Autonomous Vehicles

dowie said:
jeeze:



given that, WTF was he thinking...
Click to expand...

The problem is that part of the statement made by the family when announcing the lawsuit kind of undermines there case. The one thing they have going for them is the car followed the wrong line and went into a brick wall.

What Tesla have going for them is that autopilot is only a level 2 driver assist and not a self driving car. Tesla makes it clear you must pay full attention and have your hands on the wheel at all times.

The logs show that the driver wasn't keeping his hands on the wheel as they received several warnings before the crash.

Then there is also the driver likely wasn't paying attention as per the instructions at the time of the crash, there was 5 second view of the obstacle they could have reacted to avoid it.

I'm not sure the video's replicating the scenario online help either case to be honest, they show there is a flaw in the system and the argument will be that if the system is functioning correctly then the driver should not need to make any adjustments to keep the car in lane. The counter argument to this is that autopilot is only lane keeping assistance and not a guarantee. But the video also shows that that there is a long time for the driver to take control and put the car back into the lane and anyone paying sufficient attention to driving would have been able to correct the error. I don't really see a counter argument to this.

I think they are actually better off suing Caltrans for not fixing the crash barrier or putting in place a temporary solution like the old solution of water barrels or a full set of cones and associated speed restriction. There also is not any rumble strips or 'cats eyes' to indicate you a leaving the lane, only a line painted on the floor which looked faded.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
The problem is that part of the statement made by the family when announcing the lawsuit kind of undermines there case. The one thing they have going for them is the car followed the wrong line and went into a brick wall.

What Tesla have going for them is that autopilot is only a level 2 driver assist and not a self driving car. Tesla makes it clear you must pay full attention and have your hands on the wheel at all times.

The logs show that the driver wasn't keeping his hands on the wheel as they received several warnings before the crash.

Then there is also the driver likely wasn't paying attention as per the instructions at the time of the crash, there was 5 second view of the obstacle they could have reacted to avoid it.[...]
Click to expand...

That does seem pretty damning especially if there were warnings for him to keep his hands on the wheel (in addition to his prior knowledge of the problem in relation to the barrier), while I feel sorry for the guy's family I hope Tesla win the case, it just doesn't seem right for them to be held accountable for someone else using the technology in a way in which it wasn't intended - it isn't supposed to be a self driving car. I mean someone might as well sue a manufacturer as a result of an accident using old fashioned cruise control.
 
Last edited:
Mr Huang was working for a computer games company (EA) probably software design - that does give one a certain curiosity for problem analysis
 
jpaul said:
By implication (but ambiguous) it seems the NTSB loose tesla's technical expertise in the investigation - seems suicidal on Tesla's part (the're taking the 5th ?)
Click to expand...
they are not taking the 5th, they have already said they will still hep NTSB with any and everything, they just do not want to be silenced and be unable to respond to bad press until the investigation is over. this is a sensible thing imo.
this is what the disagreement is over, is the right to reply to media and make public statements.
IMo tesla should absolutely be able to defend themselves and to reiterate that this is not full self-driving and drivers are legally as well as repeatedly advised in the manual etc to be in full control.
they have a huge amount of stock shorts and a huge amount of active paid bad press against them.

tesla will absolutely fight the legal battle this is their MO and if they win which seems hard to see how they wouldn't, it's far cheaper in the long run.

I also wonder if they will self implement the internal camera with eye tracking now. I didn't think that would ever happen, but not so sure anymore.
.
 
jpaul said:
what dictates if any California court-case is televised .. OJ was ?

edit:

video shows ap1 working fine ?
Click to expand...

No, I was referring to a video which showed someones car allegedly acting in the same way was the one that crashed going through the same intersection. The lawsuit shouldn't be AP1 vs AP2 debate as that in theory is irrelevant to the circumstances of the crash.

dowie said:
That does seem pretty damning especially if there were warnings for him to keep his hands on the wheel (in addition to his prior knowledge of the problem in relation to the barrier), while I feel sorry for the guy's family I hope Tesla win the case, it just doesn't seem right for them to be held accountable for someone else using the technology in a way in which it wasn't intended - it isn't supposed to be a self driving car. I mean someone might as well sue a manufacturer as a result of an accident using old fashioned cruise control.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this one, I feel for the family but if Telsa don't win where do you draw the line with level 2 driver assists?

