That being said, when I visited areas with very little road traffic like in central Florida or in country areas in Georgia, it is very hesitant and I can only assume because of the lack of training data. Simple things like left turns become overly hesitant or it goes into a middle turning lane thinking it's a new lane because the lines are rough or non-existent.
I love using it for long trips, it has changed my quality of life when it comes to driving. I simply do not agree calling it 'rubbish' is fair at all and really is a gross oversimplification of it's faults in situations.
Not only they are very comfortable and reliable for such, but also the manufacturer takes the legal responsibility when level 3 mode is activated, whereas if you use a Tesla, it is always your responsibility.
Means a lot.
>Tesla's software is far superior even with its weaknesses.
https://www.engadget.com/mercedes-becomes-the-first-automake...
If Tesla's software was objectively better, why couldn't they get L3 approval in California?
This YouTube channel shows a lot of real-life experience (in the US, because in Europe it cannot do much):
https://www.youtube.com/c/AIDRIVR
The concern is more about all the boring scenarios / basic safety features like highways, pedestrian detection, etc.
It is a bit suspicious that Tesla systematically rejects the fault on the driver
(and that is something where I think Tesla should improve).
It's a great car though, but it sometimes gives a strong feeling of highly experimental / unstable platform
rather than a super safe car where you'd want to bring your wife and kids.
It works only on highways, only in daylight, only when there's a lot of traffic, only under 40mph. Tesla's software does not have those limitations, so yes, it's objectively far superior than a glorified 'follow the car in front and do what it does' simple software that Mercedes is pushing.
This is fine, I enjoy my car and since I am the highest authority of myself, I do not need their validation of my personal experiences I have first hand.
With Tesla's Autopilot, you are driving the vehicle.
With Mercedes new L3 system (which I'm going to assume you haven't ever used, since it isn't available yet on a vehicle for purchase), the vehicle is driving.
This isn't about Elon, it's about the capabilities of the vehicle you're sitting in. You're also ignoring TFA -- if Tesla's Autopilot is the best thing on the market, why are they asking officials to redact information on whether or not someone got into accidents while using it?
>'follow the car in front and do what it does'
which is describing adaptive cruise control/radar based cruise control which has been on the market in vehicles for over two decades.
>Tesla's software does not have those limitations
Recklessly enabling a half baked vision only autopilot doesn't mean it's "superior". There's a reason actual self driving car companies (Cruise, Waymo, etc) report disengagements per mile as a means to show how "self driving" their vehicles actually are.
Until Tesla self-reports this data, it's nothing but a toy, and I wish folks the best who actually trust their life with it. [0]
>Officially, Telsa describes Autopilot as "an SAE Level 2 driving automation system designed to support and assist the driver in performing the driving task," as cited by NHTSA. Autopilot is not an autonomous driving technology, but the new numbers suggest people are treating it that way, sometimes resulting in tragedy.
[0] - https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a44185487/report-tesla-aut...
Source? It turns out that was just marketing material from what I have read and they don't actually indemnify you.
It seems much more useful for city commuting where < 40 mph is much more common.
But the reality is, trains are less flexible and generally slower than driving in the US. They may reduce stress, and they're definitely safer, but the trade-offs mean they aren't objectively better. For instance, Amtrak from Seattle to Portland is about 3.5 hours, and this is one of the fastest-traveling routes in the US (except the Acela); meanwhile, driving is a shorter journey on a good day, though it could be five hours or more on a bad day. Still, Amtrak is known for its delays, and there's travel to the station. When I lived in Seattle, Amtrak would probably take me around 5 hours, on average, door-to-door, whereas driving would still be about 3.5 hours on a good day, because I could start from home and go directly to my destination.
And, once you're at your destination, you have more options with a car. From Portland, I could drive out to Multnomah Falls; there are no good public transit options for that.
I wish trains in the US were better... but they aren't.
Why has nothing changed? If so many people are having problems, how is Tesla allowed to continue?
that being said as far as I know the cameras they’re using aren’t good enough
LIDAR won't read the posted speed limit, it will only see the shape of the post. But it won't be blinded by reflections, it will never confuse the side of a truck with the sky, it won't miss an object or hole on the road due to poor contrast, etc. It's becoming very affordable, too.
For example, your brain has way better depth info than just parallax in most cases, as it gets info about what is required to keep a distant object in focus and aligned in both eyes. These two values will not ever available to fixed cameras and yet provide direct measurements of distance for your brain.
"That looks like a firetruck" says the object identication net, "but after reasoning about it, it is actually just a mural on the side of a building"
And nobody knows how to build such a thing yet so it might be a long time.
"The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates."
In other words, you can't rely on this until if becomes perfect. Which is meant to imply it is already almost perfect, but upon careful reading could also mean it doesn't work at all.
> The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers
The fact that you are able to activate and use FSD (albeit not always well), implies, in Tesla's own words, that they've done this (otherwise it wouldn't be available for activation and use).
> as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions
These are the real weasel words, and Tesla likes to use them regularly, to imply pretty heavily to their fans that "this all works, but pesky regulators are keeping it out of your hands".
"but if you compare FSD with drunk teenage drivers you still get a lower number of incidents"
The point of tech is to improve the status quo significantly, not marginally.
No one will use a calculator that is wrong 2% of the time.
I know this is real life and no driver (AI or not) could perform perfectly in this context, but AI should be WAY better than the average human driver instead of just merely equal to.
https://electrek.co/2019/10/23/tesla-autopilot-safety-9x-saf....
Tesla's falsely named "full self driving" cannot drive the car safely so they say you always have to have a driver in control of the car, only that is demonstrably not compatible with human physiology, and again directly contradicts the name.
We do not expect full attention from pilots in aircraft with autopilot, when they have potentially hundreds of lives under their control, but Tesla thinks it's ok to require that of car drivers and give them less time to respond to any sudden incident than a pilot has.