Yes. You are required while driving a vehicle to keep your hands on the wheel and foot ready to hit the brakes. With any semi-autonomous driving system, as a driver, YOU are the one that is responsible for all actions that the vehicle takes.

Thanks for the clarification, this actually sounds like a feature I'd stay away from. Not only it doesn't solve all cases enough to let me not worry about it, but also creates the false impression (even if I'm the one creating that impression myself) that I don't need to worry about it.

It's almost like american football helmets.

I totally agree. I'm curious to see the statistics as the marketing of "semi-autonomous" vehicles gets more widespread, but I suspect there is a dangerous sweet-spot of capability of semi-autonomous vehicles.

My concern is that semi-autonomous vehicles become good enough that humans trust them to drive (that is, people consider the vehicle to be driving rather than providing an aide to driving such as automatic-shifting, and standard cruise-control); yet not so capable as to be a true autonomous vehicle. Do these features simply making driving safer across the board, or is there a point where the human stops taking responsibility and accidents increase?

Humans have been making mistakes with every new assistive technology. When ABS was optional, people with ABS cars would pump the brakes and end up not stopping in time. With cruise control, there are urban legends of RV drivers going back to make a sandwich.

Eventually people figure this stuff out, but as was discussed in other Tesla threads, there is a risk of entering an uncanny valley where it's actually more dangerous to have the assistive tech in an emergency, but safer in non-emergencies.

Given how many people text and otherwise don't pay full attention to their driving today, does anyone seriously believe that as increasingly capable adaptive cruise control/lane keeping/automated braking/etc. systems become common that large numbers of people won't completely disengage from driving? M

Most of them may even know that they're supposed to be actively driving but, seriously, that's not how humans are wired. And tsk, tsking about how people shouldn't do that isn't going to change anything.

It will be "interesting" to see how this plays out because it's apparent that we're rapidly heading for a point where we'll have cars that are "pretty good" at highway autopilot that are in no way certified or approved for hands-off operation by drivers playing a video game.

There might be a weird HN edit thing going on, but it seems like you are answering a "what is..." question with a Yes.

Not that I have an answer per se -- if I still have to be driving, inputting the obvious strategy doesn't help me much because I already know how to do that. Collision avoidance is pretty much the only thing I have anxiety about, so saying it's not supposed to be used for that means this is a very very expensive mid-range sedan (to consumers like me).

There was no HN edit thing going on. I did answer a "what is the point" with a "yes". I haven't yet decided whether I did this for rhetorical reasons or because it's early in the morning.

I was more responding to the second statement with, essentially: "Yes, it does default the 'autonomous driving' purpose of TACC".

It's not like the TrafficAware Cruise Control is meant for completely autonomous driving. It's supposed to be a convenience. To not pay attention to the road, regardless of how good your cruise control is, is not just idiotic, it's life threatening.

Have they not mentioned, time and time again, that this is not an autonomous car? I have adaptive cruse control in my Mazda, automatic breaks, but they're not a replacement for paying attention to the road.

The problem is that Tesla's taken systems intended as driving assists and branded them using terms like "Autopilot" that imply that a human doesn't need to be in the loop. Then you end up with people who haven't read the manual (because no one actually reads the manual) and let their car ram itself into a parked van because the brakes were "the autopilot's job".

I'm of the opinion that Tesla probably needs to back down on their "autonomous" stuff-- their half-baked semi-autonomous stuff is getting enough bad press that it's going to kill true autonomous tech before it can even make it onto the road.

>The problem is that Tesla's taken systems intended as driving assists and branded them using terms like "Autopilot" that imply that a human doesn't need to be in the loop.

Even in aviation, 'autopilots' don't mean the pilot can leave the cockpit unmanned. Human pilots are needed at all times in case the autopilot disengages due to unexpected conditions.

The distinction being that, when an airplane's autopilot disengages, the pilot's typically going to have a couple minutes to evaluate the situation and determine how to react appropriately, because airplanes typically don't just fall out of the sky. Tesla's "autopilot" gives you seconds to react if you wait until it disengages, if it knows to disengage at all.

Most Tesla purchasers aren't pilots; the meaning communicated to them but the branding "autopilot" isn't based on experience in aviation, it's based on popular culture.

Exactly this, someone needs to tell the Tesla PR department to scale back. Same goes for the 'bio weapon' defense thing.

I understand that cruise control is not autonomous driving. Still, I would expect cruise control to NOT crash into a stationary object right in front of the car. If you read the disclaimers of TrafficAware in the manual, the only possible conclusion seems to be that you simply cannot use this feature. If you can't trust the system to brake in time, it means you have to do the braking yourself. Every time.

The bottom line: TrafficAware is bad technology.

It's fine and good for everyone to claim that the driver must keep alert constantly and it's their responsibility. However, this feature is inconsistent with that statement as it is damned near impossible for most people to stay engaged and alert when they are not actively engaged in a process. This is a known failure of the human brain and in fact is the reason that on road trips I don't use cruz control and tend to speed because when I'm engaged, I'm paying attention.

Adaptive cruise control's purpose is to let you not have to break just because your cruise control is set slightly too fast for the car in front of you.

It's not intended to be an autopilot. Just a better cruise control

Telsa is just hyping up the same shit that all automakers can do right now.

> It's not intended to be an autopilot.

Tesla brands this feature exactly as 'Autopilot'.

Because Telsa wants to make you think its doing something that BWM isn't. But it's entirely sales puffery.

Regular cruise control is even more pointless.

It's useless in the city or densely populated areas. It's great on the open road, e.g. in the south western US, where you can drive in a straight line at 70mph for several hours without braking at all.

In that case your right foot thanks you for cruise control.

Back when I did more longish drives on thinly traveled roads in the South, I used it more. I've gotten out of the habit of using it because in the Northeast, even in rural areas, there tends to be too much traffic for it to be really worthwhile.

I actually like cruise control, since it's use case is very specific, and always works: keeping a certain speed.