Tesla's Autopilot Mode Reportedly Saves Pedestrian's Life (electrek.co) 219
An anonymous reader writes: Following reports of Tesla's Autopilot mode being linked to a fatal crash, one Tesla Model S owner is reporting that the Autopilot mode has likely saved a pedestrian's life. The driver sent an email to Elon Musk explaining the situation, which was confirmed by Tesla through the vehicle logs: "I wanted to let you know that I think my car probably saved the life of a pedestrian last night, 7/16 around 10:30pm when I was driving in Washington DC with my daughter." The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from "when a pedestrian stepped out in front of [their] Model S in the dark with dark clothes and in the middle of the road." The car slammed on its breaks before he could and "stopped just inches from hitting the pedestrian." The driver said, "I am not sure if I would have been able to stop before hitting him but I am so glad the car did." The Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), which is standard on all Tesla vehicles and is part of Tesla's Autopilot mode, is what was at work here. It appears that many of the convenience features of Autopilot were not activated at the time of the incident. This is likely the first of many good press stories released by Elon Musk, who said he would consider releasing the stories of accidents prevented by the Autopilot mode with the authorization of the Tesla owners and by confirming the events through the vehicle logs. Elon Musk did also announce Tesla's 'Master Plan, Part Deux,' which includes new kinds of Tesla vehicles, expanded solar initiatives, updates on Tesla's 'autopilot' technology, and a ride-sharing program.
The driver says him and his daughter (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How is the Tesla's grammar? Hopefully better than that of this article's writer.
Elon Musk is still missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from "when a pedestrian stepped out in front of [their] Model S in the dark with dark clothes and in the middle of the road." The car slammed on its breaks before he could and "stopped just inches from hitting the pedestrian." The driver said, "I am not sure if I would have been able to stop before hitting him but I am so glad the car did." The Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), which is standard on all Tesla vehicles and is part of Tesla's Autopilot mode, is what was at work here. It appears that many of the convenience features of Autopilot were not activated at the time of the incident.
So what happened is the driver was driving the vehicle, a situation happened for which he was unprepared but was a probable accident, and the AI took over and prevented the accident.
Almost no one is complaining about this scenario, and if I recall other car companies have deployed something similar and it's a decent first step towards autonomous vehicles.
The problem with the "autopilot" is it essentially allows the AI to do all of the driving, meaning the human invariably stops paying attention and the AI becomes almost exclusively responsible for driving safely.
Its great that the AI is good enough that it prevented this accident, it still doesn't make the pseudo self-driving mode a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
he problem with the "autopilot" is it essentially allows the AI to do all of the driving, meaning the human invariably stops paying attention
Invariably? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the "autopilot" is it essentially allows the AI to do all of the driving, meaning the human invariably stops paying attention
Invariably? Really?
Actually, yes -- pretty much. Or rather, I wouldn't say "stops paying attention" -- more like "reduces attention to driving and redirects significant attention toward secondary tasks." There are a number of studies out there which show this already happens even with basic cruise control and has been measured in a lot of different ways (attention to other tasks, increased reaction time, etc.). Now introduce a system where even less attention is required, and the vast majority of people will significantly r
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Besides, isn't Tesla Autopilot only supposed to be enabled on highways? In that case, where did the pedestrian came from?
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is confusing Autopilot and automatic braking, which many cars have and is a separate function that you can't normally disable. In fact it will be mandatory on all new cars in the EU and I believe the US soon.
This is nothing to do with Autopilot or self-driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you say is true - but I would argue that what is important are the actual results. If the number of lives saved by the current implementation of the Autopilot system is greater than the number of deaths it causes, then surely we're better off with it - even if some of the deaths are the result of boneheaded behaviour by clueless inattentive drivers who are mistakenly assuming it is driving the car for them.
At the moment there are only a few high-profile stories from both sides of the fence (like
Human attention (Score:2)
The problem with the "autopilot" is it essentially allows the AI to do all of the driving, meaning the human invariably stops paying attention and the AI becomes almost exclusively responsible for driving safely.
