One week ago today

[Chocol8]

The news report is bogus based on uninformed speculation by the cops. There was no one in the driver’s seat when the cops arrived, but the Tesla autopilot won’t operate without sensing someone in the drivers seat. So, either the driver moved to try and escape before they died, or something a little more fishy is going on.

For all we know, the autopilot may not have been engaged at all and it could have been the human driver that hit the tree. Wouldn’t be the first time, nor the 10,000th time.

[BatUtilityBelt]

The news report is bogus based on uninformed speculation by the cops. There was no one in the driver’s seat when the cops arrived, but the Tesla autopilot won’t operate without sensing someone in the drivers seat. So, either the driver moved to try and escape before they died, or something a little more fishy is going on.

For all we know, the autopilot may not have been engaged at all and it could have been the human driver that hit the tree. Wouldn’t be the first time, nor the 10,000th time.

Well there is data, but I doubt Tesla will have to share it. The news report is not bogus, it is the available information. Although we don't answer these things by guessing, it is a very good guess the driver was showing off his trust in the technology. Any other conjecture is less likely. Guessing the driver jumped into the back seat to escape the collision is ridiculous on its face.

@Chocol8 I notice you like to quote numbers with nothing to back them...

"1,000 times safer than human drivers",
"car companies will be sued into bankruptcy if they sell anything less than 1,000,000,000 times safer",
"wouldn't be the first time, nor the 10,000th time"

That's a habit of someone blowing smoke. Now I don't mind a good discussion, but I prefer an informed one.

The discussion around AI and its responsible use is one in which I happen to be particularly well versed. Working in the field, I take some responsibility to aid in awareness around it. You?

Now I don't know whether it was the 59 year old or the 69 year old who you claim made the split decision an accident was for some reason unavoidable and in that very moment released his seatbelt, hurdled the front seats to end in an upright seated position in the back before the car careened into the tree. I only know what I would have done is turn the wheel, probably hit the brakes, possible downshift, and brace for impact trusting in airbags to do the rest. But I'm not a Tesla driver.

[mickey]

Pardon me from interrupting your argument, but I'm sorta curious...
When Tesla's crash they tend to go up in flames. Why?
Unless I am mistaken they do not have a gas, diesel, hydrogen, LPG, etc. tank.

Ok, y'all can go back to your arguing now.

[BatUtilityBelt]

Pardon me from interrupting your argument, but I'm sorta curious...
When Tesla's crash they tend to go up in flames. Why?
Unless I am mistaken they do not have a gas, diesel, hydrogen, LPG, etc. tank.

Ok, y'all can go back to your arguing now.

I think the big reason is the lithium batteries. They are fairly combustible.

[mickey]

Seems lithium must be as combustible as hydrogen?

[BatUtilityBelt]

Seems lithium must be as combustible as hydrogen?

Yup, and this demonstrates why firefighters dumping 32,000 gallons of water on the Tesla wasn't a great idea...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNMfe20I_IE

[tobijohn]

I wonder if porting a smartphone screen to a heads up display (HUD) in conjunction with voice recognition for input would make things safer or just worse?

[BatUtilityBelt]

I wonder if porting a smartphone screen to a heads up display (HUD) in conjunction with voice recognition for input would make things safer or just worse?

Interesting thought. My instincts tell me it would make things worse, despite its potential to react to "brake, brake!". The problem is not with the technology, but the "driver". I think without vetting and training, a HUD would be data overload for anyone but pilots. Now add certified training, hundreds of simulator hours and competency testing, and I think that's more ok.

[tobijohn]

Interesting thought. My instincts tell me it would make things worse, despite its potential to react to "brake, brake!". The problem is not with the technology, but the "driver". I think without vetting and training, a HUD would be data overload for anyone but pilots. Now add certified training, hundreds of simulator hours and competency testing, and I think that's more ok.

I meant voice recognition to respond to text messages that wee projected onto the windshield from the HUD. Even though you could read the inbound texts without taking your eyes off the road, without the voice translated to text, you'd still have to break away to respond manually with the keys on the phone...

[BatUtilityBelt]

I meant voice recognition to respond to text messages that wee projected onto the windshield from the HUD. Even though you could read the inbound texts without taking your eyes off the road, without the voice translated to text, you'd still have to break away to respond manually with the keys on the phone...

