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Autopilot by fnj · · Score: 2

      You can expect whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. An autopilot is not an automatic landing system. An automatic landing system has to interact with ground based support (instrument landing system or microwave landing system at the airport).

      And no, an automatic landing system isn't a magic cure for "bad" conditions. It shines in conditions of poor visibility, but aside from that benefit it in fact has severe limitations. In fact, the automatic landing system in a Boeing 747-400 cannot be used in a headwind or crosswind of over 25 knots (barely a strong breeze on the Beaufort scale), a tailwind of over 10 knots (Beaufort gentle breeze), or a crosswind of over 5(!) knots with one engine out (Beaufort light breeze, leaves barely rustle, anemometer barely turns). If there is wind shear or gusting, it must not be used at all.

      Autopilots were around for a long time before there were any automatic landing systems. Sperry demonstrated a hands-off autopilot in 1914 which could automatically maintain a straight-and-level attitude on an assigned compass course.

    19. Re:Autopilot by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It is because Boeing autolanding system is shit. Buran had no problems with automatic piloting and landing with a crosswind of 32 knots - near gale.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    20. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TL;DR: "auto" implies that the device does not rely on external control for its function.

      Unfortunately it appears many Tesla owners overestimate the capability of its function.

      I imagine most light aircraft pilots are fully aware that their autopilot, as long as it is maintaining the set altitude and heading, will happily fly the plane into another aircraft or mountain.

    21. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are completely different technologies, totally incomparable. When you're high in the air flying by autopilot above Minimum Safe Altitude altitude, there are practically no things to crash into. On ground, you can crash into everything - even the side of the road is dangerous.

    22. Re:Autopilot by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Airbus is pretty similarly limited. But then again, how often do you get high winds in foggy conditions? It only happens extremely rarely and it's not really worth the extra effort to develop and certify the system. Airlines can just divert to another airport or cancel the flight.

    23. Re:Autopilot by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Joe Average can afford a Tesla?

      Wow, the economy was recovering while I wasn't looking!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Autopilot by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      But I hope they get hit hard for calling their adaptive cruise control feature "autopilot".

      Do you think airplane pilots who are using the autopilot are allowed to just ignore what is going on and watch a movie?

      Do you think that operation of a Tesla is restricted to a highly trained and certified pilot?. Airplane manufacturers can call their system whatever they want to because:

      The operator is trained, and certified with the lingo (including "autopilot").

      There is a redundant operator.

      Pilots' training includes the definition of autopilot. Driver training does not. Don't blame the driver.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    25. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Pilots' training includes the definition of autopilot. Driver training does not. Don't blame the driver.

      Perhaps I should blame the driver training then, which is a complete joke in the United States anyway...

      If we treated driving as an earned privileged rather than a right, and had REAL training on how to drive, perhaps we'd have fewer problems...

    26. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but some one is still required drive to it. Its not auto drive .

    27. Re:Autopilot by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Pilots' training includes the definition of autopilot. Driver training does not. Don't blame the driver.

      Perhaps I should blame the driver training then, which is a complete joke in the United States anyway...

      Perhaps you should; maybe it should be updated to reflect what "autopilot" means.

      If we treated driving as an earned privileged rather than a right, and had REAL training on how to drive, perhaps we'd have fewer problems...

      True, but until that has happened, perhaps car manufacturers should take into account what words mean to the target market when they are doing their marketing. There is absolutely no doubt that the overwhelming target market for automobiles believes "autopilot" to mean "self-piloted".

      FWIW, I usually agree with you on most things, however with this particular issue the lingo matters. Hacker meant something very different from Cracker, but now it doesn't. The same thing happens with lots of words - when the overwhelming majority agrees on a certain definition then you can't very well wait for the first death to say "Well, we meant the original definition".

      Hell, even if everyone understood the word "autopilot" to mean "be ready to take control", you'd still get deaths because after 2 hours of not having to take control no driver is going to be in a position to take control of the vehicle fast enough to avoid an obstacle the car did not register.

      Either way, even ignoring the definition of "autopilot", this is still a dangerous system. Cars should be fully autonomous or not at all. Partially autonomous will lead to the driver not being ready to take over when the system fails to register a danger. Obstacle detection needs to be at least as good as human behaviour, and that requires true AI (which we also aren't going to see for quite a while).

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    28. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pilot means pilot.

      I'm glad we cleared that one up...

    29. Re:Autopilot by geekmux · · Score: 2

      I like Elon, electric vehicles, and autonomous vehicles. But I hope they get hit hard for calling their adaptive cruise control feature "autopilot".

      I don't give a fuck what they choose to call it. Anyone who engages such a feature without fully understanding what it means to put a car in charge of your life should be slapped repeatedly with the owners manual until the actually read the fucking thing.

      Sorry, but in this case, I don't feel like watching our legal system side with Darwin Award finalists. Humanity deserves better than that shit.

    30. Re:Autopilot by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Auto means self. Pilot means pilot. If you call something an autopilot it must pilot itself.

      And if you don't RTFM, then you deserve what you get.

      Sorry if that means we add a few to the illustrious list of Darwin Award winners. I have no stomach for placating to those with more money than brains.

    31. Re:Autopilot by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but does it have to pilot itself WELL?
      For example you could have an appropriately named "auto F1-Pilot" that crashes all the time and claim it is modeled after Maldonado...
      But, yeah, even if airplane autopilots are not exactly "leave it at auto and get a drink while it lands", I can see how many people can get confused with the nomenclature, especially if they try it a few times and it seems to them it is doing well enough. So, another name would be more appropriate...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    32. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Autopilot in airplanes is exactly the same as this thing.
      That people don't know what autopilot is or what is does is their own fault.
      This is almost as stupid as people putting their car in cruise control and just assuming they can take their feet away from the pedals and just adjust the speed with buttons.

    33. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No extant autopilot holds to that standard.

      And there are many aviation and nautical products called 'autopilots' and mostly they juts keep the vehicle going in a straight line or one a compass heading.

      It'd be pretty trivial to show in court that "drives a straight line" is well within the reasonable expectation of what an device needs to do to be called an autopilot based on what every otehr auto-pilot on the market does. And that it's only through ignorance of what the word auto-pilit means in reference to a real device that you could possibly conclude it should be smarter than that.

    34. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, its not even close to air auto pilot, which does allow you to take your hands off for long periods, and where instrument reading is a much more important element in safety. Being able to put more attention on airplane instrumentation is a safety benefit, whilst in a car even seconds that eyes are removed from the scene significantly increases risk. Claiming this system in a car is any way like airplane autopilot is STUPD. Air autopilot is much simpler and doesn't require rapid response to keep safe. In a plane you'll typically have minutes to respond to a warning instead of seconds or less in a car.

    35. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CATIII autoland does exist, and is used, just not in the USA. The FAA rules do not allow CATIII landings in the US. It is used quite regularly outside of the USA.

    36. Re:Autopilot by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Apparently the police report doesn't cite Autopilot, Tesla doesn't know if Autopilot was involved, and nobody involved has actually attributed this to Autopilot. We don't know what happened here.

      That said, as much as Tesla's autopilot functions *quite* well in practice, Google's LiDar is still superior. I said it was a mistake to not partner with Google, and I still stand by that.

    37. Re:Autopilot by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      4.9% UE3 down from 10%; 5.6% UE4; GDP-per-capita recovered from its dip a couple years ago.

    38. Re:Autopilot by speedplane · · Score: 1

      Pilots operating under autopilot do not need to "keep [their] hands on the steering wheel at all times."

      You're nitpicking, that is a minor detail that isn't material to the situation...

      Seriously, nitpicking? Pilots have many seconds, to a minute to respond to irregularities in autopilot control. Drivers of Tesla's "Autopilot" have less than a second. They aren't remotely the same.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    39. Re:Autopilot by jwhitener · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Autopilot, to people who are engineers, or familiar with planes, etc.. yes.

      The term autopilot does not convey the same meaning to an average person. When you market a product to people, often you should not use the correct terms. Sometimes you use terms that are technically not correct, but practically convey the meaning you need to get across to them.

      I deal with this often. Oftentimes a department will want to use legalese on a web site we are creating for them. We have to remind them that while yes, the terms they want to use are correct, very few of their readers will understand them.

      That said, none of that excuses someone driving a heavy killing machine without reading the manual first and following the guidelines in that manual...

    40. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Seriously, nitpicking? Pilots have many seconds, to a minute to respond to irregularities in autopilot control. Drivers of Tesla's "Autopilot" have less than a second. They aren't remotely the same.

      Your statement is not correct...

      Pilots have to be able to respond quickly to an autopilot that has lost control, they do not remotely have a minute...

    41. Re:Autopilot by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      parallels to a context that most people don't understand

      Not a single person who has ever seen a plane fails to understand this. Just go and ask a random person in a street if he would fly in a plane without a pilot, and then ask them about autopilot.

      People know the answer, they just fail to think. There's no reason to vilify a company which appropriately named an identical technology because of idiots.

      Or we could just take the Californian approach and put a warning label on the car "do not drive if stupid"

    42. Re:Autopilot by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Just go and ask a random person in a street if he would fly in a plane without a pilot, and then ask them about autopilot.

      I did. They said autopilot flies the plane itself. When I asked specifically about takoff and landing, they didn't know.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    43. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      4.9% UE3 down from 10%; 5.6% UE4; GDP-per-capita recovered from its dip a couple years ago.

      If those numbers were real, you'd see a rise in wages... Supply and demand and all that...

      But you don't, because they are a lie... I still see a lot of people having trouble finding work and when I post a job listing I'm overrun with applications...

    44. Re:Autopilot by speedplane · · Score: 1

      Pilots have far, far more time to correct an autopilot than Tesla allows to correct its "Autopilot". Further, pilots go through thousands of hours of training. How much training is required to operate Tesla's "Autopilot"? My point is that Tesla's "Autopilot" is not anything remotely equivalent to a commercial airliner's autopilot, and Tesla's marketing strategy callously blurs this line which, in this case, may have led to death.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    45. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      CATIII autoland does exist, and is used, just not in the USA. The FAA rules do not allow CATIII landings in the US. It is used quite regularly outside of the USA.

      And once again someone posts crap without knowing what the hell they are talking about, and this is why we have such idiots running our countries...

      https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...

      You are wrong, there are lots of US airports that allow Category III Autoland and have for decades...

    46. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Pilots have far, far more time to correct an autopilot than Tesla allows to correct its "Autopilot". Further, pilots go through thousands of hours of training. How much training is required to operate Tesla's "Autopilot"? My point is that Tesla's "Autopilot" is not anything remotely equivalent to a commercial airliner's autopilot, and Tesla's marketing strategy callously blurs this line which, in this case, may have led to death.

      How much training does your average Private Pilot have? 40 hours? 80 hours?

      A Cessna 172 with 4 seats has an autopilot... Do you know how much training on its use is required to obtain a Pilot Certificate?

      NONE... Zero, it is highly unlikely to be on the flight test (it technically can be, but it never has been in my experience)

    47. Re:Autopilot by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The funny thing about averages is that they don't tell you anything about the distribution. In other words, if a manager gets 20 millions now instead of 5 while a million workers get 5 dollars now where they used to get 10, the economy is on average getting better.

      Yay for statistics.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    48. Re:Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buran? Remind me again how many times that landed?

    49. Re:Autopilot by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If those numbers were real, you'd see a rise in wages

      Why? A rise in wages concentrates income into the hands of fewer people. There's the same amount of income per year because the consumer base has the same amount of money to spend, and higher wages means that spending directs to fewer hands. Fewer goods are bought, and the number of jobs goes down.

      Supply and demand and all that...

      This is a catch-all statement, like competition. While we can have a long and robust discussion about supply-and-demand or competition and the impact on markets in both a microeconomic and macroeconomic sense, you can't just handwave everything away by citing supply-and-demand.

      Supply-and-demand is in large part a result of scarcity, which is based in labor. Food is a prime example.

      Let's say there's a high demand for food and a low supply. If you have a lot of farm land, irrigation, and fertilizer available, you respond to a 10% increase in demand (which comes from a 10% increase in population) by hiring 10% more people into the massive infrastructure that produces food. Prices don't increase because costs don't increase. Competition factors into this because there are many food producers, and new food producers can appear with little barrier to entry.

      So you run out of good farm land.

      Now you have a 10% increase in population, thus demand; and you have to get 60% as much yield from the next block of land, all the while putting in the same field labor, twice as much fertilizer, and three times the irrigation. You have to farm over 67% more land, so the field labor increases; you use 3.33 times as much fertilizer; and you use 4.5 times as much water. All in all, to support the 10% demand increase, you must pay out 24% more wages--this particular food is 2.4 times as expensive.

      Intensive farming has continuously developed new methods to grow more food in less land, reducing labor, fertilizer load, irrigation, pesticide use, and so forth. When you can produce the same amount of food on 1/3 the land area, you can triple your demand without increasing costs, and so prices don't go up. THAT'S THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY.

      You don't see a rise in wages because labor is not in short supply. There are 9.6 million people in America available to the work force, and 8.5 million looking for jobs. Several million Americans LEAVE THE WORKFORCE every year (retirement!), and get replaced by newly-graduated college students and other fresh labor; jobs come at a rate of around 50,000 per month. Our workforce constantly gets refreshed with newer skills and younger workers.

      On top of all that, jobs are created by consumer demand--spending power. We're not riding a technical renaissance and there aren't imaginative investors throwing down money to create a bubble in hopes they can divert our upcoming economic growth into their pockets (e.g. the dot-com boom--money trickling down is an anomalous event); there's not a whole hell of a lot of fresh spending power rolling into the consumer base to create an enormous demand for new jobs. That only happens during anomalous events where rich investors are buying heavily into a bubble or prices are rapidly falling due to new technology ("rapidly" as in fast enough that the unemployment which leads to these falling prices doesn't pile up before the prices fall and the consumers show up with unspent money looking for more shit to buy).

      I still see a lot of people having trouble finding work and when I post a job listing I'm overrun with applications...

      Yep. 1 in 20 working-class Americans, heavily concentrated in the lower income classes. It'll show up as huge swaths of people who just don't seem to be finding jobs, meanwhile the next suburban neighborhood is full of middle-class families with nice cars and green lawns.

      From September, 2005 to August, 2006, 23.4% of all Americans VOLUNTARILY left their jobs. The rate in professiona

    50. Re:Autopilot by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's true. We have things like income percentiles to tell us that; you have to compare that against the total income, and to the percentage shares of spending.

