Elon Musk and the NTSB

[Steel]

29 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

The car can be build to maximize the occupants chance to survive an crash, modern cars tend to be pretty optimized for this all are far safer than required. 
Safety is an important feature then selling an car so lots go into it. 

However we are at the end of practical improvements for passive security and air bags, heavy diminishing return and increased cost going much farther. 
Active security outside of ABS and derived technology has not penetrated down to young drivers so we have an plateau 

Yes, but these improve survivability of a crash, they have absolutely no effect on how likely a crash is to happen to the vehicle 

That (I think) is the distinction @YNM was trying to draw. Manufacturers focus of safety features because that sell cars and improve drivability, however the chance that an accident happens to any given car is much more dependent on external factors. Therefore, it's a little silly to say that Teslas are safe based on their crashes per millions km, because that's mainly due to factors other than the car.

[XB-70A]

52 minutes ago, Steel said:

Therefore, it's a little silly to say that Teslas are safe based on their crashes per millions km, because that's mainly due to factors other than the car.

Agree, this without counting the still "low" number of Tesla models in service and the sectors they are used in.

It's reminding me the story of the Ilyushin Il-86: considered as one of the safest (if not the safest) Soviet airliner of its time with only two fatal accidents, with a total of 18 souls lost, in a bit more than 30 years of operation, but only for a bit more than 100 units built.

[magnemoe]

50 minutes ago, Steel said:

Yes, but these improve survivability of a crash, they have absolutely no effect on how likely a crash is to happen to the vehicle 

That (I think) is the distinction @YNM was trying to draw. Manufacturers focus of safety features because that sell cars and improve drivability, however the chance that an accident happens to any given car is much more dependent on external factors. Therefore, it's a little silly to say that Teslas are safe based on their crashes per millions km, because that's mainly due to factors other than the car.

This is true for passive safety, automated braking and collision avoidance will reduce accidents and more important will move more crashes out of the fatal category. An very common accident is rear ending, an automated system can reduce this an order of magnitude simple as it react faster and more important keep correct distance to the car ahead. 
An car into your lane is an hard problem, ditching the car is usually the least worst option, but this is way rarer than animals jumping into the road or stopped car behind curve and here fast reaction helps a lot. 

[mikegarrison]

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

fast reaction helps a lot. 

Fast reaction is wildly overrated. Good drivers pay attention, have high levels of situational awareness, and have trained themselves to react correctly in difficult situations. The sooner you can predict the problem, and the less you need to figure out on the fly how to react to it, the greater the chance that you will react correctly in time.

[StrandedonEarth]

12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Good drivers...

Good drivers adjust their speed so they can stop in the road distance that they can see, whether it be curves, dark, fog, or other low-visibility conditions. Also sometimes referred to as "Driving within the range of your headlights" 

[YNM]

8 hours ago, magnemoe said:

The car can be build to maximize the occupants chance to survive an crash...

Nothing says they can't be abused.

Also, we haven't gone to the interaction between car body and the person it hits. (hint Uber)

 

EDIT :

Alright, given this is about a car manufacturer, let's say we only talk about crashes that only involves motorized vehicles in similar shells (so car with cars, busses, trucks). In which case,

6 hours ago, magnemoe said:

An very common accident is rear ending

So let's say we're going to deal with this.

First of all, I'll introduce you to the hierarchy of hazard controls.

Let's see what we can do :

- Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) : Protect the car occupant directly. So airbags, deformable areas, and so on.

- Administrative controls : Make so the laws help prevent crashes or help reduce the impact of crashes. For instance, lower the speed limit, ensure all drivers are educated and starndardized and so on.

- Engineering controls : Make it so that the crash is neigh-impossible. This could be as "ridiculous" as individual lanes for every car or vehicles, or cover the car in fluffy foam so the other party won't get injured. You could count AI in this, but I'll tip that it introduces more unknown than known. Not good at all when you want perceivable results.

- Substitution / Elimination : Just... don't have cars, would you ? 

 

You can see on this list where car manufacturers stand in. True we have got radar systems and such that could help prevent crashes; but brake too fast and you'll be rear ended by someone else. And as you can see, they only protect the car occupant, not anyone else.

