[HN Gopher] Tesla to recall vehicles that may disobey stop signs
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla to recall vehicles that may disobey stop signs
Author : jjulius
Score : 280 points
Date : 2022-02-01 16:03 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| natch wrote:
| "Recall" lol. They will tweak a behavior in a software update.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Did _anyone_ in Tesla 's Legal Department review the rolling stop
| feature? This should have screamed illegal. Heck, I'm no legal
| expert but it screams illegal to me.
| bdamm wrote:
| The responsibility for following the law is still on the
| driver.
|
| If I'm responsible, then I can choose to have the car break the
| law on my behalf, and accept the consequences.
| rini17 wrote:
| Maybe Legal is next on chopping block after QA.
| duxup wrote:
| I gotta think there are some emails with some engineer "guies
| wut?" out there.
|
| I always wonder how this plays out on a granular level. Some
| folks have to be thinking / asking if this is a good idea or
| not.
| loceng wrote:
| This should initiate a conversation into following the spirit
| of laws vs. authoritarian rigidity of law without nuance.
|
| In high school there was only a handful of things I learned
| that were actually useful, outside of social experiences. One
| of them was a teacher who taught business and law classes. In a
| business class he shared with us, first saying he could
| probably get fired for telling us this, but that if we had good
| ideas, new we had a good idea for a business, then instead of
| going to university and getting $40,000+ into debt over 4 years
| - get a job and/or apprenticeship and work on your idea. At the
| end of that 4 years he suggested you'd be in a much better
| position than those who went into higher education; of course
| it depends on what someone's goals are. In law class he gave an
| example: in some states in the US there are very long stretches
| of road where you won't see anyone for awhile, and sometimes
| there are traffic lights on a straight road - with no
| intersection. He put forward to the question of what do you do
| if that traffic light is red when you come up to it? There's
| zero vehicles near you in either direction, there's no
| intersection to worry about cross-traffic, and so do you stop
| and wait for the light to go green, or do you go again even
| though it's red? I think every reasonable person would answer
| that they would go. E.g. A rolling stop in some circumstances
| isn't dangerous for anyone; and I also see police doing it all
| the time.
|
| Of course AI deciding when to do it when it may not yet be
| accounting for the whole or an adequate enough of environment
| does add questions, and because it's not critical to self-
| driving, I believe it's a good idea to not allow it until that
| conversation can be thoroughly hashed out, as well as the
| technology much more thoroughly tested and evolved.
|
| Edit: Lazy people downvote - find something better to do with
| your time, or some other form of entertainment.
| gpderetta wrote:
| Similarly airplane pilots should not wait for instructions
| from the tower if they can clearly see that the way is clear.
|
| Simple, binding, easy to follow rules are important when the
| cost of mistakes is death or significant damage
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| > Simple, binding, easy to follow rules are important when
| the cost of mistakes is death or significant damage
|
| There is nuance. Pilots are the final authority when it
| comes to the safety of the craft, and you're in the clear
| if your actions were justified. With self driving cars,
| we're discussing where the boundaries are and when the
| vehicle's decision can take precedence over coarse legal
| code (as occurs with human drivers every day).
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3 (14 CFR SS
| 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in
| command.)
|
| (private pilot who has deviated from ATC commands in GA
| aircraft and had to fill out a written report over a cup of
| coffee)
| gpderetta wrote:
| Of course! And you should definitely run a red light if
| staying were you are would put you or other in dangers.
| I'm commenting about running a red light just because the
| road seems otherwise clear.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Bad analogy. When driving, there is no "Tower" with an
| overarching view of your situation.
| loceng wrote:
| And most of the sky for a pilot is a blind spot as planes
| they can't currently see can intersect they could easily
| and quickly collide.
| gpderetta wrote:
| Car drivers also have blind spots. See the Constant
| bearing, decreasing range problem for example.
| kfarr wrote:
| In that case, you could say it's even more important for
| all individual agents to adhere to a set of clear and
| predictable rules.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| > Edit: Lazy people downvote - find something better to do
| with your time, or some other form of entertainment.
|
| If you must know, I downvoted you because you whines about
| downvotes. Sure, I'm lazy, but at least I don't cry about
| internet points.
| loceng wrote:
| And you're being naive or arrogant enough at this moment to
| think this is "cry[ing] about internet points."
|
| Maybe brainstorm as to what the actual implications of the
| dopamine hit/easy reward to downvote/suppress content is
| vs. simply having an upvote mechanism, and then share your
| thoughts and I'd be happy to get into a conversation with
| you. It doesn't sound like you've spent the time to
| actually extrapolate to the full consequences of the
| downvote mechanism.
|
| Your response here though is one prime example as to why
| downvotes for most content types shouldn't exist. That you
| spent the tiny effort to click downvote to react to what
| you perceived as my "whining" - that that was a strong
| enough trigger or annoyance for you emotionally says more
| about your emotional regulation than the content of what I
| said, likewise by actually commenting you outed yourself or
| rather shared your actual qualitative reaction/response -
| so now there's an opportunity for a conversation, to
| broaden or enhance your understand or perhaps get educated
| by seeing things more from my perspective.
|
| Don't you think having a qualitative response vs. a single
| quantitative digit changing to suppress content in an
| algorithm is more valuable to you, to society?
|
| P.S. Upvoted you for commenting. Now maybe your comment
| won't be at the bottom, interesting how the "worst" or less
| valuable or lowest quality [qualitative] comments naturally
| make their way to the bottom - without requiring the
| downvote mechanism, isn't it?
|
| P.P.S It'd be neat if HN/dang would offer a parallel view
| of posts, and then in the actual thread view, have 2
| columns of comments - one not influenced by downvotes, and
| the other as the status quo - so people can start to
| experience and contrast; because AFAIK downvotes/upvotes
| aren't available in the API, so a third-party can't develop
| this? I'd certainly develop this system if HN's API could
| facilitate it.
| lamontcg wrote:
| You're just encouraging the normalization of deviance.
| "Everyone does it".
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o
|
| You can get away with it a hundred times, or a thousand
| times, but eventually you'll be tired and do it and clobber a
| pedestrian you didn't see because "you were tired" (so its
| not your fault, even though it 100% is).
|
| Stop thinking the way you do and stop being one of the 88% of
| American drivers who think they're above average. Follow the
| goddamn rules because you're not 99.99% perfect and its the
| .01% that is going to hurt someone else.
|
| And "I see the police doing it all the time" clearly isn't
| the right moral barometer, if you haven't been paying
| attention.
| loceng wrote:
| No, but you're attempting to put words into my mouth.
|
| You're making assumptions too, it seems, of what scenarios
| I believe it's safe for rolling stops to occur - or what
| state a person will be in when they're doing it. For
| example, I don't drive when I'm very tired, and whether I
| am tired at all or not, if weather conditions or if traffic
| conditions
|
| Maybe we shouldn't allow airplanes to been flown anymore
| because "you can get away with it a hundred times, or a
| thousand times, but eventually you'll" crash?
|
| I wonder if you're convoluting different rules, like your
| assumptions, and not differentiating that different rules
| are more serious than others - giving the same weight to
| less serious rules than those that are more serious. E.g.
| Speeding through a red light during rush hour is different
| than a pedestrian jaywalking - yet both are illegal.
|
| And before someone comes in to say a jaywalker can't do the
| same damage as a vehicle, here's my personal story: I was
| riding my bicycle, going a normal speed, vehicles parked
| along the side as they were allowed to - and the perfect
| scenario for a collision occurred: a tall, strong man
| walked out into the street - looking the opposite direction
| first - from behind a box van with no windows, and stepped
| right into my path with no time for me to put my breaks on.
| I crashed into him - he didn't actually move - and I had
| whiplash, my jaw slammed shut, I bite the right side tip of
| my tongue 80% off in a deep cut, and multiple teeth were
| split and chipped; him and his girlfriend didn't stay
| around, they actually laughed about it as they walked away,
| and I was in shock - and in pain - and so I didn't realize
| I should have called the police.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| I agree this is worth a conversation so here is mine.
|
| I think the law as-is is already ambiguous enough (due to its
| complex nature) that our society waste huge amount of energy
| and resources arguing about its meanings. Anything that can
| be "rigidly" defined (and therefore enforced) with little
| downside* is a win in my book, purely from a practical
| perspective.
|
| * Just like in this particular case (rolling stop), the
| "downside" of enforcing full stop compared to a subjective
| "safe rolling stop" is close to none.
|
| And about the spirit of the law, to me it's pretty simple: if
| an illegal practice works _better_ in this regard than the
| "legal" alternative, sure, we should seriously consider if we
| need to punish people doing so.
|
| But in most of cases people bringing this in, both practices
| are perfectly aligning with the spirit of the law. Paired
| with the practicality argument above, there isn't much point
| to allow rolling stop as it doesn't make the road "safer"
| than full-stop.
|
| Also, as someone coming from a country that doesn't have stop
| sign, people are spoiled and don't know how genius this idea
| is.
|
| In an ideal world where everyone follows traffic law and pay
| full attention to the road all the time, stop sign isn't
| really needed. However, people are not machine. The whole
| points of stop sign is to _force_ these distracted drivers to
| pay attention at intersections, even if only out of fear of
| getting a ticket. This kind of "foolproof" safety technique
| is not as excessive as it may look like at the first glance.
| Therefore, I'd argue having people full stopping is exactly
| the spirit of stop sign.
| loceng wrote:
| Okay, so safety wise let's say that's figured out. People
| and planners also like to take into account flow of
| traffic, and throughput wants to be maximized, you may then
| conclude that there are safe circumstances where rolling
| stops have practically no safety concerns - and if AI can
| become amazing enough [let's say there are 100,000 baseline
| safety experiments that need to be conducted/passed] to
| account for and catalogue those scenarios, then we could
| arguably loosen restrictions in at least some contexts.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| I agree if AI were dominant in driving in future, it
| could be loosen. But for now I'd say they should still
| follow the same rule as the human driver.
| jjulius wrote:
| >This should initiate a conversation into following the
| spirit of laws vs. authoritarian rigidity of law without
| nuance.
|
| That's why rolling stop laws _don 't_ always end up with you
| getting a ticket. I was pulled over a year or two after first
| getting my license for executing a rolling stop. The cop
| reminded me what I'd done, recognized that I was a dumb kid
| and a relatively new driver, told me to cross my heart and
| promise I'd never do it again, and let me go. Enforcement is
| circumstantial and nobody's going to follow that rule if
| they're not aware that they _could_ get in trouble for it.
|
| >In law class he gave an email: in some states in the US
| there are very long stretches of road where you won't see
| anyone for awhile, and sometimes there are traffic lights on
| a straight road - with no intersection. He put forward to the
| question of what do you do if that traffic light is red when
| you come up to it? There's zero vehicles near you in either
| direction, there's no intersection to worry about cross-
| traffic, and so do you stop and wait for the light to go
| green, or do you go again even though it's red? I think every
| reasonable person would answer that they would go. E.g. A
| rolling stop in some circumstances isn't dangerous for
| anyone; and I also see police doing it all the time.
|
| Many such stop lights exist because they provide a safe space
| to cross the road for pedestrians. In fact there are a few
| such lights near me in long stretches of road, among woods,
| that allow people walking through trails in the woods to
| cross the road. I stop at those lights every single time.
| Why? Because I don't know if someone has crossed yet. Could
| be that it's a family trying to cross the street, and they
| had to go back to the trail to corral a kid that wandered the
| other way and they'll be crossing the street in a second. Or,
| it could be a group of people - some of them have crossed,
| others are shortly behind and will be coming out in a second.
|
| The point is that, often, _I don 't know_ what is or isn't
| there. And unless I _know_ , I'm going to stop.
|
| >Edit: Lazy people downvote - find something better to do
| with your time, or some other form of entertainment.
|
| Happy now?
| loceng wrote:
| > Happy now?
|
| Morale has improved, the beatings can stop.
|
| You're right, and it's the same with jaywalking - it's
| usually only enforced or a fine or charge laid if the
| action causes a collision or harm.
|
| In the example I gave there wasn't pedestrian crossing as
| part of the example, and in it you also stop at the light
| first. In your scenario it sounds like there are blind
| spots too, whereas I guess I left out some language, like
| the road was in a desert with full visibility everywhere.
| Of course, you need to always fully stop or be rolling
| slowly enough, say if you're making a right-hand turn at a
| red light [where legal], so that you can stop quickly
| enough if you see past the blind spot that traffic is
| coming.
| jjulius wrote:
| >... whereas I guess I left out some language, like the
| road was in a desert with full visibility everywhere.
|
| I'd guess that's a speed deterrent. Long stretches of
| flat, open road with nothing around to crash into are
| very inviting for people looking to race. Get going fast
| enough and you risk losing control of your vehicle and
| crashing into other people, say an oncoming car. Those
| red lights, assuming I'm understanding your scenario
| correctly, encourage people to maintain a safer pace of
| travel.
|
| >Of course, you need to always fully stop or be rolling
| slowly enough, say if you're making a right-hand turn at
| a red light...
|
| ... no. There is no "or be rolling slowly enough".
| _Stop_.
| loceng wrote:
| > I'd guess that's a speed deterrent. Long stretches of
| flat, open road with nothing around to crash into are
| very inviting for people looking to race. Get going fast
| enough and you risk losing control of your vehicle and
| crashing into other people, say an oncoming car. Those
| red lights, assuming I'm understanding your scenario
| correctly, encourage people to maintain a safer pace of
| travel.
|
| Sure, or perhaps it makes people who maybe zoned out give
| them an opportunity to see how fast they're going - and
| slow down, and they get an opportunity to see if they
| slowed down fast enough to stop at the red light - before
| reaching the next red light which maybe is in a little
| town up ahead a bit, so if they didn't stop in time for
| the first red light then they've kind of been notified to
| be more careful next time. But the exercise was to ask:
| if it's 100% safe to go at a red light [once you've
| stopped at it], with zero potential for anyone getting
| hurt, do you go through the red light, or do you wait
| until it turns green?
|
| It makes for quite the interesting psychological test
| seeing how different people answer, similar I suppose to
| the whole train track scenario - where your train is
| going to crash - and you have a few options; Will Smith
| in iRobot has related trauma as well, the robot's AI
| determined to save him - an adult - over the young girl,
| even though he was trying to command the robot to save
| the little girl.
|
| > ... no. There is no "or be rolling slowly enough".
| Stop.
|
| If you're at a stop sign or red traffic light, and if
| it's legal in your jurisdiction to turn right on, you
| have to start rolling forward - and are allowed to even
| if there's a blindspot and can't see any traffic coming
| yet [the road could be clear or not] - so if you're going
| slowly enough and there's no traffic then you continue,
| if you all of a sudden can see past the blindspot and
| there's enough time to safely go then you continue, if
| there isn't enough time to pull out then you stop.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Agreed. In Ohio, I got a ticket for this exact behavior a
| decade ago.
| asdff wrote:
| They ticket everything in ohio. Drive too fast? Ticket. Drive
| too slow? Ticket. Lights not on after the legal definition of
| dusk? Ticket. Hanging out in the left lane? Ticket. Not using
| the blinker? Ticket. Leaving the blinker on? Also ticket. The
| sucky part is when you are a teenager they sometimes couple
| this with throwing all your belongings on the side of the
| road in search of the weed that you must have.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Drive too slow? Ticket.
|
| At least when I grew up in Australia, part of the road laws
| was a statement, very close to this effect:
|
| "You are required to drive at the maximum speed that is 1)
| within the speed limit, 2) is appropriate for the
| conditions, and 3) within your ability to control the
| vehicle".
|
| And that was the rationale for ticketing 'too slow'
| drivers. Within those constraints, there was no reason for
| you to go more slowly, and posed unnecessary risk to those
| who were within those criteria.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| Pretty sure Tesla's legal department isn't calling the shots on
| stuff like this.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| This. Elon is all "move fast and break things"; "things" in
| this case being Teslas and the people inside them. And why
| wouldn't he? The federal government barely pays attention to
| wanting to audit self-driving technologies as it is.
| modeless wrote:
| It's about as illegal as breaking the speed limit. If self
| driving cars aren't given the same leniency as humans to break
| the traffic laws that 99% of humans break then they will be a
| nuisance on the road.
|
| Ideally the traffic laws should be updated to be more
| realistic.
| lariati wrote:
| If you want to go over the speed limit then don't use self
| driving.
|
| If you increase the speed limit by 10mph, humans will just
| adjust up too.
|
| I do agree that interstate speed laws need to be updated. The
| most dangerous spot I drive on an interstate is crossing a
| state line that drops from 70mph to 55mph. The slower zone is
| so dangerous because some people are then going 55mph and
| some still want to go 80mph.
|
| I don't see how self driving can be anything other than the
| most perfect letter of the law driver though.
| Slartie wrote:
| So, self-driving cars are supposed to be, at the same time...
|
| ...much safer than human-driven cars, because they never tire
| and they never break traffic rules and thus never cause
| accidents
|
| and
|
| ...supposed to bend and break traffic rules like humans quite
| often do in order to be efficient drivers
|
| How should that be possible? Ah yeah, by having self-driving
| cars which are so extremely intelligent that they don't just
| follow the legal rules, but some idealistic set of rules
| deviating from the written laws that no human has ever been
| able to write down concisely, let alone bring into
| algorithmic form, but that is at the same time 100% safe and
| very efficient at allowing a maximum number of vehicles to
| reach their individual destinations in the shortest time
| possible.
|
| Anyone not convinced that L5 self-driving cars are impossible
| without first developing a strong AGI way above human
| intelligence levels should have a really good solution for
| this obvious contradiction.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Easy. There is no contradiction. If I can think faster, see
| better, and react faster than you, I can break exactly the
| same traffic laws as you and still be a much safer driver.
| Computers can do all of those things currently, and it is a
| matter of time before that is applied to driving.
| Slartie wrote:
| > think faster
|
| Computers cannot "think" at any speed.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Fine. "Plan" faster, if you want to be picky.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| > because they never tire and they never break traffic
| rules and thus never cause accidents
|
| No, because they never tire and almost never break traffic
| rules _in dangerous ways_ , and thus cause accidents _much
| less frequently than humans_. Realistically, this means
| that instead of following the speed limit they 'd follow
| speed limit + X, instead of keeping the prescribed distance
| they'd keep whatever distance human drivers typically
| maintain (while still keeping enough distance to react and
| stop), and it also means rolling through 4-way stops _when
| they have sufficient confidence that it is safe to do so_.
| deegles wrote:
| A human breaks the rolling stop rule on a case by case
| basis and is responsible for the consequences, while a
| rolling-stop-avoidance feature acts on your behalf and
| Tesla is responsible for it. An analogy might be that it's
| the difference between getting food poisoning from home
| cooking vs. from a restaurant. Even though you're consuming
| food in both instances, the liability is assigned
| differently.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Oh, according to Tesla, not so. Their perspective is that
| you're absolutely and solely liable in either case.
|
| Their legal department works studiously to handwave away
| every marketing statement.
|
| "The driver is only in the seat for legal purposes. The
| car is driving itself." - "You are entirely responsible
| for driving the vehicle."
|
| "Use Summon to bring your car to you while dealing with a
| fussy child." - "Pay attention to vehicle at all times."
| lamontcg wrote:
| > A human breaks the rolling stop rule on a case by case
| basis and is responsible for the consequences
|
| Not really. You can fail to see a pedestrian and cripple
| them and you won't see a whole lot of consequences for
| your "accident" (negligence).
|
| Breaking rules on a case-by-case basis is also how the
| normalization of deviance occurs:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o
|
| If you break rules when you think you don't need to
| follow them you'll find that you're not 99.9% perfect and
| you will inevitably cause a crash.
|
| If you follow the rules all the time you won't make that
| error.
|
| The reason why computers should ultimately replace human
| drivers is precisely because we're dangerously
| incompetent and overconfident and shouldn't be breaking
| any rules.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Traffic laws are draconian/inflexible because:
|
| 1) they have to be simple enough to fit in an AVERAGE
| DRIVER's head (it is a miracle to me that highways in
| cities are as functional and low-error as they are yes I
| know the death statistics on driving)
|
| 2) the law makers know the laws will be bent, so they set a
| baseline of VERY VERY SAFE and hope that most people only
| bend the law to VERY SAFE or at worst MOSTLY SAFE.
|
| It seems weird given how "bad" self-driving algs are right
| now, but with a detailed database of locations and context,
| I absolutely believe the "rolling stop" logic in the car
| would be safer and more effective than a human observing
| complete stops.
|
| I definitely do not agree with Tesla's vision-only no-
| location-context algorithm approach. Such a thing is a
| baseline, but if you know the location to where you are
| going, then route-specific data should be downloaded that
| has been optimized with multiple specific AI computation
| passes.
|
| That's how humans work: we are slow and dumb when we are
| driving in unfamiliar locations and routes, but for our
| commute routes we know where potholes are, cracks in the
| road, which lane to be in, dangerous sidestreets and
| intersections and congestion points, etc.
|
| So I disagree that L5 is impossible. Well, it depends on
| "way above human intelligence". I think what you are trying
| to say is you need a supersapient intellect with IQ 195.
|
| But AIs can be "dumb" but have access to a far larger
| memory space and database and respond to a far wider
| bandwidth of sensor information. The AI programs may not be
| solving Fermat's Last Theorem in the margin of a book, but
| they can be smarter in the sense that it's like having a
| million gnomes watching at once.
| Slartie wrote:
| > Well, it depends on "way above human intelligence". I
| think what you are trying to say is you need a
| supersapient intellect with IQ 195.
|
| I'd say even "normal human intelligence" would suffice
| for at least getting L5 to work (maybe not with perfect
| safety and efficiency, but working at all). But you
| cannot remove the need for actual "intelligence" from the
| equation, and that's the problem: our AIs are not
| "intelligent" at all. They are idiot savants, and driving
| a car isn't exactly a problem where you need savant-like
| capabilities. It is a very general, broad-range problem,
| which is much more applicable for the broad mental
| capabilities of even the not-so-smart part of humanity.
|
| Case in point: there are human savants in areas like
| playing chess or Go or recognizing text in many different
| spoken languages, but there are no human savants in the
| area of driving cars on public roads.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| There are public driving savants. They just don't see
| much benefit from it.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > the law makers know the laws will be bent
|
| Or possibly they just know that real world driving
| involves so many context-dependent decisions that trying
| to cover it all with laws is about as reasonable as
| making a self driving car.
|
| I think it's the nerds that are delusional.
| modeless wrote:
| It's not complicated. Traffic laws are not perfectly
| aligned with safety. Plenty of legal things are unsafe and
| plenty of things that are illegal are not always dangerous.
|
| This isn't surprising either. The process of making laws is
| political and politics are clearly not an ideal way to
| decide on a perfect and exhaustive and precisely detailed
| set of rules for anything. The laws do not constitute an
| algorithm for driving. They are necessarily simplified. And
| yes, a self driving car is going to need a set of driving
| rules that are much more detailed than anything humans have
| written down before.
| sutuplesu wrote:
| Pragmatic rulemaking for large numbers of people also
| needs to take into account the fact that the rule will
| naturally be viewed as a loose guideline by some people,
| and even as a thing to be defied for its own sake by
| others. Setting the limit stricter than the actual
| desired behavior can push average behavior closer to the
| target.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| > Setting the limit stricter than the actual desired
| behavior can push average behavior closer to the target.
|
| Absolutely not, at least in the context of speed limits.
| Where I live, most of the speed limits are at least 15mph
| lower than they should be (why is a 6 lane road
| 30mph???), so you get:
|
| * people who follow the speed limit exactly: 30mph
|
| * people who follow the speed limit the road was designed
| for: 45mph
|
| * people who see the limit as a "limit:" 25mph
|
| It's a mess. Roads need to be designed to the desired
| speed limit. Don't make a 6-lane straight road 30mph;
| people unfamiliar with the area will assume the speed
| limit's 50% higher than it is, and people from the area
| will feel like they're going incredibly slow.
|
| In short, it should be uncomfortable to go >= 20mph over
| by design if you want people to follow your speed limits.
| modeless wrote:
| Yes, that's a great reason why laws made for humans may
| not be perfect when applied strictly to machines.
| donatj wrote:
| > Setting the limit stricter than the actual desired
| behavior can push average behavior closer to the target
|
| I hate this so much. Selective enforcement only serves to
| enable overzealous enforcement against unpopular and
| disenfranchised groups.
|
| One does one small thing wrong and they can then tack a
| large handful of other charges that would never otherwise
| be enforced. It's disgusting.
|
| Make the rules things that should actually be rules.
| Enforce them as written. The end.
| mdoms wrote:
| It actually is incredibly complicated. You can tell,
| because every individual person you speak to will have a
| different interpretation of which rules are there for
| safety and which ones can be ignored.
|
| The fact that you start your post about how an AI can
| make such a determination with the words "it's not
| complicated" discredits you.
| modeless wrote:
| Obviously rules for self driving cars are very
| complicated. What's not complicated are the reasons why
| the road laws made for humans are not directly suitable
| as unbreakable principles for self driving cars to always
| follow.
| mdoms wrote:
| No actually that's incredibly complication. It differs by
| culture, regional attitudes, quality of infrastructure
| and hundreds of other variables.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The _way_ it 's different is incredibly complicated.
|
| The assertion that a significant difference _exists_ is
| not complicated and is easy to prove.
| wavefunction wrote:
| That seems like an appropriate generalized take on "laws"
| but in the specific case of ignoring a stop sign, I don't
| think it applies. Stop signs are a traffic control device
| that other drivers rely on to predict the intent of a
| vehicle approaching the stop sign.
| modeless wrote:
| Stop signs are anything but "ignored". The actual
| behavior only applies when the car recognizes a stop sign
| and also assesses good visibility to ensure that no other
| cars are around, and the car still slows regardless. It's
| not just blowing through stop signs at top speed whenever
| it feels like it.
| lolsal wrote:
| Following traffic laws is not a nuisance. Period.
| cmurf wrote:
| They're not equivalent illegalities. Speeding involves a much
| higher energy state than rolling stop. If there's an
| accident, very clearly one is much worse.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| If someone rolls a stop in a non-4-way stop and there was a
| car approaching at 55mph at the same time from a
| transversal road then a close to 55mph t-bone crash is
| prone to happen. (And the vehicle involved might be a truck
| with a heavy load vs a tesla rolling a stop)
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I feel like a Unicorn, but I obey the speed limit as
| closely as I can. My speedometer says a perfect 60 on the
| highway in my area, and I am always being passed like
| crazy. I've never received a speeding ticket.
|
| I'm not a "nuisance" for not going faster and breaking the
| speed limit. Everyone else is the "nuisance" and I vote for
| stronger enforcement where possible.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| One of the most frustrating things I deal with is people
| driving too fast on the main street that is (basically)
| just outside my cul-de-sac. It's a 35 mph limit but
| people drive 40-45. That makes it harder to see them
| coming, making the road less safe.
|
| Too many people seem to believe that the only thing that
| matters is the road in front of them, they don't consider
| the side roads at all. The city is talking about
| narrowing the lanes on the main street to reduce speed
| and add bike lanes, and it can't happen soon enough.