      On average, families in the middling income percentiles (i.e. not the super-rich and not the poorer-than-poor) are spending 11% of their income on food now, versus 30% in 1950. Clothing, housing (per square foot), and utilities have also come down; although housing and utilities have gone up slightly in the past 10 years. These changes mean a smaller percentage of the total income goes to basic needs, and that means the poor are less-pressured trying to survive, even with a growing income gap.

      As well, the percentage of income per capita must decrease with population expansion. That's pretty simple: if you have 2 million households, you're dividing up your total income by twice as many households as 1 million households. At the same time, twice the population means twice the labor force, and thus twice the productive output: all the money spent in one year represents twice as much, and so twice the buying power, assuming we didn't improve technology at the same time.

      As you observe, the basic measure of an *economy* (such as the economic standing of a nation) doesn't tell you about distribution; it tells you how powerful that nation is in terms of its ability to produce. The GDP-per-capita increases with technical progress--fewer people working to make thing A, so they can make thing B as well, and now you make A and B, and the amount of buying power each person has is increased by B--and the impact on standard-of-living is unknown by that measure alone.

      A stronger economy means that a certain tax levy can buy more, meaning taxes can be decreased, debt spending can decrease, or some combination thereof. The increase in GDP-per-capita, being a reflection that some goods cost a smaller percentage of the per-capita income, means a nation is *more* *capable* of implementing stronger welfare. The Citizen's Dividend I designed has been stably viable since 2013; prior to that it was questionable; and in 1950, anything like my plan would flatly destroy the economy of the United States.

      To give you some perspective: I initially designed the Citizen's Dividend to eliminate all homelessness and hunger in America, without raising taxes (none in the long term; substantially small in the short term, and that's proven controllable by a variety of strategies). The actual likely impacts are a stronger, more stable job market (smaller peak unemployment and faster return to baseline during economic disturbances); a stabilization of the basic standard-of-living (that's that "elimination of homelessness and hunger" thing); and a dramatic improvement in the financial positions of all households qualifying for modern welfare, whether the welfare they currently receive is adequate or not (note that only 1/4 of households qualified for HUD in particular receive aid; 75% go on a waiting list FOREVER). There are a lot of other impacts, and a lot of risk and strain eliminated.

      Even if that plan *fails*, it doesn't matter: barring a complete economic collapse that America cannot survive in any case, it's effectively guaranteed to improve the situation overall for almost all Americans immediately, and to improve over time without an increase in taxes. As the GDP-per-capita increases, the tax fund source for the Dividend represents more buying power per capita, and thus distributes more buying power to each recipient. That means if it's too small to accomplish the total effect (e.g. immediately eliminating all homelessness?), it'll correct itself in a few years.

      I don't just quote numbers to play politics; I'm an engineer, and I build shit. Every fact in the world should make you ask: how can I use this to my advantage? What can I do with this? We have GOVERNMENTS; a stronger economy means something when you have a government. As I've shown here, it means the Government can take the same tithe (as a percentage of you

    51. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It is a lot more than 1 in 20 people looking for work...

      The numbers are a lie, that is all... I'd explain it, but after that wall of text, I suspect you're so convinced that you're right you wouldn't listen anyway...

    52. Re:Autopilot by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like you're working from either anecdote or a foregone conclusion that resists all logic. The less evidence there is for a position, the more that proves it's true, because o grand conspiracy?

      I just pointed out that 40% of the United States labor force turns over every year (that's 1 in 2.5), moving from one job to the next while the number of floating unemployed individuals doesn't increase; and I've already dealt with the labor force participation rate argument several times (essentially an argument that people need to work whether they're well-off or not, ignoring that two-income households with better single-income finances will have less pressure to be two-income households and so may have one adult exit the labor force; it's a hilarious argument demanding wage slavery, often coming from people who complain about wage slavery), so that wouldn't be new. Surprise me.

    53. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like you're working from either anecdote or a foregone conclusion that resists all logic.

      The grand irony is that you're the one not using logic...

      The numbers aren't even a secret, the Government just hides them in plain sight in 127 page reports that no one reads...

    54. Re:Autopilot by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      So when their autopiloted Tesla smashes into your car and kills your family, I suppose that's for the greater good too?

    55. Re:Autopilot by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You're still going on about government conspiracy and providing no numbers. I've actually looked at the population numbers, labor force numbers, population growth, job growth, and determined what's actually happening. We're steadily escaping 50 years of wage slavery here.

      I've *read* 127-page reports. I've pulled down BLS tables and databases and analyzed trends over a hundred years. I've looked at Census publications and pointed out flaws in their interpretations right along with new observations they missed. What have you done? Talked about a big, secret government conspiracy?

      You don't present an evidence-based argument; you present fear, uncertainty, and doubt, in a world where the cost of food, shelter, and clothing have fallen year after year; a world where families spend 11% of their income to eat instead of 30% (1950) or even 15% (1990); a world where cell phones and Internet access are common, lower-end cars have a large number of built-in safety and luxury features, and more people have access to more and better healthcare than ever.

      Are you afraid to make a concrete argument because it won't stand up to an examination of the facts?

    56. Re:Autopilot by speedplane · · Score: 1

      You're arguing that pilots have less training than drivers... okay, have fun with that.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    57. Re:Autopilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You're arguing that pilots have less training than drivers... okay, have fun with that.

      No, I didn't... that is all in your head... try reading next time...

      No wonder this world is going to complete shit, morons like you can't read, can't think, and have no ability to understand basic concepts...

      Sigh...

    58. Re:Autopilot by robinsc · · Score: 1

      auto - self mobile - moving ... so my car drives itself without me in it by remote control - only if its a tesla with summon mode I think.

      --
      Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
  8. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every moron that keeps destroying the planet will die.

    Choke on the fumes from my tail pipe faggot.

  9. Some points of note by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From this report (chart on page 7), a passenger car rollover (ie - not a light truck) begets a 16% chance of fatality.

    This is not the first Tesla rollover crash I've read about, the other one would lead me to believe that Teslas are in fact safer than average. (Click the link and see for yourself, the crash was reportedly spectacular.)

    Of the crash in question, Tesla had this to say:

    “We received an automated alert from this vehicle on July 1 indicating airbag deployment, but logs containing detailed information on the state of the vehicle controls at the time of the collision were never received. This is consistent with damage of the severity reported in the press, which can cause the antenna to fail. As we do with all crash events, we immediately reached out to the customer to confirm they were ok and offer support but were unable to reach him. We have since attempted to contact the customer three times by phone without success. Based on the information we have now, we have no reason to believe that Autopilot had anything to do with this accident.”

    The owner *claims* that the car was in autopilot, but we don't really know yet.

    Also of note, the following (from same link):

    [...] As reported yesterday, the police investigator on the case, Dale Vukovich, said that he is likely to charge Scaglione after his investigation without specifying the charges.

    I'm going to wait a couple of days before making any judgements on this specific incident.

    At the worst, it *may be* that autopilot mode isn't appropriate for human drivers simply due to the chance of it being misused. If too many people are relying on it when they shouldn't, then it likely should be taken off the market.

    But that's an entirely different situation from Tesla being negligent, or unsafe, or unpromising.

    1. Re:Some points of note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, at worst it's that Autopilot fails to correctly identify the things it was intended to identify, and someone ends up dead after being driven directly under a truck because of a systematic failure of the Autopilot system.

      Of course, that would never happen...

    2. Re:Some points of note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every single one of the photos in your link shows that despite the complete destruction around it, the passenger cabin itself completely intact - not even a cracked windscreen or window. Looks pretty darned safe to me.

    3. Re:Some points of note by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm going to wait a couple of days before making any judgements on this specific incident.

      I'm not. A person survived a crash and crashes happen constantly. That's good enough for me.

    4. Re:Some points of note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the worst, it *IS A DAMN FACT!* that autopilot mode isn't appropriate for 'some' human drivers simply due to the chance of it being misused. If too many people are relying on it when they shouldn't

      (FTFY)

      I can't remember the exact details but about 10-13 years??? ago when GPS was starting to become a mainstream consumer item, some 'DUMBASS' drove off a missing/demolished bridge.

      Not only did he/she drive off the bridge but ignored various signs/warnings/detour arrows/etc... and drove through a physical baricade before driving over the 'missing' bridge.

      Why?, The GPS voice told him/her to keep going straight over the closed/demolished bridge and so it was done. (because 'Technology' is never wrong!)

      Some people 'literally' need to be banned from technology as well as blacklisted from ever obtaining a license or puchasing/owning/operating a vehicle or any other mechanical object more complex than a light switch. (on second thought not the light switch may be to dangerous for them or others)

      --
      how fitting, captha = 'explode'

    5. Re:Some points of note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're trying to extrapolate Tesla's being safer from two crashes, when you said yourself that fatalities happen only twice out of ten times? You don't make logical sense.

    6. Re:Some points of note by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

      The owner *claims* that the car was in autopilot, but we don't really know yet.

      Hmm... get in a crash, blame autopilot...

    7. Re:Some points of note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation from Muskanese;

      In wrecks where autopilot was not engaged, we will have the data to show it.

      In wrecks where autopilot was engaged, we will not be certain and will not consider it an issue until someone proves it was on.

      In instances where it appears a car in autopilot remained safe, we will take full credit.

      In instances where cars in autopilot did not remain safe, it will be the driver's fault unless proven otherwise.

    8. Re:Some points of note by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Translation from Muskanese;

      In wrecks where autopilot was not engaged, we will have the data to show it.

      In wrecks where autopilot was engaged, we will not be certain and will not consider it an issue until someone proves it was on.

      In instances where it appears a car in autopilot remained safe, we will take full credit.

      In instances where cars in autopilot did not remain safe, it will be the driver's fault unless proven otherwise.

      That's what I hear.

  10. I wonder if the police belived him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ".. owner told police that he survived a rollover crash "

    I wonder if he can convince the Judge.

  11. faith in technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe I have an unusual outlook, but I just barely trust my plain old cruise control enough to enable it on the highway, and it doesn't have any sort of "smart" features. The only reason I trust it enough to use it is that I have a manual transmission with a clutch that can disconnect the drive-train in an emergency.

    The more complex features get, the more points of failure there are going to be. Of course humans drivers also have points of failure, so it's not one sided. Still, I think I'll wait until there is a much broader data set, before using features like lane assist.

    1. Re:faith in technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > before using features like lane assist.

      The operative word here is "assist". If you have lane assist on and your car starts moving to the side of the lane, you correct it as soon as you notice (as you would without lane assist on).

      The computer assist is there so the reaction time to any given situation is min(human, computer). Sometimes humans are better at reacting to something (perhaps because they can see further, or understand a situation that a computer cannot). Sometimes the computer is better at reacting (like applying brakes because something has "appeared" out of nowhere).

  12. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every moron that keeps destroying the planet will die.

    The sun is going to incinerate the earth, taking all life with it. Go outside, enjoy the sunshine.

  13. Not easy to roll over a Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla places the batteries very low in the car. So they have an extremely low center of gravity. Must of been a spectacular fail to get one to roll.

  14. Meanwhile by mfh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tesla's coverage of these incidents is a smear campaign.

    GM, Ford and Chrysler experienced hundreds of vehicle accidents in the same time span.

    In 2014, there were 32,675 deaths by vehicle incident. Not one of those is getting the same attention as these Tesla reports. Why?

    Because the media is in the pockets of Big Auto. Every day in 2014, there were almost 90 deaths in all the other car manufacturers vehicles. I'm counting only two accidents in Tesla vehicles. That's actually quite good!

    "Autopilot is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times," Tesla said. Advocates of the technology are stuck between praising its capabilities and its potential while also warning that it's not a substitute for being awake, alert, and watching the road.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Meanwhile by speedplane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tesla's coverage of these incidents is a smear campaign.

      Tesla brought this upon themselves with a massive marketing campaign claiming autonomous driving features that are safer than humans, when the truth is, they are nothing of the sort. I love Tesla's technology, but no company should get a pass when they make lies that have, allegedly, led to death.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    3. Re:Meanwhile by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 2

      While I agree that the Tesla accident coverage has, and likely will continue to be, insanely overstated in comparison to anyone else who makes cars (including other 'semi-autonomous' cars). I do not agree that the entire cause is "the news is in the pockets of Big Auto". It's far more likely that it's other factors like: Tesla being fairly new in public perception (It is 13 years old, but I can't recall even their first roadsters being 'out' over a decade ago), highly visible due to hype, 'cutting edge', and most of all someone that can be easily sensationalized and get them views/reads.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    4. Re:Meanwhile by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Ok, but how many Teslas are on the roads today? Under 200,000 for sure.

      How many GMs, Fods, Chryslers are out there? Tens of millions if not more.

      You can compare them but you have to do it right.

    5. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...media and astroturfers is in the pockets of Big Auto

    6. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So says the Musk Astroturfer

    7. Re:Meanwhile by fnj · · Score: 1

      "Autopilot is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times," Tesla said.

      It may "require" that instructively, but it can't/won't enforce it rigorously as it stands. And in fact NO ONE keeps both hands firmly on the wheel 100.0% of the time in ANY case. You can't perform a manual gearshift or turn the windshield wipers on without removing at least one hand from the wheel to do it.

    8. Re:Meanwhile by ledow · · Score: 2

      Allow me to introduce the most useful maths course you may ever use in real life: Statistics.

      How many Teslas are there on the road?
      How many GM / Ford / etc.?

      How many of those Teslas are new or only a couple of years old?
      How many of the GM / Ford / etc.

      How many of those Teslas are used regularly for long-haul driving trips?
      How many of the GM / Ford / etc.?

      How many of those Teslas cost a fortune to repair and so are driven more carefully?
      How many of the GM / Ford / etc.?

      How many of the people who drive Teslas bought them new and so are more likely to take care of them?
      How many of the GM, Ford, etc.?

      A number, on its own, without context, cannot be compared to other lone numbers, without context.

      Remember when your physics/maths teachers were always yelling "UNITS, UNITS, UNITS" to how answer of "Three?". This is the extension of that. The number alone is useless. Even the number per year is useless. Comparing that to another number per year is useless.

      You have to use the human part of your brain that's able to infer where those numbers may differ and why and compensate by stating them in other ways so they are more accurate.

      Granted, some of the things above point at sloppy driving / maintenance, not car ownership. But that's exactly the point. If you want to see how dangerous alone the CAR is, when well-maintained, not the driver, you have to account for all the other factors.

      Which your numbers do not.

    9. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla's coverage of these incidents is a smear campaign.

      No, they are a welcome break from the Tesla-can-do-nothing-wrong reporting. It's good that journalists are finally also reporting on things that are not so great about Tesla. Unfortunately, Tesla was so used to being the media's darling, they could not handle this in an adult way and responded by blaming the messenger and accusing anyone who dares report unwelcome facts or even the mildest form of criticism of bias or financial interests, even though Elon Musk himself has major interests in keeping the hype alive and has cashed in at convenient points in time.

