He turned the auto pilot just before hitting the truck, if he didn't see the truck, should auto-pilot?

Another way of looking at it is that he only had the autopilot on for eight seconds before it managed to kill him.

The realistic way to look at it is that he turned autopilot on and took his hands off the wheel within 8 sec of hitting an object that was only a few hundred metres in front of him when he pressed ON, noting you need to follow an object by 2 or 3 sec recommended safety buffer, depending on where you are. Remember Level 3 automation does require Driver supervision and ability to take the wheel at any time.

It was a joke referring to hiding from police radar, which is pointless technically these days as radar uses laser, not microwave.

After the first Tesla autopilot crash in 2016 Elon Musk and his team installed (guess what?) radar sensors on the cars equipped with autopilot to assist the visual interpretations coming in from the cameras. And then he develops a car that can't be seen by radar... genius.

And before anyone asks the latest Tesla autopilot crash (March 2019) involved a car that was equipped with the latest radar-sensing technology but still for some reason STILL couldn't interpret data that suggested it was about to decapitate its owner by driving under a semi-trailer.

Autopilot is an evolving technology and hence why its called Level 3 automation and requires (legally qualified) Driver vigilance and must be able to take control of the vehicle at any time.  

The same applies to cruise control. If you are not prepared to use the brake to prevent running into an object, then who is to blame, the car company or the driver?

Once again the Radar comment was my joke to avoid police radar which as I later said won't work as the police stopped using microwave radar years ago. Again Again Again, please read what people actually say before hitting the keyboard.

I used to drive a 1970 Datsun 1600 with IRS.  Brilliant car, especially on dirt roads (nothing could go quite like it).

Anyway, some leftist conspiracy theorists reckon Elon and his Cybertruck is responsible for the resignation of Evo Morales in Bolivia this month after Morales tried to nationalize Lithium mining in that country...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/14/what-the-coup-against-evo-morales-means-to-indigenous-people-like-me

"Before the coup, Evo attempted to nationalize its large lithium reserves, an element necessary for electric cars.  Since the coup, Tesla’s stocks have skyrocketed. Bolivia rebuked imperialist states like the United States and Canada by taking the path of resource nationalism to redistribute profits across society.
This was Evo’s crime."

180B's came with independent rear suspension and were well known for their sag and inward facing rear wheels when loaded or as the cars aged.

1600's used to be used for rallying if I recall correctly.

Nationalisation of mining and major industries in most countries is a complete failure, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia etc. Typically these govt owned industries become fat employment wise, lack innovation, run down, rely heavily on foreign technical support, significant corruption, completely biased and non-open employment/promotion practices, politically controlled and manipulated and then the hand outs that follow does the same to the rest of society that it supports.  Once the industry is lost, in most cases the countries economy collapses and their currencies become worthless.

Norway is probably the key exception at Govt managing its vast natural resource income and protesting it from corruption and being pi$$ed up against the wall on social welfare programs. As a result Norway has both some of the highest taxes in the world and highest incomes, standard of living, education, medical and retirement benefits. For Norway to achieve this there is legislated limits on how much of the sovereign wealth fund can be spent each year by the govt outside war., I think 2% of profits or something like that.

The UAE is very much following the Norway model with a sovereign wealth fund exceeding $1M / citizen in value and just behind that of Norway in capital value.

Alaska pays a dividend directly to longterm residents each year from its oil royalties. A questionable practice as after the oil is gone so is the profits from the oil, however it does allow many Alaskians to live a basic existence in the woods, for now.


Of the world scale, Bolivia ranks 132 in corruption, way below other Sth American countries with Venezuela 168, so probably best the mining industry wasn't nationalised. The jobs and future govt income is secured.

One moment you're saying Ford is stuffed, the next you change the argument to say "oh but they're doing okay with the light truck segment". Make up your mind.

It was a truck, not a quad bike. If the wheel is supposed to stick out like that because of independent rear suspension then it's probably not engineered safely. If it looks wrong then it probably is wrong.