| asdff wrote:
| Also your chance of surviving an impact at like 50mph is
| next to zero as a pedestrian. You have a higher chance
| surviving an impact at 35mph even though its still pretty
| small.
| mmanfrin wrote:
| Going noticeably slower than the speed of traffic is
| dangerous and more of a nuisance than people going 5-10
| mph over.
| fallingknife wrote:
| The traffic engineering standard for the properly set
| speed limit to minimize collisions is the speed of the
| 85th percentile car on the road. https://www.lincoln.ne.g
| ov/files/sharedassets/public/ltu/tra...
|
| So if you are being passed like crazy and going the speed
| limit, the speed limit is set incorrectly, and you are,
| in fact, the nuisance.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| It's not just the highway, I am frequently passed on
| roads of all kinds for following the speed limit and
| going no faster.
|
| They are absolutely, for breaking the law, the nuisance
| in these situations. The number of people breaking the
| law does not change what the law is or, even necessarily,
| what the law should be.
| Sargos wrote:
| People generally drive the safe speed for the road they
| are travelling on. The fact that you're being passed
| (probably on the right a lot of the times) means you are
| driving slower than traffic and are actually a danger to
| other drivers. You might think you are being morally high
| and mighty but you are actually putting innocent lives in
| danger. Please have some introspection here.
| Xylakant wrote:
| > People generally drive the safe speed for the road they
| are travelling on.
|
| Can you substantiate that assertion somehow? People drive
| the speed that they feel safe with, but that is not
| necessarily true. It may be safe most of the time, but
| change due to external circumstances. It's safe most of
| the time to drive 50km/h in a residential zone, except
| that one time when a child jumps out from behind a car.
| orangepurple wrote:
| The taxi study proved that drivers tend to take greater
| risks in cars equipped with ABS (although the difference
| in collision rates was not significant). In short, ABS
| may do more harm than good.
|
| https://archive.ph/QKVjR
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| So I am the dangerous one for not engaging in dangerous
| activity. Gotcha.
| qubitcoder wrote:
| You are behaving dangerously. Accidents are caused by
| speed differences (one reason). People changing lanes to
| pass you introduces all sorts of additional complexity,
| increases speed deltas, reduces reaction time, limits
| visibility, requires quicker maneuvers, forces other
| drivers to double and triple check that others aren't
| trying to pass simultaneously, increases the risk to
| pedestrians and cyclists, etc.
|
| Deliberately going the speed limit when it results in
| other drivers constantly passing you increases the danger
| to to everyone else around you significantly.
|
| Please give this some thought.
|
| Ideally, the German model would be enforced. Slower
| traffic keeps right, left lanes are for overtaking. And
| many places are unrestricted, meaning there's no speed
| limit. The system works quite well, and the flow of
| traffic is _vastly_ more predictable, and feels a lot
| safer than the US interstate system.
| orwin wrote:
| No, you are just more conscious about speed-related
| issues than your local council. They should engage in
| road work to reduce the road width, making everyone slow
| down.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| You are the dangerous one for not engaging in an illegal
| but safer activity. It kinda assumes you're right if you
| call it a dangerous activity.
| Filligree wrote:
| The illegal activity is in fact illegal. Nothing more
| should need to be said.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Plenty more should be said.
|
| It's a bad law that endangers people and should be
| changed. Going an unsafe speed is another law, and its
| entirely possible that there is no speed that does not
| violate one of those laws. The law is a relic of when
| cars were less safe, and the same safety can be achieved
| with much higher speeds.
| fallingknife wrote:
| If you are an authoritarian, yes.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| The number of people breaking the law definitely changes
| what the law should be for traffic laws that primarily
| are about coordination. If 80% of the population starts
| driving on the opposite side of the road, or stopping in
| green and going on red we should absolutely change the
| law. Speed limits are primarily a similar law. It hardly
| matters what they are as long as people go the same
| speed.
| notch656a wrote:
| You drive the speed you feel you can drive without undue
| risk to others, those around you may do the same. I take
| the exceptional viewpoint that neither of you are
| necessarily 'nuisance.' Reasonable rate of speed depends
| on vehicle type/design, driver skill, sobriety,
| wakefulness, attentiveness, safety features of those on
| the road, density of traffic and environmental
| conditions. Reasonable rate of speed does not depend on
| whatever arbitrary number is on a sign.
| asdff wrote:
| All roads are not built to perfect standards. Chances are
| your freeway interchanges are not built to be taken at
| full highway speeds. If you tried to go 75mph to make the
| 101s to 110s interchange in LA, you would crash into the
| wall like many have done because the recommended speed is
| 35mph (and speaking with experience it is VERY sketchy
| going above that because the turn is entirely unbanked
| and the lanes are narrow and there is zero shoulder to
| speak of).
|
| There is also the issue of meatspace. Maybe your modern
| car can exceed the speed limit of the road surface and
| safely handle itself. Meanwhile, we still have our
| biology to deal with, which has not hardened itself to
| survive an impact at a high speed with a car. Only after
| millions of years of pedestrian deaths will that
| evolution be possible. When you find yourself driving
| 45-50mph on a road signed for 35mph, just know that if a
| pedestrian were to step out and appear in front of you,
| you are virtually guaranteed to kill them at this speed,
| and if you respected the signage, they have a better
| chance of surviving this impact.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The issue with an interchange is a sudden change in
| speed, which is a separate issue from the natural speed
| of roads.
|
| > When you find yourself driving 45-50mph on a road
| signed for 35mph, just know that if a pedestrian
|
| Change the road to be a 35mph road. It'll be cheaper too.
| sgc wrote:
| Most accidents happen at intersections, and you don't know
| how fast the other car is going. I would consider rolling
| stop far more "dangerous" in that regard. If I were
| programming it and laws were not a concern, I would
| probably look at speed limits on both streets and disallow
| on higher speed intersections, or those with obstructed
| vision (data allowing of course).
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That's exactly what Tesla did -- rolling stops were only
| performed if both streets were 30mph limits or less.
| asdff wrote:
| This makes the big assumption that the other driver is
| playing by the rules and respecting the speed limit and
| also not going to ignore the stop sign (which I see
| happen more and more lately in socal).
| HWR_14 wrote:
| That's exactly what Tesla did -- said to themselves "the
| law is not a concern" (to quote GP)
| hamburglar wrote:
| There's nothing magical about a full and complete stop.
| The reason we do it is to force humans to slow down and
| give themselves some objective standard for how much time
| they need to evaluate the conditions of the intersection.
| And the reason rolling stops are so common is that in
| many situations, it's very obvious that the full stop is
| an unnecessary bit of ceremony. I don't think it's at all
| unreasonable to say that a competent self driving car
| should be equally capable of making the necessary safety
| decisions whether it's paused for a full stop or not.
| Given the premise that we are approving computers to make
| high frequency decisions about multi-ton hunks of metal
| driving around on our streets, there is simply no way in
| my mind that the difference between a full stop and a
| rolling stop for them is actually a safety issue.
| sgc wrote:
| It's more a question of whether it's a problem for the
| other driver. But yes, I agree the best thing would be to
| change the laws. Instead they have gotten even more
| ceremonious in my area over the last few years. Tesla is
| taking on a ton of liability even by going 5 mph over the
| limit. This recall will be used in a court case over
| another FSD feature for sure.
| alexfringes wrote:
| Presumably the cars driving on the intersecting lane of
| travel could very well be in the aforementioned higher
| energy state when an accident during a rolling stop occurs.
| selectodude wrote:
| A rolling stop has a far higher likelihood of hitting a
| pedestrian than speeding on the freeway.
| mikestew wrote:
| _It 's about as illegal as breaking the speed limit_
|
| Which, last I checked for the state of WA, is also illegal.
| Just because there isn't a cop ticketing every rolling stop
| at the intersection next to the elementary school by my house
| doesn't make it "kind of okay because a lot of people do it".
| It just means the municipality sucks at enforcement.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| FWIW, if we're trying to maximize safety, then violating
| speed limits is often a must.
|
| If the speed limit is 60 mph, but everybody is going 75
| mph, then the safest speed for you as an individual is
| going to be 75 mph. Otherwise, you're a rolling road block,
| likely to get rear-ended, forcing tons of cars to change
| lanes to get around you.
| mikestew wrote:
| All you've done is to make an argument for speed
| governors. If the speed limit is 60mph, but everyone is
| going 75mph, then the point of "automated self-driving
| can't come fast enough, humans can't be trusted to pilot
| automobiles!" is self-evident. Argue all day if you like
| about whether the number on the sign is wrong, but that
| discussion belongs elsewhere.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| A fair point. Indeed, I think speed limits on freeways
| are too low, but that's another discussion.
| asdff wrote:
| Chances are the turns on the highway are designed to be
| taken at the speed limit. Sure go ahead and go 75mph with
| the crowd, don't be surprised when one day its you who is
| leaving a bumper behind on the freeway. Also on
| residential streets speeding is simply unaceptible. At
| 35mph an impact with a pedestrian will kill them 70% of
| the time. At 50 mph that goes up to nearly all of the
| time. We shouldn't favor serving impatient people over
| the safety of others. If the issue is everyone is going
| 75mph and its dangerous for self driving cars to go
| 65mph, then we should install speed cameras that send
| tickets to people who go 75mph rather than letting self
| driving cars also break the law and drive at dangerous
| speeds that our road infrastructure is not designed to
| handle.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Technically, highway (construction) code is that roads
| are engineered such that turns and such can be navigated
| safely at 15mph above the speed limit (or of 'cautionary
| speeds').
|
| I state the above entirely on its own merits, not as a
| judgment of "should I or should I not travel at speed X
| on this road".
| asdff wrote:
| Maybe thats true with modern code, but thousands of
| interchanges across the country that aren't being
| reconfigured anytime soon have those yellow recommended
| speed signs that imo should be headed in many cases
| eproxus wrote:
| Well, that's the purely driver oriented point of view.
| Speed limits exist for other reasons, e.g. when going
| through pedestrian heavy areas. Going above the speed
| limit there endangers lives (regardless of if everyone
| else is doing it or not).
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I could have been more explicit, I suppose.
|
| On surface streets, speed limits are usually quite
| reasonable. In all the streets I drive regularly, I think
| the limits are good, except for one stretch where it has
| two lanes in each direction, and so I often want to go 45
| mph, but the limit is 35, likely because there are some
| houses that directly face the street.
|
| It's highways that often have unreasonably slow speed
| limits, at least here in Oregon.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| They said "often". There are no pedestrians on that 60mph
| road.
|
| When it's 35 vs. 40 it's a lot safer to sit at the speed
| limit.
|
| And in a 25 zone there's not really a flow of traffic to
| worry about.
| [deleted]
| fallingknife wrote:
| But it's not just that there isn't a cop watching, it's
| that if there was, he still won't pull you over unless
| you're going 10+ mph over (more where I'm from!). So the
| official speed limit isn't really the law. Most cops also
| won't get you for a rolling stop unless it's egregious.
| lariati wrote:
| Are you going to build in a random number generator then
| for self driving to add speed sometimes above the posted
| speed limit? Or a button to boost the speed above the
| state laws?
|
| It makes no sense when all you have to do is not use self
| driving.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Tesla should use their interior camera to more closely
| follow the speed limits when the driver is black to
| reflect the reality that black drivers are more likely to
| get stopped for minor infractions.
| asdff wrote:
| Humans aren't given leniency, there's just an issue enforcing
| laws on the books. The answer isn't to give self driving cars
| the same pass to endanger others especially when its lines of
| code we could implement trivially.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| > If self driving cars aren't allowed to break the traffic
| laws that 99% of humans break then cars will become less of a
| nuisance on the road.
|
| FTFY.
| stefan_ wrote:
| I think you will find once your car is just locked at the
| speed limit you stop caring about doing some sort of manual
| PID controller simulation.
|
| Just like you will find people complain about taking their
| manual shift away when none of the US drivers ever knew what
| they are even missing.
| trgn wrote:
| That's exactly wrong. Human drivers need to get better, or
| get off the road. Robots shouldn't mimic careless driving
| habits.
| ses1984 wrote:
| How many times do human drivers need to actually stop at
| stop signs? Probably hundreds of millions of stop signs are
| rolled per day. How much more carbon is released, if all of
| those vehicles actually came to a complete stop?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Now consider how many people have died or been
| permanently injured from rolling stops. An extremely
| common mistake is a failed right-turn on red where the
| driver doesn't stop and rolls over a pedestrian in the
| crosswalk. And how many drivers will live with the guilt
| for the rest of their lives.
|
| Who cares how much carbon it saves when people get
| horrific injuries from it? If you want to save the
| planet, build intersections designed for rolling like
| roundabouts, crosswalks with signaling, and yield signs.
| ses1984 wrote:
| How many people have died or been permanently injured
| from rolling stops?
|
| There are loads of stop signs at intersections where
| pedestrians would rarely if ever cross, maybe it would be
| possible to differentiate those intersections from
| crosswalks.
| smileysteve wrote:
| This is a great argument for round abouts and yield
| signs. The safety of the stop sign is over stated.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Change 4-way stop signs for roundaubouts like most of the
| world. Not only does that increase throughput by allowing
| to yield they also increase safety by forcing a curve and
| avoiding frontal crashes. (Also, pedestrian crossings
| should and are normally set back a bit from the
| intersection, given some traffic calming like level
| crossings and a median island and have better visibility
| overall)
|
| "Roundabout vs. 4-way stop, which one is superior?" -
| Interesting Engineering:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkrYdlMCsg
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| You can't just replace every 4-way stop to a roundabout,
| and the "rest of the world" doesn't do so either. The
| vast majority of the roundabout would have to cut across
| residential property.
| lariati wrote:
| Robots have to follow the letter of the law. This is so
| obvious I don't even know how it can be debated.
| bdamm wrote:
| It is neither obvious, nor possible. There are zero real
| world drivers that actually follow all the laws. Do you
| think that people are just all bad? Or is there maybe a
| higher level principle at play here?
| aeturnum wrote:
| In the immediate, of course you are correct.
|
| In the longer term - I suspect we will develop two
| different sets of laws as we understand what things
| robots do well and what things they do not. For example:
| I suspect that robots might be allowed to drive slightly
| faster on highways because they are better at maintaining
| the proper following distance, but always drive at the
| lowest speed limit for roads with variable conditions
| because they struggle to evaluate the environment.
| depaya wrote:
| When driving I follow the spirit of the law, not
| necessarily the letter. If I'm approaching a stop sign and
| I can see clearly there are no other vehicles, bikes,
| people, etc, I slow down to very near a stop, but not a
| full stop. Why bother? The spirit of the law is to make
| sure I'm correctly yielding to other vehicles.
|
| Perhaps a better example is stop lines at intersections;
| sometimes stop lines are so poorly painted that you cannot
| see any oncoming traffic unless you pull forward another
| 5-6 feet. The letter of the law says you still must
| completely stop at the stop line, pull forward and
| completely stop again, then continue. Does anybody actually
| do that?
| globular-toast wrote:
| > Why bother?
|
| Because you're operating heavy machinery that regularly
| kills people.
| notch656a wrote:
| The law is just a tool. It routinely does not permit the
| optimal choice for neither yourself nor society as a
| whole. Like other tools, sometimes the best choice is to
| ignore it.
|
| ----------
|
| >The comment you are replying to said nothing about the
| law.
|
| >> Why bother?
|
| >Because you're operating heavy machinery that regularly
| kills people.
|
| The context of the quote by globular-toast is from this
| paragraph:
|
| >When driving I follow the spirit of the law, not
| necessarily the letter. If I'm approaching a stop sign
| and I can see clearly there are no other vehicles, bikes,
| people, etc, I slow down to very near a stop, but not a
| full stop. Why bother? The spirit of the law is to make
| sure I'm correctly yielding to other vehicles.
|
| There's no doubt there was reference to law.
| b3morales wrote:
| The comment you are replying to said nothing about the
| law.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > That's exactly wrong. Human drivers need to get better,
| or get off the road. Robots shouldn't mimic careless
| driving habits.
|
| One of those things will get better as technology advances
| and more R&D is done on it, the other thing will not and
| hasn't for a very long time. Unless I misunderstood your
| comment and you are actually referring to some form of
| transhumanity?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Human drivers respond to incentives. Lax policing, lax
| drivers. Strong policing, speed traps, and bigger fines
| result in people driving better. It's not that people can't
| drive, it's just that they don't care to drive well, but
| they will drive well if the enforcement is frequent and
| heavy enough.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| How are you defining better? Because personally I find
| taking rolling stops when it won't cause any harm is
| better than always stopping, even if it's not legal.
| orwin wrote:
| I think that if your country have signs for rolling stops
| (a yield sign basically), and chose not to put one at
| this very intersection (even if its a new road that had
| not seen much usage yet), you should do a full stop, even
| with a car doing a full stop in front of you.
|
| In some countries, it's not clear if you don't read the
| local language(Morocco, i'm looking at you!), but if the
| inverted red triangle exist, just do full stop.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Driving is all about risk management.
|
| Erring towards 100% cautious at all times isn't always
| better, it needs to be a balance between controlling the
| risk of accidents with the costs: time taken for
| individual drivers, general congestion of roads, even
| things like fuel consumption.
|
| Risks vary according to weather conditions, traffic
| levels, times of day, etc etc. A prescriptive approach
| (e.g. always drive at X speed) isn't usually optimal.
| trgn wrote:
| > the risk of accidents with the costs
|
| are you joking? The risk of driving is injuries and
| death, primarily born by those _not_ in a car. How
| somebody weighs this with speeding or rolling stops, or
| any other form of acting like a careless driver is beyond
| me.
|
| Most importantly, safe driving is good form. Speeding is
| trashy.
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's always safest to not drive at all, or never leave
| the house. On the other hand, exceeding the speed limit
| when driving through the desert doesn't endanger
| pedestrians to any significant degree (how many zeroes is
| sufficient?)
| Xylakant wrote:
| How many miles are driven through the literal desert
| compared to where people are around? If anything, the
| speed limit in the desert could be adapted to local
| conditions, but not base the default rules on that
| exception.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Why are they called "speed traps"? If you're driving over
| the speed limit and get a citation, it isn't a trap. This
| isn't like a sting operation for vehicle theft with a car
| left parked and running with keys in the ignition.
|
| There are some states where it was found illegal to have
| someone slow down too fast, i.e. you can't have a 70 mph
| zone followed by a 30 mph zone. That would in fact
| constitute a speed trap of kinds, since no one can safely
| slow down 50 mph in an instant. The practical effect of
| this is 3 or 4 series of signs spaced exactly 100 ft or
| so, each one lowering the speed limit no more than 15
| mph. It's the equivalent of a 'braking zone' on a race
| track, but on the street.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I'm a little incorrect in my use of "speed trap," my
| apologies. I meant where the police are hanging out out-
| of-view and ready to spring on anyone speeding or doing
| other obvious violations, not sudden speed transitions
| which are mainly used as a revenue stream.
| rdtwo wrote:
| Is a trap because its below the natural speed of the
| road. My city for example lowered the speed to 25mph by
| roads are designed for 35-45 mph so naturally traffic
| flows at that spees
| devnulll wrote:
| The tension between "Follow the Law" and "Drive like a human" is
| interesting. On the one hand, humans violate the law all the
| time: Rolling Stops, Speed Limits, Driving without Registration /
| Insurance, Passing on the Right, Left Lane Camping, Carpool lane
| violations, Stopping after the white line at a stop sign / light,
| not using turn signals properly, following too closely.
|
| Any FSD System that drives on the freeway and follows the speed
| limit is doomed to failure. Likewise, as evidenced by the crazy
| amount of "right on red" fines in cities, humans don't come to a
| full 3-second stop.
|
| "Drive like a human" seems a reasonable goal for now.
| caaqil wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30163663
| rsync wrote:
| Cars neither obey nor disobey stop signs if they have an human
| operator.
|
| _Please drive your car_. You owe this to everyone else on the
| road.
| cmusfan wrote:
| If the company accepts the liability, I can't be charged for a
| driving crime while the car is out of my control, and it is
| statistical safer to let the car drive itself I am on board,
| but the courts haven't cleared the liability problem, and there
| are safety concerns with large white trucks being detected, so
| driving your own car seems like the right choice for 2022.
| deegles wrote:
| At the moment, Tesla's liability position is "heads I win,
| tails you lose," since you're supposed to be hands-on-wheel
| and alert at all times while using FSD. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| rsync wrote:
| " ... so driving your own car seems like the right choice for
| 2022 ..."
|
| It is my belief that this will always be true.
|
| From yesterday:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs
|
| "... as we look at this accident history what we find is that
| in 68% of these accidents, _automation dependency_ plays a
| significant part ... "
|
| "... _automation dependent_ pilots allowed their airplanes to
| get much closer to the edge of the envelope than they should
| have ... "
| xyst wrote:
| FSD might be a complete joke at this point. Tesla should open
| source all of their data, code, and documents at this point.
| Clearly Tesla or any of this vulture capital funded companies
| cannot get the job done.
| turdnagel wrote:
| What is it with this headline? Tesla is deploying new firmware
| OTA. No vehicles are being recalled. If deploying new software is
| a "recall" then I do recalls dozens of times a week.
| ctdonath wrote:
| This is one of the really hard issues of automation: humans
| normalize disobedience to the point that strict obedience ranges
| from irritating to dangerous; the gap is not an engineering
| problem.
| jmpman wrote:
| My Tesla will allow me to engage autopilot in a school zone,
| obeying the adjustment I'd set on speed limit - while using, not
| the correct school zone speed limit, but the non-school time
| speed limit. It would allow me to go 30 mph over the school zone
| speed.
|
| How can Tesla claim self driving if the car can't read a sign
| that says - speed limit 25 mph during school hours, and properly
| adjust? Humans just look around to determine if school is likely
| in session by the number of cars in the parking lot during normal
| school hours, or they know the school calendar.
|
| How does a self driving car make that determination? Query the
| school district website for the school, identifying their bell
| schedule and tacking on a buffer ahead and behind? Assume a
| school schedule that's M-F? What if it's a religious school that
| operates Sun-Thursday? Now the car has to determine which
| religious sects obey which calendar? Is it different in each
| country?
|
| Just another example of a massive hurdle self driving cars
| have......
|
| And another recall that should be issued.
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| As far as I know, these signs always have either flashing
| lights when active or a printed schedule. I don't think it
| would be enforceable against human drivers otherwise.
| natch wrote:
| It's not self driving yet, that's how.
| cmelbye wrote:
| Tesla doesn't claim that the car is responsible for setting the
| correct speed limit -- they actually claim the opposite. From
| the Owner's Manual:
|
| > Warning
|
| > Do not rely on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control or Speed Assist
| to determine an accurate or appropriate cruising speed. It is
| the driver's responsibility to cruise at a safe speed based on
| road conditions and applicable speed limits.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| We should mail a copy of the owners manual to Elon Musk then
| because just a few days ago he, for about the fourth time,
| announced that he would be shocked if "Tesla does not achieve
| Full Self-Driving that is safer than human drivers this year
| (and 5 years ahead of everyone)".
|
| Maybe we have different definitions of FSD and being safer
| than a human but to me that includes obeying the speed limits
| and stop signs
|
| https://electrek.co/2022/01/31/elon-musk-tesla-full-self-
| dri...
| dawnerd wrote:
| A problem with that is the car sometimes decides to change
| the set speed based on the signs and its not always obvious
| when you're in traffic until the car decides to take off.
| Alternatively it will slam breaks on if it misreads a sign
| and you have your speed set high. They need an option for a
| more dumb cruise control that ignores speed limits.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| Of course the fine print covers their asses, but this is not
| what you'd think watching the marketing demos and YouTube
| videos around fsd capabilities.
| cma wrote:
| That's in the manual, the fan marketing essential says it
| reads speed limit signs so you don't miss any of the action
| while your passenger plays Cuphead (I think though eventually
| they removed the ability for the passenger to play while you
| drive).
| lazyjones wrote:
| This has nothing to do with the article really, but stupid
| signs will always be a problem as long as they exist. In
| Austria, there are signs on the highway that allow electric
| cars to obey a higher speed limit (130 Km/h instead of 100
| Km/h; https://autorevue.at/ratgeber/ig-l-
| immissionsschutzgesetz-lu... ) provided they have (optional,
| but now standard) green number plates. My car doesn't know that
| it doesn't have the green plates, so it cannot know what limit
| to use. Also, it can't look up the paragraph quoted on the sign
| to read the current version of the law, presumably.
| bo1024 wrote:
| Does that make it a stupid sign, though?
| lazyjones wrote:
| Yes, because it doesn't contain the necessary information
| to interpret it and on top of that it's hard to read at
| highway speeds and thus dangerous.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Interestingly, Tesla's earliest autopilot software (made by
| Mobileye) could read and respond to speed limit signs, but
| MobilEye patented that ability and so when Tesla switched to
| their in-house software, they lost that ability.
|
| Seems insane to me that you can patent reading a speed limit
| sign, since reading signs is what signs are for and is
| necessary to obey the law, but there we go... "with a computer"
| seems sufficient grounds to make something patentable.
| Bedon292 wrote:
| I was wondering what happened. I knew they used to be able to
| actually read the signs, but now its all a database that can
| be quite wrong. I think the DB is nice to have, since signs
| can be few and far between, but would really like to see it
| back to reading signs.
|
| I don't understand how that could possibly stand up as a
| patent. It shouldn't pass the obviousness test. Reading a
| sign is a super obvious thing to do. But you would still have
| to spend millions fighting it in court. Which is insane.
| jsight wrote:
| Current Tesla AP can read speed limit signs too.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Heh. I wonder what might happen to a person with a bionic
| eyes.
|
| After lawsuit, signs are blacked out in their vision.
| netsharc wrote:
| [deleted]
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Technically, to black them out, you'd need to recognize
| them first - which would violate that patent.
| moralestapia wrote:
| That, among other things, is pretty much why fully autonomous
| cars == artificial general intelligence; and that's also why it
| won't happen this year, neither the next one, neither on the
| next 10. It will happen someday, for sure, just not soon.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Er, so?
|
| My 20 year old Civic will allow me to drive 70mph in a 20. Why
| shouldn't it? It's my car.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| Are the signs not delimited by day of week, time and month
| where you are? E.g. 7:30-18:30 Mon - Fri Sep - Jun
|
| Where I live, police can and will ticket you for speeding
| during those times. Regardless of if there's students around or
| if school is even in session or not.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Are the signs not delimited by day of week, time and month
| where you are?
|
| Depends on the locale. A lot of places just say "Speed Limit
| is X When Children Present", or "Speed Limit is Y when Lights
| [on the sign] are Flashing".
| rurp wrote:
| Yeah I've seen many such signs and it seems like the clear
| best approach. People should drive carefully around crowds
| of children and normally otherwise, regardless of some
| schedule posted on a given school's website.
| rdtwo wrote:
| Yeah it's a racket they can hit you with double fines at any
| time they feel like it.