LOL, oops, I overshot. I see now. Personally I'd rather use voice-to-text and text-to-speech (both directions). Because even reading a HUD in the windshield means your eyes are focused on the text, not what's through the glass. It's also cheaper to go fully audio.

Fun side note: I had coworkers who, if they knew you had any automated text-to-speech facility, would make it talk dirty at inopportune times.

[Chocol8]

The news report is not bogus, it is the available information. Although we don't answer these things by guessing, it is a very good guess the driver was showing off his trust in the technology. Any other conjecture is less likely. Guessing the driver jumped into the back seat to escape the collision is ridiculous on its face.

This is uninformed if not down right ignorant speculation.

Facts known to the uninformed:

A car hit a tree
Two bodies were found inside, neither in the drivers seat.
The car was a Tesla with autopilot


Ignorant speculation:

The auto pilot must have been engaged and the car must have driven into the tree on its own.


Facts not known by or ignored by ignorant speculators:

People often survive the initial impact but die shortly thereafter
Damaged doors often don’t open easily if at all
After a car accident, people will often move trying to get out of the car or for other reasons
Cars without autopilot are regularly found wrecked without someone in the driver’s seat
The Tesla autopilot would not engage and drive the car more than a very short distance without someone in the driver’s seat unless it was tampered with or the safety system otherwise circumvented.


Had the car been anything but a Tesla, the immediate assumption would be that one of the victims moved from the driver’s seat after impact but before the cops arrived. Since it was a Tesla, the immediate assumption is that the accident was caused by the autopilot.

Do you REALLY want to debate the safety of human drivers with real numbers? Here is a start:

“More than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on U.S. roadways. The U.S. traffic fatality rate is 12.4 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention. Road crashes are the leading cause of death in the U.S. for people aged 1-54.”

There will be accidents and deaths as the technology improves, and there may always be a low level of accidents, but self driving cars will never catch up to the number of people killed by human drivers in the last 125 years. Not even in the ballpark.

[jtcnj]

dog ball throw robot.gif (2.54 MiB) Viewed 1395 times

This is pretty cool but I'm not ready to trust the robots just yet.

[BatUtilityBelt]

Ignorant speculation:

The auto pilot must have been engaged and the car must have driven into the tree on its own.

I never said auto-pilot was on. He could have easily thought it was on when it wasn't.

Here's evidence backing my assumptions of fanboy morons...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHUZxeSUFUk

Facts not known by or ignored by ignorant speculators:

There will be accidents and deaths as the technology improves, and there may always be a low level of accidents, but self driving cars will never catch up to the number of people killed by human drivers in the last 125 years. Not even in the ballpark.

You actually have no basis at all for such an assertion. The number of self-driving cars on the road is tiny, but the number of ridiculously avoidable accidents from them is alarming. You claim all we know is a car hit a tree?

Weather was fine. No other vehicles known to be involved. No deer carcass. Tree was not suspected of jay-walking. Vehicle was a 2019 Model S. Cops routinely investigate accidents. If the road had signs of braking or failure to steer out of the collision, the cops would have mentioned that. When was the last time you heard of a 2 year old car losing brakes and steering at the same time?

But, and I only quote this possible factor out of extreme caution: Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on a Feb. 11 episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast: “I think Autopilot’s getting good enough that you won’t need to drive most of the time unless you really want to.”

Maybe, just maybe, fanboys kill themselves because they put too much faith in bloviating narcissists, relegating themselves to cautionary tales.

Finally @Chocol8 , I told you what basically qualifies me to opine on the safety of AI driven self-driving cars. What qualifies you to make your assertions on the same topic?

[Chocol8]

You are digging yourself deeper and deeper.

How could someone not in the driver’s seat think the autopilot was on when it wasn’t? THE CAR WOULDN’T MOVE!!!!!

More facts:
Apparently the car was speeding which the computer wouldn’t do.
The road wasn’t stripped which means the autopilot wouldn’t engage.
The car in the crash did not have the Full Self Driving feature (beta)

FYI, the data logs show autopilot wasn’t on at the time of the crash.

Oooops your uninformed speculation was wrong and another two people were killed by a human, not AI. Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to admit that you were wrong.

[BatUtilityBelt]

You are digging yourself deeper and deeper.

How could someone not in the driver’s seat think the autopilot was on when it wasn’t? THE CAR WOULDN’T MOVE!!!!!