Mmm, I said Ford is leaving the car building sector focusing on the truck building sector + Mustang and if Mustang sales ever falter, it will dropped like the Aussie Falcon.

again, again, again you really do need to read what people actually write. I said about the Quad bike being driven onto the truck!!!

I don't know when the photo was taken in reference to loading the Quad and I actually don't care either. The video shows the truck's air suspension returning the vehicle to level, it took about 20sec or so from memory.

If the truck has rear independent suspension, then the wheels will lean in when a significant load is placed on it. Have a look at many a 4x4 with same and you will see the same. Pajero's are an obvious one. Datsun 180B anybody???

I used to drive a 1970 Datsun 1600 with IRS.  Brilliant car, especially on dirt roads (nothing could go quite like it).

Anyway, some leftist conspiracy theorists reckon Elon and his Cybertruck is responsible for the resignation of Evo Morales in Bolivia this month after Morales tried to nationalize Lithium mining in that country...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/14/what-the-coup-against-evo-morales-means-to-indigenous-people-like-me

"Before the coup, Evo attempted to nationalize its large lithium reserves, an element necessary for electric cars.  Since the coup, Tesla’s stocks have skyrocketed. Bolivia rebuked imperialist states like the United States and Canada by taking the path of resource nationalism to redistribute profits across society.
This was Evo’s crime."

Well what else would it be? A Free and Fair transfer of power . Its Happened before in the americas and its happened again. I'm Guessing to you that Contra, the smeg in Chile and Venezuela were all big conspiracy theories. There is no question that the United Stated Played a part in this, they have in nearly every government overthrow in the americas over the past 70 Years.

Bolivia, The Current Government is undeniably not an elected one. Probably will turn out to be another Pinochet I think after all, its the Hard Christian Right, the Neo-Nazis and the Neo-Liberal 'Moderates' that backed it. I doubt we will know how much of it was a coup or a popular revolt for many years to come.

Back to Elon, With a new government willing to hand over their Bountiful Lithium deposits, of course Tesla's shares would skyrocket, as per any company that relies on lithium for essentially all of its products.

One moment you're saying Ford is stuffed, the next you change the argument to say "oh but they're doing okay with the light truck segment". Make up your mind.

It was a truck, not a quad bike. If the wheel is supposed to stick out like that because of independent rear suspension then it's probably not engineered safely. If it looks wrong then it probably is wrong.

Mmm, I said Ford is leaving the car building sector focusing on the truck building sector + Mustang and if Mustang sales ever falter, it will dropped like the Aussie Falcon.

again, again, again you really do need to read what people actually write. I said about the Quad bike being driven onto the truck!!!

I don't know when the photo was taken in reference to loading the Quad and I actually don't care either. The video shows the truck's air suspension returning the vehicle to level, it took about 20sec or so from memory.

If the truck has rear independent suspension, then the wheels will lean in when a significant load is placed on it. Have a look at many a 4x4 with same and you will see the same. Pajero's are an obvious one. Datsun 180B anybody???

I used to drive a 1970 Datsun 1600 with IRS.  Brilliant car, especially on dirt roads (nothing could go quite like it).

Anyway, some leftist conspiracy theorists reckon Elon and his Cybertruck is responsible for the resignation of Evo Morales in Bolivia this month after Morales tried to nationalize Lithium mining in that country...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/14/what-the-coup-against-evo-morales-means-to-indigenous-people-like-me

"Before the coup, Evo attempted to nationalize its large lithium reserves, an element necessary for electric cars.  Since the coup, Tesla’s stocks have skyrocketed. Bolivia rebuked imperialist states like the United States and Canada by taking the path of resource nationalism to redistribute profits across society.
This was Evo’s crime."

Well what else would it be? A Free and Fair transfer of power . Its Happened before in the americas and its happened again. I'm Guessing to you that Contra, the smeg in Chile and Venezuela were all big conspiracy theories. There is no question that the United Stated Played a part in this, they have in nearly every government overthrow in the americas over the past 70 Years.

Bolivia, The Current Government is undeniably not an elected one. Probably will turn out to be another Pinochet I think after all, its the Hard Christian Right, the Neo-Nazis and the Neo-Liberal 'Moderates' that backed it. I doubt we will know how much of it was a coup or a popular revolt for many years to come.