    10. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what marketing campaign? Do I live under a rock? I thought you had to agree to reasonable terms to use the product? Is every manufacturer liable if you misuse their products (Guns?)

    11. Re:Meanwhile by ZiakII · · Score: 1

      what marketing campaign? Do I live under a rock? I thought you had to agree to reasonable terms to use the product? Is every manufacturer liable if you misuse their products (Guns?)

      I mean here is a great one with his marketing weasel nonsense.

    12. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, actually, they are safer. That you don't hear about the carnage on the freeways is a fault of the media, not of Tesla.

      AC

    13. Re:Meanwhile by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Tesla brought this upon themselves with a massive marketing campaign claiming autonomous driving features that are safer than humans, when the truth is, they are nothing of the sort.

      If the two accidents associated with autopilot are, in fact, the only two that have occurred so far, then the Tesla autopilot IS safer than humans. Two accidents (non-fatal) in the time that humans have managed 20K or so fatal accidents plus vastly more than 20K non-fatal accidents sounds like the Tesla autopilot is considerably better than the average driver...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:Meanwhile by jbengt · · Score: 1

      I thought you had to agree to reasonable terms to use the product?

      This is not a software license. You are free to do anything you want with a product like a car after you buy it Whose liability it is if you abuse the product is a separate issue, but the burden is usually on the manufacturer to prove that it wasn't their fault.
      (IANAL, YMMV)

    15. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be happy with a comparison of the number of accidents per million mile between humans and Tesla cars.

    16. Re:Meanwhile by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Why on Earth was this modded up? To date Tesla has sold less than 100,000 cars. In 2014 GM sold over 3.4 MILLION. Instead of focusing on the fact that these incidents were notable because of Tesla calling their adaptive cruise control tech "autopilot", which mass-media picked up on, or the fact that it involved a car that typically cost over $70,000 US, you jumped straight to conspiracy.

      Not to mention that the other car makes DO get media attention...I guess you can ignore that to because consipracy and Elon Musk.
      http://blog.caranddriver.com/m...

      https://forums.teslamotors.com...
      http://media.gm.com/media/us/e...

      *I know that safety can be determined through a number of different ways, such as deaths per miles driven, but I don't think that's applicable when talking about why journalist would pick up a story.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    17. Re:Meanwhile by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's not reported because it's NORMAL. Tesla's systems are special, and they crash under conditions that no normal vehicle deals with--special Tesla features no other vehicle has. If they crash much less frequently, those crashes are all the more notable and newsworthy.

    18. Re:Meanwhile by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      You need to use rate analysis. How many per million miles, per 100,000, etc.

    19. Re:Meanwhile by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The Tesla has no transmission, so there is no gear shifting. (It's not even an automatic transmission).

      I turn my wipers on and off all the time without removing my hands from the wheels. Is this different in the Tesla?

      You can violate Tesla's enforcement by duct taping a soda can to each side of the steering wheel, allowing it to feel weight it interprets as hands.

    20. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats not really a fair comparison. how much market share of active cars on the road does tesla have? if they have 1% of the market share they should have 1% of the total accidents to be considered on par. there just aren't that many tesla's out there to be compared to all other types of cards that are involved in crashes.

    21. Re:Meanwhile by speedplane · · Score: 1

      sounds like the Tesla autopilot is considerably better than the average driver

      It only "sounds" like Teslas are safer because Tesla keeps on repeating that statement in their marketing material. But no studies validating Autopilot's safety have been done. Tesla's safety claims are another example of their wildly misleading marketing. I wish they focused more on technology and less on deception.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    22. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla does not do any massive marketing campaigns. They have demos of their cars and decent followers.

    23. Re:Meanwhile by ledow · · Score: 2

      Again, not comparable if Tesla's have, say, a limited range and therefore aren't driving on long highways in anywhere near the same amount as ordinary-engined cars.

      Or, say, there just aren't enough of them to form a statistically significant average over that amount of miles, where a small fluke of careful driving would reflect much "better" than a huge amount of older, cheaper cars which *CAN* form a statistically significant number over a million miles.

      Statistics is hard. And horrible. And often completely misleading. Number of accidents per millions miles is useless at the moment, while they are a niche manufacturer. My bicycle has a number of accidents per million miles that is basically zero. It doesn't mean my bike is safer, or comparable, to a Tesla or a Ford.

    24. Re: Meanwhile by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Yes, in the day since this was posted and while this "debate" has been going on about a hundred people died in car crashes... just in the US. Hundreds more were seriously injured. That is the reality.

      Just fix the damn problem with crashing into trucks that cut people off and carry on trying to save lives with autonomous car controls.

      If any cars have proven themselves unsafe it is ones with manual controls.

    25. Re:Meanwhile by mfh · · Score: 1

      AC posting astroturf won't win you any prizes here.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  15. in other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an idiot lets go of steering wheel, blames the wheel maker... people are idiots

  16. On the contrary by gweilo8888 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's hoping it *does* mess everything up for semi-autonomous systems like Tesla's. These belong in public transport, where you have a relatively controlled environment running down predetermined routes where outside factors can be mitigated, and where the drivers are employees who can be regularly trained and tested on their knowledge of the system's capabilities. An autopilot function makes sense in, say, a bus.

    Where it most definitely does not make sense is in passenger cars, where the moronic part of our population (that is, most of it) will assume it to be far more capable than it really is, and who will choose simply to ignore the system once it is operating. In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.

    With a little luck, Tesla's idiotic hype will ensure that the failures of these systems get enough publicity to regulate them out of being until such time as we are able to create a system that can run reliably in all conditions and on all road types. Leave the tech whizbang crap where it belongs in public transport, and get it out of passenger cars, please!

    1. Re:On the contrary by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Tesla is hardly the only one to make jumped up cruise control for their cars, just the only one who have software updates which seems to get them to add more and more features. I mean normal car companies like BMW and well just about anything from Europe offer cruise control that has added features like distance following of the car in front (or at least auto breaking if you get to close during normal cruise) and things like the ability to park themselves. None of these is as high profile and it's pretty well always understood still that the driver is responsible for whatever happens. It also helps that these features are exclusive to the high end, typically luxury, offerings from the companies. I'm sure some of these have failed as well, but good luck finding stories and federal investigations about those.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    2. Re:On the contrary by gweilo8888 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've yet to see any car manufacturer other than Tesla irresponsibly brand them as "autopilot", a name which implies to the almighty unwashed that the car is capable of driving itself. This is a nightmare entirely of Tesla's own making.

    3. Re:On the contrary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      An autopilot function makes sense in, say, a bus.

      I've spent too much time driving around buses to think that's a good idea, or that bus drivers are smarter or better drivers than the rest of us. No, the penalty for failure is much higher with a bus, so that's double-extra the wrong vehicle to automate.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:On the contrary by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Except that buses have predefined routes, allowing the road and signposting quality to be better controlled, and perhaps even technology built into the road itself. And bus drivers are employees who could, if needed, be subjected to regular testing and training on the capabilities of their systems, and perhaps even subjected to real-time monitoring to ensure they're not abusing the system. Agree or not, but public transport is a much better-controlled environment for a system like this.

    5. Re:On the contrary by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I don't see any advantage to what you're suggesting. You have a driver there who's paid to drive. Let him drive, rather than building a system where he has to switch in an instant from passive supervisor to active driver. That instant won't be long enough.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:On the contrary by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Could not disagree more. Driving is the most dangerous activity we do on any given day and a large number of fatalities and injuries are caused by lapses of judgement which a computer is not capable of.

      Tesla is a 16 year old boy who just got his first license. He's just gotten on the road for the first time. He's leaning. He'll make mistakes. When he's done however we should see a mature technology that is far better at driving than any fleshy meatbag currently powering 1.5ton death machines down the road.

      Bring on more crashes, bring on continuous improvement, bring on the days where we no longer have accidents.

    7. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand this assertion that autopilot means capable of unattended operation.

      Most plane autopilots just handle flying in a consistent direction and speed, or following a selected .descent/ascent profile.

      Tesla autopilot maintains a speed and follows a lane. How is that not the same thing?

    8. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you immediately go to jail if caught operating a car without a hand on the wheel, i'm happy.

    9. Re:On the contrary by bondsbw · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, "autopilot" would imply that it performs a similar role to autopilot in aircraft. Which is to say, the plane is NOT fully autonomous and requires the driver (pilot) to stay alert and attentive.

      Or that's what it should imply, a reasonable analogue to the proper usage of the terminology. But typical modern television and movies exaggerate this function to the point that the general public thinks that planes basically fly themselves. But this isn't true at all, it's mostly just a glorified cruise control system that requires the flight crew to remain alert and ready to take manual control at a moment's notice.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    10. Re:On the contrary by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      That only works if drivers have the same extensive training as pilots. And aren't allowed to drive in rainy or foggy conditions or at night without additional training. And aren't allowed to drive cars that have motors more powerful than 180hp unless they had an additional training. Oh, and aren't allowed to carry more than one passenger without further training. Almost forgot, also aren't allowed to drive on or near the same roads that professional drivers with more extensive licenses are allowed to use.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    11. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's entirely irrelevant what plane autopilot can or cannot do. What matters is what the word means to the general populace, which is start and forget. If we worked with terms strictly by their specialist definitions, all of us would have a very hard time communicating just about anything at all.

    12. Re:On the contrary by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Funny

      offer cruise control that has added features like distance following of the car in front (or at least auto breaking if you get to close during normal cruise) and things like the ability to park themselves.

      Can you switch these features off? It sounds like they're trying to destroy two important parts of New Mexican culture.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:On the contrary by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Nissan say they will launch a single lane self-driving mode this year. They haven't released too many details yet, but they are promising a full hands-off system that doesn't require you to jump in at a moment's notice.

      It has to be a real auto-pilot, anything less and I wouldn't trust myself to use it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autopilot means exactly what it sounds like: Automatic (no manual intervention required) Pilot (agent that controls a vehicle).

      If the flying folks have been sold off on something called "autopilot" that actually isn't one, then that's their problem, fools. Sorry, your analogy is ludicrous! "Ah no, this is Autopilot-like-in-aircraft-which-is-glorified-cruise-cnotrol, not actual Autopilot, so we called it 'Autopilot' just to make it sound better than it is" - this is deceptive naming, and I think we are seeing the consequences.

    15. Re: On the contrary by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      One can argue that drivers need more extensive training, period, and autonomy is just a factor which has little to do with the length of training.

      But drivers certainly don't need the "same" amount of training as aircraft pilots.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    16. Re:On the contrary by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Except that buses have predefined routes, allowing the road and signposting quality to be better controlled, and perhaps even technology built into the road itself. And bus drivers are employees who could, if needed, be subjected to regular testing and training on the capabilities of their systems, and perhaps even subjected to real-time monitoring to ensure they're not abusing the system. Agree or not, but public transport is a much better-controlled environment for a system like this.

      I still think buses are a terrible test-bed.

      1) The risk way worse. Not only do you have potentially dozens of passengers at risk on board the bus. But the bus itself is massive and could cause a huge amount of damage to other vehicles and pedestrians.

      2) The utility is nil, there's already a highly skilled full-time driver.

      3) The environment is not more controlled, buses are much more complicated to operate, regularly pulling in and out of traffic and generally being massive and unwieldy. And even a regular route changes, navigating around accidents, negotiating construction zones, etc. Finding the route is probably the easiest aspect of driving.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    17. Re:On the contrary by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.
      We actually are. Since min. two decades.
      The cars I was involved in have nearly half a hundret miles autonomous traveling behind them.
      In my home town we have cars from the majour german vendors cruising autonomous through the city since minimum five years.
      Yes: under supervision of a driver. Neverthelss they are 100% autonomous.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:On the contrary by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not really, but you can blindfold the camera.
      Won't help much with radar and lidar and ultrasonics, but those mostly serve different purposes.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:On the contrary by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Careful what you wish for. Because in such an environment where corporations have financial interest, the driver will be eliminated faster than in one where the person in the car has a vetted interest in the car not crashing due to self preservation reasons.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:On the contrary by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I was always certain that marketing will eventually cause our civilization to collapse.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re: On the contrary by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sorry, but no. It does NOT matter what "everyone" thinks something means. If they're too stupid or lazy to look it up, it's THEIR fault, not the one using the term correctly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should I pay with potential damage of my property, injury or death so that that used car salesman Musk can profit? Aren't the billions of dollars in unjustified subsidies not enough for that incompetent big-mouthed midget?

    23. Re:On the contrary by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. "Automatic" does not mean "no manual intervention required". It means "working by itself with little or no direct human control". And that it does. The Tesla "autopilot" operates the vehicle by itself AS LONG AS it is capable of doing so. It does NOT mean that no manual intervention will be required under circumstances that are not within the execution parameters of the automation.

      A soda filling machine is fully automated. Yet you will notice that there is a supervisor always on duty in case something snags. The automated filler CANNOT react to such an event because it is not within the normal parameters of its operation. And the same applies to all automated tasks. They run automatically as long as the standard parameters are met. Not that it is impossible that a situation occurs that cannot be handled by the automaton where human intervention is required to avoid disaster.

      By the way, I wonder if you're aware of the irony that we're discussing all this about a machine originally called an "automobile", a word derived from the Greek autos, self, and the Latin mobilis, movable.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re: On the contrary by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The jail's going to be overcrowded with Italian drivers...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? These mythical cars cope with traffic lights, uncontrolled intersections, detours, police directing traffic, roadworks, emergency vehicles, and will find a parking space in a parking lot, all by themselves?

    26. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you're pulling away from the curb? Cars blowing lights/jumping lights? Can your autopilot anticipate a car door flinging open by recognizing a guy just parked and is about to do it? What about the wild card pedestrians texting/blasting head phones, or bikes who we know will ignore every traffic law?

      I'm pretty sure you've never driven any kind of commercial rig......anywhere. The entire game is "guess what the human is about to do". If you don't play that game with a built in air brake lag (yes, they work a bit differently than your car brakes), you're reacting to a problem instead of anticipating it. You'll find you can't change momentum in time.

    27. Re:On the Contrary by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Where it most definitely does not make sense is in passenger cars, where the moronic part of our population (that is, most of it) will assume it to be far more capable than it really is, and who will choose simply to ignore the system once it is operating. In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.

      This. Like the first idiot, who circumvented the Tesla's inability to play movies while driving, (why do we even have video players in cars?), people will quickly get the notion that they don't have to pay attention. They will get bored sitting there with nothing to do. Shit, nowadays people can't concentrate on anything, and play with their phones even when they're supposed to be in control of their vehicles. And we're going to put people in a vehicle that can miss a 13'5" high, 70' long vehicle because the Sun is shining?
      BTW, I drive trucks. I do about 130,000 miles per year, so I see every kind of idiocy, about five times per day. I would love to see driving taken out of the hands of most car drivers. But we'll never have a system that is one-hundred-percent fool-proof. Even if the technology were there, people have a genius for fucking stuff up.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    28. Re: On the contrary by just+another+AC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that "begs the question" (I know it doesn't using it to demonstrate my point)... who is everyone?

      Language means whatever people THINK it means. What is "correct" is irrelevant, as "correct" is just a historical record of what the majority have previously decided. This can then be periodically updated and "correct" changes.

      What does "stakeholder" mean
      - someone with a vested interest (now)
      - someone with no vested interest, a person who held the stakes while others duelled (original)

      So it is not their fault at all, if someone uses a term which currently has multiple acceptable meanings (the current correct as defined by "everyone" vs the historical correct).

      TLDR version - you are wrong. language has and always will mean whatever people think it means.

    29. Re:On the contrary by Monoman · · Score: 1

      tldr; people are the problem, not the technology

      fwiw; trains still have "drivers" and I think people are still at the cause of most train crashes

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    30. Re: On the contrary by WarJolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In an airplane if you keep a consistent speed and heading chances are you're not going to run into anything. Sure we have visual flight rules, but most pilots depend on ATC to keep them away from other aircraft. On the ground you can't see things coming. The things you typically have to worry about in the air are usually miles away which gives you plenty of time to react. It's just a much more predictable environment despite being more complicated. That's why airplanes have been landing themselves for decades.

      4 lanes of traffic, no one else on the road and I still never see it coming when some idiot nearly merges into me. Then again I've seen someone cut in the landing pattern one time. ATC was pissed.

    31. Re: On the Contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need a 100% reliable solution. We just need one that's better than the average driver. Tesla are almost there.

    32. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's several issues with that sort of thinking though, if you dig a little deeper.

      1) without the semi-autonomous real world testing its extremely hard to develop a fully-autonomous system. That's why Tesla did this initially.

      2) even in semi-autonomous mode it ALREADY saves lifes. i.e. the accidents there are not accidents the driver would have avoided without the semi-autonomous mode. Everything else is speculation such as "if the seat wasn't red the driver could have figured out the situation and not died!" - which is not relevant. Most likely the driver would still be dead - and with certainty (as the numbers prove), there would be more accidents from other drivers without.

      3) No system is foolproof. Even the best fully autonomous system in the world cannot bend the law of physics. If such a system reduces accidents by 99% news outlets will still advertise the 1% as horrible failures of the software, until 100% of the population uses autonomous cars. Because clicks pay, and it's easy to mislead readers with 30s brain time reading the same piece of text 100 times in 2 month. Basic psychology.

    33. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, we've got mr. irrelevancy over here making a pedantic irrelevant point with nothing to do with this situation. awesome.

    34. Re:On the contrary by geoskd · · Score: 1

      nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable

      Basic engineering and continuous improvement engineering needs to be taught in grammar school so that people don't continue to believe in that kind of crap.

      There is no such thing as 100%. The best you can do is the way the airline industry functions. When something happens, you investigate it thoroughly, and make necessary changes to avoid a recurrence. That is the only sane way to engineer any system. The general public doesn't have the IQ to understand this principle, and as soon as a relatively few people die, there is a public outcry. If we used your 100% method, there would be absolutely nothing because everything would still be in development. You wouldn't dare get on a plane. They still crash occasionally, sometimes due to design faults. You couldn't get in a car because there are occasional safety related faults with the vehicles that didn't show up during prototype.

      In the end, the most fundamental problem is that nothing is ever solved by people getting on a soap box and decrying the evil companies, and how they're killing people to make a buck. If you want to help make a difference, become a volunteer firefighter, or apply to work at one of these car companies and help improve the technology. If you want to contribute nothing of value, continue what you're doing.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    35. Re:On the contrary by umafuckit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.

      Why does it have to be 100%? Nothing in this domain is 100%. It just has to be more reliable than people on average. The failure modes may be different from those committed by people, but that's not relevant. Only the final accident statistics are relevant. With enough semi-autonomous vehicles on the highway, I think we'd see a reduction in traffic jam severity because there would be fewer people driving like jerks and trying to get ahead.

    36. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "lapses of judgement which a computer is not capable of."

      Perhaps, but you're just swapping out human failures for mechanical ones. As we saw with the Tesla fatality you're going to have circumstances where the censors won't detect a danger, you're going to have software/hardware faults, etc. Don't get me wrong in the long run it will probably save lives overall, but you're going to have avoidable fatalities.

    37. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A plane's autopilot will happily fly the plane into terrain without any pilot intervention. Mr Lubitz (the suicidal German Wings pilot) would confirm that for you, if he was still alive.

    38. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've yet to see any car manufacturer other than Tesla irresponsibly brand them as "autopilot", a name which implies to the almighty unwashed that the car is capable of driving itself. This is a nightmare entirely of Tesla's own making.

      Speaking of irresponsible, NO automated mode offered by ANY manufacturer is devoid of blatant read-this-before-using-idiot warnings that are likely all over the manual and the screen upon activation.

      So, regardless of how you wish to label Tesla here, there is only one fucking label that should be used: Darwin Award Winner

    39. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, "autopilot" would imply that it performs a similar role to autopilot in aircraft. Which is to say, the plane is NOT fully autonomous and requires the driver (pilot) to stay alert and attentive.

      Or that's what it should imply, a reasonable analogue to the proper usage of the terminology. But typical modern television and movies exaggerate this function to the point that the general public thinks that planes basically fly themselves. But this isn't true at all, it's mostly just a glorified cruise control system that requires the flight crew to remain alert and ready to take manual control at a moment's notice.

      The average person and thus Tesla's market do not know the limitations of aircraft autopilots, and equates the word with "press button, it takes me to my destination". So no, you're wrong, because Tesla's market is not aircraft pilots, it's people who think that count down timers are a normal thing when a nuclear reactor is about to melt down.

    40. Re:On the contrary by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      But you have lots of avoidable fatalities now ! If the long-term result is to greatly reduce the fatalities that's a win - and it's not coming with any ethical quandaries as you suggest because guess what, if you don't go through the avoidable deaths maturing this technology you would STILL have been going through the avoidable deaths that are constantly associated with the CURRENT technology.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    41. Re: On the contrary by Tourney3p0 · · Score: 1

      I used to have no idea what autopilot really meant. Now I work with airplanes and know exactly what it means. The word didn't change meaning overnight. My interaction with it did. I didn't invent a new word to accommodate this. I started using the word correctly (not that I used it much prior to working with airplanes).

    42. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only they could warn people.. maybe with a big warning on page 1 of the manual that says you should remain alert and keep your hands on the wheel at all times. But I guess Tesla's market is people who can't/don't want to read the documentation that comes with their purchase, and they also don't want to know the meaning to words they use. Oh, and they don't want to do any research on it, even if even 30 seconds of research would reveal how it's meant to be used. Basically they don't want to know anything. This is all Tesla's fault, of course.

    43. Re: On the contrary by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      What it means is beside the point - what matters is how it is (mis)understood by Tesla drivers, and whether that affects how they use the feature. Personally, I think some (many?) people are going to put too much trust in the feature, regardless of what you call it.

    44. Re:On the contrary by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      The "that's not the true meaning of the word" argument seems particularly popular in forums like /., where technically-minded people hang out, and in most cases (such as here), it is beside the point.

    45. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable

      Why not? , why don't you demand the same reliability for human drivers?
      Push for a new law, "One crash and you're banned", after all they've just proved they're not 100% reliable and so are a risk to passengers and other road users.

    46. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A system that does 90% of the driving must be designed to ensure the driver remains fully engaged and ready to take over the other 10% of time to prevent users from abusing the system. It should utilize sensors to track the driver's eyes and hand position. The system should then warn the user and pull the car off the road if the user doesn't respond.

    47. Re:On the contrary by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1
      My 1963 Imperial's cruise control was marketed as "Auto-Pilot" by Chrysler. I believe the feature was introduced in 1958.

      Some features that I really like are:

      • * Dial in the Speed to Maintain
      • * Dial in the Max Speed and its speed minder will make the gas peddle harder to push down past that speed
      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    48. Re:On the contrary by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      The difference is if a little soda spills on the floor, someone just cleans it up. If auto-pilot fails, someone can (and did) die. And as to the argument it is safer, we just don't know. For an accurate compare, we'd need data to reach closer to 5 billion miles. And I'm hoping NHTSA pulls the cert and says you have to disable it. Not only did the man die, but how many others could have died in a different situation? Until LIDAR comes down in price to the point it can be used, please NHTSA, just say no.

    49. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinking there will a day when there is no longer accidents is as stupid as thinking life will one day be fair and world peace. The fact remains, the majority do not want to own self driving cars.

      One HUGE problem for self driving cars is that it is run by a computer. Computers age and have errors at any time as they get older. That is why I would never own a self driving car. We will see what will happen when these cars start to age.

    50. Re: On the contrary by greatpatton · · Score: 1

      Because it is an improvement to the meatbag usually driving a car. Human drivers = 1.5 millions road death per year...

    51. Re:On the contrary by jbengt · · Score: 1

      This is all Tesla's fault, of course.

      In the strict liability world of selling products, it just may be all Tesla's fault, legally.
      (IANAL, YMMV)

    52. Re: On the contrary by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      That is a great argument for why these driver-assist features are a good idea. The car might have seen the jerk fly into your lane well before you did. It isn't 100% fool-proof, but it could still save lives by being an extra set of eyes.

      From my understanding of preliminary findings, neither the driver nor the "autopilot" saw the truck pull across the road. The truck probably didn't see the car either. I don't know if this has to do with road engineering or just a horrible set of circumstances where all cognitive parts of the scenario failed at the same time. Regardless, even with the smartest automated vehicle control, crashes will still happen and people will probably still die, but if the number of dead humans decreases substantially then it is worth it.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    53. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      autonomous...

      if you dont think that people think autopilot to be a computer sim kind of a autopilot, just go to youtube.

      other manufacturers call the feature cruisecontrol.

      and what would you call the fully self driving mode then? autoautopilot?? no. you would call it autopilot and even musk says that the autopilot 6.0 or whateve can self drive. he is an idiot.

    54. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that it's "not the TRUE meaning of the word". That implies some wiggle room. It's not the meaning of the word, at all. Their users can read the manual, consult a dictionary, ask the dealer, or any number of other things. Guess that's just unreasonable though. By the way, the guy who died knew exactly what the autopilot was meant to do. He had multiple Youtube videos devoted to it. He did not know that it would be unable to distinguish between a truck and a billboard, however. Let's not pretend this has anything to do with not understanding the meaning of words. This is people putting too much trust in something once they become comfortable with it, period.

    55. Re:On the contrary by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Right. No True Tesla Owner would make that mistake. Gee, that almost sounds like a fallacy. I wonder what it's called?

    56. Re:On the contrary by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Why did you pick something odd like a soda machine? Why not use a reference that most people interact with daily - an automatic transmission. To the vast majority of the driving public, an automatic transmission means that the transmission will do ALL of the proper gear selection and shifting. So now we have a new thing, IN THE SAME ENVIRONMENT, but here 'auto' means 'well, we'll give it a try'.

    57. Re: On the contrary by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      We have a hard time communicating because anonymous cowards keep making up definitions for words.

      Autopilot has never meant start it and forget it, and nothing called an autopilot has ever had that capability.

      If Tesla called it "self-drive mode" then you might have a point. They don't.

    58. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some facts to rebuff that opinion:

      In 2014 (the most current year I could find data for), there were 32,675 traffic fatalities in the U.S. with a total of 3.026 trillion miles driven. That's 1 fatality for every 92.6 million miles in normal vehicles. The Tesla vehicles are at 1 fatality in 130 million miles.

      Even though people are failing to heed Tesla's instructions, the Telsas still manage to be safer than human operation.

    59. Re:On the contrary by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Ban passenger cars, make everything public transport. Problem solved!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    60. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would that work if a lane ends and it has to merge, will it merge, or dump it in the drivers lap.
      If it could safely merge why only a single lane system, and if its just gonna dump it in the drivers lap well then its not really an autopilot.

    61. Re: On the contrary by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      "The truck probably didn't see the car either."

      That seems to be an overlooked bit of this case. From all the accounts I've read, the truck driver was at fault for making a left turn into oncoming traffic. The truck driver made an illegal turn, then both the Tesla autopilot and the driver failed to avoid the danger. Blaming that on the autopilot seems a pretty big stretch.

      Slashdot in particular seems to have this weird cognitive dissonance around AI in general, and automatic car features in particular: the insistence that a computer cannot do complex tasks as well as or better than a human, and the judgement that such a system has failed unless it performs absolutely perfectly at all times.

    62. Re:On the contrary by Bristol_92 · · Score: 1

      I understand your point of view. It’s normal to make mistakes. They teach us to be more attentive and reasonable. Hope that Tesla counts the cost and takes necessary measures. Nevertheless, why innocent people going to die? This price is very high.

    63. Re: On the contrary by flink · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. It does NOT matter what "everyone" thinks something means. If they're too stupid or lazy to look it up, it's THEIR fault, not the one using the term correctly.

      That's small solace to me if I'm killed by one of these clowns. It's fine to say it's on you for not knowing doing your homework when it is something that only affects the individual, but these are public roads where other people can be maimed or killed. It's irresponsible for Tesla to call it autopilot when the average person, absent any specialized industry knowledge, understands autopilot in aviation to mean "the plane flies by itself". Of course when that term is applied to an automobile, they will assume it means "the car drives by itself".

      Tesla should have just called it some flavor of "driver assist" just like everybody else. Naming this feature "autopilot" was clearly a dumb marketing ploy to brand Tesla as more advanced.

    64. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see anything about "no true Tesla owner would make that mistake". I see some stuff about how plenty of documentation is out there and available. Nothing about how Tesla owners are more likely to read documentation or anything ridiculous like that. I wonder what it's called when you just make things up to suit your argument.

