The U.S. government’s road safety agency is again investigating Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” system, this time after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in documents that it opened the probe on Thursday with the company reporting four crashes after Teslas entered areas of low visibility, including sun glare, fog and airborne dust.

In addition to the pedestrian’s death, another crash involved an injury, the agency said.

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if so, the contributing circumstances for these crashes.”

  • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    18 days ago

    Tesla, which has repeatedly said the system cannot drive itself and human drivers must be ready to intervene at all times.

    how is it legal to label this “full self driving” ?

    • kiku@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      If customers can’t assume that boneless wings don’t have bones in them, then they shouldn’t assume that Full Self Driving can self-drive the car.

      The courts made it clear that words don’t matter, and that the company can’t be liable for you assuming that words have meaning.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    Musk has said that humans drive with only eyesight, so cars should be able to drive with just cameras.

    This of course assumes 1) that cameras are just as good as eyes (they’re not) and 2) that the processing of visual data that the human brain does can be replicated by a machine, which seems highly dubious given that we only partially understand how humans process visual data to make decisions.

    Finally, it assumes that the current rate of human-caused crashes is acceptable. Which it isn’t. We tolerate crashes because we can’t improve people without unrealistic expense. In an automated system, if a bit of additional hardware can significantly reduce crashes it’s irrational not to do it.

    • blady_blah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      This is directly a result of Elon’s edict that Tesla cars don’t use lidar. If you aren’t aware Elon set that as a requirement at the beginning of Tesla’s self driving project because he didn’t want to spend the money on lidar for all Tesla cars.

      His “first principles” logic is that humans don’t use lidar therefore self driving should be able to be accomplished without (expensive) enhanced vision tools. While this statement has some modicum of truth, it’s obviously going to trade off safely in situations where vision is compromised. Think fog or sunlight shining in your cameras / eyes or a person running across the street at night wearing all black. There are obvious scenarios where lidar is a massive safety advantage, but Elon made a decision for $$ to not have that. This sounds like a direct and obvious outcome of that edict.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

          You need slightly more advanced lidar for cars because you need to be able to see further ahead then 10 ft, and you need to be able to see in adverse weather conditions (rain, fog, snow), that I assume you don’t experience indoors. That said, it really isn’t as expensive as he is making it out to be.

    • TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      If the camera system + software results in being 1% safer than a human, and a given human can’t afford the lidar version, society is still better off with the human using the camera-based FSD than driving manually. Elon being a piece of shit doesn’t detract from this fact.

      But, yes, a lot of “ifs” in there, and obviously he did this to cut costs or supply chain or blahblah

      Lidar or other tech will be more relevant once we’ve raised the floor (everyone getting the additional safety over manual driving) and other FSDs become more mainstream (competition)

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    Eyes can’t see in low visibility.

    musk “we drive with our eyes, cameras are eyes. we dont need LiDAR”

    FSD kills someone because of low visibility just like with eyes

    musk reaction -

      • III@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        Correction - Older Teslas had lidar, Musk demanded they be removed because they cut into his profits. Not a huge difference but it does show how much of a shitbag he is.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      It’s worse than that, though. Our eyes are significantly better than cameras (with some exceptions at the high end) at adapting to varied lighting conditions than cameras are. Especially rapid changes.

      • jerkface@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        Hard to credit without a source, modern cameras have way more dynamic range than the human eye.

        • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          Not in one exposure. Human eyes are much better with dealing with extremely high contrasts.

          Cameras can be much more sensitive, but at the cost of overexposing brighter regions in an image.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      He really is a fucking idiot. But so few people can actually call him out… So he just never gets put in his place.

      Imagine your life with unlimited redos. That’s how he lives.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      The government for letting tesla get away with false advertising. They let them do it because they swallowed the hype along with Musk climate saviorism.

      • awholenewworld@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        What about the people for letting the government get away with bad governing. They let them do it because they swallowed the hype.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          Still governement’s fault for brainwashing the population with neoliberal governemental donothing-ism which fedback into the system as paralysis and letting liars lie for clout and money (Yes, I mean the Musky one)

  • Konala Koala@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    Every time I hear something about pedestrian being killed by something self-driving, it begins to irk me as to why are we pushing for such and such technology.

    • PeroBasta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      Because it is generally proven to save lifes. You’ll never hear of “thanks for the auto-brake system no one got injured and everything was boring as usual” but it happened a lot (also to me in first person).

      I don’t like Musk but in general its a good thing to push self driving cars IMO. I drive 2 hours per day and the amount of time where I see retarded people doing retarded stuff at the wheel is crazy.

      • Konala Koala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        No, it is not generally proven to save lives, you are listening to lies somewhere. Its not a good thing to push self-driving cars and Musk is the one being retarded. Plus he supports Trump and not Harris.