Back to Elon, With a new government willing to hand over their Bountiful Lithium deposits, of course Tesla's shares would skyrocket, as per any company that relies on lithium for essentially all of its products.

Regardless, Socialists really know how to stuff it up though.  Venezuela is a disaster, while Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua is making a mess of things and knocking off his opponents these days.

1600's used to be used for rallying if I recall correctly.

Or running into bridges if my sister was driving...

1600's used to be used for rallying if I recall correctly.

Or running into bridges if my sister was driving...

Nissan Navaras have that same problem.

Revolting grub Paul Keating ...

Here we go

The biggest benefactors of our economic relationship with China are hardly likely to vote Labor. The LNP will say what's necessary for domestic consumption but they're not about to do anything to jeopardise trade.

So this enemy of my enemy thing that you have running, who's the main enemy here the ALP or China

You keep saying that its the LNP who benefit most from our relationship with communist China and yet let's look at who actually does what.

On the ALP side of the ledger we have Paul Keating and Bob Carr arguing strenuously for our intelligence services to be dismantled because they aren't sympathetic enough to a totalitarian state; Sam Dastyari kicked out of parliament for tipping off a Chinese billionaire (Huang Xiangmo) that his phone was being monitored by ASIO; NSW Labor tainted by the communist party money coming in via the same billionaire ($100,000 in cash in an Aldi shopping bag), Earnest Wong kicked out of the NSW Labor Party and dis-endorsed from his safe upper house seat because he bought in too much cash from too many suspicious sources. Only recently ICAC in NSW revealing that the Chinese Communist Party's links in NSW Labor were very deep and involved huge amounts of cash - and that there's still lots more revelations to come.

The only comparable thing on the LNP side is the Gladys Liu thing in Victoria - and in fact we have two politicians (Andrew Hastie and James Patterson) banned from going to China because apparently they aren't kow-towing enough to warrant a visa.

Looks to me like the ALP has been the main benefactor of the Chinese Communist Party's largess in Australia, particularly when it comes to Aldi bags loaded with anonymous cash. Maybe that's why Paul Keating is calling for any analysis of our relationship with China to be curtailed. They're good for us - full-stop. And don't you question it or it's racist.

You must have these over- the-top anti Labor rants as copy and paste. Classic misdirection
Your average billionaire doing very well out of trade with China backs the L/NP not Labor. However that sort of influence is far more subtle and effective than the brain explosions of certain party individuals.

Westpac! They save some money not using SWIFT and their substitute transfer systems were pretty basic, however Westpac self reported the issue so what was Austrac doing all this time. How does a bank know what purpose a money transfer is used for? If money is leaving the country for criminal or terrorist purposes where's the AFP and other security agencies? Obviously if they passed this data on to Westpac and their IT systems couldn't cross-check that information then Westpac should have said so.

Turning out to be a very expensive time for Westpac shareholders.

He turned the auto pilot just before hitting the truck, if he didn't see the truck, should auto-pilot?

Another way of looking at it is that he only had the autopilot on for eight seconds before it managed to kill him.

The realistic way to look at it is that he turned autopilot on and took his hands off the wheel within 8 sec of hitting an object that was only a few hundred metres in front of him when he pressed ON, noting you need to follow an object by 2 or 3 sec recommended safety buffer, depending on where you are. Remember Level 3 automation does require Driver supervision and ability to take the wheel at any time.

But the users aren't using it that way are they.

I didn't see ex-Liberal Premiers being given their very own Confucius Institute to run. The only Liberal MP who did something really questionable was Andrew Robb whereas Labor has a cavalcade of leaders and MPs who have been in all sorts of trouble taking Chinese money without question.

Face facts, the Labor Party has rushed headlong into the arms of a communist nation with such gusto and familiarity that really their overall integrity has to be called into question. It might be Liberal Party backers who are winning from the relationship with China but it's the Labor Party that presents the less vigilant option in dealing with a communist state.

And again you just banged out more paragraphs defending the L/NP.

