Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

Musk endeavours

The Big Picture Place
Meatyfool
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 243
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:43 am
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126359

Postby Meatyfool » March 20th, 2018, 12:09 pm

Automated cars will not stop deaths on the road. As others have said, the jury as out in this case until the facts are made public.

All drivers know that stopping a car involves thinking distance and braking distance. If someone walks out in front of a human driver nearer to the car than the sum of those distances, there will be an accident. If the pedestrian is "very" near, then they may be in the "kill zone".

The same is equally true of an automated car, with the exception that the "thinking" time will be miniscule in comparison to the human driver. However, this simply reduces the overall stopping distance, and if the pedestrian steps out within that overall distance, there is still going to be an accident. The "kill zone" is still there but much smaller than before.

And here is the rub: if there is a kill zone even for an automated car, how the hell is the standby human driver going to be able to stop the car sooner, when he has to add on his own thinking distance (never mind the "this car is infallible" distance!).

I see no reason to be bothered that this will derail automation, until such time as the evidence is contrary to the above.

Meatyfool..

JamesMuenchen
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 219
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126373

Postby JamesMuenchen » March 20th, 2018, 12:41 pm

Meatyfool wrote: All drivers know that stopping a car involves thinking distance and braking distance. If someone walks out in front of a human driver nearer to the car than the sum of those distances, there will be an accident. If the pedestrian is "very" near, then they may be in the "kill zone".

The same is equally true of an automated car, with the exception that the "thinking" time will be miniscule in comparison to the human driver. However, this simply reduces the overall stopping distance, and if the pedestrian steps out within that overall distance, there is still going to be an accident. The "kill zone" is still there but much smaller than before.

You're only looking at the reactive element, there is also a predictive element. Are automated vehicles as good at recognising when another road-user is (for instance) erratic, distracted or just clearly hasn't seem them, and taking some early actions like slowing down, using the lights/horn, or whatever. I bet they're not.

Meatyfool wrote:
And here is the rub: if there is a kill zone even for an automated car, how the hell is the standby human driver going to be able to stop the car sooner, when he has to add on his own thinking distance (never mind the "this car is infallible" distance!).

By taking control before a pedestrian steps into the car's breaking distance. It may not be always be possible, but surely that is the whole point of the human?

It's true though that we don't know exactly what happened in this case, yet.

odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126382

Postby odysseus2000 » March 20th, 2018, 1:08 pm

The most recent tabular data I can find for the uk indicates substantial Year/Year declines, but sadly still over 3 deaths per day on uk roads:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sv/preview

There is much more recent data, but I could not find yearly tables.

If machines are, as Musk claims for 1st generation devices, 50% better than humans & over 100 % better for the current system, the case for machine driving is overwhelming. Reducing the 3 deaths per day & 27,000 injuries per year is well worth having.

But it all comes down to practice. Do machines fail for as yet unknown/unexpected reasons? Each accident will have to be investigated & results over many examined.

Imho machines will soon be driving, but until the data supports this we are in a test phase & that will take time.

Regards,

JamesMuenchen
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 219
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126390

Postby JamesMuenchen » March 20th, 2018, 1:21 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:The most recent tabular data I can find for the uk indicates substantial Year/Year declines, but sadly still over 3 deaths per day on uk roads:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sv/preview

There is much more recent data, but I could not find yearly tables.

If machines are, as Musk claims for 1st generation devices, 50% better than humans & over 100 % better for the current system, the case for machine driving is overwhelming. Reducing the 3 deaths per day & 27,000 injuries per year is well worth having.

Surely the important measurement should be not deaths per day, but deaths per distance travelled?
The chart here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States#Traffic_safety_compared_to_other_nations_by_traveled_distance
shows it as less than 10/billion KM

There's now been at least 2 deaths involving Teslas on autopilot, so their ratio must be very much higher.

odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126425

Postby odysseus2000 » March 20th, 2018, 2:15 pm

Tesla in November of 2016 had 1.3 billion miles on autopilot:

https://electrek.co/2016/11/13/tesla-au ... g-program/

If there have been two deaths then that is >0.650 billion miles per death, and since Nov of 2016 many more miles have been driven and if one converts miles to km then better still.

If I understand the 10/billion km, that is 1 death every 0.1 billion km, substantially worse, assuming I have understood what the units mean.

My guess is that politicians will focus on total deaths and accidents and skip the miles travelled, although the miles travelled per accident is perhaps more useful.

Regards,

JamesMuenchen
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 219
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126431

Postby JamesMuenchen » March 20th, 2018, 2:24 pm

To be clear, those are not miles driven on Autopilot (with Autosteer and TACC), but miles driven in cars with Autopilot first generation hardware. Tesla still uses the data even when the Autopilot is not active in order to feed its machine learning system and improve its Autopilot programs: Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot, and Full Self-Driving Capability.

The actual number of miles driven with the Autopilot active is closer to 300 million miles at this point.

odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126450

Postby odysseus2000 » March 20th, 2018, 3:16 pm

To be clear, those are not miles driven on Autopilot (with Autosteer and TACC), but miles driven in cars with Autopilot first generation hardware. Tesla still uses the data even when the Autopilot is not active in order to feed its machine learning system and improve its Autopilot programs: Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot, and Full Self-Driving Capability.

The actual number of miles driven with the Autopilot active is closer to 300 million miles at this point.


Yes, it all gets rather confusing with claim & counter claim.

One of the conference calls discussed something along the theme of Tesla collected data compared to Google data arguing that Tesla had many more learning miles than Google.

Added to this is the relative affluence of a Tesla drivers compared to an average driver & whether this is skewing the results if the premise of affluence equals more intelligence & common sense holds true.

We can discuss for a long time the data, but the reality is that road accidents kill a lot of people & anything that can reduce them will be smiled upon by the politicians. Whether the 0.65 billion miles per death is a likely reality or wishfully thinking will not be clarrified till (if) self driving cars become common.

Regards,

odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126498

Postby odysseus2000 » March 20th, 2018, 6:02 pm

Some initial commentary on the fatal Uber crash:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/1714 ... ult-police

Regards,

woolly
Lemon Pip
Posts: 52
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 10:21 am
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126649

Postby woolly » March 21st, 2018, 9:15 am

A good take on autonomous driving fatalities here: https://www.macobserver.com/columns-opi ... echnology/

Basically the author is saying auto driving tech should be classed with nuclear, hospital tech, etc in that even one fatal mistake is one too many.

Judging by the number of Range Rovers, Bentleys and other expensive cars I see hurtling down the overtaking lane in excess of 90mph regardless of conditions I'm not sure
if the premise of affluence equals more intelligence & common sense holds true

odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#126673

Postby odysseus2000 » March 21st, 2018, 10:59 am

Judging by the number of Range Rovers, Bentleys and other expensive cars I see hurtling down the overtaking lane in excess of 90mph regardless of conditions I'm not sure


Yes, there is the counter argument that the social classes who can afford expensive motors contain some of the most impatient & aggressive drivers. The advent of tracking logs may alter this, but Buffett was noting how texting while driving was pushing up his insurance payouts may affect all drivers.

Dunno it's all very complicated but the loss of life on the roads is a tragedy that it would be good to reduce significantly.

A

odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#127803

Postby odysseus2000 » March 24th, 2018, 3:59 pm


odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#128311

Postby odysseus2000 » March 27th, 2018, 2:04 pm

Tesla stock near bottom of 5 month range. Lots of conflicting stories on model 3, but if they can make them in volume, stock price can rally.

https://twitter.com/0_ody/status/978617428321153024

Regards,

paullidd
Lemon Pip
Posts: 99
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 12:31 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#128484

Postby paullidd » March 28th, 2018, 6:35 am

Elon Musk and SpaceX look to buy old US shipyard on LA coast for building Mars rockets.
[url]
http://splash247.com/elon-musk-plans-cl ... sion-mars/[/url]

odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#128509

Postby odysseus2000 » March 28th, 2018, 9:53 am

Interesting video showing the performance of motion eye & other systems compared to the uber system that was involved in the fatal crash (warning, shows the fatal crash):

https://youtu.be/QCCmqosHT-o

Regards,

JamesMuenchen
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 219
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#128526

Postby JamesMuenchen » March 28th, 2018, 10:30 am

odysseus2000 wrote:Interesting video showing the performance of motion eye & other systems compared to the uber system that was involved in the fatal crash (warning, shows the fatal crash):

https://youtu.be/QCCmqosHT-o

Regards,

In the footage of the fatal crash (around 9:24 in the vid), the victims dark jumper blends with the shadow on the road. I wonder if this could also be the cause of the problem for the sensors? To the eye at least, you just see a bicycle and legs. Obviously, I would say it should still stop rather drive into a bicycle, but just musing.

odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#129181

Postby odysseus2000 » March 31st, 2018, 2:02 pm

TESLA motivational speech to employees:

Tesla Asks for Model 3 Factory Volunteers to Prove ‘Haters’ Wrong - Bloomberg
https://apple.news/ApqOjC_zRRiCAYedj6pZ-tg

Kind of interesting that management are using these statements to motivate model 3 production. CLEARLY it is no go see smoothly, but they do seem to be making more.

Regards,

Itsallaguess
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2189
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 416 times
Been thanked: 1064 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#129198

Postby Itsallaguess » March 31st, 2018, 3:22 pm

Some details here regarding a fatal Tesla crash on 23rd March -

Electric carmaker Tesla says a vehicle involved in a fatal crash in California was in Autopilot mode, raising further questions about the safety of self-driving technology.

One of the company's Model X cars crashed into a roadside barrier and caught fire on 23 March.

Tesla says the 38-year-old driver, who died shortly afterwards, had activated Autopilot moments before the accident.

