The U.S. government’s road safety agency is again investigating Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” system, this time after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in documents that it opened the probe on Thursday with the company reporting four crashes after Teslas entered areas of low visibility, including sun glare, fog and airborne dust.

In addition to the pedestrian’s death, another crash involved an injury, the agency said.

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if so, the contributing circumstances for these crashes.”

  • elgordino@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    20 days ago

    If anyone was somehow still thinking RoboTaxi is ever going to be a thing. Then no, it’s not, because of reasons like this.

    • testfactor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      20 days ago

      It doesn’t have to not hit pedestrians. It just has to hit less pedestrians than the average human driver.

      • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        20 days ago

        Exactly. The current rate is 80 deaths per day in the US alone. Even if we had self-driving cars proven to be 10 times safer than human drivers, we’d still see 8 news articles a day about people dying because of them. Taking this as ‘proof’ that they’re not safe is setting an impossible standard and effectively advocating for 30,000 yearly deaths, as if it’s somehow better to be killed by a human than by a robot.

          • Billiam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            20 days ago

            If you get killed by a robot, you can at least die knowing your death was the logical option and not a result of drunk driving, road rage, poor vehicle maintenance, panic, or any other of the dozens of ways humans are bad at decision-making.

        • III@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          The problem with this way of thinking is that there are solutions to eliminate accidents even without eliminating self-driving cars. By dismissing the concern you are saying nothing more than it isn’t worth exploring the kinds of improvements that will save lives.

        • ano_ba_to@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          “10 times safer than human drivers”, (except during specific visually difficult conditions which we knowingly can prevent but won’t because it’s 10 times safer than human drivers). In software, if we have replicable conditions that cause the program to fail, we fix those, even though the bug probably won’t kill anyone.

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          But they aren’t and likely never will be.

          And how are we to correct for lack of safety then? With human drivers you obvious discourage dangerous driving through punishment. Who do you punish in a self driving car?

      • elgordino@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        20 days ago

        It needs to be way way better than ‘better than average’ if it’s ever going to be accepted by regulators and the public. Without better sensors I don’t believe it will ever make it. Waymo had the right idea here if you ask me.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        That is the minimal outcomes for an automated safety feature to be an improvement over human drivers.

        But if everyone else is using something you refused to that would have likely avoided someone’s death, while misnaming you feature to mislead customers, then you are in legal trouble.

        When it comes to automation you need to be far better than humans because there will be a higher level of scrutiny. Kind of like how planes are massively safer than driving on average, but any incident where someone could have died gets a massive amount of attention.

      • dmention7@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        It’s bit reductive to put it in terms of a binary choice between an average human driver and full AI driver. I’d argue it has to hit less pedestrians than a human driver with the full suite of driver assists currently available to be viable.

        Self-driving is purely a convenience factor for personal vehicles and purely an economic factor for taxis and other commercial use. If a human driver assisted by all of the sensing and AI tools available is the safest option, that should be the de facto standard.