OMG a "cavalcade of leaders and MPs who have been in all sorts of trouble taking Chinese money without question." How many make a "cavalcade". Yes I read some of that supposedly pro-China stuff and it was more about keeping a level head when it comes to China and the cold war mentality that some are fuelling for political advantage.

Apart from rhetoric from certain LNP pollies for domestic consumption there is no way your besties will risk trade with China. The sectors doing quite well from that relationship are hardly known for backing Labor.

So what exactly has the Coalition done to toughen our relationship with China? SFA apart from a backbencher offending the Chinese Government, something which doesn't take much effort at all. In fact it's a rare day the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson isn't giving some western country a dressing down.

But the users aren't using it that way are they.

The accident conditions raise a few alarm bells about the alertness of the driver, I mean he was only a few 100m / few seconds from the truck prior to activating autopilot and removed his hands from the wheel.  Sounds more likely he should not have been behind a wheel in the first place. I actually measured 8sec on a highway yesterday at 140km/h (legal speed), its still not that far, even in medium fog the truck was still visible.

People are not supposed to speed, drink and drive, not wear a seat belt, use a mobile phone, look before turning, tailgate etc etc, but they do. Cars have increasingly level of automation to alert drivers of their poor driving such as lane detection, auto brake etc trying to solve poor driver behavior, auto pilot is part substitution ultimately the solution is elimination. Based on computer chip evolution I believe this is expected 2030-2035, cannot remember, however the development of autopilot by car companies such as Tesla was predicted 30 years ago within an accuracy of a few years (3 years late I believe) purely based on computer chip development rates.

Some world Govt agencies are now looking towards what will it take to make manual driving illegal, not auto driving legal, ie automation testing criteria to band manual driving on certain roads.

The data reported by Tesla is that under Autopilot their vehicles are less likely to be involved in an accident than when not in similar driving conditions, so its coming.

I suppose its like seat belts, one of the arguments many tried to justify their non use of a seat belt and you still see the BS comments in US forums is that seat belts can kill (albeit in very rare circumstances) or have been known to trap people in vehicles after an accident which in some cases was fatal because the car was in water or on fire. Then of course when when they fail on safety they revert to their legal right not to wear a seat belt. I wonder how many funerals ulegies refer to the deceased right to be dead?

Not sure where else to put this but it's outrageous: A truck driver on a bridging visa was refused bail after causing a fatality on Sydney's M5 - ABC;

A truck driver charged over a crash that claimed the life of a young boy has been refused bail after a magistrate described the case against him as "extremely strong".

A 10-year-old boy died at the scene and his sister, 13, was badly injured.

Mr Grewal faces multiple charges, including dangerous driving occasioning death and negligent driving.

Bankstown Local Court today heard Mr Grewal, an Indian national on a bridging visa, was serving a sentence in the community for domestic violence matters.

His driving history includes instances of driving unlicensed, negligent driving, speeding and refusing a breath test.

I really don't understand why someone with that sort of a history in relation to driving was still driving for a living. And on a bridging visa, surely the domestic violence charge should have revoked that; claiming asylum in this country when all he's done is cause havoc since he got here yet he still hadn't been deported. What a joke this country has become.

The data reported by Tesla is that under Autopilot their vehicles are less likely to be involved in an accident than when not in similar driving conditions, so its coming.

Yeah but how many innocent people need to die because they're still developing it - like the Ford Pinto the developers of the self-driving car can never be absolved legally of their supposedly sentient products so they'd better get ready to make sure its absolutely perfect and can react like a human in all and every situation or they'll continue to get sued (rightly so).

Tesla autopilot should be able to tell when a driver is too disengaged and tell them to get the hell back to driving - otherwise they should be sued out of business. Personal responsibility for your product and all that - even by directors.

I suppose its like seat belts, one of the arguments many tried to justify their non use of a seat belt and you still see the BS comments in US forums is that seat belts can kill (albeit in very rare circumstances) or have been known to trap people in vehicles after an accident which in some cases was fatal because the car was in water or on fire. Then of course when when they fail on safety they revert to their legal right not to wear a seat belt. I wonder how many funerals ulegies refer to the deceased right to be dead?

