Third Tesla Crashes Amid Report of SEC Investigation (usatoday.com)

Tesla is a sinking ship by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 12:48 · Score: 1, Interesting

Here come the lawsuits and the bankruptcy. Get out while you can.

Re:Tesla is a sinking ship by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 15:24 · Score: 1

Quick, buy up the stock once it plummets! Better yet, short it and spew some BS comments to create panic.
Re:Tesla is a sinking ship by Paradise+Pete · 2016-07-11 15:55 · Score: 2

Be greedy when others are fearful.
That strategy works right up until it doesn't. Because sometimes the fearful ones are right.
Re:Tesla is a sinking ship by Kiuas · 2016-07-11 20:34 · Score: 2

can think of nothing better to do with capital than return it to investors.
Also known as 'making a profit for its stockholders' which is the primary purpose of any for-profit corporation.
There are different types of companies and different types of investors for sure, and many don't seem to mind holding stock that pays no dividends but saying that paying dividends is the same as 'running out of ideas' is just frankly silly; it's entirely possible to come up with new ideas and start developing them and still have enough money to pay dividends. Tesla is obviously a company with rather heavy R & D and manufacturing costs so it's understandable that at this stage of their existence they're not doing it.
But the point the shareholders ARE the company. so if they want the corporation to pay them a share of its profits then that's what the company will do and it doesn't automatically equate to 'we're out of ideas'; any new idea carries a risk, so it's a decision between 'pay out X now' or 'Invest Y in this idea at a risk to possibly pay out more later, or lose the money'.

--
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Re:Tesla is a sinking ship by tehcyder · 2016-07-11 23:49 · Score: 1

A corporation is a separate entity from its founder, stockholders, and in fact any human being, and has its own purposes and interests separate from theirs.
You shouldn't anthropomorphise corporations - it really annoys them.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re: Tesla is a sinking ship by Paradise+Pete · 2016-07-13 03:38 · Score: 1

There is a point implied in the statement. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

Stop calling it "Autopilot" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 12:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Tesla marketing department needs a better term -- "Autopilot" implies something that the car is incapable of. Just call it "cruise control" and shield themselves from liability.

Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by h33t+l4x0r · 2016-07-11 13:33 · Score: 1

That would work if cars didn't already have a thing called cruise control and if it wasn't a completely different thing.
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by baker_tony · 2016-07-11 13:57 · Score: 1

Agreed! Surely they know how stupid people can be.
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by AK+Marc · 2016-07-11 13:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Others have a substantially similar thing. They call it cruise control. Subaru calls theirs "Eyesight" but Toyota calls theirs "cruise control with lane keeping assist". Honda called theirs "lane keeping assist" as well.

In general, they are adding modifiers to cruise control, and Subaru was the only other one I saw in a quick search that used a completely new name.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by Hognoxious · 2016-07-11 17:55 · Score: 2

It's good to have "assist" in the name. Makes it clear that it doesn't do it for you.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 20:45 · Score: 1, Informative

Autopilot does exactly what I at least personally think of it. The term "autopilot", as the majority has come acquainted with it, originates from the areoplane industry. It's engaged when the plane is at cruising altitude and it keeps the preprogrammed trajectory and maintains a steady speed and altitude. I don't think anybody sane today thinks planes can (or would be allowed to) land themselves with an autopilot. A plane that could do such would not have an autopilot, but rather a self-flying feature and be a self-flying plane.
A car that can drive without the hands-on requirement is a self-driving car, not a car with an autopilot or "enhanced cruise control". Many are, in fact, comparing autopilots to cruise controls and demand they be called such, but that's not entirely true either. A cruise control, as defined, does not usullay do nothing more than keep the speed constant by self-adjusting the amount of power the engine produces. An autopilot does that *and* keeps the trajectory. So the levels of automated control progress from cruise control to autopilot and the most advanced form is self-driving.
The point of an autopilot is to let the driver observe their surroundings and intervene if they spot danger, not let the autopilot spot danger and act on it. Having an autopilot on on an extended drive helps the driver by putting less stress on them and by keeping them observant. If you drive tired and fall a sleep with your autopilot on, that's a human error, but even then the autopilot might save your or someone else's life. If you drive recklessly using autopilot, that's a human error too.
People are using it wrong intentionally and they, and some in the media, are trying to blame the company for it. If you need car analogies to explain stupid people how a feature in a car works, the problem is not in the car.
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by Anonymice · 2016-07-12 00:09 · Score: 1

Um, modern plane auto pilots can, and regularly do, take-off and land without assistance. And they've been able to do so for a long time. In fact, the first fully automatic flight was performed in the 50s!
Today, pilots are mostly there for emergency backup. The manual take-offs and landings they do are a condition of their licence, to keep them in practice.
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-12 00:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Um, modern plane auto pilots can, and regularly do, take-off and land without assistance.
No, not really. Or, to quote Yes Minister, yes and no. That feature is called autoland and it requires active instrumental help from the runway, too. The final decision (as in taking manual control) on most assisted autopilot landings are still made by the pilots after the plane has brought itself to a certain altitude.
I hope I didn't use too much cursive there.
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-12 01:03 · Score: 1

Um, modern plane auto pilots can, and regularly do, take-off and land without assistance. And they've been able to do so for a long time. In fact, the first fully automatic flight was performed in the 50s!
Today, pilots are mostly there for emergency backup. The manual take-offs and landings they do are a condition of their licence, to keep them in practice.
I don't know why people keep bringing this up. Comparing Tesla Autopilot to an aircraft autopilot is like comparing an Apple IIe and an iPhone; sure they're both made by Apple and they're both computers but the similarity ends there.
An airplane autopilot is an enormously simpler system. There is a pilot in the cockpit and they aren't completely disengaged from the plane; they're just free to do other things such as navigate; and having flown my own planes I assure you no one who values their life is watching a DVD player while their plane is on autopilot. The traffic around them from other aircraft is several orders of magnitude less than on a road and at much greater distance, adn in heavy trafficked areas autopilots are not engaged, pilots take the controls. Even when the autopilot is on, the aircraft is in constant radar (except long overseas flights) and radio communication with numerous watchers, some automated sensors and some are human Air Traffic Controllers. Human eyeballs never leave an aircraft.
A car autopilot, even when fully autonomous, is hugely complex. The system has to do everything because the average driver will disengage completely from control as seen already by these crashes. The system has to deal with the geography, changes in roads, traffic around it that even if it was 100% automated is still hugely complicated to calculate and predict in real time, and human drivers because quite frankly you'll never get 100% automated as you will never get everyone to give up driving.
You simply can't compare the two, because an aircraft's autopilot system is not 100% automated either; there are always human eyeballs on it even if it's from a ground controller monitoring a radio.
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by itsdapead · 2016-07-12 01:44 · Score: 2

The term "autopilot", as the majority has come acquainted with it, originates from the areoplane industry.
No, the term "autopilot", as the majority understand it means a device that pilots a plane automatically so the pilot can take their hands off the controls. They've seen it in films - documentaries even (I saw an A380 pilot filling in a checklist while his plane flew itself across the atlantic on TV just the other day). If you're lucky, they don't think it involves a humorous inflatable pilot dummy. Whether or not the pedantically correct aviation industry definition of "autopilot" matches this is irrelevant.
Like it or not, idiots who ignore disclaimers on systems called "autopilot" put other people in danger. Auto-drive shouldn't be publicly available till its ready to be used autonomously. (Also, we've been well-trained to ignore disclaimers & warnings - there are pages of them with every product we buy).

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by mrprogrammerman · 2016-07-12 05:06 · Score: 1

For Honda adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist are two separate features that are independently enabled.
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by AK+Marc · 2016-07-12 07:49 · Score: 2

For Toyota, lane keeping is a subset of cruise. Lane departure warning is independent. Sounds like Honda may be calling lane departure warning lane keeping assist. For all the ones I read the details on, lane keeping assist is what it says, it helps keep you in your lane. And that feature can only be enabled while on cruise control. Lane departure warning is separate. Honda looks to combine assist with warning, and turn it on all the time so you get lane assist while under manual control, as well as cruise control.

That's another reason to invent a new name. Because nobody does it the same, probably hoping to not be sued.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re: Stop calling it "Autopilot" by AK+Marc · 2016-07-12 10:58 · Score: 1

Honda LKAS will alarm if it leaves the lane as well. Subaru Eyesight includes Lane Keep Assist (under the same Eyesight name) on some models.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by Anonymice · 2016-07-12 14:13 · Score: 1

FWIW, I fully agree with you and commented as such in the original Tesla crash post...
Re:Stop calling it "Autopilot" by Anonymice · 2016-07-12 15:16 · Score: 1

WTF, those all confirm exactly what I said! I didn't say it was standard procedure to use autopilot on all take-offs & landings, however it's still a regular procedure.
Let's take a look at the top replies for each of your links...
Why don't pilots always use autoland?

To name the two most important [reasons pilots don't always rely on computer landings]:
* Pilots need to practise their flying technique.
* Auto land requires very accurate ILS guidance [which is negatively impacted by the interference from other nearby planes flying in close formation, but easily resolved by adding a bit more spacing between aircraft]
Why do we still use pilots to fly airplanes?

