[patcheudor]

>t's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred.

This needs far more discussion. I just don't buy it. I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive. I think our psychology won't allow it. When driving, I find that I must be engaged and on long trips I don't even enable cruise control because taking the accelerator input away from me is enough to cause my mind to wander. If I'm not in control of the accelerator and steering while simultaneously focused on threats including friendly officers attempting to remind me of the speed limit I space out fairly quickly. In observing how others drive, I don't think I'm alone. It's part of our nature. So then, how is it that you can have a car driving for you while simultaneously being attentive? I believe they are so mutually exclusive as to make it ridiculous to claim that such a thing is possible.

[hyperbole]

I don't buy this either nor should we it's not how the feature is marketed.

"The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat."

The result of this statement and the functionality that matches it is it creates a re-enforced false sense of security.

Does it matter whether the driver of the model X whose auto pilot drove straight into a center divider had his hands on the wheel if the outcome of applying autopilot is drivers focus less on the road? What is the point of two drivers one machine one human? You cannot compare car auto pilot to airplane they're not even in the same league. How often does a center divider just pop up at 20k ft?

Usually machinery either augments human capabilities by enhancing them, or entirely replaces them. This union caused by both driver and car piloting the vehicle has no point especially when it's imperfect.

I'm not opposed to Tesla's sale of such functionality, sell whatever you want, but I am opposed to the marketing material selling this in a way that contradicts the legal language required to protect Tesla...

There's risks in everything you do, but don't market a car as having the hardware to do 2x your customers driving capability and then have your legal material say: * btw don't take your hands off the steering wheel... especially when there's a several minute video showing exactly that.

Tesla customers must have the ability to make informed choices in the risks they take.

[azernik]

Which is, by the way, part of why I love the marketing for Mobileye (at least in Israel, haven't seen e.g. American ads). It's marketed not as driving the car, but as stepping in when the human misses something. Including one adorable TV spot starring an argumentative couple who used to argue about who's a better driver, and now uses the frequency of Mobileye interventions as a scoring system. Kind of like autonomous car disengagement numbers :-P

[jameslevy]

There is a solution for this - if the driver shows any type of pattern of not using the feature safely, disable the feature. Autopilot and comparable functionality from other vehicles should be considered privileges that can be revoked.

[hyperbole]

Systems that are semi autonomous where there's some expectation of intervention work well in those scenarios, keep the car in lane markers on the highway, etc. Make sure the users hands are on the wheel but for fully autonomous even if your hands are on the wheel, how does it know your paying attention?

[pishpash]

Just turn off autopilot if no human input is detected. Hands on the wheel may not be enough input but some other combination may be enough.

[mygo]

maybe don’t call it autopilot then. call it “driver assistance”?.. or something that doesn’t make it sound like “autopilot”.

[ryanlol]

On the other hand that is exactly what autopilot means...

[rhlsthm]

This is exactly what the Tesla does. It periodically "checks" that you are there by prompting you to hold the steering wheel (requiring a firm grip, not just hands on the wheel). If you don't, the car slows to a stop and disables autopilot for the remainder of the drive.

[ndyg]

You’re quoting the marketing copy of Telsa’s unreleased full selling driving capability.

Tesla have sold people that the hardware they buy now will be capable of this in the future, but not now.

[scoggs]

> I'm not opposed to Tesla's sale of such functionality, sell whatever you want, but I am opposed to the marketing material selling this in a way that contradicts the legal language required to protect Tesla...

First let me state that I agree with this 110%!

I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at but I'm seeing a difference between the engineers exact definition of what the system is, what it does, and how it can be properly marketed to convey that in the most accurate way. I'm also seeing the marketing team saying whatever they can, within their legal limits (I imagine), in order to attract potential customers to this state-of-the-art system and technology within an already state-of-the-art automobile.

If we are both at the same time taking these two statements verbatim than which one wins out:

> Autopilot is not a fully-autonomous driving system. It's a tool to help attentive drivers avoid accidents that might have otherwise occurred. Just as with autopilots in aviation, while the tool does reduce workload, it's critical to always stay attentive. The car cannot drive itself. It can help, but you have to do your job.

and

> The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.

If that's the crux of the issue that goes to court then who wins? The engineering, legal, marketing department, or do they all lose because the continuous system warnings that Autopilot requires attentive driving were ignored and a person who already knew and complained of the limits of that system decided to forego all qualms about it and fully trust in it this time around?

I feel like when I was first reading and discussing this topic I was way more in tune with the human aspect of the situation and story. I still feel a little peeved at myself for starting to evolve the way I'm thinking about this ordeal in a less human and more practical way.

If we allow innovation to be distinguished for reasons such as these will we ever see major growth in new technology sectors? That might be a little overblown but does the fact that Tesla's additions to safety and standards thus having a markedly lower accident and auto death rate mean nothing in context?

If Tesla is doing a generally good job and bringing up the averages on all sorts of safety standards while sprinting headlong towards even more marked improvements are we suddenly supposed to forget everything we know about automobiles and auto accidents / deaths while examining individual cases?

Each human life is important. This man's death was not needed and I'm sure nobody at Tesla, or anywhere for that matter, is anything besides torn up about having some hand in it. While profit is definitely a motive I think the means to get to the profit they seek Tesla knows they have to create a superior product and that includes superior features and superior safety standards. If Tesla is meeting and beating most of those goals and we have a situation such as this why do I feel (and I could be way wrong here) that Tesla is being examined as if they are an auto manufacturer with a history of lemons, deadly flipped car accidents, persistent problems, irate customers, or anything of the like in this situation?

For whatever reason it kind of reminds me of criminal vs. civil court cases. Criminal it's upon the State or Prosecution to prove their case. In the civil case the burden is on the Defense to prove their innocence. For some reason I feel like Tesla is in a criminal case but having to act like it's a civil case where if they don't prove themselves they will lose out big.

To me it feels like the proof is there. The data is there. The facts are known. The fact that every Tesla driver using Autopilot in that precise location doesn't suffer the same fate points toward something else going on but the driver's actions also don't seem to match up with what is known about him and the story being presented on the other side. It's really a hairy situation and I feel like it warrants all sorts of tip toeing around but I also have the feeling that allowing that "feeling" aspect to dictate the arguments for either side of this case are just working backwards.

And for what it's worth I don't own a Tesla, I've never thought about purchasing one. I like the idea, my brother's friend has one and it's neat to zoom around in but I'm just trying to look at this objectively from all sides without pissing too many people off. Sorry if I did that to you, it wasn't my intent.

[hyperbole]

No one wins when someone dies... I'm sure your right that Tesla employees are torn up.

My concern is that it looks like Tesla is 90% of the way there to full autonomy and the way the feature is marketing will lull even engineers who know more about how these systems work into a false sense of security and end up dying as a result -- they'll trust a system that shouldn't be trusted. There isn't a good system for detecting a lack of focus especially when it won't take more than a few milliseconds to go from good to tragic.

[fapjacks]

I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem. But I think you're right. I think the "best" way to move forward until we have perfected the technology is not something that drives for you, but something that will completely take over the millisecond the car detects that something terrible is about to happen. People will be engaged because they have to be engaged, to drive the car. The machine can still gather all the data and ship it off to HQ to improve itself (and compare its own decisions to those of the human driver, which IMO is infinitely more valuable). But if there's one thing the average person is terrible at, it's reacting quickly to terrible situations. You're absolutely right that people can't be trusted to remain actively engaged when something else is doing the driving. Great example with the cruise control, too.