No, I don't agree with that one either. Statistically you're much safer if the restraint keeps you inside the cabin, particularly now-days with the multiple air-bags going off in every direction to help you survive the forces from the crash; you need to remain where these devices can protect you from other people's stupidity (or self-driving cars that are still too dumb to see you).

The data reported by Tesla is that under Autopilot their vehicles are less likely to be involved in an accident than when not in similar driving conditions, so its coming.

Yeah but how many innocent people need to die because they're still developing it - like the Ford Pinto the developers of the self-driving car can never be absolved legally of their supposedly sentient products so they'd better get ready to make sure its absolutely perfect and can react like a human in all and every situation or they'll continue to get sued (rightly so).

Tesla autopilot should be able to tell when a driver is too disengaged and tell them to get the hell back to driving - otherwise they should be sued out of business. Personal responsibility for your product and all that - even by directors.

I suppose its like seat belts, one of the arguments many tried to justify their non use of a seat belt and you still see the BS comments in US forums is that seat belts can kill (albeit in very rare circumstances) or have been known to trap people in vehicles after an accident which in some cases was fatal because the car was in water or on fire. Then of course when when they fail on safety they revert to their legal right not to wear a seat belt. I wonder how many funerals ulegies refer to the deceased right to be dead?

No, I don't agree with that one either. Statistically you're much safer if the restraint keeps you inside the cabin, particularly now-days with the multiple air-bags going off in every direction to help you survive the forces from the crash; you need to remain where these devices can protect you from other people's stupidity (or self-driving cars that are still too dumb to see you).

As we don't know the details of all the crashes we are only speculating the causes. Was the death because of Auto driving or was it because the driver wasn't paying attention? Also, what accidents have been averted while the cars are being driven in auto mode? For example the guy who fell asleep and woke up ~10km later, rather than into a power pole or truck. Again these are the stats we don't have although Tesla has published that in auto pilot mode the accident rate was roughly 50% lower in similar style driving.

Tesla's self-reported quarterly summary statistics for vehicle safety in Q3 2019 [94] reported one accident for every 4.34 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged, compared with one accident for every 1.82 million miles driven for Tesla vehicles driven without Autopilot and without active safety features (NHTSA overall accident rate in the United States is an automobile crash every 0.498 million miles).

What we do know is that while testing, Uber had one car kill a woman while the paid driver was not paying attention and other safety systems of the car were disabled including the auto brake function as part of the testing which wouldn't have stopped the car anyway. However if you have seen the video, you will know the street was very dark, the woman crossing the road was J-walking and its questionable would a human driver done alot better, which is why the driver probably wasn't charged.

All those safety systems we enjoy today didn't magically appear nor where they perfect to start with causing their own injuries and deaths.

I do agree there should be a standard for use of Level 3 and to be honest the full accountability falls on the driver the second you press the ON button. Tesla's own autopilot documentation says its not autonomous driving and requires supervision. Tesla Autopilot Disclaimer

The same could also be said about auto-braking function installed on most newer cars, the car should automatically avoid hitting the car in front under either cruise or manual control. But if auto brake doesn't stop the car, its still the drivers fault and auto brake does not absolve the drivers responsibility of actually using the brake.

Ford Pinto - Re: the safety reputation of the Pinto has been surrounded by controversy. Its fuel-tank design attracted both media and government scrutiny after several deadly fires related to the tanks rupturing during rear-end collisions. A subsequent analysis of the overall safety of the Pinto suggested it was comparable to other 1970s subcompact cars. The safety issues surrounding the Pinto and the subsequent response by Ford have been cited widely as a [color=#0b0080][size=2][font=sans-serif]business ethics[/font][/size][/color] as well as [color=#0b0080][size=2][font=sans-serif]tort reform[/font][/size][/color] case study

As we don't know the details of all the crashes we are only speculating the causes. Was the death because of Auto driving or was it because the driver wasn't paying attention? Also, what accidents have been averted while the cars are being driven in auto mode? For example the guy who fell asleep and woke up ~10km later, rather than into a power pole or truck. Again these are the stats we don't have although Tesla has published that in auto pilot mode the accident rate was roughly 50% lower in similar style driving.