Technology has improved to the point where airplanes can pretty much fly and even land themselves. They are even getting pretty good at handling "normal" emergencies like engine failures and depressurizations. ...
Where pilots really shine though are the type of abnormal and emergency situations that aren't "in the book". ...
However, the biggest reason that we don't have fully automated passenger airplanes is because the general public feels comforted by a person being up front who can take over and carry them to safety if needed.
On modern commercial airliners, how much of the flight could be fully taken care of by the auto pilot?

In the lowest visibility conditions, the plane is capable of the approach and touchdown on the runway all by itself. The pilot will then apply reverse thrust and brakes as needed to slow down.
Now that the plane is back on the ground, it is once again the pilot's job to exit the runway and taxi to the gate. Shutting down the engines and then the electronics will also be up to the pilot.
This guy contradicts himself a couple of times, but his conclusion for not classifying it as fully automated landing is because the computer doesn't taxi itself to its terminal...?!
Given that it's technically driving at that point, and it's possibly the most minor part of the entire journey, I'll forgive them for not focusing on what would probably be an even more complicated task, that'd require a whole new logic and bank of sensors.
Which commercial aircraft are capable of computer-only landings, without human assistance? ...doesn't go into any details, refer to above comment.
If these systems were so incapable of landings, we wouldn't be relying on them to save us in poor vision, Cat I. conditions.
US military policy in the Middle-East is based around the whole concept of automated take-offs and landings. Or did you think all those drones were piloted by lots of tiny patriotic elves?
Now let's be clear, nowhere did I suggest that all flights are fully automatic, I was simply rebutting the patently bullshit claim from the parent post:

I don't think anybody sane today thinks planes can (or would be allowed to) land themselves with an autopilot. A plane that could do such would not have an autopilot, but rather a self-flying feature and be a self-flying plane.

Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software lev by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-11 12:51 · Score: 2

Autodrive car's may have to be at the FAA level of software testing / code review.

The summary is false. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 12:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Tesla hasn't had the best month so far as not one, not two, but a total of three crashes have been reported with the car's Autopilot self-driving system engaged at the time -- two of which resulted in fatalities.

The article about the most recent crash contradicts the summary poster's statement that two of the crashes resulted in fatalities. Only one of the crashes has resulted in fatalities.

Re:The summary is false. by Rei · 2016-07-11 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's exactly what I was thinking. I can't find any evidence that there has been a second fatality.
And really, have only three Tesla vehicles period crashed, period, while on autopilot in 130m miles? If so, that's bloody impressive. More impressive than just a statistic of 1 fatality in 130m miles.

--
We also have a halon fire extinguisher. Its always nice to have a fire extinguisher that kills people around.
Re:The summary is false. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-07-11 13:18 · Score: 1

In fact, in the submission about the second crash, someone questioned the involvement of the autopilot as being a result of someone's rectal extraction.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:The summary is false. by fluffernutter · 2016-07-11 13:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Considering Autopilot only activates on the safest sections of road, three crashes in a month is pretty damn bad.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:The summary is false. by fluffernutter · 2016-07-11 16:16 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter. Someone died here. Autopilot needs to drive safely. If it drives as well as a human but no better, why bother paying Tesla for it? Half of all humans are going to be more skilled drivers. Tesla will be causing fatalities for them.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:The summary is false. by F.Ultra · 2016-07-11 22:13 · Score: 1

So those "half of the humans" with extraordinary driving skills would simply either not buy Teslas or engage the Autopilot (it's not forced on you know), so what's the problem now again?
Re:The summary is false. by SuperDre · 2016-07-11 22:17 · Score: 1

And let's not forget, the second incident actually wasn't confirmed the autopilot was on, according to data at tesla it wasn't, but the driver hadn't responded to calls from tesla for more information.. Also in this case we don't know if autopilot was actually on, the driver says so, but it doesn't mean it was.. But then again, looking at the crashphoto's of the third report, it seems to be a road which is on the tesla 'problem list' (no road divider etc), but then again, the car should notify the driver that it has problems with finding markings it needs for proper autopilot.
Re:The summary is false. by tehcyder · 2016-07-12 00:45 · Score: 2

If it drives as well as a human but no better, why bother paying Tesla for it?
Uhhh... so that I don't have to drive for 4 hours down boring interstate or handle stop and go freeway traffic?
Yes, but the point is that you obviously DO need to still concentrate on your boring journey, so it seems like a pointless feature.
"It works perfectly well until it doesn't and you die" isn't good enough.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:The summary is false. by fluffernutter · 2016-07-12 02:23 · Score: 1

The problem is that Tesla is pacifying people into using a dangerous product.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:The summary is false. by TemporalBeing · 2016-07-12 04:28 · Score: 1

"... preliminary data suggests the involvement of the Autopilot feature didn't really make any difference over a human - no better, no worse (e.g the human driver likely would have had the same issue due to the nature of the problem it was faced with)."
Except that this isn't actually the case. The accident happened because the car's radar was unable to detect the truck in front of it because the truck was higher than the radar could detect. Had the human driver been paying attention, he would have seen the truck and stopped.
May be...may be not. I'll wait for the NHTSA report for that kind of determination.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:The summary is false. by TemporalBeing · 2016-07-12 04:34 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter. Someone died here. Autopilot needs to drive safely. If it drives as well as a human but no better, why bother paying Tesla for it? Half of all humans are going to be more skilled drivers. Tesla will be causing fatalities for them.
For the majority of people, it would be better - most drivers are not very good - whether due to overconfidence or ineptitude.

Should Tesla aim to make it as safe as possible? Sure, and I'm sure that's their goal. But all technology of this kind goes through a development curve and sometimes the early adopts (as was this case) put too much faith in it and may not pay sufficient attention themselves. They're taking a risk they've been warned against doing.

So yes, the technology will get better and eventually be better than nearly any human driver. Until then, it's an assistant feature that helps but should not be totally relied upon - and that's EXACTLY what Tesla says about it.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:The summary is false. by fluffernutter · 2016-07-12 06:00 · Score: 1

The whole point is, people should not be subjected to development curves when it is a life and death situation. There is no way to prove in any given accident whether it would have happened if that human was driving. Vague and dubious statistics are not good enough. People are not able to make the proper decisions for themselves, obviously.

It is a well known fact about human psychology that you *can not* maintain attention on driving if you are not driving yourself. Many automakers have done the studies and come to that conclusion and Google as well. Therefore, everyone who uses Autopilot is entering into a dangerous situation and if they do so, have not been properly informed of the risks.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:The summary is false. by Mike_EE_U_of_I · 2016-07-12 06:06 · Score: 1

Yep, I very much agree with you.
US auto accident rate (serious enough to be reported to the police and involving any injury, death, or property damage) is roughly one every 350,000 miles. If Tesla autopilot had the same record as humans, we would be up to about 400 accidents now.
Re:The summary is false. by cyn1c77 · 2016-07-12 07:06 · Score: 1

That's exactly what I was thinking. I can't find any evidence that there has been a second fatality.
Well, the second fatality hasn't happened yet, but someone is sure going to get slaughtered in the courts over this!
Re:The summary is false. by TemporalBeing · 2016-07-12 08:53 · Score: 1

The whole point is, people should not be subjected to development curves when it is a life and death situation.
If that was the case, you'd never have automobiles to start with, you also wouldn't have airplanes, ships, computers, and more. Much of technology is due to such development curves. The one with Tesla has had far fewer deaths than any prior similar technology.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:The summary is false. by fluffernutter · 2016-07-12 11:31 · Score: 1

Except in the immediate sense Autopilot represents nothing more than a frivolous fancy. Sure 100 years from now IF everyone can obtain it, it may save a significant amount of lives, but I see no evidence in my life that capitalism will ever allow this amount of adoption by making it affordable. On the other hand, planes and automobiles brought a significant amount of freedom and economical advantage and people like Henry Ford did bring it to the masses. I might be more inclined to agree once my government announces a 30% subsidy for everyone to purchase one of these but until then there is no benefit other than maybe convenience if they can make these almost perfect. While there is a steering wheel there isn't even much convenience.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:The summary is false. by F.Ultra · 2016-07-13 09:21 · Score: 1

The car industry have put dangerous products in the hands of idiots for close to 100 years now. Only time will tell if the Teslas are better or worse, at the moment they do look better considering their current track record, one fatality and three crashes is not much when compare with the fully human drivers.
Re:The summary is false. by fluffernutter · 2016-07-14 02:17 · Score: 1

It's impossible to know without knowing how clean the driving records were of the Tesla owners before owning a Tesla. If a driver has gone 30 years without being in an accident and then they buy a Tesla and Autopilot gets them in an accident then it has caused an accident for that driver. It is pointless to talk about statistical generalities while the general population doesn't own a Tesla.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:The summary is false. by F.Ultra · 2016-07-14 04:17 · Score: 1

Exactly which is also why we cannot yet claim that it have caused more accidents. I have a hard time however to see how it would cause more crashes if you use it properly, i.e as a driver assist. If you do that then the number of accidents should be vastly reduced since the machine is able to see and react to things that we as humans do not.
Re:The summary is false. by fluffernutter · 2016-07-14 05:42 · Score: 1

It's easy to see how it can cause accidents. If it didn't cause accidents, then in the third incident where the car went off the road the driver should have easily been able to take manual control and steer out of it. The problem is AI can't predict when it will be in trouble, only that it IS in trouble and by then it is too late for the driver.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.

