Since circa 1968, "cruise control" has been used to refer to automatic throttle adjustment to maintain speed. [1] Is there some previous meaning that makes you think it misleading? Because I've never thought of it as meaning anything else.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_control#History

From your link:

The first car with Teetor's system was the 1958 Imperial (called "Auto-pilot") using a speed dial on the dashboard.

More details here:

http://www.imperialclub.com/Yr/1958/58AutoPilot/index.htm

http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles/58AutoPilot/index.htm

How ironic. I wonder how many drivers using that system crashed, thinking it would do everything for them...

From looking at the photos on the latter article, I'm guessing zero people crashed expected it to do everything for them. The UI is a knob on which you set the speed you want.

The state of the art in computers at the time was the RAMAC 305, a vacuum tube computer which featured IBM's first disc drive. The computer itself was meant to be installed in a room 30'x50'. The disk drive itself was 4' across, weighed about a ton, and held 5 million characters (6 bits each). All this could be yours for only $300k/year (in current dollars).

Given that, and given that the transistor radio was introduced only a few years before, I doubt anybody expected the sort of magic we see as commonplace today. And if they did, they would let go of the wheel and find out in about 2 seconds that it was not staying on course.

Confusion over the function of cruise control was the subject of a long series of urban legends. I remember hearing at least one of these when I was growing up in the 90s. Ironically, the lesson of many of these stories is that the name for a fully self-driving system is "autopilot" not "cruise control".

> [1995] This guy saves up his money and finally gets the van he always wanted. Fridge and tv in the back, all the works. He starts driving out on a country road that leads to his home. He sets the van on cruise control and gets out of the drivers seat and goes into the back to get a beer. The van of course goes off the road, and when the paramedics ask him what happened, he said he thought he had auto-pilot.

> [1993] An old china man was driving along in his motor home. He turned on his ‘cruise control’. Apparently misunderstanding the function of ‘cruise control’, he then went into the back of the motor home. The motor home drove off the road and crashed. Apparently he did not realize that ‘cruise control’ is not ‘autopilot.’

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruise-uncontrol/

And don't forget this famous example:

> [1996] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ToNp1MY3c&t=33s

Likely did contribute to some accidents. Even simple cruise control can catch you out if you're not really paying attention -- e.g. when coming up on slower traffic.

But nobody in 1958 would have the slightest expectation that the car would actually drive itself. Tesla has been using the terms "self driving" and "autopilot" together since they started markting the car.

This is a good example of a case where engineering from first principles, especially around user experience for driving, can lead to making the same mistakes again (e.g., autopilot naming, and potentially issues related to consistent braking performance found in the Consumer Reports review.)

You're getting downvoted, but I agree.

A commercial pilot doesn't flip on autopilot and start browsing the internet on a phone or take a nap. And that's at 30k feet where there's little traffic to worry about.

It seems like a misunderstanding of what the technology does, by consumers and the media. I'm no expert on Tesla's marketing history, but I'm of the opinion that these crashes are due to drivers misunderstanding that the system does and what its capabilities are.

I don’t totally disagree with you but I will point out that planes land everyday in white out conditions with no visibility due to level 3 landing systems. The pilot can’t see anything and thus can’t help really even if they are awake. They’re mostly just there to talk to air traffic control for these kinds of landings. One pilot told me the Airbus planes no longer allow manual control.

Accoring to Wikipedia, you still need to have a minimum runway visibility unless you are landing CAT-IIIc, which is not used commercially (yet).

CAT-III landings are automatic, but the pilot needs some visibility to decide if the plane is going to touch down in the landing zone. If they are totally blind they will divert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_...

From the "Special CAT II and CAT III operations" you linked:

Some commercial aircraft are equipped with automatic landing systems that allow the aircraft to land without transitioning from instruments to visual conditions for a normal landing. Such autoland operations require specialized equipment, procedures and training, and involve the aircraft, airport, and the crew. Autoland is the only way some major airports such as Paris–Charles de Gaulle Airport remain operational every day of the year. Some modern aircraft are equipped with Enhanced flight vision systems based on infrared sensors, that provide a day-like visual environment and allow operations in conditions and at airports that would otherwise not be suitable for a landing. Commercial aircraft also frequently use such equipment for takeoffs when takeoff minima are not met.

I get your argument, but pilots do sleep all the time. Usually they take turns, but there have been multiple incidents that we know about where both pilots have fallen asleep at the same time.. we only ever hear about them if the pilot overshoots the airport, or in one case, the pilots self-reported it to encourage others to talk about the issue.

It's extremely likely it happens more often than we think and that most pilots simply just aren't going to voluntarily give up that information.

It doesn’t matter what the term ACTUALLY means, what matters is what the general public THINKS the term means.

And that seems to be “I don’t have to care while this is on“.

And that’s a big problem.

And a big part of what causes the general public to think that is Tesla's egregiously misleading marketing.

See Tesla's page on "autopilot" here: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

The first (and only) thing you see at first is "Full Self Driving hardware on all cars", and a blurb about how all Tesla's have the ability to be self-driven. It does not mention here, nor anywhere else on the page that the current implementation of autopilot in Tesla cars is not fully self-driving. The video just underneath the headline is a video that shows a car using self-driving capabilities, not autopilot.

The entire rest of the page is like this as well. It talks at length about how Tesla's have the capability to drive themselves, and hardly ever mentions that self-driving and "autopilot" are not the same thing. There is only one single sentence, buried in the middle of the page, that mentions that drivers must remain alert and ready to take control.

And again, this is on Tesla's home page for their autopilot function. This is the first page that comes up when you Google "Tesla Autopilot". It's really shameful for Tesla to have marketing materials like this.

> It seems like a misunderstanding of what the technology does, by consumers and the media. I'm no expert on Tesla's marketing history, but I'm of the opinion that these crashes are due to drivers misunderstanding that the system does and what its capabilities are.

Perhaps the name "autopilot" has something to do with that misunderstanding.

Eh. This is reminding me of a law school friend bragging about how great lawyers are, giving the example of suing a firearms manufacturer for a 'faulty' safety. They'd done something insane, like pointing a loaded gun at a friend and pulling the trigger, thinking "haha the safety's on!" But lo and behold, the safety failed and someone was dead.

She was adamant that a safety was infallible, and any damage from failure was the manufacturer's responsibility. As someone who grew up with guns, I realized that only an idiot would put someone's life in the hands of a 'safety' mechanism.

If people have dumb, uninformed ideas about what words mean in context, they should probably educate themselves. Based on videos and articles I've seen, people are doing extremely stupid things that are clearly warned against by Tesla, like driving down a winding country road, or assuming it's going to somehow know about road work.

Then it's incumbent on car manufacturers who sell their cars with 'auto-pilot' as a marketing term to educate the public on what that term-of-art means. This might cost some money to do. A line in the manual doesn't count.

How much training does the average pilot get before they are in a situation where they can activate autopilot?

If someone misunderstands you, they may have a problem.

If everyone misunderstands you, you may have a problem.

If almost everyone understands you but a tiny vocal minority pretends they didn't, though...

> A commercial pilot doesn't flip on autopilot and start browsing the internet on a phone or take a nap. And that's at 30k feet where there's little traffic to worry about.

That's rich, you may want to actually do some research into what commercial pilots do when flying before making such claims.

e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24296544

> A commercial pilot doesn't flip on autopilot and start browsing the internet on a phone or take a nap

Commercial pilots are trained professionals; Tesla drivers are not.

> where there's little traffic to worry about

I don't think you are aware of how much traffic on the "air roads" really is....

Well, that was condescending for no reason.

I drove around five miles to my friend's house and back today. I'd estimate that I was in near proximity with potential for collision with around 1,000 cars on that trip.

During the portion of a flight where traditional autopilot is used, how many planes are on a potential collision course? They're traveling at specified altitudes, along specified paths through 3D space. So tell me, how many planes is a jet airliner likely to collide with at cruising altitude when operating on autopilot?

Auto pilot implies level 5 autonomous vehicle, while Tesla has glorified assistance capabilities, at level 1.

Idiots are using as if Tesla is Level 5.

No, idiots are naming it as if it's level 5.

"Tesla on cruise control crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser"

^ I wouldn't have bothered to read the article. BUT it is the exact same thing. [Just a system to help you drive]