Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Box (Score 1) 277

As a driver you have the responsibility to read the manual, especially when it comes to functions like these. I certainly read the description of the self-parking feature of my car very carefully, and I would review even more carefully than that with any function that automates driving at speed. Just because a lot of people don't read the manual in a normal car without assistance systems doesn't make it right not to do read the description for the various autopilot functions. I'm not saying that Tesla is handling everything right (I think they should be more aggressive ascertaining that the driver is attentive and focused on the road) but would still put most blame on the individuals that trust this technology to drive automatically (and allow them to speak on the phone while driving) despite all the warnings displayed on the dashboard and explained in more detail in the manual.

Comment Re:Driver may be foolish, but (Score 2) 277

I mentioned it above, but so that you are aware as well: Maybe it should handle the situation, but the manual is very clear that this exact situation is one that cannot be handled: "Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control can not detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles, especially in situations when you are driving over 50 mph (80 km/h) and a vehicle you are following moves out of your driving path and a stationary vehicle or object, bicycle, or pedestrian is in front of you instead. Always pay attention to the road ahead and stay prepared to take immediate corrective action. Depending on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to avoid a collision can result in serious injury or death."

Comment Re:Driver may be foolish, but (Score 1, Informative) 277

Maybe it should handle the situation, but the manual is very clear that this exact situation is one that cannot be handled: "Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control can not detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles, especially in situations when you are driving over 50 mph (80 km/h) and a vehicle you are following moves out of your driving path and a stationary vehicle or object, bicycle, or pedestrian is in front of you instead. Always pay attention to the road ahead and stay prepared to take immediate corrective action. Depending on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to avoid a collision can result in serious injury or death."

Comment Re:Box (Score 1) 277

It's possible because the Tesla self-drive / auto-drive / drive-assist feature DIDN'T SPOT THE OBSTACLE, DIDN'T APPLY THE BRAKES IN TIME and therefore DIDN'T DO WHAT IT CLAIMS.

It did do what it claims. What happened in the accident was exactly the same as a description of a limitation in the manual: "Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control can not detect all objects and may not brake/decelerate for stationary vehicles, especially in situations when you are driving over 50 mph (80 km/h) and a vehicle you are following moves out of your driving path and a stationary vehicle or object, bicycle, or pedestrian is in front of you instead. Always pay attention to the road ahead and stay prepared to take immediate corrective action. Depending on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control to avoid a collision can result in serious injury or death."

Comment Re:bad driving (Score 1) 277

No "ACAS" won't result in an automatic "turn and raise altitude". The only available ACAS system that is widely used is TCAS. First, TCAS only gives an advisory to the pilot and does not link into the autopilot. So if you are on autopilot and TCAS tells you to change altitude the human pilot will actually need to effect this change. Secondly, TCAS only advises to change altitude. Eventually, they want to be able to advise turns as well to increase clearance, but this is not feasible yet due to (I believe) limited horizontal resolution.

Comment Re:Saying you are aware and actually being aware . (Score 1) 623

Absolutely, but renaming "autopilot" to "driving aid that works quite well in most cases but can kill you if something unexpected happens and you don't brake in time" wouldn't have helped in this case as the driver was well aware of the limitations of the autopilot. Which is really an exception as you would not expect most drivers to be as aware of the technology in their car as much as Josh Brown was. Which really means that the name doesn't matter. What matters is that after using the system for a while you realise that it works reliably. You then start dozing off, and even then it still is reliable mostly. But at some point an accident will happen.

Comment Re:74 at time of crash (Score 1) 623

I don't think that would have helped. The radar return would have been pretty much the same. There is some vertical aperture of course, but that was already sufficient to detect the truck (and is sufficient to detect overhead signs). The problem is that a significant part of the radar were not returned which suggests to the system that the way is clear enough. In my view, radar is simply not enough for an autonomous car, which the Tesla isn't. There is a reason why Google spends a lot of money on the LIDAR for its self driving cars. If Radar was sufficient they wouldn't go through that trouble.

Comment Re: Er (Score 1) 623

That's a big effing problem!! It's already led to one death, and can easily lead to many more.

The terminology did not lead to the death. The killed driver was very aware of the limitations of the autopilot and that you need to be aware of your surroundings. He said this in his YouTube videos and the comments.

Comment Re: Er (Score 1) 623

Yes I agree that "autopilot" is a horrendous choice of name because "auto" and "automatic" imply autonomy, no matter how many clickthrough EULA's you shove in front of someone.

I agree. I got in my car the other day and while driving, I remembered it is actually an automobile so I let go of the steering.

Comment Re:74 at time of crash (Score 3, Insightful) 623

How would the car have been able to do this? The radar used does not have any vertical resolution, you only get a certain proportion of the radar that is returned, similar to what you get from a overhead sign. The camera would have been able to see the size of the gap but it did not detect the truck either as it was the same colour as the sky.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can not get anything worthwhile done without raising a sweat. -- The First Law Of Thermodynamics

Working...