
A Tragic Loss - soheil
https://www.tesla.com/blog/tragic-loss
======
efaref
It sounds like the trailer didn't have underrun guards, which I think are
mandatory in Europe, but presumably not in the US.

[http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/guards.html](http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/guards.html)

I expect those would have helped in this situation, as the car would have
impacted the guards (and thus it would be a normal collision), rather than
having its top sliced off.

~~~
tombrossman
Underrun guards are a good idea but not yet practical for trailers in the US.
The reason is that loading dock approaches have far too much variance in
ground height, and the empty space under the trailer is essential to have. If
guards were in place, they would come into regular contact with the ground and
either damage the trailer or the truck would be 'high centered' and stuck,
resting on the guards. I suppose the guards could be made to fold up out of
the way but this would add weight and complexity, and probably affect
strength. Trucking companies in the US do things like use 'super single' tires
that are extra wide to span the width of dual tires. This saves the weight of
two unneeded sidewalls and save a few pounds weight. Because truck design is
so influenced by large fleet purchases, even very tiny changes to weight are
avoided. Lighter > safer.

~~~
welanes
I don't know if this excuse holds water. If 28 disparate states with different
freight profiles can pull it off, surely the US can too.

It's all about will.

~~~
tombrossman
I don't think it's a question of willpower. The contiguous US is 48 states,
each with the autonomy to calculate and set max axle weight / distance rules
and many do. Sliding tandem axles under a 53-foot trailer are not something
you just re-architect overnight.

The span under the trailer behind the rear drive axle(s) and the forward
trailer axle is much longer than you find on European trucks. That means you
need a much longer underride guard. You also have to convince trucking company
execs that all that extra weight is a good thing even though they know it's
cheaper to pay the occasional settlement after a gruesome accident.

Also, putting the trailer axles further forward to shorten the gap is not
possible until Indiana changes their minimum axle length regulation (40 feet
trailer kingpin to rear axle centerline) because I believe that while they are
the only state to have such a rule, you can't do much interstate commerce with
a fleet of trucks and avoid travelling through that state with its central
location.

Trucking in the US is massively regulated and bureaucratic and you are going
to need a lot more than will to get it to change. I'd love to see safer trucks
too but I am not optimistic about seeing underride guards in the US anytime
soon.

~~~
darklajid
Given all the EU bashing recently: That's something I really like. We share
the driving licenses (classes, as in 'B' for cars) even.

You're only touching axle weight and distance, but I wonder if the max length
(truck + trailer) is clearly defined? Are you allowed to have more than one
trailer (here: Nope unless you're driving a tractor most likely)?

I have a BCE ('40 tonnes', biggest you can get here) license, although it is
currently inactive¹. Trucks continue to amaze me and I'd like to understand
how different the world is over there.

①: Truck licenses have a renewal date here in DE. For people far above my age
(my dad) it's something like "Every five years after you're 60" or something
like that. For me it was "Every 5 years" from the get go and I haven't renewed
it for quite some time. I still could get it back, but would need to visit a
doctor (general health), optometrist (field of view test) and maybe redo a
first aid course.

------
KaiserPro
The main problem with all of this, is that its not a true autopilot. In fact
its the _worst_ kind of autopilot. one that bails out at the last minute
leaving you fuck all time to take action.

telsa's autopilot is level 3, which means freeway driving only:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification)

The thing I fear now is the toxic mix of fanboyism and excessive PR management
reminiscent of the worst excesses of Detroit. The only way safety is improved
is when hubris and bluster is put to one side.

~~~
martin_bech
The thing I fear now, is fearmongering by people who dont drive Teslas, havent
spent time with Autosteer/autopilot and ignore that this was a freak accident,
that probably would have killed the driver regardless of using autopilot.

This is the future of roadsafety.

~~~
Swizec
Or MAYBE it's time to install safety skirts on trucks just like they do in
Europe?

There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a truck.

This is what a truck designed for safety looks like:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Artic.lo...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Artic.lorry.arp.750pix.jpg)

Notice how no part of it is higher off the ground than a foot or so. Way too
low for a car to fit under.

This is what truck in the US looks like: [http://www.center-
linecurtains.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/0...](http://www.center-
linecurtains.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/HomePageTruckN.png)

Notice how you could hide a sports car underneath.

~~~
mschuster91
> There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a
> truck.

There is, it's called capitalism, and a safety skirt costs money.

The fix is, as in many cases, regulations. However, I believe that even the
shown safety skirt leaves too much space below, and especially exposed tires,
which is still dangerous for pedestrians and bikers.

~~~
Swizec
A lot of those skirts also aren't quite as strong as they should be. Here's a
comparison between one that fails testing and one that doesn't:
[https://youtu.be/gL8DQIAqZms?t=151](https://youtu.be/gL8DQIAqZms?t=151)

As for pedestrians and bikers, I really really like Europe's solution to that
problem: Pedestrian and Bikers are illegal on the freeway. Big trucks are made
strongly and forcefully impractical in cities, towns, and villages.