That's certainly a concern though I think perhaps an overblown one. There might be an "uncanny valley" between crude automation like Tesla's technology and fully automated driving where people have a hard time maintaining concentration. The jury is still out on this but it's a possibly failure mode worth considering even if it turns out to be a non issue ultimately.
On the other hand I have had cruise control in my car for decades and when I engage it I actually seem to pay more attention which is kind of
Question about the logs (Score:3)
Do all the logs go to Tesla automatically or does the company only go fetch them after an accident (or when someone writes in with a report like this and implicitly gives their permission to access the information)? If everything gets sent to Tesla there are huge privacy implications. They know what stores you go to and how often, your habits, and many other things that can be determined by your driving habits. They could probably make a fair bit of money selling that information to advertisers.
Re:Question about the logs (Score:4, Informative)
Note that this is opt-in. When you purchase a Tesla, one of the forms they ask you to sign gives them permission to collect this data. You can decline to sign it, which will result in much of the online functionality of the car being disabled, but it doesn't stop the purchase and you can still use the car as a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like almost every other manufacturer's (Score:3)
eeek (Score:2)
>"The driver says him and his daughter were trying"
Him was? Eeek... who wrote this???
Re: (Score:2)
Autopilot? Or Auto Braking (Score:2)
No 2 month delay to announce good news (Score:2)
AEB != Autopilot (Score:3)
If you turn off autopilot mode on or off it has no effect on AEB. AEB is always on by default and can only be temporarily disabled.
They are advertised as logically separate features to the end user.
Re: Wow... (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't it interesting how a bad thing like an accident with autopilot turned on is the drivers fault, but a good thing is the software's fault. You can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CAN I GET THE CAR THAT SPIES ON ME? (Score:2)
NOW?!
Re:CAN I GET THE CAR THAT SPIES ON ME? (Score:4, Informative)
"The car slammed on its breaks before he could and "stopped just inches from hitting the pedestrian"
"Brakes". The word is "brakes".
Cars have brakes.
Not "breaks" (a verb), not "breeks" (Scottish trousers), "brakes".
Re: (Score:2)
"Breaks" can also be used as a noun in slang, as in "them's the breaks". But yeah, it's grating whenever I see "breaks" used when "brakes" was proper.
Re: (Score:2)
Break isn't just slang. It can mean a pause in work, or a fracture.
Re:CAN I GET THE CAR THAT SPIES ON ME? (Score:5, Funny)
GP was referring to use as a noun.
I don't think this discussion is for you.
Re: Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it is mostly the pedestrians fault, according to the way the story reads. Both parties may have been semi-distracted, but the pedestrian only has the right of way under certain circumstances, as detailed below. From what data we have available the pedestrian walked out in front of the vehicle with only enough room for computer assisted braking to save him from being struck.
Pedestrians only have the right of way:
by almost, if not all laws written, 1: in a marked cross walk ( convenient how this is left off in the quote all the time, no? ) and 2: only when it is safe for them to cross.
For number 2, many states have it written into the lawbooks that pedestrians who dart out in front of cars when the driver does not have an adequate and reasonable means of stopping have given up their right of way, and have actually committed a cite-able violation themselves. Many times, also, crossing outside of marked crosswalks is "at will" as well, with absolutely no expectation of having a right of way.
Re: Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think that's the driver's fault. The pedestrian essentially darted out into traffic, not giving enough time for a human driver to react. However the autopilot, which presumably has a quicker response time, was able to react without driver intervention.
Now, had the pedestrian gone through a crosswalk and had there been roadsigns to notify the driver as such, but the driver was relying on autopilot and the pedestrian got hit? Driver's fault.
And yes, you can have it both ways here. Why? Because it is made pretty clear that autopilot is more of a convenience and in the right circumstances it can correct driver error (including errors made by other drivers and pedestrians,) but at the same time it is not intended to be a replacement for an actual driver, nor is it ever advertised as such. This means that ultimately you, the driver, are responsible for correcting the autopilot, but the autopilot is not responsible for correcting you.
Re: Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's the driver's fault.
In most countries you'd be wrong. Driving to conditions means taking into account the ability for someone to dart out into traffic and slowing down to a point where you can see unexpected events with enough notice to safely stop. This is why driving the speed limit is not a legal defense when hitting a pedestrian.