| com2kid wrote:
| > Are the signs not delimited by day of week, time and month
| where you are? E.g. 7:30-18:30 Mon - Fri Sep - Jun
|
| In my local area the signs say either "during school hours",
| "while children are present" or they say nothing at all and
| you just have to know what hours and days the lower speed
| limit is enforced.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Where I live, the school zone speed limits are only in affect
| when school is actually in session, and the yellow lights are
| flashing to let you know that it is (but we are also talking
| about the difference between 15MPH and 25MPH). Sounds like a
| plum income stream for your city's police department.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| In my state the school zone speed limit is only in effect if
| it's a school day and there are children around. If all the
| kids are all inside it's the normal speed limit. I guess
| Tesla could just use the school zone limit all the time
| during school times, but people would be annoyed.
| smachiz wrote:
| which state has "when children are around" as part of the
| law? Feels ripe for abuse and kind've unlikely....
| ben174 wrote:
| California signs all say "When children are present". But
| I do think that's not a terribly difficult determination
| for a machine to make.
| core-utility wrote:
| The idea of _present_ might be a difficult one. I 'm not
| up to speed on any court cases that have determined what
| _present_ means, but it 's likely more nuanced than a
| simple "can Tesla identify a child in sight". A human
| would be more likely to play it safe and just obey
| regardless.
| sgustard wrote:
| My understanding is "present" means "school is in
| session", regardless of whether any children are visible.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Illinois https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.a
| sp?DocName=0...
|
| > On a school day when school children are present and so
| close thereto that a potential hazard exists because of
| the close proximity of the motorized traffic
|
| this lawyer https://www.jolietlaw.com/will-county-
| attorneys/understandin.... claims that means the limit is
| not in effect when kids are inside
| [deleted]
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't know the actual law, but California has school
| zone speed limit signs that say "when children are
| present."
| burkaman wrote:
| Massachusetts: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/pa
| rt7/part7b.htm#sec...
|
| Can be times of day, "when flashing", or "when children
| are present". Time of day isn't great because of
| irregular after school activities, events, delayed starts
| because of snow, etc.
| hateful wrote:
| New York is one also, even though the signs don't say it.
|
| https://www.dot.ny.gov/about-nysdot/faq/posting-speed-
| limit-...
| smachiz wrote:
| This doesn't say when children are present - it says
| school days and maybe specific times. No?
| hateful wrote:
| meant to reply one level higher in the thread.
| GravitasFailure wrote:
| California is one.
|
| https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/what-does-
| when-ch...
| vkou wrote:
| This doesn't have to be state law, it can be municipal
| law. All it takes is city council putting up a sign that
| says "15 MPH when children are present".
| qubitcoder wrote:
| At least in Georgia, there's at least one yellow light with
| a speed limit sign attached. During active school hours,
| the yellow light will flash on and off.
|
| On my daily commute, there's two overhead flashing yellow
| lights. Previously, my Model Y would begin to brake and
| then speed back up, thinking it's a normal traffic light
| (prior to FSD). With FSD, it's at least smart enough to
| know not to brake; but it certainly doesn't read the speed
| limit from the sign, as it normally would.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| There are no truly self driving cars, and probably won't be.
| When a traffic cop or school teacher holds up a hand to stop
| cars or say "turn left NOW", what training data exists?
|
| There should be a much stronger involvement from cities /
| states legislating a ban on any kind of self-driving in these
| areas. (self-braking -- sure!) It will have to wait for a child
| to die, unfortunately.
|
| I'd like to see a self-lane-keeping lane on interstates with a
| 120 mph speed limit and concrete barriers. If we can have "Zero
| emissions" cars incentivized with access to HOV lanes, why not
| cars that can do a good job at lane-keeping and merge-
| scheduling in areas where there are exactly zero other
| distractions?
| hotpotamus wrote:
| This reminds me of when I was driving in rural Texas a few
| months back and came across an apparently very recent
| accident involving a jack-knifed truck. The firefighters had
| just arrived on scene. While slowly and carefully driving
| around the accident, a firefighter got out seemed quite upset
| with me and seemed to be yelling something at me as loudly as
| he could, but I couldn't make out a word. I still have no
| idea if I did something wrong. Driving is 99.9% routine and
| boring and that .1% is ambiguous and quite potentially life
| threatening. I share the skepticism of self driving cars.
| jsight wrote:
| I had someone go in front of me while circling his
| flashlight as if to proceed. When I did, he casually walked
| in front of me. He wasn't actually paying attention and was
| just flinging his light for directing traffic without
| thinking about it.
|
| Yeah, the .1% can be really ambiguous and dangerous.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > It will have to wait for a child to die, unfortunately.
|
| Even then. The US has a pretty high tolerance for that.
| boredumb wrote:
| Unless the death is being exploited in order to remove
| constitutionally protected liberties, the US has pretty
| close to zero tolerance for the death of minors.
| dahfizz wrote:
| I agree with you. Real self driving is impossible, IMO.
| Current "AI" tech will never get us there. And even if we
| cracked real AGI, I don't see a reason to expect the computer
| intelligence to be a better driver than a human. AGI does not
| mean the absence of emotions, distractions, or
| miscalculations.
|
| We as a society should be realistic about the advantages and
| limitations of self driving technology. On a highway with
| well marked lanes and no construction, pedestrians, etc, self
| driving is _awesome_. That is the use case that should be
| optimized and encouraged by states. Everything else should
| realistically be banned.
| petters wrote:
| > And even if we cracked real AGI, I don't see a reason to
| expect the computer intelligence to be a better driver than
| a human.
|
| You can't be serious. Human are notoriously bad in
| situations where nothing happens 99.9% of the time but
| requires quick reaction 0.1% of the time.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| You're assuming an AGI would have all the characteristics
| of a machine algorithm _and_ enough intelligence to do
| exactly what a human would /should (or better) in all
| driving situations.
|
| That's a big ask, and is a huge superset of AGI.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Why would a computer intelligence be any less prone to
| distraction?
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Why would a computer intelligence be any less prone to
| distraction?_
|
| Just wiggle the mouse when you're in a construction zone,
| so the computer's processing speeds up. Just like on the
| desktop!
| bun_at_work wrote:
| Easy - we can define the computer's objective function.
| Why would it get distracted by things it doesn't care
| about?
|
| Meanwhile, humans are checking Instagram and Pornhub
| while driving around.
| nradov wrote:
| Well we haven't invented AGI yet, and so we don't even
| know if it will be possible to control them with an
| objective function. So your opinion is entirely
| speculative and not based on any science.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| And yet there is no evidence that self-driving systems
| are any safer than human drivers, or that they'll ever
| even be as safe as human drivers, let alone safer than
| them.
| nradov wrote:
| It's still vaporware for now, but next year GM is
| supposedly going to start selling a system that will allow
| true hands-off self driving on highways. It will be
| interesting to see if they really deliver. The claims seem
| to be well beyond what Tesla currently sells.
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37886786/general-
| motors-u...
| dahfizz wrote:
| > General Motors is adding another tier to its hands-free
| driving technology with its new Ultra Cruise system that
| it claims will work in 95 percent of driving situations.
|
| This seems to be exactly what I mean. They admit that
| their system can't handle the 5% of edge cases, and
| market it appropriately. This is not a full self driving
| car.
| wallscratch wrote:
| Couldn't there just be some google maps / waze API that
| jurisdictions can enter speed limit information into for
| different days and times of the week, and just have the car
| query that?
| clvx wrote:
| Even worse, there are school signs that say 15mph when children
| are present. Kids could be behind cars, bushes, people, etc.
| That's a very hard task to deal with.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > That's a very hard task to deal with.
|
| Not really though, you could just assume there are kids and
| do 15mph. Not everything is a hard to solve machine learning
| challenge.
| clvx wrote:
| So many ifs. Look, even if you pass the school zone, kids
| play around. In rural areas, this is very common. Yeah, you
| could go at the speed limit, but people are just careful or
| make a judgment call.
| abletonlive wrote:
| I mean if the kids are in the bushes I'm not sure a human
| would be able to figure that out either. It's been said
| before: self driving cars don't have to be perfect, just
| better than humans. And humans are super flawed.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| Well, for PR purposes, they might have to be substantially
| better than humans, or the backlash to incidents might be
| too great.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| The US has about 100 million miles driven per traffic
| fatality.
|
| Humans are flawed but human drivers are way safer than the
| human detractors would have you think.
| b3morales wrote:
| Could you clarify what interactions that figure includes?
| I.e. is it fatalities for people _inside_ motorized
| vehicles, or does it include something like a car-bicycle
| accident?
| earleybird wrote:
| Human drivers "can" be way safer; they aren't always.
| There's likely some balance where overall, self driving
| is statistically safer than some group of suboptimal
| drivers. It remains to be seen but there's always hope.
| pythonaut_16 wrote:
| Unless the unsafe parts of self driving only apply to
| previously unsafe drivers it will still struggle to take
| off.
|
| Not every human driver has the same risk, but every self
| driving car will. (Or it will be based on which car you
| are in rather than how safe you are.) In other words,
| relatively safe human drivers could actually see their
| risk levels go up in a self driving car, even it if it
| statistically safer than all human drivers.
| novalis78 wrote:
| The reality is that life is full of edge cases. For full
| autonomous driving we probably need full AGI.
| BenoitEssiambre wrote:
| It seems to be one of these AI-complete problems.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-complete
| Minor49er wrote:
| I think what we'll end up seeing are the developments of
| sensors and protocols that are invisible to people, but can
| be sensed by cars nearby. Traffic lights and road signs will
| have sensors that emit electronic messages identifying what
| they are and what rules they are communicating that self-
| driving vehicles should obey. Other cars will start to have
| them as well. We may even see small barriers constructed
| between roads and sidewalks that exist only to discourage
| pedestrians from entering the road to make automated driving
| even safer. Your vehicle will be rented from a third party.
| The owner will legally have to have it registered with the
| city so that the interior cameras can conduct facial
| recognition to identify the drivers and passengers. Law
| enforcement can remotely disable a car and could also send
| signals to get all other cars to pull over to ease the
| arrests of carjackers and other criminals. Possibly coming to
| a small town near you.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Humans have general intelligence and are pretty bad drivers.
| Why would a computer intelligence be any better? If anything,
| a computer intelligence would be more likely to get bored or
| distracted if their "brain" is running faster than ours.
| jpollock wrote:
| The answer is for the car to always drive according to the
| slowest speed allowed.
|
| So, it's always 25mph in that zone. Changing it based on
| "school hours" is a bad idea anyways.
| XorNot wrote:
| This isn't really safer.
|
| Driving behind a driver not keeping up with traffic and
| breaking erratically is a traffic hazard (happened to me a
| few days ago with a human driver).
| userbinator wrote:
| I remember the story on here a while ago about a self-
| driving car that got rear-ended because it stopped in the
| merging lane of an empty highway rather than accelerating
| like any human would...
| akira2501 wrote:
| It's generally a bad idea to fit safety regulations around
| the safety limitations of the item they're regulating. We
| set speeds, sometimes based on time of day or presence of
| children. Humans handle this just fine.
|
| If your car can't, then the car needs to be fixed or it's
| "self-driving" functionality entirely disabled. Changing
| speed limit laws to compensate for these limitations is
| entirely the wrong direction.
| XorNot wrote:
| My point is that FSD needs to be at least as capable as a
| human to follow speed limit signs.
|
| The problem generalises - it's also unacceptable for FSD
| not to keep up with traffic on a freeway or randomly
| throw in the brakes to avoid spurious hazards for the
| same reasons.
| delsarto wrote:
| In Australia, it's not just little side roads that run by
| school entrances that have this rule; the school zone thing
| applies even on fairly major free-flowing roads. Two examples
| I can think of are
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.9293496,145.0051951,3a,59y,.
| ..
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.7710688,151.0985503,3a,75y,.
| ..
|
| As the usual speed limit is quite a bit higher at 70km/h,
| driving at 40km/h (25mph) outside these times would make you,
| at best, a rather annoying obstacle to surrounding traffic.
| winternett wrote:
| Impossible... None of the people mine has hit have ever filed a
| complaint?
|
| [Sorry in advance]
| pcurve wrote:
| "How can Tesla claim self driving if the car can't read a sign
| that says - speed limit 25 mph during school hours, and
| properly adjust?"
|
| Self driving will always be dangerous unless overall traffic
| infrastructure is updated.
|
| Can you imagine a train where the 100% of the onus of auto-
| baking falls on the train itself, without zero input from
| sensors and towers outside the train?
| vkou wrote:
| > Can you imagine a train where the 100% of the onus of auto-
| baking falls on the train itself, without zero input from
| sensors and towers outside the train?
|
| I'm not hugely familiar with trains, but as I understand it,
| trains in the general case have a much worse braking distance
| to visibility ratios than cars do.
|
| Roads are generally designed to be safely navigable in good
| conditions when their occupants are obeying the speed limit,
| without external sensors. Rail lines are designed to be
| safely navigable only with the aid of external sensors.
| That's why trains can take blind corners at speed.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I think the central thesis of OP is that the current
| infrastructure is built for humans. We seem to do OK. So, if
| anything, these kinds of issues are an indictment of the
| failure of self-driving tech that was boosted to insane hype
| around 2017-2018. Now we're getting to a phase called "Trough
| of Disillusionment" in the Gartner terminology. If we require
| the rest of the infrastructure to be rebuilt for self-driving
| tech, then it is a irrefutable admission of failure.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| > Self driving will always be dangerous unless overall
| traffic infrastructure is updated.
|
| I don't see how people can propose this kind of thing with a
| straight face, when we live in a world where we can't even
| afford to replace the paint on the road when it gets worn
| away.
|
| Yeah, sure, governments everywhere will be lining up to pay
| billions of dollars for putting up and maintaining new
| infrastructure to provide us with some low ROI shiny toys.
| And I have a bridge on a blockchain to sell you.
| kazen44 wrote:
| Also, this kind of investment could be far better invested
| in making cities and (especially the US) far less dependant
| on cars in general.
| pcurve wrote:
| We would need to re-think resource allocation. Fewer deaths
| means smaller healthcare expenditure. Disability claims.
| Improved road infrastructure doesn't need to be that
| expensive.
| [deleted]
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Self driving will always be dangerous unless overall traffic
| infrastructure is updated._
|
| I prefer to have the computers work for people, rather than
| the other way around.
| villuv wrote:
| Yes! I would rather spend resources to standardize "smart"
| traffic control infrastructure, where vehicles and
| road/street constantly communicate with each other even if it
| would just be for augmenting drivers' awareness. For example
| in-car warnings about abrupt stop ahead, train approaching
| level crossing, positions of nearby vehicles, traffic light
| cycles, actual speed limits etc... Training "AI" to make
| sense of (sometimes barely) human readable signs and clues is
| waste of time in my opinion. Maybe just for helping with low
| speed obstacle avoidance...
| bluGill wrote:
| Reading speed limits signs is the easy part compared to
| figuring out how to handle all the kids walking to school on
| the sidewalk next to the road (any kid might get pushed into
| traffic, or decide to start crossing right there...). Even
| figuring out school hours is easy. Of course it isn't just
| kids, I've had to handle a bear on the road in front of me
| before.
| jerf wrote:
| Yes. Such a train wouldn't be allowed to drive.
|
| Logical extrapolation of that point left as an exercise for
| the reader.
| WJW wrote:
| Yes? That is pretty easy to imagine actually. It would be
| much less efficient than the current system with a central
| train controller, but it is definitely imaginable.
|
| In the case of Tesla massively failing to drive safely in a
| school area: If you cannot operate safely, don't allow
| autopilot to engage at all.
| option_greek wrote:
| Not specific to tesla but I guess the answer is in your
| question. Most likely all the current self driving efforts
| across board will fail till we have smart roads. A road that
| can help a vehicle self drive will ensure the complexity of
| self driving is reduced. And of course that might mean these
| roads will have to be human driver, pedestrian free.
| dheera wrote:
| They don't. This is why stocks like TSLA should NOT be subject
| to quarterly earnings reports, they should be subject to
| quarterly safety reports _instead_ and earnings should not be
| public for a long period of time.
| pelorat wrote:
| Well, they are far safer that the other guys, so the same
| should be applied to all the manufacturers then.
| dheera wrote:
| Well, yes.
|
| We have an economy run by a corpus of idiot shareholders
| who neither use the product nor are affected by the
| product, and are free to crash its value at will, and will
| crash it when earnings doesn't "beat" expectations, so the
| company is forced to prioritize the entirely wrong things.
|
| If a company wants to "accelerate the transition to clean
| energy", quarterly earnings is NOT the thing to be
| prioritizing. Earnings are important for business
| sustainability, but on much longer cycles than quarterly.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Far safer than who?
|
| Tesla leads the world in terms of self-driving fatalities.
| It's not even close; the total deaths involving self-
| driving vehicles from _every other automaker in the world
| combined_ is less than 1 /10th the number of Tesla self-
| driving fatalities.
|
| Note that I include autopilot in the meaning of "self-
| driving" here because Tesla does in its marketing.
| dheera wrote:
| In terms of total deaths per miles driven, all factors
| considered, Tesla is very close to the top of the best in
| terms of safety.
|
| Yeah, there are idiots misusing autopilot but there are
| about a couple more orders of magnitude more people who
| die due to drowsy driving a car without driver assistance
| features.
| amelius wrote:
| Can't we tag children with a 5mph transponder tag?
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| Seems like a good way for child predators to find prey.
| globular-toast wrote:
| The simplest thing would be to just get rid of the temporary
| speed limit and set it to 25mph at all times. 25mph is fast
| enough.
| smileysteve wrote:
| Another example of a walkable "neighborhood" (with sports,
| after school, and community events, community usage of
| facilities at 6-7 days a week) that we ignore the safety of
| in favor of cars to get wherever else they are going faster.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"25mph is fast enough."
|
| No, it absolutely isn't.
| me_me_mu_mu wrote:
| As a former Tesla owner.. I love the car but I honestly don't
| believe full self driving is worth the effort nor necessary.
|
| Otherwise Tesla has been great for my portfolio and the couple
| years of zipping around were great.
| dekhn wrote:
| You're basically asking the question of what is the minimum
| sufficient level of general intelligence required to allow
| self-driving cars to go forward.
|
| I instead have a different criteria. If somebody could show
| that their self-driving car can drive 250 million miles without
| a person (pedestrian, driver, or passenger) across a fleet and
| range of conditions, then that's good enough for me (currently,
| people drive 100 million miles before somebody gets killed).
|
| I figure 2.5X more safe than the average human would lead to an
| enormous savings in lives and one might even make the argument,
| at that point, that there was a moral imperative to disallow
| people driving!
|
| (BTW I live next to an elementary school and people drive past
| exceeding the posted limit all the time. I struggle to move my
| car safely through all the distractions. The one thing that
| helps the most is the radar which hits the breaks if it thinks
| I'm gonna back into a person or car.)
| Barrin92 wrote:
| the roads self-driving cars drive on at this point are
| heavily self-selected as well. I want see a few thousand
| self-driving cars interact on the streets of Delhi or see one
| go through a snowy mountain pass with barely any signs
|
| when people make these safety stat comparisons nowadays seems
| to be often ignored under how much more ambiguous conditions
| humans still drive safely.
| dekhn wrote:
| I don't think either the Delhi Street or Snowy Mountain
| Pass are really required to deploy self-driving cars to 65%
| of the drivers in the world.
| [deleted]
| ape4 wrote:
| In addition to knowing the school hours, a self-driving car has
| to read and understand the sign - in every language.
| henrikschroder wrote:
| That's not the biggest problem: All drivers have to obey hand
| signals from policemen and other people who are authorized to
| direct traffic. Which means your car has to know what police
| officers and state troopers and highway patrol and mounties
| look like where you happen to be located right now, and not
| be confused by some dude dressed up as one. Oh, and it has to
| understand the hand signals as well.
|
| Good luck little car.
| caf wrote:
| I don't think it's reasonable to expect either car or human
| to determine the distinction between "person dressed as
| cop" and "sworn police officer acting in accordance with
| his duties".
|
| Probably shouldn't anyway. It's not unusual for civilians
| at the site of some unexpected hazard to warn traffic.
| [deleted]
| dragontamer wrote:
| > My Tesla will allow me to engage autopilot in a school zone
|
| https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1478802681141645322
|
| Just a reminder at how awful Tesla cars "self driving" cars are
| at actually stopping.
|
| Please do NOT rely upon autopilot, fsd, or any other "Tesla-
| tech". They're incapable of seeing objects like small children
| in time.
|
| This was a test done at CES on January 6th, 2022.
|
| -------
|
| In contrast, the people who setup the demo were showing a more
| advanced self-driving car who could actually stop when the
| child suddenly runs out onto the street.
|
| https://twitter.com/luminartech/status/1479223353730756608
| treeman79 wrote:
| When I learned to drive the only advise my mom gave was. "If
| you see a ball then slam on the break"
|
| I was told this for months.
|
| Few years later Driving down a road that had endless cars
| parked along sides. So no visibility of yards.
|
| A small ball came from behind a parked car and bounced in
| front of me. All I heard was my moms voice. Instantly slammed
| on brakes.
|
| Sure enough a kid ran out in front of me chasing the ball.
|
| Car stopped inches from kid. He never even noticed me. Even a
| moments hesitation and that kid would have been dead.
|
| I was going a little below speed limit too, which clearly
| helped.
| manishsharan wrote:
| Reminds me of this incident that happened to me a last
| December: I was driving my kid to school and I noticed some
| pedestrians on the sidewalk . The mom was walking and texting
| and the little boy was dribbling a soccer ball while they
| walked to the school. And suddenly the soccer ball got on the
| road and the kid dove after it .. in the middle of the road
| inches from my car. I am so grateful to whatever braking
| system my car had for stopping just in time. I honked and the
| mom flipped me the birdie and cussed me out in what I think
| was Russian.
|
| Kids are stupid and unpredictable and AI/ML can't work out
| all the insane ways kids can put themselves in harms way. No
| autopilot or FSD can . Peolple should not rely upon them.
| [deleted]
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| I totally agree with you that this tech needs to get better,
| but I really want to see apples-to-apples comparison. I would
| expect Tesla to also stop if a child was running across the
| movement path in broad daylight.
|
| The night example looks to be specifically stacked against
| autopilot. Tesla vision is notoriously bad at detecting
| stationary objects and it needs a lot of light to function
| well. Lidar/Radar are significantly better than cameras
| detecting straight ahead obstacles in low light conditions. I
| would really like to hear Tesla to defend their decision to
| not use them.
|
| In any case, this testing is great because it lets us know
| when the autopilot requires extra supervision.
| borski wrote:
| > The night example looks to be specifically stacked
| against autopilot.
|
| I would argue so is the real world.
| AareyBaba wrote:
| It is exactly the same scenario where Uber self-driving
| killed a pedestrian crossing the road at night
| thepasswordis wrote:
| The exact situation where "uber self driving" killed a
| pedestrian was: the driver was literally watching a movie
| at her job, while she was supposed to be driving a car
| and training a self driving system.
|
| A _driver_ killed a pedestrian because she wasn 't paying
| attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hthyTh_fopo
| borski wrote:
| Sure, but this was supposed to be fully autonomous.
| Nobody is arguing the human didn't make a mistake. The
| autonomous system, however, definitely also did.
| vngzs wrote:
| Tesla didn't use LIDAR because it is more expensive [0].
| Quoting Musk:
|
| > Anyone relying on LIDAR is doomed. Doomed. Expensive
| sensors that are unnecessary. It's like having a whole
| bunch of expensive appendices... you'll see.
|
| [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/24/18512580/elon-musk-
| tesla-...
| lordnacho wrote:
| How much more expensive are we talking? Also won't it get
| cheaper with time, like the batteries?
| fundatus wrote:
| Every Pro iPhone has one. So it already got pretty cheap
| by now. Looking at Mercedes' Level 3 Autopilot tech you
| can also see how well you can integrate the sensors into
| the front of a car.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Short range VCSEL is very different than the automotive
| rotary lidar systems.
| vngzs wrote:
| At the time of comment, a LiDAR rig would cost around
| $10,000. A few years before that, they were more like
| $100,000. Presumably the cameras are much cheaper.
|
| I would be willing to bet that production efficiencies
| will be found that will eventually drive that cost down
| significantly.
| leobg wrote:
| Cost is not the only point he was making. The problem you
| need to solve is not just "Is there something?", but also
| "What is it? And where is it going to move?". LIDAR
| cannot do that. Or at least if you get LIDAR to do that,
| then you would have also been able to get it done with a
| camera, in which case you wouldn't have needed LIDAR in
| the first place.
|
| LIDAR certainly is the low hanging fruit when it comes to
| the firmer question though (i.e. what is there in my path
| right now).
| [deleted]
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| "You'll see" is the perfect Musk sign for "I have no idea
| what I'm talking about and I'm frankly just interested in
| a few suckers believing me."
| dragontamer wrote:
| > but I really want to see apples-to-apples comparison.
|
| EDIT: Luminar's car is on the other lane, and there's also
| a balloon-child in the Luminar's lane. You can see
| Luminar's car clearly stop in the head-to-head test.
|
| There's also the "advanced" test, where the kid moves out
| from behind an obstacle here. Luminar's tech does well:
|
| https://twitter.com/PatrickMoorhead/status/1478764515260911
| 6...
|
| > I would expect Tesla to also stop if a child was running
| across the movement path in broad daylight.
|
| Nope.
|
| https://jalopnik.com/this-clip-of-a-tesla-model-3-failing-
| an...
|
| https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-03/tesla-
| was-...
|
| This "tech" can't even see a firetruck in broad daylight.
| Why do you think it can see a child?
|
| This isn't a one-off freak accident either. "crashing into
| stopped emergency vehicles with flashing lights in broad
| daylight" is common enough that NHTSA has opened up an
| investigation into this rather specific effect:
| https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2021/INOA-PE21020-1893.PDF
| Kaytaro wrote:
| Tesla partnered with Luminar by the way and even tested
| their LiDAR on a model 3 last year. I guess they weren't
| impressed though, since they seem to still be all-in on
| passive optical recognition.
| celsoazevedo wrote:
| The camera alone seems to see a lot:
|
| - 2018: https://youtu.be/_1MHGUC_BzQ
|
| - 2021: https://youtu.be/XfqabC_akV0
|
| Is the car reacting to what it's seeing? Probably not,
| but I'm not sure if adding a lidar fixes that.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > The camera alone seems to see a lot:
|
| In perfect conditions, on a sunny day.
|
| I'm in Sweden, and the sun shining directly into your
| eyes from barely above the horizon while the road is
| wet/covered with snow and reflects that sun at you is a
| regular occurence during winter months. I odubt Tesla's
| camera will be able to see anything.
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| "Opening an investigation" means nothing before a
| conclusion is reached.
|
| The accusations could be valid or totally baseless,
| investigations are opened regardless and specifically to
| find out validity.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > The accusations could be valid or totally baseless
|
| Read the listed report. All 11 accidents were confirmed
| to be:
|
| 1. Tesla vehicles
|
| 2. Confirmed to be on autopilot / full self driving.
|
| 3. Against a stopped emergency vehicle with flashing
| lights or road flares.
|
| These facts are not in dispute. The accusations aren't
| "baseless", the only question remaining is "how
| widespread" is this phenomenon.
|
| These 11 accidents have resulted in 1-fatality and 11
| injuries.
|
| --------
|
| We are _WAY_ past "validity" of the claims. We're at
| "lets set up demos at CES to market ourselves using Tesla
| as a comparison point", because Tesla is provably that
| unreliable at stopping in these conditions.
| caf wrote:
| _I would really like to hear Tesla to defend their decision
| to not use them._
|
| Andrej Karpathy talks some about it in this (it's quite
| long, but the whole thing is quite interesting):
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSDTZQdo6H8
| w0m wrote:
| While 1000% agree the current Tesla FSD beta is in serious
| need of work; comparing it to unreleased specialized hardware
| in trials setup by makers of said specialized hardware is a
| little disingenuous.
| loceng wrote:
| This isn't an honest test. Think through the reality and then
| mimic that - but the reality isn't a child standing still in
| the middle of the road in the middle of the night.
|
| Also, Tesla requires you pay attention still - which is
| relying on it, but they tell you NOT to rely on it 100%, so
| in this demo the driver is at fault for not watching ahead of
| them and breaking. So your claim that they're awful at
| stopping is pretty disconnected.
| rvz wrote:
| That's definitive proof that it still doesn't work reliably,
| let alone the system confusing the moon with the traffic
| light. [0] It shows that it is even worse at night.
|
| I have to say that FSD is so confused, you might as well call
| it _' Fools Self Driving'_ at this point.
|
| Oh dear.
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/jordanteslatech/status/14184133078625
| 853...
| mey wrote:
| Puts them in good company. Not the first system to get the
| wrong ideas about the moon.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Missile_Early_Warni
| n...
| hansendc wrote:
| I think the main point is to know the limitations of the
| technology and to deploy it appropriately. For instance, I
| don't rely on old-school cruise control to stop for small
| children, either, even though I engage it in school zones.
|
| This isn't limited to "Tesla-tech". The same rules apply to
| _ALL_ technology.
| snicker7 wrote:
| People intuitively understand the capabilities of cruise
| control. Can the same be said if FSD?
| jsight wrote:
| Given the crashes with cruise control in bad weather, I
| think the level of understanding is likely fairly
| similar.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I am not seeing the relation between cruise control and
| crashes in bad weather?
|
| If I bought something that says it can drive itself, then
| I expect I do not need to pay attention to the road
| because it can drive itself. Just like if my friend can
| drive themselves and I am a passenger, I can trust them
| to handle paying attention to the road.
|
| To go out of your way and call something "full" self
| driving only indicates that I should have zero qualms
| about trusting that I do not need to pay attention to the
| road.
| drewzero1 wrote:
| I'm guessing the 'bad weather' comment is referring to
| the common belief[1], possibly exaggerated[2], that
| cruise control can be dangerous and cause crashes when
| the road is slippery. Not sure what's changed with newer
| traction control systems. I'd have to believe this has
| gotten even less likely but I don't know; my cars are too
| old to even have ABS.
|
| One of the anecdotes in the Jalopnik article mentions
| that the vehicle is a Town Car, which is significant
| because those are rear wheel drive and handle very
| differently from most cars on the road in slick
| conditions. I would certainly expect more issues with
| older RWD cars and trucks because they tend to fishtail
| and spin if the rear wheels are given power without
| traction.
|
| [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wild-when-wet/ [2]
| https://jalopnik.com/lets-debunk-the-idea-that-its-not-
| safe-...
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "I think the main point is to know the limitations of the
| technology and to deploy it appropriately"
|
| Where does Tesla provide a list of such limitations for
| it's customers, I am sure it would be extensively
| documented given that lives are at stake ?
|
| Or should I find out those limitations myself, potentially
| killing a few children in the process?
| hansendc wrote:
| > Where does Tesla provide a list of such limitations for
| it's customers,
|
| One specific place is first sentence of the FSD Beta
| welcome email:
|
| "Full Self-Driving is in limited early access Beta and
| must be used with additional caution. It may do the wrong
| thing at the worst time, so you must always keep your
| hands on the wheel and pay extra attention to the road.
| Do not become complacent."
|
| That's been my experience with it. Right now, the beta
| doesn't reduce my workload, it _increases_ it. When I
| want to "just drive", I turn the beta off.
|
| That said, Tesla can and should do more. They need to
| better frame the capabilities of the system, staring with
| the silly marketing names.
| idop wrote:
| > It may do the wrong thing at the worst time.
|
| So, basically, I need to somehow predict that FSD will do
| the wrong thing and react myself, _before_ the worst
| time, because the worst time is when it's already too
| late.
|
| Or, in other words, whereas any other car manufacturer
| has fallbacks for when the driver is not doing what
| they're supposed to, Tesla treats the driver as the
| fallback instead. I just don't understand what is this
| magic that is supposed to allow the driver to predict
| incorrect AI behavior.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| That's really a legal disclaimer, a list of limitations
| has to be sspesific to be usefull: don't use beyong X
| temperature range, beyong X speed, below X
| visibility,etc.
| cbo100 wrote:
| Find them yourself by RTFM maybe?
|
| Tesla puts all the info you need in the owners manual,
| just like every other manufacturer with automated systems
| on their cars.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-8EA7
| EF1...
|
| There are dozens of warnings throughout the manual
| explaining limitations and cautions around using the
| systems.
|
| Every other car I've owned with the same or similar
| systems has the same warnings littered throughout the
| manual.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Why would you ever engage cruise control in school zones?
| jsight wrote:
| To avoid speeding. It can be hard to avoid accidentally
| speeding by 1-2 mph and enforcement is sometimes zero
| tolerance.
| dahfizz wrote:
| To make sure you aren't speeding?
| hansendc wrote:
| I personally have a tendency to match the speed of the
| cars around me. IMNHO, most cars speed through school
| zones. I use cruise control as a tool to prevent me from
| accidentally matching the speed of the cars around me and
| breaking the school zone speed limit.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| I live on a road with two schools zones about a mile
| apart. I have had people _pass_ me in the morning _in_
| the school zone! People do.not.care.
|
| EDIT: Fixed "ppl" to "people".
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| This is a pet peeve of mine, but why use 'ppl' when you
| spell out every other word, and then spell out people in
| the end?
|
| Edit: Yes, ppl bugs me and there is no rational reason
| why. Emphasis on 'pet peeve'.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| Fixed it for you.
| borski wrote:
| Because typing on phones can be annoying and ppl is
| quicker than people. :)
|
| Or maybe they were texting and using FSD ;)
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > I think the main point is to know the limitations of the
| technology and to deploy it appropriately.
|
| Such as, for example, by not calling it "autopilot" or
| "full self driving"?
| glennpratt wrote:
| I'll give you FSD, but autopilot makes sense to me as
| someone familiar with aviation.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| I'm not familiar with aviation and the only reason I'm
| aware that airplane autopilot is actually not a self-
| flying system is because of Tesla and their weasel
| excuses for their reckless marketing.
| czzr wrote:
| Does it? What's the expected response time on
| disengagement for a plane?
| dragontamer wrote:
| How about "The person in the driver's seat is only there
| for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is
| driving itself."
|
| Tesla Marketing: 2016
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Tesla Marketing: 2016_
|
| For reference, this same marketing video is still up on
| Tesla's site[1].
|
| [1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-
| hardware...
| glennpratt wrote:
| Sounds like trash, but then that's not relevant to what I
| said.
| dragontamer wrote:
| The important thing here is that for over half-a-decade,
| Tesla has been lying to its customers about its
| capabilities.
|
| When in actuality, Tesla will reliably crash into
| pedestrians and stationary firetrucks. To the point where
| people at other companies are confident to make live-
| demos of this at electronic shows.
|
| ---------
|
| Calling it "autopilot" or "fsd" isn't the problem. The
| problem is that Tesla actively lies about its
| capabilities to the public and its customers. It doesn't
| matter "how" they lie or exactly what weasel words they
| use. The issue is that they're liars.
|
| We can tell them to change their name or change their
| marketing strategy. But as long as they're liars, they'll
| just find a new set of weasel words to continue their
| lies.
| avalys wrote:
| Is the average purchaser of autopilot familiar with
| aviation and the technical capabilities of an autopilot
| in that context?
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Does autopilot make sense? Aviation autopilot seems to be
| many orders of magnitude more reliable than Tesla's
| autopilot.
|
| In fact, autopilot in aviation contexts is regularly used
| when human pilots are _worse_ , such as landing at
| airports that regularly experience fog & low visibility
| conditions. As in, autopilot is the _fallback for humans_
| , not the other way around.
|
| Heck, aviation autopilot is now available for use in
| emergency landings ( https://www.avweb.com/aviation-
| news/garmin-autoland-wins-202... ).
|
| Compared to Tesla autopilot, these are seemingly two
| vastly unrelated situations.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| It may work somewhat like airplane autopilot, but the
| environments are not comparable. A plane has nothing to
| hit but terrain which is easily identified and almost all
| other obstacles in the air are transmitting their
| position.
|
| It's entirely deceptive.
| epicide wrote:
| In addition, pilots are required to have thousands of
| hours of training for that specific model airplane. I'm
| sure the limitations of autopilot come up.
|
| Meanwhile, in most US states, an adult can walk into a
| DMV, demonstrate the ability to turn on the vehicle and
| do a 3-point/k turn, and walk out with a license.
| scrose wrote:
| And at least in one state, all a kid needs is their
| parent to tell the DMV they can drive
|
| [0] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32329549/georgia-
| no-drive...
| junon wrote:
| I'm not a fan of Tesla personally but it is worth mentioning
| that "autopilot" and "self driving" are not the same. Autopilot
| is, and has always been, cruise control on steroids. Full self
| driving hasn't reached the consumer market. To expect your
| Tesla to be that is lying to yourself.
| bjtitus wrote:
| Meanwhile, Tesla seems to be using them nearly
| interchangeably in its marketing.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer
|
| Tesla attempts to bury the lead by saying drivers shouldn't
| use these features without being "fully attentive" but uses
| names like "Full Self-Driving" all over their marketing
| material.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot
| tedivm wrote:
| Elon has also publicized cases where users filmed
| themselves not being attentive.
|
| https://nypost.com/2019/05/10/elon-musk-weighs-in-on-porn-
| fi...
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Tesla itself has marketing material that's even worse[1].
|
| [1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-
| hardware...
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I think Elon was the one doing the lying.
| zardo wrote:
| Doesn't Tesla have beta software the driver can turn on with
| the name "Full Self Driving"? And isn't it intended to be
| used, "beta tested", on public roads?
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Apparently they came out and said that "Full Self
| Driving(tm)" isn't supposed to be understood as full self
| driving.
| shmatt wrote:
| Ah, the Wyngz of the AI industry
| WheatM wrote:
| rhacker wrote:
| If I see a sign like that near a "church school" or whatever I
| likely won't know it's 25mph on a Sunday.
|
| If there are crossing guards or whatever I'm sure I will stop
| however, not sure a Tesla will.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Absolutely. My 2021 Audi has traffic sign recognition, and
| recognizes school zone signs, flags them as such on the console
| and heads up display. It also recognizes the flashing light
| indicating that the school zone is "active".
|
| But yet, Tesla, the "not-dinosaur", screws this up completely?
|
| Oof.
|
| AND, if you have adaptive cruise, it will absolutely recognize
| the discrepancy between your speed and school zones, and will
| decelerate the car to that speed.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| Many school zones do not have flashing lights.
|
| Isn't the correct answer today that humans should override in
| these situations?
|
| Frankly, as a human I also find "during restricted hours"
| signs frustrating. How do I know which hours those are?
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Then just respect those limitations at all times. The
| school zone will last a whole 200m, you can live with
| driving 20 in there all the time instead of wondering if
| you can go full speed in a school zone.
| nkrisc wrote:
| It is frustrating that it isn't clearly delineated, but you
| should be fine basing your guess on some reasonable
| assumptions: schools are busiest during drop off and
| pickup, with kids out and about near the road, very good
| chance those times are included in the "restricted hours",
| possibly the hours in between as well. Public and secular
| schools are typically not open on weekends, very likely any
| weekend hour is not restricted. Schools are usually closed
| during the summer months and for a time during winter
| break. This can be tricky because school still can have
| very different schedules and you may not know them if you
| don't have kid sin school, but again context can help: is
| the parking lot completely empty? No one around? School's
| probably not in session, restricted hours probably don't
| apply. If you were ticketed for speeding in a school zone
| during morning drop off, I think you'd have a hard time
| arguing you didn't know it was a restricted time. Maybe
| during lunch you could make a case, I guess it would depend
| on the judge you got.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Frankly, as a human I also find "during restricted hours"
| signs frustrating. How do I know which hours those are?_
|
| As a human being, you weigh the risks and make a choice.
| Which has the worse outcome -- getting to your destination
| 18 seconds later, or killing a child?
| mjevans wrote:
| A zone near me has two different sign indicator systems.
| They appear to go off at different intervals. In both cases
| I don't see humans around. I would not be surprised if the
| time the crossing guards and children were present was a
| completely different, third time.
| rconti wrote:
| I still don't know what is meant by "when children are
| present". On the sidewalk? In the playground? In the
| classroom?
| GordonS wrote:
| I'm sure I saw cars with an option to read speed limit signs
| about 10 years back. Really boggles the mind that Tesla have
| gotten away with calling their cars "Full Self Driving".
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > I'm sure I saw cars with an option to read speed limit
| signs about 10 years back.
|
| To be fair, those systems were just best-effort. I'm pretty
| sure Teslas can handle far harder sign situations than
| those.
|
| The problem is the edge case and while Telsa may fair
| better, the older assistant systems did explicitly warn you
| that it was best effort.
| belltaco wrote:
| >How can Tesla claim self driving
|
| Autopilot and self driving are two distinct things.
| jjulius wrote:
| Not to the average, non-technical person.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Everyone knows airplane autopilot still needs a human
| pilot. Everyone.
| burkaman wrote:
| I consider myself a pretty technical person and I don't
| know the difference. Are they not synonyms? Auto=self,
| pilot=driving
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| And yet a couple years ago, they claimed Autopilot was full
| self-driving.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Are you saying that Tesla shouldn't claim to have a "Full
| Self Driving" feature if it's still not autonomous? Because
| they do.
|
| "Will the FSD computer make my car fully autonomous?
|
| Not yet. All Tesla cars require active driver supervision and
| are not autonomous. "
|
| https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer
| nixass wrote:
| Tesla's self driving is gimmick actually and far from being
| serious piece of technology.
| asdff wrote:
| Can they handle construction zones where lanes split all over
| the place and speeds change? I'm guessing no. Based on the
| constant amount of scuff marks along the guards of the 5
| freeway and pretty much every other freeway in California I'm
| assuming thats a hard challenge even for human drivers.
| akerl_ wrote:
| For what it's worth, the one thing my Tesla has been
| consistently good at is picking the correct lines out of a
| jumble of nonsense on the road.
|
| I've used AP heavily in highway construction zones, and at
| night with bad visibility, and in inclement weather, and in
| combinations of the above. AP does better than I can manually
| do at picking the correct set of road marks to follow, even
| in cases where the construction has left partial incorrect
| marks underneath / conflicting_with the right ones.
|
| AP has a ton of other issues of varying levels of severity,
| but if you're asking "can I trust it in a construction zone",
| I'd say yes based on my usage.
| bluGill wrote:
| All they need to do is recognize a construction zone a minute
| ahead of time and get the human to take over. This would
| allow level 4 through construction zone. Level 4 is self
| driving "in the easy parts", and give humans enough time to
| take over in the "hard parts" (level 5 is everywhere, and as
| you note a much harder problem). Note though that you can't
| just stop driving, you need to allow time for the human to
| figure out what it going on, how to properly have humans take
| over is itself a hard problem.
| elil17 wrote:
| Right, but they don't do that, do they? Their failure mode
| is beeping at you to take over at the last possible second.
| mjevans wrote:
| I could see construction zones required to setup self-
| driving parking buffers for the cars to 'fail' into safely.
| alanh wrote:
| It's actually remarkably good at this now. Source: Me driving
| with FSD
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| No, they fail spectacularly at ad-hoc road work lane setups
| or setups where the "official" lanes are temporarily blacked
| out. I think that was the cause of the Tesla smashing into a
| freeway median a couple years ago.
| kortilla wrote:
| > I think that was the cause of the Tesla smashing into a
| freeway median a couple years ago.
|
| If it happened a couple of years ago you're not talking
| about FSD.
| suifbwish wrote:
| OR maybe the Tesla is so good at driving it doesn't need to
| slow down. Maybe it should actually speed up to give people
| less time to get in front of it.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| One way to address this problem is to designate which sections
| of road are school zoned and which are not. Then, include
| information about the school zone schedule. I can't imagine
| this information hasn't been digitized in some way yet.
| caf wrote:
| The mapping data that Tesla uses does know about school
| zones, as well as other time or season based speed zones, and
| even weather-dependent speed zones. They all get rendered on
| screen, with the currently-active zone shown.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Even if it is.. how does it get updated? Or verified? Or
| protected? Who's at fault if the information is inaccurate?
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I know some municipalities publish this information on
| their city websites. Granted, I do not know much about
| municipalities and GIS, but I imagine it is possible this
| is in some format that can be made available to map data
| services.
| nwiswell wrote:
| It's an easily solved problem: the state legislature writes
| a law mandating a statewide database, and schools are
| required to enter their information.
|
| Like some other commenters pointed out, ad-hoc situations
| like police directing traffic and one-direction-at-a-time
| utility work are a much bigger concern.
| tonyhb wrote:
| I wish all stop signs would be replaced with roundabouts, or mini
| roundabouts like those in the UK. Stop signs are wildly time
| inefficient, less gas efficient, and more dangerous. Not
| necessarily best practice, but I'm all for rolling stops in the
| meantime.
| ngngngng wrote:
| We have one roundabout in my small town, and there is strong
| hatred towards it. There's a perception that it's far more
| dangerous than any alternatives.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| Roundabouts are awesome (for cars), when the intersection was
| designed and has space for it. Retrofitting them into
| intersections often doen't work. They do it a lot in my city in
| smaller residential intersections. They can be so tight that
| the turning radius of a mid-large size car or SUV won't allow
| circumnavigation. People drive over the center, and still make
| left turns because it is so hard to get around.
| alistairSH wrote:
| In that use case, the goal is simply a rule for determining
| right-of-way. Doesn't really matter if they drive over the
| center as long as they wait their turn to do so.
| netr0ute wrote:
| Where I am, they fix the "drive over the center" problem by
| making it a giant concrete barrier so you can't drive over
| the center unless you have a monster truck.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Paramedic here. Have been called to more than one MVA where
| your regular sedan has successfully "climbed" a 20"
| vertical concrete raised center of a roundabout. Energy and
| inertia is a powerful thing!
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| There is one in my city and it is in popular shopping
| center, so it get a heavy usage out of it. In the center,
| there is trees and rocks as decorations and designed to
| prevent anyone from driving over the center. There is other
| city that have a small (1-lane) roundabout, the center is
| protected with chain "rope-like" barrier with the sign to
| drive right.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Many stop signs could be replaced by yield signs. The energy
| savings would be enormous. A full stop should only be needed
| when making a left hand turn or needed for sighting, and there
| are many stop signs in places where left turns are impossible.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Whats funny is FSD currently (maybe 10.9 changed this) stops at
| roundabouts.
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| The issue is space to put roundabouts. Majority of American
| cities already have roads set up and it would be difficult to
| put in the roundabout to replace existing infrastructures.
| Roundabout requires more space than a simple 2-lane wide 4-way
| intersection.
|
| And there is a driver problem, majority of American almost
| never have any experience driving on roundabouts. I seen some
| would simply cut off the roundabout traffic and proceed on
| their way without yielding.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I think most crossroads could accomodate a mini roundabout,
| maybe lopping off each corner a bit. Where I live, converting
| an crossroad to a roundabout seems to take about a year, they
| close and completely excavate the existing roadway, relocate
| storm drains, build a huge center island, and take an
| additional 10' of property all around. It seems excessive.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Many roundabouts in small towns in Scotland are simply a
| painted circle in the center of the intersection. Hopefully
| this link works...
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@56.5903811,-3.3375594,3a,75y,21.
| ..
| Someone1234 wrote:
| I'd wish new construction aimed for that, but converting
| _existing_ four-way stops to roundabouts would require widening
| of the road at all four corners which is impractical (i.e. you
| may have to knock down buildings, but certainly have to re-
| place sidewalks).
|
| The data shows that roundabouts are safer and even improve
| traffic flow. But they're also a nightmare to install after the
| fact, which is why it is so uncommon. All we can do is stop
| making the same mistakes going forward.
|
| Same thing with burying power lines: Far cheaper to do with new
| construction, substantially more reliable and better able to
| withstand natural disasters, but we aren't. Society is just bad
| at planning for tomorrow if it costs us a little today at every
| level.
| anonymousisme wrote:
| I live in an area with roundabouts. The frequency of collisions
| actually seems higher because people do not know the rules and
| do not yield before entering the roundabout.
| foxfluff wrote:
| I live in an area with roundabouts. There are very few
| accidents in roundabouts and it's impossible to get a license
| if you don't know how the rules for a roundabout.
| samwillis wrote:
| There are issues with mini roundabouts, two I regularly see in
| my home town:
|
| - If you have one 'entrance' to the roundabout which is
| partially busy, say at rush hour, it becomes near impossible to
| enter the roundabout from a different direction. With a normal
| roundabout many more cars can be on the roundabout at once and
| a natural flow, even from less used entrances, just happened.
| This does not work on a mini roundabout.
|
| - Where they have replaced a T junction, people often ignore it
| causing (near) accidents when going "straight on" when they
| don't have right of way.
|
| They are definitely not a one size fits all solution.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Then ask our legislatures to change the law. Don't let private
| companies make cars that disobey the laws developed by elected
| officials and those they appoint.
| DavidPeiffer wrote:
| In Iceland they have many roundabouts all over, and at most low
| residential intersections there's simply a yield for one of the
| intersecting roads. Having a yield instead of having to come to
| a stop is so refreshing.
|
| You are also required to have your lights on when you are
| driving. It notably increases visibility even during the day.
|
| I came back to the US really wishing those policies would go
| into effect nationwide.
| [deleted]
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Yes I would love to see the elimination of the four-way stop
| intersection. One road should be designated as the "arterial"
| road and should not stop. The crossing road should yield.
| There are very few cases where a four-way stop is justified.
| duxup wrote:
| They're almost the default now in my area of the US if at all
| plausible.
|
| Having said that a lot of roads in my area are already built
| around 4 way stops and it's not easy to undo that, but new
| construction in my area of suburbia US has adopted the
| roundabout.
| sschueller wrote:
| I want to government to change the rules and make Tesla
| responsible for all accidents causes by FSD. Then let's see how
| long until that feature no longer exists and Tesla has to admit
| that what they have been peddling is vaporware.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'd give it about 15 minutes until an OTA recall of all
| software that allows the car to move without a human directing
| it all the time.
| CalRobert wrote:
| Note that rolling stops can seem safe but in some cases there are
| surprising circumstances where intersections can leave you blind
| to other road users. https://www.wired.com/story/the-physics-of-
| the-69-degree-int... for instance discusses an intersection where
| the angle caused a person-size blind spot behind a car's pillar.
| natch wrote:
| Good thing cameras mounted under the windshield glass are not
| obstructed by pillars.
|
| Direct sun glare can be an issue though. I have yet to see how
| Tesla plans to solve this, although having five different
| forward facing cameras surely helps.
| zinekeller wrote:
| The Wired reporting is based on Bez's article on Singletrack
| (as stated): https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-
| course-why-th...
|
| Tom Scott made a good complementary video about this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU
|
| It's already fixed just last month:
| https://www.hants.gov.uk/News/25012022Ipleycrossroadsopening
| and https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/news/new-forest-
| acciden...
| darknavi wrote:
| Interesting video. I didn't know STOP signs were so rare in
| the UK!