    65. Re: On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Lol.. thank you I'm just sitting here with my morning coffee and you gave me a good laugh. CEOs of companies absolutely need to understand the demographic they're selling to.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    66. Re:On the contrary by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Yeah if they can survive all the litigation.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    67. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      How many times does a pilot have to shut off autopilot when flying from New York to LA? They get in the air and turn it on and leave it on until they are almost at their destination. This is very clearly NOT how Tesla autopilot works. The beginning is the same, you have to get to a clear road and turn it on, but I've never ever had a pilot have to shut off autopilot because they had to stop for a trailer.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    68. Re: On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we need to look more into the safety of these trucks, but all a truck driver can do is look for the safest exit. The length of the vehicle is too great to be able to pull our without interfering with traffic all the time. Sure, if banning semi-trailers is the answer or only having them drive at night I'm all for that, but the economy might disagree with you.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    69. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Just out of interest, how many videos are there of Elon or other Tesla employees saying that the car will be dangerous if not paid attention to? How many media publications has Tesla released? Only putting it on page one of the manual is just as bad as all those software EULAs that people check and surely the companies know they don't read them. Telsa's hard sell way out of balance with the education that they should have been giving their customers. Do they even have anything signed that proves each and every customer read the manual?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    70. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering how it would handle detours myself.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    71. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      This is certainly a case where marketing was WAY out of balance with reality.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    72. Re: On the contrary by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    73. Re: On the contrary by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      It will not, any more than cruise control does. Personally, I am a fan of the industry designing a car2car and car2point communication system.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    74. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The thing is these car companies are releasing a driving service, so they should be as safe as other driving services such as bus drivers. Yes the route is predefined but the autonomous GPS data is supposed to predefine any route.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    75. Re:On the contrary by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I like that Max speed feature.

      I wish my cruise control had that. I use cruise control primarily to avoid speeding tickets, but I always feel awkward not being able to rest my foot on the pedal (and unsafe).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    76. Re: On the contrary by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but no. It does NOT matter what "everyone" thinks something means. If they're too stupid or lazy to look it up, it's THEIR fault, not the one using the term correctly.

      His point was dead on, and relevant to the discussion.

      Nobody gets to decide the definition of a word as it suits them, and the definition of autopilot is most definitely going to come up in court proceedings as it relates to this case.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    77. Re: On the contrary by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Mod this up! Absolutely right!

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    78. Re: On the contrary by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Problem is, that a number of the AC are astroturfing, probably for other car makers, ot the kock Bros. You will note that the ACs on Tesla have really stepped up since kock Bros announced they were going after Tesla.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    79. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ultimately, you're wrong, ultimately what's going to matter is the law views it, pedantry aside.

    80. Re: On the contrary by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No, it does not have to be designed to ensure that the driver is engaged. Hell, we do nothing in our average car to stop drunks, texting, or calling. And each of those are very dangerous.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    81. Re:On the contrary by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      And fewer people tailgating, which causes chains of emergency braking because we're still relying on what I feel is a stupid binary system of "brakes on/brakes off" despite brakes being analogue devices. For a long time I really hoped that we could move to brakes with a better indicator of how strongly the person was braking. Intensity based on % brake applied, strobe on ABS, e.g. However, radar is even better, and works no matter if we don't have that, the lights are broken, etc.
       
      With proper following distances between a larger percent of vehicles on the highway, even if some percentage of people are still driving like jerks we should see a reduction in traffic jams. There will be just that much more buffer between vehicles, and far less chain-braking due to seeing red ahead. When vehicles can reduce speed when they are closing in on traffic ahead without braking, highways are going to be much more pleasant for everyone. While human drivers can do this, most don't, thus traffic jams in clear weather on only semi-busy roads.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    82. Re:On the contrary by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      His system is likely the same as on my '60 Saratoga. It doesn't engage throttle, just pushes back up from under the gas pedal.

      Engineers back then were very conservative. It took years before they had the confidence to apply throttle automatically.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    83. Re:On the contrary by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      These belong in public transport, where you have a relatively controlled environment running down predetermined routes

      This. For all the talk about self-driving cars, it seem to be lost on people that freight trains still have human operators...and this is on a pre-determined path with little chance of a collision with another train.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    84. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no pilot intervention other than setting the course, that is.

    85. Re:On the contrary by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      That remains a bullshit comparison, same as day before yesterday.

      Divided highway driving is about 1/4 as dangerous as all driving. So the comparative statistic to tesla's autopilot is about 1 in (92.6 * 4) million miles. Tesla has a long way to go.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    86. Re: On the contrary by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh. So the religious nuts are right when they cry "It is only a THEORY!!!"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    87. Re:On the contrary by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      That's an unfortunate over reaction on your part.

      Of COURSE something less than 100% reliable is acceptable.

      Currently autopilot features appear to be much safer than humans. In fact, humans appear to have double the accident rate that autopilot does.

      However, every time an edge case is identified, the auto pilot software will get better.

      Meanwhile, millions of new novice drivers who are worse than average (and have double the accident rate of humans so quadruple the accident rate of autopilot features) are released on to the roads every year.

      At this point, banning autopilot would definitely result in more human deaths.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    88. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ARE aware that "autopilot" literally means "self-driven", right? :)

    89. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't live in a strict liability world, dumbass.

    90. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest using a part of Great Britain.

    91. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I get arrested for murder, do I get to claim that

        Milord, there are thousands of people I *could* have murdered, but I murdered only one? Whereas most others don't get as many chances to murder people, why should my record must be 100% non-murder? Given infinite chances, everyone would commit murder, nothing is 100% in this field of murder?

    92. Re: On the contrary by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Pilots sometimes do have to override the autopilot system, in case of a system failure or emergency.

      In both cases the driver must stay alert and able to take control at a moment's notice.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    93. Re:On the contrary by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      The "moronic part of our population" think they are far more capable at controlling a vehicle than they really are. I'd rather have them rely on a rather effective semi-autopilot than drive like the morons they are.
      And BTW, if you assume that the moronic part of the population includes most of it, statistically, you are likely to be part of it.

    94. Re:On the contrary by Grunschev · · Score: 2

      >I've yet to see any car manufacturer other than Tesla irresponsibly brand them as "autopilot"

      What does your lack of vision have to do with the issue?

      The first car I ever owned was a 1967 Chrysler Imperial Crown, top of the line Imperial of its day. It had this really cool feature called "Autopilot". Autopilot was a dial with numbers on it, and a button to activate. Simply dial in the speed you wanted to go, press the button, and voila! The car magically maintained that speed. It even turned itself off if you tapped the brake pedal. Really cool stuff!

      Yes, these days everybody calls this feature "cruise control". But on my 1967 Chrysler it was "Autopilot". I certainly didn't expect the car to drive itself.

      Just because you've never heard of Chrysler using the term "autopilot" 50 years ago doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    95. Re: On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Most plane autopilots just handle flying in a consistent direction and speed, or following a selected .descent/ascent profile.

      Because that is all that is required for an airplane. Did Tesla do all that was required for a vehicle on a busy highway? Nope.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    96. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that autopilot features for the general public are problematic. People have been comparing Tesla's autopilot to commercial aircraft, but there is no comparison. Pilots are professionally trained. The aircraft have collision warning systems that provide much more reaction time than you could ever hope for on a freeway. There are air traffic controllers watching the skies, keeping the planes safely separated.

      Expecting a car autopilot to provide absolute safety on an uncontrolled road with other manually controlled vehicles is completely unreasonable. The idea of segregated roads where only autopiloted vehicles can travel is a much better choice, but we cannot get there until there is sufficient proof that autopilot has benefit, the technology has matured, and enough people demand that kind of infrastructure to attract the attention of the politicians craving their votes and holding the purse strings.

      Let Darwin help us out here. The people stupid enough to turn over their life to a car's computer so they can relax and watch a DVD probably ought to be culled from the herd anyway.

    97. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      How are we going to get to the days where we don't have accidents? Are you going to buy a Tesla for everyone?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    98. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      1) Then they are the wrong company to do it. Let a company with innovation enough to know how to test it without using people as guinea pigs take the profit from it. Mythbusters found many old empty housing areas to do real world tests in, it's not hard. It may cost money, but that would be a worthwhile expense for a company wanting to safe lives. 2) That's not proven for the truck / trailer case. We can't ask the driver if he saw the trailer and wanted to let autopilot handle it. 3) Then they will never be safe enough for such mass adoption that they will safe a significant number of lives.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    99. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Sorry, forgot my line breaks.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    100. Re:On the contrary by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Or they could do what my wife's Honda Civic does... require you to tug on the steering wheel every 15 seconds. It will steer the car for 15 seconds at a time and then beeps and stops steering. A sort of dead man switch. I can see Tesla adding this "feature" at the behest of the insurance companies.

    101. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      And even then the number is probably even greater since Autopilot doesn't do ALL divided highway driving, only the simplest parts of all divided highway driving.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    102. Re:On the contrary by chaotixx · · Score: 1

      Where it most definitely does not make sense is in passenger cars, where the moronic part of our population (that is, most of it)...

      Why do you think having a bunch of morons behind the wheel is better than Tesla's half-baked "Autopilot"? At least with the Tesla there's something watching the road 100% of the time, rather than looking down at their phone. Even if it is flawed, let's not pretend that the alternative is perfect.

    103. Re: On the contrary by ai4px · · Score: 1

      I've thought about sending serialized coded messages by flashing the brake lights. The serial data would be so fast that the human eye would just see a brake light, while a sensor in front of your car would see the coded message from the other car's LED tail lights..... think 40khz modulated LEDs.

    104. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, language changes over time, and you can't stop it. Witness how "hacker" and "troll" have been largely twisted away from their original meaning. Sure, you can argue until the sun goes down what the dictionary definition is, but that won't stop people in general from using it they way they think it works. After all, dictionaries are merely records of common usage. (That's why they're revised so often)

    105. Re:On the contrary by Wain13001 · · Score: 1

      Intention is everything...your argument is specious. Nothing in the domain of Automobiles, much less any machinery is 100%.

    106. Re:On the contrary by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The question is how long it will take until freight trains become remotely controlled.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    107. Re:On the contrary by goodminton · · Score: 1

      Insightful? The premise that any technology can be 100% reliable is flawed.

    108. Re:On the contrary by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > With a little luck, Tesla's idiotic hype will ensure that the failures of these systems get enough publicity to regulate them out of being

      Yeah that's a great plan. Let's make sure regulation strangles the technology before it's properly born. Surely automakers will continue to dump billions into a technology they know they can't actually use and that will bring it into reality Real Soon Now.

      > These belong in public transport, where you have a relatively controlled environment running down predetermined routes where outside factors can be mitigated, and where the drivers are employees who can be regularly trained and tested on their knowledge of the system's capabilities. An autopilot function makes sense in, say, a bus.

      Oh yes, public transport. The shining beacon of the bleeding edge of tech. Why just think of all the innovations that have made our lives better that came from that sector. There's... bike racks on buses. And I got nothing else..

      The problem is that fleshbags kill hundreds of thousands of people a year and something needs to be done. Regulation and killing the tech in its infancy is not the answer. If the regulators had gotten involved right after the Wright brothers took their first flight we'd probably still be debating if air travel was safe enough to allow civilian use of it.

    109. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When he's done however we should see a mature technology that is far better at driving than any fleshy meatbag currently powering 1.5ton death machines down the road.

      No we won't.

      We will see technology capable of driving expensive cars down well maintained, well defined roads at slightly unsafe speeds, along routes which suit their upper middle class owners, to destinations planned and constructed around automobile commutes. But only in mild to no traffic.

      We will see Tesla's and competitors frequently involved in a multitude of "edge case" accidents, incidents, accidents, events, and for each scenario the software controlling the autopilot will become ever more complex and unmanageable.

      We will see automated vehicles fail (at a say 0.001% rate per trip) again and again to drive safely at any speed in inner cities, rural areas, along bad roads, or in close proximity to pedestrians. Again the software will be updated again and again over the years.

      We will see careless, feckless owners disregard responsibility, and the road, ordering their vehicles to drive faster to shave off minutes, break speed limits. Eventually we will see enthusiasts "hacking" their own cars software, with an inevitable disaster or three emerging.

      We will see autopilot software become a gargantuan construct, rivaling any OS. In the wake of accidents and death, we will see federally mandated protocols and overrides bolted on, roped in, worked around, and re-written. Security holes exploited, patched, re-opened, re-patched, forgotten, worked around. We will see (software) crashes, hardware failures, radio interference, maintenance issues, mileage issues, state bans, road type bans, lobbying, bribes, marketing, propositions, ethics lectures, documentaries, testimonials, on the road intercourse, divorces cases, disaster zones, all conceivable weather conditions, celestial events, lightning strikes, baseball impacts, bird strikes, engine failures, and St. Patrick's day parades and ALL OF IT WILL GO IN THE CODEBASE.

      Eventually, a speeding tesla will, in broad daylight, on a clear road, run right over a small absconding toddler in a birdman costume -- on camera -- because it couldn't make the decision to stop amidst the conflicting requirements of its 2 billion lines of programming, and that will be the end of automated automobiles altogether.

    110. Re:On the contrary by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      That's utter crap. People have managed to cause accidents with "cruise control" for decades. Everyone remotely familiar with the term "autopilot" knows all it does is maintain altitude, heading and speed in an aircraft and there have also been many crashes with planes' autopilot active but nobody's screaming for the heads of the people who make that tech despite the irresponsible name.

    111. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, the dude was watching a movie. I'm sure he knew he wasn't supposed to be doing that. Someone else is going to be typing on their phone.

      It's a shame to have to force everyone to the lowest common denominator. It's unfair to the rest of us.

    112. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call discrimination against smart people!!

      It's not fair that you want to take away a useful feature (autopilot) because some people don't understand it. What next, do

    113. Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.

      What about people who use cell phones while driving? That kills thousands of people a year. Perhaps it would be smart to mandate that cell carriers block all moving cell phone connections. Nothing less than 100%, right?

    114. Re:On the contrary by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      100% is impossible, so if we follow your logic we will never have access to advanced cruise control with speed adjustment and auto-braking, lane warning/assist, things which many cars now have, and we will never have self-driving cars.

      It doesn't need to be 100%, it just needs to be better than the average human.

    115. Re:On the contrary by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'd much prefer that. keep my foot resting on the peddle, with no risk of speeding.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    116. Re:On the contrary by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sorry, not for sale.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    117. Re: On the contrary by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      "The truck probably didn't see the car either."

      That seems to be an overlooked bit of this case.

      It is not being overlooked; it is irrelevant. the issue is whether people in general are capable of operating these systems safely, given their limitations (both the people and the technology.) The case has not been adequately made so far, IMHO. Tesla's insistence that this is beta software is both an acknowledgement that this is so and an attempt to get around the fact (irresponsibly so, IMHO.)

      I look forward to autonomous cars, but I am opposed to the practice of pretending that the state of the art is more advanced than it is.

    118. Re:On the contrary by tibit · · Score: 1

      When it comes to autopilots: usually planes crash and people die not because the pilot had to override the autopilot, but because the conditions changed - e.g. one of the air data sources has failed - and the autopilot has failed safe and turned itself off. But the pilots all too often manage not to notice and fly into the ground while under the assumption that the plane's airspeed, altitude and attitude are controlled by the autopilot. Tesla's autopilot is no different. It will disengage when the conditions are too far out of its specifications. And everyday people will get into danger exactly the same way the trained pilots do. Take it for what it's worth.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    119. Re:On the contrary by tibit · · Score: 1

      It already has that feature...

