Cyclist Hit & Killed by a Tesla in the UK

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Yes, this is a similar conclusion to the one Volvo made. The idea of driving within the lines until something happens and then thrusting control back on the driver is a terrible system, for a number of reasons.

Aircraft have used autopilot systems for decades. Mostly, they have improved overall safety. But there have been a number of instances where the autopilot shut (usually due to conditions outside its ability to handle), and in which the human pilot was suddenly dumped into a situation that they didn't know how they got into or have the time to figure out how to handle, resulting in catastrophe.

[54ny77]

probably the same as the human looking at self-preservation: the cyclist.

god forbid any of us are ever in that situation in a vehicle, but to use an analogy, given the choice between ditching the airplane in the sea and going down with it, for example, vs. ejecting to safety and plane crashing into a suburban setting, what would you do?

presume military pilots trained to sacrifice their life if it comes to that, but the average driver....not so much.

Originally Posted by William

What will the computer choose, back of the truck or the cyclist?

William

[verticaldoug]

Don't worry, Mr Musk wants to unleash his Semi-Truck pulling large loads at the same time as semi-autonomous Truck platoons.... (2019-20)

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by Kontact

I don't want a machine driving me, but like the overwhelming majority of drivers, I think I'm an above average driver.

I think if today 50% of cars were on autopilot, the accident rate with other cars, bikes and pedestrians would all be largely human error.

Chances are there will be less of most kinds of accidents but slightly more of some, but I don't think cyclists will suffer unduly.


None of us signed on to be participants in a AI training program, but we are already engaged in a massive teenager training program. A dozen AIs are going to cause fewer problems than a few million new teenagers every year.

As a human driver, you should be able to game the machine. Merging? I know the machine will yield. It could be quite fun to mess with the machine.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by vqdriver

erm. why do they have to decide who/what gets hit at all? are they not capable of tracking obstacles and simply slowing down? i get if something darts out into the road the car will opt not to veer into oncoming traffic, but it can still hit the brakes.

and fwiw, this is about autopilot, not electric cars. this incident happens to be a tesla but there's gas cars with this 'feature' as well.

This all started with Bill Gates at Comdesk

At a recent computer exposition, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: “If General Motors had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.”

In response to Bill’s comments, GM issued a press release stating: “If General Motors had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason, you would simply accept this.

Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive – but would run on only five percent of the roads.

The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single “General Protection Fault” warning light.

The airbag system would ask “Are you sure?” before deploying.

Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

Every time GM introduced a new car, car buyers would have to learn to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

You’d have to press the “Start” button to turn the engine off.

(I have a new Mercedes, I think the last two are now true. I miss the 90's)

[BobO]

Originally Posted by 54ny77

god forbid any of us are ever in that situation in a vehicle, but to use an analogy, given the choice between ditching the airplane in the sea and going down with it, for example, vs. ejecting to safety and plane crashing into a suburban setting, what would you do?

Maybe I'm weird, but, that's just not a hard question. You avoid the innocent at almost any cost.

[sand fungus]

I have owned a Tesla and in my opinion they are dangerously over hyping the the capabilities of the system. I am smart enough to know this and use the system where it is appropriate and safe, unfortunately not everyone is and I think Tesla should have taken that into account and only offered the autopilot when it was really ready to operate in a level 4 autonomous mode.

Now autonomous trucks, having that same level of technology with 80,000 lbs behind it operated by drivers that don't understand the risks is down right criminal!!!

The solution for cyclists is coming and it comes in the form of Vehicle to pedestrian/cyclist communication, with that the autonomus cars will know you are there and move over to make it safe to pass. I expect that will work with the phone of the cyclist/pedestrian. The EU is legislating some of that so only time before it comes to the us.

[Kontact]

Originally Posted by BobO

Maybe I'm weird, but, that's just not a hard question. You avoid the innocent at almost any cost.

Passengers?