Slippery slope? by Pezbian · 2016-07-11 12:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

When one attempts to make something idiot-proof, nature builds a better idiot. Not necessarily true, but we live in world where innovators are hampered by the chance of being sued by idiots who just-don't-listen.

"Fire is hot", "peanuts may contain peanuts", "online play not rated", "cruise control is not auto-pilot", "autopilot is experimental", etc.

Beta-testing is work.

What I wonder is whether the automated steering fights the driver if said driver takes over to correct a computational error.

--
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.

Re:Slippery slope? by Pezbian · 2016-07-11 13:31 · Score: 1

experimental? The FAA has a special certification for that.
The DMV does not.
Cars are on the ground. They have zero chance of flying over or into buildings unless something has gone _very_ wrong.

--
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Re:Slippery slope? by TemporalBeing · 2016-07-11 16:01 · Score: 1

experimental? The FAA has a special certification for that. The DMV does not.
Cars are on the ground. They have zero chance of flying over or into buildings unless something has gone _very_ wrong.
But in the event they do, you want to be in a Telsa - see the crash in Germany by the teenage girls.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Slippery slope? by larryjoe · 2016-07-11 16:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

When one attempts to make something idiot-proof, nature builds a better idiot. Not necessarily true, but we live in world where innovators are hampered by the chance of being sued by idiots who just-don't-listen.
"Fire is hot", "peanuts may contain peanuts", "online play not rated", "cruise control is not auto-pilot", "autopilot is experimental", etc.
I don't drive a Tesla, but the only message I heard about Tesla's Autopilot was the name. Yes, there are safety warnings in the manual and when you start up the car, but who actually pays attention that that? The same people who read EULAs? There's a reason the product is called Autopilot and not assist or level-2, and the reason is that they want to implicitly convey the idea that they are better than the competitors with mere assist or level-2. The name is not accidental.
Re: Slippery slope? by Luthair · 2016-07-11 16:23 · Score: 1

Cars have an awful lot of opportunity to drive into buildings.
Re:Slippery slope? by houghi · 2016-07-11 21:47 · Score: 1

Where it gets a bit confusing is "natural does contain chemicals not found in nature" and "auto-pilot is not an auto-pilot".
So the issue is using marketing words to make the people believe it is something and then say that it isn't.
"We are not a taxi service" is another nice one.
And "autopilot is experimental" means to me that it is unfit for normal operation and should not be out in the open for the general public.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Slippery slope? by olau · 2016-07-12 00:13 · Score: 1

I don't drive a Tesla either.
According to this review, they are far better than the competition.
As far as I understand, you cannot miss the warning. It's not like an EULA with walls and walls of text.
Re:Slippery slope? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-12 00:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Funny thing, Autopilot is what this is.
You may have the idea that "Autopilot" means the plane flies itself. Nope. Typically autopilot on the plane means it will fly straight and level until ordered otherwise. The autopilot on a plane absolutely will fly straight into another plane even, the human pilot is expected to take care of that sort of thing.
Re:Slippery slope? by larryjoe · 2016-07-12 03:36 · Score: 1

I don't drive a Tesla either.
According to this review, they are far better than the competition.
As far as I understand, you cannot miss the warning. It's not like an EULA with walls and walls of text.
I imagine it's like the warning on all dedicated GPS systems. At the start, you have to hit a button and maybe also wait a few seconds to ostensibly read the text. I ignore it every time and occasionally violate the warning by hitting a button while driving. My guess is that the Tesla warning has the same efficacy.
Re:Slippery slope? by larryjoe · 2016-07-12 03:48 · Score: 2

Funny thing, Autopilot is what this is.
You may have the idea that "Autopilot" means the plane flies itself. Nope. Typically autopilot on the plane means it will fly straight and level until ordered otherwise. The autopilot on a plane absolutely will fly straight into another plane even, the human pilot is expected to take care of that sort of thing.
Technically autopilot implementations on airplanes do exactly what you said and require a measure of continued vigilance on the part of the pilots. However, that is not what the term means in common language. The English idiom of putting something on autopilot means that something will work without any continued vigilance. In a way, this is a brilliant marketing strategy. The term connotes self-driving while denoting strictly not self-driving. A perfect marketing term.
Re:Slippery slope? by larryjoe · 2016-07-12 08:13 · Score: 1

I do drive a Tesla Model S (S90D) with autopilot - EVERY time you engage it, it displays a warning on the dash display to keep your hands on the wheel, plus if there is ever an issue/ambiguity (it works by actually seeing the lines on both sides of the car....so if one of those lines is faded or missing, the car with either get confused/drift or completely disengage autopilot with an audible warning) ANOTHER display will pop up telling you to keep your hands on the wheel.
It's entirely possible that the average Tesla driver pays greater attention to warnings compared to the general population. However, from looking my own personal experience as well as those people that I have driven with, start-up warnings are basically useless and exist mainly to attempt to protect manufacturers from lawsuits. Real-time pop-up warnings are probably more effective but must be very conservative to avoid false positives. This looks like the case with these Tesla accidents. Was there a pop-up warning for the Harry Potter guy?
If safe autopilot operation really requires keeping one's hands on the steering wheel, there there should be an active system to enforce that requirement.

Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide by WillAffleckUW · 2016-07-11 13:01 · Score: 1

Oh wait, no, those are hundreds, not small numbers like Tesla, so it's "not news".

More people die from drunk driving every day. Every single day in the USA.

Are you doing anything about that?

More people die when cars murder them while they're walking or biking. Every day.

Are you doing anything about that? ...

I see.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 13:15 · Score: 1

Awesome Rationalization.
We are killing so few people you can ignore it.
It will be a great closing argument.
Can we use this for the defective Air Bag inflators?
We save more than we kill?
If it is Not ready it is NOT READY.
Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide by fluffernutter · 2016-07-11 13:35 · Score: 1

To be honest, autonomous vehicles really won't change my life much.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-11 14:50 · Score: 1, Offtopic

More people die from drunk driving every day. Every single day in the USA.
Are you doing anything about that?
I use my first drink to wash down my car key. This way I'm guaranteed not to try to drive drunk.
It causes little discomfort later, but it's better than becoming a statistic.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide by Jeremi · 2016-07-11 15:07 · Score: 1

Are you doing anything about that? ...
Who are you talking to?

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide by tehcyder · 2016-07-12 03:03 · Score: 1

More people die from drunk driving every day. Every single day in the USA.
Are you doing anything about that?
I use my first drink to wash down my car key. This way I'm guaranteed not to try to drive drunk.
It causes little discomfort later, but it's better than becoming a statistic.
The only real way to guarantee you don't drink and drive is not to drive to the restaurant/bar/pub in the first place.
I'm pretty sure I'd work out a way of retrieving that car key after a dozen pints or so.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Massive Pokemon GO crashes nationwide by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-12 03:21 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure I'd work out a way of retrieving that car key after a dozen pints or so.
"Help me find my keys and we'll drive out of here!"

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Three crashes in a month by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 13:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Apparently one guy was watching Harry Potter on a portable DVD player.

Just Don't Click The Suicide Package by zenlessyank · 2016-07-11 13:06 · Score: 1

in the options. Plus it is cheaper. Win. Win.

Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-11 13:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because I like you guys, I'm gonna do you a solid and save you all kinds of tsuris later on. There will not be self-driving cars in any of our lifetimes. Yes, we will have something like super cruise control and driver assist, but no, you will never be able to call for your robot Uber to pick you up and drive you to your part-time job. It's just not going to happen. And finally, the people who know most about "driverless" cars are starting to come clean:

The most realistic industry projection about the arrival of autonomous driving comes from the company that’s done the most to make it possible. Google, while never explicitly saying so, has long intimated that self-driving cars would be available by the end of the decade.
In February, though, a Google car caused its first accident; a bus collision with no injuries. A few weeks later, Google made a significant, if little-noted, schedule adjustment. Chris Urmson, the project director, said in a presentation that the fully featured, truly go-anywhere self-driving car that Google has promised might not be available for 30 years, though other much less capable models might arrive sooner.
Historians of technology know that “in 30 years” often ends up being “never.” Even if that’s not the case here, if you’re expecting a self-driving car, you should also expect a wait. And so you might want to do something to pass the time. Maybe go for a nice drive?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

Yes, you read that right. The project director for "self-driving cars" at Google just added 25 more years to his projection on when you're going to see them. And as the writer points out, most of us know that any tech prediction for 30 years down the road always ends in tears. If you go back 30 years, they were predicting tech that never showed up and mostly totally missed on the most important tech advances that did show up.