That said it's not nearly as bad as people here make out. There's a big sliding scale between the perfectly safe driver and the horrendously dangerous one, and we can't really expect everyone to always be perfect in every situation. But in many countries the driver would be at fault.
Re: Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Practically speaking, that would mean an implicit speed limit of 10mph or less anywhere there's on-curb parking. Even at 10mph (15 feet per second), if someone walks out in front of you a car length ahead, you're still pretty likely to hit them.
Re: (Score:2)
Practically speaking, that would mean an implicit speed limit of 10mph or less anywhere there's on-curb parking.
Yep.
Re: Wow... (Score:4, Informative)
Practically speaking, that would mean an implicit speed limit of 10mph or less anywhere there's on-curb parking.
Yep.
And yet, that is not the standard. Perhaps you are confused about the standard. Pedestrians do have responsibilities. Even in Santa Cruz, where pedestrians have the right of way outside of crosswalks, if a pedestrian suddenly steps out in front of a vehicle somewhere other than a crosswalk (where you are pretty much always religiously at fault unless you have a protected light, and even then you are expected to exercise caution) then they are at fault. You may be called upon to prove this as the driver, so you should have a dashcam... welcome to Russia, comrade.
But no, you are totally off your nut about driving speeds. We set them to 25 to reduce speeds in a collision with a pedestrian, and have recently mandated that vehicles should accomodate pedestrians in a crash, so the hoods and fenders have been redesigned not to kill them as easily. Unless you have a reasonable expectation that someone is about to step in front of your car, the speed limit in such areas is still whatever is posted. If they wanted a lower speed limit, they'd post one.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, had the pedestrian gone through a crosswalk and had there been roadsigns to notify the driver as such, but the driver was relying on autopilot and the pedestrian got hit? Driver's fault.
The signs are not necessarily a legal requirement. Drivers are required to observe and obey lines even when signs are not present; they can be damaged or destroyed and thus rendered illegible.
Some cities actually make it the driver's responsibility even when a pedestrian is not in a crosswalk. Santa Cruz, CA is one of those. It's an annoyance that pedestrians just cross anywhere (a lot less now actually since scruz has been gentrified to shit; most of the people who did that can't afford to live there any m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You will notice, if you click the link, that the entire basis for this story is an email from someone named "Larry". Show of hands: who thinks Elon Musk is above having a staffer make up this email or making it up himself? Tesla stock has been bouncing up and down in a mostly flat range for a year now, since his cars have become a regular sight on the roads. He needs this to take off, and the poor fit and finish and cheap interio
Re: Wow... (Score:2, Informative)
Well, given how many cars are on the road and the millions of daily miles - he doesn't need to make up shit like this.
I drive a car (totally different brand) that also features emergency warnings/braking. When merging onto a high speed Road here I briefly checked my blind spot, while a car in front merging had for no reason suddenly slammed on his breaks. Only because of that emergency system did I not rear end him.
That was with only a few thousand miles of owning this car.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla does not have a good record of repeat customers, either. People who buy a new car every year are not buying a second Tesla.
I call bullshit. While standing in line to reserve a model 3 in Denver, I was surrounded by Model S owners or extended family of an S owner, and a few Leaf owners. I saw a Roadster drive by, presumably looking for a parking space. From that experience, my wag is 10%, maybe 15%, were repeat customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Your anecdote is not borne out by data.
Re: (Score:2)
Made up or not, it's misleading to attribute to this Autopilot. Musk should state clearly that AP was turned off and this is just the normal automatic braking / collision avoidance that virtually all cars in that price bracket have. In fact, in a few years it will be mandatory on all new cars sold in the EU, and by the 2020s all new cars sold in the US. It's absolutely nothing special.
Re: (Score:3)
Show of hands: who thinks Elon Musk is above having a staffer make up this email or making it up himself?
I think they're too smart to do something like that. The probability of it being found out is low, but the PR damage caused by such fraud would be extreme. On balance, the expected risk of such a move is way too high. Plus, there's every reason to expect they have received some emails like this.
Tesla does not have a good record of repeat customers
Cite?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So a pedestrian wearing all black at night who hides in the bushes and throws themselves at cars, it's till 100% the driver's fault? You live in a messed up place, wherever that is.
