> 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.
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.
We do not generally hold drivers responsible for slips in judgement when driving. Only in cases of extreme recklessness is it normal for a driver to be 'held responsible'.
It is silly that we hold self driving cars to an astronomically higher standard. We all know they are safer than human drivers. And that is true even if they kill 50 people a day.
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, even if the reality is that AVs end up 99% safer than human controlled vehicles.
As it should be. “Safer on average” is not a defense for failing something as basic as stopping at a stop sign. The bar for not running one and killing someone is not unreasonably high.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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. There is not even a well established liability standard, or ban/suspension threshold or any regulatory body equipped to audit a self driving system specifically [2]
[1] if found guilty - we may disagree on the mechanisms, effectiveness ,conviction rate and other details, nonetheless there is enforcement and there are going people in prison for this type of crime everyday.
[2] yes NTSB do investigations but only for accidents not preventive and also has just 400 employees and $150M budget to cover everything from aviation to marine or pipeline and rail accidents.
> 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...
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.
We do not generally hold drivers responsible for slips in judgement when driving. Only in cases of extreme recklessness is it normal for a driver to be 'held responsible'.
It is silly that we hold self driving cars to an astronomically higher standard. We all know they are safer than human drivers. And that is true even if they kill 50 people a day.
Ah yes, we would never hold a driver accountable for running a stop sign and killing someone. It doesn't meet the bar for seriously reckless
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, even if the reality is that AVs end up 99% safer than human controlled vehicles.
As it should be. “Safer on average” is not a defense for failing something as basic as stopping at a stop sign. The bar for not running one and killing someone is not unreasonably high.
This part is wild to me:
If true, how could the driver of the other car have been killed?And all 4 Tesla occupants were injured too. Something doesn't add up.
It's almost like, and hear me out, Tesla's internal diagnostics might have been manipulated.
No one outside Germany would ever do that ! /s
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.
possible if it accelerated after crashing
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?
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.
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.
Scam or not, "Robot kills human" was always going to be news.
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?
Because for some reason Tesla is exempt from reporting specifics about their safety reporting. Can’t possibly imagine why…
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.
An AI article about an AI driver killing a human.
Can we make it a new thing, that we guess the model, instead of just calling it slop? I'm betting... Claude.
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.
Do you know how humans run stop lights and kill people, how does it compare?
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. There is not even a well established liability standard, or ban/suspension threshold or any regulatory body equipped to audit a self driving system specifically [2]
[1] if found guilty - we may disagree on the mechanisms, effectiveness ,conviction rate and other details, nonetheless there is enforcement and there are going people in prison for this type of crime everyday.
[2] yes NTSB do investigations but only for accidents not preventive and also has just 400 employees and $150M budget to cover everything from aviation to marine or pipeline and rail accidents.
You're right, we should ban cars.
Their point, presumably, was that we shouldnt be anti-tech but we have to compare the statistics.
Their point is whataboutism to somehow defend autonomous deaths as acceptable.
At least we can hold them directly accountable by the law.
We hold the driver accountable.