Tesla's self-reported quarterly summary statistics for vehicle safety in Q3 2019 [94] reported one accident for every 4.34 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged, compared with one accident for every 1.82 million miles driven for Tesla vehicles driven without Autopilot and without active safety features (NHTSA overall accident rate in the United States is an automobile crash every 0.498 million miles).

What we do know is that while testing, Uber had one car kill a woman while the paid driver was not paying attention and other safety systems of the car were disabled including the auto brake function as part of the testing which wouldn't have stopped the car anyway. However if you have seen the video, you will know the street was very dark, the woman crossing the road was J-walking and its questionable would a human driver done alot better, which is why the driver probably wasn't charged.

All those safety systems we enjoy today didn't magically appear nor where they perfect to start with causing their own injuries and deaths.

I do agree there should be a standard for use of Level 3 and to be honest the full accountability falls on the driver the second you press the ON button. Tesla's own autopilot documentation says its not autonomous driving and requires supervision. Tesla Autopilot Disclaimer

The same could also be said about auto-braking function installed on most newer cars, the car should automatically avoid hitting the car in front under either cruise or manual control. But if auto brake doesn't stop the car, its still the drivers fault and auto brake does not absolve the drivers responsibility of actually using the brake.

Ford Pinto - Re: the safety reputation of the Pinto has been surrounded by controversy. Its fuel-tank design attracted both media and government scrutiny after several deadly fires related to the tanks rupturing during rear-end collisions. A subsequent analysis of the overall safety of the Pinto suggested it was comparable to other 1970s subcompact cars. The safety issues surrounding the Pinto and the subsequent response by Ford have been cited widely as a [color=#0b0080][size=2][font=sans-serif]business ethics[/font][/size][/color] as well as [color=#0b0080][size=2][font=sans-serif]tort reform[/font][/size][/color] case study

Okay well I've read a few articles recently. One review that I saw that seemed right was that it was really good in conditions like freeways and country highways but then back-roads and unclear lines, the unpredictable behaviour of other drivers etc renders it useless. The problem is that people watch TV on their phones - we know this was a factor in the 2016 death in Florida and the Uber self-driving incident where it killed a pedestrian in Phoenix AZ. In other situations I think the driving conditions were just too difficult for the software/car to deal with and it collided.

Anyway my point is that you're cutting Tesla too much slack - if the device requires driver attention at all times then shouldn't there be a vigilance device like there is for tram/train drivers? "Don't use it like a lazy bastard would"... yeah right!

IN my opinion its the fault of the maker to protect the consumer against their own stupidity, not rely on them to not abuse the device and watch TV.

The courts will decide soon enough.

Ford Pinto - Re: the safety reputation of the Pinto has been surrounded by controversy. Its fuel-tank design attracted both media and government scrutiny after several deadly fires related to the tanks rupturing during rear-end collisions. A subsequent analysis of the overall safety of the Pinto suggested it was comparable to other 1970s subcompact cars. The safety issues surrounding the Pinto and the subsequent response by Ford have been cited widely as a [color=#0b0080][size=2][font=sans-serif]business ethics[/font][/size][/color] as well as [color=#0b0080][size=2][font=sans-serif]tort reform[/font][/size][/color] case study

The point of the Pinto was that Ford executives decided that they would wear the cost of the lawsuits from people burnt almost-to-death rather than bother to recall the vehicle - the court decided that was gross negligence and awarded plaintiffs who had already been burnt hundreds of millions - this was the seventies mind you and there was a real prospect of Ford being sent broke by the lawsuits. Ford changed their policy about recalls quick smart.

The data reported by Tesla is that under Autopilot their vehicles are less likely to be involved in an accident than when not in similar driving conditions, so its coming.

Yeah but how many innocent people need to die because they're still developing it - like the Ford Pinto the developers of the self-driving car can never be absolved legally of their supposedly sentient products so they'd better get ready to make sure its absolutely perfect and can react like a human in all and every situation or they'll continue to get sued (rightly so).

Tesla autopilot should be able to tell when a driver is too disengaged and tell them to get the hell back to driving - otherwise they should be sued out of business. Personal responsibility for your product and all that - even by directors.

I suppose its like seat belts, one of the arguments many tried to justify their non use of a seat belt and you still see the BS comments in US forums is that seat belts can kill (albeit in very rare circumstances) or have been known to trap people in vehicles after an accident which in some cases was fatal because the car was in water or on fire. Then of course when when they fail on safety they revert to their legal right not to wear a seat belt. I wonder how many funerals ulegies refer to the deceased right to be dead?

No, I don't agree with that one either. Statistically you're much safer if the restraint keeps you inside the cabin, particularly now-days with the multiple air-bags going off in every direction to help you survive the forces from the crash; you need to remain where these devices can protect you from other people's stupidity (or self-driving cars that are still too dumb to see you).

As we don't know the details of all the crashes we are only speculating the causes. Was the death because of Auto driving or was it because the driver wasn't paying attention? Also, what accidents have been averted while the cars are being driven in auto mode? For example the guy who fell asleep and woke up ~10km later, rather than into a power pole or truck. Again these are the stats we don't have although Tesla has published that in auto pilot mode the accident rate was roughly 50% lower in similar style driving.

Tesla's self-reported quarterly summary statistics for vehicle safety in Q3 2019 [94] reported one accident for every 4.34 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged, compared with one accident for every 1.82 million miles driven for Tesla vehicles driven without Autopilot and without active safety features (NHTSA overall accident rate in the United States is an automobile crash every 0.498 million miles).

What we do know is that while testing, Uber had one car kill a woman while the paid driver was not paying attention and other safety systems of the car were disabled including the auto brake function as part of the testing which wouldn't have stopped the car anyway. However if you have seen the video, you will know the street was very dark, the woman crossing the road was J-walking and its questionable would a human driver done alot better, which is why the driver probably wasn't charged.

All those safety systems we enjoy today didn't magically appear nor where they perfect to start with causing their own injuries and deaths.

I do agree there should be a standard for use of Level 3 and to be honest the full accountability falls on the driver the second you press the ON button. Tesla's own autopilot documentation says its not autonomous driving and requires supervision. Tesla Autopilot Disclaimer

The same could also be said about auto-braking function installed on most newer cars, the car should automatically avoid hitting the car in front under either cruise or manual control. But if auto brake doesn't stop the car, its still the drivers fault and auto brake does not absolve the drivers responsibility of actually using the brake.

Ford Pinto - Re: the safety reputation of the Pinto has been surrounded by controversy. Its fuel-tank design attracted both media and government scrutiny after several deadly fires related to the tanks rupturing during rear-end collisions. A subsequent analysis of the overall safety of the Pinto suggested it was comparable to other 1970s subcompact cars. The safety issues surrounding the Pinto and the subsequent response by Ford have been cited widely as a [color=#0b0080][size=2][font=sans-serif]business ethics[/font][/size][/color] as well as [color=#0b0080][size=2][font=sans-serif]tort reform[/font][/size][/color] case study

Not sure where else to put this but it's outrageous:

You can't have too much outrage

Perhaps start a thread about Motorists or Migrants. Then start a thread on Smart Vehicles.

None of this has anything to do with this topic.

Not sure where else to put this but it's outrageous:

You can't have too much outrage

Well what do you have to do to get deported from this country, I ask you. This whole bridging visa explosion shows that the entire migration system is terminally broken. I actually met someone once in my welfare days who was claiming asylum from New Zealand and was on a bridging visa - if ever there was a p*ss-take of our system its when people start coming from other developed English-speaking countries and decide to do that.

Perhaps start a thread about Motorists or Migrants. Then start a thread on Smart Vehicles. None of this has anything to do with this topic.

I thought there was an unsaid consensus that we weren't going to start Lounge topics on passing conversations and longer, hence the use of several threads that are regular and very few new threads started.

Shane/RTT Rules, one final post about the Tesla thing. It doesn't matter whether the autopilot was at fault or not if it allows the driver to be so inattentive as to smash - doesn't matter what the manual says. I think in part the kinds of w*nkers who are attracted to the Tesla are also tempted to do completely irresponsible things with the autopilot with scant regard for risk. If your Telsa drives the same route every day safely then why not have a snooze on the way home from work?

