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
June 13,2020

The Brazilian government said that the Amazon rainforest witnessed deforestation of a record 829 sq km in May, the highest monthly level since 2015.

On Friday, the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) said that deforestation in the Amazon increased by 91 sq km compared to the same period last year, reports Xinhua news agency.

Between January and April, destruction of the forest by illegal loggers and ranchers rose 55 per cent, or a total of 1,202 sq km was wiped out, it said.

The Real-time Deforestation Detection system, a federal project created to monitor human activity in the Amazon, alerted authorities to the increase in the rate of destruction of the rainforest.

A recent study by the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) warned that deforestation in 2020 could reach 11,900 sq km if the pace of May, June, and July follows the historical average.

Deforestation in the region has soared since President Jair Bolsonaro took office last year, according to conservation groups.

He has argued that more farming and mining in protected areas of the forest were the only way to lift the region out of poverty.

Bolsonaro's environmental policies have been widely condemned but he has rejected the criticism, saying Brazil remains an example for conservation.

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 3,2020

Mumbai, Jul 3: In yet another move to keep Chinese technologies companies at bay, the Centre has cancelled the 4G upgradation tender for BSNL as it has decided to come up with fresh specifications for the upgrade process, sources said.

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) is likely to issue a fresh tender in the next two weeks.

People in the know said that the fresh tender may not allow Chinese companies to participate and that the new tenders that will be floated in the next two weeks will emphasise on Make in India.

As the border tussle with China escalated last month and around 20 soldiers lost their lives, the government had last month asked both BSNL and MTNL not to use equipment of Chinese makers in their upgrading process to 4G facilities.

Huawei and ZTE are the major Chinese telecom equipment makers working with Indian telecom companies and they would be the hardest hit by the decision.

The impact may be felt in terms of the much-awaited 5G trials in the country. After much deliberation, the Centre last December decided to allow Huawei to take part in the 5G trials.

The cancellation of tender for BSNL's 4G upgradation comes after the Centre on Monday banned 59 Chinese apps including TikTok, WeChat and UC Browser.

A statement by the Ministry of Electronics and IT said that the decision was taken since "there is credible information that these apps are engaged in activities which are prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order".

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 17,2020

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

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.