And this is why they can't care the numbers enough. They've maximized the options.

Edited April 15, 2018 by YNM
Thank you moderators !

[Vanamonde]

Although Musk does own a spaceflight company, this isn't it. And so, the thread has been moved to The Lounge. 

[YNM]

16 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Although Musk does own a spaceflight company, this isn't it.

Well, it's about crashes, it's scientific ? XD

[DerekL1963]

13 hours ago, YNM said:

They're controllable not from the car's PoV. 

0.o  What color is the sky in your world where changes in automobile engineering haven't reduced deaths in accidents?  Did you even read the report I linked and the paragraph I specifically pointed out?

[YNM]

10 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

What color is the sky in your world where changes in automobile engineering haven't reduced deaths in accidents? 

A world without any automobiles ? So bluer, I presume ?

Edited April 15, 2018 by YNM

[StrandedonEarth]

This is probably relevant to both the Tesla crash and the Uber/pedestrian accident:

There usually has to be more than one failure for an accident to happen. When all the "holes" (failures) line up, bad things happen. I guess Musk was trying to point out that the Autopilot wasn't the only thing that failed, but it sounds like he wasn't supposed to go public with it (yet)

[YNM]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I guess Musk was trying to point out that the Autopilot wasn't the only thing that failed, but it sounds like he wasn't supposed to go public with it (yet).

Why not disclose something like such...

But yeah, it really looks like someone is shooting their own leg.

[TheDestroyer111]

7 hours ago, YNM said:

- Substitution / Elimination : Just... don't have cars, would you ? 

Spoiler

Anyone knowing other transportation contrivations safer than a car would be appreciated 

Edited April 15, 2018 by TheDestroyer111

[kerbiloid]

The solution is simple, but unhappily forgotten.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

The solution is simple, but unhappily forgotten.

XD

From cbrd.co.uk :

Spoiler

The first true limit may have been the 1861 Locomotive Act, which regulated the use of steam locomotives and traction engines on the open road. It set a maximum speed of 10mph in open country and 5mph in towns, with fines of £10 for speeding (a term that has to be used loosely when the limit is 5mph). Convictions must have been rare because there was no instrument either on the engine or in the hands of the police that could have indicated how fast it was travelling.

The heady days of tearing around at a breakneck 10mph were short-lived. Just four years later, the Locomotive Act 1865 lowered speed limits to just 4 and 2mph. Presumably drivers would be convicted of speeding if a policeman couldn't overtake the engine at a gentle stroll.

The 1865 Act also introduced someone who, to this day, is oddly imprinted on the popular imagination: the red flag man. A 2mph limit meant that locomotives would often reach their destination faster by parking up and waiting for continental drift to take its course, but were still considered such an unimaginable danger that a man was obliged to walk 60ft (18m) ahead of them holding a red flag. The law is referred to, even now, as the "red flag act".

Red flag at the ready: steam traction engines like this were limited to 4mph in 1865. Click to enlarge

There are no records to indicate how many people were mown down by engines as they stared at the strange man who was so keen to show the whole street his flag. Evidently he was at risk of becoming a spectacle in his own right, because thirteen years later the rules were changed again so that the red flag was carried just 20ft (6m) in front of the engine.

The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878 was a further blow to the embattled Victorian driver, demanding that engines must stop completely on sight of a horse — something that must have virtually prevented them moving at all in towns.

TBH, back then the real danger was the stallion XD

Edited April 15, 2018 by YNM

[Space_Kadet]

On 4/14/2018 at 8:07 AM, YNM said:

Good reasons why in Terminator Salvation, Skynet used motorcycle-drones 

Skynet went online on July 25, 2004... But we are all still here? I am so confused.

On 4/14/2018 at 1:54 PM, LordFerret said:

He will (Musk) not be able to stand up against the likes of BMW, Mercedes, Nissan, Kia (and others) ... if they take the full electric route ... and once China gets its program rolling they'll put him in the dirt.

 

Very true statement.

 

[YNM]

8 minutes ago, Space_Kadet said:

I am so confused.

Not as bad as you think it should be.