this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
784 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59608 readers
4495 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
784
US to probe Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving' system after pedestrian killed in low visibility conditions (apnews.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
193 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The U.S. government’s road safety agency is again investigating Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” system, this time after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in documents that it opened the probe on Thursday with the company reporting four crashes after Teslas entered areas of low visibility, including sun glare, fog and airborne dust.

In addition to the pedestrian’s death, another crash involved an injury, the agency said.

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if so, the contributing circumstances for these crashes.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm not so sure. Whenever there's crappy weather conditions, I see a ton of accidents because so many people just assume they can drive at the posted speed limit safely. In fact, I tend to avoid the highway altogether for the first week or two of snow in my area because so many people get into accidents (the rest of the winter is generally fine).

So this is likely closer to what a human would do than not.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

low visibility, including sun glare, fog and airborne dust

I also see a ton of accidents when the sun is in the sky or if it is dusty out. \s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yup, especially at daylight savings time when the sun changes position in the sky abruptly.

Cameras are probably worse here, but they may be able to make up for it with parallel processing the poor data they get.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The question is, is Tesla FSD's record better, worse, or about the same on average as a human driver under the same conditions? If it's worse than the average human, it needs to be taken off the road. There are some accident statistics available, but you have to practically use a decoder ring to make sure you're comparing like to like even when whoever's providing the numbers has no incentive to fudge them. And I trust Tesla about as far as I could throw a Model 3.

On the other hand, the average human driver sucks too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I honestly don't know. My point is merely that we should have the same standards for FSD vs human driving, at least initially, because they have a lot more potential for improvement than human drivers. If we set the bar too high, we'll just delay safer transportation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You can't measure this, because it has drivers behind the wheel. Even if it did three "pedestrian-killing" mistakes every 10 miles, chances are the driver will catch every mistake per 10000 miles and not let it crash.

But on the other hand, if we were to measure every time the driver takes over the number would be artificially high - because we can't predict the future and drivers are likely to be overcautious and take over even in circumstances that would have turned out OK.

The only way to do this IMO is by

  • measuring every driver intervention
  • only letting it be driverless and marketable as self-driving when it achieves a very low number of interventions ( < 1 per 10000 miles?)
  • in the meantime, market it as "driver assist" and have the responsibility fall into the driver, and treat it like the "somewhat advanced" cruise control that it is.