Tesla Predicts Accident and Gives Warning Before It Happens

[2FA]

13 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Just to make sure it's clear, adoption rate is not related to the rate at which technology progresses. But, we can still see that adoption rates of technology is increasing https://hbr.org/2013/11/the-pace-of-technology-adoption-is-speeding-up

According to that link, the rate of adoption for automotive has been decreasing for many years and is actually starting to go a little negative.

 

Remember the rate of adoption is not about percentage of adoption but about how fast the percentage increases.

 

It's also why I was saying there are many factors as not all technologies progress at the same rate which is clearly demonstrated in that graph.

[zMeul]

receives SMS of a incoming earthquake - jumps out of the window, forgets he's not at the ground floor, breaks leg

true story

 

 

ps: not me

[Blade of Grass]

11 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

According to that link, the rate of adoption for automotive has been decreasing for many years and is actually starting to go a little negative.

 

Remember the rate of adoption is not about percentage of adoption but about how fast the percentage increases.

 

It's also why I was saying there are many factors as not all technologies progress at the same rate which is clearly demonstrated in that graph.

The chart from the NYT is just looking at the rate of adoption for technology, correct, but the chart from MIT isn't. The NYT chart just demostrates that market saturation exists for products, but in no way does it show the rate of adoption (before approaching market saturation) is slowing down. If you read the text of the article it clearly states otherwise. 

 

No one has argued that all technology progress at the same rate, but instead we've argued that technology is increasing at an exponential rate (as demonstrated by the MIT paper). Regrding adoption rate, we can also see that the rate of adoption is increasing (again, not all at the same rate) in the HBR article. 

[suicidalfranco]

i'm just waiting for the day where letting humans drive will be illegal, leave the driving to real pros who do it for a living in the race tracks

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, JoeyDM said:

Honestly? At a certain point we shouldn't be allowed to. I can see it happening in 70 years that you can no longer get a license, and that people who can still drive are those with special permits or people who got grandfathered in by having it before.

I enjoy driving on mountain roads (why I drive manual), so I'd probably be among the first hauled to jail in such a circumstance. 

[Bleedingyamato]

26 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I enjoy driving on mountain roads (why I drive manual), so I'd probably be among the first hauled to jail in such a circumstance. 

What does having a manual transmission have to do with mountain roads?  I'm confused..  

 

Is manual better for that somehow?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Can it predict when the driver will have brown pants?

It's not prediction anymore, it's called spying

[NumLock21]

45 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

It's not prediction anymore, it's called spying

why is it spying?

[alexyy]

1 hour ago, Bleedingyamato said:

What does having a manual transmission have to do with mountain roads?  I'm confused..  

 

Is manual better for that somehow?

Manual is better for everything.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Bleedingyamato said:

What does having a manual transmission have to do with mountain roads?  I'm confused..  

 

Is manual better for that somehow?

For windy, steep ascents, I'd prefer to hold a certain speed without the car shifting without my permission.  A manual is the better tool for my commutes. 

 

Edit: funnily enough, the manual actually gets slightly worse highway economy than the automatic. This is due to the shorter final drive ratio, trading mpg for wheel torque with the same engine (higher rpm in 5th gear than the overdrive gear in the auto). City economy in the manual demolishes the auto though. 

[TetraSky]

4 hours ago, Enderman said:

Too bad it doesn't predict it 1 hour in advance...

Exactly! Now you can bet that as these predictions become more and more accurate, some dumb idiot will decide to sue Tesla for it, because it didn't warn them of the accident, while they were in a non-tesla car. 

_{I pretty much have no faith in humanity at this point...}

[Bensemus]

6 hours ago, sazrocks said:

Yet Teslas are not fully autonomous, even though you seem to claim they are. 

They claim the exact opposite. They are very clear that the car is not ready to be unsupervised. The fully autonomous software is scheduled to come at the end of 2017. 

[sazrocks]

53 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

They claim the exact opposite. They are very clear that the car is not ready to be unsupervised. The fully autonomous software is scheduled to come at the end of 2017. 