        • PeroBasta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          The technology behind it is proven to save lifes. The reaction time of a full brake to stop a car crash i had the “luck” of experiencing on a Volkswagen was outstanding.

          Same thing for the lane assist function if you are sleepy

          • Konala Koala@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            Same thing for the lane assist function if you are sleepy

            If you are sleepy behind the wheel, you need to pull over, get off the road, and take a rest.

            • PeroBasta@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 days ago

              Thanks mom. I brought cases to prove my point I’m not saying you should go on a road trip while sleepy.

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      Because self-driving cars are safer than human drivers, when implemented properly. A proper one is absolutely loaded with sensors, radar, laser, sonar; not just some cameras like Tesla’s system.

      If you ever get the chance to, hop in a Waymo and you’ll become a believer too (currently available only in Cali and AZ). These little robotaxis see everything at all times, not just what’s in front of them like humans. I trust them more than I’d trust any human driver. They can avoid accidents that you and I would never see coming. Witnessed this first-hand.

        • Psythik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Again, ride in one yourself when you get the chance and I promise you you’ll change your mind immediately.

          • Konala Koala@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            Again, not only no valid proof they are safe, but they are being used to put people out of work like Taxi and Uber drivers.

            • Psythik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              It’s for the better. They will find other jobs. You sound like the people crying about coal mines being closed down.

  • elgordino@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    18 days ago

    If anyone was somehow still thinking RoboTaxi is ever going to be a thing. Then no, it’s not, because of reasons like this.

    • testfactor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      It doesn’t have to not hit pedestrians. It just has to hit less pedestrians than the average human driver.

      • elgordino@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 days ago

        It needs to be way way better than ‘better than average’ if it’s ever going to be accepted by regulators and the public. Without better sensors I don’t believe it will ever make it. Waymo had the right idea here if you ask me.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 days ago

          But why is that the standard? Shouldn’t “equivalent to average” be the standard? Because if self-driving cars can be at least as safe as a human, they can be improved to be much safer, whereas humans won’t improve.

      • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 days ago

        Exactly. The current rate is 80 deaths per day in the US alone. Even if we had self-driving cars proven to be 10 times safer than human drivers, we’d still see 8 news articles a day about people dying because of them. Taking this as ‘proof’ that they’re not safe is setting an impossible standard and effectively advocating for 30,000 yearly deaths, as if it’s somehow better to be killed by a human than by a robot.

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          But they aren’t and likely never will be.

          And how are we to correct for lack of safety then? With human drivers you obvious discourage dangerous driving through punishment. Who do you punish in a self driving car?

  • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Charge the stupid fuck Tesla chain of decision making with murder. This bullshit “self driving” advertising is premeditated, that’s no longer manslaughter.

    And charge the driver(s) with manslaughter under aggravating circumstances.

    But oh no, muh profts, hurr-durrr…

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    Fuck Elon musk.

    But self-driving is one of the most needed technologies to aim for in the near future. And it’s a shame that as American space industry it has , apparently, let be in the hands of a lunatic.

    The potential to reduce road mortality. And to give back to humans thousands of hours back of their time (you can do other things while not driving).

    I don’t really care about the philosophical question on who is to blame if a self driving car run over one person if road mortality got statistically reduced by a big value thanks to the technology.

    The anti technology I see on some supposedly progressive people nowadays really scares me. Bad omen. It’s like having a choice between rich conservatives and poor conservatives, but only conservatives nonetheless.

    • ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      That’s just a train/bus with extra steps and far more risk. Cities with cars as the main mode of transport are still ugly places to live.

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        I live in what is supposedly taught as the better mobility solution. A dense european city.

        It’s true, I can go everywhere walking and by public transport… and it sucks.

        Such density to allow for good public transport means living in apartments like ants, instead of houses.

        I like walking but in winter or summer it can be miserable. Buses you get really tired of very quickly, crowded, crazy people, smells, having to be on foot because no seats, dizziness, and in big cities pickpocketing. It’s a lot of misery IMHO.

        I’ve live like this many decades and I cannot see the time I can move out of the city, well knowing I’ll need a car for everything because lower densities does not allow for walking/good public transport. But I find higher densities just miserable to live in.

        As such I would love to have self driving cars. Seems such a life quality improvement.

          • dh34d@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            17 days ago

            Man, this is Lemmy in a nutshell. Someone offers a well thought-out and well-written view to give some perspective on the other side of a popular Lemmy opinion, and the first response is just straight up ignoring the opportunity to have a real conversation and attacking the commenter as a person.

            This place fucking sucks.

            • yetiftw@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 days ago

              they were complaining about things that are only unpleasant because of their own feelings toward the situation

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Why is it the most needed though?

      I’m not really sold on the importance of it anymore tbh. It was a cool scifi dream but driving is not even at the top 1000 issues we need solving right now.