Can you sue Tesla for damage to the car if you use the auto lane change feature and it takes you into another vehicle?
Can you sue Tesla if you rear end someone with auto pilot active?
Can you sue Tesla if the automatic emergency breaking does not activate and you crash the car into the back of a fire engine?

I know the last one is specifically not covered by the functionality of autopilot but I am just making a point.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Can you sue Tesla for damage to the car if you use the auto lane change feature and it takes you into another vehicle?
Can you sue Tesla if you rear end someone with auto pilot active?
Can you sue Tesla if the automatic emergency breaking does not activate and you crash the car into the back of a fire engine?

I know the last one is specifically not covered by the functionality of autopilot but I am just making a point.
Click to expand...

Well if the driver is supposed to keep his/her hands on the wheel and remain in control of the vehicle then unless it were to behave in some very erratic way (like swerve suddenly) I'd assume/hope not. If it starts changing lane and does so in a normal fashion but hasn't detected some vehicle then that is what the driver should also be looking out for. Wasn't there a guy sadly killed this way when watching a movie or something instead of keeping his hands on the wheel?
 
Glaucus said:
they are not taking the 5th, they have already said they will still hep NTSB with any and everything, they just do not want to be silenced and be unable to respond to bad press until the investigation is over. this is a sensible thing imo.
Click to expand...
what is the rasmification of them stepping out then ?
edit: - beyond face value that is

b0rn2sk8 said:
No, I was referring to a video which showed someones car allegedly acting in the same way was the one that crashed going through the same intersection. The lawsuit shouldn't be AP1 vs AP2 debate as that in theory is irrelevant to the circumstances of the crash.
Click to expand...
yes I know you were - in the context of the thread and synthesizing an original hypothesis the other videos seem as relevant - if tesla knowingly degraded system ?
 
jpaul said:
what is the rasmification of them stepping out then ?
Click to expand...
bad press. but they were getting that anyway. They can now give out whatever counter story they want without NTSB complaining.
if they refused to help NTSB then yes I would be calling this bad, but they have said the exact opposite, it is literally over one rule and that's media statements before the conclusion of the investigation.
 
diversion - lol

I get frustrated when Tesla blames the driver for these crashes by saying that they aren't touching the wheel or are ignoring messages. It is extremely common for my car to warn me to keep my hands on the when WHILE I have my hands on the wheel. Even shaking it a little will sometimes not cancel out the warnings. It doesn't seem to matter if my hands are on the top or bottom of the wheel. Anything short of a deathgrip and constant jiggling of the wheel doesn't seem to consistantly register as keeping your hands on the wheel. Anyone who has used Autopilot for a significant amount of time has been beeped at for not having their hands on the wheel even though they are. And yes, the car will make crazy maneuvers at times that no driver in their right mind would make. I still like it and am glad I opted for it, but it is far from earning its namesake

...
It doesn't want a squeeze though, it needs resistance/feedback on turning the wheel. Having your hands on the wheel isn't enough, you actually have to give it a little tug, so the alert happens pretty often unless you have a good cadence of tugging on the wheel randomly while in Autopilot.
.
Click to expand...
 
another article implying teslas involvement is reduced in investigation ... also repeating premise about 3.7x more safe.

For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident and this continues to improve.
...

The rapid about-face on Tesla’s stance towards the NTSB is the really interesting thing here, however. Tesla has publicly maintained a good working relationship with the NTSB, and it’s still party to other investigations into other Tesla accidents. Saying that the NTSB is “more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety,” announcing that Tesla will be complaining to Congress, and maligning the NTSB as “not a regulatory body” but only an “advisory body” are all steps that seem designed to discredit the NTSB’s investigation and its findings. For a company working on the front line of autonomous driving research, those seem like very dangerous moves indeed.
Click to expand...
 