I know, that's why I said what I said. I'm not talking to Elon Musk.

[Arty]

8 hours ago, sazrocks said:

Yet Teslas are not fully autonomous,

The new v2 hardware is.

 

IT just isn't public beta yet.

[Masada02]

Lets be fair, if you were paying attention to the road you would have seen that accident coming. I noticed it before the warning sounds went off in the car, and if you are an observant driver you would have too.

 

Not to dismiss the technology at play here (because it truly is amazing what they are doing), but it still isn't even close to replacing people driving. Maybe all the systems will get there someday, but there is still a ways to go.

 

Regardless, even if it does become safer than most humans I will not be using it. I enjoy driving so why would I want to stop doing it? Self-driving tech is for people that buy cars like they buy appliances, and not for enthusiasts. 

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

In my lovely country (/s) you must pay for the right to drive your car for 10 years. After which it must be scrapped. This applies to each individual vehicle, and at times the amount you got to pay gets close to the car's full retail price. Yes this has already been in effect for the past decade or so. 

 

Also our great leaders here is balls deep in oil, making it a little less 'convenient'  to own electric cars.

What country may that be? 

[sazrocks]

2 hours ago, Arty said:

The new v2 hardware is.

 

IT just isn't public beta yet.

 

10 hours ago, sazrocks said:

Yet Teslas are not fully autonomous

As in, right now.

 

But as for the video that you showed, that's freaking amazing. I'm just not convinced that it will handle all situations better than a human.

[vorticalbox]

2 hours ago, Masada02 said:

Lets be fair, if you were paying attention to the road you would have seen that accident coming. I noticed it before the warning sounds went off in the car, and if you are an observant driver you would have too.

 

Not to dismiss the technology at play here (because it truly is amazing what they are doing), but it still isn't even close to replacing people driving. Maybe all the systems will get there someday, but there is still a ways to go.

 

Regardless, even if it does become safer than most humans I will not be using it. I enjoy driving so why would I want to stop doing it? Self-driving tech is for people that buy cars like they buy appliances, and not for enthusiasts. 

Though i some what agree except that a lot of drivers don't pay attention hence crash rates are rather high. In the USA and Europe the roads aren't that bad but over in India the roads are much more manic I don't see the system doing all that well.

 

The new radar technology is also getting better as explained in the article, it can see through fog and can be bounced around the car in front and see the car in front if that.

 

These sorts of systems have the advantage of being able to see everywhere at once.

[sof006]

That is actually amazing, how to further blow my mind

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Masada02 said:

Lets be fair, if you were paying attention to the road you would have seen that accident coming. I noticed it before the warning sounds went off in the car, and if you are an observant driver you would have too.

 

Not to dismiss the technology at play here (because it truly is amazing what they are doing), but it still isn't even close to replacing people driving. Maybe all the systems will get there someday, but there is still a ways to go.

 

Regardless, even if it does become safer than most humans I will not be using it. I enjoy driving so why would I want to stop doing it? Self-driving tech is for people that buy cars like they buy appliances, and not for enthusiasts. 

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.

[Arty]

7 hours ago, sazrocks said:

 

As in, right now.

 

But as for the video that you showed, that's freaking amazing. I'm just not convinced that it will handle all situations better than a human.

Maybe not yet, but eventually they will

[theninja35]

19 hours ago, Commodus said:

This is why it's always weird when someone says "but I don't trust a computer to drive me!"

 

Yes, current self-driving systems have bugs, and we're likely several years or more away from autonomous cars that can handle any situation.  But it's pretty clear that this tech will ultimately be safer overall -- better to have a rare glitch cause a collision than to smack into someone simply because they're a terrible driver. 

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.

[Wolther]

17 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

i'm just waiting for the day where letting humans drive will be illegal, leave the driving to real pros who do it for a living in the race tracks

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 

[Teddy07]

Simply amazing

[suicidalfranco]

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 

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