More facts:
Apparently the car was speeding which the computer wouldn’t do.
The road wasn’t stripped which means the autopilot wouldn’t engage.
The car in the crash did not have the Full Self Driving feature (beta)

FYI, the data logs show autopilot wasn’t on at the time of the crash.

Oooops your uninformed speculation was wrong and another two people were killed by a human, not AI. Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to admit that you were wrong.

You're assuming level thinking on behalf of the driver, which is again unfounded.
You are wrong about Tesla auto-piloted cars not speeding, they have been documented doing exactly that.
Check this out https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... y-speeding

How are you not getting this? Even if auto-pilot was not on, but the driver thought it was, the car would MOVE just fine.
Tree. No skid marks. Nobody in driver seat. Why do you think 2 federal agencies are investigating the crash?

[Chocol8]

I am done arguing with someone blinded by their anti-Tesla bias. I don’t love the company or their cars either, but I am not blinded by that opinion.

You don’t get the fact that there could have been a driver in the driver seat until after impact?

You think with the auto pilot off and no driver, the car will still move? Really, that’s one of the dumbest things you I have seen someone try to claim in a long time! What do you think was pushing the accelerator if the car wasn’t doing it and no driver was either?

[BatUtilityBelt]

I am done arguing with someone blinded by their anti-Tesla bias. I don’t love the company or their cars either, but I am not blinded by that opinion.

You don’t get the fact that there could have been a driver in the driver seat until after impact?

You think with the auto pilot off and no driver, the car will still move? Really, that’s one of the dumbest things you I have seen someone try to claim in a long time! What do you think was pushing the accelerator if the car wasn’t doing it and no driver was either?

I don't have a Tesla, but I can make most of my cars move without auto-pilot. It's called cruise control. Who's being dumb?

And by the way, news this morning is conveying investigators are POSITIVE nobody was in the driver's seat at the time of the crash. I'm pretty sure I trust their assertion, being there, experienced, and responsible.

[Chocol8]

So your theory was that AI caused the wreck, then a driver thinking the AI was on when it wasn’t, and now it’s a stupid human who turned on cruise control and then moved seats?

Even if that theory is correct, it just proves the point! Human drivers are stupid and dangerous.

The more likely explanation is still that a human was driving and the local cop spoke without investigating.

[BatUtilityBelt]

So your theory was that AI caused the wreck, then a driver thinking the AI was on when it wasn’t, and now it’s a stupid human who turned on cruise control and then moved seats?

Even if that theory is correct, it just proves the point! Human drivers are stupid and dangerous.

The more likely explanation is still that a human was driving and the local cop spoke without investigating.

You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say AI caused the wreck. I said the owner's trust in the AI probably caused the wreck. Whether the AI was engaged or not is not part of my opinion. But even if the AI was not engaged, and the driver thought it was, the AI was part of the issue.

I am not claiming to know exactly how it occurred. I am drawing a correlation between the known behaviors of Tesla fanboys and this accident.

On narcissistic CEOs careful deflections: It isn't what they say, it's what they don't say. Musk said "Autopilot was not enabled, and this car did not purchase FSD". As I understand it, FSD does have a "free trial", so saying it was not purchased without saying it was not downloaded sounds intentionally misleading to me.

But you want to keep asserting that all human drivers are "stupid and dangerous" and that AI can save the day. If you want to recede back to the conversation of the apparent safety or lack of safety of the AI, let's do that too, but to talk at that level, I'm going to have some questions you won't even understand.

[Chocol8]

You are so fixated on calling people fanboys and narcissistic, you can’t see how stupid and uninformed your arguments are. This conversation is a waste of time.

[BatUtilityBelt]

You are so fixated on calling people fanboys and narcissistic, you can’t see how stupid and uninformed your arguments are. This conversation is a waste of time.

Really? Refute my assertions directly then. Give me facts. I'll give you plenty of facts. And stop calling me stupid, or this will escalate fast.

Musk didn't say what I quoted? Two federal agencies are not investigating the crash? Investigators didn't double down this morning on "nobody was in the driver's seat"? What? What exactly are you trying to assert now?

[mickey]

As the OP, I must ask you to take your argument to PM's.
This thread was started about a young man who died due to reading a text from his mama while driving.
It does not appear that either of y'all are contributing anything towards that discussion.
Thanks.