They haven't released a detailed deep dive on their statistics, other than some definitions of what counts as a crash. This is from the company headed by the "funding secured" guy. Elon is clearly willing to lie if he believes that it will serve his interests or mission.
Even if we accept their safety stats at face value, Tesla is getting ready to launch a new feature - "Full Self Driving" - which behaves substantially different from autopilot and has a much different operating design domain and intended functionality. They've had close to 2k internal testers and O(100) external testers of "Full Self Driving" for about a year - nowhere near enough time and data to get the same level of confidence they have for autopilot. Add on to this that it will operate in environments that are substantially more accident prone than highway driving or clearly marked single lane roads, and you can see why regulators might be worried by a larger rollout.
Even worse he's the guy willing to falsely accuse someone of being a child rapist because that person pointed out he had simply tried a publicity stunt that failed, badly, and his tech solution to a cave rescue with a huge media focus was actually worse than useless.
In other words when correctly and honestly called out for sprouting bullshit Musk goes fully delusional in the nastiest way possible. It's pretty worrying behaviour. He may well go on to do amazing work, i don't know either way on that and I don't have to have an opinion on it either. Surely nobody sane would never trust his word on anything for any purpose ever again after that display. I'd expect from a five year old.
It's called narcissistic injury, a behavior associated with narcissistic personality disorder.
TSLA is one of the most widely held retail stocks. Why do you think this is? Might you be assigning too much weight to this?
Warren Buffett
Elon is undoubtedly skilled at driving up hype - the popularity contest part. As for long term - Tesla themselves claim they never plan to pay dividends.
A widely held stock means that many people fundamentally believe in a company and its leadership, and are voting with their wallets.
#2 most widely held on Robinhood, #1 most traded on Fidelity this last Friday.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-top...
https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/gotoBL/fidelityTopO...
80% to 95% of retails traders/investors lose money in the stock market.
When Elon tweeted 'use Signal' (the app) they bought shares of 'Signal Advance' and it soared 400%, a totally wrong organisation. Then there is GME and many other stories. Obviously they are free to do what they want with their money, but are these the people you would trust with, well, anything?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/signal-advance-jumps-another...
[Citation needed]
Price discovery is a primary function of a financial market. TSLA is widely held and highly valued. These are facts. The burden is on you to refute this and general platitudes and whataboutism doesn't cut it.
I'd go so far to bet that 85-95% of long term TSLA investors have made money, not lost it. Guess who's leading TSLA?
Parent was suggesting no one should trust Musk, due to a few Twitter lapses.
My premise is that given the breadth, and depth of people investing in Musk's companies, there may be more to the story.
Replace TSLA with in your post Bitcoin and you sound like a 'true believer'.
I am perfectly happy with people believing/cheering on TSLA/Crypto, just let's clearly tell that apart from an independent, unbiased assessment.
> Surely nobody sane would never trust his word on anything for any purpose ever again after that display.
The impression I get is that was just a silly attempt at tit for tat. E.g. guy says "You're doing X for Y bad reasons!" while not having any evidence that you're doing things for Y reasons, so you shoot back with something in the same vein. Y being either "getting publicity" and "being a pedo" respectively.
Yeah, they're not really the same severity of accusation/insult (particularly as Musk has a bigger megaphone), but raising the stakes is common if someone starts a fight with you.
Also note: "Richard Stanton, leader of the international rescue diving team, urged Musk to continue construction of the mini-submarine as a back-up, in case flooding worsened."
This is the crux of the argument. However, it falls flat when you consider that many other simple "can reduce that number" measures have not been adopted – like fitting speed governors to cars limiting them to some speed limit, putting tracking beacons in cars to making them automatically stop at red lights, or putting in devices in cars to limit drunk driving.
I don't see a reason why a much more complicated technology should leapfrog these simpler ones and be put into production so quickly, potentially risking innocent lives in the process. In fact, I believe the reason why it is being rushed so quickly is arguments like yours coupled with a low understanding of the technology involved. People are viscerally more willing to accept the idea that an "artificial intelligence" is going to drive the car, rather than the idea that their car is a multi-ton hunk of metal that needs to be limited and monitored carefully.
> I honestly think the biggest issue is probably the legal a s regulatory overhead of responding to the technology rather than the technology itself, but since it’s so hard to quantify I don’t often bring this up. But the biggest passion I have seen if from those same engineering minds, who truly understand the complexity, but also want to see it happen. Their timeframes are just long. I’ve heard 2045 and 2050.