But they did not say whether the system had detected the concrete barrier.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43604440

Difficult to say, but judging from the photo in the above article, the concrete barrier looks to be of the 'lane-splitter' variety, and it seems to have been a real issue for the autopilot to judge correctly.

That seems to be corroborated in the following online article too, which discusses a very similar, earlier situation that a Tesla car had difficulty with -

Shaun Price, Director of Science for an environmental startup, drove us to the crash scene in his Tesla Model X.

"I mean, you have to think like a computer, right?," Price told Dan Noyes. "A computer doesn't know, it has no logic, so if it sees a line, it might think that's a lane."

And that raises so many issues. CalTrans has already started improving the infrastructure to accommodate automation, such as wider lane stripes in some places.

"We can imagine a day where all of our cars are in automated mode going down the road and they all fail at the same place on the freeway," Says Jim McPherson. "That raises the question at what point is CalTrans responsible to fix the road to accommodate automation."


http://abc7news.com/automotive/exclusiv ... e/3284757/

I shudder to think of the costs that might be involved to bring the majority of the major arterial routes in the UK up to a standard good enough for auto-pilot cars to travel large distances here.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

odysseus2000
Lemon Slice
Posts: 653
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#129232

Postby odysseus2000 » March 31st, 2018, 9:32 pm

Yes, the whole autominous driving future is not holding up that well in practice.

Musk had said that a Tesla would drive itself from coast to coast across the US by the end of 2017, but it didn't happen and we have had the Uber crash where it is difficult to understand why the system didn't respond. Sure it might not have saved the pedestrian's life but unless I have misunderstood the timing there was a second or so before impact which to these systems is a lot of time.

Difficult also to understand how the system missed the concrete in latest Tesla fatality. The concrete wasn't moving and there seems no reason why it didn't see it but there is also the wonder as to why the driver put the auto pilot on just before the crash and whether there was some start up glitch that caused the accident.

There will be exhaustive research on all of these tragedies and this might throw up some understanding, but it begins to look like the systems currently deployed have flaws. It may be that such flaws can not be engineered out and one then has to make a decision based on the grim business of whether computers or people kill and injury the least number of people and develop the legal frame work for handling computer incidents. In my experience of using software to find signals in noise I always found that getting 100% was very hard. One could get close but there was often something that happened and even after many iterations there were still new features in the data that lead to erroneous false negative and false positives. The numbers I was working on were too many for a single person and one had to use computers and overall the algorithms were very good, but when its lives they have to be 100% reliable only wrong when circumstances are beyond any intervention.

The data suggests, for the moment, that we are some unacceptable way from that and that many of the statements on machine driving are hype. Would like to be proved wrong and might be, but for now I am leaning towards believing that the systems will need to be improved and that perhaps it may be impossible to prevent all machine mistakes putting the ball in the politicians court as to what they will allow.

Regards,

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2100
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#129241

Postby BobbyD » April 1st, 2018, 1:12 am

woolly wrote:Basically the author is saying auto driving tech should be classed with nuclear, hospital tech, etc in that even one fatal mistake is one too many.


Presumably we apply the same test to human driven cars?

As a pedestrian I'm not that bothered about what flavour of car kills me, but if the situation could be avoided altogether I'd very much appreciate it, even if some other poor sod is still run over elsewhere and if the situations are reversed I'm sure he would think the same and I wouldn't begrudge him his survival.

odysseus2000 wrote:Yes, the whole autominous driving future is not holding up that well in practice.

Musk had said that a Tesla would drive itself from coast to coast across the US by the end of 2017, but it didn't happen and we have had the Uber crash where it is difficult to understand why the system didn't respond.


Not for Tesla whose system is closer to an overdeveloped cruise control than an autonomous vehicle or UBER who have just settled a stolen IP claim from Waymo for $245 million... any reason other, arguably more reputable, players' systems should be considered suspect?

Coast to coast is so 2015, atleast that's when Delphi, now APTIV, did it with 99% autonomous control.

More conjecture on the UBER fatality:

- https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/2 ... lind_spot/

They appear to have been trying to do it on the cheap, I thought the days of the single rotating LIDAR were restricted to the history books.

odysseus2000 wrote:There will be exhaustive research on all of these tragedies and this might throw up some understanding, but it begins to look like the systems currently deployed have flaws. It may be that such flaws can not be engineered out and one then has to make a decision based on the grim business of whether computers or people kill and injury the least number of people and develop the legal frame work for handling computer incidents.


Grim how? 1.3 million people die on the roads every year. The decision to introduce technology which reduces that isn't grim, it would be a substantial achievement. And that's just accounting for those killed directly by automobiles. Autonomous cars don't have to be anywhere close to perfect to be a substantial improvement on human drivers.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2247
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 1204 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#129446

Postby dspp » April 2nd, 2018, 11:34 am

A somewhat thoughtful piece on Tesla

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/04 ... italism%29

at this rate they'll be saying that someone with a red flag needs to walk in front :)

good luck to Tesla.

regards, dspp


Return to “Macro and Global Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest