Tesla CEO Elon Musk Says Criticism of Self-Driving Cars Can Kill People

October 21, 2016

Oct 21: Self-driving cars hold the promise of saving thousands of lives each year on US roads. But does pointing out flaws with the technology effectively put people in danger?

ElonThat claim was put forth Wednesday by Tesla Motors CEOElon Musk, who criticised the media for harping on the relatively few crashes involving Tesla's semi-autonomous driving system called Autopilot, while saying little about the about the 1.2 million people who die worldwide each year in human-driven vehicles.

"If, in writing some article that's negative, you effectively dissuade people from using autonomous vehicles, you're killing people," said Musk, who expects his self-driving technology to be at least twice as safe as cars driven by humans.

The comments came as Musk announced that all new Tesla vehicles - including the lower-cost Model 3 - will have the hardware needed to drive themselves. The talk is bold but experts say it's premature until self-driving cars prove they're better drivers than humans under any circumstances.

"Over time, after the technology has established itself, one would expect there would be a decrease in fatalities," says Raj Rajkumar, a computer engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University who leads its autonomous vehicle research. "But this is too premature to make this claim. Tesla's technology is known to be imperfect."

In May, an Ohio man using Autopilot died when his Tesla Model S failed to spot a tractor-trailer crossing a divided highway. Neither the car nor the driver braked, and the Model S crashed into the side of the trailer. Federal investigators are looking into Autopilot's role in the crash.

There is evidence, however, that one day Musk could be proven to be right. While currently there is little data showing that fully autonomous cars would reduce deaths, there are studies that show computer controls can cut fatalities. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said it determined from 2016 police data that forward collision warning alone reduced front-into-rear crashes by 27 percent. Automatic braking cut the rear crashes in half and reduced injuries by almost 60 percent.

Tesla's Autopilot, introduced last year, can maintain a set speed and distance and keep the car in its lane. But the technology works mainly on highways and must be monitored by the driver. Autopilot will turn itself off if drivers have their hands off the wheel for too long.

Musk says Autopilot has already shown itself to be safer than humans. He tweeted earlier this month that Tesla vehicles have been driven 222 million miles in Autopilot mode, with one confirmed driver death. By comparison, the US fatality rate in 2014 was 2.16 deaths per 200 million miles traveled, according to government data.

The new autonomous system has been in testing for more than a year, and Musk said Wednesday it could cut worldwide deaths in half if all cars used it.

Rajkumar was skeptical and called the Tesla announcement "marketing hype." He said people should be skeptical of Tesla's claims because of the Florida crash. Self-driving technology "still needs to prove itself," he said, adding that it has trouble operating in dense urban traffic and inclement weather.

Consumer Reports magazine also is concerned about semi-autonomous systems such as those that allow a car to steer itself. The magazine believes automakers like Tesla "should take stronger steps to ensure that vehicles with these systems are designed, deployed, and marketed safely," it said in a statement.

One criticism of Autopilot is that the system gives drivers a false sense of security, causing them to be distracted and unprepared to take control in an emergency. The German government has told Tesla to stop using the Autopilot name because it implies that cars can drive themselves.

Musk disagrees, saying the term has been used in aviation to describe a system that assists pilots.

The new Tesla vehicles will use Tesla-developed software and have more sensors. They'll have eight cameras - compared to one in previous models - as well as advanced sonar and greater computing capacity. Tesla says the system is fully autonomous and can work on city streets as well as highways. Buyers can pay $3,000 for Autopilot or $8,000 for the full self-driving system.

Tesla owners, though, won't be able to give up control of their cars just yet. The company will gradually roll out autonomous capability in software updates every few months, once there's enough data to prove it's safe, Musk said. The updates also would have to meet safety regulations in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 13,2020

New Delhi, Jul 13: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has blocked Bharti Airtel's Platinum and Vodafone Idea's RedX premium plans that offer faster data speeds and priority services to customers as both the plans were violating net neutrality norms.

The telecom watchdog has asked Bharti Airtel to explain within seven days how such a similar plan being launched does not violate the rules of net neutrality.

Vodafone Idea's RedX plan has been in the market since November 2019. They made some modifications in May 2020 and the Bharti Airtel was soon going to launch a similar plan.

According to TRAI, the higher speed for premium customers discriminate against others and violates net neutrality.

Responding to TRAI's move, Airtel spokesperson said: "We are passionate about delivering the best network and service experience to all our customers. This is why we have a relentless obsession to eliminate faults and have been consistently recognised by international agencies as the best network in terms of speed, latency and video experience."

