this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
649 points (89.1% liked)
Technology
59772 readers
4350 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you watch the video, the deer was standing on a strip of off coloured pavement, and also had about the same length as the dotted line. Not sure how much colour information comes through at night on those cameras.
The point here isn't actually "should it have stopped for the deer" , it's "if the system can't even see the deer, how could it be expected to distinguish between a deer and a child?"
The calculus changes incredibly between a deer and a child.
At the same time, it would have located it if it was using radar, but Musk decided that cameras are the future (contrary to all other brands)
Yeah. I mean, I understand the premise, I just think it's flawed. Like, you and I as vehicle operators use two cameras when we drive (our two eyes). It's hypothetically sufficient in terms of raw data input.
Where it falls apart is that we also have brains which have evolved in ways we don't even understand to consume those inputs effectively.
But most importantly, why aim for parity at all? Why NOT give our cars the tools to "see" better than a human? I want that!
No human could have avoided that deer without swerving their car.
A lidar provides superhuman vision which works in the dark and through fog. Elon is making a human car and ignores all the limits we have that can be solved in other ways.
A human is a general purpose organism. We are not designed as specialized driving machines.
I completely agree that if there are tools that can allow a vehicle to "see" better than a human it's absurd not to implement them. Even if musk could make a car exactly as good as a human, that's a low bar. It isn't good enough.
As for humans: if you are operating a vehicle such that you could not avoid killing an unexpected person on the road, you are not safely operating the vehicle. In this case, it's known as "over driving your headlights", you are driving at a speed that precludes you from reacting appropriately by the time you can perceive an issue.
Imagine if it wasn't a deer but a chunk of concrete that would kill you if struck at speed. Perhaps a bolder on a mountain pass. A vehicle that has broken down.
Does Musk's system operate safely? No. The fact that it was a deer is completely irrelevant.
Agree, it didn't do anything to avoid the obstacle. A human could probably see it as an obstacle and try to swerve to the side, albeit not knowing what it is. Not saying it's possible to avoid, but some reaction would be made.
Attempting to swerve aside at that speed results in over correction, followed by loss of control and then a rollover crash. Happens all the time to people who aren't aware / don't remember that you're supposed to hit deer head on.
This isn’t true. You shouldn’t jerk the wheel and swerve to avoid an animal, but if you can do it safely you absolutely should. Not only to avoid damage, but to prevent it coming through the windshield. I’ve seen this same idea in a few different comments here, but growing up in deer infested upstate NY, “hit it head on” is something I’ve never heard. Not from parents/relatives, not from driver’s ed, not from the internet until today. Keep it out of the ditch but absolutely avoid hitting the deer if you can. You don’t need to jerk the wheel to move 4-6 feet to the right, into the shoulder.
The idea of don't swerve for deer is very common and is taught in driving schools. If you've never heard it until today, well you were let down and today you learn. You don't know dismiss it because you haven't heard it.
Swerving is dangerous and even if you think you can do it safely, having a deer appear while travelling at high speeds is risky, even more so at night.
You're supposed to slow down but stay in lane.
The reason you're supposed to swerve for things like Moose is because moose are big as fuck and tall, and if you hit one head on, you will cut the legs out from under it, and it's massive body will roll through the windshield and crush you, killing you or causing massive bodily harm.
This is from the Virginia DMV for example (emphasis mine). Them not having something about moose is actually bad as well.
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/sites/default/files/forms/dmv39d.pdf
Deer/Large Animal Hazards Tens of thousands of crashes with deer, elk, and bears take place in Virginia each year, resulting in fatalities, injuries and costly vehicle damage. To avoid hitting a deer or other large animal:
Wait, are you saying that Virginia not mentioning what to do if a moose is in the road is “bad”?
Considering that the northern-most part of Virginia is still about 350 mi south of the closest range of moose, it would be pointless if not absurd for them to include it.
Do people from Virginia never travel 350miles north?
The guidance on that page is incorrect and if that's what they teach it might kill someone.
A DMV is accountable for driving laws and practices in their own state, not educating people about every possible driving condition anywhere.
I dunno where that map is from but it's wrong. Moose range extends as far south as Wyoming and I know they have them in Colorado as well. Not just the occasional sighting either, they have hunting seasons for Moose.
Did you read the second sentence I wrote? Of course don’t swerve. That doesn’t mean you have to hit them head on all the time. It’s okay to hit deer head on, but you’re not “supposed to” as the comment I was replying to says. If you can safely move over a few feet and make it a glancing blow, or miss altogether, that’s better and safer than head on. We have antilock brakes ubiquitously now, you can steer and brake simultaneously. If you’ve got shoulder to use, use it.
If you can safely change lanes then of course change lanes as your normally would do to avoid anything in your lane.
Beyond that it's now dangerous. Stay in lane, hit the deer.
If you wouldn't normally change lanes like that, then don't do it for the deer.
Agreed. I’ve just never heard “you’re supposed to hit them head on”
I'd imagine there's a few reasons for the variation in driver training between upstate NY and Wyoming.
The way you describe upstate NY is how it was taught to me when I grew up in Nebraska but it's not what they advise in Wyoming. Here you stay in your lane and slow down as much as you can before impact.
I specifically said to not swerve or jerk the wheel. I’m talking about a controlled movement a few feet to the side, safety permitting, to strike a glancing blow on the animal. Especially with a larger animal that is more likely to come through the windshield, this is important. You don’t need to hit any animal head on if you can safely avoid it. I’m talking about a slow, controlled movement while emergency braking, not a “twitch onto the shoulder” There’s nothing wrong with this, and I’d argue a glancing blow is better than hitting animals head on. A multitude of factors will play into “can you move over safely” such as available space, weather, hazards, etc. I don’t feel the instruction that you’re “supposed to hit them head on” is wise advice regardless. Maybe this was true before ABS, but steering while braking hard is something modern vehicles have little issue with.
Hit the deer head on, but swerve for moose and elk.