Tesla Predicts Accident and Gives Warning Before It Happens

[Wolther]

23 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

want to drive? rent a race track. Leave the roads to AI

The point went way over your head 

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, theninja35 said:

The problem isn't the computer itself, it's how easy it can be to hack your way into them and then control whatever you would like. Until the government begins running its own servers with extreme protection, the vulnerability is there and that vulnerability will be higher than it has been with current cars.

Self-driving cars can be mostly isolated from the internet... you may want connections for services, but I think it's possible.  Suffice it to say that I'm not in a rush; I'd rather companies take a while to nail issues like security than rush to say they're the first.

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, Wolther said:

The point went way over your head 

there is no point.

make human driving just a sport, if people want to keep driving they can simply rent a track and have more "fun" over there than being a walking time bomb where other people lives are at stake. AI is and always will be superior to humans, removing humans from day to day driving is simply the next evolution the same way cars replaced horses.

[theninja35]

8 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Self-driving cars can be mostly isolated from the internet... you may want connections for services, but I think it's possible.  Suffice it to say that I'm not in a rush; I'd rather companies take a while to nail issues like security than rush to say they're the first.

If self-driving cars are to work like people want them to, with their own web of internet connections so that traffic flows smoothly, they're going to become extremely vulnerable. People don't want self-driving cars just so they don't have to drive, it's so that traffic flows at a much faster pace and much smoother than it does now.

[Zodiark1593]

10 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

there is no point.

make human driving just a sport, if people want to keep driving they can simply rent a track and have more "fun" over there than being a walking time bomb where other people lives are at stake. AI is and always will be superior to humans, removing humans from day to day driving is simply the next evolution the same way cars replaced horses.

You make it sound as though all humans are terrible drivers. Truth be told, we probably just need to eliminate the worst performers to drastically reduce crash incidents, as well as increasing standards. Not everyone on the road is crash prone, after all. 

 

The accident shown in OP is very easily avoided by keeping a few seconds of buffer, not only to allow time to react, but to see the car ahead, and to allow time for the tailgaters behind you to stop.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Wolther said:

I disagree, why should a certain person be able to do something but I can't? 

Why should I be allowed to build pcs if there are pc builders who do it for a living and might be better than me. 

 

Some people enjoy driving and doing things for themselves. I'd feel very lazy if I had someone (or something) drive me around all day and I sit there sippin on a pop 

When you make a mistake building a PC, you don't risk breaking someone else's PC in the process.

 

That's the distinction.  Assuming self-driving cars are ultimately safer, which they should be, driving a car yourself on public roads may be seen as a relative hazard.  I can see there being a day where you buy a sports car that will only offer manual steering when it knows you're at a closed circuit (or in emergencies, of course).

[Wolther]

45 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

want to drive? rent a race track. Leave the roads to AI

AI just isn't ready for no-human-assistance just yet 

 

1. They cannot operate well in weather conditions like heavy rain or icy roads 

2. There's always the chance for a malfunction to occur due to damage to the car or whatever

3. They rely on GPS to figure out where there going.. We all know how that goes.. 

4. They can't account for human signals (like a police officer directing traffic or something like that) 

5. Making everything computerized can lead to personal data collection. We never thought we'd see that in an OS, but we have that (Windows 10) 

6. Atm the cost to implement self driving cars, like all of the sensors and computing power is pretty expensive.. Especially if you're a college student and the only thing you can afford is a very low budget car. 

 

There are probably plenty of more reasons but that's what I could think off as the top of my head 

[Wolther]

4 minutes ago, Commodus said:

When you make a mistake building a PC, you don't risk breaking someone else's PC in the process.

 

That's the distinction.  Assuming self-driving cars are ultimately safer, which they should be, driving a car yourself on public roads may be seen as a relative hazard.  I can see there being a day where you buy a sports car that will only offer manual steering when it knows you're at a closed circuit (or in emergencies, of course).

You could if your building a pc for someone else. Atm there's no self driving car, they all rely on a human to pay attention to the roads. And to even step in a lot of the times like bad weather conditions or maybe the road is a little bad. 

[Commodus]

16 minutes ago, Wolther said:

You could if your building a pc for someone else. Atm there's no self driving car, they all rely on a human to pay attention to the roads. And to even step in a lot of the times like bad weather conditions or maybe the road is a little bad. 

I'm talking about long term, when the technology is reliable and accessible enough that most cars are self-driving.  When it gets to the point that human drivers are more of a liability on the roads than the norm.

[sazrocks]

3 hours ago, Arty said:

Maybe not yet, but eventually they will

I understand that, but I was discussing with another user the stats surrounding self driving vehicles, so what does it matter to that conversation that eventually they will be autonomous?

[vorticalbox]

3 hours ago, theninja35 said:

The problem isn't the computer itself, it's how easy it can be to hack your way into them and then control whatever you would like. Until the government begins running its own servers with extreme protection, the vulnerability is there and that vulnerability will be higher than it has been with current cars.

they did an episode about this on a show called elementary (its a Sherlock spin off). The software was used to murder the drivers and at the start they put it down to a bug.

[Wolther]

27 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I'm talking about long term, when the technology is reliable and accessible enough that most cars are self-driving.  When it gets to the point that human drivers are more of a liability on the roads than the norm.

It's a big "what if" when looking at that. 

Who knows if it'll ever get to the point of most cars being self-driving, you assume it will be but you don't know that for sure 

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, Wolther said:

It's a big "what if" when looking at that. 

Who knows if it'll ever get to the point of most cars being self-driving, you assume it will be but you don't know that for sure 

Just like how all modern airliners can fly and land themselves but we still have pilots. As far as that goes this is actually easier than cars mostly due to tight air traffic control and traffic density, or lack of.

 

If we aren't ready for self flying autonomous planes we aren't ready for cars, either in mind set or in complete technology and road design.

[FakeNSA]

I would say, it warning you? By a rumble in the wheel or an alarm? Great! It reacting? At the current level of tech we have? Not so great. I can see accidents being made worse at this current level of tech, so the response should not be automatic.

[leadeater]

Just now, Aelar_Nailo said:

I would say, it warning you? By a rumble in the wheel or an alarm? Great! It reacting? At the current level of tech we have? Not so great. I can see accidents being made worse at this current level of tech, so the response should not be automatic.

In the video and as the article explained it was only a warning. The car will auto break however if close enough that if you don't break a collision will happen, many cars have this.

 

You are correct though, right now a warning is better than driver takeover in steering and breaking. But I don't agree with it making accidents worse, worst case the person behind you rear-ends you since they were also either too close or not paying attention. The accident in the video would not have happened to a Tesla or modern Volvo, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Peugeot, Citroen etc. Radar guided cruise control and collision breaking will prevent more accidents than it will cause, if it was a legitimate issue cars would not be allowed to have it. For a long time cars were allowed to have lane drift warning but steering takeover was against the law in basically every country.

[biggiebody]

23 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

Humans wish that human error had only caused 2 lethal accidents in a year. In the time that Teslas with autopilot have been on the road, 1.3 million people died in car accidents.

Not disagreeing with you, but that's a skewed stat, since there are way more human drivers than there are Teslas on the road. I agree that there will be more human error than the autopilots.

[Notree]

I hope none of you saying driving should be illegal come into any form of power. I like the idea of all self driving carst but I certainly want to be able to drive my car also. And I'm sure the same can be said for any car enthusiast. I'm willing to bet the people that think it should be illegal don't own their own vehicle or don't leave the city.lol

[FakeNSA]

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

In the video and as the article explained it was only a warning. The car will auto break however if close enough that if you don't break a collision will happen, many cars have this.

 

You are correct though, right now a warning is better than driver takeover in steering and breaking. But I don't agree with it making accidents worse, worst case the person behind you rear-ends you since they were also either too close or not paying attention. The accident in the video would not have happened to a Tesla or modern Volvo, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Peugeot, Citroen etc. Radar guided cruise control and collision breaking will prevent more accidents than it will cause, if it was a legitimate issue cars would not be allowed to have it. For a long time cars were allowed to have lane drift warning but steering takeover was against the law in basically every country.

What I meant by the words you responded to, is this: You are in your shiny new assisted driving car. As you pass a merge on your right, a person swerves into the lane to your right, and because they took it too fast, encroach slightly in your lane. You, driving, would not hit them because they correct back in to their lane in time. Would the level of tech available today be able to make the call of: Oh, he is going to go by me, and I don't need to break? Or would it slam on the brakes, and cause you to be rear ended by the 5 cars behind you. That would be a major accident.

TLDR: How would it react to a slight edging into the lane, that is corrected in time? Thanks!

[QueenDemetria]

14 minutes ago, Notree said:

I hope none of you saying driving should be illegal come into any form of power. I like the idea of all self driving carst but I certainly want to be able to drive my car also. And I'm sure the same can be said for any car enthusiast. I'm willing to bet the people that think it should be illegal don't own their own vehicle or don't leave the city.lol

Yeah, I don't want any power stripped away from me.

[Masada02]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well I tend to disagree. All new cars today, for a while actually, have traction control and electronic stability control which has been well proven to prevent or lessen the impact of crashes and most importantly prevent rollovers which significantly increase the likelihood of mortality. We are not highly trained experts in car control and car makers know this which is why most cars have no way to fully turn these systems off, not completely off. Anyone who actually thinks they are without having gone through the training is ignorant to their skills as a driver.

 

When it comes to attentiveness and fine grained control us humans can't even compare to computers. We can ingest, analyze and interpret more data as a whole but due to this massive amount our brains fill in gaps or tune stuff out. So in a pure forward facing collision warning comparison between a human and a computer statistically the computer will always win, a margin that will only increase. Human driving ability isn't getting better, car safety and road safety is. 

 

What was shown in the video wasn't self-driving and the breaks were not applied by the car when the warning sounded (check indicated speed for proof), not yet. Volvo, Mercedes etc has similar collision warning systems and auto breaking but they cannot detect past the car in front, not yet. Everyone keeps jumping to the self-driving car point since yes Tesla is pushing that research very hard but this very same research can also be used as driver aids as shown, with you driving.