Now I don't have a particular interest one way or the other regarding self-driving cars, except this: I don't want to see one dollar in public funds spent to develop this technology or to create infrastructure for a self-driving fleet until we've made actual public transportation affordable and viable, the way it was early to middle last century before Standard Oil and GM conspired to destroy public transportation in the United States (and yes, they were even convicted of doing so in court). So go ahead, Google and Elon and Tim Cook and all the visionaries. Make your self-driving golf carts all you want. Just don't ask for a dollar of taxpayer money, especially not until you start paying your taxes.

http://www.whale.to/b/street_c...

http://www.baycrossings.com/Ar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by OzPeter · 2016-07-11 13:31 · Score: 1

There will not be self-driving cars in any of our lifetimes.
You nay sayer you. It's only going to take near human level AI small enough to fit in a car before we can all sit back and take a ride. That's closer than fusion power and flying cars isn't it?

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 14:38 · Score: 1

The cars will be DUMB, the road will be smart. Basically your car wont even function on public roads after pulling out of your garage until it registers itself to the road control computer. The 'roadmaster' computer will give your car its operational operating parameters and be sent on its way. You wont be able to speed, or do any illegal maneuvers.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-11 14:45 · Score: 1

The cars will be DUMB, the road will be smart. Basically your car wont even function on public roads after pulling out of your garage until it registers itself to the road control computer.

See, that's my biggest fear about "self-driving cars". That instead of putting money in public transportation that we know works and is profitable, they're going to put it into making "smart roads".

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-11 14:55 · Score: 1

I guess we also won't see reliable auto-italicizing anytime soon, either...
Don't blame me, I was posting while driving my Tesla.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by Jeremi · 2016-07-11 15:01 · Score: 2

instead of putting money in public transportation that we know works and is profitable
Well, we know it works. But from where do you get "profitable"?

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-11 15:59 · Score: 2

Well, we know it works. But from where do you get "profitable"?
See the links in my post a few levels up. Public transportation and light rail were very profitable until GM and Standard Oil (and other oil companies) conspired to kill them off. This is one of those wacky-sounding conspiracy theories that turns out to be absolutely true. They were even convicted in court over this, but a friendly (bribed) judge fined them $1.
Seriously, friend, if you don't know about this chapter in US history, it's really worth a look. Just scroll to my post a few layers up. There are three links at the bottom that lay out the entire story.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by Miamicanes · 2016-07-11 16:49 · Score: 1

Maybe, but there's a HUGE amount of functionality that lies between "no autonomous driving capability at all" and "able to drive your kids to school, then bring the car home and park it in the garage for you".
The fact is, we had the technology to make semi-autonomous cars capable of lanekeeping and collision-avoidance more than TWENTY YEARS AGO. The catch is, it would have:
* doubled or tripled the cost of an average car
* required the construction of thousands of miles of new freeway lanes for the exclusive use of cars with autonomous driving capabilities... at staggering cost, for the benefit of what would have then been a very, very small subset of drivers. And we're talking about adding 4 new lanes to roads that probably had only 4 or 6 lanes to begin with circa 1990. Those lanes would have needed embedded signal wires for steering guidance, sensors to maintain distance, telemetry to identify cars and handshake with the centralized control system, etc.
In other words, do-able, and in fact actively DEMONSTRATED by GM at EPCOT... but totally impractical given the cost of the road improvements it would have required to work with 1990s technology.
What changed? Cars can now deal with driving autonomously on "normal" roads (under specific constraints), and deal with random acts of stupidity by other drivers. THAT would have been within the realm of science fiction 20 years ago.
10 years from now, when you say your new car has "advanced cruise control", it'll go without saying that it can stay in the lane and avoid collisions when driving on a limited-access highway in good weather conditions, and can follow the car in front of you as it crawls through urban gridlock (probably leaving it up to YOU to obey things like traffic lights, stop signs, etc).
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by tipo159 · 2016-07-11 17:15 · Score: 1

How does public transportation work in areas with population density too low to fill a regularly scheduled sedan, let alone a bus?
How does public transportation work when it takes 2-3 times as long to use public transportation than to drive your own vehicle?
How does public transportation work when you need to bring large items home from the store?
How does public transportation work when you want to hiking in a national park?
There are a lot of situations where public transportation works well, but a lot of places where it doesn't work for any realistic amount of money you put into it.
There are also driving conditions that self-driving cars will not be able to figure out.
And Tesla is kinda asking for problems calling their driver assist package 'Autopilot'.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by Jeremi · 2016-07-11 17:48 · Score: 1

Public transportation and light rail were very profitable until GM and Standard Oil (and other oil companies) conspired to kill them off.

Yes, I'm aware of all that -- but they were profitable then precisely because people at that time did not have cheap and easy access to automobiles, and were therefore willing to pay for non-subsidized public transportation because the only alternative was staying home.
How would public transportation be profitable now, in competition with ubiquitous automobiles, when many (most?) people apparently prefer to drive rather than to take public transportation? The only scenario I can imagine is one where private cars are largely banned or made unaffordable or impractical, but I don't think that sort of thing would be politically possible (outside of major cities), since the car-loving public wouldn't stand for it.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-12 00:04 · Score: 1

but they were profitable then precisely because people at that time did not have cheap and easy access to automobiles
Automobiles were plenty cheap and easy in 1950. In fact, compared to income, it was cheaper to own a car then than it is today.

How would public transportation be profitable now, in competition with ubiquitous automobiles, when many (most?) people apparently prefer to drive rather than to take public transportation?

Are you certain that people don't "apparently prefer to drive" because there are not good alternatives? Look at the popularity of Uber, for example. If you make public transportation attractive enough (as it was prior to 1950) how do you know people wouldn't prefer it?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-12 00:08 · Score: 1

How does public transportation work in areas with population density too low to fill a regularly scheduled sedan, let alone a bus?
Most people live in cities.

How does public transportation work when it takes 2-3 times as long to use public transportation than to drive your own vehicle?
It doesn't need to take longer. In fact, it can be faster.

How does public transportation work when you need to bring large items home from the store?
You mean a "brick and mortar" store? The kind that are disappearing?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-12 00:11 · Score: 1

It really depends what you mean by "self-driving car". I think it's realistic to expect Google's cars to be better than humans on paved roads by the end of the decade. Okay, you can't tell it to drive you literally anywhere, like off-road or perhaps onto a ferry/train, but in terms of being able to take a nap on the way to work I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.
What will probably slow it down is the pace of legal and insurance reforms require to support it.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by Ogive17 · 2016-07-12 00:20 · Score: 1

Here's my thought on why I agree that it will be a long time to never; autonomous vehicles will not be completely effective until 100% of vehicles on the road are autonomous and they communicate with each other using an agreed upon standard.

So now the question is do eventually roll out cars with this capability and require everyone on the road to have one.. or do we not allow people to use the function until all non-conforming cars are retired.. or do we have a separate road system just for these cars.. I don't think it's the technology of the car that will be the difficult part.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by merky1 · 2016-07-12 01:14 · Score: 1

The problem is the changeover period that would be needed between self-driving and current meat-sack driven. If we could instantly retool and prepare roads properly, then this could be delivered tomorrow. The problem is standards, and dealing with the unknown.
We have the technology today to accomplish a completely driver free society, but we don't have the economic factors drive this innovation into the common place. And it would not scale well across every road in every location. Driverless cars in the hills of Tennessee? Farm Truck in downtown Metropolis?

--
--WooooHoooo--
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-12 01:26 · Score: 1

It really depends what you mean by "self-driving car". I think it's realistic to expect Google's cars to be better than humans on paved roads by the end of the decade.
Did you miss the quote from the guy who's the project director on Google's car? He said they've adjusted their timeline expectations from the end of the decade to 30 years out.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-12 02:04 · Score: 1

False.
I'm sorry, but of course it's true. Most people in the US, in the UK and in the world live in cities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...
http://www.un.org/en/developme...
http://www.census.gov/newsroom...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-12 03:20 · Score: 1

Since that doesn't answer the GP's question, let me repeat it for him: How does public transportation work in areas with population density too low to fill a regularly scheduled sedan, let alone a bus?
You might also ask, "How do self-driving cars work on dirt roads?"