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    120. Re: On the contrary by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If I make an unsafe left turn across oncoming traffic on a highway the cops are not going to accept the excuse that I didn't want to wait for a bigger break in traffic. If the intersection is regularly so busy that it's not possible for vehicles to make a safe turn then it needs an overpass or lights. I don't know where this accident occurred, but I doubt there's a line in the highway code that says you have to make safe left turns unless you're a transport truck.

      Shit happens, but my point is that this accident wasn't "Tesla's autopilot screwed up" as is being reported. It's "(1) transport truck made an illegal and dangerous turn, (2) Tesla driver was watching Harry Potter instead of driving, (3) Tesla autopilot failed to prevent accident caused by these two chuckleheads."

    121. Re: On the contrary by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In English autopilot doesn't necessarily mean what it's etymological roots do in Greek.

      Even in isolation, the older uses of pilot are more along the lines of "helmsman." Helmsmen steer the ship. Someone else tells them where to steer it.

    122. Re:On the contrary by swillden · · Score: 1

      Mostly, I agree with your post. Just one quibble:

      In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable

      100% reliability is too high. Nothing is 100% reliable -- certainly not human drivers. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than humans... which means it can't have modes where suddenly hands control back to the human and expects them to act appropriately. It's okay for it to decide in some situations (say, bad weather) that it isn't able to operate safely, but it has to be able to at least bring the vehicle to a safe stop before turning over control, so the human has time to understand the situation before being required to take control.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    123. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of a plane crashing because the pilots were not being attentive while not on autopilot.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    124. Re: On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well, then people really need to stop slowing down for trucks and run into them more and report them to police. I personally have to slow down for a truck doing this at least once a month and I don't even drive all that much. It is a regular thing that happens in traffic.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    125. Re: On the contrary by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      Shit happens, but my point is that this accident wasn't "Tesla's autopilot screwed up" as is being reported. It's "(1) transport truck made an illegal and dangerous turn, (2) Tesla driver was watching Harry Potter instead of driving, (3) Tesla autopilot failed to prevent accident caused by these two chuckleheads."

      Point 1 is not relevant, because all these systems must be judged on how well they respond to situations without regard to cause: as you say, shit happens. Point 2 might be relevant if this wasn't entirely predictable behavior.

      The real issue is that beta software with real safety concerns is being put into the hands of people who predictably (statistically speaking) can not or will not treat it as such - that alone is a major WTF. The only thing Tesla can justifiably complain about is that this is being reported as a Tesla-only issue, when the other manufacturers are being equally irresponsible (if not worse - my understanding is that Tesla's system is better than most, if not all.)

    126. Re:On the contrary by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      It does explain why my mom thought I was a crazy person when I was learning to drive and told her the Cruise Control accelerates the car. She hadn't been driving for over a decade at that point in time.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    127. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The driver is dead. Good luck confirming if he saw it moron. Any other lies you want to spread?

    128. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've clearly never used tesla autopilot mode. The 130 million miles is bullshit as it fucks up all the time and yet that's included in the 130 million miles. I'm lucky to go 500m before it tries to drive on the wrong side of the road and kill me. Stopping on a freeway because maps was out of date was not funny either. Elon is a total douche..

    129. Re: On the Contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worse than a learner driver. Your definition of almost needs updating.

    130. Re: On the contrary by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about that. When the plane's several kilometers in the air, and there aren't immediately dangerous features around, and there aren't any other planes too close, an autopilot failure is unlikely to cause a problem that has to be addressed immediately. Airliners have certain separation rules, IIRC, while I'm expected to drive within a couple of meters of other people on a normal basis. If the driver just to my left makes a sudden right swerve, I have to react immediately to avoid a crash. Except at takeoff and landing, aircraft with good autopilots are unlikely to be in such urgent situations.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    131. Re:On the contrary by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's very possible to go from a state where everything's fine and normal to one where people are dead in much less than fifteen seconds. It's possible for the driver to lose situational awareness in much less than fifteen seconds. This doesn't seem very safe to me.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    132. Re:On the contrary by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Everyone remotely familiar with aircraft autopilots might well know that, but lots of people know the word "autopilot" and don't know how aircraft autopilots work.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    133. Re:On the contrary by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Do you have a seatbelt in your car? Do you own a Saab? Because we all know Saab were the only car on the market with seat belts at one time.
      What about ABS? Maybe you bought a weird hybrid between a Saab and a Chrysler because otherwise how is it possible you have both these features at once?

      As a side note you do realise that Tesla is not the first to market with this technology. They are coming closer to 4th the only difference is that they are the first to allow it to continue operating without torque sensing on the steering wheel, something which is easily defeated on Mercedes Benz vehicles by stickytaping a coke can to the wheel, and *abracadabra* Tesla style autopilot in a Merc.

    134. Re:On the contrary by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but you're just swapping out human failures for mechanical ones.

      The former are systemic issues that can't be resolved, the latter can be quantified, analysed and improved. If we could overnight swap out all human issues with mechanical ones without even changing any of the failure rate our species would be in a far better place than we are now and death would be solved by engineering, not failing drink driving laws.

    135. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Neither of my cars has ABS. Seatbelt is there because governments force it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    136. Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a significant failure of road engineering at play in addition to user error. This was a highway intersection with left turns crossing oncoming lanes, with no traffic lights. It's a design that puts slow, turning vehicles directly in the path of cars traveling at highway speed on what looks like a regular dual carriageway.

    137. Re:On the contrary by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Thanks for missing the point. Incidentally ABS is forced too since 2011 in the USA, or since 2004 in the EU.

      Now if you actually want to understand my point, realise that this is a Saab technology and a Chrysler technology that was offered not only because of government mandates by far more than those two companies.

      Personally I can't wait till governments mandate full autopilots on vehicles and start fining those dangerous drivers who attempt to drive manually placing others at risk.

    138. Re:On the contrary by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting that the government may one day mandate automation in all vehicles? That's a pretty far stretch, considering only the most basic and rudimentary of automation has ever been forced. I wouldn't even call a seatbelt automation, it's just a safety feature that costs the auto maker literally less than $5 per vehicle. Companies have way more lobbying power these days to resist government in forcing them to do anything that may impact the bottom line, and people can't afford vehicles as it is.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    139. Re:On the contrary by tibit · · Score: 1

      As a rule of thumb, 1/4~1/2 of transport jet controlled flight into terrain crashes are preceded by unacknowledged autopilot disconnect. It's all too common.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    140. Re:On the contrary by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So, an automatic transmission automatically shifts itself into reverse to back out of a space, then into drive when ready to go forward? An automatic transmission automatically downshifts when descending mountains? An automatic transmission will automatically downshift when braking to maintain engine power for trailer brakes? This appears in my truck's manual, it is a high recommendation to downshift while braking when towing so that the trailer brakes continue to get steady power.

      No, automatic transmissions don't need no user intervention, they need user intervention in many circumstances, just not when you are driving forward on a level highway.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    141. Re: On the contrary by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Also all those idiots that steer with their knees...which would be a good thing...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    142. Re:On the contrary by robinsc · · Score: 1

      I prefer a less than reliable autopilot to a moron.

      --
      Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
    143. Re:On the contrary by robinsc · · Score: 1

      A Driving License is got after a learners license. One of the things you are supposed to learn is that when you are behind the wheel you are responsible. No additional training necessary. If the driver is not comfortable with a particular function heor she should have the sense not to turn it on.

      --
      Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
  17. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Hydrogen powered car billows snide

    Take that peon.

  18. Marketing by speedplane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do they call it "Autopilot" if it is only "an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times"? Tesla deserves all of the bad press they're getting.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    1. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do they call it "Autopilot" if it is only "an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times"? Tesla deserves all of the bad press they're getting.

      Does it really matter what the feature is called?

      Why do people follow GPS Navigation prompts blindly when the visual feedback sitting literally in front of them does not match?

      How many times have we seen news reports such as the following?

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/81850253/Timaru-Police-Notebook-July-7

      A foreign driver claimed directions from her GPS system led to her crashing her rental campervan through a fence.

      Sergeant Ian Howard said the woman crashed through a fence and into a paddock on Beaconsfield Rd, near Timaru, about 10.30pm on Wednesday.

      The woman claimed her GPS had told her to continue to drive straight, rather than turning onto the road at an intersection, he said.

    2. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more interesting question is if I jerk my hands will it think I did that intentionally and follow my steering input, or will there be a lag that will discard short driver input or will it just turn, despite all its sensors screaming bloody murder. In other words, if I'm driving on a two lane road, will it allow me to steer into a car in the oncoming traffic, or will it override me and keep me in my otherwise empty lane.

      Until the car can make this decision this "feature" is a useless gimmick.

    3. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ridiculous. Studies are already showing that people will not presently support autopilot functionality that will sacrifice their lives over those of others, regardless of the overall benefit. There is no way that you'll see an autopilot system in the near future where it will refuse to let you take control, regardless of the outcome.

      That's not to say that autopilot shouldn't potentially refuse to let you make a bad decision...but here's the legislative mumbo jumbo "So you're saying that if I see some child with a puppy run in front of my car that it won't let me steer the car heroically into a nearby bus to save his life? That's preposterous! I can make far better decisions than this car!"

    4. Re: Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The steering wheel is mechanically connected to the wheels via the rack and pinion so, yes, if you jerk the wheel into oncoming traffic you will crash.

    5. Re:Marketing by J-1000 · · Score: 0

      Perhaps because, like airplane autopilot, there are things it can't/shouldn't do? They may be a bit out of touch with how your average person would interpret the naming.

    6. Re:Marketing by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Well firstly it doesn't require you to keep your hands on the wheel, but that is highly recommended.
      Secondly it guides the car in a lane on a highway ... just like an aircraft autopilot.
      Thirdly it requires a pilot in the cockpit ... just like an aircraft autopilot.
      Fourthly it hands control back to a pilot in an unexpected or uncontrollable scenario ... just like an aircraft autopilot.
      Finally it only gets you to the end of the highway and hands control back to the driver for final manoeuvring near the designation ... just like an aircraft autopilot.

      I wonder why they call it autopilot.

    7. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because it sounded snazzier than 'lane keeping assist plus adaptive cruise control' which is what every other car manufacturer calls it...

    8. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not unlike the words "Unlimited Data", the common usage of words are more important than the contextualized technical term coined by the manufacturer.

    9. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, that's what autopilot is in airplanes, and that's where the name came from. It's a very accurate name.

    10. Re: Marketing by jbengt · · Score: 1

      The steering wheel is mechanically connected to the wheels via the rack and pinion

      Are you sure?

    11. Re:Marketing by flink · · Score: 1

      Fourthly it hands control back to a pilot in an unexpected or uncontrollable scenario ... just like an aircraft autopilot.

      When an aircraft autopilot detects a problem at cruising altitude, the pilot usually has at least several 10s of seconds if not minutes to assess the situation and correct the issue. When a "problem" occurs on the ground, traveling 65mph, with obstacles all around you, you have fractions of a second to react. If an autonomous system hands control over to you in that situation, you are fucked.

    12. Re:Marketing by phorm · · Score: 1

      In many situations it might help automatically correct a mistake of the driver (i.e. driver didn't notice the sudden braking of the vehicle ahead). However, you still need to be there in case it f***s up or doesn't notice some issue (like a white tractor-trailer).

  19. Despite the name it is not autopilot by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is not auto-pilot or an autonomous car, it is just an advanced cruise control with a lane warning and brake assist system. Any driver that fails to stay focused while behind the wheel of a vehicle under any circumstances gets what they deserve and should be further prosecuted for negligent operation of a car.
    Just because a route is predetermined does not mean that outside factors can be mitigated in any meaningful way. Jackasses cut off busses and cross over in front of light rail trains all the time.
    Any system that can assist and warn a driver should be heralded not bashed when the failing component is almost certainly going to be the air-gap in the driver seat.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the idiots should be prosecuted. However, that doesn't help the fact that innocent third-parties could be maimed or killed in accidents with these idiots, and that the manufacturers should have known better than to put such half-baked systems in their vehicles in the first place, let alone declared end-users on public roads capable of performing beta-testing of such systems for them. You can be damned sure if a Tesla driver hits my car when using autopilot, I will be suing not just them, but also Tesla. And frankly, Tesla's choice of name is not helping matters here.

      As for public transport, I didn't mean to imply it could mitigate *every* issue -- but it can mitigate many. When you have predefined routes, it is easier to ensure those routes have adequate road surface quality, lane and road markings, signposting, etc. Hell, you can even within the bounds of feasibility make alterations to those roads to ensure they are as appropriate as possible for autonomous driving. But when you have an entire interstate system (and eventually, an entire country's road network) to contend with, that's a MUCH tougher challenge.

    2. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...and that the manufacturers should have known better than to put such half-baked systems in their vehicles in the first place..."

      Mmmhmm. You should wait for the NTSB's report before declaring this half-baked. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if you were shorting Telsa stock.

    3. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Elon Musk shorting Tesla stock now too?

    4. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The article says that the Florida fatality driver was watching a video. ON the one hand, this is a Darwin award candiate.

      On the other hand, seems to me this is something that can be improved upon. I would hope that the video wasn't on the console. If it was, obviously that should not be capable of showing videos whilst the car is in motion.

      If the video was on a secondary device, perhaps a camera mounted on the ceiling near the driver's head could look for video devices, and refuse autopilot if so. It'd also check that the camera was not obscured, so it couldn't be easily cheated. Such a camera might also recognise books, newspapers, or the lack of hands anywhere near the wheel.

    5. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by Ost99 · · Score: 1

      It was not on the center console. It's not capable of video playback.

      Unsafe behaviour doesn't get more safe by disabling safety systems. People do stupid shit behind the wheel every day. If you want to monitor autopilot users, perhaps we should start with something that makes more sense in terms of accident rates by installing breathalyzers in all cars?

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    6. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      A much simpler solution would simply be to put touch sensors in the steering wheel and refuse to engage autopilot if the steering wheel isn't being touched. It also avoids difficulties with say - passengers who are watching a movie (as opposed to the driver). Also throw in a large visual and audible alarmif you let go of the wheel for more than 3 seconds or such and keeps blaring until you take it again.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It is not auto-pilot

      It absolutely is auto-pilot. The problem stems from the fact that people drastically over-estimate how much an auto-pilot does. All it does is keep the plane steady, level, and pointed in a direction. That's basically what Tesla does as well.