If a pedestrian literally attempts to commit suicide by car, there is nowhere in the world the driver is at fault... now, prove it. There are lots of places where the assumption of fault is on the driver. I come from one; Santa Cruz, CA. If you hit a pedestrian anywhere in the city limits you are basically at fault unless you have some good video showing that they really hurled themselves beneath your vehicle. This is above and beyond the usual Californian standard of being automatically at fault if you hit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and anyone hit from behind is never at fault. The simplistic generalizations are right only barely more than wrong, so much so, they aren't very useful.
What's useful is a dash cam. Now soliciting ideas for which one to buy that doesn't suck. Will wire it in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Public Admission of Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
If I drove like a moronic asshat, and nearly killed some innocent person, only to be saved by a computer, I might not admit it so publically. Especially when the police and the DMV read the internet.
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
You need to recalibrate your scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Not hearing an electric car
I think you hit the nail on the head right there. Even digital cameras still made the shutter snap noise when they came out.
Re:Public Admission of Stupidity (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the shutter snap sound in digital cameras was optional when they first came out. It was only until enough women complained about men surreptitiously taking upskirt pictures that the sound was made mandatory.
I can see the value in adding some kind of noise to an electric vehicle, particularly for the visually impaired. This pedestrian, however, did not follow the exceedingly simple rule we all learn as children: look both ways. But to err is human, and walking into a street before actually looking is something we've all probably done. Momentarily averting your eyes from the road directly in front of you is something I know we've all done. So semi-autonomous driving saves the day, and no one has to be labeled an inattentive jerk.
Perhaps the noise added to electric cars could be something pleasant or natural sounding. A particular bird song or something. Is that a nuthatch or an electric car? I should look both ways just in case.
Re: (Score:3)
The sound isn't mandatory.
I have my phone in silent mode, all the time.
Never hear the shutter at all.
Re:Public Admission of Stupidity (Score:4, Interesting)
The sound isn't mandatory.
The sound is mandatory in Japan and Korea.
1. Women there are more likely to wear skirts.
2. Men there are are more likely to be perverts.
3. Crowded trains and elevators offer many photo ops.
Re: (Score:2)
It is mandatory in many countries. Certain models of phones sold in certain places will make this shutter sound regardless if your phone is in silent mode or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the noise added to electric cars could be something pleasant or natural sounding.
You've never heard a Tesla have you? They still make noise and you can hear them about as well as any other small car in a city street. The difference is they don't make a loud noise when accelerating but many cars cruising down a city street are just as quiet, or rather as noisy since the majority you hear is road noise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're riding shotgun then they should just fire a shotgun.
At a horse's gallop pace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Public Admission of Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but since it was 10:30 at night one might figure the person might have seen the headlights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go stand in front of a Lexus LS460 at a steady 55 mph. You'll not he
Re: (Score:2)
This is even true of my 14-year old pickup with a 4.8L gas engine and 135,000+ miles on it. From 20 feet away, practically all you hear of the engine is the fan. Standing at the rear, you can hear a low rumble from the exhaust, but you have to be right on top of it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is even true of my 14-year old pickup with a 4.8L gas engine and 135,000+ miles on it. From 20 feet away, practically all you hear of the engine is the fan. Standing at the rear, you can hear a low rumble from the exhaust, but you have to be right on top of it.
What I don't get is why that's not enough. If I don't have headphones on (at which point I become paranoid and look around a lot) I can hear the tires coming in time to not be in the road in most cases. Only on a crowded street with lots of sources of noise is that not the case.
OTOH I bet I can hear the exhaust of your pickup from the front and 20 feet away. Hell, I can hear the exhaust of my Audi from a lot further, and it's stupid quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which means you've never heard a Lexus LS drive at speed. Hint: It's a luxury car; it's quite quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not hearing an electric car
I think you hit the nail on the head right there. Even digital cameras still made the shutter snap noise when they came out.
There's some noise coming closer on the street - but since it doesn't sound like a internal combustion motor, I'll just run on the street without looking. It's not like even a bicycle or a skateboarder could kill me.
