767

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 145 points 2 months ago

Eyes can’t see in low visibility.

musk “we drive with our eyes, cameras are eyes. we dont need LiDAR”

FSD kills someone because of low visibility just like with eyes

musk reaction -

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 86 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's worse than that, though. Our eyes are significantly better than cameras (with some exceptions at the high end) at adapting to varied lighting conditions than cameras are. Especially rapid changes.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Hard to credit without a source, modern cameras have way more dynamic range than the human eye.

[-] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago

Not in one exposure. Human eyes are much better with dealing with extremely high contrasts.

Cameras can be much more sensitive, but at the cost of overexposing brighter regions in an image.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago

They're also pretty noisy in low light and generally take long exposures (a problem with a camera at high speeds) to get sufficient input to see anything in the dark. Especially if you aren't spending thousands of dollars with massive sensors per camera.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

I dunno what cameras you are using but a standard full frame sensor and an F/4 lens sees way better in low light than the human eye. If I take a raw image off my camera, there is so much more dynamic range than I can see or a monitor can even represent, you can double the brightness at least four times (ie 16x brighter) and parts of the image that looked pure black to the eye become perfectly usable images. There is so so so much more dynamic range than the human eye.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

Do you know what the depth of field at f/4 looks like? It's not anywhere in the neighborhood of suitable for a car, and it still takes a meaningful exposure length in low light conditions to get a picture at all, which is not suitable for driving at 30mph, let alone actually driving fast.

That full frame sensor is also on a camera that's several thousand dollars.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Not only that, when we have trouble seeing things, we can adjust our speed to compensate (though tbf, not all human drivers do, but I don't think FSD should be modelled after the worst of human drivers). Does Tesla's FSD go into a "drive slower" mode when it gets less certain about what it sees? Or does its algorithms always treat its best guess with high confidence?

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 67 points 2 months ago

if he was truthful: "the cost of adding lidar cuts in my profits"

[-] III@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago

Correction - Older Teslas had lidar, Musk demanded they be removed because they cut into his profits. Not a huge difference but it does show how much of a shitbag he is.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

He really is a fucking idiot. But so few people can actually call him out... So he just never gets put in his place.

Imagine your life with unlimited redos. That's how he lives.

[-] RandomStickman@fedia.io 24 points 2 months ago

You'd think "we drive with our eyes, cameras are eyes." is an argument against only using cameras but that do I know.

[-] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 2 months ago

How Can Cameras Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?

[-] aramis87@fedia.io 12 points 2 months ago

What pisses me off about this is that, in conditions of low visibility, the pedestrian can't even hear the damned thing coming.

[-] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

I hear electric cars all the time, they are not much quieter than an ice car. We don’t need to strap lawn mowers to our cars in the name of safety.

[-] QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

You can hear them, but manufacturers had to add external speakers to electric cars to make them louder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds

[-] flames5123@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

The cars used to have RADAR. But they got rid of that and even disabled it on older models when updating because they “only need cameras.”

Cameras and RADAR would have been good enough for most all conditions…

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
767 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

60059 readers
3018 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS