
The Half-Life of Danger: the Tesla Model X Crash - ypzhang2
http://www.thedrive.com/opinion/20082/the-half-life-of-danger-the-truth-behind-the-tesla-model-x-crash
======
com2kid
This article doesn't add much to the discussion. Very little is done to
describe what the proposed "parallel automation" should look like, even though
it is being held up by the article's author as the holy grail of driver
assistance technology.

Sensors that prevent running into pedestrians are already being deployed.
Collision avoidance is getting better and better.

Not driving into walls should be the next pri0 feature cars implement, but
aside from that I see little actionable improvements being proposed here.

~~~
shkkmo
> aside from that I see little actionable improvements being proposed here.

There were three concrete and actionable proposals at the end:

Ban all active lane keeping

Mandate geofencing of all series automation

Mandate Driver Monitoring Systems, to include both camera and capacitive touch

~~~
com2kid
None of those are "new technologies". They are, at best, temporary measures
until current tech gets better.

------
shkkmo
> Does this absolve Tesla of responsibility for using "Autopilot" for their
> branding of a car-based automation suite? Legally yes, but effectively no.
> Yes, in the sense that Tesla Autopilot does automate many repetitive driving
> tasks, and includes a system to warn users of when that automation may
> cease. No, in the sense that some people ignore warnings, conflate
> automation with autonomy, overtrust systems they don't understand, and often
> lack the skills to safely retake control even when they do.

I still think it is silly to discuss the use of te term "autopilot" as the key
mistake here rather than the choice to produce cars with auto-steering
functionality implemented as series automation rather than parallel.

------
verroq
How is this “unavoidable” when existing cars already have automatic emergency
breaking when they detect a collision is imminent?

~~~
oldgradstudent
These cars don't always stop when a collision is imminent.

The incentives around Autonomous Emergency Braking is to avoid false positive
at all costs because unnecessarily braking on a highway can easily injure or
kill.

Avoiding false negatives is somewhat less important.

~~~
setr
>Avoiding false negatives is somewhat less important.

that's kind of funny, given that its primary purpose is a secondary actor on
the human's false negative