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by tehcyder · 2016-07-12 03:32 · Score: 1

There will not be self-driving cars in any of our lifetimes.
You nay sayer you. It's only going to take near human level AI small enough to fit in a car before we can all sit back and take a ride. That's closer than fusion power and flying cars isn't it?
Slashdot translation: it's not actually impossible, therefore it's just an engineering problem.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by nukenerd · 2016-07-12 04:16 · Score: 1

"Most people live in cities"
False .... I'm surprised you'd believe this with the recent Brexit vote where city dwellers overwhelmingly voted to stay but the rural folk overwhelmingly voted to leave.
That is an incredibly roundabout way to "prove" that most people don't live in cities. Run that again ..... the UK voted Brexit therefore most people live in rural areas ???
Here is a clue : only a smallish minority of people in the UK live in "rural areas". Large areas that you might think are rural, like East Kent, South Devon, South Essex, West Sussex, East Dorset, are really sprawling conurbations. By definition, if many people live in an area it ceases to be rural.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by Tom · 2016-07-12 08:37 · Score: 1

I don't want to see one dollar in public funds spent to develop this technology or to create infrastructure for a self-driving fleet until we've made actual public transportation affordable and viable,

Maybe you got that backwards? Maybe self-driving cars are what will make public transport affordable and viable? The two main criticisms of it are that it doesn't go door-to-door and that you have to share it with other people, not all of whom you want to share it with.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-12 08:54 · Score: 1

Maybe you got that backwards? Maybe self-driving cars are what will make public transport affordable and viable?
If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.
Remember, the project director for Google cars has now changed the outlook for the "go-anywhere" driverless vehicle from the "end of the decade" to 30 years down the road. And nobody, but nobody can predict technology 30 years down the road. It always ends in disappointment. So your idea of a driverless car going from "door to door" is a fantasy. You might as well be hoping for a flying driverless car with a jetpack and particle beam weapons.
And if your self-driving car can't take you anywhere, then how is it superior to getting on at train (or trolly) station A and getting off at train station X?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by Jeremi · 2016-07-13 03:20 · Score: 1

Are you certain that people don't "apparently prefer to drive" because there are not good alternatives? Look at the popularity of Uber, for example. If you make public transportation attractive enough (as it was prior to 1950) how do you know people wouldn't prefer it?
You're right, if you spent enough money making public transportation more attractive, more people would use it.
But few communities are going to spend "enough money" (i.e. tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) when people can just take an Uber instead, so it's largely a moot point. In the farther future, when self-driving taxis have made the streets less congested and reduced taxi prices, there will be even less incentive to build out an expensive parallel infrastructure.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-13 04:12 · Score: 1

You're right, if you spent enough money making public transportation more attractive, more people would use it.
But few communities are going to spend "enough money" (i.e. tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) when people can just take an Uber instead
Uber is a lot more expensive for people to use than public transportation.
In Chicago, getting to the airport on the L train is a couple of dollars. In a Uber, it's a little over 15 times more expensive.
Also, public transportation was already plenty attractive, before GM and Standard Oil conspired to have cities rip out trolley tracks and wiring and convert to gasoline powered buses, and then further conspired to have those bus lines discontinued.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by danaris · 2016-07-13 04:37 · Score: 1

Maybe you got that backwards? Maybe self-driving cars are what will make public transport affordable and viable?
If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.
That's not what he said, though. The clear implication was not "the personal vehicles everyone owns should be replaced with self-driving ones", but "people should use a system of public self-driving vehicles to get around."
I certainly don't need a car for 90% of most days. It would be much more efficient for me to be able to use one for the trip to and from work, and let it go drive other people around, to work, errands, or whatever else, the rest of the time.
Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by Tom · 2016-07-13 18:11 · Score: 1

If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.
You heard the opposite of what I said. I am talking about self-driving cars as public transport. So instead of 100 busses, you would have 1000 self-driving cars.

So your idea of a driverless car going from "door to door" is a fantasy.
If you think of self-driving cars as a replacement for public transport instead of a replacement for your personal car, initial limitations are absolutely fine. People are used to busses going fixed route, automated taxis driving only a subset of the streets in the city would still be an improvement. The challenge with the Google approach is that it needs to work under ALL circumstances. By reducing "all" to "a defined subset", you make the challenge one or two orders of magnitude easier.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-14 00:21 · Score: 1

I am talking about self-driving cars as public transport. So instead of 100 busses, you would have 1000 self-driving cars.
1000 self-driving cars will cost more to buy, more to maintain, and more to operate than 100 buses.
You'll have 4000 tires, instead of 400. You'll have 1000 motors instead of 100. 1000 computers instead of 100.
Also, your ratios depend on cars vs buses. If you have cars vs light rail, the ratio goes up to at least 100:1

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by danaris · 2016-07-14 02:35 · Score: 1

I am talking about self-driving cars as public transport. So instead of 100 busses, you would have 1000 self-driving cars.
1000 self-driving cars will cost more to buy, more to maintain, and more to operate than 100 buses.
You'll have 4000 tires, instead of 400. You'll have 1000 motors instead of 100. 1000 computers instead of 100.
Also, your ratios depend on cars vs buses. If you have cars vs light rail, the ratio goes up to at least 100:1
Yes...but the point is that it's not just 1000 cars instead of 100 buses. It's 1000 cars instead of 100 buses and some indeterminate number of private cars.
Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-14 04:53 · Score: 1

Yes...but the point is that it's not just 1000 cars instead of 100 buses. It's 1000 cars instead of 100 buses and some indeterminate number of private cars.
OK, I see. You're counting all the people who now own personal cars and will give them up to use the futuristic self-driving cars instead.
I'll have to think about that. I'm doubtful, given Americans' love affair with their road machines, but maybe the culture could change. I'm afraid it would require creating "autonomous-only" roads though.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by danaris · 2016-07-14 07:32 · Score: 1

Yes...but the point is that it's not just 1000 cars instead of 100 buses. It's 1000 cars instead of 100 buses and some indeterminate number of private cars.
OK, I see. You're counting all the people who now own personal cars and will give them up to use the futuristic self-driving cars instead.
I'll have to think about that. I'm doubtful, given Americans' love affair with their road machines, but maybe the culture could change. I'm afraid it would require creating "autonomous-only" roads though.
a) I'm all for that.
b) America != World
Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by PopeRatzo · 2016-07-14 11:32 · Score: 1

b) America != World
Yeah, I got you, but the rest of the world has already figured out public transportation. And given that the US is the country where every man, woman and child has a god-given right to their own vehicle (and gun), I'd say that if ubiquitous self-driving cars can't make it here, they can't make it anywhere.
It's up to you, New York, New York!

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young by Tom · 2016-07-14 20:50 · Score: 1

If we go into more depth on this, I would say that I see self-driving cars more in replacing taxis than busses, but the mental model would need to shift because taxis are considered a bit of a luxury and not public transport.
The point is that a lot of people would consider taking such a system that do not currently consider taking the bus. Especially in cities, where you spend half your driving time searching for a parking space.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Back Seat Driver? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 13:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or maybe co-pilot to make clear the driver is the captain of the car?

Such a great parallel by ArchieBunker · 2016-07-11 13:17 · Score: 1

Tesla's autopilot is what systemd is to Linux. Beta tested by the users and still not ready for anything serious. Does it compile? Great, upload to the mirrors!

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard

Re: Such a great parallel by Type44Q · 2016-07-12 01:17 · Score: 1

So in other words, you haven't seen a single line of their code.

Lost focus by Trogre · 2016-07-11 13:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously, can't we just have a nice electric car without all this self-driving crap screwing it up?

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Lost focus by AK+Marc · 2016-07-11 14:04 · Score: 2

Yeah, if you don't like it, don't turn it on. And certainly don't turn it on, then hop in the back seat for a nap.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Lost focus by S48D31F68E4S2 · 2016-07-11 15:58 · Score: 1

Agreed, people aren't buying Teslas because they're "self driving", they're buying them because they're electric, have a charging network (that's free), and are range competitive with gas. They have great handling, performance, and look great.
Tesla, please stop wasting your capital on this over hyped, "self driving" CRAP!
How much more affordable would a Tesla be just the way it is right now, if instead those dollars were invested in simply making the already great Tesla that much more affordable, or the model 3 that much closer to market, and not had been blown on the "self driving" gimmick that now threatens Tesla with lawsuits?
Please, Elon, don't tank Tesla with this garbage before I can expect to actually buy one of your vehicles, all on account this type of B.S.
Re:Lost focus by fnj · 2016-07-11 17:08 · Score: 1

How much more affordable would a Tesla be just the way it is right now, if instead those dollars were invested in simply making the already great Tesla that much more affordable
Hardly any at all. The Model S would probably only be 9.997 times as much as the median wage earner can afford, rather than 10 times.
Re:Lost focus by WindBourne · 2016-07-11 19:11 · Score: 2

actually, you are wrong. Ppl ARE buying them for their AP. Lots of other Owners are very excited about this. My wife, who owns a 2013, now wants to trade it for a new one that has AP. I am having her wait for another year or so and then get an X. But, I have talked to 3 ppl that have traded up SPECIFICALLY to get the AP.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Lost focus by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2016-07-11 23:16 · Score: 1

Yup. Unfortunately Melon Usk lost it when Ford registered focus as its trademark.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re: Lost focus by Type44Q · 2016-07-12 01:18 · Score: 1

How about standing on the roof while texting? :)
Re:Lost focus by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-12 01:54 · Score: 1

It's actually an optional extra on the base models.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Lost focus by Trogre · 2016-07-12 13:08 · Score: 1

You seem to know a lot of very wealthy people. Are you sure they *actually* want the AP functionality or are they just trading up because it's the latest fad?
As another person has commented here, self driving is hard and Tesla is small. That means every R&D dollar put into these useless features is another dollar that doesn't get spent on making the car actually better.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Three crashes in a month by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 13:21 · Score: 5, Informative

3000 people per day who die in car accidents just in the USA alone

So your claim is over one million car deaths per year in the USA? I have to call [citation needed] on that.

Because in 2014, USA deaths in cars, motor cycles, bicycles, and pedestrians all together were 32675.

Meh. Simple typo by pem · 2016-07-11 13:22 · Score: 1

They meant to say "non-fatal."

That's a problem because anybody who engages the autopilot shouldn't be breeding.