    8. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by bozzy · · Score: 1

      Calling it "autopilot" in the first place is the problem as it causes the user to make incorrect assumptions about the car's capability. A good practice in system design is to name features in a way that matches the user's mental model how they expect it to function. That is a mistake on Tesla's part.

      If this feature is meant to assist highway driving, then call it "highway assist" or whatever else sets expectations properly, but, FFS, do not call it autopilot if it does not function like one.

    9. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by mythandros · · Score: 2

      That's already how it works. Take your hands off the steering wheel and you get a warning with increasing frequency until the car begins to decelerate, assuming that the driver has become unable to respond.

    10. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Have you ever driven a car longer than 5 minutes? There is no way touch sensors in the steering wheel would be a beneficial addition. People switch hand position all the time. I'd dare say there isn't anyone who drives a car with a hand on the wheel at all times. Having the system disengage all the time would be ridiculous. I suppose you could put a timer along with the sensor, though. Still wouldn't stop anything. A person could easily rest a hand on the wheel and never once look at what's actually happening around them.

      The right solution is to make it clear that this "autopilot" isn't anything more than an assisted cruise control, like every other manufacturer does, and people wouldn't think it was more capable than it is. Or simply let the dumbasses be dumbasses. It hasn't impacted car sales by any other manufacturer. Hell, there are some 30,000+ fatal accidents every year in the US with "regular" cars. Some are certainly manufacturer defects, but most are human error. Why should Tesla be held to a different standard than all other manufacturers?

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    11. Re: Despite the name it is not autopilot by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nah. He has been around for some time, has a 6 figure ID, and is not posting as AC. As such, he is posting his personal opinion( though misinformed) and is almost certainly not astroturfing. There are plenty of AC posting here that are obviously astroturfing, but he is not.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Another way of looking at it is that autopilot does everything a plane needs it to to fly in the air. Therefore I would expect Tesla autopilot to do everything it needs to do to drive on the highway.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      Trains use a system sort of like this, requiring the accelerator handle be gripped every so often or the train begins dynamic braking and all sorts of alarms go off, alerting the engineer and the train monitors that something is wrong. It still doesn't prevent some errors but has greatly reduced the number of incidents. I also think that some of the hype has been be used/drummed by the 'other' auto manufacturers who really hate Tesla and would love to see the company fail. Not only has Tesla cut into their pie, they've advocated a break with the traditional dealership monopoly model that has made car dealers and many politicians rich.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    14. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by BigPhatPhuck · · Score: 1

      Plane autopilot will not stop you from crashing into the plane in front of you!

    15. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      TCAS will prevent that (most of the times). You cannot just consider one automation feature without considering the whole system.

    16. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It is clear that autopilot is not used while the plane is taxiing and during takeoff. Just like with Tesla autopilot you need to get out into an open highway to turn it on. But just like a pilot sets autopilot once in the air and almost always leaves it there for most of the flight, it is reasonable that people would expect to get to the open highway and leave it there until approaching their destination.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    17. Re:Despite the name it is not autopilot by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What does it do to check that hands are on the wheel? Does it need to sense skin somewhere? (If so, I'm not buying it. It gets cold where I live, and I don't want a car I can't drive with gloves on.) Will it detect my hand in all the positions I might use? If it can detect a gloved hand at any point, how good is it at avoiding false positives (e.g., knee touching wheel - I've read about people steering with their knees, and I'd rather they did that somewhere other than the road any of my loved ones or me are on)?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. People are stupid by future+assassin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seriously I don't care how good a system is, you give up control of the car to any auto system where the operator now will do everything but pay attention, you're gonna get crashes. Even the few extra second lost to trying to recover to manual driving is enough to potentially get into an accident and win an award..

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:People are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered that you may still get less crashes than relying on humans? Isn't that better?

  21. New Regulation: Disable Unsafe Feature Until Safe by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    The safety of everyone on the road trumps some increasingly limited and yet abused feature designed for the convenience for the wealthy few who buy any of Tesla's cars. The best approach is for Tesla and Musk to disable this feature with the very next software update, and fix everything. Alternative is to face backlash where the NHTSA forces them to and then keeps the feature illegal.

  22. Tesla Autopilot is comparable to Airline Autopilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am not a Tesla owner, or a pilot (or even in aviation) but it is my understanding that "autopilot" on planes do not handle all scenarios. Pilots are still required to be in place and monitoring the flight path and ready to take control at a moments notice for anything out of the ordinary. Autopilot is only meant to handle the routine aspects of flying and alerting the pilot of anything unexpected but not used without human presence. The Tesla feature is aptly named in my opinion.

  23. Re:New Regulation: Disable Unsafe Feature Until Sa by thrich81 · · Score: 1

    I'd trust a Tesla car in "autopilot" mode to not hit me on the road a lot more than I trust the cars under the control of most of the human drivers out there.

  24. Tesla had better be careful by wakeboarder · · Score: 1

    If there are more crashes and they change public opinion on safety of autonomous driving, then it could delay the adoption of autonomous automobiles for a decade or more.

    1. Re:Tesla had better be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can only hope so.

      Autonomous driving technology is clearly not ready for public roads yet, despite Tesla pushing their half-assed attempt and making ridiculous predictions about having truly autonomous cars on the road in 2 years.

      The technology will get there, but it's so far off right now that it's dangerous.

  25. The problem is the feature's *name* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "autopilot" suggests hands-free, driverless.
    This is exactly what it has meant in aviation for decades.

    The feature would be better called "driver assist" or something--clearly indicating in the name itself that it absolutely does not *replace* the driver.
    I don't care how many warning labels you attach to it and instruction manuals telling you not to let go of the wheel--if you call it *autopilot* people are going to think the feature is more than it is--and they *will* test it--as obviously has already happened.

    1. Re:The problem is the feature's *name* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"autopilot" suggests hands-free, driverless.
      >This is exactly what it has meant in aviation for decades.

      No it hasn't meant that in aviation ever. What makes you think that?

    2. Re:The problem is the feature's *name* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor does autopilot in a plane suggest pilot-less.

      A basic autopilot will do diddly-squat if it ends up on a collision course with another aircraft or ground feature as long as it's keeping to the speed/altitude/heading settings the pilot put in. It's up to the pilot to lol out for conflicting traffic, terrain, weather etc. I'd say the longer sight distances and less congested nature of air travel means a pilot has more leeway to rely on an autopilot than a driver does. However smart an automaton is, there will be corner cases it's not equipped to handle. Now to get the Joe Average driver to realize that...

      Ohhh, I swear the captcha system is sentient: "behead"

    3. Re:The problem is the feature's *name* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "autopilot" suggests hands-free, driverless.
      This is exactly what it has meant in aviation for decades.

      A plane's auto pilot will happily fly into a mountain for you, following the exact glidepath it was programmed to follow.

      Michael Lubitz crashed the Germanwings airliner this way.

      Are you trying to tell me the autopilot should have avoided that mountain and landed safely?

    4. Re:The problem is the feature's *name* by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      As an outsider, to me an airplane autopilot does everything that a plane needs to do in the air. It would not be in planes if the pilot had to disengage it every 10 minutes, it would not be taken seriously. Upon hearing that they put Autopilot in a car, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that it will do everything a car needs to do on a straight stretch of road.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:The problem is the feature's *name* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Autopilot" suggests the car should fly, as it has in aviation for decades.

      I believe Tesla is misrepresenting their vehicles' capabilities.

  26. Re:Tesla Autopilot is comparable to Airline Autopi by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    "I am not a Tesla owner, or a pilot (or even in aviation) but it is my understanding that "autopilot" on planes do not handle all scenarios."

    Yes, which is why pilots have extensive training and planes costs millions of dollars. Neither is true of a tesla or tesla owners.

    --
    -
  27. Re:New Regulation: Disable Unsafe Feature Until Sa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unless you drive a truck on a sunny day.

  28. fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solution is manufacturing cars with a camera pointed at the driver that always records and uploads to the cloud when a driver engages the self driving feature.

  29. Only Market Definition Matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the autistic BS about definitions aside, the problem is that the market interprets the name of the feature to imply capabilities it doesn't have, and which encourages unsafe behaviors. That means it IS Tesla's problem because they NAMED it!

  30. When you called it an Autopilot --- by westlake · · Score: 2

    ---- what did you think was going to happen?

    I am not willing to let Musk off on this one. He is a promoter whose spell-binding sales pitch always promises more than he is able to deliver.

    1. Re:When you called it an Autopilot --- by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ---- what did you think was going to happen?

      Exactly what did happen when you fail to RTFM.

      I am not willing to let Musk off on this one. He is a promoter whose spell-binding sales pitch always promises more than he is able to deliver.

      And I'm not willing to let humanity placate to fucking idiots. Sorry, but learn to RTFM, or become a Darwin Award winner. Plain and simple.

    2. Re:When you called it an Autopilot --- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm not willing to let humanity placate to fucking idiots. Sorry, but learn to RTFM, or become a Darwin Award winner. Plain and simple.

      Also applies to manufacturers misrepresenting the products that they sell. Learn how to sell responsibly and legally, or your company will meet an untimely demise.

    3. Re: When you called it an Autopilot --- by ljw1004 · · Score: 2

      Well,a plane autopilot's only job is the boring "uneventful freeway" of the air, and the pilot has to take over in unexpected situations.

      The normal phrase "I was on autopilot" is always used to describe subconscious activity that doesn't handle well the unexpected.

      So yes, "autopilot" is exactly the right word for what tesla does today.

      Once they start calling it "self driving", that'll be something different.

    4. Re:When you called it an Autopilot --- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm not willing to let humanity placate to fucking idiots. Sorry, but learn to RTFM, or become a Darwin Award winner. Plain and simple.

      So, you're the guy who thinks documenting a horrible design will solve all your design problems. Documentation, particularly in a case like this, is a horrible cop out. Tesla knew better, but went along with it anyways.

    5. Re:When you called it an Autopilot --- by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      And I'm not willing to let humanity placate to fucking idiots. Sorry, but learn to RTFM, or kill someone else on the road uninvolved with your mistakes.

      FTFY.

  31. Re:Tesla Autopilot is comparable to Airline Autopi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two points..

    First, people are complaining because it's called "autopilot" for marketing reasons, but it does a comparable thing to "autopilot" on planes, so the complaint isn't valid.

    Second, your point about training actually is backwards as as people driving around in a Tesla should be persons qualified/licensed to drive a motor vehicle. So they should be able to observe and make a determination about the road ahead and act if there is anything to warrant seizing control.

    Until the autopilot decides to swerve off the road and into a ditch of it's own volition, I still thing Tesla is doing a reasonable job.

  32. It's a very young technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sure it will be great in, say, 20 years.

    Until then it should only be available to informed people (i.e. people who know that constant and qualified human supervision is necessary at all times). Like a "second driver's license", so to speak. Or an extension of the existing license.

    If this is left unchecked, we can be sure that lots of "Joes" out there will assume that the car is perfectly capable to drive them around town while they do other things - maybe even in the back seat. And that is dangerous with the current state of the technology.

    It has to mature, and it will have a great future. Until then, we have to be careful.

    1. Re:It's a very young technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's the solution. Every time a new feature comes out in a car we have to create an entire license system around it. Automatic cruse control? Maybe your average person can have it in a decade but for now lets require a two hour class and a 50 question test. Lane following? Ohhhh that sounds dangerous, lets require a day class and a 100 question test and only allow it to the average joe in two decades. Collision avoidance? People may trust it too much so lets require a 4 hour class and 70 questions. All of them combined, Well better have a week of vacation time saved up because you'll need it. Or we could do the intelligent thing, inform people as to the capabilities/limitations of the features on their car and then let personal responsibility (or in severe cases natural selection) take its course. Trying to stupid proof the world only succeeds in creating more talented idiots, well that and stifling advancement/innovation/invention/personal choice/etc.

  33. Re:Too bad by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Aaaaand.... where does the hydrogen come from?

    Electrolysis?

    Uhuh.

    --
    No sig today...
  34. Rollover? In a Tesla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought rollovers were near-impossible in a Tesla due to their crazy-low center of gravity.

    Given that, I suspect there's a lot more to this crash than has been reported in the summary.

  35. Strict liability? by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    They also said Autopilot "is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times."

    Here's the problem with that. The folks at Tesla HAVE to know that at least some of the people who use the technology are going to take their hands off the wheel. If they don't then they are weapons grade stupid and that seems unlikely. IANAL but it may not matter that Tesla warned people to keep their hands on the wheel given that it is reasonably foreseeable that some portion of the drivers would ignore those instructions. After all, they called it Autopilot for crying out loud... If strict liability is applied there is no need to prove fault, negligence, or intention. See Escola v Coca-Cola Bottling. Now maybe strict liability doesn't apply here but the point remains that manufacturers tend to be responsible for reasonably foreseeable consequences of the features of their products. I have a feeling that the autopilot features may have been released prematurely regardless of the claims of Tesla to the contrary. I love that Tesla is pushing boundaries but they need to tread carefully when it comes to safety.

    1. Re:Strict liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A recent Ars Technica article covers some of the details of this:

      Keep your hands off the wheel for too long (about 90 seconds) and the car will sound an alert tone and display a dialog on the centre console asking you to please grasp the wheel. If you ignore the warning, the car sounds another. If you ignore that one, the car will disengage the auto-cruise and auto-steer and slow to a stop (apparently on the assumption that you’re incapacitated, dead, or otherwise unable to grab the wheel).

      So the system does actively nag the driver to put their hands on the wheel.

    2. Re:Strict liability? by rand.srand() · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Here's what I think your argument is: It was negligent for Tesla to provide a feature that a reasonable person would foresee substantial misuse leading to death.

      This kind of product liability in cars has had lots of cases to work through the elements in the past... see Jablonski v. Ford Motor Company as a recent case.

      When the use and misuse of a product results in death, the burden of diligence is on both the manufacturer and the operator. If you try to make all products perfectly safe that's an impossible condition. If you let manufacturers off the hook completely that's a wild ride too.

      If you're the product engineer that is looking at the data that says when Autopilot is used correctly it's expected to save lives, and only adds to the accident rate if the feature is misused. That phenomenon pretty much describes every safety feature ever added to cars. ABS... great until you try to do the old fashioned pump the brakes. Air bags... awesome unless you put a child seat in the front seat.

      So as that product engineer, if you don't roll it out, you'll save a few people who would misuse it, and kill others that would be saved by using it correctly. Beyond case law, basic ethics kick in.

      Autonomous cars are going to produce some crazy case law!!

    3. Re:Strict liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any avoidable crashes that a Tesla car gets into while in auto-pilot mode should be considered a design flaw and corrected. I agree that a human driver is not an acceptable back up system or excuse.

