News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Tragic Loss by KaiserPro on Friday July 01, 2016 @04:45AM (#12014651)
The main problem with all of this, is that its not a true autopilot. In fact its the worst kind of autopilot. one that bails out at the last minute leaving you fuck all time to take action.

telsa's autopilot is level 3, which means freeway driving only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification

The thing I fear now is the toxic mix of fanboyism and excessive PR management reminiscent of the worst excesses of Detroit. The only way safety is improved is when hubris and bluster is put to one side.

Re:A Tragic Loss by martin_bech on Friday July 01, 2016 @04:57AM (#12014689)
The thing I fear now, is fearmongering by people who dont drive Teslas, havent spent time with Autosteer/autopilot and ignore that this was a freak accident, that probably would have killed the driver regardless of using autopilot.

This is the future of roadsafety.

Re:A Tragic Loss by Swizec on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:02AM (#12014707)
Or MAYBE it's time to install safety skirts on trucks just like they do in Europe?

There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a truck.

This is what a truck designed for safety looks like: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Artic.lo...

Notice how no part of it is higher off the ground than a foot or so. Way too low for a car to fit under.

This is what truck in the US looks like: http://www.center-linecurtains.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/0...

Notice how you could hide a sports car underneath.

Re:A Tragic Loss by mschuster91 on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:07AM (#12014717)
> There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a truck.

There is, it's called capitalism, and a safety skirt costs money.

The fix is, as in many cases, regulations. However, I believe that even the shown safety skirt leaves too much space below, and especially exposed tires, which is still dangerous for pedestrians and bikers.

Re:A Tragic Loss by Swizec on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:14AM (#12014738)
A lot of those skirts also aren't quite as strong as they should be. Here's a comparison between one that fails testing and one that doesn't: https://youtu.be/gL8DQIAqZms?t=151

As for pedestrians and bikers, I really really like Europe's solution to that problem: Pedestrian and Bikers are illegal on the freeway. Big trucks are made strongly and forcefully impractical in cities, towns, and villages.

It's crazy that I live in downtown SF and there are huge freight trucks driving past my bedroom window every day.

Re:A Tragic Loss by mschuster91 on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:20AM (#12014754)
With the pedestrians and bikers, I mainly meant when large trucks are driving in the cities to serve e.g. supermarkets - one I worked at, right in the center of Munich, had a huge 40-ton truck serving it each day.

It's dangerous as hell, but impractical to do any other way...

Re:A Tragic Loss by Swizec on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:29AM (#12014780)
Maybe it was just my neck of Europe then. Trucks would only go to supermarkets on the big roads where there's strict physical separation between traffic and everyone else. They're also position on the edge of the city next to the ring freeway so that trucks have a short path from freeway to supermarket.

Deliveries inside the city are done with smaller lorries which are a bit safer maybe. If not safer, definitely more practical on tight inner-city streets.

I don't think it's practical for trucks to be designed as pedestrian safe as modern city buses are, so it's better to keep them away from pedestrians as much as possible.

Re:A Tragic Loss by randyrand on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:17AM (#12014746)
Non for profits that buy semi trucks also do not install safety skirts. Neither do any government trucks I've seen.

I don't think capitalism is the issue.

Re:A Tragic Loss by mschuster91 on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:44AM (#12014821)
Capitalism is the issue because the money is being saved by cutting corners on safety. In case of non-profits and the government people might actually sue for wasting of money because money is spent on stuff that is not required by law.
Re:A Tragic Loss by icebraining on Friday July 01, 2016 @06:42AM (#12015009)
Capitalism is the issue because the money is being saved by cutting corners on safety.

Saving resources by skipping on safety features is not exclusive to capitalism. If anything, the correlation seems to run backwards - capitalist countries are generally safer (mostly, I'd say, because they're rich enough to spend extra resources on safety).

In case of non-profits and the government people might actually sue for wasting of money because money is spent on stuff that is not required by law.

Can you give an example of such a lawsuit ever having succeeded?