Waymo applies for no-driver testing in California/SF Chronicle

Of the 5 million miles of Waymo's fully autonomous driving, 2 million of those miles were done in the State of California with a safety driver in the front seat. As from 2 April, it is now possible to "drive" an autonomous vehicle in California without a safety driver in the front seat, as long as the vehicle can be controlled remotely. What does this mean?

We will find out soon. "Under California rules, cars without drivers must be able to communicate with remote operators. Sources said, however, that Waymo has both rider support and fleet response specialists who can be contacted from within the vehicle but does not plan to offer remote-driving functions".

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...o-appplies-for-no-driver-testing-12832425.php
 
after looking at waymo diengagement report
not so surprising, but struck me, that most accidents are on streets, but we do not know relative miles&times driving on streets vs highways
so if they had say 1 disengagement/100 hours on highway and 1 disengagement/1 hour on streets, we cannot see that.



41496489821_d22a4e174f_o_d.jpg


forbes make a related comment

All of the AVs testing in California are required to have a safety driver. When that driver takes over control from the automated system, that counts as a disengagement. However, there is no clear definition of when that human should assume control, and the reports, while published by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, are based on data submitted by the manufacturers. If there is some anomalous behavior by the vehicle while it is in densely packed traffic in San Francisco, the human might take control. On the other hand, if the vehicle is going down a street in Mountain View without others around, the driver may well opt to let the system continue to see if it recovers
Click to expand...
lol

... still I suppose the state of Califoirnia looks upon the economic benefit of having waymo R&D effort and profits in California (also not sure whether Trump has said anything about re-patriating google profits)
 
jpaul said:
after looking at waymo diengagement report
not so surprising, but struck me, that most accidents are on streets, but we do not know relative miles&times driving on streets vs highways
so if they had say 1 disengagement/100 hours on highway and 1 disengagement/1 hour on streets, we cannot see that.



41496489821_d22a4e174f_o_d.jpg


forbes make a related comment


lol

... still I suppose the state of Califoirnia looks upon the economic benefit of having waymo R&D effort and profits in California (also not sure whether Trump has said anything about re-patriating google profits)
Click to expand...

Really helpful table for reference and Forbes comments!

One very clear observation. In November 2017, Alphabet's Waymo achieved the distinction of requiring just one disengagement on a California Street. That is a new low for the year which in my view shows considerable improvement.

Also safe to assume that Waymo believes it is ready for prime time on California streets and highways as it has taken their testing to a new degree of difficulty: "driving" with no safety driver. As posted earlier, Waymo is the second AV company to apply to California under their new AV rules brought in a couple of weeks ago (the first one requires more info for California to consider). California received the application last Thursday and has promised to review the application within 10 days to consider whether they will take it forward toward a potential approval or ask for more info, like they did with the first application of the other AV company. Waymo is in effect asking for the ability to test in California without a safety driver in the same way they already test in Arizona. Stay tuned.

http://www.thedrive.com/tech/20145/waymo-seeks-permit-to-test-fully-autonomous-cars-in-california

As to you last para on the economic benefits to California of being a leader in the AV movement, I think it would be obvious that if large R & D expenditures are made in the State, it stands to benefit from at least a few things: better employment numbers for its citizens and more taxes collected from these employees, further investment by other OEMs and tech companies who will view California as a hub of AV innovation and a requirement to be present there and the virtuous circle of hardware needed to support software.

As to President Trump and repatriated taxes, Alphabet has already repatriated a significant portion of its overseas (ie non US domiciled) cash as it took a large one time tax charge in their last quarterly reported earnings statement (many other US domiciled companies did the same). They will benefit by the new Tax Reform package passed by the Republican Congress as their repatriated cash is taxed at a significantly lower rate now than previous to the Tax pacakage adoption. Alphabet had approximately $ 100 billion of cash and marketable securities, of which 60% was located outside the US before the action already taken.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom