New New GIF (animated) Thread

Are people trying to argue against having autopilot, using this incident as an example of why it shouldn't be allowed?

As if to suggest that the autopilot failed to prevent an accident that even the human behind the wheel probably couldn't have prevented in all likelihood? Therefore, autopilot should never be used on the road?
 
mjoe said:
radar isn't effective at detecting stationary objects
Click to expand...

While the object was stationary, the car was not. Radar works by detecting the difference in distance and rate of change. As the car was moving toward the object, the radar should have detected the difference in how far away it was. While the computer would know the speed of the traveling car, it should have still recognized there was an object in the vehicles path that was rapidly getting closer. Only factors I can see that might have contributed is the curve of the road and the truck to the right obscuring it until at the last few seconds.

Don’t have anything against autopilot. My own car has collision warning detection, lane keep assist, etc so I am not adverse to the technology. It’s just not ready for prime time yet.
 
Gandalf said:
While the object was stationary, the car was not. Radar works by detecting the difference in distance and rate of change. As the car was moving toward the object, the radar should have detected the difference in how far away it was. While the computer would know the speed of the traveling car, it should have still recognized there was an object in the vehicles path that was rapidly getting closer. Only factors I can see that might have contributed is the curve of the road and the truck to the right obscuring it until at the last few seconds.

Don’t have anything against autopilot. My own car has collision warning detection, lane keep assist, etc so I am not adverse to the technology. It’s just not ready for prime time yet.
Click to expand...

there are a lot of stationary objects, like the median or a signpost, that the radar system is designed to ignore, i.e. objects that appear to be moving towards your car at the same rate of speed as your car. so some other technology is needed to see a stationary object, and any tesla with autopilot is currently designed to crash into stationary objects in the way that it doesn't see with its cameras.
 
mjoe said:
any tesla with autopilot is currently designed to crash into stationary objects in the way that it doesn't see with its cameras.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Radar can definitely detect a stationary object. Then it should be a matter of determining if it is in your path of travel.
 
If it can discern a median or a sign post and when to ignore it... I'd have to think the engineers would have included a caveat that it shouldn't ignore medians and sign posts if they are in the path of the car.

This computer, did not see a median and ignore it... it didn't see anything at all.

This isn't a situation where the autopilot failed to recognize an obstruction that is obviously distinguishable by a typical human operator ... it failed to detect an obstacle in difficult conditions that would be difficult, if not impossible, for even a human operator.
 
Hellsfury said:
If it can discern a median or a sign post and when to ignore it... I'd have to think the engineers would have included a caveat that it shouldn't ignore medians and sign posts if they are in the path of the car.

This computer, did not see a median and ignore it... it didn't see anything at all.

This isn't a situation where the autopilot failed to recognize an obstruction that is obviously distinguishable by a typical human operator ... it failed to detect an obstacle in difficult conditions that would be difficult, if not impossible, for even a human operator.
Click to expand...

You have to discount the dark, radar doesn’t care.
 
This argument can not be; "if not for the autopilot, this accident would not have occurred".

Even if it can be shown that the Autopilot should have seen the wreck and failed to respond in time, that doesn't mean the autopilot can be faulted as the cause of the accident. The fault is that the autopilot only failed to prevent it.
 
Hellsfury said:
This argument can not be; "if not for the autopilot, this accident would not have occurred".

Even if it can be shown that the Autopilot should have seen the wreck and failed to respond in time, that doesn't mean the autopilot can be faulted as the cause of the accident. The fault is that the autopilot only failed to prevent it.
Click to expand...

No argument from me. I’m not really assigning blame. I chock it up to more shit happens. A perfect storm of conditions.

Not that I wouldn’t sue the shit out of Tesla. Because ‘merika.
 
Atreides said:
if that truck had autopilot, it wouldn't have crashed and spun into opposing traffic.

+1 for autopilot.
Click to expand...

Judging by the tire tracks on the road, the black truck went off the right side, driver over corrected and sent it into the rail on the left. Around 2.5 seconds the headlights light up the road on the left before smashing the rail. Lucky the semi didn't get involved.
 
Hellsfury said:
Are people trying to argue against having autopilot, using this incident as an example of why it shouldn't be allowed?

As if to suggest that the autopilot failed to prevent an accident that even the human behind the wheel probably couldn't have prevented in all likelihood? Therefore, autopilot should never be used on the road?
Click to expand...

Remember the guy who walked away from a wreck without a scratch, but would have been killed if he'd worn a seat belt?

Yeah, so morons still gonna moron on stupid shit like this.

Ooh a Tesla caught fire because batteries. I want my ICE back. Fuck off.
 
Mitchdubai said:
FatPride.jpg
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top