First fatal accident involving a car in self driving mode

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications and concerns following the first fatal accident involving a self-driving car, specifically a Tesla. Participants explore the technology's limitations, the role of human oversight, and the broader societal acceptance of autonomous vehicles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the accident was due to software limitations, particularly its inability to recognize certain objects, such as a tractor-trailer making a left turn.
  • Others argue that while the accident rate with autopilot may be lower than human drivers, there are scenarios where the autopilot might not exercise caution that a human driver would, such as in school zones.
  • A few participants speculate that the technology could improve over time, potentially leading to a societal shift where driving becomes viewed as an archaic practice.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of government oversight and transparency regarding how autonomous vehicles are programmed to respond to dangers.
  • Some participants draw comparisons between self-driving cars and other automated systems, like airplanes, noting that the complexities of driving present unique challenges.
  • There is a discussion about the responsibilities of drivers in monitoring autonomous systems, with some noting that many drivers may not adequately supervise the vehicle's operation.
  • One participant highlights the potential for distraction caused by in-car technology, suggesting that this could lead to increased accidents.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes the need for fully autonomous vehicles to eliminate human error, arguing that allowing distracted driving through technology is problematic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the safety and reliability of self-driving technology. There are competing perspectives on the implications of the accident, the role of human oversight, and the future of autonomous vehicles.

Contextual Notes

Participants note various limitations in the current technology, including its ability to recognize certain objects and the potential for human distraction. There are also references to historical incidents involving safety technology, indicating a complex relationship between innovation and public acceptance.

  • #121
mheslep said:
Clear road? It's not yet established that ITER can hold its plasma for the targeted 5 minutes, that sufficient tritium is bred, that the first wall does not suffer too much damage.
That's the point of research: figuring out those things. If ITER does not work at all, the current roadmap to fusion power plants is dead. Stellarators might get some attention, but I don't think they will get a lot of money then. If ITER works, DEMO can be constructed.

DEMO will be too expensive for a commercial power plant, but that is not the point - it is a research project. Science at DEMO can show what exactly is necessary for a commercial power plant, which leads to a proper cost estimate.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #122
I agree with all of that; it's research. I don't agree that R&D necessarily provides a clear path, as you say, to commercially useable technology, especially if fundamental scientific problems remain (as with fusion or completely autonomous vehicles). I'm couldn't say if the remaining difficulties are fundamental.
 
  • #123
The NTSB report on the March 2018 fatal crash of a Model X was released yesterday: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2020-HWY18FH011-BMG-abstract.pdf
  • The driver was playing a game on his Apple-owned iPhone while driving. Apple had no policy against this.
  • The driver crashed into a crash attenuator at 71 mph. Because Autopilot did not recognize this as a vehicle, it accelerated the car into it in an attempt to reach the programmed speed.
 
  • #124
Vanadium 50 said:
The NTSB report on the March 2018 fatal crash of a Model X was released yesterday: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2020-HWY18FH011-BMG-abstract.pdf
  • The driver was playing a game on his Apple-owned iPhone while driving. Apple had no policy against this.
  • The driver crashed into a crash attenuator at 71 mph. Because Autopilot did not recognize this as a vehicle, it accelerated the car into it in an attempt to reach the programmed speed.
One NTSB solution is to lockout electronic distractions when driving to force engagement with the driving process.
Additionally, an engineering solution to the distracted driving problem is needed. Electronic device manufacturers have the capability to lock out highly distracting functions of portable electronic devices when being used by an operator while driving, and such a feature should be installed as a default setting on all devices.

I see that as being totally unrealistic with today's phone/gadget addicted drivers and basic Human Nature.
They will be doing just about anything OTHER than being engaged in the driving process. That is a poorly thought-out pipe dream

The real solution is actual level-5 self-driving instead of the fake level-2/3 self-driving seen in cars today.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
22K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
8K