I’ve seen this spot twice today (in California). Sponsored by Dan O’Dowd’s senate campaign (against recently-appointed Alex Padilla); it shows videos that have been uploaded to YouTube by Tesla test drivers of times when the software went haywire and nearly caused accidents. I counted about 12 of these short scenes in the spot. The tag line is that Tesla’s self-driving software is unsafe at any speed, and “Tell Congress to shut it down!”
This seems like a bad ad and a bad campaign idea. What does Congress have to do with whether self-driving cars should be allowed to continue development? Why is he so anti-Musk that he is making this a very expensive, self-funded campaign with only one issue?
I predict massive failure and loss of huge amounts of money for Mr. O’Dowd.
The NHTSA and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? Motor vehicles are one of the most federally regulated products there is along with airlines, medical devices and pharmiceuticals.
That said, there would need to be studies done showing that a particular companies self driving software is causing more deaths and accidents than conventional vehicals or competitors vehicles, not just some emotional plea agaisnt the technology.
Regarding the political ad, the GOP finds it very effective to gin up fear in old white people. So, give the guy props for trying something somewhat novel and new. I don’t know if it will work for him, but if we see the FOX ecosphere latch onto it, then he might be on to something. If he could show that the cars were being driven by LGBT immigrant POCs then that would be the ticket!
Regarding the truth of the issue, one can always make hay out of the 1 in 1,000,000 self-driving car crashes, while ignoring the 100,000,000 times the cars kept someone safe. Whereas the daily occurrences of human driven cars getting into wrecks doesn’t make the news.
As a single-issue campaigner against something few people care about, it seems obvious that he won’t win a seat, and that he will just complicate matters for the Democratic party – which doesn’t really need that kind of headache right now.
I agree with his sentiment that self-driving cars should be subject to regulatory scrutiny and that the industry will need standards and clear rules of responsibility. I don’t think it’s a wise move to target only Tesla, even if it’s probably the worst offender on the “move fast and break things” spectrum.
I went to a talk on car automation and vehicle safety recently (a data-driven thing by the IIHS) and was surprised to learn that Tesla is no longer the major player in that field. All the high end cars are doing it, some even more than Tesla.
(And yes, on average, they’re all doing pretty well. One if the speaker’s concerns was that if automated cars aren’t allowed to speed, drivers will turn off the automation.)
One thing about machines being in control is that our standards for them are much higher than that of humans. A human can be held responsible in a way a computer can’t. And computers will make errors that humans never would, that make the computer look really bad.
Ultimately, the acceptance of automated vehicles depends on people’s perception and willingness to give up control and ability to hold people responsible.
Automotive manufactures will be held accountable and they in turn will hold their suppliers accountable. Nothing new here, follow the money and then sue the ones with the big pockets.
The real proof of how effective these systems are will be reflected in your insurance coverage.
If history is any guide, we will continue to go through a period of resistance and fear mongering, followed by broad acceptance, followed by, “How did we ever live without!”.
Recall online life in the past, “CHILDREN! Don’t share anything online or the ninja pedophiles will find you and sneak in at night and HORRORS!” Now, not so much, yah?
I saw this ad a couple of times yesterday. I live in Kansas, why am I seeing political ads for someone running for Senate in CA? I assume they were national ad buys, but that doesn’t seem very cost effective.
I think this is key. As humans we judge the difficulty of a task according to the ease with which we can do it ourselves. However the ease with which tasks can be done are very different for humans vs computers, hence the success of CAPTCHA’s. What this means is that in the rare case where a computer does make a mistake it may be in an area that a human would find trivial.
So the human says, that computer is an idiot that can’t even tell the difference between a cat and a traffic cone. Meanwhile interally the computer shouts in exasperation that the stupid humans take a full tenth of a second before they notice the car in front of them has hit its brakes instead of 5 milliseconds as any reasonably intelligent driver would.
The guy is founder and CEO of Green Hills Software, which is in competition with other automated driving systems. This whole thing is really a marketing campaign. By making it ostensibly a political campaign, they can potentially avoid legal issues. Or at least make it more difficult for anyone who’s thinking about suing them.
This should have been the first response. The guy obviously doesn’t care about the Democratic party, or even public safety. It’s just a way to benefit his own company by disparaging the competition. That’s why people are seeing CA Senate ads in Kansas. I hadn’t heard the theory that he avoids getting sued by making the ads political.
Tesla sells their own insurance coverage in a number of states. I haven’t done a proper comparison, but Tesla claims it’s cheaper because of the safety benefits of Autopilot, which other providers don’t fully account for (Autopilot is their enhanced cruise control / lanekeeping system. Full Self Driving is different, and only in beta, and deployed to a limited number of people).
I can take a car up to the top of a hill. Put it in neural and release the emergency brake and it’s a self driving car. Apparently it is legal to do so. I don’t have to worry about what happens to the car as it careens down the hill out of control because I’m not driving.