Re:Three crashes in a month by OzPeter · 2016-07-11 13:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

yep screwed .. that should have been 3000 per month

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Re:Lemons by zieroh · 2016-07-11 13:30 · Score: 2

Your statement lacks any meaningful content. Why are they lemons? Got any evidence of that? Data or citations, perhaps? And why would someone be a moron for buying one? By what objective standard?

--
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.

saved lives by fluffernutter · 2016-07-11 13:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

How many lives has Tesla saved now? Is anyone keeping count??

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.

Re:saved lives by baker_tony · 2016-07-11 14:02 · Score: 1

Um wrong:
"We learned yesterday evening that NHTSA is opening a preliminary evaluation into the performance of Autopilot during a recent fatal crash that occurred in a Model S. This is the first known fatality in just over 130 million miles where Autopilot was activated. Among all vehicles in the US, there is a fatality every 94 million miles. Worldwide, there is a fatality approximately every 60 million miles."
But now there's been two fatal crashes, that kinda screws that up! Perhaps Autopilot has now caused more fatalities per million miles traveled....
Either way, I'd still trust it over a normal driver.
Re:saved lives by WindBourne · 2016-07-11 19:08 · Score: 1

there has been only 1 fatality. As such, I am sure that they are around 150 million miles of some of the most dangerous roads. So, yeah, very safe.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:saved lives by tehcyder · 2016-07-12 03:40 · Score: 1

How many lives has Tesla saved now? Is anyone keeping count??
I would have thought that Tesla were using all the data the vehicles supposedly collect. So either Elon Musk is shy of the vast wave of good publicity this would produce and unwilling to accept the additional tens of billions of public funding/subsidies that politicians would give him, or else there's no evidence that they have saved anyone's life.
Occam's Razor suggests the latter.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re: saved lives by WindBourne · 2016-07-12 08:42 · Score: 1

No, it does not. The most dangerous are highways, and it works there. In addition, I have taken it on side roads to the highways and it runs fine there. Likewise, I took it up a mountain side up to 14,000 ' and it worked on parts of that. It MIGHT have worked on all of it, but I was not willing to fully test it.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:saved lives by WindBourne · 2016-07-12 08:45 · Score: 1

Highways of ALL TYPES are the most DANGEROUS roads. Why? Because cars are doing 60-100 MPH. This is where a small mistake leads to lost lives.
NHTSA has shown the stats on this and the real dangerous roads, is highways, not cities.
And yes, rural highways have the highest number of fatalities. BUT, even city based highways, freeways, whatever you wish to call them, still have high fatalities.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:since "autopilot" really isn't one.. by fluffernutter · 2016-07-11 13:36 · Score: 1

Here in Canada they are considering forcing Tesla to hold training for new owners, with yearly follow ups.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.

Re:Why would autopilot veer? by Rei · 2016-07-11 13:49 · Score: 1, Troll

The way the news cycle goes:

1) Person gets in an accident
2) Person blames autopilot
3) News widely reports that autopilot caused a crash
4) Evidence of whether autopilot was actually involved is returned.

Autopilot has been involved in crashes. But most of the "autopilot did it!" stories have turned out to be false. It seems to be a pretty easy thing to blame to try to get out of liability if you wreck your car.

That's not saying that any of the cases above specifically did not involve autopilot (we know for example that the fatal one did, that's been confirmed). But until it's confirmed, it's best to take these with a grain of salt. Tesla vehicles log bloody everything. If autopilot was in use at the time of the crash, it'll be there.

--
We also have a halon fire extinguisher. Its always nice to have a fire extinguisher that kills people around.

Re:Three crashes in a month by gweihir · 2016-07-11 13:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

My guess is some people in the media have either bought put-options or want to buy Tesla stock cheap. There is no rationality to their reporting.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Mod Parent Up by Razed+By+TV · 2016-07-11 13:57 · Score: 1

There has been only one fatality according to the linked articles. Mod parent up.

Re:Lemons by AK+Marc · 2016-07-11 14:02 · Score: 2

https://www.teslamotors.com/pr...

In their marketing, I've only seen it described as an intelligent cruise control. What have you seen that contradicts? Unrelated blogs talking about it?

--
Learn to love Alaska

Just one fatality by wildsurf · 2016-07-11 14:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

two of which resulted in fatalities.

Sigh. One of the crashes resulted in one fatality. The other two crashes, no fatalities. (And it is not yet known whether Autopilot was engaged at the time of those two incidents.)

Getting distracted with Autopilot engaged is like removing your seatbelt because you have airbags. You may be able to occasionally get away with it, but it's still an incredibly dumb thing to do. (And the former endangers other drivers, not just yourself.) The silver lining of these incidents is that maybe more drivers will start paying more attention while using AP, though it should have been up to Tesla to properly instill this sense of caution to begin with.

And side skirts/guards should really be mandated for trailers nationwide. (They're already mandated in California.) It may not physically prevent an underride at high speed, but it doesn't have to; the radar is much more likely to detect them and trigger collision-avoidance braking. It's only a small patch for a small part of the problem, but better than not patching it at all.

--
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.

Re:Just one fatality by kencurry · 2016-07-11 17:28 · Score: 1

two of which resulted in fatalities.
Getting distracted with Autopilot engaged is like removing your seatbelt because you have airbags. .
Why call it autopilot? just call it cruise control, and don't let the driver out of the loop. I have lane change assist in my Porsche. If it does not detect input from the driver after some number of minutes, it will automatically disengage and beep out a warning. Point is, the system doesn't even pretend to be engaged if you're not.

--
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Re:Just one fatality by WindBourne · 2016-07-11 18:55 · Score: 1

because Tesla's AP is nothing like Porsche's cruise control.
In fact, Tesla is so far ahead of Porsche, it would be like comparing Porsche's lane assist, safety features and cruise control, vs. an old style cruise control.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Just one fatality by WindBourne · 2016-07-11 19:06 · Score: 1

good points, but with 1 issue. AP works pretty decently once a car has gone over the lane. I was impressed when I tried it on a side road 3x. In the first case, my hands was about 1/2" away and to be honest, I was pretty nervous. It was moving from side to side, which included a curve and just minor fall off the edge (it was only 20-30''). During the curve, other cars were coming and I took back control for a bit and then reverted back to AP. This went on for a couple of miles before hitting the next real intersection, at which point, I took over.
The second time, I allowed it to go through the curve fully. What I noticed is that on the regular road section in which the AP had control in drive 1, it had improved IMMENSELY. The curve still bugged me.
The 3rd time was a charm. From 1 road to the next, it followed the lane and was not moving back-forth. It was obviously trained for this road.

Since this was a Tesla loaner (ours was in service and is a 2013), this was pretty exciting to see and try. The only other place that I tried it was on the way up to mount evans. I was obviously the first on that road to run AP, and do not recommend getting the least bit comfortable until multiple runs have been done it all the way (I was not brave enough to do this since I had my family with me; only in a small amount of that road is it covered, though it took the hairpins nicely). There are places where you go down 500-700'. IOW, even in a tesla, you will die on that.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Just one fatality by F.Ultra · 2016-07-11 22:19 · Score: 1

Why are people so upset about the name? There is no evidence that points to that these three accidents would not have happened if the AP held another name. The main problem is not the name but that the AP is so capable that people have ignored the instructions and warnings and have begun to upload fun videos to Youtube where they drive from the back seat.
Re:Just one fatality by cyn1c77 · 2016-07-12 07:23 · Score: 1

Getting distracted with Autopilot engaged is like removing your seatbelt because you have airbags.
I would argue that getting distracted with Autopilot engaged is a virtual certainty.
Unlike cruise control, the system completely takes control of the car from the driver. The driver is left with nothing to do but look at the scenery.
I think it would be incredibly difficult to remain completely alert, yet relaxed in this situation. I, personally, would either:
1. not trust the system and would be constantly stressed out that it was trying to kill me, or
2. would get overly comfortable, distract myself for increasing amounts of time, and then accidentally fall asleep or completely focus on a different task, like reading.
Realistically, neither of these options work for me. So I would not use autopilot unless it was functional at a level where it could actually fully drive the car and I was willing to cede it complete responsibility for my life.
Now I acknowledge that people are different and that some will be able to continuously stare at the road with complete attention while not driving. My wife for example is really good at this...

Re:Why would autopilot veer? by AK+Marc · 2016-07-11 14:08 · Score: 1

Or it was never on, and anyone who crashes blames the reason they heard in the news yesterday. That's how the craze on unintended acceleration happened, with Audiin the '80s, and Toyota more recently. At least with Tesla, the black box will be able to confirm or deny the driver's reports better than the onboard sensors in Audi and Toyota.

--
Learn to love Alaska

*Two* of which? by Theaetetus · 2016-07-11 14:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Tesla hasn't had the best month so far as not one, not two, but a total of three crashes have been reported with the car's Autopilot self-driving system engaged at the time -- two of which resulted in fatalities

The first one was the guy watching the DVD who went under the truck. Or at least, all of him below the neck did. Fatality!
The second one was in Michigan, and the driver "survived a rollover crash."
This is the third one, and "the driver said he activated Autopilot mode at the beginning of his trip."

That's one fatality, Subby. These are your own links and summary. We expect you to read them, even if none of the posters or editors here do.