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Will be hilarious if FSD gets halted by 80% of humans committing
| rolling stops and never allowing FSD vehicles to cross the street
| (which are programmed to follow the letter of the law).
| tohnjitor wrote:
| become ungovernable
| mortehu wrote:
| When I moved to San Francisco from Europe I had to take a drive
| test to get a US license. In every single intersection I did a
| rolling stop, and got like 15 minor "errors" on my score sheet.
| However, since I had no other errors I got the license. Perhaps
| the FSD beta would also pass this test.
| dawnerd wrote:
| The problem with the assertive setting is it didn't really work.
| The car would still do a rolling stop even in chill. I think in
| those cases it might have been creeping for visibility but often
| the creep is a full blown drive into the intersection.
|
| They really need to add some explicit controls over this like
| navigate on autopilot has. I've had to disengage so many times
| due to it making really dumb moves that could be fixed with just
| asking me first. I know thats against their end goal but their
| models just are not there yet.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| Virtually all humans roll stop signs from time to time. It's safe
| when done in appropriate circumstances, yet it's illegal.
|
| The law is at complete odds with normal human behavior, and we've
| been ignoring the contradiction for, what, decades?
|
| The most interesting possible outcome of widespread self-driving
| vehicles is reconciling the legal fictions on the books with
| reality as code is unambiguously breaking the laws that aren't
| based in any semblance of reality.
| CalRobert wrote:
| The problem is that judging whether the circumstances are
| appropriate is nearly impossible from the limited perspective
| of the driver. You can't see things hidden by A/B/C pillars,
| you can't see short objects (like children) obstructed by your
| doors, and too often people using cars forget that things like
| kids on bikes, motorcycles, pedestrians, etc. exist.
|
| This is indeed normal human behaviour, but we've also seen a
| dramatic increase in drivers killing people with their cars.
| paxys wrote:
| > when done in appropriate circumstances
|
| If a law leaves "appropriate circumstances" to the discretion
| of the public then it is effectively useless. If you get hit by
| a driver who refused to stop at a stop sign, you're most
| certainly not going to think that rolling stops are fine.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| Basically every law eventually boils down to someone's
| discretion, either the enforcer, the judge, or a jury.
| epgui wrote:
| > [...] a law [...] is effectively useless.
|
| Indeed! :)
| bhauer wrote:
| Indeed. Similarly, we may eventually need to contend with the
| fact that posted speed limits are, in most jurisdictions that I
| know, at least 5 to 10 MPH lower than the enforced limit.
| Virtually all human drivers drive some small amount over posted
| speed limits.
|
| If we were to force all autonomous drive systems to _always_
| perform full stops and _always_ obey the speed limit, the human
| drivers mixed among them will lose their minds.
|
| At least so far, NHTSA has not said that Tesla and others need
| to ensure that in autonomous drive modes, the speed limit may
| not be exceeded.
| jcims wrote:
| That was something that occurred to me when I first heard about
| this. It's probably safer to drive in an expected way than a
| legal way.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The law is at complete odds with normal human behavior, and
| we've been ignoring the contradiction for, what, decades?
|
| No, we've been _using_ the contradictions as pretexts for
| otherwise illegal traffic stops.
| com2kid wrote:
| > Virtually all humans roll stop signs from time to time.
|
| Are you in California by chance?
|
| Because I rarely see that behavior in Washington state. Dead of
| night empty roadway people will come to a full stop at a stop
| sign.
|
| > It's safe when done in appropriate circumstances, yet it's
| illegal.
|
| You mean like when a driver thinks they don't see anyone else
| around? While driving a car with giant A pillars that block a
| large % of the street and sidewalk from view?
|
| Just, like, always stop at stop signs. It isn't that hard.
| chucksta wrote:
| You are in an exceptional area then. The entire city of
| Philadelphia operates on the idea stop means slightly tap on
| breaks. I've even seen cops regularly roll them.
| legerdemain wrote:
| "Even" cops? Here in the Bay Area, cops blow through every
| intersection without turn signals and barely any hint of
| slowdown. And everyone's happy, because only our blue
| domestic warfighters stand between us and the unwashed mobs
| robbing Lululemon stores.
| duped wrote:
| I know we're playing the anecdote game here, but I've lived
| and driven all over the US and can't recall a place where
| stop signs were respected by anyone (cross walks are a
| different story)
| com2kid wrote:
| From what I understand in Seattle (and I believe all of
| Washington State), every intersection at a corner is also a
| crosswalk, even if unmarked.
|
| So people don't have to walk multiple blocks just to cross
| the street. :)
|
| Accordingly I treat all intersections as potential
| crosswalks because people often cross at them!
| duped wrote:
| I meant more that in some places (NYC) no one waits for
| the crossing signal, yet in other places (like LA)
| everyone does.
| DaveExeter wrote:
| >Just, like, always stop at stop signs. It isn't that hard.
|
| I hate people who reflexively come to a full stop at stop
| signs!
|
| And some stop signs, I just completely ignore. Drive right
| thru as if there was no stop sign at all.
|
| I have eye-balls so I don't have to stop at stop-signs.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Not justifying rolling stops, but I can understand why people
| do it. I've lived in infuriating neighborhoods with a 4 way
| stop sign at every... single... intersection... You could
| drive a mile and hit fifteen of them. Cities get a complaint
| about an intersection and the cheapest way to "calm traffic"
| is to plop down a 4 way stop sign. You've basically created
| stop-and-go traffic without the traffic.
|
| Most stop signs I encounter in my commute and trips into town
| could be safely converted into roundabouts while still
| keeping neighborhood driving speeds low, but since this is
| the USA, nobody understands how to use roundabouts, so we sit
| there like idiots stopping every 300 feet of travel.
| com2kid wrote:
| There is one intersection in Kirkland WA that needs to be a
| round about. Every day during rush hour one stop sign is
| responsible for a 3-5 minute line of traffic.
|
| But you know what? _Everyone stops at it_ Even though it is
| stupid, and there is almost no chance of cross traffic,
| people stop at it.
|
| (It is on 116th ave in Bridal Trails, anyone local reading
| this knows the stop sign I'm talking about!)
|
| So yes, some very stupid stop signs exist.
|
| The neighborhood I live in now has a compromise stop signs
| every block going east/west, but no stop signs going
| north/south. It works out well enough!
|
| Indeed, roundabouts would solve a lot of these problems.
|
| One private gated community around here just uses _giant_
| speed bumps. Another, somewhat jarring, solution to the
| problem!
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I mean, most speed limits are also ignored safely and commonly.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| And there are circumstances where it's both reasonable and
| expected to pass a vehicle over a double yellow line (a slow-
| moving agricultural vehicle or a horse and buggy, for
| instance).
|
| And there are definitely cases when it's preferable to
| closely cut a yellow light than risk a collision if you're
| being tailgated and don't have much faith in the person
| behind you stopping if you do.
|
| At best, the law codifies best practices for the typical
| case.
|
| At worst it's a tool used to selectively target some people
| over others. See, for example, the concept of "driving while
| Black".
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| It's attitudes like this that me bull-ish about the future of
| self-driving cars.
|
| Cars can be programmed to never speed, double-park, or roll
| through stops (I'm aghast that Tesla even tried this). Loads of
| drivers seem to think this kind of shit is just fine and
| normal, and desperately need to be taken off the road.
|
| Self-driving car skeptics seem to think that the barrier is
| "being good at driving." I think the barrier is "being better
| at driving than most people." That's a low bar.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >Loads of drivers seem to think this kind of shit is just
| fine and normal, and desperately need to be taken off the
| road.
|
| For every few hundred cars going 65-80 on a 55mph stretch of
| interstate highway there's maybe a couple going the speed
| limit. Who is contributing the most danger to the roadway on
| a per-capita or per vehicle basis?
|
| > That's a low bar.
|
| You only think that because you mentally bucket people who
| casually violate the letter of the law when they deem it safe
| to do so and who's judgement on such matters is roughly in
| line with everyone else's into the "bad driver" category.
|
| The bar is not actually that low.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| > Who is contributing the most danger to the roadway on a
| per-capita or per vehicle basis?
|
| The people who are speeding. That's what "limit" means.
|
| > casually violate [the letter of] the law
|
| key word "casually". Casually hurtling tons of metal at
| speeds that turn bodies to jelly.
|
| And just to throw some statistics into the fray: 16,000
| people were murdered in the United States in 2019, and
| every time that number fluctuates up it's "an epidemic."
| Over 30,000 people died in car crashes, but that's just
| normal cuz "hey, accidents happen." Casually.
| travisporter wrote:
| > safe when done in appropriate circumstances That's a truism
| about anything, no?
| stavros wrote:
| Read as "usually safe".
| cronix wrote:
| It's also more environmentally friendly as it takes more power
| (exhaust) to get moving from a complete stop, more brake dust
| created coming to a complete stop, etc.
|
| > The law is at complete odds with normal human behavior
|
| > that aren't based in any semblance of reality.
|
| Dunno how true it is, but way back when, when I was in driving
| school, the instructor said the reason for coming to a complete
| stop was in order to accurately gauge the speed of
| cross/oncoming traffic, which is not nearly as accurate if you
| are in motion, in order to know if you can pull out/turn
| safely.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| A lot of traffic laws are guidelines until you do something
| worse, or fit a cop's profile of "suspicious." In the same vein
| as the old "broken taillight" ruse (the trope is that you get
| pulled over for no reason and the cop breaks your taillight).
|
| Roll through a stop sign during rush hour? in most places
| you're fine.
|
| Roll through a stop sign late at night when bars close? Maybe
| you'll get pulled over for it and a sobriety check.
|
| The laws are rooted in safe ideals, but are applied on a whim
| based on police bias.
|
| Personally I think self-driving cars should err on the side
| safe ideals (even if they're slightly less practical), and the
| laws should be applied to human drivers in a more uniform
| manner.
|
| I've had some bad run-ins with police myself (pulled over and
| searched for having a mirror ornament, pulled over for doing 5
| over the limit, etc)... and follow every asinine road rule
| because of it.
| woliveirajr wrote:
| Reminds me of the "Industrial Society and Its Future" manifesto
| (not that I agree with it or with the author's method).
| krajzeg wrote:
| In a few months: Tesla baffled as regulators crack down on their
| "I'm in a rush" feature, which makes Tesla cars with FSD ignore
| any and all speed limits as long as the car deems that's safe to
| do and won't bother anybody.
| ajross wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand the joke here. That's the way it
| works. The cars already allow you to speed (up to a limit,
| obviously). Just roll the right scroll wheel. And you can
| control its default choices via a menu (e.g. "limit + 5mph",
| etc...). Being able to match traffic speeds is a good and
| useful feature.
|
| But yes, it's technically "illegal", just like a rolling stop.
| Which prods the question of why one is subject to regulatory
| oversight and the other is not.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Limit + 5mph is an explicit control by the driver, not a
| decision by the car. "I'm in a rush" described here is not
| explicit, the car is making decisions on how much faster to
| go. Self driving regulations naturally only regulate
| decisions by the car, not decisions by the driver. "break all
| speeding laws however you want" isn't a decision as much as a
| directive on how to make driving decisions.
|
| Same with rolling stop in fsd, it's even more clearly a
| decision by the car which would naturally fall under self
| driving regulation while decisions by the driver naturally
| wouldn't. I.e. this isn't a "perform rolling stops" button
| the driver pressed to force the decision.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > But yes, it's technically "illegal", just like a rolling
| stop. Which prods the question of why one is subject to
| regulatory oversight and the other is not.
|
| Because one is a safety issue when done, and one is a safety
| issue when not done. Not obeying the speed limit is (mostly)
| safe when matching the traffic around you. Not stopping fully
| at a stop sign is unsafe since it can lead to accidents
| regardless of what everyone else around you does.
|
| Or to flip it around... obeying the speed limit but not
| matching the traffic around you is generally _unsafe_. While
| obeying the stop sign and stopping fully is always _safe_.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| InTheArena got rear-ended and road raged for coming to a
| full stop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30165411
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Just wait till they add a full self driving pit maneuver option
| to the caR!
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Nah, they wouldn't call it "I'm in a rush." They'd call it
| "Cannonball Run Challenge Mode." ;)
| LastMuel wrote:
| Apparently, it's "Assertive Mode"
| duxup wrote:
| I look forward to:
|
| <button>DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?</button>
|
| Personally I'd like a Foghat option:
|
| <button>Slow ride, take it easy.</button>
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| I hope robotaxis will have a setting for this.
|
| It can be a real pleasure to enjoy a buttery-smooth ride, and
| robots will excel at it. And of course manufacturers will
| optimize for it since it demonstrates confidence and safety.
| OTOH, you know what can also be fun? Having a Tesla kick your
| butt with almost 1 G.
|
| There should be a reasonably-smooth default setting, a "show
| me your skills" super-smooth setting, a "sporty" setting, and
| "madman". The latter would probably cost extra due to the
| extra wear and tear, and I'm sure I'd pay for it, at least
| once, for the experience.
| natch wrote:
| Chill mode...
| mrfusion wrote:
| Why is it a recall instead of a software update?
| alexfringes wrote:
| > Tesla will perform an over-the-air software update that
| disables the "rolling stop" functionality, NHTSA said.
|
| I was perplexed by the wording as well. Apparently software
| updates can be labeled recalls now? Did someone inform
| Microsoft, maybe this would help Windows 11 adoption.
| gcanyon wrote:
| It is a software update.
| jaywalk wrote:
| It is a software update.
| ajross wrote:
| "Recall" is the only term available to express a software
| update via the NHTSA's public notification process. It's just
| the word we have. And yes, it implies things that are
| salaciously untrue, which is one of the reason it finds its way
| into headlines like this.
| colonelxc wrote:
| Most recalls are just to fix things. It might be replacing
| brake pads, or a bumper, or in this case some software.
| jjulius wrote:
| According to the NHTSA[1]:
|
| >A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines
| that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an
| unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety
| standards. Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by
| repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases
| repurchasing the vehicle.
|
| So basically, regardless of whether the fix is a software or
| hardware update, any issue a car has that "creates an
| unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety
| standards" falls underneath the "recall" banner. I can see the
| benefit here; a recall generally gets a certain level of
| publicity that a "software update" might otherwise not. It
| might not be a bad idea for people crossing at stop signs to
| think, "Hmm, Tesla approaching, let's exercise just a bit more
| caution", until this is resolved.
|
| [1]https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Recalls-
| FAQ...
| tdiggity wrote:
| Just throwing in my experience here. Come down to Southern
| California. The rolling stop is everywhere. Not so much in SF Bay
| Area where I grew up. People get irritated if you drive the speed
| limit and make full stops. Especially at 4 way stop signs, I
| often feel like people are confused by a full stop, lol.
|
| I am also an FSD beta user, and I have my car set to standard
| assertiveness and it does not roll through stops.
|
| And, one last comment on the vision of the car - it's a whole
| different beast with the new fsd beta code. The highway autopilot
| code is not safe on the streets and until you see the fsd beta
| code at work, it's easy to think that it will perform poorly on
| local roads. Yes, it can do stupid things and cause anaccident,
| but not in the way the autopilot code will. It's different.
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| It would be fantastic if one day, with a high degree of
| certainty, self driving cars were legally allowed to run stop
| signs if they deemed it safe.
|
| There must be some fascinating cost/benefit analysis here looking
| at the waste that comes from breaking and starting again vs. a
| small chance of causing an accident.
|
| Think about all the cool ways you could alter urban design or
| traffic law with self driving vehicle data.
| ccorda wrote:
| The actual implementation is a little more nuanced than always
| roll or never roll, with seven conditions required to avoid
| coming to a complete stop: 1. The functionality
| must be enabled within the FSD Beta Profile settings; and
| 2. The vehicle must be approaching an all-way stop intersection;
| and 3. The vehicle must be traveling below 5.6mph; and
| 4. No relevant moving cars are detected near the intersection;
| and 5. No relevant pedestrians or bicyclists are
| detected near the intersection; and 6. There is
| sufficient visibility for the vehicle while approaching the
| intersection; and 7. All roads entering the
| intersection have a speed limit of 30 mph or less. If
| all the above conditions are met, only then will the vehicle
| travel through the all-way-stop intersection at a speed from 0.1
| mph up to 5.6 mph without first coming to a complete stop. If any
| of the above conditions are not met, the functionality will not
| activate and the vehicle will come to a complete stop
|
| https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22V037-4462.PDF
| b3morales wrote:
| The safety of this procedure rests heavily on the determination
| of "relevant" and the result of "detection". What is the
| outcome if those fail?
| margalabargala wrote:
| If a cop watches me roll through an otherwise empty stop sign
| intersection at 5.6mph, they would absolutely give me a ticket.
| onphonenow wrote:
| Pathetic by the police - you can see how disrespect builds in
| these cases.
|
| They ignore rampant theft and violence and are busting people
| on empty cross roads in middle of nowhere for not coming to a
| full and complete stop.
|
| I continue to support policing, but I wish they wouldn't get
| sucked into this type of work where they basically make even
| normal people hate them.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| This is not true for cops anywhere I have lived, and I'm
| sorry you live somewhere with such pointlessly strict
| policing. 5.6mph is de facto stopped.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| I second this, it is different depending on where you live.
| mdoms wrote:
| So presumably the Tesla is aware of all local laws and,
| more importantly, how strictly they are enforced from town
| to town, in every market the Tesla is sold or imported, in
| order to use this functionality safely and without
| resulting in ticketed traffic violations?
| margalabargala wrote:
| IMO 5.6mph is a lot faster than de facto stopped, and
| hitting someone at 5.6mph can seriously injure someone.
|
| 2-3mph I think is more reasonable for rolling through.
| sorokod wrote:
| De facto but not de jure.
| Tarrosion wrote:
| A heavy car or SUV at 5.6mph has about the same kinetic
| energy as me on my bike at 28mph (25x weight difference /
| 5x speed difference).
|
| I don't know about you, but I would prefer not to be hit
| head on by an adult on a bike traveling 28mph!
|
| On the other hand, an _actually_ stopped car could
| definitionally not hit someone.
| bo1024 wrote:
| Speaking as a city runner, you are 100000% wrong, and I
| have had numerous close calls demonstrating this.
|
| If you roll through at 5.6mph while I am jogging into the
| intersection from your side, I will often be hidden by your
| A pillar the entire time right up until you hit me. And a
| 5.6mph point-blank hit to a pedestrian can be serious.
|
| (edit: I have avoided these hits so far by watching
| people's eyes. If I can't see them see me, I stop
| regardless of right of way. This usually gives them a nice
| scare as they're rolling into the intersection and glance
| out their side window to see a person standing right there
| 'out of nowhere'. Not sure how I'll tell with FSD.)
| Mavvie wrote:
| > Not sure how I'll tell with FSD
|
| In theory, FSD shouldn't have blind spots like an A
| pillar for human drivers.
|
| But I agree with your point.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| This just depends on location I guess. Everyone here rolls
| through at 10-15, especially cops.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's no longer a stop sign.
| ec109685 wrote:
| "As of January 27, 2022, Tesla is not aware of any warranty
| claims, field reports, crashes, injuries or fatalities related
| to this condition."
|
| Wish they would have looked at data with the feature enabled
| versus disabled (more rear end collisions possibly)?
| stefan_ wrote:
| How about 1. stop
|
| It's wild they even put this into a NHTSA filing, not to
| mention rolling it out in the first place.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Presumably because it matches the behavior of human drivers.
|
| If self-driving cars were widely rolled out already, any
| large manufacturer could probably completely break traffic
| nationwide by rolling out an update that makes the cars
| actually follow every law and speed limit. (Just like work-
| to-rule can be as effective as a strike.)
| Osiris wrote:
| Which, to me, just means the laws are wrong. The police
| often don't obey basic traffic laws like speed limits and
| signaling (in my experience of following police on the
| freeway).
| b3morales wrote:
| I recently read an interview with a highway patrol
| officer whose opinion was that it's not really feasible
| for them to drive at the speed limit. Since a marked
| police car is already effectively a pace car -- no one
| wants to pass it for fear of being pulled over -- they
| would just distort the natural flow of traffic and
| probably create tailbacks everywhere they went, which
| would end up being more dangerous.
|
| I'm not sure I agree completely with this reasoning, but
| it was an interesting perspective.
| Osiris wrote:
| That's the same as saying that the speed limit (on
| freeways) is wrong because if everyone obeyed the speed
| limit, it would cause significant traffic congestion. In
| fact, you can see this when there IS a police officer
| driving the speed limit on the freeway and no one passes
| them. Traffic backs up for miles.
| b3morales wrote:
| Exactly, yeah, this is the problem I have -- it's
| pragmatic in a certain way, but also contributing to a
| vicious spiral.
| robryan wrote:
| It becomes harder to change though because if the culture
| is to go x over the speed limit, people will probably
| still go x over the new higher speed limit.
| alanh wrote:
| Hard to imagine your outrage is real. Go to the closest stop
| sign and watch who comes to a complete stop. Is it _anyone_?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Maybe my part of LA/SoCal is weird, but almost all of the
| people at the nearest stop signs stop at the signs, _even
| when no other cars are there_ and no pedestrians are near
| the intersection.
|
| In fact, the most annoying thing is that they will stop for
| _too long_ despite the lack of cross-traffic or pedestrians
| traversing the intersection (in any direction).
| stefan_ wrote:
| This is ironic because next time there is a bike article,
| you get all the professional drivers in this thread
| commenting "but they never stop at stop signs!".
|
| Can't have it both ways. The statistical evidence is clear:
| the average US driver is tremendously unsafe, untrained,
| unobservant and unskilled despite their country being built
| around driving everywhere. Their remonstrations on all the
| rule breaking they can perform safely stems purely from
| ignorance of their own inabilities.
| jcranberry wrote:
| I wouldnt say outrageous but its pretty audacious to
| actually program in law breaking behavior. I would imagine
| this would instantly expose the company to liability?
| yupper32 wrote:
| You'll see me stop. It takes 1 second more to come to a
| complete stop. Just do it.
|
| You sound like the kind of person to not signal when you
| change lanes because you think there's plenty of room.
| jsight wrote:
| In my area, the vast majority do. The rolling stops are
| called a "california stop" for a reason.
| kazen44 wrote:
| in my country (the netherlands) i have seen people stop at
| stop signs at times when there is very, very little traffic
| (04:00 at night).
|
| The point is also much more about creating a habit in which
| this kind of behaviour is just done, regardless of the
| state of the traffic on the road. The law says you must
| stop for a stop sign, stop signs are placed in places in
| which sudden traffic participants could enter your field of
| vision at a time in which it is too late to react properly.
|
| Also, people get fined for ignoring stop signs, even if no
| one is present. Driving education in the netherlands is
| quite strict and so are punishments for drivers. For
| instance, the driver of a car is always at fault for an
| accident with a "weak" traffic participant (foot/bike
| traffic), even if technically they werent at fault. (there
| is process to fight this in court if you assume ill
| intent/fraud is at play, although it is rarely used).
|
| the reasoning being that the driver of a car has had a
| drivers education and can thus act responsible while
| driving a hunk of metal down the road at lethal speeds.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > in my country (the netherlands) i have seen people stop
| at stop signs at times when there is very, very little
| traffic (04:00 at night).
|
| This is also normal in the US, despite what a few
| commenters on HN may have you believe. Hell, if anything,
| regular people out and about at 4am are _better_ about
| following the basic laws, because you stand out a lot
| more when you flout them, and in the wee hours of the
| night the proportion of drunk drivers is far higher and
| so cops are looking for it.
| Reubachi wrote:
| The average driver is incredibly unsafe. due in part to
| willingness, ignorance, stress, unperfect road conditions,
| etc.
|
| The laws say to stop, LEO say to stop, etc. I can't think
| of a defence to not stop beyond "No one else does it."
| lelag wrote:
| That's an interesting challenge for autonomous vehicles though...
| On one hand, the idea of programming your self-driving system to
| violate the law seems baffling. On the other hand, there are
| unwritten local rules everywhere. I suspect that even though
| rolling stop are illegal in California, the traffic density
| requires drivers to adopt a more aggressive stance if they want
| to move effectively and rolling stop helps that, especially when
| multiple cars are stopped in line waiting at a stop sign.
|
| If most people adopted that unsafe unlawful behaviour but which
| help reduce congestion, what are you suppose to do as a car maker
| if respecting the law will make other users road-rage against
| your client using your self-driving system?
| jeromegv wrote:
| I don't think we should program-in unsafe driving behaviours to
| accommodate road-ragers. As those self-driving features get
| more main-stream, this will just become more normal. And if
| road-ragers are still around, they should get fined.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I guess we're headed towards yet another slice of future
| dystopia - where once we saw the opportunity for clean and
| efficient automated driving by the time it's here it'll have
| been so heavily influenced by current bad driving habits that
| they'll have to keep the bad traditions up, if not to be
| defensive against people but instead to be defensive around
| other older AI drivers that are still assuming bad habit.
| a9h74j wrote:
| Memetic driving? Actually with humans in the mix, being
| "predictable" can be positive for safety.
| judge2020 wrote:
| For reference, there is specifically a flag/toggle called
| "California stop" (rolling stop) in the feature flag control
| panel for FSD / autopilot features. Screenshot[0] and full
| scroll-through on Greentheonly's twitter[1]. This panel is only
| available to Tesla employees, as no FSD beta tester had seen it
| before it was posted to Twitter.
|
| That was back in December 2020 So I the 'chill/average/assertive'
| setting changes how it works, but it is true that Tesla
| intentionally allowed the cars to roll through a stop sign[2].
|
| 0: https://i.judge.sh/LtHmP/5deuksuc_L.png
|
| 1:
| https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1336467057366487040?...
|
| 2: https://twitter.com/cooperlund/status/1488549356873695232
| gibolt wrote:
| 'Recall' is not the correct word, even if it is officially what
| NHTSA uses. This is an 'option' in a 'beta' version that applies
| below 5mph. The recall is just an OTA update in a few days.
| gcanyon wrote:
| "recall" is a funny word to use for "software update"
| thepasswordis wrote:
| "recall" is a bit of a strong word here. They'll push an update
| that removes a feature (rolling stops).
| alanh wrote:
| This is BS. Most human drivers do rolling stops. If you didn't
| want your Tesla to do a rolling stop, you had the option to set
| your FSD beta profile to a more conservative setting.
|
| Full stops, when no cross traffic is present, waste time and
| energy.
| pgib wrote:
| "Tesla to push software update to update beta software
| behaviour."
|
| _Recall_ makes it sound very different from what will actually
| happen.
| [deleted]
| InTheArena wrote:
| I was rear-ended in Colorado when I didn't do a rolling stop. Had
| a road-rage incident when the other driving was livid that I
| would stop under thoose circumstances.
|
| My dad (when gowing up) was pulled over for a cop for doing a
| california stop in Colorado. The police officer let us off,
| because we had california plates.
|
| When I got my Tesla, it was immediately evident that _no one_
| travels the speed limit. They travel 5-10mph over it on anything
| other then a local road. or they drive way under it.
|
| This is the problem with our mental model - FSD/Autopilot has to
| co-exist with human drivers - and human drivers don't follow the
| law. FSD/Autopilot has to exist in a world where roads do not
| follow standards, lines are not marked, deer jump in front of
| cars, people do California stops (it's called that for a reason),
| cars have accidents.
|
| Computers, today, change none of that.
| caf wrote:
| Is no-one else bothered that the term "rolling stop" is an
| obvious oxymoron?
| honkycat wrote:
| > When I got my Tesla, it was immediately evident that _no one_
| travels the speed limit. They travel 5-10mph over it on
| anything other then a local road. or they drive way under it.
|
| It is amazing to me how angry and insane people driving on the
| roads can be.
|
| I don't want to have a constant battle with every other driver
| on the road, I want to set cruise control, stay in my lane, and
| turn off on my exit when I need to. Doing this almost always
| triggers a tail-gaiting session and a driver becoming enraged
| at me ( I am not in the passing lane, for the record ).
|
| 99% of the pain in driving is other drivers deciding to just be
| assholes and not let me merge onto a highway for no apparent
| reason. Perception of "me in front me go fast" maybe?
|
| Driving today, it is pathetic. We are all locked into our
| little cages and make each other miserable for no benefit.
|
| I'm completely fed-up. There should be a system where I can
| send dash-cam footage for review and get a ticket mailed to
| their house. Don't defund the police: direct them at the
| asshole-fucking-drivers making everyone's life miserable while
| they play speed racer on the freeway.
| bryceacc wrote:
| >Doing this almost always triggers a tail-gaiting session and
| a driver becoming enraged at me ( I am not in the turning
| lane, for the record ).
|
| Or the fast/left most lane I hope. I cruise control in middle
| lanes and still have people tailgate like there isn't one or
| two open lanes to the left of me
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| Colorado highways seem to have a weird thing I haven't seen
| elsewhere. The right lane is consistently going ~10mph below
| the speed limit while the left lane goes ~10mph over. Any and
| all middle lanes are also a bit of a crapshoot.
