Texas Tesla Tragedy

[jhalkias]

I was almost ready to start removing people from the 'ignore' list to see both sides of this conversation, but now I think I'm having more fun trying to guess who the other user is. ? ?

I don’t think it will take a great imagination.

Sponsored

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

It doesn’t take off and land, it doesn’t make it so the pilot and copilot can both leave and have a party in the main cabin.

On the contrary, aircraft autopilot does land the airplane and in extremely low visibility conditions. And there is an automatic takeoff system in existence too. A full autoland is one of the most tiring things a professional pilot does. And both of us can get up and go to the back. At the same time. We shouldn't. And it's unsafe. But we could. This is also one small reason I object to the way Tesla's "autopilot" is accepted by many people.

 

[LagerHead]

Lie is a strong word. People can give a half-truth, be misleading, or otherwise not be wholly accurate in what they say without going so far as to tell an outright lie.

I’m not saying that’s what necessarily happened here, but you should be more skeptical of the company’s statements on this perhaps even more than you have been of the initial investigators results.

It’s not necessarily the case that the complete truth if/when it comes out would hurt Tesla to a greater degree if it turns out that Tesla’s statements to date are inaccurate. This story is in the news cycle now. If Tesla has to backtrack in several months because of ‘new’ findings, it might not be very damaging at all since this crash would be old news.

Not saying this necessarily is what is happening here since we just don’t have good info, but my point is I disagree with the premise that just because the company said something it must be true because it will definitely be worse for them if it turns out not be to be true. It is very much possible they will deny now so that they can stall for time until people have mostly forgotten about this crash.

My analysis that obviously there was a driver in the driver's seat, contrary to the elected law enforcement officer's statement that they were "100% sure" the seat was empty at the time of impact, is not based on any one piece of information. My analysis is based on the totality of publicly known information. It's clear the officer's statement was false.

You can come to your final conclusion whenever you want. Maybe you won't even believe the final investigation report. Elon probably paid people off, right? I already know there was a driver in the driver's seat and you will find that out in time. But it's obvious now to anyone who looks at the facts of this case in a rational manner and with a critical eye.

Watch and see.

 

[LagerHead]

That's the problem, AD may quickly become better than humans quickly, but it isn't that simple. It is about perceptions. And if we don't address that, it will set back the whole industry. Many people have a fear of flying although we can prove with statistics it is much safer than driving. Even if we can demonstrate that AD is safer, the imperfections in the system we get a lot more attention. Some we call for bans of using the technology at all.

And we can't simply say, don't worry about the accidents or deaths because in a few years, it will be worth it. Strictly looking at the numbers, you could argue that it makes sense. But dealing with humans, it will be hard to justify that your system killed someone, but don't worry, the next version won't make that mistake.

I am not advocating over-looking a system with lower safety than an average human. The regulators have a long history of using actual data and statistics to inform their actions. They live and die by data and statistics.

Currently, Autopilot with a human back-up has shown to be much safer than a human alone. And while I agree, it's not 8.8 -10 times safer once the data is adjusted for certain statistical variences, it's still clearly more safe than a human alone. No one will advocate going AI without a human backup until it is considerably safer than a human. This means we cannot accept AI driving until it is proven that it makes the roads MORE safe, not less safe.

No rational person takes a different stance than this.

 

[LagerHead]

It wasn't done in a controlled environment and it was only done as a "But what about Ford?" stunt because Tesla was getting criticized.

And I applaud them for helping to keep the narrative honest.

There is too much anti-Tesla double-standard. Ford should be held to the same standard as Tesla and if they removed their seatbelt temporarily on a public highway to demonstrate this, more power to them!

 

[LagerHead]

The fact that the pile of dead Tesla passengers is much smaller per mile travelled is evidence that your outrage is misguided. Teslas not only get the highest crash safety ratings, they also fare better than all the other cars in the real world in terms of death and injury. The fact that the media makes national news out of every fatal Tesla accident and every Tesla fire while almost completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of other cars happening at a higher rate per mile travelled does not change this fact.

Media coverage cannot alter reality.

 

[LagerHead]

Where are you getting your statistics?

From the relative frequency of Tesla crashes featured by the media?

He-he, I thought so.

 

[LagerHead]

Obviously, because they are not covered in proportion to their actual frequency. Every Tesla incident makes national news, most other car fatalities and gasoline fires are ignored by national media.

Don't tell me you were unaware of this fact?

 

[Brofessional]

The fact that the pile of dead Tesla passengers is much smaller per mile travelled is evidence that your outrage is misguided. Teslas not only get the highest crash safety ratings, they also fare better than all the other cars in the real world in terms of death and injury. The fact that the media makes national news out of every fatal Tesla accident and every Tesla fire while almost completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of other cars happening at a higher rate per mile travelled does not change this fact.

Media coverage cannot alter reality.

This was debunked when Tesla first started claiming it. Autopilot doesn’t even operate in conditions where the majority of motor vehicle accidents occur. They deceptively use this fact to claim that per mile traveled it’s safer than humans. When compared to human drivers in similar conditions (marked highways, fair weather, etc.) it was actually worse. When compared to humans plus safety suites of some other manufacturers it was actually much worse.

Crash test ratings are indeed great, but a portion of that is simply the increased weight of EVs.

 

[ARK]

My analysis that obviously there was a driver in the driver's seat, contrary to the elected law enforcement officer's statement that they were "100% sure" the seat was empty at the time of impact, is not based on any one piece of information. My analysis is based on the totality of publicly known information. It's clear the officer's statement was false.

You can come to your final conclusion whenever you want. Maybe you won't even believe the final investigation report. Elon probably paid people off, right? I already know there was a driver in the driver's seat and you will find that out in time. But it's obvious now to anyone who looks at the facts of this case in a rational manner and with a critical eye.

Watch and see.

My comment to you was about the confidence you were placing in a company statement and explaining why I felt it was unwarranted to put that much faith into it.

You raised other issues. I'm not in a position to know one way or the other if your comments about your accident analysis are accurate. I will definitely watch and see.

One thing though that I will point out that I don't think has been mentioned. Presumably, this accident wasn't the first rodeo for these investigators. I'd guess they've, sadly, encountered other totally burned out cars before where people may have been knocked around (because of no seat belt being worn, for example), or were trapped and tried to escape but were unsuccessful.

I would think the investigators took these possibilities into account before reaching their conclusion. After all, it's their life, their profession - presumably they don't like to get things embarrassingly wrong at the office.

Doesn't mean they're definitely right and it doesn't mean they couldn't have somehow messed up the investigation - some reasonable skepticism and questioning is always good - but I would give their findings more weight than it just being one opinion of many, as if the investigators were random people posting their thoughts as little more than speculation on an online forum.

 

[LagerHead]

Autopilot does prevent crashes. It doesn't prevent ALL crashes, only some of them.

That's what the statistics prove and it's why the regulators are behind adoption of these technologies. Do you feel Copilot 360 is also dangerously unsafe or only Autopilot?

 

[LagerHead]

I would think the investigators took these possibilities into account before reaching their conclusion. After all, it's their life, their profession - presumably they don't like to get things embarrassingly wrong at the office.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a trained accident investigator is the one who made the determination there was no driver. That's incorrect - it was an elected official with no formal investigative training. From the sounds of it, he had minimal to no law enforcement training. That's what happens when voters elect a Sheriff or other officer as a popularity contest.

But, boy oh, boy, didn't the media run with that one regrettable statement!

Sponsored