      But this is what you get when regulators mandate that humans be the back up system for this type of autonomous driving mode.

    4. Re:Strict liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wording might be unfortunate but release of the feature is essential in improving it. Elon thinks this feature will become fully self-driving within 2 years and without real-world data from large fleet of cars would be very hard if not impossible.

  36. It's the idiot drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly it's idiot drivers over confidence in technology allowing them to think they can do other things besides driving their vehicles that is the problem.
    I do not blame Tesla for designing a bad auto pilot system, but rather the drivers who thinks it truly is a auto pilot system. Has Musk over sold its abilities or has some drivers simply misunderstood the abilities? Maybe a little of both, but anyone who dies watching Harry Potter because they think their car can drive itself is the only one to blame.

  37. something fishy by samantha · · Score: 1

    Teslas do not have a "self driving mode". They have a limited autopilot in no way meant to be a "self dirving mode". Are people making the mistake of acting it is supposed to do all the driving for them?

  38. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every moron that keeps destroying the planet will die.

    And so will even the greenest of hippies, living on rain water and fallen fruit (wouldn't want to hurt the plant by tearing off their fruit, or pulling them from the ground)

  39. Drivers are not pilots by sjbe · · Score: 1

    An avionics autopilot pretty much flies in a straight line and warns you if it notices something it doesn't know how to deal with, with the assumption that you have at least one or two pilots at the helm at all times monitoring for more complex problems.

    This isn't an avionics system and the person behind the wheel is not trained with anywhere near the rigor that the FAA demands from pilots. Furthermore there is a LOT less risk of hitting anything while flying through the air. I think you are trying to make the point that calling this an autopilot system may confuse people into believing that the system is more capable than it actually is because they don't understand what autopilot actually means in a plane. If so then I agree.

    The Tesla autopilot is far more competent that that.

    The person behind the wheel almost certainly is not nearly so competent even if what you are saying is true.

    Regardless of what you think the name implies though, releasing such half-baked semi-autonomous driving systems is completely irresponsible

    I tend to agree. I work in the auto industry (not for any Tesla competitor) and I've worked at test tracks in the past. I am 100% certain that this system has not been tested to a degree that should reasonably be considered adequate by any responsible engineer. I'm not saying it's not a remarkable bit of engineering (it is) but good may not be good enough in this case. People ARE going to do stupid things. The system IS going to run into corner cases the engineers didn't foresee. People ARE going to die before this technology becomes as safe and reliable as we hope. The Navy has a saying that "the rules are written in blood" which means that people got hurt to learn how to do things right. There is no reason to think that autopilot technologies in cars will be any different.

  40. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Generally it comes from cracking hydrocarbons. Electrolysis is pretty expensive to do for bulk hydrogen production.

  41. Lies stack up by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They also said Autopilot "is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times."

    Can't recall seeing where AutoPilot drops out if both hands come off the wheel, Elon.

    Pride goeth before the crash.

    1. Re:Lies stack up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you should do some research a bit ... Autopilot shuts off when you take off your hands from the wheel... it gives you a warning at first, and then it just turns off, slows the car down, and stops.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB8SpW8Byec ... the problem is, people are finding ways to get away with "hands-off" driving by taping stuff to the wheel and such ... and then they wonder why they get into accidents.

    2. Re:Lies stack up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have seen it here, among other places:

      http://www.teslarati.com/what-happens-ignore-tesla-autopilot-warnings/

    3. Re:Lies stack up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you turn autopilot on, a message on the display pops up that tells you to keep your hands on the wheel. (There may be a tone, too; I can't recall). If you don't have your hands on the wheel, after a minute or so, there will be a single two-tone sound and another message saying to keep your hands on the wheel will pop up. If you still don't put your hands on the wheel, after 30 seconds or so, there will be a double two-tone sound and another pop up message saying put your hands on the wheel. If you still don't respond, after another 20 seconds or so, the tone will start ringing continuously, the cars emergency lights will begin flashing, and the car will begin to slow down. If you still don't respond, the car will eventually slow to a stop, but the tone and flashing lights will continue. So, yes, AutoPilot will drop if both hands come off the wheel.

      I don't see any pride here. I see a company trying to change the world for the better and a bunch of hecklers who clearly aren't doing anything important with their lives as they waste time lobbing sophomoric criticisms in the peanut gallery that is Slashdot.

    4. Re:Lies stack up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can take your hands off the wheel for a while, perhaps a few minutes. After that the system will warn you to put your hands on the wheel, and if you don't the vehicle will start to slow down. I own a Tesla and this is from firsthand experience.

    5. Re:Lies stack up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also said Autopilot "is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times."

      Can't recall seeing where AutoPilot drops out if both hands come off the wheel, Elon.

      Oh, well, not *that* sounds safe. How about just some annoying noise?

  42. Why the shyness to look inward Tesla? by sonamchauhan · · Score: 2

    They also said Autopilot "is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times."

    With outward sensors almost capable of highway driving (almost, but not quite), you'd think inward-facing sensors (that ensure the driver's attention is on the road) would be a piece of cake for Tesla.

    But no. Instead, Telsa 'requires' something, and simultaneously makes it trivial to ignore that requirement. Tesla must enforcing inward looking sensors. With power comes accountability.

    Unless, in some weird way, avoiding the 'look in' is a hallmark of Tesla's culture.

  43. killers by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    As I've pointed out before, Congress is going to have to allow machines to kill people in order for these to become widespread. Since the companies making these machines are very powerful and spread a lot of money around, you can be sure Congress will pass the requisite laws. Hop to, lackey Congress! Allowing machines to kill people crosses a line that we will never be able to go behind again.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:killers by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      We have industrial accidents all the time. The question is will we have fewer and less-fatal vehicular collisions with such systems as autopilot than with straight manual driving?

      I don't care about substitutions. If your 7-year-old daughter dies in a situation made possible because of a policy change that saved 357 working-class Americans, 20 retirees, and that one old lady in a wheelchair from such a horrible death, simultaneously preventing thousands of injuries and an enormous amount of property damage, well... your kid is the Child of Omelas. Sucks to be you. You might not mind the blood of thousands on your hands to save one kid, but everyone else in the world probably cares just a bit less about that.

    2. Re:killers by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      "We have industrial accidents all the time." You could have worked for Andrew Carnegie as a steel mill manager in the 1800s. He had the same cold disregard for human life.

      "The question is will we have fewer and less-fatal vehicular collisions with such systems as autopilot than with straight manual driving?" And you are willing to run experiments on millions of Americans to find out. Didn't the Nazis run experiments on people?

      "If your 7-year-old daughter dies in a situation made possible because of a policy change that saved 357 working-class Americans, 20 retirees, and that one old lady in a wheelchair from such a horrible death, simultaneously preventing thousands of injuries and an enormous amount of property damage, well..."

      "If...." And I love how people make up numbers to support their want or need. How about 3,578 working-class Americans, 200,000 retirees, and that one old lady in a wheelchair with a cute puppy on her lap....

      I work with dangerous multimillion dollar machines festooned with e-stops and interlocks for the protection of humans from your easily forgiven "industrial accidents." These expensive machines are put down, locked out, without question, instantly, at the slightest indication that a human being could be harmed by a machine. Our facility garnered half a million dollars in OSHA fines for safety violations that people like you would scoff at. Yes, Dorothy, we aren't in the 1800s anymore. We don't allow machines to kill people. And we must not allow computer-driven cars to either.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
    3. Re:killers by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Your response is essentially that you don't mind the blood of the innocent on your hands, as long as it's blood you can feel good about. Your moral superiority apparently is more important than human lives.

  44. So A Silicon Valley Company Lied About Results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely nobody should be shocked by this. Google, Tesla and all the other self-driving contraptions likely crash several times a day and only get reported when provable. I've yet to hear of a Silicon Valley company that was more than 5% tech to 95% marketing bull.

    1. Re:So A Silicon Valley Company Lied About Results? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If Google's car kept crashing while they report it's had zero crashes for 300 million miles driven, people would have cell phone pictures of hundreds of unreported crashes.

    2. Re:So A Silicon Valley Company Lied About Results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Google's car kept crashing while they report it's had zero crashes for 300 million miles driven, people would have cell phone pictures of hundreds of unreported crashes.

      The average person wouldn't know what a Google car looked like if it hit them and if it did they would more likely take a few thousand dollars than share a photo.

  45. Lawsuits... by shadyn.ebey7844 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks Tesla should axe the autonomous program? I think Musk has good intent when he says it could save lives...but I also think he is putting too much faith in humanity. American drivers are idiots. It is laughably easy to get a driver's license. Common sense is the exception rather than the rule. Tesla is inviting another episode like the Toyota uncontrolled acceleration thing, but worse - people are trusting this infant technology with their lives. I don't think the tech is necessarily lacking; but I think it promotes inattentive driving. So many new cars are coming with "driver aids" that really aren't necessary. Lane keep assist? How hard is it to keep your car between the lines? Some tech I do like, such as rearview cameras, blind spot warning systems, park distance sensors, etc...but it seems that tech is being used to fill in where drivers are being lazy and stupid.

    1. Re:Lawsuits... by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Honestly idiots risking their own lives doesn't bother me at all. The risk they bring to other people on the road is a little more worrisome.

    2. Re:Lawsuits... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I've gone into road ralley race mode 4 or 5 times in the past few years alone just because traffic gets dense and the inattentive idiot next to me drifts into my lane, while the guy on the other side comes racing up at 40mph over the speed limit to pass between the 1.1 car lengths between me and the guy in his lane, and the dude behind me decides to tailgate at 18 inches. Have to find some way to move myself through this thick mess of people coming 2 feet out of their lane into an actual safe location on the road, and sometimes avoiding a 65mph collision requires extreme measures and driving like Mario Andretti for 6 seconds.

      Once, I was riding a school bus, and another schoolbus drifted over the yellow line and hit ours. We had to stop and call the police, and there was glass everywhere.

      So no, human beings cannot stay in their lane 100% of the time, because they are dumb.

  46. My! So much speculation by twmcneil · · Score: 1

    The crash, according to the police report, occurred when Scaglione, 77, was driving east on the Pennsylvania Turnpike when the SUV hit a guard rail on the right side of the road. It then crossed over the eastbound lanes and hit a concrete median. After hitting the median, the vehicle rolled onto its roof and landed in the middle of the roadway.

    If the Tesla "Autopilot" was on, I doubt the car would have hit a guard rail.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
    1. Re:My! So much speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Tesla "Autopilot" was on, I doubt the car would have hit a guard rail.

      lol. I guess you don't write software for a living. Ever beta test software? Did it work perfectly the first time? Throw real-time hardware controls in the mix and it wouldn't surprise me if some of these cars spontaneously popped-wheelies and went all Herbie the Love Bug on folks.

  47. Safety features by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Here's what I think your argument is: It was negligent for Tesla to provide a feature that a reasonable person would foresee substantial misuse leading to death.

    I think some lawyers will attempt to make an argument that closely resembles that, yes. It's pretty well trodden ground as far as product liability goes. Will be interesting to see how the inevitable lawsuits eventually play out.

    I think the other part of it will be that there will be some corner cases where the system will malfunction in ways not anticipated by the engineers. Think stuff like the sensor's inability to detect problems under certain conditions. No matter how diligent the engineers were there will be some corner cases they miss and there will be lawsuits that result.

    If you're the product engineer that is looking at the data that says when Autopilot is used correctly it's expected to save lives, and only adds to the accident rate if the feature is misused. That phenomenon pretty much describes every safety feature ever added to cars. ABS... great until you try to do the old fashioned pump the brakes. Air bags... awesome unless you put a child seat in the front seat.

    It's not entirely clear that the autopilot is actually a safety feature, at least as implemented. It's really more like cruise control. While it might have some safety benefit in some cases, it's very much of a driver comfort aid. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea but you'll have a hard time proving that lives were saved by this feature but it will be screamingly obvious when people are killed by it.

    Autonomous cars are going to produce some crazy case law!!

    Brother, you ain't kiddin...

  48. 2 problems by DrXym · · Score: 1
    Theoretically a computer assisted driver should be safer in all circumstances than just a driver alone. e.g. the computer can spot a hazard and hit the brakes way sooner than the human, potentially avoiding death or serious injury. The driver can disengage or override the assistance if there is a reason to (e.g. the person sees flashing lights or roadworks ahead or whatever).

    The problem here is the Tesla stuck in a feature which is a) flawed, and b) doesn't enforce driver attention. It's flawed because it appears to have a serious issue with trailers and perhaps other situations. Some reports say it masks out high elevation obstructions because of interference from overhead signage.

    Some might say its the driver's fault for not paying attention but that is a natural consequence of a bad design. The car should enforce the driver's attention. If there is no enforcement then people will become inattentive and crashes will happen. This will be true for pretty much any self drive vehicle that requires a human for fallback. The human cannot be allowed to watch a movie, fall asleep or be passed out drunk if there is even a small chance they need to take back control with little notice.

  49. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say Tesla Autopilot "is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times," so why bother using it if you have to be alert and ready with your hands at the wheel at all times? How the hell is it going to make your driving better on these premises?

  50. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But for the hippies it will be sweet relief. No more god damn noodle dancing, to song with no ending.

  51. I don't get it by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    Autopilot “is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times,” Tesla said.

    Then why are they calling it Autopilot?
    Really, lets accept that Human Behavior, until completely co-opted by computers and AI, will always assume Autopilot, or anything remotely like that means "I don't have to pay attention. I can take my hands of the wheel".
    What is it for if you have to keep your hands on the wheel, people with Parkinsons?

    As much as I hate to admit it, I think Google is correct in wanting cars that drive themselves while the user is completely oblivious.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  52. Re:Tesla Autopilot is comparable to Airline Autopi by Wain13001 · · Score: 1

    Yes, which is why pilots have extensive training and planes costs millions of dollars. Neither is true of a tesla or tesla owners.

    I'm pretty sure Tesla owners still have to take a drivers test. The "extensive training" a pilot goes under is not about weird magical situations that requires more than normal flight training. Just because my car has "autopilot" doesn't mean I need to undergo some new special drivers training that isn't covered by regular driving schools...the autopilot mode doesn't give the car a complex new control set or somehow change the rules of the road.

    Also this has nothing to do with why planes are expensive, not to mention that Teslas aren't cheap.

  53. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elon, don't you have better things to do than troll yourself for sympathy?

  54. Never an autopilot by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    They should never have called this function an autopilot!

    While this is consistant with the usage in aircraft, where a "wing leveler and turn controller" is called an autopilot, it is not what the public hears.

    To most of the drivers it makes them think this is a robot driver, which it is not. 8-{