[hyperbole]

No one dies so someone 10 years from now can watch a full episode of the family guy unimpeded for the duration of their commute.

The human toll is irrelevant to the conversation, what's relevant is whether risks taken are being taken knowingly - you cannot market a self driving vehicle whose functionality "is 2x better than any human being" while simultaneously stating in your legal language to protect yourself: don't take your hands off the wheel - that's bs.

[pstuart]

Plenty of people die right now because they just got a text or they had no other way home from the bar, etc.

The human toll is absolutely relevant to the conversation: this is about people dying now and in the future. It seems cruel to discuss it in a "I'll sacrifice X to save Y" later, but it can reasonably be reduced to that.

I think it's safe to assume that this will drastically reduce driving related injuries and deaths.

[hyperbole]

It's a deceptive to assume autopilot saves lives when it too has taken them. The number of people with access to auto pilot is far fewer to statistically determine how many more center divider deaths we might have if everyone were it's passenger.

Is the life taken by auto pilot worth less than the life taken by the aggressive driver who takes out an innocent driver? No.

I hope we eventually save lives as in net improvement in current death totals by using these technologies but the risks are not well communicated, the marketing is entirely out of sync with the risks and the "martyrs" we create thus to me look like victims.

[buvanshak]

> Is the life taken by auto pilot worth less than the life taken by the aggressive driver who takes out an innocent driver? No.

I think beliefs such as these is fueled by the extremely naive implication that each death will cause the learning algorithm to "improve itself" so every self driving thing out there is safer owing to that death..

[hyperbole]

That's not the thrust of my point... Talking about how many people have to die to perfect autonomous vehicles is pointless, some people are willing to jump out of airplanes & they fully understand the risks.

Some number of people, N are willing to risk their lives to use autonomous vehicles they'll die as a result. It should be just as clear to person using autopilot the risks involved not misled with marketing fluff that doesn't come close to reality. Martyrs not victims

[buvanshak]

>I think it's safe to assume that this will drastically reduce driving related injuries and deaths.

This assumes that the self driving tech will continue to increase in competence and will at some point surpass humans. I somehow find that extremely optimistic, bordering in on being naive.

Consider something like OCR or object recognition alone, where similar tech is applied. Even with decades of research behind it, it really cannot come any where close to a human in terms of reliability. I am talking about stuff that can be trained endlessly with any sort of risk. Still it does not show an ever increasing capability.

Now, machine learning and AI is only part of the picture. The other part is the sensors. This again is not anywhere near the sensors a human is equipped with.

From what we have seen in the tech industry in recent years is that trust in a tech by the people, even intelligent ones such as people who are investing in it, is not based on logic (Theranos, uBeam etc). I think such a climate is exactly what is enabling tests such as these. But unlike others, these tests are actually putting unsuspecting lives on line. And that should not be allowed..

[rayiner]

Or speech recognition or even speech synthesis. We’ve been working on speech recognition for decades now and Siri is still nearly useless.

[pstuart]

It is optimistic. Is it naive? Only in the sense that I don't do development in that realm and I can only base my assessment on what's publicly discussed.

Please note that I artfully omitted a due date on my assumption. There's so much money involved here and so much initial traction that it is indeed reasonable to think that tech can surpass a "normal" driver.

I'm also biased against human drivers, plenty of whom should not be behind the wheel.

[buvanshak]

>There's so much money involved here and so much initial traction that it is indeed reasonable to think that tech can surpass a "normal" driver.

I don't think it is reasonable at all to reach that conclusion based on the money involved...You just can't force progress/breakthrough just by throwing money at all problem..

>I'm also biased against human drivers, plenty of whom should not be behind the wheel.

So I think it would be quite trivial to drastically increase the punishment of dangerous practices if caught. I mean, suspend license or ban for life if you are caught texting while driving or drunk driving.

[EGreg]

Here is the messy situation: maybe this system is better at avoiding accidents than 40% of the people 99.999% of the time.

The best thing is to build a system to analyze your driving and figure out if you are in that 40% of people and then let it drive for you. Maybe drunk drivers, for example. It can do this per ride: “oh you’re driving recklessly, do you want me to take over?”

EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE A STRICT IMPROVEMENT. Taking over driving and letting people stop paying attention is not a strict improvement.

The argument should NOT be about playing with people’s lives now so im the future some people can have a better system. That’s a ridiculous argument. Instead WHY DON’T THE COMPANIES COLLABORATE ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE AND RESEARCH TO ALL BUILD ON EACH OTHER’S WORK? Capitalism and “intellectual property”, that’s why. In this case, a gift economy like SCIENCE or OPEN SOURCE is far far superior at saving lives. But we are so used to profit driven businesses, it’s not likely they will take such an approach to it.

What we have instead is companies like Waymo suing Uber and Uber having deadly accidents.

And what we SHOULD have is if an incremental improvement makes things safer, every car maker should be able to adopt it. There should be open source shops for this stuff like Linux that enjoy huge defensive patent portfolios.

Ain’t gonna happen I’m afraid.

[kolpa]

> The argument should NOT be about playing with people’s lives now so im the future some people can have a better system.

Why not? That's how pioneers make progress, in new aircraft and spacecraft.

If people want to be on the bleeding edge, why not let them?

How can the cars improve if they are never allowed to drive?

[Xylakant]

Pioneers usually are people well aware that what they’re doing is risky. I doubt that the victims of the last Tesla crashes and of the latest Uber crash regarded themselves as Pioneers. They probably just wanted to safely arrive at their destination and relied on a feature marketed as being capable to bring them there.

The pioneers in this case are putting other people’s life at risk.

Wayne seems to demonstrate that improving self-driving cars without leaving a trail of bodies behind seems in the realm of possibility, so let’s measure Tesla against that standard.

[EGreg]

The cars can improve by being pieces of soft foam emulating the aerodynamics of a car while atop a metal base with wheels and an engine inside the foam. They would be fully autonomous with no human driver, avoid collisions as much as possible and yet fluffy enough to not hurt anyone even at high speeds.

[pdonis]

> while simultaneously stating in your legal language to protect yourself: don't take your hands off the wheel

They don't just say it in the legal language. The car is continually reminding the driver of it, as the article makes clear.

[osrec]

I disagree with your initial sentiment. In my opinion, we can have self driving cars without a large human toll. I just think we need to stop trying to merge self driving cars into a road system designed for human operators. Moreover, we should not be "beta testing" our self driving cars on roads with human operators. Accidents will happen, as ML models can and do go unstable from time to time. Instead, we should look to update our roads and infrastructure to be better suited to automated cars. Till then, I hope those martyred in the name of self driving technology are not near and dear to you (even if you'd feel it's worth it).

[tedivm]

To me beta testing should be a long period of time where the computer is running while humans are driving, with deviations between what the computer would do if it had control versus what the human actually does being recorded for future training. The value add is that the computer can still be used to alert to dangerous conditions, or potentially even overriding in certain circumstances (applying break when lidar sees an obstacle at night when the human driver didn't see it).

The problem is that Uber needs self driving cars in order to make money, and Tesla firmly believes that their system is safer than human drivers by themselves (even if a few people who wouldn't have otherwise died do, others who might have died won't and they believe those numbers make it worth it).

[Splines]

It's surprising that this isn't the standard right now. I'm certain the people at Tesla/Uber/Waymo have considered this - I'm curious why this approach isn't more common.