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| Did you notice the same behavior before Marijuana was
| legalized?
| Osiris wrote:
| In my experience in Colorado, the right lane is usually empty
| and it's often easier to go faster than traffic in the right
| lane (at least on sections of freeway without exits close
| together). The left lane is usually traveling at least 20mph
| faster than the limit (on I-25 anyway). 85mph in a 65mph zone
| is the norm.
| mikysco wrote:
| I think it's reasonable to say "nobody" follows all the rules
| of the rules of the road. The ones you deem important enough to
| rigorously follow come down to local social dynamics/norms more
| than written law.
|
| I'm from Colorado and drivers there are much tamer than the Bay
| Area - and rightly so! Traffic conditions in SF/peninsula
| (where I live now) are way more hectic & dense than Colorado.
| It's almost weird to expect uniformity across all regions
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| I don't think it's _that_ weird to expect people who are
| licensed and tested on the rules of the road to actually
| follow them. Granted, if you _do_ have that expectation, you
| 'll be disappointed approximately 100% of the time, but I
| don't think the expectation itself is that weird.
| jMyles wrote:
| The more insidious problem is that much of this is by design.
| Legislators know that people don't obey the speed limits.
| Police officers too. It just gives them license to stop and /
| or charge whomever they please. It is an obvious and vulgar
| workaround to undermine the principle of equal protection.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| It's actually called a "California coast". Or if you're from
| the east coast, a "Philly roll".
| LastMuel wrote:
| > My dad (when gowing up) was pulled over for a cop for doing a
| california stop in Colorado. The police officer let us off,
| because we had california plates.
|
| I'm confused. A "California Stop" isn't even legal in
| California.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > A "California Stop" isn't even legal in California.
|
| I'm informed that these are actually legal as long as you
| don't disrespect the police by doing it in front of them.
| It's the same way that going slightly over the speed limit on
| freeways is legal as long as you don't insult the police by
| passing them.
| LastMuel wrote:
| > I'm informed that these are actually legal as long as you
| don't disrespect the police by doing it in front of them.
| It's the same way that going slightly over the speed limit
| on freeways is legal as long as you don't insult the police
| by passing them.
|
| You and I have a very different view of what makes
| something legal.
| pvarangot wrote:
| Yeah, it's "California Legal".
| bdamm wrote:
| There's a difference between legal and enforced.
|
| Going over the speed limit is not legal, but no officer
| will pull you over at +1, unless you piss them off for some
| other reason, like by being black in a white community, for
| example. Racial biases aside, this is actually a really
| good thing. If every law was enforced perfectly today,
| everyone would be arrested, fined, or jailed tomorrow.
| walrus01 wrote:
| realistically everywhere on I-5 between Seattle and the
| border, people do +5 over, and often 10 over. I'd wager
| it's near impossible to get pulled over for doing 65 in
| the 60 zone north of Seattle, and when the speed limit
| changes to 70, for doing 75 in the 70 zone on cruise
| control.
|
| Usually when I have cruise control set to exactly 75 and
| I'm in the right lane, I'm very often passed by people
| who are probably doing 80 to 82 mph.
| gen220 wrote:
| In New York, the highway norm is 13-15 over for the "I
| want to go fast but not get a ticket" crowd. (i.e. 80 in
| a 65).
|
| AFAICT, the reason is that there's a big jump in the
| median fine if you're going >15mph over the speed limit
| vs <= 15mph over. Economically-speaking, it's not worth
| the police officer's time to pull somebody over who's
| "merely" 10 over, because somebody going 16+ over will
| appear in a few more minutes of waiting.
|
| Interestingly, the state website says the official
| "maximum" fine bump occurs at 11+ mph over. I suspect
| they wait for 15mph to rule out the plausible cover
| stories "I was only going that fast to overtake the other
| car" or "new here, I didn't realize the incline was so
| sharply downhill with nobody in front of me".
|
| You probably wouldn't get pulled over for going 80-82 in
| Washington (i.e. they people passing you probably have
| their cruise controls set for 80), but it might be less
| enjoyable of a drive. You have to pay more frequent,
| closer attention, because you're overtaking people more
| frequently.
|
| Ironically, California dives deep into "low fines for
| speeds under 15 over". the under-15-over fine base is a
| meager $35! For 16-25, it jumps to $70, which is still
| paltry.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _There 's a difference between legal and enforced._
|
| I think the parent knows that, and was being a bit
| tongue-in-cheek ;)
| [deleted]
| tshaddox wrote:
| Also I'm pretty sure lots of places say "{somePlace} Stop"
| where somePlace is some nearby place known for supposedly
| having bad drivers.
| LastMuel wrote:
| I don't disagree. It was the comment about the California
| plate - almost like it was supposed to validate the
| practice - that I don't understand.
|
| I commented as I have a concern that an uneducated reader
| may walk away with the idea that it's legal in that state.
| It most certainly is not.
|
| Apparently, though, Idaho does have some provision for
| bicyclists and rolling through stop signs. So, there you go
| - an "Idaho Stop" is a thing for any potential bicyclists
| in Idaho.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Idaho does have some provision for bicyclists and
| rolling through stop signs.
|
| As does Oregon. I would guess there are others, too.
| jMyles wrote:
| Idaho stop?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
| FeteCommuniste wrote:
| We say "California stop" or "California roll" even way out
| here in Texas.
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| I am also more familiar with the term "california stop"
| than "rolling stop", and I was taught it by my parents who
| have never lived west of Texas. Looks like this admonition
| did a California stop all the way to the east coast.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| It's not, but approximately everybody does it. I've even seen
| cops do it. Once, I sat at a stop sign for a while, just to
| see if I could observe anybody actually stop. Nobody did.
| saila wrote:
| I've done this a few times. Almost no one stops, unless
| they're looking at their phone.
| kelnos wrote:
| Yeah; 15 years ago got a ticket for (allegedly; I still
| maintain that I came to a full stop) doing a California Stop
| in California.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| "California Stop" is an insult, implying that people drive
| badly in California.
| alanh wrote:
| OK? It's also a common term for it.
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| Who knows where these things come from.
|
| Here in Georgia I've heard people call it a "Texas Turn Off"
| when someone dives for the exit from the center lane of the
| highway.
| jcranberry wrote:
| At least in Houston there are some insane highway
| intersections where that happens very often.
| parkingrift wrote:
| Probably commentary on the road designs with absurd and
| massive interchanges.
| matsemann wrote:
| One thing I'd like modern cars to implement, given that they're
| supposedly close to self-driving, is to cap your speed at some
| percentage above the speed limit.
|
| There is no reason why a driver should be capable of driving
| the car 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone.
| akira2501 wrote:
| So, you're entirely removing the option of "escape" from
| people caught in bad situations then. I'm not sure that's
| wise. Further, you'd have to ask, how hard would it be to
| disable that? Then, given that some users will have this
| disabled, how does that impact the roadway as a whole?
| technothrasher wrote:
| I've always wanted a slightly less draconian version of this-
| a speed limit setting that makes the throttle pedal harder to
| push down once you've hit the a given speed. Sort of like a
| natural cruise control. This would keep you from accidentally
| creeping up over the limit, which is certainly something that
| I do, but still allow you to go faster if you make the
| conscious choice.
| asdff wrote:
| Good luck passing that law when we can't even gather
| political will to put in average speed cameras in most
| cities, which would also solve speeding without needing self
| driving.
| moistly wrote:
| British Columbia once had radar cameras on the highways.
| Instead of getting pulled over for speeding, you'd get a
| ticket in the mail. People hated it and consequently we
| elected a thoroughly corrupt government on the promise to
| rescind the practice.
|
| But for a while there we all drove at around the same
| speed, within about 10% of the posted limit, and it was
| fucking _glorious_. It was so much less stressful: very
| little passing of one another, fewer idjits weaving in and
| out, left turns off the highway less of a guessing game,
| fewer accidents ... it was just fantastic when most
| everyone did the same speed.
|
| Of course now we're worse off than ever, because without
| cameras the cops essentially gave up enforcing speed limits
| and now there's an over 50% difference in speed between the
| slower and faster vehicles.
| rocqua wrote:
| I believe there is a push in Europe to include this in cars
| based on computer vision. It was pitched as "not above speed
| limit". I would at least hope it is "not above speed limit
| for long" or have some form of slack.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Both emergency situations exist & also cars aren't that
| infallible, so there would need to be a way to override such
| a system or disable it. Otherwise imagine the chaos of a
| track day or autocross when someone's car suddenly thinks
| they are on the road _next_ to the track and slams on the
| brakes...
| matsemann wrote:
| For every suggestion to curb the car problems of society,
| there will always be someone bringing up edge cases to
| defend status quo.
|
| How many meters are done on a track each year, compared to
| public roads? I'd wager most people have never even set
| foot on a track. Cases like that should have absolutely no
| bearing on policy making.
|
| And emergency is always used as am excuse as well to not
| limit car use or rebuild streets. If anything, getting rid
| of traffic means that it's now easier for them to get to
| where they are going. Same for disabled people. It's always
| people shouting "you can't ban cars here, think of the
| disabled", when the truth is that getting rid of most of
| the cars and building better infrastructure would make
| their day easier.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > How many meters are done on a track each year, compared
| to public roads? I'd wager most people have never even
| set foot on a track. Cases like that should have
| absolutely no bearing on policy making.
|
| It absolutely should have a bearing as you are
| essentially arguing that those cases you should be
| illegal & banned. You can't ban something and then argue
| that "well, not many people were doing it anyway, so we
| can ignore it even though we're banning it."
|
| Your policy impacts it, therefore your policy must
| account for it. Even if that account is to decide that
| the impact is justified, you _are_ making significant
| changes to things outside of your stated & claimed goal.
|
| > And emergency is always used as am excuse as well to
| not limit car use or rebuild streets.
|
| I did no such thing?
|
| All I said is there needs to be an 'off' switch, just
| like there is for traction control in the majority of
| vehicles today. The overwhelming majority of people leave
| it enabled (as that's the default), and the world is
| better. Rules don't need to be black & white to have
| broad societal improvements.
|
| > It's always people shouting "you can't ban cars here,
| think of the disabled", when the truth is that getting
| rid of most of the cars and building better
| infrastructure would make their day easier.
|
| Except you were arguing that cars should be banned for
| uses outside of being on the road as part of normal
| traffic. As in, your "rule" wasn't improving your
| hypothetical excuse situation here. It was instead making
| it the only legal usage of a vehicle, to compete with
| mass transit.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I think the issue of "always bringing up edge cases" is
| meant to illustrate that a LOT can go wrong with some of
| these hard and fast rules. It is why humans are
| simultaneously great and terrible at driving. One
| slightly bad driver can be accounted for by several
| slightly better drivers navigating around the bad one's
| behavior. This smooth "self-correction" on the roadway
| leads to lots of rule breaking but also probably saves a
| lot of time/lives by allowing individual humans to
| navigate a situation (especially since lots of people
| forget the exact rules of the road...ex. do you yield in
| a turning situation or not, what exceptions would you not
| yield?)
|
| However, I really do like your last point, the easiest
| way to solve is just remove the cars from as much of the
| equation and introduce transit that follows rules
| (trains, busses -higher compliance with road rules
| perhaps) and let humans navigate the last meter
| themselves
| dionidium wrote:
| > _I think the issue of "always bringing up edge cases"
| is meant to illustrate that a LOT can go wrong with some
| of these hard and fast rules._
|
| This makes more sense as an objection in a vacuum than it
| does in the reality where the alternative is that
| speeding is a big problem within cities. We don't have to
| solve every edge case. We just need the edge cases to be
| less of an issue than speeding already is. And that's a
| much easier bar.
|
| Asking, "what if we do this?" is fine, but one should
| also always consider, "what if we don't?"
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| But that is the point... if we don't do something here,
| humans can continue to take their own actions to resolve
| the situation (speed up with traffic or move to the right
| or choose an alternate route). That level of flexibility
| allows for each person to make the choice they want and
| feel comfortable with (as opposed to the car making a
| decision for you)
| dionidium wrote:
| Let's be clear here that "letting the car make the
| decision for you" in context means "you can't go as fast
| as you want in an urban area because the car will prevent
| it." As in, you can't drive many multiples of the speed
| limit in urbanized areas packed with buildings and
| pedestrians and other cars. The car should prevent that
| in practically all cases. The car _does_ know that that
| 's a good idea in practically every conceivable case. A
| human driver who thinks they should drive many multiples
| of the speed limit in an urban area is _wrong_.
|
| It's so manifestly wrong that it shouldn't even be
| technically possible. There's no good reason to
| manufacture a car that responds so stupidly to such a
| dangerous and irresponsible input.
|
| And when the day finally comes that the conditions are
| just right so that a driver dies attempting to flee an
| avalanche because this tech prevented them from escaping
| at speed, we will put a lone checkmark in the "lives lost
| to this technology" column that's adjacent to a "lives
| saved" file 10 miles long.
|
| If I could be permitted just a little bit of levity: http
| s://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762?lang=en
| yupper32 wrote:
| More often is people trying to implement solutions
| without thinking the problem through to the end.
|
| Like trying to ban the sale of combustion engines without
| having a robust charging infrastructure. Or making
| parking in a downtown area a nightmare without improving
| the public transit infrastructure.
|
| Or in this case, trying to implement maximum speeds in
| cars when the technology (GPS? Accurate speed limit maps?
| Extra sensors on cars and roads?) isn't good enough or
| isn't there.
| dionidium wrote:
| If you gathered up every single one of these edge cases and
| multiplied them by 10 you wouldn't get anywhere near the
| _actually-existing, non-hypothetical, measurable_ problem
| of speeding.
|
| So, sure, we should talk about edge cases and people who
| implement this technology should work on them, but even if
| they didn't, the tech would still be a good idea given
| fairly pedestrian calculations of the relevant tradeoffs.
|
| And even if we accept your premise that the edge cases are
| a big deal, the solution presents itself quite readily: let
| there be an override with serious consequences for
| frivolously engaging it. Simple.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| First I'd need to be convinced that speed is the problem. How
| about we work on road design before we starting trying to
| second guess drivers?
|
| Even then I'd probably still vote against whichever
| politician decided it was a good idea.
| matsemann wrote:
| Why? Is it some kind of human right to endanger others with
| reckless driving?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's begging the question, how did you decide that 130
| kph was reckless?
| alanh wrote:
| Thank you, this is one of the few insightful comments I see
| here.
| consp wrote:
| > and human drivers don't follow the law.
|
| You need to design the road to the speed you want, not the
| other way around like it mostly happens in some countries. That
| solves quite a lot of problems.
| moistly wrote:
| I thought my city's potholes were due to poor maintenance
| when it turns out they're a traffic calming device!
| aimor wrote:
| Does it at least check for cops before rolling through the stop
| sign?
|
| Kinda cheeky, but I bet a lot of people would love automated
| driving features that change behavior around police.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| This sort of conflict highlights the difference between the
| traffic laws (which are often rooted in revenue generation
| instead of safety) and the way people really drive. Speed limits
| have the same issue. Some governments (such as Germany) have
| roads with no speed limit. Why don't we have those everywhere?
|
| In the end, it comes down to personal responsibility. Apparently
| the people in Germany drive more responsibly than everywhere
| else?
| onphonenow wrote:
| Rolling stops are how a fair number of folks drive, especially
| when there is no traffic on a cross street. I was in a small down
| growing up, and you'd slow to maybe 1-3 MPH, then turn.
|
| I know everyone on HN get's outraged by these decisions with FSD
| (and regulators do too). One thing I think this exposes is
| actually human driving. This is in fact common - the system is
| reflecting things back to us.
|
| I was on road up higher and the number of people on their phones
| is mind boggling. THey will literally sit at a green because they
| are so checked out, they will be texting while merging. It's
| madness.
| grepfru_it wrote:
| today i approached a 4 way stop. the car to the left of me
| arrived later, as I was coming to a complete stop. well the
| driver to the left used a rolling stop and continued through
| the stop line. then he had the audacity to beep at me as he cut
| me off.
| katbyte wrote:
| The issue there is not so much the rolling stop but not
| respect right of way.
|
| Personally I think almost all stop signs should be replaced
| with roundabouts as it better represents how people want to
| drive and allows for rolling stops but that's just me
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I do like the Australian perspective, where I learned to
| drive before I moved to the US.
|
| There's no concept of "right of way" on Australian roads.
| There's only "duty to yield". It might seem like a subtle
| concept/difference, but when it comes time to stand up in
| court/ be pulled over/ avoid an accident, it frames things
| better.
|
| Too many in the US are "it's my road, asshole, I got the
| right of way".
| ak217 wrote:
| We have a heavily trafficked roundabout in our neighborhood
| and it's a big hazard to pedestrians because drivers take
| it way too fast and fail to yield to pedestrians in the
| crosswalks around it. Aside from that, the roundabout is
| great but takes up a lot more space than an intersection
| would. Maybe some bumps to calm the traffic approaching the
| roundabout would help.
|
| The problem that I see is just insufficient respect for
| traffic laws. I'm not sure what to do about it, aside from
| more police presence.
| asdff wrote:
| They kinda suck because American drivers stop at
| roundabouts even when the sign says to yield
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| A stop sign at the end of a neighborhood road at the
| intersection of a main thorough street makes sense.
|
| But four-way stop signs absolutely should not be a thing.
| Anywhere a 4-way stop exists should certainly be a
| roundabout.
|
| The only problem is that roundabouts in the USA are
| exceedingly rare in most of the country. There would need
| to be a massive education campaign for them to work for
| most people. There are an alarming number of Americans that
| think that the people already on the roundabout have to
| yield for the people coming on.
| ak217 wrote:
| It depends on the location. There are plenty of city
| intersections where 4-way stops are completely
| appropriate, and a roundabout would be impossible because
| it would have a much bigger footprint (and would block
| trucks and emergency vehicles).
| abraae wrote:
| Some places use virtual roundabouts, where the roundabout
| part is simply a small painted circle on the road.
| Emergency vehicles can drive straight over it
| [deleted]
| Osiris wrote:
| No one _wants_ to crash their car. People do rolling stops
| because they are generally perfectly safe.
| [deleted]
| metabagel wrote:
| If a police officer sees you roll through a stop where I live
| (southern California), you will be ticketed.
| asdff wrote:
| If a police officer sees you do a donut in the middle of an
| intersection where i live (also southern california) you will
| just flee home and do it again tomorrow night. Traffic
| enforcement varies strikingly in California it seems.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| If you lack the situational awareness to recognise a police
| car in the vicinity, it's probably better to actually come to
| a stop. I suspect that's part of why the law works well
| enough.
| metabagel wrote:
| I was going to argue with you that rolling stops are
| dangerous, but I ran into this interesting article which
| recommends replacing stop signs with more informative
| indicators:
|
| https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/adaptive-
| behavior/20...
| spamizbad wrote:
| Right, but the promise of self-driving vehicles is about them
| being safer than humans. Humans are irrational and impulsive.
| Those actions disrupt the flow of traffic. The idea is that a
| self-driving vehicle can be safer than a human because it will
| do things like follow speed limits, always come to a complete
| stop, etc.
|
| If self-driving vehicles are simply going to operate like
| facsimiles of human driving behavior their benefits are greatly
| diminished.
| alanh wrote:
| How and why does stopping completely at a stop sign, with
| good visibility and no present pedestrians or cross traffic,
| increase safety? Will wait for an answer.
| bhauer wrote:
| I think as long as autonomous drive systems are intermingling
| on regular roads with human drivers, they need to behave like
| human drivers. Human drivers will get angry with autonomous
| systems, especially during rush hour, if they adhere strictly
| to all laws such as full stops and speed limits.
|
| As others have pointed out, this may force us to contend with
| the laws first since it's clear local enforcement and laws
| are not aligned.
|
| When a majority of driving is autonomous, laws will likely
| evolve slightly. If/when all driving is autonomous, then
| things get really interesting: short following distance,
| peer-to-peer intersections without stops, etc.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Humans get outraged all the time. If you drive exactly at
| the speed limit, they get angry, if you drive 5km/h over
| they get angry that you don't drive 10km/h over it, others
| get angry that you are tailgating them when they are
| driving exactly as fast as allowed and will brake check you
| --- I really think autonomous cars should just mechanically
| stick to the rules, then they are at least predictable.
| [deleted]
| jliptzin wrote:
| I don't see anything wrong with copying human driving
| behavior except without any risk of drunk driving, driving
| and texting, falling asleep at the wheel, having a heart
| attack or stroke at the wheel etc. The average truck driver
| appears to be morbidly obese and gets little to no physical
| exercise, yet they drive enormous trucks that can do insane
| amounts of damage if they suffer a heart attack or stroke,
| personally I can't wait for self driving vehicles to come
| online.
|
| EDIT: Not really sure why I am getting downvoted for this,
| you can search google and get maybe hundreds if not thousands
| of results about truck/bus drivers and heart attacks/strokes
| causing deadly crashes, but they get maybe 1% of the media
| attention of an FSD video rolling through a stop sign
| https://fox4kc.com/news/family-says-driver-of-tractor-
| traile...
| legerdemain wrote:
| Seriously! I was going to make the same observation about
| truck drivers. It takes so little to exercise effectively.
| Why not pull over your truck for 30 minutes twice a day and
| do some basic calisthenics/bodyweight exercises? Who's
| going to notice?
| asdff wrote:
| Your dispatcher who sees you are an hour behind schedule
| for stopping for no reason on the route and fires you
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Would be an extreme form of exercise since it would be so
| dangerous on the Highway.
| jliptzin wrote:
| Certainly would get your heart rate up, lol
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Setting aside legality, It's hard to believe that Tesla's FSD
| has the ability to successfully evaluate its current context
| (weather, time of day, visibility, vehicle "body language") and
| decide when a rolling stop is safe and when it's not. Not that
| humans always do this well either, but resorting to rolling
| stops _always_ while ignoring the circumstances seems like a
| bad move.
| tahoeskibum wrote:
| I have FSD Beta and I can tell you I have never seen FSD do a
| rolling stop.
| qubitcoder wrote:
| I have FSD Beta as well. Even in Assertive mode, I've never
| actually seen it do a rolling stop, including rural areas
| with nothing around. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. In
| fact, I'd prefer it didn't--or at least provide an option
| to toggle it on and off.
| bhauer wrote:
| In the Assertive profile, it can do rolling stops, but only
| under circumstances where it is very safe, such as four-way
| stops with no other driving vehicles present.
| lolpython wrote:
| It does it in "assertive" mode. https://www.techtimes.com/a
| mp/articles/270296/20220109/tesla...
| elif wrote:
| Not to mention that a rolling stop itself is inherently safer
| when a 360 view is evaluated 200 times per second with
| superhuman response latency.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Sure in a perfect world.. but then again..
| https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1488187856749318154
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Driving drunk is also how a fair number of people drive,
| especially in remote areas when home is far from the bar.
|
| I'm not sure that modeling human behavior is the right way to
| design a self driving car.
| harambae wrote:
| The human behavior here (slow rolling stop signs) at least in
| theory can prevent being rear-ended by someone who is used to
| everyone else in the area doing that (of course it's the
| rear-ender's fault in a crash... but still an annoyance for
| everyone involved)
|
| There's no benefit to the computer swerving in and out of the
| lane like a drunk driver, or taking an intentionally
| inefficient route like a crooked taxi driver, or other pure-
| downside criminality.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| The human behavior can also result in an accident when a
| car or pedestrian that expects the car to stop walks out in
| front of the car.
|
| In theory, the car should be paying attention in all
| directions at the same time and won't get into an accident,
| but car sensors are not infallible, especially when
| detecting pedestrians, moreso if they are partially
| obscured by foliage, newspaper stands, etc.
|
| Automated cars should stop 100% of the time at
| intersections where they are required to do so. When the
| stop signs are changed to "Self-driving yield" signs, then
| the cars can do a rolling stop.
|
| So my point wasn't that cars should act like drunk drivers,
| but that modeling human behaviors is not the right mindset
| for self-driving cars.
| r00fus wrote:
| 4-way stops are so fuel inefficient. Would traffic circles be
| more efficient with automated vehicles?
| Ekaros wrote:
| Or equal crossings that is yield to right. Or just have yield
| signs. Both means that no need to stop unless other traffic.
| r00fus wrote:
| Fully blind intersections are a nightmare for 4-way yields.
| Not to mention non-automotive traffic that may not be seen.
|
| Easy to retrofit a 4-way intersection into a roundabout.
| bhauer wrote:
| Rolling stops were only enabled in the "Aggressive" FSD Beta
| driving profile, one of three available profiles. Several FSD
| Beta testers used the Aggressive profile in areas where rolling
| stops are common. They did this because when using the other
| profiles, they would be embarrassed or honked at because their
| car insisted on always coming to a full stop.
|
| Anyone familiar with driving in Los Angeles knows that when
| it's safe to do so (e.g., when there is no cross traffic on a
| turn), a rolling stop is _extremely_ common. So common that it
| is plausible that people behind you might honk if you insist on
| doing a full stop and then cautiously proceed. Especially
| during rush-hour.
|
| By the same token, most people in Los Angeles drive 5 to 10 MPH
| over the posted speed limits. Driving at the posted speed limit
| will cause other drivers to hate you.
| jjulius wrote:
| I truly don't understand this line of reasoning. "Oh no, I've
| been honked at! Someone in a car, who I'll never meet,
| doesn't like me! I guess I'd better start driving a bit more
| unsafely so that people don't honk at me!". I'll ignore
| someone honking at me if it means I'm driving more safely.
|
| And I've driven in LA plenty of times. It might be the norm
| for LA drivers, sure, but I would also argue that that whole
| region could use at least a _bit_ more patience when on the
| road.
|
| The speed limit differential gets into a bit more of a grey
| area, though, in regards to laws that require you to maintain
| a speed that's in line "with the flow of traffic". It's
| similar in Atlanta; posted speed limit might be 55, but
| you're likely going to be going at least 70 in the slow lane
| in order to maintain the flow.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > I truly don't understand this line of reasoning. "Oh no,
| I've been honked at! Someone in a car, who I'll never meet,
| doesn't like me! I guess I'd better start driving a bit
| more unsafely so that people don't honk at me!". I'll
| ignore someone honking at me if it means I'm driving more
| safely.
|
| Sometimes a "bit" of safety isn't worth the tradeoff in
| throughput. But that also assumes it's safer to stop
| completely. It's very possible that smoother traffic flow
| is safer. Or maybe there's more risk that you get rear-
| ended than is caused by a rolling stop.
| jjulius wrote:
| Then let's get the road designed that way. I'm onboard
| with the argument you're making about flow, but - and
| perhaps this is just me - traffic is safer when it's
| predictable.
|
| Let's say you have a stop sign in your neighborhood that
| "everyone" rolling-stops through. Sure, great, let's look
| into changing that stop into maybe a yield, or a
| roundabout, or whathaveyou that safely allows for the
| flow that that street necessitates. But in the meantime?
| Stop at the stop sign! Yeah, sure, we can make the
| argument that the rolling stop is now "predictable" to
| everyone in the neighborhood, but what happens when you
| get an out-of-towner in front of you on your morning
| commute and you slack off on watching for them to stop,
| resulting in you rear-ending them?
|
| Improving the flow of traffic is great, but ignoring
| rules for the sake of flow adds additional layers of
| unpredictability that ultimately result in roads that are
| less safe for drivers/pedestrians, at least IMO.
| mwint wrote:
| Thing is, you don't know whether the honk is for "you are
| slower than I like" or "your bumper is falling off".
|
| Being honked at takes cycles to triage what's happening; in
| itself that lowers safety.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| > Thing is, you don't know whether the honk is for "you
| are slower than I like" or "your bumper is falling off".
|
| It's almost always immediately obvious what the
| transgression is if you're paying the slightest bit of
| attention.
|
| Even the people who are on their phones at a light and
| have to regain situational awareness from square one do a
| pretty good job figuring it out.
| jjulius wrote:
| My suggestion would be for people to stop honking out of
| impatience. If there's an actual issue, honk. Someone not
| moving as quickly or dangerously as you'd like isn't an
| excuse to honk.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Go to some town with less than 100k population at least
| 50 miles away from a metro area and you'll see this sort
| of ideal world: everyone goes the speed limit or 1-5 MPH
| below it, honking is only if you haven't moved for at
| least 5 seconds after the light turns green, nobody's in
| a hurry at all.
| asdff wrote:
| I really only honk at people for screwing up. If they cut
| me off I will wail on the horn for a long time, just
| holding it, letting them know. I love embarrasing asshole
| drivers like this especially if they have some passenger.
| Whenever cars honk at me for using the crosswalk I
| actually enjoy it, because then I just stand in front of
| their car for the rest of the light cycle absolutely
| cussing them out and embarrasing them while they can do
| nothing because the walk sign is on. I love pointing to
| the walk sign and saying "What does that sign say? Drive?
| does that stick figure walking with a countdown say Drive
| to you?" as loud as possible. Other pedestrians have even
| fist bumped me. It is so cathartic!
