Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns...
by sidibe on Sunday September 26, 2021 @11:25AM
(#28661585)
> 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
Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns...
by onethought on Monday September 27, 2021 @02:23AM
(#28667647)
Again, it’s closer to what it does than Blue Motion. Or Toyotas latest “Safety Sense” (even though it sense hazards aka forward collision detection…)
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.
Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns...
by sidibe on Monday September 27, 2021 @08:46AM
(#28669997)
Uh neither of those even suggest what it does while Tesla's says it does something it doesn't do
Re:San Francisco raises Tesla 'self-driving' safety concerns...
by onethought on Tuesday September 28, 2021 @06:04AM
(#28681018)
So esoteric meaningless names are good.
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!
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.