 

Also yes I saw the second car in front apply it's breaks, looking past the car directly in front is something I do and this is exactly why. The warning only sounds when the car thinks you have not reacted properly to the situation in front of you, the sensors were monitoring that car well before then looking at it's relative speed/acceleration and distance.

 

I would also like to be able to drive my car well in to the future but it would be nice to know that the car I'm in and others around me won't allow a crash, even if we tried.

 

Edit:

The only place you should be able to turn every driver aid completely and fully off is on a race track, track days exist for a reason.

I guess I was coming at it more from a fully autonomous standpoint since that's what the article and the conversation here seemed to focus on. As far as a driver aid, I agree and I don't have any problems with something that would help warn of dangers. Hell, my car has a forward collision warning, not that it does much more than tell me when a hill is coming... 

[apm]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Just like how all modern airliners can fly and land themselves but we still have pilots. As far as that goes this is actually easier than cars mostly due to tight air traffic control and traffic density, or lack of.

 

If we aren't ready for self flying autonomous planes we aren't ready for cars, either in mind set or in complete technology and road design.

or trains, trams etc.

most of them coulld already be self driving.

 

in a perfect world we would have shared self driving cars, cuz no one needs a personal car.

[Blade of Grass]

6 hours ago, Wolther said:

I disagree, why should a certain person be able to do something but I can't? 

Why should I be allowed to build pcs if there are pc builders who do it for a living and might be better than me. 

 

Some people enjoy driving and doing things for themselves. I'd feel very lazy if I had someone (or something) drive me around all day and I sit there sippin on a pop 

To be fair, this divide already exists. From my understanding, all of Canada, most of the US, and most European countries, require drivers to pass through some sort of graduated licensing program before they're given the full privilege to drive. The only difference here would be the height of the bar to earn the privilege.

 

1 hour ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

What I meant by the words you responded to, is this: You are in your shiny new assisted driving car. As you pass a merge on your right, a person swerves into the lane to your right, and because they took it too fast, encroach slightly in your lane. You, driving, would not hit them because they correct back in to their lane in time. Would the level of tech available today be able to make the call of: Oh, he is going to go by me, and I don't need to break? Or would it slam on the brakes, and cause you to be rear ended by the 5 cars behind you. That would be a major accident.

TLDR: How would it react to a slight edging into the lane, that is corrected in time? Thanks!

I remember seeing a similar situation in a video of someone driving their Tesla on the highway beside a transport truck, the truck started to merge into the Tesla driver's lane (guess he didn't see the Tesla beside him) and the car reacted by alerting the driver, moving the car over to the far side of the lane, and slowing down (IIRC). The video is a bit older, but I'll try to see if I can find it. 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

As you pass a merge on your right, a person swerves into the lane to your right, and because they took it too fast, encroach slightly in your lane. You, driving, would not hit them because they correct back in to their lane in time. Would the level of tech available today be able to make the call of: Oh, he is going to go by me, and I don't need to break? Or would it slam on the brakes, and cause you to be rear ended by the 5 cars behind you. That would be a major accident.

TLDR: How would it react to a slight edging into the lane, that is corrected in time? Thanks

 

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

I remember seeing a similar situation in a video of someone driving their Tesla on the highway beside a transport truck, the truck started to merge into the Tesla driver's lane (guess he didn't see the Tesla beside him) and the car reacted by alerting the driver, moving the car over to the far side of the lane, and slowing down (IIRC). The video is a bit older, but I'll try to see if I can find it. 

Pretty much that ^. Slowing down doesn't mean emergency breaking, that should only happen in a front on collision scenario. Plus in the eyes of the law no matter what speed and where you are driving you should be able to emergency break and not be rear ended, great in theory of course.

 

But not all cars are as sophisticated as Tesla's are so some might do nothing, not even warn. Others might lose their shit as you say and hard break. In the perfect world the guy behind you would also have collision warning and break as soon as you do meaning no crash. The most dangerous time for autonomous cars is actually now and until they become the majority or close to it.

 

We might have the fancy tech on our car but the guy in front, to the side or behind might be driving a 1991 Honda Civic which during emergency breaking tends to burst break lines due to their age and have literally zero computerized safety at all. Roads are pretty much only as safe as the worst car on it or the worst driver on it, something we accept since that's just how it is. We expect much more from autonomous cars and rightly so, we know how capable they could be and anything less is unacceptable. Adding yet more risk to driving ain't gonna fly, neither will "they'll get better with time" or "it will be fine once all cars are"

[Bensemus]

 

9 hours ago, Wolther said:

I disagree, why should a certain person be able to do something but I can't? 

Cuz the bar to be a human driver will be much higher? There is no license to build a PC. There is to drive a car and if we progress to a world where humans don't drive normally a licence might have very high skill requirements to get. Much higher then they are today.

[NumLock21]

Watch from beginning to 1:55