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| > can do nothing because the walk sign is on
|
| This works until you do it to a driver who has had a
| _really_ bad day and demonstrates that the walk sign isn
| 't a force field.
|
| Yes, he'll probably go to jail for vehicular
| manslaughter, but that doesn't help you.
| asdff wrote:
| If they hit me at speed there's nothing I could do
| whether I argued or not, I'd be laid out before I knew
| what happened. If they stopped, then hit me, that
| wouldn't be a bad collision to take, they'd only get up
| to a few mph in the few feet in front of me even if they
| hammered the throttle. I'd slide off the hood and get
| their plates and then they'd be in jail and I would walk
| into the courtroom with a neck brace and get my payout.
| jjulius wrote:
| >I'd slide off the hood and get their plates and then
| they'd be in jail and I would walk into the courtroom
| with a neck brace and get my payout.
|
| And that constant neck pain, limited mobility and/or
| arthritis that creep their way into your neck as you get
| old as a result would be _so_ worth it.
| [deleted]
| jjulius wrote:
| > If they cut me off I will wail on the horn for a long
| time, just holding it, letting them know. I love
| embarrasing asshole drivers like this...
|
| I can say confidently that I've never looked at any other
| driver doing this and thought anything but, "Jesus
| Christ, calm the fuck down." I've been that guy doing the
| honking as well, and I'm fully aware that nobody arounds
| me gives a shit and they just find me annoying. Hell,
| half the time most of them don't even know what happened;
| they just look over and see some overly-angry dude
| screaming at someone.
|
| >... especially if they have some passenger.
|
| Did you _really_ embarrass them in front of the
| passenger, or yourself? What if the transgression you 're
| honking at was a genuine mistake with a reason that
| actually makes sense? I've been the passenger in
| situations like this before and have found myself
| thinking, "Yeah, oops, but I don't totally fault my
| driver or the other driver for this and the chud doing
| the honking needs to chill out because clearly they don't
| understand the driver's perspective."
| asdff wrote:
| I don't think cutting me off without a turn signal has
| any logic other than "me me me to the red light first!"
| If I can get them to have a reaction like "jesus Christ,
| calm the fuck down" then I am a happy camper. Again there
| are honest mistakes, and clearly asshole illegal behavior
| that drivers do like speeding like crazy, cutting people
| off, weaving through the freeway like a snake, running
| reds, cutting into lanes and blocking traffic because you
| must get to the turn lane at the last possible moment
| before there is a barrier, and willfully ignoring signage
| like no turns on reds. I'm also not embarrassed about
| calling out drivers as a pedestrian. Why would I be? I do
| it when have right of way and they don't and they had the
| audacity to honk at me for walking when the walk sign is
| lit. It's fun to call out assholes. I love shouting at
| them, so satisfying.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jjulius wrote:
| Cool.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| From my experience honking is exclusively used for
| frustration over driving style, with vehicular faults
| more often reported by less aggressive means like
| flashing brights or shouting the info from an opened
| window.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| To be fair, road rage shootings on highways have been
| trending up. There's some LA drivers I wouldn't want to
| upset either.
| jjulius wrote:
| Last time I was there I had someone get out of their
| vehicle and get angry as fuck at me - screaming, calling
| me a piece of shit, mother fucker, etc. - because they
| turned into oncoming traffic (my lane) to get around a
| garbage truck, found me there driving in my right of way,
| and demanded I back up and make room for _them_. Everyone
| else on the road in LA seem generally grumpy and
| impatient.
|
| Granted, I usually drive pretty fast and am aware of my
| tendency to be impatient behind the wheel, but it seems,
| anecdotally at least, like LA is worse than many other
| areas in that regard. The first 20 minutes driving around
| after I leave LAX are usually spent thinking, " _I 'm_
| crazy, but these people put me to goddamn shame and I
| need to adapt quickly," lol.
| asdff wrote:
| There are some truly idiotic drivers in California. On
| the one hand you have people in their beamers who go as
| fast as possible whenever they have an open lane, that
| might mean 50mph on residential streets and over 100 on
| the highway. Then you have the other end of the spectrum,
| people who think the speed limit is a limit, not a
| minimum, and drive like 40mph on the freeway with no one
| in front of them in one of the middle lanes. People weave
| aggressively left and right to get around them and it
| causes accidents.
|
| All of this is the direct result of little enforcement
| for traffic rules. I've never seen someone pulled over
| ever in California unless there's been an accident. I've
| never seen a cop with a radar gun. I've actually seen the
| LAPD speed past me and hang out in the left lane with no
| lights on, because that's just how the standard of
| driving is in LA apparently. You try that in the midwest
| and you will be pulled over for going to fast, for going
| to slow, for having a 10 foot tall stack of scrap metal
| in your truck, for spending to much time in the left
| lane, and for failing to signal. The highways feel truly
| lawless in California.
| mef wrote:
| not true - it was enabled by default
| https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1488544659056087041
| gamblor956 wrote:
| _Anyone familiar with driving in Los Angeles knows that when
| it 's safe to do so (e.g., when there is no cross traffic on
| a turn), a rolling stop is extremely common. So common that
| it is plausible that people behind you might honk if you
| insist on doing a full stop and then cautiously proceed.
| Especially during rush-hour_
|
| Anyone who drives in LA during rush hour knows that it is
| _never safe_ to do a rolling stop, because during rush hour
| there is _going to be cross traffic_ and you need to check
| that there is cross-traffic at the intersection _before
| turning_.
|
| I've witnessed a lot of accidents where some moron thought
| that saving 3 seconds was more important than safety, and
| rolled right in front a car that had the right-of-way, or
| into a pedestrian in the crosswalk that the driver hadn't
| seen.
| noobermin wrote:
| This sort of thinking is why America has the highest deaths and
| injuries on the road per capita of any developed country.
| alanh wrote:
| Is it, or do we simply have more miles driven per capita? We
| are a big country. Not Monaco, where you could walk to
| anywhere else in Monaco to join a friend for breakfast
| ht85 wrote:
| It'll be fully operational by next year, I swear.
| CalRobert wrote:
| Rolling stops are a great way to do things like kill 5 year old
| Alison Hart, who was in a crosswalk when someone killed her with
| a car.
|
| https://twitter.com/jlrhart/status/1486407516338761734/photo...
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >Rolling stops are a great way to do things like kill 5 year
| old Alison Hart, who was in a crosswalk when someone killed her
| with a car.
|
| >https://twitter.com/jlrhart/status/1486407516338761734/photo..
| .
|
| Sure, linking to a tweet obfuscates the facts a little bit but
| surely someone was bound to Google the name eventually...
|
| https://wtop.com/dc/2021/09/girl-struck-and-killed-in-northe...
|
| "Police said the van came to a complete stop and proceeded
| through a stop sign when Hart was unable to stop her bicycle
| and entered the intersection into the path of the moving
| vehicle."
|
| The accident you cite has pretty much nothing to do with the
| debate here since the stop wasn't actually rolled.
| legostormtroopr wrote:
| That incident is a tragedy - but seems like it is completely
| unrelated to this matter. It was a speeding driver in a van,
| who sped through a stop sign & crossing walk and killed a
| child.
| [deleted]
| sidibe wrote:
| It seems like the mission statement at Tesla is "let's see what
| we can get away with." I've never seen a company with so much to
| lose as fearless of regulators or customers.
| rreichman wrote:
| It's crazy that Musk is talking about full self driving within 11
| months when the software can't reliably adhere to stop signs.
| valine wrote:
| It's not a matter of software reliability. The rolling stops
| was an intensionally added feature to make the car behave more
| naturally/human-like at stop signs. Tesla knows how to make the
| car stop at stop signs, they simply chose not to under certain
| circumstances. You can certainly argue that it was a bad
| decision on Tesla's part, but using it as a signal for software
| quality is ridiculous.
|
| Personally I think the removal of the rolling stop behavior is
| a minor tragedy.
| mattacular wrote:
| So they're recalling a feature that was explicitly and
| intentionally built to do something that runs afoul of the law,
| at the user's behest. Again this is by design, meeting their own
| requirements. For their self driving technology that is already
| labeled "beta".
|
| Why anyone in their right mind would willingly use this stuff in
| a risk-intensive life/death scenario like driving on public roads
| remains beyond me.
|
| (Yes I lose points every time I criticize Tesla online but I will
| keep doing it until someone makes it make sense or the company
| finally goes out of business for continuing this type of
| irresponsible behavior.)
| judge2020 wrote:
| Rolling stops mimic human behavior. Going 5-10 MPH over the
| speed limit also mimics human behavior, and both of these
| settings are controllable by the human driver behind the wheel
| in FSD Beta[0]. At what point does the Beta (or Ford's
| BlueCruise or GM SuperCruise) force you to go exactly the speed
| limit?
|
| 0:
| https://twitter.com/cooperlund/status/1488549356873695232?s=...
| mattacular wrote:
| Sounds almost as if "fully self-driving cars" coexisting with
| human driven cars is not feasible to do safely because it's
| not purely a technical problem. My contention is simply that
| Tesla is acting irresponsible so long as they continue to
| design and market otherwise.
| ht85 wrote:
| It'll be fully operational by next year.
| njarboe wrote:
| Click-bait title. Tesla was forced to remove the rolling-stop
| option when the driver is using the beta version of FSD in the
| "Assertive" mode. No-one has reported any injuries or problems
| with this feature. Seems to me having this option is good to
| have. This behavior is expected in many locations, saves time and
| energy, and is often safer than coming to a full stop. Cops
| should feel free to ticket these cars when they do this if they
| think its not safe, but NHTSA shouldn't be involved in this very
| important emerging technology at this low a level.
|
| "Tesla said as of Jan. 27 it was not aware of any warranty
| claims, crashes, injuries or fatalities related to the recall."
| It is good for automatic cars to behave similar to humans for
| safety and social acceptance.
| flerchin wrote:
| 5.6mph through a stop-sign is just ludicrous.
| ipsin wrote:
| It sounds like the "recall" is an over-the-air patch, and you
| can't opt out.
|
| I suppose "recall" may also be a legal term, but it doesn't seem
| to fit well in this case.
| meteor333 wrote:
| I think technically it's still applicable. It's a "recall" of
| the software and not the physical car.
| stingrae wrote:
| recalls apply to ota patches that have safety implications
| because you can't always guarantee that the user is in a place
| where the ota can be applied.
| rvz wrote:
| So it was software feature in FSD that when encountering a stop
| sign, it did not stop as it was unable to read those signs?
| That's much worse than the time the FSD system was confusing the
| moon with a traffic light and was slowing down in the highway.
|
| No wonder it is eligible for the nickname of _' Fools Self
| Driving'_.
| kemitche wrote:
| Not quite a "recall" in the normal sense. They're disabling the
| "rolling stop at stop sign" feature of FSD for those in the beta.
| javert wrote:
| It isn't a "recall" in common English. So, the title and story
| are wrong. Very disappointing on the part of Reuters. This is
| not quality journalism.
|
| Since they wrote it the way they did, I would guess there is
| some regulatory document that causes this to be classified a a
| "recall" for legal purposes. But it's incorrect to substitute
| legal language for common English language when there is a
| conflict between the two, except in legal contexts. That rule
| goes for technical language in general.
|
| Is this practice more common in British English? I feel that it
| seems to appear more often in writing by British people, but
| that's anecdotal and could be incorrect.
| kej wrote:
| It _is_ literally a recall, though. A recall is a defined
| process with the NHTSA (and similar processes with other
| government safety agencies) to track vehicles that are
| somehow unsafe, and need some kind of service to be made safe
| again. There 's a website that lists them:
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls
|
| That can be anything from "these airbags might not open when
| they're supposed to", like the Takeda problem, or "if water
| splashed just right on the bottom of the open door, you would
| have water next to electrical wires which could maybe start a
| fire" (an issue my car had a few years ago).
|
| Tesla met with the NHTSA and agreed to issue a recall. How is
| it possibly bad journalism to call it what it is?
| javert wrote:
| What you are describing is a recall in a regulatory and
| legal sense, but not in a common English sense. In common
| English, a recall is when the product has to be returned to
| the manufacturer or taken to a dealer for a fix. In other
| words, "recall" implies physical movement of a product. I
| guess you won't agree with me on what "recall" means in
| common English, and that's fine. And we probably have a
| deeper disagreement on where words get their meanings from.
| But I would maintain that a software update is not a
| "recall." If it is, Microsoft performs a "recall" every
| time it issues a security patch for Windows.
| Veserv wrote:
| The update is not the "recall". The update is the
| remediation. The "recall" is the notification that the
| product may contain a safety defect in its current
| configuration, that those products require diagnosis and,
| potentially, remediation before they are safe again, and
| that Tesla is legally required to make reasonable efforts
| to diagnose and remediate safety defects in those
| products for free [1]. To fix your analogy, a "recall" is
| more like Microsoft releasing a security advisory or
| notifying users of a security vulnerability.
|
| As for semantic arguments, obviously the current
| colloquial usage of the term "recall" means to call for
| products in use to be removed from use and potentially
| for remediation. However, the usage of the term in the
| article is the precise, legal, technical usage of the
| term meaning what I stated above. This usage and
| definition by NHTSA predates the colloquial definition
| and was thus not confusing at the time it was defined,
| and is both precise and has been precisely used by NHTSA
| for duration of its usage of the term so their usage of
| the term has not materially changed in the interim.
| Therefore, it is both technically, semantically, and
| culturally correct to use the term "recall" in this
| specific instance even though the colloquial usage of the
| term has changed underneath them. This is in contrast
| with Tesla's usage of the term Autopilot which does
| correspond with your concerns as it was coined after the
| colloquial usage had already shifted, and limited effort
| was made to precisely define and inform potential
| stakeholders of any differences in terminology with
| respect to the colloquial usage.
|
| [1] https://www-
| odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/recallproblems.cfm
| thomaszander wrote:
| Reuters has been biased in their news telling for some time
| now.
|
| Not entirely unlike the rest of the mainstream media, I would
| suppose.
| arichard123 wrote:
| As a brit, I would say no. But for your last line your
| thoughts matched mine.
| javert wrote:
| Sorry to hear that. This practice degrades the signal to
| noise ratio of the language and in my view is absolutely
| indefensible. It's possible for languages to evolve in ways
| that make them objectively better or worse; we should
| strongly resist the latter. If we are sloppy and lazy, we
| make the language sloppy.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| tomlin wrote:
| Disobey seems a bit tame of a headline, considering the
| implications.
| noah_buddy wrote:
| Bartleby the Tesla at a stop sign: I'd prefer not.
|
| My most Luddite view is that AV are not worth it right now. Maybe
| in 10 years, but I see too many idiots on the freeway sleeping or
| playing video games in Teslas while in the driver seat. If you're
| too busy to command a vehicle that can kill you and those around
| you, Uber to work or take the train. I don't trust the roadways
| to be a massive experiment in how close a corporation can cut it
| on self-driving tech with some acceptable margin of death. Sure,
| human drivers are probably worse in normal circumstances. But I'd
| happily outlaw AV in _any_ peculiar circumstance till 99.9999% of
| the kinks are worked out away from other drivers who haven 't
| opted into the grand experiment of robots on the road.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| For some context: California allows "rolling stops" in which the
| driver is not required to come completely to 0mph (fully stopped)
| at a stop sign. Most US states require a complete stop at stop
| signs.
|
| Strangely, Tesla exported this rolling stop behavior everywhere,
| despite it being illegal in many (maybe most) states.
|
| It's strange that this was allowed to get so far. This violation
| should have been obvious.
| yumraj wrote:
| If that's what you've been doing, you've just been lucky. It's
| not legal in CA.
| paradygm wrote:
| Unless something changed in the 30 years since I learned to
| drive--in California-- the "California Rolling Stop" is a
| pejorative and is not at all legal. In California, and every
| other US state, a stop sign means come to a full and complete
| stop.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Look at the cost. A regulator told them to turn it off, and an
| OTA later it'll be off. A rational decision.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I'm not sure why it's rational or desirable to let companies
| violate the law until they get a letter that says "the law
| applies to you too". Let's fine Tesla for rolling a stop sign
| times a large multiple based on their data of how often it
| happened.
|
| We can use the national average fine or use the GPS to match
| it to the proper jurisdiction. I don't care which.
| metabagel wrote:
| In my opinion, it was irrational to ever turn it on.
| williamscales wrote:
| California requires a complete stop, too. I think some of our
| drivers are just impatient.
| mdasen wrote:
| Just to add some sources confirming that California does
| _not_ allow rolling stops:
|
| https://www.thetrafficticketattorneys.com/blog/7-things-
| you-...
|
| https://www.sidmartinbio.org/what-is-the-fine-for-a-
| californ...
|
| https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/vehicle-code/22450/
|
| https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.
| ..
| restes wrote:
| >California allows "rolling stops"
|
| No, they certainly do not. I live in California and I've gotten
| a ticket for doing this.
| dicroce wrote:
| California rolls are legal? Why didn't I know this for the 45
| years I lived in California? :)
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Rolling stops are illegal in California and you will get
| ticketed if the cops catch you doing it, even if it was
| perfectly safe.
|
| This seems to be an example of Tesla "pushing the boundaries"
| in a way that puts their customers at risk. I'm all for small-l
| libertarianism, but they could spend effort where it actually
| mattered instead of this childish petulance.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| https://www.ticketcrusherslaw.com/rolling-stop/
|
| It is _NOT_ legal to do a rolling stop in California. Like
| everywhere else in the nation, you must (legally speaking) come
| to a complete stop at sign /light. Failure to do so will result
| in a ticket (if you're caught).
| joshu wrote:
| this is the perfect hacker news comment. congratulations!
| mig39 wrote:
| California stops are weird.
|
| If you're ok with a car just slowing down and yielding to
| traffic if necessary, why not use a "Yield" sign instead of a
| "Stop" sign?
|
| We have "yield" signs for entry onto highways and roundabouts,
| for example, where the goal is to keep traffic moving.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Because based on my experience most people don't yield at
| yield signs in ca, and prefer to try and outgun whoever is
| not letting them in than back off. Sounds like a good way to
| me to increase the number of accidents at 4 way stops.
| mig39 wrote:
| Yeah, 4-way stops definitely need a stop sign.
|
| Or better yet, turn 4-way stops into roundabouts.
| metabagel wrote:
| California isn't OK with it. Police routinely ticket vehicles
| which perform a rolling stop. The police aren't everywhere,
| so you could get away with it for a while, but eventually
| you'll probably do it in front of a police car and be cited.
| jjulius wrote:
| >For some context: California allows "rolling stops"...
|
| False. I present to you California Vehicle Code #22450:
|
| >The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
| entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit
| line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the
| near side of the intersection.
|
| https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
| lakis wrote:
| California rolling stops are illegal.
| soheil wrote:
| Laws can be dumb, if there are no other cars and you roll through
| a stop sign why is that unsafe? This is also called California
| stop. People in California have places to be and it's a big place
| so the effects compound.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| I don't think there are any federal laws about traffic signs.
| California's laws require you to come to a complete stop at
| stop signs. Programming a computer to intentionally break the
| law "because I have places to go" seems like poor judgement to
| me.
| midnightclubbed wrote:
| As soon as you make the rolling stop legal people will push the
| limits of that law and drive straight through if they think the
| way is clear.
|
| The numbers of drivers driving through reds (at least here in
| coastal San Diego) has noticeably increased over the past two
| years, previously people would hit the gas if the lights turned
| yellow, now they are hitting the gas if they see yellow (and
| crossing through the intersection on red). Accident statistics
| seem to back that up https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/us/red-
| light-deaths-trnd/inde...
|
| Making traffic rules less strict seems like a recipe for more
| accidents and deaths.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| is this a federal law
| valine wrote:
| That Tesla headline is misleading. Should be "Tesla Removes
| Rolling Stops from Assertive Driving Profile". Tesla added
| rolling stops to make the car behave more human like. NHTSA said
| no, so Tesla removed the feature.
| elil17 wrote:
| The idea that you'd add a feature that's clearly illegal blows
| my mind. "Product poses legal risk to user" is a specific risk
| severity rating that mechanical engineers are trained to flag
| in school. Any other engineering company would have caught this
| in their DFMEA (Design Failure Modes and Effects Analysis).
| These sort of sloppy failures show that Tesla is far from a
| path to competing with major car companies on reliability.
| scoofy wrote:
| This is why i've been a fully self-driving skeptic in the
| last few years (initially was not), it's that our driving
| system is inherently broken.
|
| Fully rule-following will create unsafe situations merely
| because humans expect a certain amount of rule breaking. The
| person "at-fault" will be he human, but politically that will
| be tough when humans are mad at machine for "acting weird by
| following the rules." I fear that our inherent contradictions
| for rule-following in the road will make it impossible for
| ML, both to understand how to behave, and to behave
| predictably to humans.
|
| This is why I'm much more bullish on self-driving-similar
| vehicles, which look and behave differently, like how buses
| and trolleys behave differently in the road and we have
| different expectations from them.
| acdha wrote:
| It's pretty accurate even if you're a fan of the company. The
| more accurate description is that they shipped a feature which
| breaks traffic laws, which is a serious error in a company
| asking us to trust their judgement in a safety-critical system.
| Given how many other problems they've had and the consistent
| overselling of their capabilities and safety, that's an
| important conversation to have.
| gmadsen wrote:
| Sometimes it is more dangerous to follow traffic laws exactly
| rather than normal human driver when you are surrounded by
| normal human drivers. It's not as simple as you are making it
| seem.
| acdha wrote:
| How many people are going to be hurt because someone stops
| at a stop sign?
| notch656a wrote:
| Multiply the extra few seconds times how many ever
| millions of people end up using automated driving, times
| how many stop signs they end up at. The number of
| lifetimes lost due to stopping at stop signs has got to
| be the equivalent of the circa-100's area. The real
| question is why anyone bothers stopping at all if all
| directions are clear.
| valine wrote:
| It's not serious at all imho. People roll stop signs all the
| time, it's part of driving culture. If you feel obligated to
| obey the letter of every driving law you could have turned it
| off in settings.
|
| Tesla also has an option to override the speed limit, you
| want to remove that too?
| acdha wrote:
| People are also killed or injured by drivers all of the
| time, too. Remember when the selling point of AVs was that
| they'd reducr the ~40k / 300k Americans so impacted
| annually? Telling manufacturers that it's okay to ignore
| laws if it gets you there faster will have the opposite
| effect.
| pmorici wrote:
| Safety is measured in accidents per mile driven, lower
| being better. While there maybe a loose correlation
| strict obedience to the law is not in itself a measure of
| safety.
| Xylakant wrote:
| > Tesla also has an option to override the speed limit, you
| want to remove that too?
|
| Yes. The Alternative is to encode "break the law" in
| software and that makes for a very bad option. Stick to the
| law, computer.
| sushid wrote:
| Do you never drive above the speed limit on the freeway?
| I highly doubt this...
| Xylakant wrote:
| I'm not a computer, so that point is moot. (And yes, I
| don't. Not deliberately, though it likely happens
| accidentally from time to time.)
| SilasX wrote:
| "Whether you're willing to hold computer drivers to
| higher standards than human drivers" is moot? Or you just
| don't feel obligated to reconcile the inconsistency?
| Xylakant wrote:
| I am willing to hold a computer to a higher standard,
| that's the promise that gets made left and right for self
| driving cars. That they achieve a higher standard.
| parkingrift wrote:
| Unfortunately, self driving cars drive in the real world.
| There are a great many roadways in the US where driving
| the speed limit is legitimately dangerous in one
| direction or another.
|
| I live in New York and there is one such roadway I drive
| often. Palisades Interstate Parkway. The speed limit is
| 55 and there are no trucks allowed, but if you are
| driving 55 on this road you are in danger. You will get
| run off the road by everyone else traveling at a minimum
| of 65-70 with many of them 80+.
|
| There may come a day where humans are completely out of
| the equation, but until that time I believe self driving
| cars are safer if they drive more like human drivers.
| That means keeping up with traffic and other human
| quirks.
| martneumann wrote:
| Wait, so you're saying that people would crash into you
| if you drove the speed limit?
|
| I'm a very calm driver and regularly drive at or
| sometimes below the speed limit if visibility or other
| factors don't allow higher speeds. People do slow down
| and I never felt in danger - granted, this is usually at
| around 40 km/h instead of the limit of 50 km/h, but I
| can't imagine people are so careless they'd "run you off
| the road" if you weren't speeding.
| parkingrift wrote:
| >Wait, so you're saying that people would crash into you
| if you drove the speed limit?
|
| Maybe not literally crash into you, but that is certainly
| possible. People will swerve around you, ride your
| bumper, flash their high beams at you, honk, pull in
| front of you and hit the brakes, and other dangerous road
| rage type behavior. It is absolutely unsafe to drive the
| speed limit.
|
| In general the safest thing to do is just to keep up with
| traffic.
| Xylakant wrote:
| That's exactly what the driver in front of you and behind
| you use as justification for being above the limit: I had
| to go with the flow of traffic. A self-perpetuating force
| that forces everyone to be too fast.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > Wait, so you're saying that people would crash into you
| if you drove the speed limit?
|
| Yes. If you're driving significantly above or below the
| speed of traffic, you're likely to cause an accident.
| https://qz.com/969885/almost-every-speed-limit-is-too-
| low/
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Agreed, and these roadways are all over the country. It's
| a pretty widely known fact that the safest speed is the
| natural flow of traffic, but municipalities all over the
| country are much more inclined to listen to the vocal
| minority over traffic engineers. Not a lot of "trust the
| science" going on there.
|
| https://qz.com/969885/almost-every-speed-limit-is-too-
| low/
| Xylakant wrote:
| The solution to that is not that everybody gets to ignore
| speed limits and point to a QZ article as justification.
| The solution is not that Tesla unilaterally decides that
| 10% more is fine, everywhere, all of the time. The
| solution is what the advocate in your article proposes -
| make a conscious decision to raise the speed limit on
| certain roads, backed with suitable data.
| Xylakant wrote:
| Next week's argument: "all first gen self driving cars
| are going 70 where 55 is allowed, we need to keep this
| setting."
| rocqua wrote:
| In the end, it is my choice whether I stick to the law.
| I'm fine with instituted consequences. I'm not fine with
| having the option to break a law removed.
|
| Some laws are stupid. Some are unjust. Some are racist.