It's crazy that I live in downtown SF and there are huge freight trucks
driving past my bedroom window every day.

~~~
mschuster91
With the pedestrians and bikers, I mainly meant when large trucks are driving
in the cities to serve e.g. supermarkets - one I worked at, right in the
center of Munich, had a huge 40-ton truck serving it each day.

It's dangerous as hell, but impractical to do any other way...

~~~
Swizec
Maybe it was just my neck of Europe then. Trucks would only go to supermarkets
on the big roads where there's strict physical separation between traffic and
everyone else. They're also position on the edge of the city next to the ring
freeway so that trucks have a short path from freeway to supermarket.

Deliveries inside the city are done with smaller lorries which are a bit safer
maybe. If not safer, definitely more practical on tight inner-city streets.

I don't think it's practical for trucks to be designed as pedestrian safe as
modern city buses are, so it's better to keep them away from pedestrians as
much as possible.

------
_Codemonkeyism
What strikes me most is that the first paragraph is only dedicated to the
benefit of Tesla, trying to downplay the event by comparing it to human
drivers.

After three more paragraphs to deflect damage from Tesla the last paragraph -
like an afterthought - is about the tragedy of the death of a person.

Perhaps this is just me.

I at least would have wished the first paragraph would have followed the
headline of "A tragic loss".

~~~
antaviana
There's a 10% of abandonement for each additional paragraph in the post so you
need to put the most important facts first to ensure your message is conveyed.
Their priority is to restablish confidence and there is nothing that can be
done to bring that person back to life. They are trying to save other people's
lives by pushing their idea for a safer driving.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
For me they have tarnished their brand. They are just like all the others.
Puff, magic gone with one press release. All of Musks talk, in the end he is
not different than profit-above-all GM executives - a little more brilliant
perhaps.

------
hellofunk
> It is important to note

> It is important to emphasize

I am getting so disappointed by how widespread this wasteful use of the
English language has become. The phrase is just filler and means nothing, yet
it is used everywhere, nearly every HN thread has someone who uses it. If you
need to note something, then note it. By putting it into words, you have said
"this is important enough to actually say it." Further saying that it is
important is a crutch.

This is probably why copy editors get so frustrated when technical people
write things, because the idiom is particularly pervasive in the tech
blogosphere.

We all need to do a service to the value of our words and see [0 ... 3]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:It_should_be_noted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:It_should_be_noted)

[1] [http://womeninwetlands.blogspot.nl/2013/12/it-is-
important-t...](http://womeninwetlands.blogspot.nl/2013/12/it-is-important-to-
note-thatand-other.html)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22Note_that%22_is_u...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22Note_that%22_is_unnecessary)

[3] [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/266529/similar-
ph...](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/266529/similar-phrases-
words-meaning-it-is-worth-mentioning)

~~~
vidarh
Not everything that is important enough to write down has the same importance.
While the phrase may be over-used, it is merely one in a long range of methods
we use to draw more attention to statements we believe have particular
importance at a specific point.

If the statement is not genuinely something that needs particular attention,
then I agree that such phrases should be avoided.

However Wikipedia's policies in are not particularly relevant here, as in the
case of an encyclopaedia which pieces of information are important depends
entirely on what the reader is looking for at any given moment - the purpose
is to make the information available, not to direct the reader to pay special
attention to particular bits of information.

In many other contexts, the purpose of the text is not to merely make
information available, but to influence the reader, and in many cases to
specifically draw their attention to specific pieces of information. E.g.
consider safety instructions or documentation of something where there are
serious caveats.

In those situations various forms of emphasis are important, and using
specific phrases to convey that a given statement is more important can be one
valid way of creating emphasis.

~~~
hellofunk
The Wikipedia policy is just an example, of course, not a suggestion that we
follow that site's editing guidelines. But it does show good practice.

------
r721
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011419](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011419)

------
santialbo
Maybe they should stop calling it autopilot and start calling it driving
assist like every other car makers does.

------
tpatke
Not good enough.

I think Tesla have a lot to answer for here. They are pushing the limits of a
technology which Google has said, "needs to be 100% autonomous". No steering
wheel. Tesla knows this, but branded their car as 'auto-pilot' anyway. When it
became clear from early youtube videos that people were not using the
technology 'correctly' Tesla did nothing more than issuing a statement.

They should be considering a recall. It is not good enough that Tesla PR is
'sad' that someone died. What are they doing about it?

~~~
Jaruzel
They don't even have to do a recall; All Teslas can be updated (or in this
case, downgraded) over the air. All they need to do is either learn from this
and fix the 'white vehicle against a white sky' problem, or remove the 'auto-
pilot' feature completely, until they actually develop proper auto-pilot.

