
Self-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says - thisjustinm
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fatal-crash-investigation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
======
pbw
The report from Tesla says the autopilot didn't see the truck because the
"white side of the tractor trailer" mathched "a brightly lit sky". It doesn't
mention radar which should have had a huge signature. On twitter Musk
addresses radar and says "radar tunes out what looks like an overhead road
sign to avoid false braking events".

Isn't the obvious question why does it also tune out huge overhead road signs
which are moving from left to right across the road?

~~~
legohead
The answer is simple -- they still have logic to work out.

One of the recent SpaceX rockets crashed on the landing because of some basic
missing logic. One of the 3 rockets wasn't able to produce the expected
thrust. [1] The is an easy solution: the other 2 rockets increase thrust to
compensate, but this logic didn't exist.

[1] [http://gizmodo.com/spacex-just-crashed-a-rocket-right-
into-i...](http://gizmodo.com/spacex-just-crashed-a-rocket-right-into-its-
drone-ship-1782029453)

~~~
greglindahl
It's more difficult than you make it sound, because the engines can't throttle
below 70% or above 100%. They don't call it a "suicide burn" for nothing.

------
heavymark
"Tesla Says" would be more accurate, since Tesla was the one to officially
report it first via their blog and they also notified the US Highway
department so they can do an independent investigation.

~~~
danso
FWIW, here is the Tesla press release as it was submitted to HN (and now
already off the front page):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011419](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011419)

Not sure if your comment is meant to insinuate that Tesla is being more
transparent than it needs to be. Its press release, dated June 30, refers to a
fatal accident that happened on May 7. Judging by the first sentence of that
press release, it seems to have been spurred because the U.S. decided to open
an investigation yesterday. Tesla has had 50 days to say something and they
waited until the day after they learned about the investigation.

AFAIK, accidents in which a consumer complaint is received or in which a
defect in a vehicle or vehicle-part is suspected is sent to the NHTSA [1],
which then decides whether or not to conduct an investigation. The NYT article
makes it sound like the NHTSA has been in contact with the Florida Highway
Patrol...I don't see where it says that Tesla went out of its way to tell the
NHTSA (at least compared to other automakers)

[1] [http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/downloads/flatfiles.cfm](http://www-
odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/downloads/flatfiles.cfm)

~~~
jsprogrammer
Many are out flagging tonight. This post was #15 on the front page with no
related story above it (or below it, as I recall).

Now it is gone and tagged DUPE with no related story on the front page.

~~~
danso
Yeah, the Tesla press release should still be on the front page, all things
considered. 360+ upvotes in 8 hours. I believe having a lot of comments might
increase a submission's gravity, but not to _that_ extent...especially as the
discussion doesn't seem to yet be flame-heavy.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Yep. Release should still be up. Without more detail on the specific algorithm
used and log of the relevant events, it will be hard to say much more.

However, I see no reason for this article to have been memory-holed. It is not
based on the Tesla release, contains information the Tesla release does not,
and I have seen no other story on the front page, let alone better than #15,
that this could be considered a dupe of.

