9 comments

  • rco8786 1 minute ago
    I don't know anything about this specific case but this exact thing will be a major barrier for autonomous vehicles to overcome. Instead of benchmarking AVs against the current, human-caused number of vehicular deaths - people will naturally benchmark AVs to 0 and treat every instance of death as a failure of AVs.
  • popularonion 28 minutes ago
    > Reading a stop sign and deciding whether to stop is a City-Streets function, and that’s FSD. Basic Autopilot is built as a highway lane-keeping system, and it does not respond to stop signs. So a driver-assist car verified engaged as it ran a stop sign was, most likely, running FSD.

    This just isn't true, "Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control" is a feature of basic autopilot on Model 3s.

    https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/2017_2023_model3/en_eu/GU...

    • InvertedRhodium 24 minutes ago
      It differs based on when you purchased the car and package. I have “Advanced Autopilot” (which is no longer for sale in my market) that does not stop for stop signs or traffic lights.

      Earlier this year they stopped selling Autopilot altogether in the US and Canada.

      Too much variation to make a call on whether their version sips have been stopping under these conditions.

  • throwaway2037 28 minutes ago
    This part is wild to me:

        > Subject vehicle (Tesla) pre-crash speed: 4 mph
    
    If true, how could the driver of the other car have been killed?
    • delichon 24 minutes ago
      And all 4 Tesla occupants were injured too. Something doesn't add up.
      • etchalon 22 minutes ago
        It's almost like, and hear me out, Tesla's internal diagnostics might have been manipulated.
        • maerF0x0 18 minutes ago
          No one outside Germany would ever do that ! /s
    • cucumber3732842 21 minutes ago
      2-way stop and the other guy hit the Tesla at 40-60 no seatbelt?

      That would track with the injuries in the Tesla as well.

      Gotta come up with the energy somehow. If the Tesla doesn't have it the other car needs to.

    • adgjlsfhk1 21 minutes ago
      possible if it accelerated after crashing
  • maerF0x0 14 minutes ago
    I can't help but think we need a more extensive "Flight Data Recorder" sort of object for, at least, self-driving cars if not all of them. Event Data Recorder's are coming and mandated for 2021+ but I think they need to go further, IMO. Police in my area already do not bother responding, and insurance just does 50/50 unless theirs dash cams. Why not just make them integrated and mandatory along with other telemetry?
  • delichon 31 minutes ago
    Tesla now has ~40 level 4 automated taxis in operation with no pedals or steering wheel. When these have an accident they can't blame a non-existent driver for mashing a non-existent accelerator pedal. And they are their own insurance company. A few fatalities in the Cybercab could squelch the whole rollout, even if the stats show it's safer than human drivers.

    As a human driver with declining capabilities who will need level 4 autopilot before long to stay independent, I'm rooting for FSD.

    • jijojv 24 minutes ago
      If they hadn't scammed millions into paying for the FSD scam starting Oct 2016 (see their "Driver is just there for legal reasons" video) - then there would be no headlines for a driver assist system occasionally failing like this.
      • etchalon 23 minutes ago
        Scam or not, "Robot kills human" was always going to be news.
  • dmix 44 minutes ago
    I always get baited by Electrek headlines and then remember it's some of the most blatant examples of AI writing. They don't even pretend to write it themselves.
  • t0mas88 44 minutes ago
    AI slop to the max, what a bad article.

    Now on the issue itself: Why doesn't Tesla report the version and whether it was FSD or Autopilot?

    • woodgala 37 minutes ago
      Because for some reason Tesla is exempt from reporting specifics about their safety reporting. Can’t possibly imagine why…
  • mrbuttons454 58 minutes ago
    [flagged]
    • ishouldbeatwork 37 minutes ago
      Plenty of facts in the article, an ad hominem attack on it because AI may have been used to write some of the text doesn't dismiss the findings.
  • thewanderer1983 33 minutes ago
    Do you know how humans run stop lights and kill people, how does it compare?
    • manquer 13 minutes ago
      Humans can go to prison [1], and depending on the state there are specific vehicular homicide laws or they are could be charged under normal homicide laws, specific statutes exist because under vehicular laws can have higher punishment than typical negligence/reckless standards

      In California the charge can be anything from vehicular manslaughter to second degree murder, that means 15 years-to-life without parole, depending on other factors such prior(murder) convictions or if the victim is a peace officer and so forth.

      In comparison self-driving systems do not have any punishment mechanism in the penal code.

      [1] if found guilty - you may disagree on the mechanisms, effectiveness ,conviction rate etc, nonetheless there is enforcement and there are going people in prison for this type of crime everyday.

    • fbrncci 10 minutes ago
      At least we can hold them directly accountable by the law.
    • b40d-48b2-979e 24 minutes ago
      You're right, we should ban cars.
      • maerF0x0 17 minutes ago
        Their point, presumably, was that we shouldnt be anti-tech but we have to compare the statistics.
        • b40d-48b2-979e 6 minutes ago
          Their point is whataboutism to somehow defend autonomous deaths as acceptable.
    • grim_io 27 minutes ago
      We hold the driver accountable.