Paraphrasing from JFK: We choose to make auto-driving cars, not because it is
easy, but because it is hard.

There will be casulties along the way. Deaths are not a reason to stifle
development. If we'd done that, we'd never have spaceflight or Vaccines (or
Nuclear Weapons for that matter...) .

------
farhanhubble
"Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor
trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied". Did the
model not have a forward looking RADAR?

~~~
manmal
No, as far as I can read, Teslas don't have LIDARs yet (but they are reported
to have them, soon: [http://electrek.co/2016/03/18/tesla-model-s-test-vehicle-
aut...](http://electrek.co/2016/03/18/tesla-model-s-test-vehicle-autopilot-
lidar/)).

~~~
jrv
There is a radar, but it turns off in that situation, as Elon explained in a
tweet:
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/748625979271045121](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/748625979271045121)

~~~
wibr
It doesn't turn off, it just ignores things that are probably something else.

------
vadym909
This is just beyond me. How did the radars not see the front portion of the
truck, the front wheels, the underbody of the container isn't that high to let
the entire car go through?

~~~
phire
It's a narrow beam radar (about 200m range) which checks the current lane is
clear, it probably assumed the other parts of the truck were some obstacle on
the side of the road (or in another lane)

I'm not even sure the radar has a height dimension, I suspect they just
focused it at bumper height to catch most cars.

The car also has a single camera in the front to see the lane markers, and a
short range ultrasonic system to give it a 360 degree view, out to a few
meters.

For the amount of confidence drivers are putting into the system, Tesla don't
have anywhere enough sensor data.

~~~
gambiting
It was explained elsewhere that the radar does not scan "up" to avoid
collision warning for overpasses. Actually I remember reading a reddit thread
months ago saying that a Tesla in Autopilot could, theoretically, hit a steel
beam that was sticking out onto the road at around the roof height, because
the radar wouldn't see it.

And I absolutely agree with your last sentence - these cars need more sensors.

------
mysterypie
Paraphrasing from the article:

    
    
      Tesla Autopilot: 1 fatality per 130 million miles
      All US vehicles: 1 fatality per 94 million miles
      Worldwide vehicles: 1 fatality per 60 million miles
    

If the statistics above are accurate, logically there should be no reason for
distress, worry, accusations, or mistrust. Or at least much less so than for
ordinary driving. It's like shark attacks: No matter how remote it is, there's
going to be big debates about it, investigations, TV specials, lawsuits, hand
wringing, and new laws.

~~~
pisarzp
But isn't Tesla autopilot working only in highways, which are much safer then
average road? Then this statistic wouldn't be that good.

~~~
alex_duf
As tragic as it is, I don't think one case makes it enough to call it a
statistic yet

------
beefsack
I understand they're trying to protect their reputation, but the tone of the
post is really defensive and hand-wavy which really sucks the compassion out
of it.

~~~
fscherer
I would have found it much more appropriate to first offer condolences before
stating numbers about how good their system is performing

------
tmikaeld
According to the numbers, Teslas cars are by far the safest ones you can
drive.

I don't expect autonomous driving to be perfect until all variables can be
accounted for and the largest being humans behind the wheels.

~~~
contravariant
According to the numbers there's a 25% probability it would have taken more
than 130 million miles before the first fatality, assuming an average of 1
fatality every 94 million miles.

That's ignoring the fact that Tesla's autopilot might only be used in
situations with a relatively low average number of fatalities per million
miles.

------
jakozaur
Also:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12014143](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12014143)

------
kozak
Not clear why did the car continue to travel after the impact. Didn't the
systems detect the negative acceleration from the collision?

~~~
tempestn
It wouldn't necessarily be cause to disengage the autopilot. Plenty of things
could cause negative acceleration besides a collision. A hill, a patch of mud,
etc. And presumably they didn't anticipate this kind of situation, so didn't
include moderate slowing due to collision as a code path.

~~~
kozak
The car should still have started emergency braking at some close distance
before the obstacle (when the radar data got very clear about that not being
an overhead sign). Braking in case of an inevitable crash is useful to reduce
severity of the crash. And it's a bad idea to release brakes after the crash
either. So it still seems like wrong behavior to me.

~~~
tempestn
Well of course it's wrong behaviour! But in the article itself it says the car
never braked, as it did not see the trailer. Presumably it did detect some
deceleration and compensated for it. I'm just saying that apparently it wasn't
programmed to interpret sudden deceleration absent any other indicators as a
possible collision. I agree that perhaps it should be.

------
Achshar
Ok, I'll bite. What's [Dupe]? Kind of like reddit tags for posts I assume?

~~~
cm3
The dupe detector needs to be improved so that submissions cannot be posted
twice. It works when I try to submit something which just has been posted the
same day, but there must be some logic that allows it to be reposted and also
the URL check isn't sufficient. Alternatively a merge of posts by moderators
would be okay, too.

