> (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you)

That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so. What does the Tesla do (or not do) in this case that's bad?

> That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so.

Only under the assumption that the driver was trained in the US, to follow US traffic law, and is following that training.

For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

> For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

In my EU country it's theoretically at least 3 seconds before initiating the move.

As I mentioned in my other comment, 1 second is negligible, I would even dare to say that 3 seconds, is, too. For a computer it should not be, however.

In general, the requirement is the following:

a) Check for the possibility of the maneuver; b) signal the maneuver; c) perform the maneuver.

However the signaling needs to be done in a way that it helps other road users to read and act according to your maneuver, so 3 seconds seems to be a good amount of time for that.

There are, on the other hand, situations where signaling the maneuver is also desirable even though the maneuver might not be possible yet: merging into a full lane, so vehicles might free up some space to let you merge.

That seems odd to the point of uselessness, and does not match the required training I received in Germany from my work colleagues at Daimler prior to being able to sign out company cars.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__9.html seems to be the relevant law in Germany, which Google translates to "(1) Anyone wishing to turn must announce this clearly and in good time; direction indicators must be used."

Merging into the lane is probably better addressed by §7, with the same content: https://dejure.org/gesetze/StVO/7.html

Maybe the guy was talking about the reality, not the theory. From my autobahn travels it seems like the Germans don't know how to turn on the blinkers.

> … the Germans don’t know how turn on the blinkers.

[Insert nationality/regional area here] don’t know how to turn on the blinkers.

I wouldn't say so. It's a very marked difference with a sharp change the moment I drive through the border.

I’m only saying this from my experience in Canada where every region thinks its drivers are the worst.

I think the moral of the story is that cars may or may not turn their blinkers on. If they do, the self-driving should catch that just as easily and expect the car to switch lanes (with extreme caution).

For anyone confused, this person’s statement about the EU is total bs.

It's what I was taught: you switch on your indicators when you have checked that you are clear to merge and you have effectively committed. I always assume that someone who has put their indicators in is going to move according to them, whether it's clear or not.

I don't doubt that it's the way you have been taught, but it doesn't make any sense. The whole point of blinkers/indicator lights in cars are to signal your intentions before you do them: if you're going to signal at the same time that you do the action you're signalling, you might as well not bother.

You signal in advance, but you check before you signal. Mirrors, signals, maneuver.

It is what I see in practice in Eastern Europe. They signal as they are shifting lanes. Even if they turn the blinker on and then start moving 1 second later, it could be considered the same thing as 1 second is negligible.

Thus "the indicator shows that you ARE moving." is correct, at least in practice.

It's the difference between actually purposefully blinking and blinking to avoid a fine. In the latter you just tap the blinker stalk as you're turning the wheel. If someone's trying to do a dangerousish turn (waiting for a line of cars to do an illegal U turn for example) they'll be blinking to signal intention most of the time.

I got my license in 2014, in Germany, and was taught to turn on the turn signal > check mirrors > turn your head to look over your shoulder and only then, when you're clear, do you merge.

Defensive driving is to assume they might not check their blindspot, etc. And just generally ease off in this situation if they would merge in tight if they began merging now.

That’s the issue: I would immediately slow a little bit to let the other one merge. FSD seems to be noticing something, and eventually slow down, but the action is too subtle (if at all) to signal the other guy that you’re letting them merge.

What I expect it to do is to be a courteous driver, and back off a little bit to signal to the car in front that I got the message and that it's safe to merge.

FSD is already defensive to a fault, with frequent stop-and-go indecisions of when to merge onto a highway, but that's a whole other story.

A major part of safe driving is about being predictable. You either commit and claim your right of way, or you don't. In this situation, both can be signaled easily to the other party by being a bit of a jerk (e.g. accelerating to close the gap and prevent somebody else from merging) or the opposite. Both are better than not doing anything at all and keeping the other dangling in a state of uncertainty.

FSD is in an almost permanent state of being indecisive and unpredictable. It behaves like a scared teenager with a learner's permit. Again, totally different than my experience in Waymo in the urban jungle of San Francisco, who's a defensive but confident driver.

> it makes the most random lane changing decisions and changes it’s mind in the middle of that maneuver.

This happened to me during my first month of trialing FSD last year and was a big contributing factor for me not subscribing. I did NOT appreciate the mess the vehicle made in this type of situation. If I saw another driver doing the same, I'd seriously question if they were intoxicated.

It's an interesting trope among Tesla owners to feel the need to put a disclaimer like this in (quoting your post):

    > "I’ve had a Model Y for more
    > than 3 years now, well before
    > Elon revealed himself as
    > the kind of person he really is"

It's always fun to compare the timeline of Elon Musk's well-known shenanigans with the "But I got a Tesla in <year>!".

E.g. you got one around 3 years after the "pedo guy" incident[1].

I suppose to whatever extent you factor in the personalities of the executives whose companies you make car purchases from, that didn't rate as much of a factor?

One is left wondering what it was that did.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tham_Luang_cave_rescue#Elon_Mu...

There's degrees to being a shitty human being.

Using your platform and millions of followers to publicly shit some random person who pissed you off is a degree of it.

Being a colossal hypocrite with your 'free speech' platform, or lying to your customers is something else.

Full mask-off throwing millions of dollars towards electing a convicted conman who is unabashedly corrupt, vindictive, nepotistic, already has a failed coup under his belt, and is running on a platform of punishing anyone who isn't a sycophant is... Also something else.

I'm a bit more cynical and see his turn as a business move. He has considerate market captured, so he went full wackjob to capture that market.

Apparently, this doesn't reflect reality and he actually went crazy because one of his kids is trans. I have no idea because I don't know him.

> I still find it shockingly bad, especially in the way it reacts, or doesn’t, to the way things change around the car (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) or the way it makes the most random lane changing decisions and changes it’s mind in the middle of that maneuver.

I have said it before, I will say it again. It seems that this software does not posses permanence, neither object nor decision.