Well, yeah, it's not like autopilot is driving cars into barriers every day. But I don't think "often works very well" (and then it kills you) is good enough for most people. It's certainly not good enough for me.
> Previous autopilot versions didn't do this. 10.4 and 12 do this 90% of the time. I didn't post it until I got .12 and it did it a few times in case it was a bug in 10.4.
> Also, start paying attention as you drive. Centering yourself in the lane is not always a good idea. You'll run into parked cars all over, and lots of times before there is an obstacle the lane gets wider. In general, my feel is that you're better off to hug one of the markings.
It kind of does sound like that autopilot is steering vehicles into barriers everyday, or it would be if drivers weren't being extra vigilant: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil...
Seems like we need a study to assess whether the kind of protections AP offers outweighs the extra challenges it adds to a daily drive.
Because if I interpret the video correctly either the car was partially in the wrong lane before the near accident or it was about to steer it into a situation like that. And that means it is time to hand off to the driver because the autopilot has either already made an error or is about to make one.
Either way the autopilot should have realized the situation is beyond it's abilities, and when GPS and camera inputs conflict (which I assume was the case) that's an excellent moment for a hand-off.
A good example of this I think is when driving in tunnels, there is no GPS info there, but the navigation shows you following the (curved) road.
Also, the better ones have inertial backup & flux gate for when GPS is unavailable. Inertial backup could also help to detect the signatures of lane changes and turns.
It's possible your highways are newer or less congested than ours?
I don't use Google maps for driving but I know plenty of people that do and having been in the car with them on occasion has made me even happier with my dedicated navigation system. The voice prompts are super confusing with a lot of irrelevant information (and usually totally mis-pronounced) and now you are supplying even more data points that the actual navigation itself isn't as good as it could be.
I suspect this is a by-product of doing a lot of stuff rather than just doing one thing and doing that well.
Sometimes it'll shout "The speed limit is 35 miles an hour!" when I go under a bridge carrying a 35MPH road, even though the road I'm on has a limit of 65.
1. Base stations at known locations broadcast corrections for factors like the effects of the ionosphere and troposphere, and inaccurate satellite ephemerides. If you have multiple base stations, you can interpolate between them (Trimble VRS Now [1] does this, for example)
2. Precise measurements by combining code phase (~300m wavelength) and carrier phase on two frequencies (~20cm wavelength), plus the beat frequency of the two frequencies (~80cm)
With these combined, and good visibility of the sky, centimetre-level accuracy is possible.
Autonomous vehicles will often combine this with inertial measurement [2] which offers a faster data rate, and works in tunnels.
Many people also expect autonomous vehicles to also track lane markings, in combination with a detailed map to say whether lane markings are accurate.
[1] http://www.trimble.com/positioning-services/vrs-now [2] http://www.oxts.com/products/rt3000/
So even if the error can be large in practice it often works very well.
It would be very interesting to see the input data streams these self driving systems rely on in case of errors, and in the case of accidents there might even be a legal reason to obtain them (for liability purposes).