Jump to content

Tesla autopilot fatal crash


tazzieman
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

 Planes are a different kettle of fish when talking automation. Not many things to hit in the sky. That, and the pilot is still at the controls in case something goes wrong

 So people would be happy to sit in the back of an automated car (noone in front), and trust it 100% that it has the same capabilities as a human?  You're braver than I am!

  If you have to have an operator in the drivers seat 'just in case' something goes wrong, what's the point of it being automated in the first place? Would the operator have a quick enough reaction time to avoid an accident SHOULD something go wrong? Automation is supposed to eliminate human interaction as far as I'm aware

I watched Air Crash Investigators last night and immediately thought of this thread. It was about the Asiana B777 crash at SF.   Other factors were at play but the main culprit was de-skilling in favour of the auto pilot.  Despite years of flying experience, the pilot was so dependent on the automated systems controlling the aircraft he didn't know how to land without them.  By the time the co-pilot tried to take over and abort the landing it was too late and they hit the deck.  

Modern cars are headed this way with lane tracking steering control, radar cruise control, auto braking, let alone the full auto driving features.  Poor drivers are lulled into believing they are in control until something unexpected or outside the parameters of the vehicle's software happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as well SA had its power failure now and not in 10 years' time ;)

who would have thought dynamiting your power station was a stupid idea?

I'll take 'everyone with half a brain for $200' thanks.

I hope the SA residents wake up and decide to take their representatives to task over it. But I doubt it, as the residents of Victoria seem to be keen to turn their biggest power station to dust as well.  Then SA, Vic and Tas can all sit around in the dark when a bushfire or storm takes out the NSW connector.

Time to go long on Honda gensets.

Tesla should stick some power sockets in their car for getting power back out again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tassy drained all it's lakes to gen some extra cash via Basslink , but didn't bank on their being a drought and a 6 month fault with the cable. Big enquiry happening here , and still no-one says what happened to that cable...

I've got gas/wood to cook with , torches and an old Land Rover..  The future's bright, even if it is the past!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Don't get me started on the SA  blackout!

 I was in Whyalla (4.5 hours north of Adelaide. Shithole basically) working till Thursday morning supposedly, then lost power at 4pm Wednesday. Nothing back on till 4pm Thursday,  so I had to stay another night in total darkness with no food (except for a packet of Burger rings and warm scotch cans), milk, heating, phone service, internet, NOTHING! 

 Not one business had any back up generators, nor the hotel/motel I stayed at, and they couldn't even rustle up a sandwich for me! Dickheads. It was an utter joke that nothing had back up power, then they say 'Ooh, I should have bought that gennie the other day'! 

 Just got home, so the missus had better make me a egg n bacon knock up ASAP! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Replacing human error'. Yeah, just add computer errors, and you're back to square one!

Yep all software has bugs no matter how well tested. It is just a matter of the circumstances needed to expose them. Microprocessors also have bugs in their silicon and this can be mask/production line or batch based. Computers can also make mistakes by misinterpreting a one as a zero or zero as a one when reading its memory. There are many many reasons for this. There are also a number of methods to detect and try to contain these processing errors but in the end they can and will happen. Add to this that sensors can provide incorrect information. Currently these failures are not usually critical to safety and the car stops or limps in for service. With the ever increasing reliance on electronics, sensors and actuators in safety critical applications we can look forward to crazy impaired cars roaming our streets.

Then there are the hackers and even the local kid out for some fun spraying over the optical sensors or sticking a bit of foil over the radar sensors. I can even see some people messing with the cars while driving just because they can. Might be a bit like pushing cows over.

Nearly all semiconductor data sheets have a clause that states the product is not to be used in life critical situations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of good to be done with radar cruise and lane warning.

Automatic crash avoidance (emergency stop) also has a very real positive effect, as does stability/traction control.

Further assistance in the case of radar warnings at intersections if you're about to pull into traffic and even automAted parking can have a big impact.

The problem is the valley between lots of driver assist technogy and driver replacement technology.  An alert driver can override/correct assist technologies, but too many means alertness is impossible to keep (as in the example from the OP) - with deadly consequences. 

I'm less worried about hackers and pranksters - ultimately all these things can be done now,  but arent done in a mostly law obiding society. Rocks thrown off overpasses and laser pointers are a thing, but pretty small.

The issue is getting through that valley safely to the point where safety is improved (it will never be eliminated).  A casual look at the driving habits of those around you on a morning commute should be all you need to confirm something more is needed.  Even a car that refused to move if it had a flat tyre or the driver was texting would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is the valley between lots of driver assist technogy and driver replacement technology.  An alert driver can override/correct assist technologies, but too many means alertness is impossible to keep (as in the example from the OP) - with deadly consequences.

I was chatting today with a chassis engineer from the U.K. about this topic.  He recalled a study recently where 3 groups of drivers were given cars with varying levels of driver assistance tech.  On average, drivers with least assistance i.e. no warnings or intervention had a braking response time of about 0.6seconds.  Those with warnings of potential hazards had about 1 second  response. The drivers with full crash avoidance tech such as audible and visual warnings, auto braking and steering assistance were close to 2 seconds response time.  Essentially, with more assistance available drivers were less aware and not able to react quickly to a hazard. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

BMW says a visor that each rider will wear will help control and direct the bike. The commands from the visor are ...

BMW Group has debuted a motorcycle concept so artificially intelligent that it eliminates the need for the rider to wear protective gear, including a helmet. 

 

 What a moronic statement from BMW. The young engineers have clearly never seen a maimed or dead body , nor a disabled person. Please , let's not encourage this sort of idiotic thinking. But do encourage doh stuff , like rollover cages for quad(riplegic) bikes.

Or , in the case of Prius , a handbrake that actually works :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...