Cunobelin wrote:yakdiver wrote:Sadly the first on many, machines can not work by themselves they need a minder
Alas so do many Human drivers!
'Person and Machine in perfect harmony'
Slogan for Ford Sierra c 1983
Cunobelin wrote:yakdiver wrote:Sadly the first on many, machines can not work by themselves they need a minder
Alas so do many Human drivers!
Bonefishblues wrote:Assume that's the one where the driver actively ignored the car telling them to intervene.
Can't argue with stupid.
Tesla wrote:The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive...
Tesla wrote:...and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision.
Mr Evil wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:Assume that's the one where the driver actively ignored the car telling them to intervene.
Can't argue with stupid.
That's what Tesla's statement tried to imply, but if you read it closely that's not actually what it says:Tesla wrote:The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive...
Yes, there were warnings, but they were at an unspecified time (possibly nowhere near the crash), and they were only warnings that the driver has to keep his hands on the wheel at all times, not that there was an impending crash. The requirement to keep constantly alert and ready to take control is a problem with self-driving cars, and one that's been well-studied in the case of aircraft autopilots. It's just not reasonable to expect a person to stare passively at the road for a long time and remain alert.Tesla wrote:...and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision.
Aside from what I said above, note that this only says that the car couldn't detect the drivers hands, and does not prove that his hands were not on the wheel. Even if they weren't on the wheel, letting go for a mere 6 seconds shouldn't cause the car to decide to swerve off the road by itself.
The whole statement has been carefully crafted to deflect blame.
Cyril Haearn wrote:Mr Evil wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:Assume that's the one where the driver actively ignored the car telling them to intervene.
Can't argue with stupid.
That's what Tesla's statement tried to imply, but if you read it closely that's not actually what it says:Tesla wrote:The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive...
Yes, there were warnings, but they were at an unspecified time (possibly nowhere near the crash), and they were only warnings that the driver has to keep his hands on the wheel at all times, not that there was an impending crash. The requirement to keep constantly alert and ready to take control is a problem with self-driving cars, and one that's been well-studied in the case of aircraft autopilots. It's just not reasonable to expect a person to stare passively at the road for a long time and remain alert.Tesla wrote:...and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision.
Aside from what I said above, note that this only says that the car couldn't detect the drivers hands, and does not prove that his hands were not on the wheel. Even if they weren't on the wheel, letting go for a mere 6 seconds shouldn't cause the car to decide to swerve off the road by itself.
The whole statement has been carefully crafted to deflect blame.
Needs to have a dead-mans handle like a train
If he takes his hands off the wheel the car should immediately indicate and park at the kerb
Vorpal wrote:A friend who is familiar with the junction said that there is a long white line splitting a slip road off, and if the Tesla was following the wrong white line, it could easily have driven into the concrete there.
Tesla is not a 'self-driving' car and it isn't meant to be driven without a human fully in control of the vehicle. That would be like putting the car in cruise control to do something other than drive. It simply isn't a reasonable thing to do.
edited to add: The statement is almost certainly crafted to avoid accepting blame, but not necessarily to deflect it. If Tesla published a statement that even implied that the car might have contributed to the crash, the US court system would take them to the proverbial cleaners on the basis that it was an admission of guilt. I expect that their lawyers crafted the statement.
Another Tesla crash in which the driver was obviously not paying attention...
Bonefishblues wrote:That isn't a self-driving car...
Bonefishblues wrote:..
ETA
"The driver had about five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider with the crushed crash attenuator, but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken," Tesla said...
Cyril Haearn wrote:Needs to have a dead-mans handle like a train
If he takes his hands off the wheel the car should immediately indicate and park at the kerb
robing wrote:Given the poor standard of driving on our roads, if they can nail this maybe it can be a good thing?
Imagine - no more close passes, no more SMIDSY?
Mr Speth said that ... the British company has no plans to completely hand over control to computers.
"It's not something for drivers to worry about for generations to come ... The steering wheel will not disappear."
(He) believes that people will want to - and should have the opportunity to - enjoy taking control of the company's upmarket vehicles.
mjr wrote:...Probably only if all cars are programmed by someone who cares enough about cyclists. Given the widespread reprogramming of diesels to prioritise performance over pollution, do you really think that will happen?...