Re:Lemons by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 14:18 · Score: 1, Informative

The name.

Re: Three crashes in a month by tysonedwards · 2016-07-11 14:21 · Score: 4, Funny

When life gives you melons, you may have dyslexia.

--
Thirty four characters live here.

1909 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 14:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

In other news today, another model T, the worlds first assembly line manufactured car, broke out into flames today, being the 5th such incident this year many predict the ford motor company will not survive the winter as any reasonable investor would bail from the company, undoubtedly the use of mass manufacturing will be the end of ford.

Re:1909 by tehcyder · 2016-07-11 23:52 · Score: 1

In other news today, another model T, the worlds first assembly line manufactured car, broke out into flames today, being the 5th such incident this year many predict the ford motor company will not survive the winter as any reasonable investor would bail from the company, undoubtedly the use of mass manufacturing will be the end of ford.
You forgot to mention buggy whip makers anywhere in your useful analogy.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re: 1909 by Type44Q · 2016-07-12 01:00 · Score: 2

horse & buddy
Now that's funny.
Re:1909 by Guillermito · 2016-07-12 04:40 · Score: 2

What a plane auto pilot system actually is or can do is totally irrelevant. In judging whether Tesla's system is misnamed all that matters is what a layperson *thinks* an auto pilot system does, and I have no doubts a layperson thinks an "autopilot" system does much more than other systems with less sexy names like the "lane assist" other car manufacturers use.
Re:1909 by is+as+us+Infinite · 2016-07-15 21:09 · Score: 1

It doesn't really matter what you call it. The system forces you through a confirmation process to inform you of the limits and allow you to assume liability for them.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. . . . . . . .

Re:Lemons by AK+Marc · 2016-07-11 14:34 · Score: 1

""Because the software is still at an early stage, it's important people exercise caution," Musk said."

The wording used around it is talking about what it "will" do. The talk about what it "does" do is generally quite accurate.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Lemons by AK+Marc · 2016-07-11 14:47 · Score: 1

OK, and is that an official company PR? No? Then irrelevant.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Why would autopilot veer? by AK+Marc · 2016-07-11 14:48 · Score: 1

So you are saying that nobody improperly blamed their error on Toyota?

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Three crashes in a month by TemporalBeing · 2016-07-11 15:51 · Score: 1

My guess is some people in the media have either bought put-options or want to buy Tesla stock cheap. There is no rationality to their reporting.

Plenty of rationale - it's called sensationalism and sensational journalism - aka anything to get headlines.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)

Re:Lemons by Barny · 2016-07-11 16:02 · Score: 1

I bet he is an apple user...

--
...
/me sighs

Re:I would just point out..... by Dog-Cow · 2016-07-11 16:05 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Let's take it at face value that you are telling the truth. You are admitting to breaking the law just because you were told to. How does it feel to be a Nazi?

Re:Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software by SumDog · 2016-07-11 16:56 · Score: 3

Software this important to peoples' lives can't be written like Windows95. I'd say for Tesla, it isn't.

The trouble is, the auto-pilot feature isn't an auto-pilot. It's not autonomous. It's supose to be used as a safety device. It's being misadvertised, misrepresneted, and even if it was correctly portrayed as a beta safety feature - crashes like this show it reduces the awareness of the driver when they trust the features of the car and reduce their attention.

Fortunately... by hcs_$reboot · 2016-07-11 17:27 · Score: 1

there was only 3 crashes

not one, not two, but a total of three...

and not 100!

not one, not two, not three ... not fifty-two...

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...

Re:Fortunately... by Bristol_92 · 2016-07-11 22:09 · Score: 1

It’s only a beginning. So your prognosis will come true. How many incidents must happen? And why we paid by blood?

Disinformation, no thanks by Framboise · 2016-07-11 17:39 · Score: 1

Anyone knowing how autopilot works should find the report sounding fishy. One doesn't "activate the car's Autopilot driver assist system at the beginning of the trip", so at zero speed, but when the road is appropriate, like being on a highway, at positive speed. Activating autopilot at zero speed doesn't work.
Further this incident, which remains to be confirmed on several points, didn't caused any fatality. Slashdot doen't improve its declining aura in participating to what looks like a disinformation campaign about Tesla.

Re:I would just point out..... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-11 17:50 · Score: 5, Funny

I was also part of the SpaceX certification process. I remember you, you were the guy named Chester. I was sitting next to you in meetings and I had a bag of Cheetos, and for some reason you were always really trying hard to get my bag of Cheetos and I wouldn't let you. Neither would anyone else. You did this for like 3 weeks. I don't know why a guy dressed like a cheetah wanted Cheetos so bad and didn't just go get his own out of the vending machine, but when I said "It ain't easy bein' cheesy" you got super pissed and stormed out of the room and said "Fuck you and fuck your dangerously cheesy snacks too."

I always knew that would come back to haunt us, and here it is. Damn.

Re:Three crashes in a month by Hognoxious · 2016-07-11 18:10 · Score: 1

I thought twice was a coincidence and three times was enemy action?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Why would autopilot veer? by Hognoxious · 2016-07-11 18:32 · Score: 1

Tesla vehicles log bloody everything. If autopilot was in use at the time of the crash, it'll be there.

Even if it wasn't, the log might say that it was. [touches side of nose]

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

only 1 fatality and so far, only 1 crash with AP by WindBourne · 2016-07-11 18:48 · Score: 1

First and foremost, On the Florida crash had a fatality.
However, it is still thought that Pennsylvania's crash did NOT involve AP, and Montana is still un-verified (though, I would expect this one to have AP since it had been running for some time). IOW, at this time, it is 1 crash using AP, and only 1 fatality.

So, this brings up the question of why did an AC submit this story which has multiple false statements, and why is /. not checking validity? In addition, why has the header NOT been updated with correct information?
Shades of the Koch bros here.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Why would autopilot veer? by WindBourne · 2016-07-11 19:15 · Score: 1

wow. The fact that you were modded as troll pretty much means that we have koch bros astroturfing this site.
You had a posting that was SPOT ON. It is obvious that there is a full on assault on all of Musk's businesses.
Thankfully, customers are ignoring the BS that is going on and focusing instead on where the value is.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:since "autopilot" really isn't one.. by WindBourne · 2016-07-11 19:19 · Score: 2

all new tesla owners GET a couple of hours of training.
And how exactly would training down the road help?

You got it wrong when you kept claiming that city roads are much more dangerous than highways when it came to fatalities.
Now, you are claiming that Canada is going to impose on Tesla what they already do, as well as force them to offer up yearly training when nothing has changed?>

So, who do you work for?

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software by geekmux · 2016-07-11 19:50 · Score: 1

Autodrive car's may have to be at the FAA level of software testing / code review.

While you bring a valid point here, the average automobile these days doesn't get a new coat of paint every few years in order to rack up half a million miles before being retired. Would be nice if they did, but the distribution chain of today would never stand for it.

Dividends by sjbe · 2016-07-11 22:32 · Score: 3, Informative

A dividend means a company has run out of ideas, and can think of nothing better to do with capital than return it to investors.

That's one interpretation but in reality it's more nuanced than that. Companies have basically 4 things they can do with excess free cash flow. They can reinvest in the company, they can buy another company or asset, they can repurchase stock or they can pay a dividend. Paying a dividend does not necessarily mean the company lacks ideas. It can mean that the shareholders simply prefer to use the excess cash that way. Repurchasing stock for example reduces the supply of stock an in theory can push the stock price up but since stock prices are decoupled from actual earnings it's a bit of a gamble. So is buying another company. Some companies are in slow growth industries and nobody would buy the stock if it didn't pay a dividend. Utilities are a good example of this. Dividends also can be used as a management tool. There is a ton of evidence showing that management teams with too much cash available to them tend to get lazy and sloppy. They make dumb acquisitions, engage in empire building, buy unnecessary assets, etc. Companies tend to perform better when cash is tighter (up to a point).

So no, paying a dividend does not necessarily mean the company has run out of ideas.

I can sell the stock, take the money to the store and use it to buy groceries. That is real enough for me.

You can do that but you are familiar with the parable of killing the goose that laid the golden egg? There is an opportunity cost to selling a stock. You forego any future benefits of an ownership stake in the company. That's not necessarily a bad thing but with a dividend you get cash out of the company without the opportunity cost of losing your ownership stake in the company.

Summary is loaded with misinformation by bareman · 2016-07-11 22:38 · Score: 1

There has been one reported death while AP was engaged. There have been other Tesla accidents in which the owners have allegedly reported AP is in use, but as of yet these owners have refused to allow Tesla to examine the logs to confirm or deny this allegation. As of yet only one of the accidents reported in the recent media has occurred where it is confirmed that AP was engaged at the time of the crash. Rumours make could clickbait, but once upon a time slashdot was concerned with facts.

Re:Autodrive car's may have to be at FAA software by tinkerton · 2016-07-11 22:46 · Score: 1

I think most car safety devices are smartphone assists: they allow you to spend more time phoning, browsing and texting. For those who want to remain in control it does what it advertises , but many people will use it for its convenience value. That's how it's going to be with self driving cars too. Some people will be all too eager to let the car drive itself, whatever the risk.

