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.”

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Fuck Elon musk.

    But self-driving is one of the most needed technologies to aim for in the near future. And it’s a shame that as American space industry it has , apparently, let be in the hands of a lunatic.

    The potential to reduce road mortality. And to give back to humans thousands of hours back of their time (you can do other things while not driving).

    I don’t really care about the philosophical question on who is to blame if a self driving car run over one person if road mortality got statistically reduced by a big value thanks to the technology.

    The anti technology I see on some supposedly progressive people nowadays really scares me. Bad omen. It’s like having a choice between rich conservatives and poor conservatives, but only conservatives nonetheless.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 minutes ago

      Why is it the most needed though?

      I’m not really sold on the importance of it anymore tbh. It was a cool scifi dream but driving is not even at the top 1000 issues we need solving right now.

    • ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 hours ago

      That’s just a train/bus with extra steps and far more risk. Cities with cars as the main mode of transport are still ugly places to live.

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I live in what is supposedly taught as the better mobility solution. A dense european city.

        It’s true, I can go everywhere walking and by public transport… and it sucks.

        Such density to allow for good public transport means living in apartments like ants, instead of houses.

        I like walking but in winter or summer it can be miserable. Buses you get really tired of very quickly, crowded, crazy people, smells, having to be on foot because no seats, dizziness, and in big cities pickpocketing. It’s a lot of misery IMHO.

        I’ve live like this many decades and I cannot see the time I can move out of the city, well knowing I’ll need a car for everything because lower densities does not allow for walking/good public transport. But I find higher densities just miserable to live in.

        As such I would love to have self driving cars. Seems such a life quality improvement.

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        As stated in other comment of mine. Public transport/walkikg is good for high density cities.

        Not everyone would be happy living in such environment. I fact I think most people won’t. Low density environment have a need for cars. And I think if cars are needed, they’d better be electric and self driving.

          • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            It could be measured I suppose.

            Giving completely free will without economic pressure most people would chose one environment or the other.

            I suppose there’s enough statistical data on the world to make such analysis. Not that I’m going to do it. But I think it could be measurable what people chose when money is not a factor, as in I need to live X because I don’t have money to live in Y.

            Anyway it’s almost a fact that there would be people that would love to live in one place and some people on the other. So best solution could probably be good public transport in the city and self driving cars in the countryside.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I think a lack of availability is what is stopping the free market from choosing the better form of transportation.

            • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              best solution could probably be good public transport in the city and self driving cars in the countryside.

              You don’t even need self driving if it’s mostly just the countryside. That’s just not a lot of people and the resources required to get it working would be better spent on building mass transit and walkable areas in cities where people actually live (and thus where culture and economy actually happen)