Those timeframes seem normal to me. Rollout dates should not be decided by the whims of corporate shareholders. Let's put simple speed limiters on cars first, everyone can understand that technology – and see how that goes!
It’s not like manufacturers are waiting on the government to let them sell limited cars
There are literally millions of situations where a Tesla might do the wrong thing, and some of them have been caught on camera.
If we can't put speed limiters on cars, we definitely shouldn't be putting highly complicated computers in charge with no humans at the wheel.
This argument makes no sense.
How do obvious edgecases invalidating a simple solution have any bearing on the feasibility of a complex solution being able to handle as many edgecases as a human driver?
But AI is not magic, its just more rules.
You'll have people passing you on the left and behind you at +30mph. The cars behind you in your lane will form a queue of waiting to pass you, and they'll be getting into the right lane needing to accelerate from 55mph to 80mph (hard for a lot of cars). This is going to cause the cars in the fast lane to brake, which will cascade through the lane and cause a traffic slowdown. If someone isn't paying attention, it's going to result in a rear end collision and an hours-long traffic jam for hundreds of people.
This is one of my worries with self driving cars: They'll follow the letter of the law even when it's not practically safe.
Surely it's the ones doing 80mph that are the hazzard
Look at traffic as a fluid: A stream is calm when the water flows at the same speed and direction, when there is nothing to get in the way. Put a rock into the stream and now water has to move around it, causing flow patterns that collide. Traffic can be looked at as a fluid in the same way. If you want it to flow without friction, it all needs to go the same speed in one direction. Accidents and traffic slow-downs are caused when people merge and people have to slow down unexpectedly, which is going to happen when you're going 30mph under the prevailing traffic speed.
Yes, the person going 55 is following the law, but the law was written in a faraway room, a long time ago, by people not driving on the road in that instant. Sometimes in the instant, following the law is not the safe thing to do. It's the same reason it's not safe to go 25 in a 55, and that trucks are required to put their flashers on if they're going under a certain speed. Because they hare a hazard if they are going too slow.
This is not correct. Many states in the US do not allow the use of hazard lights while moving.
A stopped car won't crash. A moving car will.
How did you determine cause and effect here? There have been a LOT of changes to trucks, roads, signage etc.
The best part is the same ignorant people develop the driverless cars, so we get Google cars that turn right across the bike lane instead of merging into it.
Unless you are driving in the state of WA:
You adapt and do less takeovers and only when it is absolutely safe.
Eh I have a speed limiter I use quite often just to make driving through average speed areas more chill, and it doesn’t stop me pushing the throttle and getting up to full speed if I need to.
It’s a bit smarter than “never go over the speed” - if you push the accelerator in a definite way the car will still respond, while if you hold your foot fairly still and only accelerate gently it will cap out at the max.
My understanding is that those companies had trained test drivers, but Telsa is pushing this out as a beta feature update and allowing the consumers be their test drivers?
Are normal people paid minimum wage who become complacent and occasionally fall asleep (e.g. Uber accident), I would argue non-paid Tesla customers are at least as good as "trained drivers". There are 2K drivers using FSD beta for almost a year, w/o any accidents.
The word "trained test driver" is misleading. It sound like "test pilot", which are usually the best in their field. But paid test drivers are just people that applied for a low pay job. Heck, they maybe even be tired all the time because they have to have two jobs.
How does “income received” translate into “qualified for driving”? A good lawyer, doctor, it consultant, … is probably on average a less safe driver than someone that has been through a training, despite earning more.
If your worry is that the test drivers are tired because they need to work multiple jobs - mandate better pay. And from what I know from my doctor acquaintances, being tired from overwork is part of the job description.
But even that is not really sufficient for supporting the statement either.
You think having money qualifies someone for being a good test driver? This is one of the most classist comments I've ever read.
A responsible company would hire people based on some criteria of competence before putting them in the "supervisor" seat for an AI driving assist. Even an irresponsible company like Tesla or Uber will still do more due diligence for the competency of their test drivers than for their customers, whose only qualification is a wallet.
Yeah, but this does not happen.
Source: How much is a test driver paid?
Exact wages vary at different companies. Cruise, the self-driving arm of General Motors (GENERAL MOTORS), has advertised positions that pay $23 an hour. Meanwhile, Waymo, the self-driving entity of Google's parent company, has posted jobs offering $20 an hour.
Uber declined to disclose how much it pays its safety drivers.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/21/technology/uber-test-driver...
According to you, Tesla should be hiring me for FSD beta testing, according to "selection".
I don't even know how to respond to your assertion.
It's not about emotions; it's about statistics.
The problem that needs to be overcome is not the emotions of people losing loved ones, but the difficulty of accurately estimating safety by test-driving autonomous cars.
The following is from a Rand Corporation study titled: "Driving to Safety"; subtitle "How Many Miles of Driving Would It Take to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability?"
Key Findings
Autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles to demonstrate their reliability in terms of fatalities and injuries.
Under even aggressive testing assumptions, existing fleets would take tens and sometimes hundreds of years to drive these miles — an impossible proposition if the aim is to demonstrate their performance prior to releasing them on the roads for consumer use.
Therefore, at least for fatalities and injuries, test-driving alone cannot provide sufficient evidence for demonstrating autonomous vehicle safety.
Developers of this technology and third-party testers will need to develop innovative methods of demonstrating safety and reliability.
Even with these methods, it may not be possible to establish with certainty the safety of autonomous vehicles. Uncertainty will remain.
In parallel to developing new testing methods, it is imperative to develop adaptive regulations that are designed from the outset to evolve with the technology so that society can better harness the benefits and manage the risks of these rapidly evolving and potentially transformative technologies.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html
Bottom line, Tesla's (and everybody else's) "safety record" isn't and it will take a lot more time to know whether self-driving cars are as safe as human-driven cars. The stats you quote are not sufficiently informative.
Original horseless carriages didn't have any rules like that. We liked them anyway. That seems a more realistic model of adoption, than ivory tower perfect-safety pipe dreams.
The same timeframe does not necessarily apply to other kinds of systems. The study is about self-driving cars and the numbers quoted are about self-driving cars, in particular self-driving cars compared to human-driven cars.
The study starts by defining various industry-standard measures of reliability, for example scroll down to page 3 and look at equation 1 and equation 2. You can see that those are not about "perfect safety" but about measuring the probability of an accident and so on.
As a general rule, if you are confused by the text of a study, check out the maths. They should be unambiguous.
Edit: it took almost 4 decades to improve them. We are starting with driverless vehicles just right now.
Besides, i don't even see the value proposition for fsd other than commercial trucks maybe.
If people want to be driven around, maybe a taxi or public transport would be more economical and better for congestion and the environment in general. Not sure what people want to do while being driven in a fsd car. A human to human discussion is already possible. Watching a movie? Read a book? Sleep? All these are not practical in a driver's seat.
This is like the old shitty political saying “Something must be done! And this is something, therefore this must be done!” It sucks that driving is so dangerous. That doesn’t mean letting tesla do whatever they want will help improve things. As others have commented, the data on tesla’s safety is apples-to-oranges. It doesn’t mean much of anything.
On a side note, legally if a Full Self-Driving system kills someone ... who gets sued? The manufacturer? Is Tesla going to tank every single lawsuit from its Full Self-Driving system injuring/killing someone?
On Monday, California's state regulator said: "Based on information Tesla has provided the DMV, the feature does not make the vehicle an autonomous vehicle per California regulations."
So the safety concern seems justified. Tesla said it’s full self driving. In reality it’s just assisted driving. Maybe they aren’t prepared to deal with the risk???
This is why we’re never going to have self driving cars. If everything that they say in the industry has to be taken with a grain of salt, why would any city agree to take on that liability?
Doesn’t even matter if the tech saves lives. You can’t even be straight about what you can deliver.
Really we are deciding car company marketing terms are suddenly dubious when someone is legitimately on the cusp of a breakthrough.
VW Blue Motion… there is no blue in that motion.
Audi Quattro Engine… is it four cylinders? 4 litres?
Ford Mach-E — Mach has a defined meaning… seems deceptive to me.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure#Co...
If FSD can handle >90% of my driving, I’ll not quibble.
> The driver is only in the seat for legal reasons. The car is driving itself.
and talk to me about "it's only marketing, you should understand".
Oh, and as the owner of three Audis over my life, there is NO material from Audi that calls it a "Quattro Engine".
It's the "Quattro all wheel drive system".
What’s the accepted term for level 5 autonomy?
What’s the accepted term for level 2?
Do you think there are tesla consumers being tricked by FSD capabilities? Right now it highlights that it auto drives on highways but not on streets… which is pretty accurate in my opinion. Where is the dishonesty?