[kolinko]

It was happening. Many companies, Tesla including, gathered a lot of data for training the system.

The problem is that you cna only learn so much without actual practice.

[turtlebits]

I'm sure it is the standard during testing. I doubt you can do this for the general population.

[kbutler]

How about all those martyred by prolonging our current manual driving system for the years band decades it will take to roll out separate infrastructure for vehicles no one owns because they can't drive them anywhere?

I think we need to keep the human driver in control, but have the computers learning through that constant, immediate feedback.

And get rid of misleading marketing and fatal user experience design errors.

[buvanshak]

>but have the computers learning through that constant, immediate feedback.

I don't know what is stopping them from simulating everything inside a computer.

Record the input from all the sensors when a car equipped sensors is driven through real roads by a human driver. Replay the sensor input, with enough random variations and let the algorithms train on it.

Continue adding to the library of sensor data by making the sensor car by driving it through more and more real life roads and in real life situations. Keep feeding the ever increasing library of sensor data to the algorithm, safely inside a computer.

[kolpa]

>I don't know what is stopping them from simulating everything inside a computer.

Obviously they've already tried that, and it doesn't work. The map is not the territory.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

[buvanshak]

Not following you here. What do you mean by "The map is not the territory."..

What I mean is that. Do not "teach" the thing in real time. Instead collect the sensor data from the cars a human is driving (and also collect the human input also), and train the thing on it, safely inside the lab.

You say, they have done it already. But I am asking if they have done it enough. And if that is so, how come the accidents such as these are possible, when the situation is pretty out of a text book in basic driving?

[osrec]

I don't think it'll take years to update our infrastructure. For example, we could embed beacons into catseyes to make it easier to know where the road boundaries are etc. Also, we could make sections of the highway available with the new infrastructure piece by piece. It is just as progressive as your suggestion, but the problem becomes a whole lot easier to solve when you target change towards infrastructure as well as the car itself.

[kbutler]

These will take a lane from regular traffic and give it to rich people who buy an expensive car.

It also will not ensure exclusion of manual vehicles, so it won't create the exclusion necessary for the predictable driving environment.

[pbhjpbhj]

In think it could work, that lane can be the same as is used for autonomous lorries (that potentially benefit everyone if they deliver cheaper goods).

[osrec]

Not really, the road would still be fully usable by a standard car.

[AlexandrB]

> I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem.

This is the definition of a false dichotomy and it implicitly puts the onus on early adopters to risk their lives (!) in order to achieve full autonomy. Why not put the onus on the car manufacturer to invest sufficient capital to make their cars safe!? To rephrase what you said with this perspective:

> ...developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of billions of investor dollars in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem.

This seems strictly better than the formulation you provided. How nuts is it that the assumption here is that people will have to die for this technology to be perfected. Why not pour 10x or 100x the current level of investment and build entire mock towns to test these cars in - with trained drivers emulating traffic scenarios? Why put profits ahead of people?

[fapjacks]

This reply is a classic straw man (and one of the main reasons I left Facebook behind). You are making an assumption here that's wrong and I hate that I have to speak to what you've said here because you are reading words that I didn't type. I personally would not choose to put profits ahead of people. But I didn't say anything about profit. I deliberately left profit and money completely out of my post for a reason. You also seem to be suggesting that throwing money at the problem is going to magically make it perfectly safe. You are looking for guarantees and I'm sorry to break it to you, but there are no guarantees in life. "Screws fall out all the time". People are going to die in the process of developing self-driving automobile technology. People are going to die in situations that have nothing to do with self-driving automobile technology. Deaths are inevitable and I am saying that it is worth a perceived significant loss of human life to close the gap using technology so that the number of people dying on the roads every year approaches zero.

[almost_usual]

> I have to preface my post to say that I think developing self-driving automobiles is so important that it's worth the implied cost of potentially tens of thousands of lives in order to perfect the technology, because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem.

I generally agree with this philosophy but this is very optimistic, at least in the United States. This is a country where we can't even ban assault rifles let alone people from driving their own vehicles. You're going to see people drive their own vehicles for a very long time even if self driving technology is perfected.

[lorenzorhoades]

I think there is a key point that will result in the freedom of being able to drive being stripped long before assault rifles. Imagine if i create a private road from SF to LA and say that only self driving cars can drive on it. The vehicles on this road are all inter-connected, allowing them to travel at speeds in excess of 150+ MPH, and since the road that i've created is completely flat it still allows it to be a smooth ride. But if i allow cars who's actions can't be predicted (Car driven by a human), it then becomes impossible to safely drive at these speeds. So me, and the road owner, bans cars driven by people on my private toll road. As this becomes more prelevent, i will no longer have the want or need to drive my own car because then it takes me 6 Hours to get to LA instead of 2. All the while there no reason for me to get rid of my assault rifle, because i really enjoy firing it out the window of my self-driving car at 150MPH on the way to LA.

[CPLX]

The thing you're describing is called a train.

[lorenzorhoades]

In a train I have to physically go to the train station, park my car, walk and find which train/subway to hop on, sit next to other people on a crowded, confined space, possibly get off and get on another train going to a different destination, get off the the train and walk/ get a rental car to where i want to actually go.

Compare the above to hop in my car, drive to the freeway, turn on self-driving, turn off self-driving once i get off the freeway, find parking near where i'm going and walk in.

As a society, we've done alot more in the name of convenience.

[Dylan16807]

Are you going to having a train running every few minutes to really make the delays comparable?

And you need a fleet of rental cars so that people can actually get to their destination.

What's the relative cost of all that vs. pavement?

[lmm]

> Are you going to having a train running every few minutes to really make the delays comparable?

Commuter rail systems run at 2 minute headways or less. Long-distance trains mostly don't but that's largely due to excessive safety standards - for some reason we regulate trains to a much higher safety standard than cars. Even then, the higher top speeds of trains can make up for a certain amount of waiting and indirect routing. (Where I live, in London, trains are already faster than cars in the rush hour).

> What's the relative cost of all that vs. pavement?

When you include the land use and pollution? Cars can be cheaper for intercity distances when there's a lot of similarly-sized settlements, but within a city they waste too much space. And once you build cities for people rather than cars, cars lose a lot of their attraction for city-to-city travel as well, since you're in the same situation of having to change modes to get to your final destination.

[AnimalMuppet]

I'm pretty sure that the rail is more expensive... until you start paying for the gas for all the cars. Railroads kill highways on energy efficiency.

If the cars are electric, I'm less sure.

[rsynnott]

I mean, if there’s the demand, sure. Lots of commuter trains run at that sort of rate.

Though your train of cars would likely have such low passenger density that a series of buses would be just as good. Special lanes just for buses are already a thing.

[almost_usual]

So you exit the self driving private road to enter a public road where there are still local residents who insist on driving their own vehicle. Some of these residents have never been to location X and have no interest in it. They care about their neighborhood and getting around however they want.

The point is driving is a freedom and getting rid of it in this country will be hard. I'd imagine self driving vehicles having more prevalence in China where the government can control what destinations you have access to and monitor your trips.

[Bizarro]

You'll see municipalities and then states banning cars starting off using soft incentive based approaches, then harder approaches once enough people switch over.

Many states (red) won't ban them for a very long time.

the impact on freedom to travel will have to be secured and decentralized without any government kill switches.