Re:Public Admission of Stupidity (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw this happen in broad daylight. A woman started crossing in a crosswalk the instant the light turned green for the cars, thus blocking them. There were only cars in the right lane and a car approached the left lane and continued (since he had a green light) and the woman stepped out in front of him and got hit. The driver stopped and the lady was taken away in an ambulance. In this case I'd blame the woman since she crossed when the crosswalk said "don't walk" and there is no way the driver could have seen her.
A few months later I was driving home late at night and the same thing happened. A person wearing dark clothing waited until the signal said "don't walk" and I waited for the idiot to cross. Another car came through in the other lane and the guy missed getting creamed by only a few inches. Again, the light had been green for some time and the idiot waited until just after the cross light turned red like he had a death wish. Too many times I've seen stupid pedestrians crossing when it's not safe to do so.
Also, as a driver I too would be distracted by sirens, trying to find the source of them. No driver can look ahead all the time, i.e. checking the mirrors. If someone claims that they're always looking ahead they're either lying or a really bad driver.
Re: (Score:2)
No driver can look ahead all the time
There is a concept called driving to conditions. If your attention is split then the speed limit or the speed you were doing when attentive is no longer the safe speed.
The driver in most countries is liable if they hit a pedestrian. The exception to this rule is when the pedestrian has an express requirement to stop (i.e. a red light). A pedestrian suddenly appearing is no defense. They don't suddenly appear, if they do, you were driving too fast for the conditions and visibility.
Re: (Score:2)
The driver in most countries is liable if they hit a pedestrian. The exception to this rule is when the pedestrian has an express requirement to stop (i.e. a red light).
That's all a lot of bollocks. In most countries, a driver is only liable if they hit a pedestrian when the pedestrian is someplace they are meant to be. In some cities, a driver is liable if they hit a pedestrian pretty much anywhere. In most places, a driver is at fault if they hit a pedestrian in a crossing, but if they hit them somewhere else then there is no automatic assignation of fault.
A pedestrian suddenly appearing is no defense. They don't suddenly appear, if they do, you were driving too fast for the conditions and visibility.
This is generally true, but stating generalities as if they were hard and fast rules is usually a massive failure. A
Re: (Score:3)
Years ago I was driving home at night after a movie. I had just hit the outskirts of town where the streetlights and such had ended when all of a sudden something ran out from the side of the road and stopped right in front of me. I hit the brakes and stopped within a foot of a young woman who had crouched down with her hands over her eyes.
When she looked up she started screaming at me: "Why didn't you hit me!? Why didn't you hit me!?" I looked at her -- she was crying, and her face was black and blue.
I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
you do know that electric cars are almost silent, especially at low speeds, right? you might as well blame the driver for not hearing the pedestrian walking.
Re:Public Admission of Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
you do know that electric cars are almost silent, especially at low speeds, right?
Yeah, and they are also invisible, at least at low speeds.Holy fuck, don't they teach looking both ways before crossing the streets where you live? Hint: that's not just for kids.
Even apes do it . http://blogs.discovermagazine.... [discovermagazine.com]
Driving like an asshat... (Score:2)
Re:Public Admission of Stupidity (Score:5, Informative)
As a driver, you're obligated to pull over and make way for emergency vehicles, so it's naturally to look for the source of sirens as a driver. We're often required to divert our eyes and look behind us or to the side at times as well, even when driving in normal circumstances. Humans can't focus in all directions at once. Moreover, it's more or less impossible for a person to be 100% focused and ready to brake at an instant's notice.
Accusing him of not looking where he was going is more or less accusing him of not having eyes in the back of his head.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans can't focus in all directions at once.
We can't. We're also obligated to drive to conditions so while we're darting eyes in all directions at once we should also be slowing down and moving in the pre-taught direction regardless of where the siren is coming from. Yes he won't have eyes in the back of his head, but at the same time that is no reason to hit a pedestrian.
But agree no one is perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
It is likely this guy was blowing down the road in autopilot when he should have had control of his car. Given that the Tesla isn't made to respond to em
Re: (Score:3)
The admission of the driver was that he wasn't looking where he was going.
The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from "when a pedestrian stepped out in front of [their] Model S in the dark with dark clothes and in the middle of the road."