|
| Discretion is valuable, probably even essential, for
| society.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The human driver is the one that told the car to disobey
| the stop sign[0]. Should every cruise control on every
| car with speed limit detection forbid the cruise/adaptive
| cruise to go above the speed limit?
|
| 0: the chill setting doesn't roll stop signs https://twit
| ter.com/cooperlund/status/1488549356873695232?s=...
| Xylakant wrote:
| > Should every cruise control on every car with speed
| limit detection forbid the cruise/adaptive cruise to go
| above the speed limit?
|
| Certainly. Why should cruise control be set to above
| speed limit? Adaptive cruise control should reduce speed
| to remain within legal boundaries.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| I have a car with adaptive cruise control and speed limit
| detection, and this would absolutely drive me nuts. Not
| for any philosophical reasons, but _because speed limit
| detection is fallible._ On the expressway my apartment is
| a block away from, which has a speed limit of 50 mph, my
| car fairly frequently tells me the speed limit is
| actually 30. It 's fairly common for it to read speed
| limit signs that have conditions on them -- only in
| effect certain hours, or during school hours, or when
| light is flashing, or if you're driving a truck -- and
| incorrectly assume that's the speed limit.
|
| Maybe you'd be perfectly happy with "if you don't want
| the cruise control to make mistakes, just never use it,
| because gosh darn it, that's better than allowing people
| to set the adaptive cruise control five miles an hour
| over the speed limit like they've been able to do with
| _non-adaptive_ cruise control since it was a thing. " I
| would not, and I would argue I am not the one taking an
| unreasonable stance.
| valine wrote:
| Speed limits change, signs are obstructed, some speed
| limits are only valid for certain times of day. There's
| plenty of legal reasons to override the posted speed
| limit.
| Xylakant wrote:
| Drive on manual then, if your computer is not clever
| enough.
| conanbatt wrote:
| And if the traffic law gets you killed, what then?
| Xylakant wrote:
| It's not the law that gets you killed. It's the other
| drivers that disregard the law. And soon, the self-
| driving cars that disregard the law.
| gyc wrote:
| > People roll stop signs all the time
|
| Those people are called bad drivers.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| no i don't think so. i think if you tried to strictly
| obey the law at all stop signs you would have a lot of
| trouble
| smeyer wrote:
| When does obeying stop signs cause a lot of trouble?
| Teever wrote:
| > It's not serious at all imho. People roll stop signs all
| the time, it's part of driving culture
|
| This is a terrible line of reasoning.
|
| If Tesla ever releases their vaporware humanoid bot would
| you expect them to program it to rape women in cultures
| where women rape is part of the culture?
| valine wrote:
| I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that rolling stop
| signs is not a slippery slope to robot rapists.
| Teever wrote:
| I think you're right.
|
| Programming a several ton machine to disregard laws and
| potentially kill many pedestrians without warning isn't
| really comparable to programming a machine to rape --
| it's unfathomable worse.
|
| I've worked in factories and the idea that a car company
| can release a machine onto the streets that wouldn't be
| allowed anywhere near a factory floor is flabbergasting.
|
| If a company tried to release a product that had this
| safety profile in a factory setting the governments and
| unions would be all over them.
|
| The fact that some jackass yokel or senile old lady
| routinely roll through stop signs daily doesn't justify
| Tesla releasing a product that does the same.
| valine wrote:
| Equating rolling stops to rape has to be the worst
| argument against FSD I've ever heard. I'm honestly at a
| loss for words. Safely proceeding through an intersection
| without coming to a complete stop hurts nothing, except
| maybe the feelings of traffic law puritans.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| A tingling feeling that this general argument will become
| very popular and determining in the future...
| rocqua wrote:
| Illegal actions and unsafe actions are not the same thing.
| Laws exist to make us safer, but they aren't perfect.
|
| I get why the law is enforced here. But I think cars doing
| full stops are more dangerous than cars doing rolling stops.
| SilasX wrote:
| Ahhhhh. I've struggled with this all my life, where the rules
| say one thing, but you're "just supposed to know" those cases
| where they aren't _really_ serious about that.
|
| Now the contradiction is so painful, they'll have to address
| it. Either a) update the rules to reflect actual practice, or
| b) admit to "yes, your self-driving car has to obey traffic
| laws we don't enforce on humans".
| supperburg wrote:
| chrisfosterelli wrote:
| > they shipped a feature which breaks traffic laws, which is
| a serious error in a company asking us to trust their
| judgement in a safety-critical system
|
| You're not wrong per se, but there is significantly more
| nuance with self-driving technologies than you're suggesting.
|
| A more famous example in the self-driving car world is the
| Pittsburgh left [0], where in Pittsburgh a driver turning
| left will often get conventional precedence over vehicles
| going through the intersection despite there being no
| explicit left turn light. This move is technically illegal,
| but when the self-driving cars didn't do this it drove
| traffic to a halt regularly and held up every intersection
| where the self-driving car was turning left. Eventually this
| had to be added to the software.
|
| Examples like these are why self-driving technologies are so
| hard to get 100% right, driving is a mix of intuition and
| rules. A significant amount of driving is doing what other
| drivers expect you to do. If the cars don't behave like human
| drivers expect, it often causes more problems than doing what
| the car is "supposed" to do.
|
| That said, as a pedestrian who has frequently almost been hit
| by people rolling stop signs, I'm with the NHTSA here...
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left
| newsbinator wrote:
| > Examples like these are why self-driving technologies are
| so hard to get 100% right, modern driving is a mix of
| intuition and rules.
|
| Indeed! The hardest part of switching to driverless cars
| overall is that driverless vehicles have to exist on the
| road for some number of years surrounded by ones driven by
| primates, with primate reflexes and a variety of ad-hoc
| behaviors.
|
| If every car on the road were to go driverless at midnight
| tonight, would the number of accidents and death and
| disability plummet compared to yesterday's stats?
| elil17 wrote:
| Rolling stops, while all to common, are not at all like a
| Pittsburgh left. Police everywhere will pull you over for
| rolling through a stop sign. Police in Pittsburgh probably
| won't, unless they have something against you personally.
| alistairSH wrote:
| There are better solutions to this problem than coding cars
| to behave like bad drivers. Round-a-bouts. Banning left
| turns during peak hours. Adding a dedicated left turn
| signal at the beginning of the cycle. The Pittsburg left is
| a terrible convention... It puts pedestrians at risk
| (assuming the cross-walk signal follows the traffic
| signal). And nobody from outside Pittsburg knows it's a
| thing - if I were visiting Pittsburg, I'd run into the car
| turning in front of me (well, hopefully not, but it's a
| risk).
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > driving is a mix of intuition and rules
|
| Intuition and rules _and rule breaking_.
|
| I remember back in Driver's Ed I was alarmed to discover
| that through sloppy definitions Colorado legislators had
| managed to make it illegal to take a right turn within
| 150ft of a stop sign (or similar, I forget the details). Of
| course, in reality nobody follows the sloppily defined
| portion of the rule, nobody enforces the sloppily defined
| rule, and it isn't a problem -- but the gap between rules
| and realities is substantial, self-driving cars are going
| to tease apart this gap, and spiders will come crawling
| out.
| sorokod wrote:
| The paragraph remains accurate but more funny if "rolling
| stop"* is replaced with "oxymoron",
|
| so ""Tesla Removes oxymoron from Assertive Driving Profile".
| Tesla added oxymoron to make the car behave more human like.
| NHTSA said no, so Tesla removed the feature."
|
| * TIL: rolling stop
| alistairSH wrote:
| When allowed to be, humans are terrible drivers. We shouldn't
| be designing our cars to behave like those bad drivers.
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| We moved this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30168814 to the thread
| where it's on topic.
| tomlin wrote:
| "Disobey" seems a bit tame of a headline, considering the
| implications.
| kirillzubovsky wrote:
| Personally I am curious how this is done in the AI. Do they
| simply flip a switch that says "if you see stop sign make a full
| stop," or do they now have to update and retrain the neural net
| to acquire this behavior. Does anyone know?
| brianwawok wrote:
| It was a toggle so one assume the code has a branch in it. If
| flag flipped and no people and no cars, min speed is 5, else 0.
|
| I liked this feature, damnit.
| wcoenen wrote:
| There is a mix of a "neural net planner" and a "explicit
| planning and control" in traditional code[1]. The explicit
| planner has the last word, and uses input from both the "vector
| space" and the neural net planner.
|
| Karpathy has commented about the neural nets gradually
| replacing the traditional code. See his presentation[2] around
| 18:45.
|
| [1] https://saneryee-studio.medium.com/deep-understanding-
| tesla-...
|
| [2] https://youtu.be/hx7BXih7zx8
| czr wrote:
| they flipped a switch (this one, under "clear to go" subheading
| https://youtu.be/ToDMceo0aDs?t=20). tesla planning still mostly
| is done by C/C++ code.
| pl0x wrote:
| pmcollins wrote:
| > Tesla will perform an over-the-air software update that
| disables the "rolling stop" functionality
|
| the "recall" is an OTA software update
| bsagdiyev wrote:
| Are they recalling the software version for an update to fix a
| safety issue? If so, then it is a recall. You can't play
| semantics with words like that for these issues.
|
| Please see this:
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Recalls-FAQ...
|
| >A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines
| that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an
| unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety
| standards. Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by
| repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases
| repurchasing the vehicle.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Meanwhile Karaoke mikes are now available from your nearest Tesla
| dealer.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/31/22910462/tesla-karaoke-mi...
| ballenf wrote:
| Self-driving cars need to bend the rules enough to be attractive
| to a critical mass of purchasers. Then regulations will require
| strict adherence to laws. Then owners of these cars will be
| numerous enough to push for regulatory reform.
|
| If all self-driving or driving assisted cars were limited to
| exactly the speed limit and following the letter of laws that no
| human follows, they will never achieve mass adoption.
|
| FWIW, cruise control has always let you set any reasonable speed.
| Doesn't quite seem right to hold a car to a different standard
| just because it's advanced enough to sometimes know the actual
| speed limit.
| drewg123 wrote:
| _The feature, which appeared to violate state laws that require
| vehicles to come to a complete stop and required drivers to opt-
| in for what it dubbed "Assertive"_
|
| I have the FSD beta on my Model X, and opted in to assertive not
| knowing that it enabled rolling stops. I enabled "assertive" in
| hopes of making the car less timid about unprotected turns.
| drewg123 wrote:
| BTW, the FSD beta is terrible. Its what I imagine a senior
| citizen taking their first drive after getting a learners
| permit would be like. The worst part is horribly timid behavior
| pulling into traffic or making unprotected left turns. It also
| is quite annoying on rural 2 lane roads, with frequent enough
| phantom braking to make passengers queasy and hence make me
| turn off FSD. It has no knowledge of potholes, so I frequently
| have to take over before it costs me a wheel and a tire by
| hitting a monster pothole.
|
| Its frustrating that I paid $3000 for this 4+ years ago, and
| waited 4 years for the feature, and was made to drive overly
| gently (no hard cornering or braking) in order to get a good
| "safety score" for quite a while before I could even try it.
| The $3000 would have been much better off had I invested it in
| Tesla stock.
|
| If this is where they are after 4 years, I don't hold out much
| hope.
| reasonabl_human wrote:
| What version of FSD beta are you on? After 10.6 most of my
| complaints were addressed and I am very happy using it to get
| to work every day, although I live in a suburban / semi-urban
| area and have never used it on rural roads. I have an
| original model 3. Pretty much any left-handed turn is
| protected with a stoplight around me, although it negotiates
| unprotected ones well for the ones I've faced under 35mph
|
| We have solid infrastructure so can't speak to the potholes
| complaint. A few months back FSD beta started acknowledging
| speed bumps and taking them slowly so I'd imagine potholes
| are in the works.
| drewg123 wrote:
| V10.9
|
| I tweeted at Elon about the potholes.. let's hope something
| improves.
| eclipxe wrote:
| When one of your main complaints about your self driving car
| is that it is too timid and doesn't avoid potholes, I think
| things are progressing just fine. Just step back a little and
| think about where the technology was 5, 10 years ago. Heck
| even 20 years ago. Imagine telling someone on a forum "yeah
| my self driving car is fine but a little timid for me and
| ugh, potholes!"
| jjulius wrote:
| I'm confused by this response. "Horribly timid behavior
| pulling into traffic" sounds like they're saying that when
| a car pulls into traffic it pulls in _too slow_ , which
| puts other cars at risk of hitting the Tesla that's not
| properly getting up to speed. And when I read, "has no
| knowledge of potholes," I picture a Tesla slamming down
| into a giant pothole and damaging the car; needing to pull
| over to get it towed, fixed, etc.
|
| Are things really "progressing just fine" if the car is
| repeatedly putting itself into dangerous situations?
|
| Edit: I suppose that one could make the argument that we
| didn't even have this kind of tech on the roads ten years
| ago, and sure, that's progress in one sense. But I wouldn't
| call it "just fine" by a long shot, nor would I dismiss
| these concerns as whininess.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Well, I have lots of others, but I didn't want to look too
| much like I'm ranting.
|
| They include:
|
| - Driving too close to parked cars for comfort on un-laned
| side streets when there is no oncoming traffic. I
| personally like to leave enough room to avoid somebody
| opening their door into me, if I have the room.
|
| - Leaving way too much space in front of the car at
| stoplights. This is a problem when it leads to blocking the
| entrance to left turn lanes, etc.
|
| - Totally blowing through stop signs in parking lots.
|
| - Freaking out and making me take over on a mildly tricky
| interstate interchange where 2 lanes narrow to one.
|
| And I'm sure there are a million others that I'm forgetting
| about.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The point is that you can't rely on FSD to fully self-
| drive. Somewhat decent doesn't cut it. In particular, if it
| can't avoid potholes, it's not safe to let it drive on the
| road.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > The $3000 would have been much better off had I invested it
| in Tesla stock.
|
| It'd be ~$40,000 >.<
|
| Could be worse. If the people who put a $50,000 down payment
| on a Roadster 2.0 the day they announced them had bought
| $TSLA instead, they would have enough money now to pay cash
| for TWO Roadsters _and_ have enough money left over to add a
| Model S Plaid.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Ha! My experience has been the exact opposite. I think it
| drives like an angry teenager. Slow the F down, Tessie!
| sschueller wrote:
| Does the Tesla know not to turn on red in Europe or is FSD not
| yet available? Also for example in Switzerland a driver is
| required to stop at a cross walk if a person is standing to cross
| or about to cross. This is not the case in Italy.
| echopurity wrote:
| aqaq2 wrote:
| titzer wrote:
| Honest question: has Tesla autopilot (FSD) passed a standard
| driving test with a human examiner?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| It's surprising that Tesla shipped the "rolling stop" behavior as
| the default despite it being illegal in most places.
|
| This one seems so obviously avoidable that I'm baffled as to why
| they let it happen.
| kemitche wrote:
| Illegal isn't binary - just look at speed limits. Everyone
| speeds at least a little, and FSD/AP had to be allowed to speed
| to be safe
| Xylakant wrote:
| Why does the autopilot need to speed to be safe? When does
| "speeding to be safe" become "unsafe speeding"? 10 miles
| faster than the the one that you're trying to overtake? What
| if they're speeding by 10 already? Why is the speed limit not
| 10 higher than it is, if that's the actual safe speed? How
| can Tesla unilaterally decide that exceeding the speed is
| perfectly good and safe?
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| > Why does the autopilot need to speed to be safe?
|
| For the same reason driving below average speed is
| dangerous. If you drive 10km/h slower than everyone else
| you are a problem, even if everyone else is driving at or
| slightly above the speed limit (very common in Germany).
| Xylakant wrote:
| You are arguing that everyone should be moving faster.
| But we want everyone moving at the speed limit - building
| cars that intentionally break the speed limit will make
| the effective speed creep up. It needs to creep down.
| adoxyz wrote:
| Nobody is saying autopilot "needs" to speed to be safe at
| all times. But it needs the ability to be able to go faster
| than the posted speed limit. I.e if the speed limit is
| 45mph, going 47mph shouldn't be a problem that the car
| freaks out over. For a while, on city streets if you were
| using Autopilot you'd be able to go up to 5mph over the
| posted limit without issue. I think in the FSD Beta, you
| can go more.
| Xylakant wrote:
| Can you describe the ruleset that would apply when it's
| ok to speed? So that's applicable to the software of
| thousands of cars?
| adoxyz wrote:
| The car already has a ruleset for when to not obey speed
| limits. If you're on the highway and your lane is going
| 65mph but the other lanes are moving very slowly, the car
| will slow down accordingly. Similarly, this could be
| implemented for the inverse to an extent.
|
| And again, I don't think the car should speed by default,
| but a car going 2-3mph over the posted limit should be
| acceptable rather than an error state because the world
| is not black and white.
| [deleted]
| soheil wrote:
| Because you want the flow of the traffic to move with the
| same speed.
| Xylakant wrote:
| But we want the flow of traffic to be at the speed limit,
| that's why there is a speed limit. So more cars need to
| go slower, not more cars need to go faster.
| Spivak wrote:
| You're like _this close_ to the the heart of the issue.
|
| If you can determine in real-time whether the maneuver your
| about to perform or the speed you're going is safe then why
| even have speed limits? The speed limit for highways is
| still 65 whether it's a a bone dry, pitch dark, pouring
| rain, or completely iced over. "Any speed under 65" can't
| possibly be a safe speed for all these conditions while
| allowing for the highest safe speeds possible in ideal, or
| even average, conditions. And this doesn't even being to
| take into account the huge vehicle variance and tire ware.
| The safe operating speeds for a top-heavy Honda Fit with
| narrow tires vs a low-to-the-ground wide-tired Corvette are
| going to be wildly different.
|
| And then you have to deal with other drivers. If traffic is
| going 75 you're gonna have a hell of a time merging capped
| at 65. And in an ideal world nobody would pass on the right
| making it possible to get off the highway without
| increasing speed but real life hits hard.
| Xylakant wrote:
| If you can create an all-knowing AI that can predict your
| the road conditions around a corner or beyond the crest
| of a hill, maybe. Remember, we are not discussing
| individual decisions made by people based on a current
| situation, but the defaults encoded into the software of
| thousands of cars. And if that default is lax, it will
| end up in lax behavior.
| Retric wrote:
| Because people passing you is very slightly more dangerous
| than people following you. It's not a big deal most of the
| time, but when everyone passes you across thousands of
| hours it adds up to a significant risk.
| Xylakant wrote:
| Why would anyone want to pass you when you're moving at
| the speed limit? You are at the speed limit and everyone
| passing you would be beyond the speed limit.
| soggybutter wrote:
| I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. They
| would want to pass you because human drivers aren't
| rigidly law abiding machines. Is there a large portion of
| people that go exactly the speed limit, or even lower?
| Sure. Is there also a large portion of people that speed
| virtually every moment they're behind the wheel? Yes,
| absolutely. And I wouldn't be surprised if that were the
| larger population in most areas. No one who actually
| drives with any regularity would ever be surprised that
| people are speeding to pass them.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Except that actually is legal. Speeding to pass someone is
| legal in most states, as is speeding in certain situations.
|
| Whereas, a rolling stop, that's not legal (as far as I know)
| _anywhere_.
|
| EDIT: I am incorrect with the above statement. I apparently
| live in one of 4 states where you can exceed the speed limit
| by up to 10mph while passing.
| cmurf wrote:
| It is not legal to speed to pass in most states. I've only
| found Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota and Washington have such a
| law on the books, up to 10mph over the posted speed limit.
|
| For sure in Colorado it's not legal to exceed the speed
| limit to pass. But it is illegal to drive below the speed
| limit while in the passing lane on a highway with a speed
| limit 65 mph or higher. There's exceptions for safety and
| congestion, but otherwise the left lane is considered a
| passing lane. If you're not passing, you're not supposed to
| be in that lane.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| It is? That is a surprise. In germany and most countries I
| drove, it was definitely illegal. Of course, it is common
| and it makes sense, but the law is that the speed limit is
| absolute.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Only a couple of states have laws allow speeding to pass
| and the vast majority of states have an absolute speed
| limit rule disallowing speeding in any situation. A handful
| of states won't give you points due to a speeding ticket <6
| mph though.
|
| Of course these are the laws, not the practice, which is
| what I think GP was trying to say.
|
| http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| For what it's worth, in Ohio I've never been stopped by a
| cop for going 5 miles above the speed limit on or off the
| interstate, despite doing so in the presence of cops many
| times. I got my only ticket for going 15 miles over,
| though.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I've gotten a ticket on US 24 (going Fort Wayne to
| Toledo) for doing 69 in a 65. I've went through there
| probably nearing a hundred times by then (both family and
| work out that way) but only been pulled over for it that
| once. Ever since One of two tickets I've ever gotten, the
| other was also in Ohio but that one was much more obvious
| - I missed the speed change on a normal road when I was
| younger and was doing 45 in a 35. Cop knocked that one
| down quite a bit though, can't remember what actually got
| put on the ticket.
|
| Of all of the places I've been Chicago was probably the
| worst at speeding, especially in the dead of night when
| the roads are "too" open. Recently they got a bit
| stricter with the speed cameras though
| https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicagos-speed-cameras-
| ticket...
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I could have sworn rolling stops were legal in
| Arizona...maybe that was a couple of decades ago?
| ctdonath wrote:
| Illegal _is_ binary. Enforcement is what 's squishy, because
| liability normally doesn't address deep pockets.
| nomel wrote:
| I think one could claim that illegal and enforcement or so
| closely tied together that they can't be separated in a
| meaningful way.
| ctdonath wrote:
| That's...preposterous. There are a great many illegal
| acts that are so rarely enforced that the act is
| normalized, with enforcement surprising the culprits -
| speeding and rolling stops being the primary examples.
| Such are normalized because individual enforcement is
| practically impossible; it's when the behavior gets
| codified by a business as/in a product that gov't has a
| chance to crack down on it.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| With respect to speed limits (and not stop signs, so this is
| explicitly a bit of a digression), it's also worth noting
| that sometimes you have to choose between "safe" and "legal"
| since most municipalities set speed limits which are not safe
| (the safest speed being the speed at which traffic naturally
| flows). So should a self-driving car (or human, for that
| matter) drive _safely_ or _legally_?
| eldaisfish wrote:
| >Illegal isn't binary
|
| I would strongly discourage you from trying that line of
| argument with the cops when you're pulled over for speeding.
| I'm certain that a court of law with decent standards does
| not interpret speeding "at least a little" as anything except
| a binary.
| caconym_ wrote:
| The "argument" is tried against cops when you pass them
| while driving faster than the speed limit. In the vast
| majority of cases, if you're going less than 10 over, they
| will ignore you.
|
| A thing is not legal just because law enforcement lets you
| get away with it, but I don't think this is a good example.
| It's silly to have this conversation without at least
| acknowledging the way driver behavior expands into "grey
| areas" and gaps in enforcement, and I don't think it's
| trivially obvious that "self driving" cars should rigidly
| follow the letter of the law even if that means they'll be
| the only cars on the road doing so.
| onion2k wrote:
| _Illegal isn 't binary - just look at speed limits. Everyone
| speeds at least a little, and FSD/AP had to be allowed to
| speed to be safe._
|
| Illegal is binary for most driving laws (especially 'do what
| this sign says' rules), but some things fall into an
| ambiguous category of illegal-but-rarely-enforced. The
| problem is that computers don't do well with ambiguous rules.
| I strongly suspect that when most cars are using FSD the rule
| of being allow to drive a little over the speed limit will be
| removed, and cars will have to stick to the limits. Hopefully
| the limits will be raised.
| fnord77 wrote:
| I've heard this called the "california roll" because it is so
| pervasive here. I guess someone at Tesla confused "done by
| everyone" with "legal"
| soheil wrote:
| You make it sound like as of something just by being legal
| adheres to the platonic form of truth. There are so many dumb
| laws. For example in a certain state I can't remember it's
| illegal to have an ice cream in your back pocket on Sundays.
| There are many, many idiotic laws that one would do well to at
| least question, instead of shaming others or being "baffled"
| why others don't put up with them.
| ajross wrote:
| It's not the default, you have to turn it on in a menu. It's
| arguably not even "shipped", as it's part of the must-qualify-
| in FSD beta program. And most beta users probably didn't know
| it existed.
|
| It also engages only when approaching an empty intersection.
| Any obstacles/pedestrians or moving vehicles cause a full stop.
| To be perfectly honest: I turned it on when I saw it, but
| haven't seen it actually do it yet. And at this point I guess I
| never will.
|
| I mean, speeding is equally illegal and inarguably more
| dangerous. Yet no one is upset that the car lets you speed.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Isn't FSD just a $10k option today? IE, it might be "beta"
| quality, but it's available to anybody with deep enough
| pockets.
| ajross wrote:
| "FSD beta" refers to the specific autonomy-in-all-
| circumstances product in testing. You have to request it,
| then prove you can win a game vs. the car's Safety Score
| feature for a few weeks or months, then wait to be
| upgraded. It's available to the public, but only in limited
| release.
|
| "Full Self Driving" is the name of the vehicle option that
| you can purchase or license, which includes a bunch of
| different features (light/sign recognition, autonomous
| navigation on highways, lane changes, stuff like that).
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > You have to request it, then prove you can win a game
| vs. the car's Safety Score feature for a few weeks or
| months, then wait to be upgraded. It's available to the
| public, but only in limited release.
|
| Or have enough social media clout (in the appropriately
| Tesla-positive direction).
| ajross wrote:
| Are you referencing anything in particular? It's true
| that the first few hundred non-Tesla-employee installs
| were to a bunch of known fans and inflencer types. But
| since September it's been a completely public thing with
| objective rules. They have 60k of these cars on the roads
| now per the linked article, it's absolutely not just a
| marketing thing.
| eclipxe wrote:
| No.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| I agree with you, for what it's worth. I'm not sure why this is
| at all controversial. Even if you argue that it's sometimes
| morally permissible to do a rolling stop, it's still baffling
| that Tesla would explicitly program its AI to perform illegal
| acts. Why open themselves up to criticism and scrutiny? Should
| they run red lights at empty intersections, too? Ignore speed
| limits in quiet residential areas? Maybe tailgate other drivers
| going _under_ the speed limit?
| caconym_ wrote:
| > The feature, which appeared to violate state laws that
| require vehicles to come to a complete stop and _required
| drivers to opt-in for what it dubbed "Assertive" mode,_ drew
| attention on social media and prompted NHTSA to raise questions
| with Tesla.
|
| Emphasis mine; this apparently wasn't the default behavior.
| Though, it may not have been clear to users opting-in exactly
| what "assertive mode" changes about the system's behavior.
| kgwgk wrote:
| It seems that it's also part of the default behaviour:
| https://twitter.com/digitalhen/status/1480230704520773632
|
| It happens in all three modes Chill, Average and Assertive to
| different degree.
| mannykannot wrote:
| Tesla would vastly prefer a situation where the NHTSA allows it
| to do anything it wants, so it does just that, hoping to
| normalize this deviance from how the law intends highway safety
| to be regulated. By this action, NHTSA is trying out a more
| assertive mode itself.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-01 23:00 UTC)