"At the same time, we want to keep raising the bar for our post-paid customers in terms of service and responsiveness. This is an ongoing effort at our end," the spokesperson said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 20,2020

Washington D.C., Jan 20: An American bride asked for money from her invitees so that they can be on the 'exclusive guest list'.

Weddings can be surely expensive. But is it feasible for one to charge the guests to make up for the expenses?

According to Fox News, that is exactly what happened in a recent American wedding. A 19-year-old shared on Reddit that her cousin was getting married on Sunday and announced that she would charge 50 dollars to those who wanted to attend her wedding.

"She said that they can Venmo her money so there won't be no [sic] problems and everyone who paid will be added onto the 'exclusive guest list' which basically means you won't have to wait in line while other guests pay," wrote the user named DaintySheep.

While she refused to pay for entry into her cousin's wedding the bride-to-be contacted the elders in the family which ended up in an embarrassing situation.

"She wanted to get the money she spent on her special day back. I told her I wouldn't be able to come because this was outrageous and that I wish her well on her special day. She contacted my aunt and my aunt called me cheap and rude. My parents offered to pay for my entry, but I refused," continued the disheartened girl.

While in almost every nook and cranny of the world gifting the bride-groom with money is a tradition, asking for money from friends and family to replenish the money spent on a wedding is can be said to be a rare scenario.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 28,2020

Los Angeles, Apr 28: People who experience loss of smell as one of the COVID-19 symptoms are likely to have a mild to moderate clinical course of the disease, according to a study which may help health care providers determine which patients require hospitalisation.

The findings, published in the journal International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, follows an earlier study that validated the loss of smell and taste as indicators of infection with the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

According to the scientists from the University of California (UC) San Diego Health in the US, patients who reported loss of smell were 10 times less likely to be hospitalised for COVID-19 compared to those without the symptom.

"One of the immediate challenges for health care providers is to determine how to best treat persons infected by the novel coronavirus," said Carol Yan, first author of the current study and rhinologist from the UC San Diego Health.

"If they display no or mild symptoms, can they return home to self-quarantine or will they likely require hospitalisation? These are crucial questions for hospitals trying to efficiently and effectively allocate finite medical resources," Yan said.

The findings, according to the researchers, suggest that loss of smell may be predictive of a milder clinical course of COVID-19.

"What's notable in the new findings is that it appears that loss of smell may be a predictor that a SARS-CoV-2 infection will not be as severe, and less likely to require hospitalisation," Yan said.

"If an infected person loses that sense, it seems more likely they will experience milder symptoms, barring other underlying risk factors," she added.

Risk factors for COVID-19 previously reported by other studies include age, and underlying medical conditions, such as chronic lung disease, serious heart conditions, diabetes, and obesity.

In the current study, the scientists made a retrospective analysis between March 3 and April 8 including 169 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 at UC San Diego Health.

They assessed olfactory and gustatory data for 128 of the 169 patients, 26 of whom required hospitalisation.

According to the researchers, patients who were hospitalised for COVID-19 treatment were significantly less likely to report anosmia or loss of smell -- 26.9 per cent compared to 66.7 per cent for COVID-19-infected persons treated as outpatients.

Similar percentages were found for loss of taste, known as dysgeusia, they said.

"Patients who reported loss of smell were 10 times less likely to be admitted for COVID-19 compared to those without loss of smell," said study co-author Adam S. DeConde.

"Moreover, anosmia was not associated with any other measures typically related to the decision to admit, suggesting that it's truly an independent factor and may serve as a marker for milder manifestations of Covid-19," DeConde said.

The researchers suspect that the findings hint at some of the physiological characteristics of the infection.

"The site and dosage of the initial viral burden, along with the effectiveness of the host immune response, are all potentially important variables in determining the spread of the virus within a person and, ultimately, the clinical course of the infection," DeConde said.

If the SARS-CoV-2 virus initially concentrates in the nose and upper airway, where it impacts olfactory function, that may result in an infection that is less severe and sudden in onset, decreasing the risk of overwhelming the host immune response, respiratory failure, and hospitalisation, the scientists added.

"This is a hypothesis, but it's also similar to the concept underlying live vaccinations," DeConde explained.

"At low dosage and at a distant site of inoculation, the host can generate an immune response without severe infection," he added.

Loss of smell, according to the study, might also indicate a robust immune response which has been localised to the nasal passages, limiting effects elsewhere in the body.

Citing the limitations of the study, the scientists said they relied upon self-reporting of anosmia from participants, which posed a greater chance of recall bias among patients once they had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

They added that patients with more severe respiratory disease requiring hospitalisation may not be as likely to recognise or recall the loss of smell.

So the researchers said more expansive studies are needed for validating the results.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.