So you are saying that drivers should just ignore sirens.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand here you are posting under a real username while looking like a moronic asshat who can't even read summaries correctly. Ironic!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
speaking as one who has been hit twice as a pedestrian I'd like to let you know that it's actually very easy to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I know many people haven't actually walked on the earth, outside of their cars or a building in decades, but I'd like to let you know that it's actually very hard to "step in front of" a moving car.
You say that, and yet I've seen it happen. Perhaps you need to get out more. Given it happened at night where someone in dark clothes was jaywalking in front of a car, one could guess that the pedestrian was drunk, or otherwise distracted (perhaps playing pokemon or something).
How long until, knowing their car's auto brake capability, people drive even faster and pay even less attention?
It happened with ABS and airbags. People felt safer, so they went faster.
Evidence? (Score:2)
It happened with ABS and airbags. People felt safer, so they went faster.
Got any evidence to back that assertion up? Personally I've never heard of anyone saying some permutation of "yeah, I've got ABS and an airbag so I'm invulnerable now". Show me some statistics that demonstrate a significant increase in accidents attributable to ABS and/or airbags.
Re: (Score:2)
It happened with ABS and airbags. People felt safer, so they went faster.
Got any evidence to back that assertion up? Personally I've never heard of anyone saying some permutation of "yeah, I've got ABS and an airbag so I'm invulnerable now". Show me some statistics that demonstrate a significant increase in accidents attributable to ABS and/or airbags.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.g... [dot.gov]
ABS has close to a zero net effect on fatal crash involvements. Fatal run-off-road crashes of passenger cars increased by a statistically significant 9 percent (90% confidence bounds: 3% to 15% increase), offset by a significant 13-percent reduction in fatal collisions with pedestrians (confidence bounds: 5% to 20%) and a significant 12-percent reduction in collisions with other vehicles on wet roads (confidence bounds: 3% to 20%).
ABS does not increase driver agressiveness (Score:2)
Very interesting report and thanks for sharing. However that report explicitly states that ABS had no measurable effect on the aggressiveness of driver. From the report: "The research, in fact, did not identify any significant problems with ABS other than owners’ initial lack of knowledge and experience with the systems. There was little evidence of any behaviors that would cause drivers of vehicles equipped with ABS to run off the road. There was also little evidence that drivers became more aggres
Re: Evidence? (Score:2)
The poster is referring to risk compensation. Multiple studies show that with the introduction of abs brakes people follow more closely. Similar things are observed with seat belts and some people argue w bike helmets. Check out the examples section of the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Interestingly people may actually be pretty good at the risk evaluation since the fatal accidents are still reduced even w the increase in risky behaviors.
Not conclusive (Score:2)
The poster is referring to risk compensation.
I'm aware of that fact. However he provided no evidence that conclusively demonstrated that it was a factor. It's a seemingly logical inference but the evidence for it seems to be generally lacking.
Multiple studies show that with the introduction of abs brakes people follow more closely.
There are plenty of studies which indicate that it has no measurable effect on driver aggressiveness including one [dot.gov] conducted by the NTHSA provided by one of the other slashdot readers. I consider the NTHSA a reliable source on this matter but even if the others are reliable as well, which one am I to believe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tesla's Autopilot isn't auto-pilot either.
It's collision avoidance, radar cruise control and lane-keep-assist.
Lots of new cars have all of those as options, but they don't let the driver take their hands off wheel.
Re: Collision avoidance, not autopilot (Score:2)
Tesla's autopilot is as much an autopilot at plane autopilot is. Plane autopilots require two human pilots in the cockpit, and they aren't allowed to just sit around and play Pokemon the whole time.
Autopilots don't mean you're allowed to stop paying attention, they just removed some of the drudgework of maintaining distance and emergency braking.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems broadly analogous to what Autopilot in a airplane does (though I'm not sure airplanes actively avoid collsions, autopilot typically just manages air speed and heading).
What do you expect "Autopilot" to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he needs to get his brakes fixed now they're broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you padding the comments?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That might be due to the fact that someone DIED in one of those, and people tend to value human life.
Every day about 85 people die in traffic in the US. Who values their lives when no Tesla is around?