[BRAlNlAC]

You'll see municipalities and then states banning cars

Which states? Maybe a few in New England, but I don't see that happening anywhere else. Counties perhaps, but there are rural areas pretty much everywhere, and people are going to want the freedom to drive their own vehicle.

[seanmcdirmid]

Economic incentives and competition will eventually cause it to happen regardless of sentiment. First, insurance rates for manually driven cars will shoot through the roof as less risky drivers moving to self driving cars decimate that risk pool (like if gun owners were required insurance for misuse). Second, cities that go to self driving only will have a huge advantage in infrastructure utilization and costs as roads are used more efficiently (with smoother traffic) and parking lots/garages become a thing of the past. Residents will just push for it if it means not being stuck in traffic anymore. Or worse, people and companies will relocate to cities with exclusive self driving car policies, creating a huge penalty for cities that don’t or can’t do that.

In comparison, the economic impact/benefit of banning assault rifles is negligible (and definitely not transformative) even if I personally think it is the morally right thing to do. (Maybe we can make the case later if school security and active shooter drills become prohibitively expensive and/or annoying)

[almost_usual]

> Or worse, people and companies will relocate to cities with exclusive self driving car policies

So people will relocate to avoid traffic? Why doesn't this happen today? Suppose San Francisco decided to not enforce self driving laws to protect small businesses and preserve community infrastructure and culture. Now suppose Phoenix (only picked because they've been progressive with self driving technology) does enforce self driving laws, would you expect a mass exodus from San Francisco to Phoenix?

[seanmcdirmid]

Yes, people do move cities for better quality of life (e.g. their commutes suck). Companies have been known to do similar things.

Right now Phoenix is not even on the map for most of us. If they did something like this (at the right time), then it might be.

[seanmcdirmid]

Additionally, it isn't really SF vs. Phoenix. Think global competition: if developing mega cities in Asia adopts this before American cities do, they will be able to more quickly catch up with and very likely exceed their American counter parts in a short period of time economically.

[AlexandrB]

> First, insurance rates for manually driven cars will shoot through the roof as less risky drivers moving to self driving cars decimate that risk pool (like if gun owners were required insurance for misuse).

Why would the less-risky drivers move to self-driving cars first? Wouldn't some of the higher-risk demographics (e.g. the elderly) make the move first since they have more incentive to do so?

> Second, cities that go to self driving only will have a huge advantage in infrastructure utilization and costs as roads are used more efficiently (with smoother traffic) and parking lots/garages become a thing of the past. Residents will just push for it if it means not being stuck in traffic anymore.

I think self-driving cars will be really cool and reduce traffic accidents once they're perfected, but a lot of these assumptions don't make sense. Unless a critical mass switches to car-sharing, autonomous cars and no parking will make rush hour worse because now each car will make the round trip to work twice a day instead of just once. Also, what happens to the real-estate where the parking lots are now? The financially sound thing to do will probably be converting these lots to more offices/condos/malls. So urban density will increase - increasing traffic.

Even if autonomous cars radically improve traffic flow, I suspect we'll just get induced demand [1]. More people will take cars instead of public transit and urban density will increase until traffic sucks again.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

[seanmcdirmid]

> Wouldn't some of the higher-risk demographics (e.g. the elderly)

Elderly aren't usually considered higher risk. The young kids are, enthusiasts are, people who drive red sports cars are.

> Unless a critical mass switches to car-sharing, autonomous cars and no parking will make rush hour worse because now each car will make the round trip to work twice a day instead of just once.

Autonomous cars should be mostly fleet vehicles (otherwise you have to park it at home).

Isn't that just like in most of the major world cities where taxis are the norm rather than the exception? It isn't weird for a taxi in Beijing to make 5-6 morning commute rounds. But even then, there are a lot of reverse commutes to consider.

> The financially sound thing to do will probably be converting these lots to more offices/condos/malls.

While density can increase, convenient affordable personal transportation also allows the opposite to occur. Parks, nice places, and niche destinations, are also possible.

Think of it this way, once traffic is mitigated, urban planning can apply more balance to eliminate uneven reverse commute problems. There will still be an incentive to not move, but movement in itself wouldn't be that expensive (only 40 kuai to get to work in Beijing ~15km, I'm sure given the negligible labor costs, autonomous cars can manage that in the states).

[stale2002]

We aren't asking that normal cars are banned.

We are asking that self driving cars be ALLOWED if the user chooses, even IF the safety is in doubt. This is because of just how extremely important this issue is.

[intended]

Its not going to happen.

Peopl I’ve said it before, and I’ll repeat it till eventually the tide turns on HN and elsewhere.

You will not have full autonomy unless you control the road itself.

At which point you are better off just making it mass transit.

[pbhjpbhj]

You could also, presumably, have supervision - not control the road, but control all road users. But that's equally impractical I think.

[skywhopper]

While I agree with your conclusion, the opening line strikes me as silly. Why is it "so important" to have self-driving cars? These cars that can't detect stationary objects directly in front of them are nowhere close to the self-driving pipe dream that's been around for a century. Maybe by 2118 we'll be making more progress.

[supernovae]

It won't take that long.

Also, people are terrible at detecting objects directly in front of them and just like computers, the human brain can be cheated, overloaded, inept or inexperienced leading to an accident.

Now we have cars with lane assist, smart breaking, auto pilot features and that's only in the past 5-10 years.

Of all the places where technology can save lives, its definitely in vehicles/transportation.

[buvanshak]

> Also, people are terrible at detecting objects directly in front of them and just like computers, the human brain can be cheated, overloaded, inept or inexperienced leading to an accident.

How many optical illusions do you usually see in the roads while driving, that can result in an accident?

I am not even talking about the "people are terrible at detecting objects directly in front of them" part.

I mean, how can you be a human being and say this? If we were "terrible at detecting objects directly in front of us", we would have been predated out of existence a long time ago..

[pbhjpbhj]

Dips aren't quite an optical illusion; nor are blind spots, or obscured vehicles (behind frame of the car or behind another vehicle), but those are all quite common and are similar to illusions (you see imperfectly).

Sometimes you'll see multiple white lines, or lanes that appear to vere off due to dirt on the road. A bit of litter looks like a person, a kid looks like they might run out.

A lot of times I find I'm searching for something and can't see it but it was in my visual field. I think this worsens with age.

[buvanshak]

> but those are all quite common and are similar to illusions

No. None of those qualify as brain being cheated.

[TipVFL]

Humans can only look in one direction, and only from inside the car with their view obstructed, and they're only paying attention sometimes.

Check out this article, it is easy to never see a bike you're on a collision course with. https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-th...

[imtringued]

We're not talking about complicated scenarios with multiple moving actors. Tesla's autopilot cannot even do something as basic as detect stationary obstacles that are directly in front of the car. It will crash into barriers even if the highway is completely devoid of other cars.

You may consider humans as bad drivers but Tesla's autopilot is even worse than that:

It can't even look in one direction!

[buvanshak]

>Humans can only look in one direction..

Last time I checked, I could move my eyes, up and down, side to side. I could also rotate my whole head, that also up and down and side to side.

And I am a human being.

[Fins]

I am not really sure if development of SDVs is really that important, but even if it were, your proposal would only be acceptable if it were you and Mr. Musk racing your Teslas on Tesla's private proving grounds. Somewhere in the Kalahari desert seems to be an acceptable location. The moment people "making a sacrifice" are unsuspecting customers, and eventually innocent bystanders you are veering very much into Dr. Mengele's territory.

Actually, one thing that I was curious about regarding this incident -- they say that authorities had to wait for a team of Tesla's engineers to show up to clean up burning mess of batteries. Luckily for everyone else trying to get somewhere on 101 that day, Tesla's HQ isn't too far away. What if next time one drives into a barrier it happens in a middle of Wyoming? Will the road stay closed until Tesla's engineers can hitch a ride on one of Musk's Falcons?

[kbutler]

"Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. "

And $879B in USA per year.

[Fins]

So we should kill even more people, who had never signed up to be guinea pigs, so that maybe there will be a self-driving car at some point? Which most of those dying in those crashes will not be able to afford anytime soon anyway...

[kbutler]

No, but every year we delay replacing human drivers with something much safer, we incur huge distributed costs.

It is thus very important.

[Fins]

Thnat's assuming that the replacement actually is safer, which in case of the Auto-Pilot is not the case now, and not necessarily the case ever. There is a reason Waymo isn't unleashing their stuff onto unsuspecting public.

[rightbyte]

Thats kinda Volvo Cars approuch, word by word, as one of their RnD engineers explained it to me.

[southern_cross]

IIRC, it was also Volvo who a few years back said that they would gladly take on any liability issues for their self-driving cars. Only to backtrack on that a short while later after having learned what liability laws in the U.S. actually look like, saying that they wouldn't take on such liability until the laws are changed to be more in their favor. So there's that ...

[perennate]

> because that's what people do; make sacrifices to improve the world we live in so that future generations don't have to know the same problem.

Whose lives are we sacrificing? In the case of the Uber crash in Tempe and this Tesla crash in California, the people who died did not volunteer to risk their lives to advance research in autonomous vehicles.

I highly respect individuals who choose to risk their lives to better the world or make progress, like doctors fighting disease in Africa and astronauts going to space, but at the same time, I think this must always be a choice. Otherwise we could justify forcing prisoners to try new drugs as the first stage of clinical trials. Or worse things. Which is why there are extensive vetting before approval for clinical trials is given.

I do think that, once the safety of autonomous vehicles have been proven on a number of testbeds, but before they are ready for deployment, it is justifiable to drive them on public roads. Maybe without safety drivers. But until then, careful consideration should be given to their testing.

Uber should not have been able to run autonomous vehicles with safety drivers where the safety driver could be allowed to look away from the road for several seconds while the car was moving at >30mph. The car should automatically shutoff if it is not clear whether the safety driver is paying attention. And there should be legislation that bans any company that fails to implement basic safeguards like this from testing again for at least a decade, with severe fines. Probably speeds should also be limited to ~30mph for the first few years of testing while the technology is still so immature, as it is today.

Similarly, Tesla should not be allowed to deploy their Autopilot software to consumers before they conduct studies to show that it is reasonably safe. Repeated accidents have shown that Level 1 and Level 2 autonomous vehicles, where the car drives autonomously but the driver must be ready to intervene, is a failed model unless the car actively monitors that the driver is paying attention.

Overall I think justifying the current state of things by saying that people must be sacrificed for this technology to work is ridiculous. Basic safeguards are not being used, and if we require them, maybe autonomous vehicles will take a few years longer to reach deployment, but that thousands of lives could become tens.

Edit: I read in another comment that the Tesla car at least "alarms at you when you take your hands off the wheel". In that case I think what Tesla is doing is much more reasonable. (Not Uber, though.) Although I still feel like it is going to be hard to react to dangerous situations when the system operates correctly almost all the time (even if you are paying attention and have your hands on the wheel). But I'm not sure what the correct policy should be here, because I don't fully understand why people use this in the first place (since it sounds like Autopilot doesn't save you any work).

[imtringued]

In that case tesla's autopilot is a red herring. It's not a fully autonomous system. If you're willing to sacrifice human lives then please sacrifice them on systems that actually have a chance of working. Tesla's autopilot isn't one of them, it's most likely never going to reduce the fatality rate below the skill of a sober human because it's just a simple lane keeping and cruise control assistant.

[mozumder]

People love their cars too much.

Cars should just be phased out in favor of mass transit everywhere.

Yes, you can live without the convenience of your car. No really, you can.

Now think about how you would enable that to happen. What local politicians are you willing to write to, or support, in order to enable a better mass transit option for you? And how would you enable more people to support those local politicians that make that decision?

This is the correct solution, since the AI solution of self-driving cars isn't going to happen. Their high fatality rates are going to remain high.

[Silhouette]

Yes, you can live without the convenience of your car. No really, you can.

Maybe, but unless you can change the laws of nature, you can't build a mass transit system that can serve everyone full-time with reasonable efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and that's just meeting the minimum requirement of getting from A to B, without getting into all the other downsides of public vs. private transportation in terms of health, privacy, security, etc.

[mozumder]

OK. Anything else you want to make up?

Let's see what that imagination can craft.

[Silhouette]

There's no need to make anything up. Mass transit systems are relatively efficient if and only if they are used on routes popular enough to replace enough private vehicles to offset their greater size and operating costs (both physical and financial). That usually means big cities, or major routes in smaller cities at busier times.

Achieving 24/7 mass transit, available with reasonable frequency for journeys over both short and long distances, would certainly require everyone to live in big cities with very high population densities. Here in the UK, we only have a handful of cities with populations of over one million today. That is the sort of scale you're talking about for that sort of transportation system to be at all viable, although an order of magnitude larger would be more practical. All of those cities have long histories and relatively inefficient layouts, which would make it quite difficult to scale them up dramatically without causing other fundamental problems with infrastructure and logistics.

So, in order to solve the problem of providing viable mass transit for everyone to replace their personal vehicles, you would first need to build, starting from scratch or at least from much smaller urban areas, perhaps 20-30 new big cities to house a few tens of millions of people.

You would then need all of those people to move to those new cities. You'd be destroying all of their former communities in the process, of course, and for about 10,000,000 of them, they'd be giving up their entire rural way of life. Also, since no-one could live in rural areas any more, your farming had better be 100% automated, along with any other infrastructure or emergency facilities you need to support your mass transit away from the big cities.

The UK is currently in the middle of a housing crisis, with an acute lack of supply caused by decades of under-investment and failure to build anywhere close to enough new homes. Today, we're lucky if we build 200,000 per year, while the typical demand is for at least 300,000, which means the problem is getting worse every year. The difference between home-owners and those who are renting or otherwise living in supported accommodation is one of the defining inequalities of our generation, with all the tensions and social problems that follow.

But sure, we could get everyone off private transportation and onto mass transit. All we'd have to do is uproot about 3/4 of our population, destroy their communities and in many cases their whole way of life, build new houses at least an order of magnitude faster than we have managed for the last several decades, achieve total automation in our out-of-city farming and other infrastructure, replace infrastructure for an entire nation that has been centuries in development... and then build all these wonderful new mass transit systems, which would still almost inevitably be worse than private transportation in several fundamental ways.

[mijamo]

Why so big though? I lived in a 25 000 people town in Sweden and did not need a car more than a few week ends per year. There was 5 bus lines for local transport, and long distance busses and trains with quite high frequency.

And that's not taking into account the fact that bicycle is a very viable way to move around in cities < 200 000 inhabitants.

I have actually never owned a car, I just rent some once in a while to go out somewhere where regular transports don't get me. I have lived in Sweden, France and Spain, in 10 cities from 25 000 to 12 million inhabitants. Never felt restricted. I actually feel much more restricted when I drive because I have to worry about parking, which is horrible in both Paris and Stockholm. Many people I know, even in rural Sweden or France, don't own a car because it is just super costly and the benefit is not worth it. It's very much a generation thing tough because my friends are mostly around 26-32 whereas nearly all the person I know over 35 owns a car, even if they don't actually have that much money and sometimes complain about it.

[pbhjpbhj]

You're right. But you're going to have to change the whole of society to achieve that end - from the law, through planning and building, through entertainment, shopping and all, to farming, ... the whole kaboodle.

I lived car free in a small industrial UK city, we couldn't manage that with kids (too expensive for one).

Bus seats are awful, why?, because they're made vandal resistant (and hard wearing). They're too small for a lot of people now as well. So you need to remodel buses IMO; your going to need to be hotter on vandals, so change the approach of the courts. Things bifurcate across areas of society like that: Supermarkets, houses, zoning, etc. all are designed with mass car ownership as a central tenet.

[imtringued]

This is certainly possible and I would welcome it but this is something that cannot be done overnight. It will take decades to convince politicians and more decades to upgrade the existing infrastructure.

[pdonis]

> Yes, you can live without the convenience of your car. No really, you can.

No, I can't. Don't presume to tell other people what they need to live their lives.

[throwaway2048]

not everyone lives (or can live) in a city.

[drharby]

The big issue is whether one is volunyeering to take the risk or enrolling someone yo assume yhe risk

[dbasedweeb]

If you’re willing to die for this, then by all means go ahead and sign up to be a dummy on a test track. If you know other people who feel the same way, sign up as a group. If you’re just talking about letting other people die so that someday, maybe we’ll have fully automated cars, that’s monstrous, especially when they’re not volunteers and don’t get to opt out!

A laudable goal doesn’t give anyone the right to kill people by taking unnecessary risks. The reason that Tesla and Uber do what they do the way they do, instead of a more conservative approach is an attempt to profit, not save lives. If you don’t have to spend lives to make progress, but choose to do so for economic experience, there’s s word for that: evil.

[cyberferret]

I agree with the psychology aspect of driving. I've seen it mentioned many times that a large majority of auto accidents occur a few minutes from the driver's home, and usually on their way home. Apparently, being close to their neighbourhood and in familiar surrounds, the driver's attention tends to wane as they get distracted with other things that they have to do when they get to their house.

Racing drivers have also reported that when they are not driving at 100%, they are more prone to make mistakes or crash. Most famously, Ayrton Senna's infamous crash at Monaco when he was leading the field by a LONG way. When he was asked why he crashed at a fairly innocuous slow corner, he said that his engineer had asked him over the radio to 'take it easy' as there was no chance he would be challenged for 1st place before the finish line, so he relaxed a fraction and started thinking about the victory celebrations. And crashed.

[intended]

I thought the point was that most car related jaunts are short ones.

[kazinator]

Accidents take place close to home because driving takes place close to home and accidents take place where driving takes place.

Basically this: https://xkcd.com/1138/

[theluketaylor]

>I don't even enable cruise control because taking the accelerator input away from me is enough to cause my mind to wander

You're not alone. I find the act of modulating my speed is what keeps me focused on the task of driving safely. Steering alone isn't enough; I can stay in my lane without tracking the vehicles around me or fully comprehending road conditions.

Until a Level 5 autonomous car is ready to drive me point A to point B while I watch a movie I will remain firmly in command of the vehicle.

[dbasedweeb]

The problem as always with driving is that you can be as attentive, sober, cautious as humanly possible... while the guy who jumps the median into your windscreen may not be. We need to be more concerned and proactive about stopping this running experiment with half-asses automation in which we all unwillingly participate. I want lvl 5 automation just like anyone, but I don’t believe it’s anywhere close, and I’m not interested in being part of a Tesla or Uber’s attempt to be even richer.

Public roads are not laboratories. It’s not just Tesla owners who are participating in this, it’s everyone on the road with them.

[cdancette]

For me it's the opposite. I feel like with cruise control on, I'm much more attentive to the road and the surroundings and feel much safer.

It really annoys me when I have to constantly look at the speed to avoid getting above the limit and it is very tiring for long drives.

[flashmob]

Noticed this also, no need to monitor and adjust the speed which is a mundane task (in cruise control traffic conditions). Eyes can be on the road instead.

This is similar to the problem for pilots, who can be distracted by mundane tasks due the complexity of controls in modern aircraft. If these tasks are removed, the pilot can focus on what's more important.

According to NASA " For the most part, crews handle concurrent task demands efficiently, yet crew preoccupation with one task to the detriment of other tasks is one of the more common forms of error in the cockpit."

https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl10_distr...

[theluketaylor]

I think growing up in a snowy climate where super precise throttle control is critical to not ending up in ditches plays a huge role in why I zone out when using cruise control. The fine motor skill of throttle control occupies the back of my mind while my conscious thoughts rotate through the mirrors, track other vehicles and watch for obstacles. I can maintain a speed within a couple km/hr for a very long time without needing to glance at the speedo at all.

The moment the back of my mind doesn't have to handle precise throttle control I find my mind wandering and my spacial awareness is shot. I guess maintaining speed is the fidget spinner that keeps me focused on the task of driving.

[greglindahl]

I totally agree with this sentiment -- the only reason I drive a safe speed is that I use cruise control constantly. Then I don't have to think about speed, and I can focus on everything else.

[seanmcdirmid]

Adaptive cruise control is a bit annoying in traffic, as the safety buffer causes cars who don’t care about tailgating to easily move into the gap causing my speed to jolt around a lot (and eventually get stuck behind some slow moving vehicle). It just doesn’t work well in heavy two lane traffic I guess.

[kolpa]

You need a speed limiter, not necessarily cruise control.

[greglindahl]

A speed limiter involves me having to continue to press on a pedal. That's quite different from cruise control.

[dhimes]

Cruise control works fine for this.

[chaostheory]

> This needs far more discussion. I just don't buy it. I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive. I think our psychology won't allow it.

Does anyone know of psychology studies that measure human reaction time and skill when sometime like autopilot is engaged most of the time? I remember taking part in a similar study at Georgia Tech that involved firing at a target using a joystick. It was also simultaneously a contest because only the top scorer would get prize money. The study was conducted in two parts. In the 1st phase, the system had autotargeting engaged. All subjects had to do was press a button when the reticle was on the target in order to score. In the 2nd phase, which was a surprise, autotargetting was turned off. I won the contest and my score was miles ahead of anyone. I can't fully confirm it but I feel this happened because I was still actively aiming for the target even when autotargetting was active.

[Animats]

Does anyone know of psychology studies that measure human reaction time and skill when sometime like autopilot is engaged most of the time?

Yes. That's been much studied in the aviation community.[1] NASA has the Multi-Attribute Test Battery to explicitly study this.[2] It runs on Windows with a joystick, and is available from NASA. The person being tested has several tasks, one of which is simply to keep a marker on target with the joystick as the marker drifts. This simulates the most basic flying task - flying straight and level. This task can be put on "autopilot", and when the marker drifts, the "autopilot" will simulate moving the joystick to correct the position.

But sometimes the "autopilot" fails, and the marker starts drifting. The person being tested is supposed to notice this and take over. How long that takes is measured. That's exactly the situation which applies with Tesla's "autopilot".

There are many studies using MATB. See the references. This is well explored territory in aviation.

[1] http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~archerj/Course%20Deliverables/IE%... [2] https://matb.larc.nasa.gov/software/

[chaostheory]

This sounds identical to the study I participated in except it was conducted by Georgia Tech and not NASA.

[Animats]

Anyone can download and run the software, and it's widely used for studies on human performance as workload increases.

[sokoloff]

As a user of autopilot in aviation context, I do remain engaged and connected to the flight while the autopilot handles the routine course following and altitude hold/tracking responsibilities.

I don’t find that particularly challenging and in fact, when the autopilot is INOP, flights are slightly more mentally fatiguing because you have no offload and complex arrivals are much more work, but in cruise, you have to be paying attention either way. It’s not a time to read the newspaper, autopilot or not.

[hippich]

Quite a lot years ago I had to drive for 6 hours straight at night to get on time to place where I needed to be (air flight was not available back then for me)

What I noticed that when I was following posted/safe speed limit, I was quickly losing focus, mind started wandering and eventually I felt I was falling asleep.

I do not remember what made me to speed up, but once I was about 30% faster than posted speed limits, and once I reached part of the way where road was quite bad + a lot of road work was happening, I realized that I much more alert.

As soon as I slowed down to posted speed limit speed I began drifting away again..

If anything, my anecdote confirms your theory - as soon as we perceive something safer, we pay way less attention. And Autopilot sounds like one of these safety things, which makes drivers less attentive and potentially missing dangerous situation, which otherwise would be caught by driver's mind.

I wonder if there is a way to introduce autopilot help without actually giving sense of security to the driver. Granted Tesla would lose so precious marketing angle, but if their autopilot would work somewhat like variable power steering system on background without obvious taking over control of the car, in the long haul that would be more beneficial?

[pbhjpbhj]

Assuming you were in a vehicle with ICE speed relates to vibration/noise which can, at the wrong pitch, cause drowsiness easily. This is why parents will take their children out in the car if a child is not sleeping well.

I find rough motorway surfaces in my current vehicle induce heavy drowsiness at motorway speed limits (slight reduced at marginally higher speeds when the pitch is higher).

[hippich]

This is interesting idea, never thought about it! thanks!

[Retric]

Your belief is meaningless, we have hard data that shows a net benefit to these systems.

It's not a question of zero deaths, it's a question of reducing the number which means you need to look beyond individual events. Remember the ~90 people who died yesterday from a US car accident without making the news are far more important than a few individuals.

[phkahler]

>> our belief is meaningless, we have hard data that shows a net benefit to these systems.

No we don't. Tesla likes to compare their deaths per mile to the national average. The problem is that their autopilot is not fit to drive everywhere or in all conditions that go into that average. There is no data to support that autopilot is safer overall. It may not even be safer in highway conditions given that we've seen it broadside a semi and now deviate from the lane into a barrier - both in normal to good conditions.

[Retric]

Specific failures are again meaningless. Computers don't fail the way people do, on the other hand people also regularly fall asleep at the wheel and do similar dumb things.

And really, driving conditions are responsible for a relatively small percentage of vehicle fatalities. Most often it's people doing really dumb things like driving 100+ MPH.

The only thing we actually know is these cars are safer on average than similar cars without these systems. That's not looking at how much they are used, just the existence of said safety system and likely relates to them being used when the drivers are extremely drunk or tired which are both extremely dangerous independent of weather conditions.

[kalleboo]

So how about we adopt much cheaper and simpler solutions like drowsiness detection (Volvos have these), automatic emergency braking (I think every brand has this as an option now), breathalizer locks, speed limiters etc?

The US just mandated all new cars have backup cameras, but it seems like mandating AEB would make a bigger difference.

[Silhouette]

Your belief is meaningless, we have hard data that shows a net benefit to these systems.

What do you know that the rest of us don't? The ones statistics I've seen on anyone's self-driving cars so far would barely support a hypothesis that they are as capable as an average driver in an average car while operating under highly favourable conditions.

[unclebucknasty]

>I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive

I've been saying this for a while and it's interesting to see more people evolve to this point of view. There was a time when this idea was unpopular here--owed mostly to people claiming that autonomous cars are still safer than humans, so the risks were acceptable. I think there are philosophical and moral reasons why this is not good enough, but that goes off-topic a bit.

In any case, some automakers have now embraced the Level-5 only approach and I sincerely believe that goal will not be achieved until either:

1. We achieve AGI or

2. Our roads are inspected and standards are set to certify them for autonomous vehicles (e.g. lane marking requirements, temporary construction changes, etc.)

Otherwise, I don't believe we can simply unleash autonomous vehicles on any road in any conditions and expect them to perform perfectly. I also believe it's impossible to test for every scenario. The recent dashcam videos have convinced me further of this [0].

The fact that there are "known-unknowns" in the absence of complete test-ability is one major reason that "better than humans" is not an ethical standard. We simply can't release vehicles to the open roads when we know there are any situations in which a human would outperform them in potentially life-saving ways.

[0] https://reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopilot_b...

[pavanred]

I suppose its perhaps how they marketed the feature. We have parking assist feature in many cars, there's a reason its not auto-park instead. If it really was a feature to help attentive drivers avoid accidents, it probably would have been called a driving-assist tech and not auto-pilot.

[PinkMilkshake]

I agree, I find the same of myself, and I beat myself up over any loss of concentration.

The solution might be a system where the driver drives at a higher level of abstraction, but ultimately still drives. Driving should be like declarative programming. For example, the driver still moves the steering wheel left and right, but the car handles the turn. Or when the driver hits the breaks, which is now more of a on/off switch, the car handles the breaking. The role for the driver is to remain engaged, indicating their intention at every moment and for the car to work out the details.

Edit: On second thought, that might end up being worse. I can think of situations where it might become ambiguous to the driver of what they are handling and what the car is handling. Maybe autopilot is all or nothing.

[kojeovo]

> I don't believe that you can have a car engaged in auto-drive mode and remain attentive

I can't even drive an automatic transmission car without getting way too distracted at times

[kolpa]

The car should play "I spy" with you to keep you attentive to the road. You win if you spy a concrete barrier that the car doesn't.

[paganel]

> When driving, I find that I must be engaged and on long trips I don't even enable cruise control because taking the accelerator input away from me is enough to cause my mind to wander.

Glad I'm not the only doing it. When driving on a highway I increase or decrease my car's speed by 10-15 km every 10 minutes or so, so that this variation can help me keep attentive about my surroundings.

[Gerardo1]

This same thing can be said of auto-pilot in planes.

Not saying it invalidates your argument, just that there are pretty wide-reaching consequences to that idea.

[krrrh]

This comparison really only works if you mean engaging autopilot with a bunch of other planes flying in close formation and if clouds were made of steel and concrete. Most of the time that autopilot is engaged on a flight there is next to zero risk of a collision. Commercial pilots also get a lot of training specifically related to what autopilot is and isn’t appropriate for.

[nightski]

Even as a private pilot you are taught to continuously scan your instruments and surroundings as you fly through the air with autopilot enabled. Flight training is much more extensive than driving tests (although still not too bad) and they really drive procedures into you.

[laythea]

That is a valid counterpoint in my opinion.

[mrguyorama]

Which is why pilots are still in control of the plane while autopilot is active. Even while active, there is still a "pilot flying" and pilots are still responsible for scanning gauges and readouts and verifying the autopilot is doing what they expect. They do not just turn on autopilot and goof off

[Johnny555]

Just like Tesla's auto pilot? Drivers are supposed to be "flying", scanning gauges and the road ahead to ensure the autopilot is doing what they expect...

I think people that say that "autopilot" is a bad name for this feature don't really understand what an "autopilot" does.

[danso]

The text at the top of the homepage for Tesla Autopilot is this:

> Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

> All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

Whatever theory you have for Tesla's naming of their feature, it doesn't match with their marketing.

[slg]

You are reading into that text more than you should. Autopilot and full self-driving are two separate features. Autopilot can be used today. Full self-driving can be purchased today but won't be activated until some unknown future date. Those features are separate configurable options when purchasing the car that come with their own prices. Tesla makes it clear enough that any owner should know those are two separate features. The text you highlighted is simply promising that any car purchased today can activate full self-driving down the line with no additional hardware costs.

[danso]

> You are reading into that text more than you should.

The page's title is "Autopilot | Tesla". It is the first result for "tesla autopilot" in search results. And "autopilot" appears 9 times on the page. So if that's not an intentional attempt to mislead consumers into conflating Autopilot with "full self-driving", then what would such an attempt look like, hypothetically?

[kolpa]

If autopilot crashes at a lower rate than the average driver, they are correct, but autopilot+attentive driver would still be better than either alone.

[danso]

The current thread is about what Tesla means by use of "autopilot". The parent commenter was telling us that Tesla only intends for it to have the same meaning as it does in aviation. My response is pointing out how Tesla seems to imply "autopilot" involves "full self-driving".

[vkou]

At what point is an attentive driver expected to notice that autopilot has silently failed? The video linked at the top of the thread has a <1 second interval between the car failing to follow its lane, and plowing into a concrete barrier.

This is actually harder to do then just driving the car.

[mannykannot]

An airplane under autopilot is not a second or two away from a fatal crash.

[mulmen]

The fatal impact may not be seconds away but the event that sets in motion the series of actions that results in that fatal impact may take only seconds.

[mannykannot]

The issue is how long between the problem first manifesting itself and a crash becoming inevitable. Note that even as short a time as ten seconds is an order of magnitude longer than one second. There are at most only a few rare corner cases in aviation where proper use of the autopilot could take the airplane within a minute of an irretrievable situation that would not have occurred under manual control.

[Johnny555]

If the pilots are not flying, then it can be just a short time away from a crash. Like when the pilot is not paying attention and by the time the auto pilot can no longer fly, the pilot doesn't have enough situational awareness to take over.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_fli...

[mannykannot]

That is very much an outlier, and if it were at all relevant to the issue it would further weaken your case, as these three pilots had several minutes to sort things out. Questioning the assumptions underlying the assumed safety of airplane autopilot use can only weaken the claim that Tesla's 'autopilot' is safe.

[bunderbunder]

This isn't a debate about dictionary definitions, it's a debate about human behavior.

People who say that "Autopilot" is a bad name for this feature aren't basing it on an imperfect understanding of what autopilot does in airplanes. They're basing it on how they believe people in general will interpret the term.

[moogly]

And Tesla is relying on Joe Sixpack's Hollywood understanding of autopilot functionality. They're very well aware of that.

[greglindahl]

So you’re saying that Tesla drivers are only educated by marketing materials and ignore what the car says every time they engage the autopilot feature?

[buvanshak]

They are saying that Tesla drivers are not super humans, and only average every day, garden variety human beings...

The funny thing is that it is the same people who are arguing for self driving tech by saying that "Humans will do dumb shit", is the same ones who justify Tesla by saying "Humans should not do stupid things (like ignoring the cars warning)"..

[netc]

they are expected to remain in control of the plane, not necessarily they do: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-fl...

[stale2002]

Uhhhhh, I think you are misinformed.

They aren't going to literally fall asleep, but much of the time pilots are reading a book and not directly paying attention in the same way that a driver is.

[skrause]

Planes don't suddenly crash into a mountain because you have looked away for two seconds, there is much more time to react in case the autopilot doesn't behave correctly.

[ptaipale]

They can very suddenly crash into another plane because you have looked away for two seconds. It has actually happened (though nowadays, technology has made it easier to avoid these accidents).

[AnimalMuppet]

Planes are supposed to maintain a 5 mile separation distance. You aren't going to break that down in two seconds. (But head on, with both planes traveling 600 MPH, you can do it in 15 seconds. But both pilots would have to be inattentive for that time.)

[ptaipale]

They are supposed to, but if flight control doesn't help them do it, pilots have only very little time to react to what they meet. This was demonstrated in the Hughes Airwest collision with an F-4 in 1971.

Since then, air traffic control procedures have been improved to avoid these situations, but nowadays e.g. over the Baltic Sea, Russian military planes are routinely flying with their transponder turned off so that flight control does not know where they are. So, this risk is still there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706#Prob...

[z3t4]

once you see the mountain it will be too late. think of big airplannes as trains.

[intrasight]

I don't buy it either, and the airline business has lots of history to show that it is bunk. Autopilot must either be better than humans or not be present. I'm sure the car autopilot engineers have learned much from airplanes. And I'm pretty sure that Tesla management has overrode the engineers concerns because they'd rather move fast and break things.

[kafquaesque]

If a person uses a device while using autopilot, (which seems highly likely—not sure in thi instance) wouldn’t it be advisable to have the alerts come to them directly on whichever device they are using? The alert breaks them out of whatever task they are focusing on. If the alert is coming from the car I can see how a lot of us could ignore it.

[ehnto]

What a world. Where we can't even take enough responsibility to be present enough to hear the "You are about to die" bell chime.

Imagine the possible breaking components in that chain too. Bluetooth can fail, satellite can fail, cell can fail, WiFi can fail, a USB cable can fail, there isn't a single piece of connectivity technology that would make me confident enough to delegate alerts to another device.

There is also an inherent failure of alarms in general in that even very loud ones can be ignored if they give false positives even once or twice. There is a body of study trying to address it. Some of the most fatal industrial accidents occured because alarms were either ignored or even fully switched off. We aren't good with alarms.

I think the meat of it though is that unless Auto-pilot works perfectly then you can't leave it alone. And if you can't leave it alone then what's the point?

The sell for autonomous cars isn't that people are just so darn tired of turning the steering wheel that they would really rather not. It's that we could potentially be more productive if we could shift our full attention to work/study/relaxation while commuting.

[kafquaesque]

It seems like we are in an “in-between” state where we are using humans to assuage the fears of people that aren’t sure if neural networks can drive better than humans. The goal is to eventually focus on something else. If it’s just about making driving safer I would think it’s more of an incremental innovation step versus the breakthrough concept of being able to do something else while being commuted completely by a neural-network driven vehicle. The bridge to get to this breakthrough hopefully isn’t hacked apart by naysayers. Every death should be met with empathy and a desire to strengthen this bridge and quicken the speed of crossing it.

[mygo]

I try to tell people that if you cannot take a nap behind the wheel of a self-driving car, then the automaker has failed to produce a self driving car. If you have to be attentive behind the wheel of a self driving car, then you might as well just steer it yourself.

[modzu]

^^^ thanks for saying this, it is precisely the crux of the issue

[facorreia]

I agree, and I think the psychological effect will be stronger if the feature is called autopilot. It conveys the idea that the car can pilot itself.