Re:Three crashes in a month by michelcolman · 2016-07-11 22:47 · Score: 1

Even lies, for example claims that the second accident was related in any way to autopilot ("according to police reports", while the actual police reports did not mention autopilot and there's no reason to believe it was on)

Too many things by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2016-07-11 23:19 · Score: 1

Wish Elon Musk would concentrate on a few important difficult things than to go for every fancy thought that crosses its mind. Self driving cars are Google's obsession. Leave that to google. Concentrate on getting an affordable middle class, ok, ok, upper middle class electric car. The rocket is good. The power wall is good. The giga factory is good. Hyperloop is a stretch even for Elon.

Focus, man, Focus.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:Too many things by tehcyder · 2016-07-12 03:50 · Score: 1

Focus, man, Focus.
Sorry, I think Ford have first dibs on that.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Sequel by ThatsNotPudding · 2016-07-12 00:05 · Score: 1

I see they've started filming the sequel to Tucker.

Re:Three crashes in a month by tehcyder · 2016-07-12 00:29 · Score: 2

yep screwed .. that should have been 3000 per month

Oh well, only out by a factor of thirty...I really hope you're a politician and not an engineer at Tesla.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Three crashes in a month by tehcyder · 2016-07-12 00:34 · Score: 1

I thought twice was a coincidence and three times was enemy action?

So ISIS are sabotaging electric cars in order to keep the price of oil and hence their funding high?

A truly excellent conspiracy theory.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Lemons by tehcyder · 2016-07-12 00:39 · Score: 1

Dribble and drivel are etymologically connected to Old English. And Miriam Webster's first definition of drivel is: to let saliva dribble from the mouth.

Admittedly, this was probably just a piece of luck, but there you go.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Why would autopilot veer? by merky1 · 2016-07-12 01:07 · Score: 1

Separate the conspiracy from the facts... There are issues with Tesla cars, and that has nothing to do with Koch / big oil / aliens / illuminati. It may not be as sensational as the headlines, but Tesla needs to learn their lessons in the car arena and spend more QA time on their features. Look at the Model X, it is so chock full of "features" that simple things like doors are issues.

I looked into the Model X when my Allroad decided to eat oil, and I was really turned off by the amount of shiny tech on every aspect of the car. This combined with the lack of attention on the simple things really turned me off of the purchase. Maybe in 5 years when they realize that certain things just need a simple analog component, and not some wizz bang ipad driven button.

--
--WooooHoooo--

Re:Three crashes in a month by Cederic · 2016-07-12 01:10 · Score: 1

Of course, their car would be even safer it didn't fucking crash itself.

Re:Why would autopilot veer? by Cederic · 2016-07-12 01:16 · Score: 1

. It is obvious that there is a full on assault on all of Musk's businesses.

Is it? I don't see that.

I do see someone making ambitious and overly optimistic claims about their product's self-crashing feature.

Had Musk called it lane assist adaptive cruise control and sold it purely as a driving aid the comments would be lambasting idiots that trusted it.

Since he's marketed it as autopilot and makes grandiose statements about his products customers are misinterpreting its capabilities and it's causing accidents.

That's the only story I see here. Where's the full on fucking assault?

Re:Not a self driving car... by green1 · 2016-07-12 01:30 · Score: 1

Autopilots on planes don't fly the planes by themselves. Autopilot on boats don't drive the boats by themselves. Why would any moron believe that autopilot on a car would be so completely different from autopilot on any other vehicle?

those days, monsters walked the land by Thud457 · 2016-07-12 01:50 · Score: 1

Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific says that corporations love a good tummy rub. Your silly non sequitur is at odds with the law of the land.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Only one fatal crash by daenris · 2016-07-12 02:59 · Score: 1

The summary is incorrect. Only one of the 3 crashes had any fatalities. And so far as I'm aware is the only one yet to have confirmed that autopilot was engaged at the time of the accident. The second two accidents the drivers indicated they were using autopilot, but Tesla has not been able to confirm that yet (or at least has not publicly confirmed it).

None of the links in the summary even support the claim that there have been two fatalities.

Re:Three crashes in a month by nukenerd · 2016-07-12 03:55 · Score: 1

The first accident was really caused by the truck crossing the road in front of oncoming traffic ......... The driver was distracted and never even applied the brakes ...... That probably confirms that the truck really was hard to see.

Yes, it's so hard to see 18-wheeler trucks stood across your path, I never notice them either. Good job my car is low, I pass clean underneath.

Autopilot is dangerous by Elentar · 2016-07-12 03:56 · Score: 1

One of the first things you learn as a new driver is not to watch the car immediately in front of you, but rather to watch several cars ahead (and behind). This gives you more time to react to traffic changes, and you still see the actions of the nearest vehicle anyway.

Sure, Tesla's Autopilot will have a much faster reaction time. That will help, but it's not good enough - it only allows Autopilot to react to conditions that the nearest vehicle also reacts to. A deer running toward the road, looking to jump in front of you? A kid chasing a ball toward the street? The vehicle in front of you swerving out of the way of an object in the road? Autopilot doesn't handle any of them, and can't as long as it lacks the ability to see more of the environment around it.

Autopilot is dangerous to Tesla drivers and others because it removes the attention of the driver from the road. It's basically like asking a nearly blind friend with fast reflexes to take the wheel while you read a book or play games on your phone. If it's not legal for a nearly blind driver to take the wheel, Autopilot shouldn't be legal either.

--
The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.

Re:Not a self driving car... by Cro+Magnon · 2016-07-12 04:16 · Score: 1

Most morons don't fly planes or drive boats. They only see them in crappy movies. It's not a question of what autopilot actually does. It's a question of what Joe Sixpack, who isn't a pilot, and perhaps isn't really very smart, thinks it does.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.

Taking refuge in formal usage. by westlake · 2016-07-12 04:25 · Score: 1

You may have the idea that "Autopilot" means the plane flies itself. Nope. Typically autopilot on the plane means it will fly straight and level until ordered otherwise.

In a narrow technical sense you are right.

But in common use, the word "autopilot" has come to mean all the automated systems that work together to fly an aircraft with little or no involvement of the pilot.

"Autopilot" has taken on another meaning which makes it even more dangerous in this situation:

Noun 1. autopilot - a cognitive state in which you act without self-awareness; ''she went about her chores on automatic pilot''; "she talked and he dozed and my mind went on autopilot"

a state lacking normal awareness of the self or environment

autopilot

Humans are still the pilots by sjbe · 2016-07-12 05:57 · Score: 1

Um, modern plane auto pilots can, and regularly do, take-off and land without assistance.

Automated systems in modern jets very rarely land the plane and never do takeoffs. A modern jetliner flys itself about as much as a modern operating room operates by itself.

Today, pilots are mostly there for emergency backup.

Not true at all. Pilots fly the airplane - the automation facilitates the work of doing this but a cockpit is actually a very busy place for a pilot. While it's true that we have the technology to automate, in nearly all cases a human pilot is still the one in change of the plane.

Re:since "autopilot" really isn't one.. by fluffernutter · 2016-07-12 06:54 · Score: 1

So when people go to these training sessions, how many times does Tesla indicate in direct language that they may die if they don't pay attention? Obviously that message hasn't gotten across, and so Canada is correct in looking into better or somehow different training.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.

Re:Not a self driving car... by green1 · 2016-07-12 06:57 · Score: 1

Exactly, it keeps a heading, that's all. A plane on autopilot will happily fly in to a mountain if you don't stop it, all it does is follow the set trajectory. The car does more because it follows lane markings instead of just a straight line, but neither one drives itself. And only the car does any collision avoidance whatsoever.
Autopilot is a great name for this product. It implies a system that assists the driver, while the driver maintains full control at all times. Just like a pilot does on an aircraft.

Re:Not a self driving car... by green1 · 2016-07-12 07:01 · Score: 1

Someone named it the automobile, and we all know what auto means. So your average person will assume that all cars drive themselves.
Someone named it cruise control, and if it can control the cruising of the vehicle the average person will think it can drive itself.

Morons will be morons, they've been killing themselves and others for centuries, renaming a feature so that it does a worse job of describing what it actually does will not stop morons from killing people.

Trying Hard for the Darwin Award by theshowmecanuck · 2016-07-12 08:01 · Score: 1

Anyone who totally trusts this very new technology is looking to be taken out of the gene pool. The guy probably turned it on and then started playing some game on his cell phone.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Re:since "autopilot" really isn't one.. by WindBourne · 2016-07-12 08:59 · Score: 1

LOL.
Are you talking about this?
Even here, it was 1 person that suggested that and apparently shot down.
Probably the best line in this is to move as quickly as possible to level 4 autonomy, which is what Telsa is doing.
And the fact that with some 50,000 ppl driving this daily, and only having 1 fatality in 7 months of testing this shows that it is already safer than average and that obviously their training is doing the job.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Three crashes in a month by Hognoxious · 2016-07-12 19:07 · Score: 1

ISIS schmisis. I was thinking of Skynet.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Slashdot Mirror

Third Tesla Crashes Amid Report of SEC Investigation (usatoday.com)

180 of 297 comments (clear)