Re:A Tragic Loss by wibr on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:12AM (#12014735)
Why do you think that this is a "freak accident"? The situation doesn't seem to be very unusual or unlikely. The sensors should definitely detect a truck that is crossing your lane.
Re:A Tragic Loss by Svip on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:05AM (#12014712)
Good point. But I think it is too early to call this a 'freak accident', because we don't know enough.

Tesla have statistics on their side so far, but they still have not done a fraction of kilometres travelled by conventional means.

I hope the technology moves forward, but the technology is not there yet and won't be appearing on a majority of new cars for decades.

I predict - moreso than fear - that as more of these incidents occur (and I am confident there will be more), more people will lose their trust in self-driving cars.

Consider the following: The safest form of transportation is air travel. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence in air transport's favour, a significant portion of people are afraid to get on an aeroplane. Indeed, an aeroplane can practical fly itself (and have been able to for decades), yet few of us would feel safe if there wasn't a pilot on board.

Surely the same fears will soon apply to self-driving cars?

Re:A Tragic Loss by d8421l01vv4r on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:30AM (#12014785)
Part of the reason why people are afraid of flying is because you are locked inside an aluminium container flying 10km above ground. Sitting in a self-driving car is psychologically quite different.
Re:A Tragic Loss by Svip on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:35AM (#12014797)
True, but that's those who are simply afraid of flying. It still doesn't necessarily explain those people who would be uncomfortable flying without a pilot, but perfectly fine with one.

I also hear people telling me that they would not be comfortable with a passenger on a self-driving bus. Anecdotal evidence, I know. And since they haven't actually experienced one, I still think the jury is out on this one; but it still strike me as curious that rational people are not always swayed by statistics.

Re:A Tragic Loss by kozak on Friday July 01, 2016 @06:22AM (#12014942)
It depends on people's preconceptions. I live in a country where taxi drivers race like in that Taxi movie, and often remove seat belts from passenger seats for macho reasons, so self-driving taxis would be something that would allow me to ride in a taxi without fear.
Re:A Tragic Loss by KaiserPro on Friday July 01, 2016 @07:01AM (#12015076)
Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly. There is no evidence that this is freak accident. There may be a systematic flaw in the firmware, or not using sensors, or any number of things that only come to light in situations like this.
Re:A Tragic Loss by tmikaeld on Friday July 01, 2016 @04:58AM (#12014695)
That's exactly what i fear as well, that innovation will halt and reverse because of fear of using new technology.

Even if it's statistically safer than the alternative.

Re:A Tragic Loss by rimantas on Friday July 01, 2016 @06:16AM (#12014917)
Mistaking truck for a road sign is not a future I want.
Re:A Tragic Loss by phire on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:22AM (#12014762)
I'm not even sure it counts as level 3, it's more like a high-end Level 2 system.

Level 3 requires the car to detect "all" conditions when something is going wrong, and provide the driver "sufficiently comfortable transition time". If there is any class of event (such as a 1m overhang) which the vehicle can't safely cope with (perhaps coming to a complete stop before requiring the driver to take over), then the driver really has to be paying attention all the time, making it a Level 2 system.

And there is basically no way to deliver on that promise on today's highways without a suite of sensors and computers that are capable enough to do full Level 4.

Re:A Tragic Loss by randyrand on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:12AM (#12014734)
Yes it has a better driving record than humans do already.

Really speaks to the promise of autopilot.

Re:A Tragic Loss by Someone on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:45AM (#12014825)
I don't think you can statistically make that claim on this N=1 data point given that "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."

They should not have mentioned that global number. I doubt Teslas drive much on the really dangerous roads in third-world countries that make that number so high, certainly not on autopilot (Aside, those numbers make it look like US roads are safe. They are relative to third-world countries, but not relative to Western Europe)

More importantly, autopilot bails out when it thinks it cannot do a reliable job. I think those times correlate strongly with times when it gets dangerous.

There also is the effect of car quality. It is harder to get killed in a Tesla or Volvo than in a 1970's Volkswagen Beetle.

It probably is impossible to make a fair comparison, but I think the better comparison would be with modern and fairly expensive cars driving on US highways.