Full Self Driving would be acceptable and accurate for level 5.
Now for level 2 advanced driver assistance.
“The driver is only in the seat for legal reasons. The car is driving itself” is a current Tesla statement. That’s inaccurate.
“The car is driving itself until it can’t, or it does something it shouldn’t. But you’re in charge, and we legally disclaim any responsibility for failures of the car to drive itself” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, I admit.
Not misleading or confusing at all. I’m glad people focused on Audi’s Quattro out of my examples because it’s honestly the worst one.
Let's not beat about the bush, it's clear that some drivers are already abusing the current "self-driving but not really-self driving" autopilot features. This steps up the bullshit saying "oh this time it is full self driving (but not the total absolute hands off autonomous driving". So which is it? If it's not fully autonomous, don't bullshit saying it's full self driving.
In other words, if there's no blue in Blue Motion, no count of 4 in a quattro and no mach in Mach-E, that's not likely to get people killed. But if there's no full self driving in something called "Full Self Driving", that can and will get people killed.
I know there have been some autopilot accidents but that’s not this system.
However, I have issues with calling and marketing something "Fully Self-Driving" and then adding paragraphs of text to explain that it's actually not fully autonomous, in fact it's not supposed to be autonomous at all and the driver has to have their full attention on the road and hands on the wheel and any other operation is dangerous. If this was something benign, I'd just consider it disingenuous and shady marketing (that seems par for the course for corporations), but in case of a 2 ton vehicle it's not just their own customers at risk, but everyone around them.
Yes, you and me know what this system really is and can approach it responsibly. But we see so much evidence that there are many people who have no scruples about ignoring this (willfully or not) and assuming that the system must be good enough if it's called "Fully Self-Driving" to unpack a lunch on their lap.
By contrast, car features generally have non-misleading names - "anti-lock breaking system", "cruise [speed] control" etc. "Full self driving" goes beyond the pail any way you look at it. It is a very explicit name: it means very specifically that a car can drive itself, with no human intervention whatsoever. Even more, Elon Musk, the CEO of the company, has repeatedly claimed to buyers that FSD will allow the cars to work as robo-taxis that can be allowed to work for their owners while their owners are otherwise occupied. This again very explicitly says that FSD doesn't require any human intervention whatsoever.
The fact that, after realizing that it obviously is nowhere near close to such a thing*, they started putting in warning that Full Self Driving is in fact not full self driving in any way shouldn't excuse them. They have obviously repeatedly lied and misled buying customers, and the name has to be changed.
*(and won't be in the next 50 years, most likely, until we actually start seeing AGI or something)
Also FSD is offered as a subscription so you can “try it out” if you are cautious. Do people really see this as an issue?
There are MUCH worse things on the road than FSD driven Teslas - what consequence do people think will occur?
"Full self driving" is an explicit term - "self driving" means the car drives itself. "Full" means it does it fully. It couldn't be any clearer what the term means.
Terms like "blue motion", "quattro", "mach-e" are just made up branding terms that would mean nothing to anyone without knowing about them before hand.
FSD doesnt mean anything to anyone either, as it’s never been done before.
Its because only Telsa does it. Name an example of another manufacturer using a term as explicit and misleading as "full self driving".
You don't see other manufacturers calling ABS "fully tailgating safe".
BMW: BMW Personal CoPilot systems
Audi: Traffic Jam Pilot (which they class as Level 3 autonomous driving, higher than Tesla class both autopilot and FSD).
This isn’t an opinion… this is fact. People hate on Tesla out of ignorance of the automotive industry.
Some more facts, Tesla make: - the safest cars (no qualification required) - most efficient production cars - most advanced “auto pilot” but they class it the lowest level.
The nonsense in HN threads talking about safety issues in Tesla or FSD need to go look up cruise control crashes in any other manufacture.
(I don’t own a Tesla nor am I invested. I do work with almost all the major OEMs in my day job)
Other one is currently absolutely total lie which should result termination of company, other is not in anyway misleading.
But sure, FSD is the irresponsible one.
Autopilot keeps your heading and velocity and is aware of objects in its path… so that’s extremely similar to autopilot in a plane.
Full self driving drives the car on its own. It still monitors driver awareness. But the car does most of the driving. I don’t see the issue. It does what it says.
> Full self driving drives the car on its own. It still monitors driver awareness. But the car does most of the driving.
Full directly contradicts most
I can reel out examples all day, that no one bats an eye at. But Tesla so something… it’s a whole different ball game.
Descriptive names are bad, because: I don’t think full self driving is full if there are any interventions.
(Despite there being a sliding scale of autonomous driving from levels 1 to 5 with FSD easily falling into 3 if not 4).
Teslas official literature classes it at level 2. But yep, super misleading compared to “Safe Sense” (aka forward hazard detection). Do you know what Tesla call that feature: “forward hazard detection” those bastards with their descriptive names!
Think of it like firing a gun into the air. You didn't aim to kill anyone, but if someone is unlucky enough to be hit when the bullet comes back down you are still responsible.
If someone is unlucky enough to be struck by your FSD vehicle it'll still be your fault, regardless of whether you could have known it'd happen.
Drivers will need to weigh trusting their car's software against the risk of being responsibly for what it does.
Another aspect that is important but easy to miss - deaths caused by an autonomous vehicle are learning experiences - once a couple have happened there will be an engineering response and they will stop happening.
Compare that to ordinary drivers, where each death is just a pointless waste of a life. There is an argument in favour of putting these cars on the road even if they were more dangerous than humans. The faster we push through the painful learning experience the sooner the payoffs of superhuman driving will start being felt in the death statistics.
That's the mother of all assumptions. They might get worse as a result of the engineering response. You are assuming that there is a perfect understanding of the problem space. There isn't. This is not a 'mere matter of engineering' at this stage.
The point is that the understanding of the problem space increases with each incident. This doesn't mean that regressions are impossible (they are probably inevitable), but each regression also increases understanding of the problem space.
A death isn't the same as running into a stationary emergency vehicle of course, but AFAIK Tesla hasn't taken any meaningful engineering response to that issue. Assuming they will to other issues seems overly generous.
OTOH, Waymo seems to have only crashed into one bus, assuming it would move over.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
Here: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
Each of those companies, and Waymo, etc., all agreed to accept liability for any damages from their efforts.
Tesla is sticking with "the driver is responsible, not us". So yeah, that's why there's a discrepancy.
Currently AP's "self-driving" features cannot save a life, they have killed people.
To understand that better, examine AP in finer detail:
Teslas have safety features that can intervene when the current situation seems to be leading to an accident. Let's call those correction. Those can (and have) save lives.
Tesla also has features that are supposed to be more convenient for the driver. The claim is they take a load off for the driver. Call those the convenience features.
-
The convenience features have not evolved to the point where you are ever allowed to be less vigilant than you would be otherwise! By definition if AP is driving, you too must be fully attentive and "driving" hence the increasingly intrusive detection which has now evolved to detecting wheel input every 15 seconds...
Now realize that while for the sake of examination I'm describing convenience vs correction, these are all systems in one car. You can get the correction features without FSD, but you can't get the inverse.
Because of this, the convenience features alone cannot avoid an accident that the avoidance systems would not have.
-
This is tricky to think about, but consider a driver who would have drifted off the road without AP. As soon as the driver deviates too far from what AP would have done and starts touching a lane marker, the lane detection systems realize there's an issue and correct.
However, say there's a tricky lane marking where the correction system wrongly believes the driver input is wrong. They get an alert and an attempt at correcting steering inputs.
But because the driver is already inputting a direction with full intention, this wrong input is already actively being overridden by the human who plotted their turn and can clearly sense that they should fight the suggested input before they end up running off the road.
With the convenience features enabled, the driver's input will come after the wrong action has already been taken!
If the avoidance systems knew that the convenience feature was about to send you into a jersey barrier... the convenience feature wouldn't be "allowed" to send you into a jersey barrier!
-
I want to see studies that focus on the safety of driving with full driving aids but without convenience features. Claims that you are less tired from using them show that it's an inherently unsafe practice since you should be exactly as vigilant as normal.
Because of what's explained above, the expectation would be that there is no drop in safety if your car only corrects when there is a hazard... but there is a drop in safety when you are falsely lulled into a sense of safety.
To me WIP self-driving should be monitored by trained people. It shouldn't be a box you get to tick in your infotainment screen.
If Tesla wants to carefully pick who's allowed to run these betas more power to them, but the number of idiotic videos I can pull up right now of people intentionally testing FSD updates in situations they know are hairy and risking other people's safety is insane.
That is just setting up self-driving to be dead on arrival.
That is just not true. Distracted/impaired human driving is a real thing that kills people. Just two weeks ago there was a DUI event where a Tesla driver on AP literally passed out behind the wheel and the car was trivially brought to a stop anyway.
> This is tricky to think about, but consider
This is postulating a two-mode failure! That's just bad engineering. Yes, that can happen, but by definition (involving two rare events overlapping) it's an extremely rare condition and will show only a vanishing frequency in any final statistics.
Never compromise core features (in this case "don't let distracted drivers hit the thing in front of them") chasing this kind of thing. Work on the secondary/tertiary modes once you have everything else down.
Nope, and this is a perfect example!
AP didn't save that person's life, or more specifically, AP wasn't not needed to save this person's life
Tesla made Emergency Lane Departure Avoidance standard on all Teslas a while back.
Emergency Lane Departure Avoidance only intervenes if the driver deviates from expected behavior
So situations where AP would avoid a collision while being in control, the car still has a feature using the same sensor suite and the same capabilities as AP to intervene.
A Tesla without AP would have stayed in it's lane in the absence of driver input and slowed to a halt with the flashers on.
Honestly a better outcome...
It's as simple as, AP is half heartedly handling the happy path + the unhappy path.
It's ok to not have perfect handling of the unhappy path as it does currently, something is better than nothing in 99% of cases. But it's not ok to have this mode that falsely gives drivers the impression they're covered on the happy path.
Like your example could not be more perfect because a person driving under the influence relied on AP to handle the happy path for them. Now you can get into "well maybe they would have driven anyways if it didn't have AP"
And that's where emergency LKA and AEB come in. They wouldn't have given this driver a crutch to get on the road, but if they still chose to drive, they'd avoid an accident in the same manner AP did once things went off the rails.
This all goes back to the fact that the convenience features by definition cannot save a life. AP, as in the feature manually activated to assist the driver actively, cannot save a life, because it only works on the happy path. Other features like LKA and AEB are what save lives
> This is postulating a two-mode failure! That's just bad engineering. Yes, that can happen, but by definition (involving two rare events overlapping) it's an extremely rare condition and will show only a vanishing frequency in any final statistics.
> Never compromise core features (in this case "don't let distracted drivers hit the thing in front of them") chasing this kind of thing. Work on the secondary/tertiary modes once you have everything else down.
I have no idea at all where any of this is coming from... please quote where I suggested core features should be compromised for secondary features.
That's not how those systems work. You're confused, I think. If you let Jesus take the wheel in a Tesla under manual control it will absolutely depart your lane and hit whatever you are aimed at. The emergency features are last minute corrections to avoid an imminent collision, and they work about as well as other car vendor's products do, they reduce the likelihood and velocity of an immiment collision. They don't drive the car for you. The feature that does is AP.
> please quote where I suggested core features should be compromised for secondary features.
You want to refuse autonomy solutions to everyone to save hypothetical bikers at sunset in Mendocino! (Edit: sorry, I got the wrong elaborate example and was paraphrasing another poster. You want to save drivers where they incorrectly countermand an incorrect autonomy decision in a circumstance where the incorrect autonomy would have been correct. Or something. But the logic is the same.)
You are wrong.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-lane-departure-avoidance-sav...
I understand your confusion though, Tesla is well behind other manufacturers here.
VWs have had this behavior for years now, almost as soon as they started dabbling in advanced safety assists, meanwhile Tesla got it just two years ago.
Kind of shows where the priorities were early on, saving incapacitated drivers vs "look ma no hands!"
-
Also your second quote just leaves me with more questions.
What on earth are you talking about
> You want to save drivers where they incorrectly countermand an incorrect autonomy decision in a circumstance where the incorrect autonomy would have been correct.
What?
> Emergency Lane Departure Avoidance is **designed to steer a Tesla vehicle back into the driving lane** if our system detects that it is departing its lane and **there could be a collision, or if the car is close to the edge of the road**.
And again, AP acted as a crutch that an intoxicated driver attempted to lean on.
Now an intoxicated driver could have decided to drive without the crutch... but emergency lane departure avoidance would have kicked in when they passed out and centered the vehicle to a stop instead of trying to maintain a certain speed.
(And let's head-off the straw-man here, no I'm not blaming AP for an intoxicated driver but I am stating the reality, that AP. Autopilot. Is marketed in a way that causes sober people to think of it as a co-pilot, let alone drunk people)
AP literally disengages when off the happy path, it's other safety features that help when things go wrong.
It's amazing that people still haven't caught onto this.
> AP literally disengages when off the happy path, it's other safety features that help when things go wrong.
AP never disengages autonomously, ever. You turn it off via driver action, either via steering input that countermands it or via the stalk control. (Same deal for TACC -- it's on until you hit the brakes to kill it).
Really, go rent a Tesla for a few days and experiment. I think you'd find it enlightening.
https://jalopnik.com/this-video-of-a-terrifying-high-speed-t...
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/254126/20201112/watch-tes...
> Autopilot disengaged about 40 seconds prior to impact due to the Tesla issuing a Forward Collision Warning (FCW) chime
Here's a reckless driver in a Tesla assuming AP could handle unsafe speeds on their behalf.
Once again AP is not the one to blame but... a driver tries to use it as a crutch and it disengages due to the FCW.
Due to the complete lack of input from the driver, many suspect the driver didn't realize AP would be disengaged by the FCW, and while AP disengaging would have given an alert, it'd be at the same time as the multiple FCW alerts they got.
So just like the DUI, the safety features would have worked *better* without AP. If they had been driving without AP they would have not have expected a now-disabled feature to respond to the FCW for them...
-
Seems like you didn't realize this was the case either with FCW and AP, so you're welcome....
Ps: My Model S test drive (remember those) was not going so hot when the headliner started peeling off the demo car, but then went cold when the not-a-salesperson panicked when I didn't disable AP fast enough (since we were approaching a section of lane markers in their test circuit where it was known to veer towards barriers)
I'm pretty familiar with Teslas though, I was a huge fan until gestures to everything from AP marketing to silent CPO->used change, etc.
Pps: Please don't go and try this on a public road to prove an internet stranger wrong.
You already admitted to trying to test ELKA (which won't intervene until things are going seriously wrong.)
You're not going to be able to test a FCW with AP without doing something silly...
But when Tesla cars were then compared to similarly priced cars; that record dropped through the floor.
On the personal decision making level you might want to know what car provides the best safety record for your budget. If you can afford a tesla you would be interested in the safety of similarly priced cars to compare with.
On the society wide statistics level Tesla drivers are not exactly like the whole driving population. If for no other reason the price selects a specific demographics with their associated behaviour patterns. By controlling for the price we can hope to better control for these differences too.
Chemotherapy regularily kills people. I would absolutely consider it. Taking a lot of pain to get a chance at extending my life.
"Tesla autopilot saves lives" is a bold claim.
Tesla has a safety record that’s not unimpressive compared to the 36k people who die every year even though their failures have been more public and newsworthy. Their stats have been relatively objective.
We also have a framework for this: https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicl...
As there is a framework in place already, shouldn’t we push forward? As long as we are reducing the statistical risk of driving below the risk of human drivers, shouldn’t that be the litmus for whether these programs are allowed to progress? I know I am being simplistic, and I understand that no statistical model will ever make up for the loss of a family member, the generally accepted foundation for the morality of self-driving car technologies hinges on whether they can beat the human-driven statistical equivalent.
If there is concern about that they shouldn’t continue. But if there isn’t, these experiments should progress as they could ultimately reduce mortality.
There were 3,723 deaths in California in 2020. The lifetime odds of dying in a motor-vehicle crash for a person born in 2019 were 1 in 107. These odds suck. Is that really acceptable? Can we do better? We know we can. If we can reduce that number we should.
If we can’t, we should restrict this technology’s rollout until it can.
Am I overly objective?
I’m not an expert.
I mean ultimately I want legislation built on objective data and loving values with human compassion at the core. I feel like sometimes we see these decisions based on how fast the system can adapt the ocean of existing automotive and roadway regulatory compliance to the technology changes, rather than new realities. People have no idea how much the books and legal cases that many cal trans engineers have spent their lives developing stand in the way of self-driving vehicles. I honestly think the biggest issue is probably the legal a s regulatory overhead of responding to the technology rather than the technology itself, but since it’s so hard to quantify I don’t often bring this up. But the biggest passion I have seen if from those same engineering minds, who truly understand the complexity, but also want to see it happen. Their timeframes are just long. I’ve heard 2045 and 2050.
Anyone more expert than I care to weigh in? I’d love to learn more. I am not trying to weigh in with any merit — I am a nubile entrant and simply sharing the output of conversation with people who will always be more qualified and I, but I’d love to learn more about this.