There's been three official deaths in the United States where the Telsa autopilot was engaged. The first in Florida 2016 it was apparent that the driver had not been paying attention for some time and witnesses who were first at the crash scene reported that a movie was playing on a tablet; this was the one where the autopilot couldn't distinguish between the sky and a semi-trailer that was taking too long to get across an intersection ahead of the car.

Another crash in California in March this year it was apparent that the software got confused and couldn't discern where a freeway exit was and crashed into a concrete barrier bursting into flames and resulting in a fatality. The third crash also in March this year and also in California was very similar to the first recorded crash in Florida where the rear end of a semi-trailer was too much like the colour of the sky and the car didn't slow down - as we mentioned earlier in this case the autopilot had only been on for eight seconds and obviously the driver wasn't watching.

In all of these cases I'd say that it's a combination of driver inattention and the improper use of the feature - in which case the feature should be disabled before it kills innocent pedestrians like the Uber one did. I've seen that video before too and its hard to discern if a normal driver would have seen that woman and avoided her or not -

Anyway, lets move on from this, I've said all I want to say. Telsa should be sued if the feature allows drivers to do stupid things with it - end of story.

Shane/RTT Rules, one final post about the Tesla thing. It doesn't matter whether the autopilot was at fault or not if it allows the driver to be so inattentive as to smash - doesn't matter what the manual says. I think in part the kinds of w*nkers who are attracted to the Tesla are also tempted to do completely irresponsible things with the autopilot with scant regard for risk. If your Telsa drives the same route every day safely then why not have a snooze on the way home from work?

There's been three official deaths in the United States where the Telsa autopilot was engaged. The first in Florida 2016 it was apparent that the driver had not been paying attention for some time and witnesses who were first at the crash scene reported that a movie was playing on a tablet; this was the one where the autopilot couldn't distinguish between the sky and a semi-trailer that was taking too long to get across an intersection ahead of the car.

Another crash in California in March this year it was apparent that the software got confused and couldn't discern where a freeway exit was and crashed into a concrete barrier bursting into flames and resulting in a fatality. The third crash also in March this year and also in California was very similar to the first recorded crash in Florida where the rear end of a semi-trailer was too much like the colour of the sky and the car didn't slow down - as we mentioned earlier in this case the autopilot had only been on for eight seconds and obviously the driver wasn't watching.

In all of these cases I'd say that it's a combination of driver inattention and the improper use of the feature - in which case the feature should be disabled before it kills innocent pedestrians like the Uber one did. I've seen that video before too and its hard to discern if a normal driver would have seen that woman and avoided her or not -

Anyway, lets move on from this, I've said all I want to say. Telsa should be sued if the feature allows drivers to do stupid things with it - end of story.

...with one exception.

If the car manufacturers can prove that despite all this, the stats still show the overall accident rate is lower with autopilot on than off.

...with one exception.

If the car manufacturers can prove that despite all this, the stats still show the overall accident rate is lower with autopilot on than off.

That will not matter in a court of law, what will matter is the contributory negligence of the device in allowing the driver to doze off.

...with one exception.

If the car manufacturers can prove that despite all this, the stats still show the overall accident rate is lower with autopilot on than off.

That will not matter in a court of law, what will matter is the contributory negligence of the device in allowing the driver to doze off.

IF and thats a big IF, the manufacturer is proven liable. To date no. Even the Uber driver wasn't charged (surprised me).

Tesla won't turn the system off, thats for sure. Tesla can and do monitor their cars live which generated them real time data  on a scale they cannot replicate in normal testing.

There is also so much money to be made by the first company that nailed fully autonomous driving, Level 5, but I think even Level 4 no one will turn it off and I think the govts are tolerate for a few "mistakes" as many govts want their countries to be the first. The UAE for example is pushing very hard and even has laws in place NOW for autonomous driving so that when te first car is available you can use it straight away.

GM - any future Downunder?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivHamhCpcZU