[HN Gopher] Tesla FSD data is getting worse, according to beta t...
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla FSD data is getting worse, according to beta tester self-
reports
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 472 points
Date : 2022-12-14 15:36 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (electrek.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (electrek.co)
| nova22033 wrote:
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil...
|
| "Next year for sure, we will have over a million robotaxis on the
| road," said Musk on October 21, 2019. "The fleet wakes up with an
| over-the-air update. That's all it takes."
|
| https://twitter.com/PPathole/status/1249209968877862919
|
| Elon Musk @elonmusk * Apr 12, 2020 Replying to @PPathole and
| @Tesla Functionality still looking good for this year. Regulatory
| approval is the big unknown.
| [deleted]
| rafaelero wrote:
| Tesla FSD may be bad, but no way it is that much worse than
| Cruise. Looks like they are inflating their data.
| bagels wrote:
| Why do you say this?
| rafaelero wrote:
| Are you kidding? 40k km with no disengagement? This is nuts.
| I don't think we have reached that level yet. And if we did,
| I can't believe Tesla engineers would be so oblivious to that
| that they wouldn't update their technology. The likeliest
| explanation is that the article's chart is using some weird
| metric that is not comparable between automakers.
| ahelwer wrote:
| You've given no actual reasons you find this hard to
| believe, just running on 100% vibes. The data reported to
| regulators doesn't lie. Tesla really is that far behind the
| competition.
| threeseed wrote:
| I would not be surprised at all.
|
| The biggest problem with FSD is bounding box detection as from
| previous videos it routinely fails to identify objects in the
| road correctly.
|
| A problem that LiDAR (which Cruise uses) is especially good at.
| rafaelero wrote:
| That magnitude of a difference would be pretty noticeable and
| I haven't seen Cruiser users posting amazing reviews on
| YouTube in comparison to Tesla's. Maybe I am using an
| incorrect proxy, but it's hard to believe that Tesla would be
| so far off.
| threeseed wrote:
| The difference _is_ noticeable.
|
| You only have to look at Cruise versus FSD videos to see
| how the latter struggles with reliable object detection.
|
| Also this is about Cruise the robo-taxi company and not the
| GM SuperCruise technology which isn't what I would consider
| a peer to FSD.
| [deleted]
| bin_bash wrote:
| Cruise has cars driving out without a driver in San Francisco
| right now. Tesla is a world away from being able to do anything
| close to that.
| bin_bash wrote:
| I just tried FSD last night in suburban Dallas for the first time
| with light traffic and it was harrowing. Drove in the wrong
| lanes, almost hit a trash can, accelerated way too fast on side
| streets, and it made a right turn at a red light without stopping
| or even coming close to slowing down. This was a 3 mile drive.
|
| I've been using autopilot on the freeway for years and that's
| been mostly fine--but I'm never going to use FSD on streets
| again.
| influxmoment wrote:
| Is your experience the norm though? Uncut YouTube videos show a
| reliable FSD in many conditions
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Did you actually keep it on those whole 3 miles? I would have
| stopped after the first near miss.
| bin_bash wrote:
| I disengaged twice because I was terrified of what it might
| do but turned it back on. I'm generally a very early adopter
| with these kinds of things (I'm the type of person to always
| turn on "Beta" mode regardless of what I'm working with). So
| I have a high tolerance for things not working the way they
| should.
|
| This is unbelievably terrible though. I really regret
| purchasing it.
| tqi wrote:
| > I'm generally a very early adopter with these kinds of
| things
|
| Which in turn makes everyone else around your car an early
| adopter?
| Cshelton wrote:
| By that logic, all drivers are early adopters every time
| a new driver gets their license and enters the "driving
| pool".
| d23 wrote:
| We should require a test of one's ability to drive based
| on some basic standards before issuing a license. We
| should come up with a series of rules for what happens if
| someone does not adhere to these standards, as well as a
| mechanism of enforcement if they violate those rules.
| [deleted]
| ska wrote:
| Isn't that why lots of of jurisdictions have constraints
| on the learning driver (e.g. graduated licensing of some
| sort) and/or visibility requirements (e.g. car has to
| have a "learner" sticker of some sort) so that other
| drivers know?
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| I literally never heard of such stickers.
| philjohn wrote:
| Hence why in the UK they're strongly advised to have a P
| plate so other drivers are aware they are a new driver.
|
| I suppose everyone should just assume a Tesla is about to
| do something silly and drive defensively ...
| sifar wrote:
| They probably are to some extent, and you know where the
| liability would lie if they are responsible should
| something bad happen. What about this case ? There is no
| sense of responsibility or realization of the danger they
| are introducing _at scale_ .
|
| Even when they actually admit that they have failed at it
| [0]. I am not sure if they are aware of the doublespeak
| in this admission.
|
| [0] Failure to realize a long-term aspirational goal is
| not fraud.
| witheld wrote:
| I think this logic is still square-
|
| Normally, each person puts one new driver on the road
| per-lifetime.
|
| When you beta test a baby driving robot, you're now at
| two new drivers per life! And the Tesla doesn't seem to
| be learning faster than a human!
| Zigurd wrote:
| This makes me feel like running an Android beta on my daily
| use phone just isn't that daring.
| mcculley wrote:
| This thread and the other comments on this post are
| amazing. One cannot sell a car without a seatbelt, but
| Tesla can use their customers for beta testing a
| dangerous system that drives a whole car around.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It would seem like a return and a refund for selling a
| defective product is in order.
| masklinn wrote:
| I expect that's exactly why you're paying to be a beta
| tester: they can keep your money and not deliver
| anything.
|
| The one time I really beta tested a for-profit product,
| not only did I get it for free, I actually got a rebate
| on the final product (it was pycharm, and jetbrains gave
| me a free license for a year, which they got back many
| times over as I renewed yearly ever since).
|
| Though I guess the early accesses I got for kickstarters
| were kinda like paying for a beta in a way.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I don't think 'beta tester' is a recognized class in
| terms of consumer law. You're a customer, a merchant, a
| manufacturer or a bystander. Besides that for something
| that costs that kind of money you can simply expect it to
| work.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| I've been using FSD for a month and my experience with it has
| been mostly great. I was skeptical initially because of the
| prevalence of this sort of comment online but it didn't match
| my experience. There are predictable situations where it can't
| navigate but you get used to them and anticipate them.
| Otherwise, it is a nice upgrade in functionality over EAP that
| generally makes the car nicer to operate.
| ljlolel wrote:
| Worse is that Tesla is no longer releasing the safety data
| quarterly as promised. Not exactly hard to report this as they
| already have been doing it. Suspicious to stop reporting since
| 2021.
|
| We want this data!
|
| https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
| geocar wrote:
| Am I misreading that? They're comparing accidents of tesla
| owners against people belonging to different demographics and
| circumstances!?
|
| An equivalent improvement in driving safety might also be had
| by eliminating drivers under 30 and since those aren't Tesla
| drivers (the average Tesla owner is a 54 year old white man
| making over $140,000 with no children) this self-driving
| malarky would have zero safety impact.
| ljlolel wrote:
| Their more numbers of more affordable cars is probably why
| their safety data is getting worse and why they're not
| releasing it any more (I support tesla by the way just wish
| it were transparent about safety).
| ajross wrote:
| Scea91 wrote:
| Out of curiosity, are you perhaps driving on streets that are
| likely to be heavily represented in the training data?
|
| I would be interested in seeing how performance differs between
| cities and countries.
| jjulius wrote:
| >But this software is working folks. It's going to happen. As I
| see it our choice is either to celebrate the advent of new
| technology or hide behind comment vote buttons trying to
| pretend that it isn't.
|
| I don't believe people don't want this technology to happen, or
| don't think it's going to happen; I think the pressure and the
| criticism is there because people want it to be safe. When it
| comes to safety, I'd rather have FSD be subject to more
| criticism than it needs to be, not less.
| ajross wrote:
| The linked article isn't about safety data, FWIW. FSD beta
| has been deployed on hundreds of thousands of cars for over a
| year now. If there was any safety data to measure, it would
| be shining like a beacon at this point. Which is why the
| people (Taylor Ogan and Fred Lambert absolutely qualify,
| FWIW) with an anti-Tesla schtick need to scrap for
| editorialized content like this[1].
|
| The truth is that this is deployed as a supervised system,
| and as such it's at least as safe as the driver operating it.
| I can absolutely attest to situations where the car noticed
| and reacted to a safety situation before I did. I think on
| the whole I'm a safer driver monitoring my car vs. operating
| it.
|
| [1] In this case, measuring self-reported "disengagement"
| data of amateur drivers in general traffic vs. the controlled
| conditions reported by professionals operating vehicles in
| limited environments and with limited functionality. You
| can't take a Waymo or Cruise on the freeway to try it out,
| they won't operate in parking lots or unpainted roads or
| construction areas, hell my understanding is that they fence
| off and disallow most unprotected left turns! You can get a
| Tesla to try any and all of that (and I do! regularly! and
| sometimes it fails!). I mean, come on, this isn't a fair
| comparison and you know it.
| jjulius wrote:
| >The linked article isn't about safety data, FWIW.
|
| Que? Disengagement can occur for a variety of reasons, up
| to and including preventing the car from performing a
| hazardous/deadly move. This is absolutely about safety.
| leesec wrote:
| Not sure why this was downvoted lol. If everyone can happily
| share their stories of autopilot failing without being
| downvoted why not a positive case?
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| Because AJ explicitly asked to downvoted.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It's pretty damn obvious why it's being downvoted, or did you
| not make it through the whole comment?
|
| > But this software is working folks. It's going to happen.
| As I see it our choice is either to celebrate the advent of
| new technology or hide behind comment vote buttons trying to
| pretend that it isn't.
|
| > For me, I'm happier watching it than I would be being a
| luddite. I'll take my downvotes now, thanks.
|
| Snarkily dismissing everyone else's experiences as invalid
| isn't a great way to endear yourself.
| pmarreck wrote:
| It's one thing to report your positive experience. It's
| another to presume that everyone else who is reporting a
| negative one is just a complainer, because you're assuming
| that you and them have equivalent experiences. "This software
| is working, folks!" is an example of that; so is the
| presumption that the complainers are simply caught up in
| "Tesla/Musk hate"
| [deleted]
| pmarreck wrote:
| The downvoting is for this: You presume that your own
| experience is the same as everyone else's (regardless of
| differing driving conditions, etc.), and thus, that everyone
| else is being overly critical of their (assumed to be similar)
| experiences.
|
| There's a term for this: Gaslighting.
| bilvar wrote:
| > You presume that your own experience is the same as
| everyone else's
|
| Aren't the negative experience comments doing the EXACT same
| thing?
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| No? Surely you've had a negative experience with a product
| or business and recognized that not every other person out
| there has had the same experience.
|
| The people here sharing negative experiences aren't
| suggesting that the positive experiences others report are
| just the result of being a Musk fan.
| kjksf wrote:
| The person who was downvoted didn't say that negative
| experiences are from Musk haters.
|
| He correctly predicted that his positive experience will
| be downvoted by Musk haters even though it's as valid as
| negative experiences shared by other people that were not
| downvoted.
|
| That's clear bias and so obvious that it can be called
| ahead of time.
|
| He didn't write anything less valid that the upvoted
| complaints and shouldn't be downvoted by anyone.
| ncallaway wrote:
| > The person who was downvoted didn't say that negative
| experiences are from Musk haters.
|
| I got the...pretty strong implication from it. I didn't
| downvote them, but it did rub me the wrong way for
| exactly the implication that the people with negative
| experiences are from Musk haters.
|
| There are two sentences that, taken together, seem very
| dismissive of people who have negative experiences:
|
| > Everyone hates it (and given the dumpster fire at
| Twitter right now, everyone really loves to hate Tesla).
|
| > But this software is working folks.
|
| "Everyone hates it" and the parenthetical reference to
| Twitter really leans into the idea that people who
| dislike it feel that way for ideological reasons and not
| their own personal experience with the vehicle.
|
| That's strongly reinforced by the next sentence that
| states "This software is working folks", which is a flat
| categorical statement that contradicts the experiences of
| the people who dislike it.
|
| So, I didn't downvote, but if I did it would be exactly
| for the implication that the people who dislike it didn't
| have valid reasons for disliking it.
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| I downvoted because I downvote anyone who preemptively
| complains / invites downvotes and assumes that they'll be
| doled out in bad faith. It pollutes the conversation and
| is the cheapest form of sophistry. It's no different than
| setting up an argument that ends with "and if you
| disagree, that just shows how right I am!"
| ajross wrote:
| Please don't. I don't think anyone in the linked article or
| in this thread is lying. I think they all have real
| experiences to relate and we should listen to them. Given
| that, can you please retract your needlessly inflammatory
| accusation of gaslighting? Thanks.
|
| All I'm saying is that my experience makes it very clear that
| what problems remain with this technology are resolvable
| ones. Consumer cars _are_ going to drive themselves. Period.
| And given existing evidence, it seems reasonably clear to me
| that Tesla is going to get there first (though I wouldn 't be
| shocked if it's Waymo, Cruise seems less like a good bet).
|
| And given that interpretation, I find the kind of grousing
| going on in this thread unhelpful. If I show you a bug in
| your iPhone, would you immediately throw it out and declare
| that no one could possibly market a smartphone? That's how
| this thread sounds to me.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| > needlessly inflammatory
|
| > As I see it our choice is either to celebrate the advent
| of new technology or hide behind comment vote buttons
| trying to pretend that it isn't.
|
| > For me, I'm happier watching it than I would be being a
| luddite. I'll take my downvotes now, thanks.
|
| Pot, meet kettle.
| ajross wrote:
| I think the fact that my post now sits flagged and
| invisible, yet you're still commenting on it, more or
| less bears out the point I was making. I'm genuinely
| sorry you took offense, really I am. I thought that was
| fairly gentle, honestly. It was intended to be a fun way
| to point out the tribalism at work here. But... something
| are maybe just too fun to hate?
|
| Let me repeat: _I love my car._ I 'm not here to hate.
| I'm here to try to explain how great this thing is.
| Really, you have no idea how fun it is to have a robot
| drive you around town. And, comments like yours and the
| rest here make it clear that you're really missing out on
| that kind of joy in your rush to hate.
|
| Call a friend and get a ride in an FSD beta car. You
| really might change your mind.
| greendave wrote:
| > All I'm saying is that my experience makes it very clear
| that what problems remain with this technology are
| resolvable ones. Consumer cars are going to drive
| themselves. Period. And given existing evidence, it seems
| reasonably clear to me that Tesla is going to get there
| first (though I wouldn't be shocked if it's Waymo, Cruise
| seems less like a good bet).
|
| Perhaps I'm unreasonably dense, but I do not see the link
| (direct or otherwise) between 'it works well for me under
| the following circumstances' and 'it will work well for
| (almost) everyone, under all (reasonable) circumstances'.
| The former can be true, without any guarantee of the
| latter. Given all the hyperbole and promises that have been
| made thusfar, it's hardly surprising that folks are
| inclined to be skeptical, particularly if their own
| experiences are as poor as many in this thread indicate.
|
| What I do agree with is that cars are going to be allowed
| to drive themselves, irrespective of how well they can do
| it, because the politicians and the bureaucrats apparently
| are unable to resist the siren song of 'progress'. That
| much we've seen in SF with Cruise among many other plraces.
| Whether this is a good thing is a different question
| entirely...
| kjksf wrote:
| Jules Verne predicted space flight decades before
| technology made it possible.
|
| In 1903, New York Times predicted that airplanes would
| take 10 million years to develop
| (https://bigthink.com/pessimists-archive/air-space-
| flight-imp...).
|
| Many people who saw the first actual flights from Wright
| brothers dismissed them as a parlor trick that will not
| amount to anything practical.
|
| Technology has a long history of exponential
| improvements. At first it improves slowly and then
| suddenly.
|
| Sure, everyone (not just Tesla) was expecting self-
| driving to happen by now. It didn't happen yet.
|
| I share the OP's perspective that the maturity of self-
| driving is already so high that it's a matter of time for
| it to become viable to deploy at scale.
|
| The initial DARPA challenge was Wright's brother. We're
| closer to a plane that can travel halfway over Atlantic.
| Not quite there yet but it's just a matter of time until
| it can cross it.
| ncallaway wrote:
| Do you disagree with the article's call for Tesla to publicly
| release the same kind of disengagement data that others release
| publicly, so that we don't have to just compare anecdotes as if
| they were data?
|
| This thread is full of people who are describing their own
| personal experiences, which mostly tilt negative, with some
| positive notes like yours. But the article makes the point that
| a bunch of anecdotes is *not a replacement for data*, and the
| data we have (which is seriously flawed), shows that the
| average experience is not as good as yours.
|
| Maybe your experience is an outlier compared to the data that's
| been collected? Maybe your experience is the norm and the Tesla
| data would corroborate your experience. We can't really know
| unless Tesla releases their data.
|
| But they refuse to.
| [deleted]
| devmor wrote:
| I briefly tested FSD out on a Model 3, for about a mile and a
| half on what was mostly a clean, recently painted 2-lane road. It
| seemed to be okay until I got to the point the lines broke for an
| exit and then it tried to drive me into a concrete median.
|
| I trust the lane-keep feature on the old 2017 Corolla I rented
| more than FSD.
| gzer0 wrote:
| Let me know of any other system that is even remotely close to
| being able to do the following:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFAlwAawSvU
| klabb3 wrote:
| An average human brain with 1000 hours of training.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| I have been driving Tesla FSD 10.69 for the last few weeks and it
| is far from perfect. It's definitely beta level software, and
| unfortunately, there's no real distinction between beta web
| frontend and beta life-critical ASAD.
|
| I routinely have to take control. It definitely accelerates to
| hard on some sleepy side streets. It's extremely conservative
| about speed and lane changes. It's terrible at anticipating
| slowing where humans obviously would, like brake lights stacking
| back toward you on a curving highway: the driver can see the
| braking problem coming from a thousand yards ahead, maybe miles.
| Summon is slightly better than a parlor trick. FSD is
| approximately useless in parking lots.
|
| But....
|
| It's not completely unusable. There are definitely segments of a
| drive I can mentally relax (back to my normal driving level of
| attentiveness).
|
| Having gotten two kids through their driving tests recently, I'm
| struck how much FSD 10.69 resembles a 16 year old with their
| early driver's permit. They're terrible. But they are learning
| really fast.
|
| Similarly, Tesla is now getting millions, if not billions, of
| disengagements coming back for retraining. The next release is
| going to be better.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| > can mentally relax (back to my normal driving level of
| attentiveness).
|
| I'm not sure if this was intentionally funny but it made me
| laugh.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It sounds accurate to me. If you are a defensive driver, you
| will most likely find that even basic autopilot increases
| your stress substantially. It happily drives you full speed
| into situations your brain easily recognizes as risky.
| Personally I'd probably have palpitations if I tried FSD.
| bestcoder69 wrote:
| Damn I can't wait to try neurolink.
| sanedigital wrote:
| When our Model 3 got access to FSD, my 6 year-old desperately
| wanted to try it out. I figured a low-traffic Sunday morning was
| the perfect time to test it out, so we headed out to grab Mom a
| coffee downtown.
|
| The car almost caused an accident 3 separate times.
|
| The first, was when it almost drove into oncoming traffic at an
| intersection where the road curves north on both sides.
|
| The second, was when it failed to understand a fork on the right
| side of the road, swerved back and forth twice, and then almost
| drove straight into a road sign.
|
| The third, in downtown, was when a brick crosswalk confused it on
| a left turn, causing it to literally drive up onto the corner of
| the intersection. Thank God there weren't pedestrians there.
|
| When we upgraded to a Y, I turned down FSD. I don't imagine I'll
| be paying for it ever again.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Honestly, I feel this way about pretty much all "driver assist"
| systems in the wild today.
|
| That is, I fully understand that to get to Levels 3, 4, and 5,
| you need to pass through levels 1 and 2 in autonomous driving.
| But the issue is that I feel like these systems are basically
| at the "slight drunk teenager" stage, with you as the driver
| having to ensure they don't mess up too badly. Honestly, unless
| I can, say, read a book or do something else, these systems
| (I'm specifically referring to an advanced cruise control/lane
| keeping system) right now just require me to pay MORE attention
| and they stress me out more.
|
| Fully understand we need folks to help train these systems,
| but, at least for me, they currently make the driving
| experience worse.
| influxmoment wrote:
| For the Tesla driver assistance specifically (non FSD) it's
| more advanced and reasonable reliable. I find it helps a
| great deal to reduce fatigue on long drives. It is nearly
| flawless on highways and watching to see the car is safe is
| much less fatiguing than a constant centering and monitoring
| the accelerator. Seeing the car is the right speed is less
| mental energy than constant control of power to get the right
| speed
| roofone wrote:
| Given the potential consequences of a mistake, it feels
| like there's still a pretty big difference between "nearly
| flawless" and flawless.
|
| Speed control I'm fine with and is obvs. a mature tech that
| has been around for decades. Maybe it's the way I drive,
| but I find lane assist a liability -- especially on curves.
| More than once the car swerved unexpectedly one way or the
| other going around a bend. After the 2nd time that
| happened, I shut it off.
| burnished wrote:
| I suspect the difference in experience might be
| attributable to differences in the environment. I went
| cross country in a model Y and noticed that it did not
| handle one lane turning into two lanes with any grace -
| but I also drove across entire states where that didn't
| come up. It wouldn't surprise me if some experiences were
| regional to an extent.
| vel0city wrote:
| Lane assist isn't supposed to entirely keep you in the
| lane on it's own, it's supposed to just help tug you in
| the right direction as a hint in case you weren't paying
| perfect attention. It's usually not supposed to steer the
| car entirely on its own.
| chris11 wrote:
| FSD marketing has always seemed sketchy to me. Though I like
| Open Pilot. It's a much smaller scope for an L2 system to
| keep you in your lane and keep you a safe distance from the
| next car. It works well for highway driving.
| josefresco wrote:
| > Honestly, I feel this way about pretty much all "driver
| assist" systems in the wild today.
|
| I've found adaptive cruise control to be a simple, noticeable
| improvement.
| vel0city wrote:
| I personally really enjoy my ADAS systems on my cars even
| though it's not to the read a book or take a nap level of
| automation. It's really just cruise control on steroids. Do
| you see value in regular cruise control systems, even though
| it's not 100% automated?
|
| When I'm in stop and go traffic, I really like not having to
| constantly go back and fourth between the brake and gas
| pedal, I can just pay attention to what's happening in and
| around the lane and let the car keep a good follow distance.
|
| I've gone over 100 miles at a time without having to touch
| the gas or brake pedal, even through stop and go traffic.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Honestly, I feel this way about pretty much all "driver
| assist" systems in the wild today.
|
| My five year old Honda has a very limited driver assist
| system (radar cruise control + lane centering), which (in my
| opinion) is very good at what it's trying to do. It has _no_
| pretensions of being a "self-driving" system, but it very
| successfully manages to reduce some of the stress of driving
| and make _my_ driving better. I think the key point is it
| only automates the fine adjustments and provides alerts, but
| is very careful to never allow the driver to rely on it too
| much.
| dont__panic wrote:
| I feel the same way about my Subaru's EyeSight system. It
| helps me stay in the lane, and annoys me if I get
| distracted and cross a line. It slows down the car
| automatically when it detects an obstacle ahead. It speeds
| up and slows down automatically to maintain a mostly-steady
| speed when I set cruise control.
|
| Until autonomous vehicles reach "read a book or fall
| asleep" levels, this is all I'm interested in. No thank you
| to any dumb "autopilot" system that I can't actually trust,
| but _tries_ to control my wheel.
| ryandvm wrote:
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| monero-xmr wrote:
| A single cancer drug from idea to FDA approval kills untold
| numbers of rodents and monkeys. Price we are willing to pay
| as humans.
| bilvar wrote:
| Could you please not propagate fake news? There is high
| enough signal-to-noise ratio already on the internet.
| yreg wrote:
| ~1500 animals died at Neuralink, vast majority of them being
| rodents. These are not large numbers.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-neuralink-
| fabricat...
| pmarreck wrote:
| This factcheck looks legitimate. "Over 280 sheep, pigs and
| monkeys" is unfortunately not very specific though.
| shkkmo wrote:
| It does show that the "3000 monkeys" claim is
| misinformation since the real number is over an order of
| magnitude less.
| bearmode wrote:
| It's a huge number for this sort of research. _Huge_.
| lostlogin wrote:
| That article also mentions an ongoing federal investigation
| into the poor treatment of animals there.
| falcolas wrote:
| > These are not large numbers.
|
| Only when compared to completely different industries, the
| most commonly cited being education or food.
|
| When compared to its own industry, the numbers are still
| large.
| yreg wrote:
| Its own industry being medical research? Perhaps somewhat
| more important than eating meat or beauty products?
| mentalpiracy wrote:
| Serious question for you: the FSD near-catastrophically failed
| twice before you got to town. Why did you continue to use FSD
| as you entered a more populated area?
| sam36 wrote:
| That sounds really terrible. I honestly thought that Tesla FSD
| was better than that. It just reminds me of my opinions I had
| (and still have) like 15+ years ago when I'd get into
| discussions on random forums about self driving cars. I mean
| sure, perhaps 100 years down the road when everything driving
| is required to be in a fully autonomous mode with interlinked
| wireless communication, maybe perhaps that would work.
|
| But that is not what we have right now. Right now every driver
| on the road is exposed to a potential instant tragedy that is
| unavoidable. I mean, what is a self driving car going to do if
| a large semi drops a huge log or freight right in front of you?
| You have one second to impact. You can either attempt to hold
| your line and drive over the object, potentially
| killing/injuring the passengers. Or you can swerve left into
| oncoming traffic. Or you can swerve right into a busy two way
| frontage road.
|
| No matter which choice is taken, I guarantee there will be a
| lawsuit. Perhaps one way forward would be perhaps something
| similar to what medical companies did in the 1980's with the
| creation of the "vaccine courts". Maybe we need some kind of
| new "autonomous driving" court which would be staffed with
| experts who would then decide what kind of cases have merit.
| That would at least better shield the parent companies and
| allow them to continue innovating instead of worrying about
| potential litigation.
| adrr wrote:
| It's fine in 90% of scenarios. Those 10% are scary. Mine
| tried to pull do a right turn at red light but didn't
| properly detect the cross traffic last week. That type of
| scary. If would be nice if cars talked to each other so it
| didn't just have to rely on vision.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| This was my experience with the beta up until about 3 months
| ago. Since then it's remarkably improved.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Pointing out the obvious, it's extremely negligent for Tesla to
| have this feature available. It's not even close to ready for
| general use.
| musha68k wrote:
| The profit motive is so clear in this case, and criminal.
| Collecting telemetry for free so you get to improve your ever
| elusive model, literally paid by your "customers" as well as
| potentially with their (and potentially "collateral") lives.
| It's horrendous.
| akmarinov wrote:
| And who's going to stop them? Certainly not the US
| government.
|
| Enjoy beta testing FSD as an unwilling pedestrian.
| kibwen wrote:
| If I see a Tesla in the wild, I shoot its tires out before
| it has a chance to strike. That's the American way.
|
| (I assume this is why the Cybertruck features bulletproof
| glass, in case my self-firing gun (now in beta)
| misidentifies the tires.)
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| It's extremely negligent for the driver to let the car drive
| onto a sidewalk. As the driver you are solely responsible for
| everything the car does.
| foobarian wrote:
| One problem with this experiment is that, I'm guessing, you
| monitored the car very closely, ready to take over at any
| moment, and, in fact, did so in a few cases.
|
| But this raises the question, what would have actually happened
| if you just let the car be? Would it have gotten into
| accidents? Or maybe it just drives in this alien unfamiliar way
| but is actually safer?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > Or maybe it just drives in this alien unfamiliar way but is
| actually safer?
|
| As long as the roads are a mixed environment of autonomous
| and non-autonomous vehicles, driving in an unfamiliar way is
| by definition unsafe because other road users can't
| anticipate what your car is going to do. That's not even
| mentioning pedestrians or cyclists.
| rurp wrote:
| Sounds like great questions to answer in a safe controlled
| test environment before letting it loose on public roadways.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| I had a similar experience when I first got FSD.
|
| What I realized was just that I was being scared of the
| computer. It _wasnt_ about to drive into traffic, and it
| _wasnt_ about to crash into anything or anything like that.
|
| What was happening was that I was rightly being overly cautious
| of the _beta_ program, and taking control as soon as there was
| really anything other than driving in a straight line on an
| empty road.
|
| Over time, it became a dependable, usable copilot for me. I
| would massively miss FSD if it was gone.
| bmitc wrote:
| Why give such a company even more of your money though?
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Thank God there weren't pedestrians there.
|
| It would've still stopped - the FSD system doesn't override the
| background tasks that power the AEB systems that stop the car
| from hitting humans or cars.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Except that time FSD drove right into a semi truck and killed
| the guy sleeping in his car...
| blendergeek wrote:
| Citation needed.
|
| Unless you are referring to these [0] incidents from 2016,
| before FSD was released. That was Tesla Autopilot (which
| comes standard on all Tesla vehicles now).
|
| Also, FSD uses active camera monitoring to make sure the
| driver is paying attention, so no you can't sleep in your
| while FSD is activated.
|
| [0] https://www.wired.com/story/teslas-latest-autopilot-
| death-lo...
| sharpneli wrote:
| You mean it would disable FSD when it would see that impact
| was inevitable so Tesla could claim that FSD had nothing to
| do with the accident.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > To ensure our statistics are conservative, we count any
| crash in which Autopilot was deactivated within 5 seconds
| before impact,
|
| https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
| lostmsu wrote:
| Would make sense with 30+ seconds depending on the level
| of the warning
| andsoitis wrote:
| > It would've still stopped
|
| We don't know that. An Tesla cannot claim it.
| 93po wrote:
| We also don't know the opposite but that sure as heck won't
| stop people claiming they know it as a fact and cause the
| publication of dozens of news articles over nothing.
| worik wrote:
| It is the precautionary principle.
| westpfelia wrote:
| > It would've still stopped
|
| Would it have though?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mnG_Gbxf_w
|
| At this point I can't imagine buying anything Tesla related.
| Or anything related to Elon Musk for that matter. He's a
| grifter who has managed to stand on the shoulders of giants
| and call himself tall.
| mcculley wrote:
| AEB cannot magically instantaneously stop a car that FSD has
| put into the wrong lane. If you believe otherwise, please do
| not drive. Cars are dangerous in the hands of those who do
| not take risks seriously.
| [deleted]
| linsomniac wrote:
| Tesla Autopilot significantly decreases fatigue on long trips.
| I have on numerous occasions (I think 10+) driven 2,400 mile
| trips. You absolutely have to stay aware during the use of
| Autopilot, but it really helps decrease cognitive load in many
| instances during a cross country trip.
| sakopov wrote:
| I don't have a Tesla but I do follow FSD development and a few
| people who test updates on Youtube. It really seems like your
| experience with FSD will vary depending on where you live. I
| see a guy testing FSD updates in downtown Seattle and
| neighboring residential streets where it seems very impressive
| driving in traffic, one way and narrow streets with cars parked
| on both sides. But then I also see it do some very bizarre
| moves in other cities. I don't know how Tesla collects and uses
| self-driving data but it seems like it's different from
| location to location.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| > I see a guy testing FSD updates in downtown Seattle
|
| In downtown Seattle doesn't it drive into the monorail
| columns?
| tsigo wrote:
| So to be clear, your car almost drove itself into oncoming
| traffic with your child in it and your first instinct was "Hey,
| maybe give it two more tries"?
| timeon wrote:
| Even bought another car from the company.
| avereveard wrote:
| The full self driving package act like grammar error on
| spam emails, self select for people with no understanding
| of technology. I fully expect that the more wild
| shenanigans in tesla future will be targeted at them
| directly.
| pschuegr wrote:
| I assume that you have snarky comments to spare for the
| company who legally put this option in his hands as well, is
| that right?
| blendergeek wrote:
| Every car "nearly drove itself into oncoming traffic" if the
| driver doesn't takeover. Its not like he climbed into the
| backseat and said, "Tesla, takeover". No, he let the car help
| with the driving, but maintained control of the vehicle to
| ensure the safety of the child.
| sircastor wrote:
| So, third-hand story, about 20 years ago, from an
| acquaintance who heard it from a Police officer who dealt
| with the following situation:
|
| This police officer was responding to an RV which had run
| off the road, and was speaking with the driver. The driver,
| a bit shook up from the experience explained that he was
| driving down the highway, turned on the cruise control, and
| got up to make himself a sandwich...
| mcguire wrote:
| This is literally the story of a Berke Breathed Bloom
| County (or whatever the follow-on was) comic strip.
| mikestew wrote:
| "3rd-hand story", from a friend of a friend...uh, huh.
| Unless I'm missing a heaping bucket of "ironically", you
| could have just said "there's an old urban legend..."
| instead of passing off an old joke as something true.
| sircastor wrote:
| Well, up until a moment ago, I legitimately believed it
| to be true - even though I was a few steps removed from
| it. Live and learn I guess.
| sgc wrote:
| I have been duped like this before too! Believe a story
| that just doesn't ring right when you tell it to somebody
| else years later. Teaching / communicating corrects a lot
| of errors.
| drivers99 wrote:
| I remember my grandma telling that story maybe 30-40
| years ago. Gotta be an urban legend. Yup:
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruise-uncontrol/
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I've no doubt this has probably happened in real life at
| some point but it's practically a fable by now.
|
| I think the Simpsons done it at least 30 years ago.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| I saw a "trying out my parking assist" (I think it was
| with a Hyundai) video the other day where the guy didn't
| realize that the function only assists with steering and
| not the pedals. So he backed right into a car.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Every car "nearly drove itself into oncoming traffic" if
| the driver doesn't takeover.
|
| Those other cars don't claim to drive themselves.
| max51 wrote:
| that makes absolutely no difference in the context of the
| comments above.
|
| If a product being overhyped prevents you from using it
| after you paid for it, you're gonna have to live with no
| computer, no phone, no internet, no electricity, no cars,
| no bikes.
| jchw wrote:
| I empathize that people are frustrated with the marketing
| claims of this particular feature, which are clearly
| bunk, but the point of the post you're replying to is not
| to defend it, it's to defend that the other commenter is
| not being negligent and putting their child in danger...
| alistairSH wrote:
| Maybe not his kid, assuming he has more faith in Tesla's
| crash-worthiness than its FSD.
|
| But, he'd definitely risking other road users and
| pedestrians if that car keeps trying to run up sidewalks
| and cause other havoc on the roadway.
| jchw wrote:
| If you are fully attentive, you can correct course once
| you realize a mistake is being made. My Honda Civic has
| adaptive cruise control and lane keep, and I run into
| issues with it reasonably often. I'm not complaining:
| after all, it's not marketed as much more than glorified
| cruise control. And either way, turning it on is not a
| risk to me. With any of these features, in my opinion,
| the main risk is complacency. If they work well enough
| most of the time, you can definitely get a false sense of
| security. Of course, based on some of the experiences
| people have had with FSD, I'm surprised anyone is able to
| get a false sense of security at all with it, but I
| assume mileages vary.
|
| Now if the car failed in such a way that you couldn't
| disengage FSD, THAT would be a serious, catastrophic
| problem... but as far as I know, that's not really an
| issue here. (If that were an issue, obviously, it would
| be cause to have the whole damn car recalled.)
|
| All of this to say, I think we can leave the guy alone
| for sharing his anecdote. When properly attentive, it
| shouldn't be particularly dangerous.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| If FSD decides to do max acceleration and turn the wheels,
| can you stop it in time? Zero to 60 is under 3 seconds,
| right?
| jonfw wrote:
| If your brake lines burst, will you be able to coast
| safely to a stop?
|
| Every piece of technology has a variety of failure modes,
| some more likely than others. FSD is not likely to take
| aim at a pedestrian and floor it, just like your brakes
| aren't likely to explode, and neither of you are
| irresponsible for making those assumptions
| Eisenstein wrote:
| What if it decides to short the batteries and set the car
| on fire? Can you stop it from doing that?
|
| I think you are making scenarios that no reasonable
| person would assume. There is a difference between
| 'getting confused at an intersection and turning wrong'
| and 'actively trying to kill the occupant by accelerating
| at max speed while turning the steering'.
| [deleted]
| elmomle wrote:
| Comments like these disincentivize people from sharing
| honestly. I have full confidence that OP was telling the
| truth when saying they it was a relatively safe / low traffic
| environment, and I fully imagine they were paying attention
| and ready to intervene when FSD made mistakes.
| wpietri wrote:
| This is true, but they also disincentivize random amateurs
| from conducting uncontrolled safety experiments with
| children in the car. I think blame-free retrospectives and
| lack of judgement are important tools, but I also think
| they are best used in a context of careful systemic
| improvement.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| > I fully imagine they were paying attention and ready to
| intervene when FSD made mistakes
|
| Is that enough? The software could decide to accelerate and
| switch lanes at such a fast rate that the driver wouldn't
| have time to intervene. It hasn't happened _yet_ to my
| knowledge. But it may happen.
| sho_hn wrote:
| > Comments like these disincentivize people from sharing
| honestly.
|
| As an automotive engineer: Agreed. Realistic experience
| reports are useful, and that includes also e.g. what
| drivers are willing to attempt and how they risk-rate.
| kolbe wrote:
| People sharing anecdotes isn't productive either. Someone
| talking about "almost crashes" is a terribly subjective
| thing. We have thousands of hours of youtube video of FSD.
| We have some data. And the value add of one commenter's
| experience is virtually zero.
| rurp wrote:
| I strongly disagree. It's interesting to hear a
| thoughtful recounting of a HNers experience.
|
| Tesla releasing the actual raw data would be much more
| helpful, but of course they are refusing to do that, most
| likely because it would betray how overhyped, unreliable
| and dangerous the software is.
| kolbe wrote:
| What do you want them to release? What does "raw data"
| mean to you? Does Waymo release this raw data?
| albertopv wrote:
| Teslas have been driven for millions of hours at least,
| if not billions, thousands of hours of youtube videos are
| anecdotes as well proportionally speaking. What about
| Tesla releasing complete real data? What are they scared
| about? Until then Tesla claims can't be taken seriously.
| lordnacho wrote:
| At the very least anecdotes are a place to start thinking
| about what data to collect. And wherever you think of it,
| it's established in modern debates that people bring
| anecdotes as a way to motivate discussion. Maybe it's
| wrong without a proper statistical study, but it's what
| people do and have done since forever.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Pressing a button and then paying careful attention to watch
| the system perform is VERY different from just engaging the
| system and trusting it to do its thing.
|
| I think the software is a half-baked gimmick but come on
| "look guys, I care about children too" variety of in-group
| signaling with a side of back seat parenting adds less than
| nothing to the discussion of the subject at hand.
|
| And INB4 someone intentionally misinterprets me as defending
| the quality of Tesla's product, I'm not.
| voganmother42 wrote:
| Well and you don't need to go far to find others defending
| the risk to others as well, "it wouldn't have gone up the
| curb if there was a person there", its interesting to see how
| cavalier people normally are with making that judgement for
| others, especially for their offspring
| three_seagrass wrote:
| Also consumer bias, or "post-purchase rationalization" -
| i.e. humans overly attribute positivity to goods/services
| from brands they buy from.
|
| Even when it's as bad as throwing you in the wrong lane of
| traffic.
| Lendal wrote:
| Yes, because it's not something you just try out on a whim. I
| personally paid $10,000 for the option, and it's
| nonrefundable. You also have a human desire to help out, be
| part of something bigger, do your part in the advancement of
| science & engineering. So yes, you overcome adversity, you
| keep on trying, and you teach those values to your kids.
|
| Unfortunately, it increasing looks like the experiment has
| failed. But not because of us. We're pissed because Musk
| isn't doing his part in the deal. He's not pulling his
| weight. At this point, he's becoming more and more an anchor
| around the neck of technological progress. That didn't need
| to happen. It didn't need to be this way. So yeah, we're
| pissed off, not just because of the money we paid, but also
| because we feel like we were defrauded by his failure to pull
| his own weight in the deal.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised to see him make his escape to the
| Bahamas before this decade is up.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| > You also have a human desire to help out, be part of
| something bigger, do your part in the advancement of
| science & engineering. So yes, you overcome adversity, you
| keep on trying, and you teach those values to your kids.
|
| Why not restrict your beta testing to a closed course? A
| race track? Some land you bought out in the middle of the
| desert? Have the kids make some some stop signs, plow your
| new roads, etc.
|
| No one else on the road is consenting to a technology that
| could rapidly accelerate and course correct into their
| vehicle at some undetermined time.
| rurp wrote:
| Unfortunately paying that money also provides an incentive
| to lie about how advanced the functionality and hide
| unflattering data.
|
| Funding responsible self driving research seems like a
| great use of money to me, but testing an flawed system in
| the wild does not.
| selectodude wrote:
| I'm just confused that she'd buy _another_ Tesla after that
| experience.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Well, she already had paid to install the at home charger
| for Teslas.
| [deleted]
| mancerayder wrote:
| >Yes, because it's not something you just try out on a
| whim. I personally paid $10,000 for the option, and it's
| nonrefundable.
|
| For those that didn't buy it, you can 'rent' it for a
| monthly subscription fee.
| solardev wrote:
| Anyone can make more kids. Not everyone can do more science!
| iab wrote:
| New life motto, thank you
| pnut wrote:
| I know this is a joke, but not everyone can make more kids.
| f1refly wrote:
| We've experiments to run / there is research to be done /
| on the people who are still ali~ive!
| twic wrote:
| -- Cave Johnson
| jollyllama wrote:
| No harm, no foul. GP's child learned a valuable lesson which
| may serve the child well in the decades to come: don't trust
| self-driving.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| I guess the lesson is more for the parent, unless the child
| will get $10k worth of ice cream less.
| jjulius wrote:
| Come on, this feels overly aggressive. Circumstances are
| nuanced, we don't know to what degree of danger any of these
| situations posed to the child, only the parent does. Judge
| not lest ye, and such.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Beta testing the guidance system for a 4500 lb steel slug
| in a pedestrian environment is one thing.
|
| Deciding that you want to put your family _into_ that steel
| slug for the very first test seems to me to be an entirely
| different level of poor decision making.
| wpietri wrote:
| Ah yes, surely the meaning of that bible verse is, "Don't
| ask mildly difficult questions based in any sort of moral
| stance." Because we all know that book is famously opposed
| to performing any sort of moral analysis.
| jjulius wrote:
| There's asking questions about the circumstances to
| better understand before casting judgement, and then
| there's sarcastically implying that OP is a bad parent
| for endangering their child without asking any actual
| questions about what happened.
| wpietri wrote:
| That was not sarcasm, which generally requires words used
| in contradiction to the normal meaning. E.g., if somebody
| makes a dumb mistake, the response, "nice work, Einstein"
| would be sarcastic. This was at worst mocking, but it
| wasn't ever hyperbolic, given that the what was written
| was a literal description of what the guy did.
|
| Regardless, you haven't answered the point about the
| quote. "Judge not lest ye be judged" does not mean we
| have to empty-headedly refrain from any sort of moral
| criticism. In context, it's about hypocrisy, reminding us
| to apply our standards to ourselves as stringently as we
| do others. I think it's only appropriate here if tsigo
| somehow indicated he would happily endanger his own
| children, which I don't see any sign of.
| jjulius wrote:
| Semantics that ultimately don't change the crux of my
| point, even if I disagree with some of them, but thank
| you for clarifying.
| idontpost wrote:
| sanedigital wrote:
| Yes, this is exactly what happened. Afterwards, I went home
| and lit several candles on my Elon Musk altar, and prayed to
| the ghost of Steve Jobs that he forgive my reluctance for not
| completely sacrificing ourselves to Big Tech.
|
| In reality, I had both hands on the wheel and nobody was ever
| actually in danger. But thanks for your faux-concern.
| mentalpiracy wrote:
| > nobody was ever actually in danger
|
| not sure you're qualified to make that assertion, simply
| based on the series of choices you've described yourself
| making here.
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| To be fair, you did say that it literally drove up onto the
| corner of the intersection and "thank god there were no
| pedestrians there", which does not make it sound like you
| were in full control at all times, but rather that it was
| lucky no one was there or they would have been hit.
| stickfigure wrote:
| How long ago was that?
|
| A friend of mine bought a Model Y and got access to FSD about
| six months ago. I've spent a fair bit of time in this car in
| the bay area and... I'm impressed? It doesn't drive like a
| professional but it feels safe.
|
| My friend says it's been improving even in just the time he's
| had it. So maybe it used to be a lot worse?
|
| I'm not in the market for a new car but the next time I am, FSD
| is going to be a big factor. Even if it's just as good as it is
| right now.
| jsolson wrote:
| If it's anything like the original Autopilot was: yes.
|
| I had one of the first Model S vehicles that was autopilot-
| capable. Early enough that autopilot itself was added later.
| The early versions were... intense. Not just in the "if you
| take your hands of the wheel it might try to kill you"
| intense, but also in the "even using this as adaptive cruise
| with lane-keeping, sometimes it will suddenly try to veer off
| the road and murder you" sense. Even when working "as
| intended" it would routinely dip into exit ramps if you were
| in the right lane. As a result, I didn't use it all that
| often, but over not a lot of time it improved pretty
| dramatically.
|
| At this point my wife and I are on newer Model 3s, and our
| experience with autopilot (not FSD) as a frequently-used
| driver assist has been... uneventful? Given the _original_
| autopilot experience, though, neither of us is particularly
| eager to try out FSD yet. Autopilot strikes a good balance
| for us in terms of being a useful second pair of eyes and
| hands while unambiguously requiring us to drive the damn car.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| Maybe I'm old fashioned but I've got no intention of buying /
| enabling FSD on my 2020 Model X. I just want a car that I can
| drive from point A to point B. I'm not even that risk averse,
| but enabling a beta feature on the road with a bunch of other
| drivers who barely know what they're doing is a stretch.
| jsight wrote:
| This seems like a pretty typical video in an area that FSD
| doesn't handle well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIvfNHwZsCc
|
| I bet this is extremely common.
|
| To be fair, we've never seen a test of Waymo or Cruise on the
| same road, as they are only available on certain specific roads
| that have been well tested. I'm not making a judgment here as to
| whether that is good or bad.
| jfoster wrote:
| There's so many decent quality FSD videos on YouTube. Why watch
| the one where you can hardly see what's in front of the car?
| jsight wrote:
| Credibility. That's Jason Hughes who owns a third party shop
| that repairs Teslas. He has a long history of reporting
| fairly, both positive and negative. He also lives in a fairly
| rural area that hasn't gotten a lot of attention from FSD
| YTers.
|
| The fact that some of his first FSD trips showed major issues
| is very telling.
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| I don't understand how regulators and insurance companies are so
| asleep at the wheel (hehe) around this. It seems insane to me
| that you can just start selling a car that you claim can drive
| itself without any kind of certification or safety data being
| provided.
| 93po wrote:
| stnmtn wrote:
| What an incredible insipid comment. I'm sure if you extrapolate
| anything to the logical extreme it sounds silly; it doesn't
| make a point beyond displaying that you think so highly of this
| car company that you want to disregard all criticism of it.
| p0pcult wrote:
| Has anyone posted on "free speech absolutism" Twitter 2.0 yet?
| Wonder what happens to that account?
| agumonkey wrote:
| Honestly surprised, some youtube fans did test recent updates
| (recent as in 6 months ago) and the SDV software was capable of
| dealing with complex high speed, irregular traffic
| crossroads/ramps.
| dcow wrote:
| Anecdotally this matches my experience too. I'm not even in the
| FSD beta and with every software update plain old auto-pilot gets
| less intelligent. I don't know if regulators are restricting what
| can be done, if Tesla is self-censoring to avoid PR issues, or
| what, but instead of being helpful like it used to be it's mostly
| just frustrating. I find myself using it less an less.
|
| All that's said from someone who otherwise loves their Tesla. Has
| saved many thousands on gas. Hasn't had any reliability or "panel
| gap" issues. And would likely buy a Tesla again.
| jefft255 wrote:
| I'm the first to complain about Tesla overselling their self-
| driving abilities, but I think the numbers used in this article
| are misleading. Miles per disengagements comparisons between
| Waymo (to pick one) and Tesla is like apples to oranges. Waymo
| operates in a closed fashion, is a laboratory-like setting (1),
| and I don't believe for one second that their miles per
| disengagements would be significantly better than Tesla in the
| real-world open settings that Tesla's FSD is being tested in.
| These numbers mean nothing when the environments used to compute
| them are so vastly different.
|
| (1) Here's what I think is the case for Waymo's operations: -
| Phenix AZ only (maybe one more city?) -- Amazing sunny weather --
| Clear line markings -- Can overfit to said city with HD maps,
| handcoding road quirks, etc - Waymo employees only -- Not to
| sound to tinfoil-hat, can we really trust this data - Even within
| Phenix, some filtering will happen as to which route are possible
| hello_friendos wrote:
| [deleted]
| jquery wrote:
| After seeing what musk did to twitter it's pretty clear the
| emperor has no clothes, and his main asset is being a tyrant and
| taking the surplus value of the 80-100 hour weeks his peons do
| for their lord.
|
| Musk is no Steve Jobs, despite clearly seeing himself that way.
| Full Self Driving will get nowhere under Musk.
| 93po wrote:
| Comparing Musk to Jobs is ridiculous. The scope of what they've
| done and what they're aiming for is vastly different. One
| person made cool phones, the other one is putting humans on
| mars. Why would you think Elon wants to be a computer seller?
|
| > his main asset is being a tyrant and taking the surplus value
| of the 80-100 hour weeks his peons do for their lord.
|
| Cool, I agree, can we start holding everyone accountable that
| does this? Can we maybe start with the ones that use actual
| slave labor? Where are the dozen articles a day about those
| people?
|
| > Full Self Driving will get nowhere under Musk.
|
| It's gotten farther than literally any other organization on
| the planet.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > the other one is putting humans on mars
|
| Hasn't yet. And IF that happens, and if it turns out to be
| SpaceX that enables it, thank Gwynn. Musk is many things, but
| this idea that he's some kind of genius engineer is extremely
| insulting to all the actual rocket engineers.
| wnevets wrote:
| Does anyone else remember being told Tesla owners would be able
| to rent their cars out automatically to Uber/Lyft when they
| weren't using them because of the FSD?
| manv1 wrote:
| People (and technical people) like to believe that one data point
| isn't important, that it's an anecdote and doesn't matter.
|
| But as a lawyer once said, "I convict with anecdotes."
|
| In any case the reports are interesting because with them you can
| start to understand the shape of the autopilot's capabilities and
| limitations. IMO the individual reports (like the ones here) are
| nice and detailed; the kind of summary data the article wants is
| pointless, because it doesn't include any real detail in it. Your
| autopilot worked on a 400 mile stretch of empty Kansas highway,
| big deal.
| cramjabsyn wrote:
| Rushing half finished cars out the door, and over promising on
| capabilities/updates is such a flawed model. I am amazed by how
| many people bought in, and will be really interested to see how
| many people replace with another Tesla as legacy brands bring EVs
| to market.
| izzydata wrote:
| Under no circumstance will I ever let a vehicle I am in drive
| itself. If you can't nearly mathematically prove the software
| will function as expected I am not putting my life in its hands.
| From the sounds of it a lot of it is controlled by what is
| effectively a machine learning black box.
|
| No thanks.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Obviously not all miles are equal, and the others in the chart
| (Waymo, etc) only run their vehicles in specific areas that they
| have previously mapped onto their own system.
| Groxx wrote:
| If it disengages rather than eagerly plowing into something,
| that's almost certainly for the better. This could _easily_ be
| explained by a renewed focus on safety after massive amounts of
| negative press, and that would be a good thing.
|
| Is that the reason? Not a clue! Am I optimistic about Tesla's
| FSD? Not even slightly! But the "data" here is extremely shaky
| and there are many possible explanations beyond "getting worse".
| gwbas1c wrote:
| I have a Model 3 with enhanced autopilot. My wife wanted a Model
| Y. I find the enhanced autopilot so glitchy that I decided to
| just stick with regular autopilot.
|
| Guess what: I like regular autopilot better!
| danso wrote:
| Earlier this year when Mercedes announced its Level 3 "Drive
| Pilot" system [0], a lot of Tesla stans mocked its limitations,
| which to be honest, _are_ quite numerous on the face of it:
|
| - Only allowed on limited-access divided highways with no
| stoplights, roundabouts, or other traffic control systems
|
| - Limited to a top speed of less than 40 mph
|
| - Operates only during the daytime and in clear weather
|
| But the big promise from Mercedes is that it would take legal
| liability for any accidents that occurs during Drive Pilot's
| operation, something that Tesla doesn't appear to be even
| thinking about wrt Autopilot and FSD.
|
| I would love someone to goad/challenge Tesla to step up to
| Mercedes. If FSD is so much better than Drive Pilot, then why
| doesn't Tesla agree to provide a "safe mode" for FSD, that
| operates with the exact same restrictions as Mercedes' D-P, and
| offers the same legal protections to any users who happen to get
| into accidents during "safe mode" FSD operation?
|
| [0] https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-
| if-...
| drstewart wrote:
| But can Mercedes definitively prove their technology will never
| result in an accident, like people in this thread are demanding
| of Tesla?
| lolinder wrote:
| They're willing to take liability for it, so they're
| confident enough that their legal team and accountants are
| satisfied. If Tesla were at _that_ point I think most people
| here would be content, no need to definitively prove
| anything.
| drstewart wrote:
| Ah yes, all's I have to do to get justice if I get killed
| by a Mercedes run amok is to take on a multi-billion dollar
| legal team. That makes me confident.
| jonfw wrote:
| A big company being responsible for a crash is best case
| scenario. You would much rather sue Mercedes than Joe
| Shmoe for an accident, no doubt. They've got deep
| pockets, and your local courts are not particularly
| friendly to them
| hedora wrote:
| Well, if you have life insurance, your insurance company
| will be the ones suing Mercedes, and likely have an even
| scarier legal team.
| tiahura wrote:
| There's no subrogation for life insurance.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| The fact that they accept liability is precisely to avoid
| [your next of kin] needing to _" take on a multi-billion
| dollar legal team"_ if you get killed by a Mercedes run
| amok. Now then, if on the other hand you were to get
| killed by a _Tesla_ run amok...
| dekhn wrote:
| Nobody expects that any self-driving car technology will
| never result in an accident. That's impossible and not a
| reasonable goal.
| twblalock wrote:
| A lot of people seem to think that even a single accident
| is unacceptable. Quite a few of the comments on this site
| and others about self-driving cannot be explained without
| understanding that the poster has that belief, at least
| implicitly.
|
| We are lucky that our ancestors were not so risk averse,
| because if they were we would not have cars at all, or
| airplanes.
| dekhn wrote:
| Yes, I see some people promote that idea but that was
| never the expectation on the part of the self-driving car
| creators, or the regulators. They also don't expect cars
| to be able to solve complex philosophical questions
| regarding trolleys. Nor does the general public have that
| expectation.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Any person who knows what they're talking about is asking
| Tesla to have an appropriate development process for safety
| critical systems.
|
| Tesla's system are unsafe, by default, if they don't follow
| safety life cycle. And they don't - I saw dick-sharing apps
| that had better life cycle processes.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| You can't prove a negative. Nobody sensible has ever demanded
| this of Tesla.
| [deleted]
| Fricken wrote:
| I'd been saying for years before anyone had L3 out that the
| working definition of L3 is simply that the manufacturer will
| assume liability while the vehicle is in charge.
| lolinder wrote:
| Yep.
|
| Mercedes has these limitations not because their tech is less
| capable than Tesla's but because Mercedes is a real car company
| with real engineers and a gold-standard reputation to maintain.
|
| Tesla, in contrast, is a software company that is trying to
| take "move fast and break things" into the two-ton 75mph
| vehicle space, with predictable results.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Mercedes is a real car company with real engineers and a
| gold-standard reputation to maintain.
|
| Not only that, but they have a quality reputation to uphold
| with their domestic (German) and regional (European) market.
|
| Your average discerning German car buyer (i.e. the sort who
| has a Porsche 911, or a higher-end Audi/BMW/Merc) in their
| garage will swiftly tell you about numerous problems with the
| Tesla before they've even sat in it.
|
| Panel gaps, for example. They mean a lot to your average
| discerning German, and your average Tesla has them by the
| bucket load.
|
| In fact, the German in-joke is that the reason Tesla built a
| factory in Germany is so that the Germans could (try to)
| teach them how to fix the panel gaps. :-)
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> so that the Germans could (try to) teach them how to fix
| the panel gaps_
|
| Not a Tesla owner or fan but I have a question that's
| really bugging me now: Which customers really care about
| panel gaps?
|
| Do average joes, SUV driving soccer moms or suburban white
| collar workers go around with a ruler measuring their panel
| gaps with others like "yeah your Tesla is cool and all, but
| sorry, my Audi A5 has much tighter panel gaps which is what
| matters most you know"?
|
| When has the panel gap became "the benchmark" indicative of
| car quality beyond the body shell?
|
| Like, if the panel gaps are the only thing you can find
| wrong in a car, then it must be a really really good car,
| right?
|
| Is there any proven evidence that the panel gaps corelate
| to quality and reliability of the rest of the car, or is it
| just a myth of the car enthusiasts community that got
| spread around and went too far? I get it, some Tesla are
| unreliable and built poorly, but it's not because they have
| big panel gaps. The reverse is also true for many cars, so
| this isn't a rule.
|
| Sure, if you want to measure and compare panel gaps, then
| by all means go ahead and measure panel gaps, but please
| don't pretend they mean anything more than that, and that
| it's somehow an indicative for the car's overall quality
| and reliability, because so far there hasn't been any proof
| of this correlation.
| pandaman wrote:
| Re: panel gaps. People do tend to notice when they cars
| whistle and sport leaves, hair from the car washer's
| brush, and other debris on their body.
| qzx_pierri wrote:
| No one cares about panel gaps. A lot of people on HN
| despise Elon and become relentless pedants when
| discussing any of his products/initiatives.
| tqi wrote:
| Aren't those cars (McLaren/Ferrari) also horribly
| uncomfortable and lacking in a lot of other amenities
| (like sound systems or tech)? It feels like those cars
| are a completely different category of good, and trying
| to measure them on the same scale is misguided.
|
| To me, panel gaps are a proxy for how much faith you have
| in your consistency and quality control.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> To me, panel gaps are a proxy for how much faith you
| have in your consistency and quality control._
|
| I beg to differ. Modern German cars might have panel gaps
| tighter than a nun's fanny, but their reliability,
| especially after warranty is over, is so awful than in no
| way can I say that they represent quality. Those quality
| cars went away in the late '80s early '90s when the
| engineers got replaced by the bean counters and cars
| became white goods with many critical parts outsourced to
| the lowest bidding contractor, that must look 'cool' in
| the showroom, but fail the second the warranty runs out,
| or many times even before that.
|
| To me, the panel gaps are a superficial metric of quality
| and prove nothing of substance that goes beyond body
| shell.
|
| Why don't we measure quality by how reliable a car is
| over time and how long it lasts? Surely that would prove
| good consistency and quality control on the
| manufacturer's side, no?
|
| Tight panel gaps only shows how much efort the
| manufacturer has put in the body, but says nothing about
| the quality and reliability of the electronics and
| mechanics, which is what really matters in a car for most
| people.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Tesla was 19 out of 24 for reliability. BMW was 10th, in
| a recent survey.
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/tesla-
| ranked-n...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Does that prove a direct correlation between reliability
| and panel gaps, or could it be merely a coincidence?
|
| According to the article:
|
| _> "the Audi E-Tron and Volkswagen ID.4 were singled out
| as being unreliable"_
|
| So if Audi and VW are also unreliable then the panel gaps
| prove as a poor signal for reliability, which was my
| original point.
|
| Edit after your reply below: Sure, Tesla has poor
| reliability, but not because it has poor panel gaps.
| Those two can be completely disconnected. Just because
| they coincide sometimes, doesn't make this a rule of
| thumb like some car snobs try to convince you of.
|
| You can easily have cars with great panel gaps that are
| incredibly unreliable, and vice versa. Panel gaps mean
| nothing more than panel gaps.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| I'm just pointing out that we can have both reliability
| and tight panel gaps. We have the technology. They are
| separate things.
|
| As are different models within a single manufacturer. I
| love my Ford, would highly recommend it, but would never
| buy or recommend a Pinto or a Bronco II.
|
| The point people typically make is that Tesla has
| uncommonly poor panel gaps, which point to poor quality
| and tolerance control in their manufacturing. This is a
| complex skill that automakers have been refining for 100
| years. It is indicative of something, just as the quality
| of paint job indicates the care and quality with which a
| hot rod was built.
| watwut wrote:
| Aren't those sport cars, basically? Luxury sport cars
| that don't sell comfort at all - they sell power, speed
| and "I am cool cause I am powerful and fast" look.
| prepend wrote:
| I care about panel gaps and one of the reasons I didn't
| consider teslas when buying a new car is the build
| quality.
|
| Not sure how much this matters as Tesla's sales are
| really high, but I think this basic stuff is important.
| [deleted]
| pookeh wrote:
| The super rich buy supercars for the increase in their
| own perceived value (i.e wow look how rich this dude is)
|
| The average joe buys a car because of the value it gets
| them (because every dollar matters)
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Umm, except the cars the average joe buys depreciate in
| value, while the supercars the rich buy usually apreciate
| in value, kind of like art, so wouldn't it make more
| sense that panel gaps are more important for that market?
|
| Does having tighter panel gaps help with the resale value
| for the average joes?
| shuckles wrote:
| This isn't true. Your average super car does not
| appreciate in value when you consider factors like
| maintenance and the fact that you have to buy a bunch of
| other garbage to even be put on the delivery list for a
| desirable car's production. For example, actually buying
| a top spec 911 isn't feasible if you don't have a good
| relationship with your dealer.
|
| Notwithstanding the fact that the market for super cars
| is nothing like the market for Teslas or 5ers.
| nluken wrote:
| Supercars absolutely depreciate in value minus select
| limited releases (which holds true for non-supercars as
| well). Look at standard Lamborghini Gallardos, Ferrari
| F430s/458s, and Aston Martins of any model and you will
| see that some of these cars are worth less than half what
| their original buyers paid for them.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Fair point, that was a bad example on my end. Edited.
|
| But my point stands, that panel gap as a benchmark alone
| is no measure of quality or any other metric.
| epistasis wrote:
| I think that most car buying is motivated by far far more
| than delivered value. There's so much status and image
| wrapped up in cars that thigh there are some who care
| little about the car, nearly everyone chooses something
| that fits their perception of themselves.
|
| The reason that there are so many super-expensive pickup
| trucks on the road is not because people are hauling
| around things that require a pickup, for example. And
| when combined with the face that pickup beds are becoming
| increasingly useless...
| Bhilai wrote:
| > Do average joes, SUV driving soccer moms or suburban
| white collar workers go around with a ruler measuring
| their panel gaps with others like "yeah your Tesla is
| cool and all, but sorry, my Audi A5 has much tighter
| panel gaps which is what matters most you know"?
|
| Average Joes and soccer moms in a typical suburban area
| cannot even afford Teslas and are extremely happy with
| their Odysseys, Seinnas and Pacificas. Even an Audi A5 is
| cheaper than a Model 3 in most cases and Audi's ride
| quality and cabin noise is extremely better than any
| Tesla I have ridden in. Audi interiors (though not as
| good as its other German competitors) beat Tesla by a
| mile.
| sho_hn wrote:
| > In fact, the German in-joke is that the reason Tesla
| built a factory in Germany is so that the Germans could
| (try to) teach them how to fix the panel gaps. :-)
|
| Speaking more seriously on that front, there's been the
| acquihire of Grohmann Engineering.
| purpleblue wrote:
| I currently have a Tesla Model Y and a Porsche Macan. The
| Macan feels more luxurious, but the Model Y is easier to
| drive because of its unearthly acceleration.
|
| The biggest thing that Tesla got right besides the
| acceleration is the value-add features like Sentry mode,
| the tight integration with the phone, the things like Walk-
| away locking (although I would very much prefer it lock
| closer to my car because it's about 40-60 ft away when it
| locks and it makes me nervous).
|
| The build quality is cheaper, the sound system sucks, and I
| generally despise how many things are tied to the screen. I
| want buttons and knobs for the air system, to have to hunt
| for that on the screen is very dangerous, I hate it.
|
| The Porsche feels more luxurious but it's mindblowing how
| they get so many things wrong. The dashboard is much too
| complicated with a lot of redundant buttons. Something as
| simple as there's no place to put my phone, there's only
| extremely awkward locations that cause my phone to fly
| around the car when I go around any turn, which is so dumb
| in 2022. The backup camera has way too narrow field of
| view, I've almost backed into 2 cars in parking lots,
| something the Tesla got right. At least they have Apple
| Carplay, but activating it is extremely annoying.
|
| I also have BMWs before (X3 and X6) and overall my favorite
| car of all time is the X6.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Honestly I do not get how they go away with so much
| touchscreen - that should be illegal honestly. You very
| quickly learn the buttons and knobs in your car for basic
| activities and do not even need to look. Not to mention a
| single point of failure with that touchscreen!
| heipei wrote:
| > In fact, the German in-joke is that the reason Tesla
| built a factory in Germany is so that the Germans could
| (try to) teach them how to fix the panel gaps. :-)
|
| As a German I can certainly say that folks here really pay
| attention to where cars are manufactured. Tesla Model Y's
| available on various platforms are boldly advertised as
| "Manufactured in Grunheide". At the same time people are
| aware that some domestic models (such as the Mercedes EQS
| SUV) are solely manufactured in the US and then shipped
| over, which are sometimes conceived as lower quality as a
| result.
| elorant wrote:
| Fuck panel gaps. Just look at the quality of the interior.
| You're paying 100k for a car that has worse quality than a
| Ford. Everything is plastic, there are no button knobs
| anywhere, no panel in front of the driver, the leather on
| the seats doesn't feel like leather etc. I mean I get it
| that half the price of the car is in batteries and R&D, but
| still you can't even compare it to a 50k Volvo. It's just
| crap. And now that the big manufacturers are moving into
| electric cars Tesla's got a lot of serious completion to
| face from companies who know how to treat a customer who's
| paying big bucks.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| Serious competition is good!
|
| I just replaced my Audi Q5 with a Tesla Model Y (which...
| wasn't $100k). No panel gaps, no other problems, and the
| overall quality feels nicer than the Audi. Shrug!
|
| Anyway, yeah, the next few years look really exciting for
| consumer EVs. So many announcements in 2022.
| Something1234 wrote:
| The Audi Q5 had issues with the infotainment IMO. It
| wasn't stock android auto like in my Hyundai. The voice
| assistant button always routed to the audi voice thing
| (completely worthless I know what I want google to do,
| now connect me to google). The buttons felt over
| complicated.
|
| Although one feature I really liked was that it would
| tell me what the biggest consumers of power was. I would
| definitely like to have a car with a heated steering
| wheel in the winter here, but that isn't in the cards.
| xxpor wrote:
| If you're paying 100k for a model 3, you're getting
| screwed.
| cutenewt wrote:
| I was seriously considering a Model 3 for my new car, but
| I'm so glad I passed.
|
| On the Model 3 subrreddit there are endless post about
| reliability including ones I never thought would be an
| issue.
|
| Some recent ones include driver side mirror housing
| falling off and snowing entering the trunk compartment.
| sixQuarks wrote:
| Have you looked at forums for other cars? There's tons of
| complaints for every model. I've had my model 3 for 5
| years with zero issues.
| brewdad wrote:
| I can't recall mirrors falling off or trunks so poorly
| sealed as to allow snow inside with other car makers.
|
| Maybe on a Yugo but nothing that purports to be anything
| better than a cheap as possible econobox.
| areoform wrote:
| I feel that casting TSLA as a company without "real
| engineers" isn't helpful nor is it truthful.
| lolinder wrote:
| For me, the measure of whether an engineer counts as "real"
| is if they're empowered to say no.
|
| You can have hundreds of qualified people who are called
| "engineers" and would be excellent in another environment,
| but if the culture is "If I say jump, you ask how high" you
| don't have an engineering culture, you have an autocracy.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| Tesla isnt a real car company? Please climb back under your
| rock.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| > Mercedes is a real car company with real engineers and a
| gold-standard reputation to maintain
|
| Totally agree with all your points against Tesla, but "gold-
| standard reputation" for Mercedes? Based on what? They are
| consistently rated as one of the worse brands reliability
| wise (Tesla usually being worse, but still).
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| "Nothing's more expensive than a cheap Mercedes."
|
| Because they have a reputation of breaking down a lot, and
| a "cheap" Mercedes is still a Mercedes which is fixed using
| Mercedes-priced parts.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It's interesting. I only buy older used cars. Mercedes is
| a brand I have owned a couple of times. Outside of a few
| specific engines and models, they are mechanically very
| reliable and very solidly built. Moreover, especially the
| older cars, are quite easy to work on for a home
| mechanic. Parts are readily available and are not really
| more expensive than for any other car I've owned, which
| includes several other German as well as Japanese and
| American brands.
|
| If you are in that market, and stick with the older
| models that are proven to be reliable, they are pretty
| safe buys. Like any used car, a lot depends on the care
| given by the prior owner, but people who buy Mercedes
| cars new tend to have at least above-average income, and
| can afford to maintain them properly.
| haberman wrote:
| Agree. Which makes it all the more frustrating that popular
| press focuses on irrelevant distractions, like the fact that
| if you try really hard, you can defeat the protections
| designed to ensure that the driver is ready to take over:
| https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/cr-
| engine...
|
| A car is never going to prevent a determined individual from
| doing stupid things. But it is a big problem that people who
| are trying to be responsible are misled about what Tesla's
| "Full Self Driving" can actually deliver.
| revnode wrote:
| So Mercedes' solution is to offer a product that isn't
| usable? Why bother releasing it?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It's the other way around. Tesla is selling an extremely
| expensive beta test that you can't use at all anywhere in
| any conditions with any kind of safety expectations.
|
| Mercedes is selling a product that has a small set of well-
| defined cases where it can actually be used.
| lolinder wrote:
| It's perfectly usable in its intended scope: it allows you
| to focus on other things while driving in heavy traffic.
| When they're confident that they can do so safely, they'll
| extend it to other situations.
|
| Mercedes explains the purpose in their press release:
|
| > Conditionally automated driving on suitable motorway
| sections where traffic density is high
|
| > During the conditionally automated journey, DRIVE PILOT
| allows the driver to take their mind off the traffic and
| focus on certain secondary activities, be it communicating
| with colleagues via In-Car Office, surfing the internet or
| relaxing while watching a film. In DRIVE PILOT mode,
| applications can be enabled on the vehicle's integrated
| central display that are otherwise blocked while driving.
|
| https://group-media.mercedes-
| benz.com/marsMediaSite/en/insta...
| binarymax wrote:
| It's useable in certain situations that have a high
| probability of safety, and allows them to capture data and
| grow the program safely over time.
| ahakki wrote:
| With it's current limitations, the only application for
| Mercedes' solution I can think of is during heavy traffic
| on highways. But calling it "not usable" does seem a bit
| harsh.
|
| Of course if you prefer, move fast and brake... maybe
| ethanbond wrote:
| Traffic on highways is also by far the most frustrating
| part of driving basically for the same reasons it's an
| easy-ish target for automation, so seems like a pretty
| good place to start.
|
| IMO that's just good product strategy.
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| Tesla's solution offers a product that occasionally tries
| to kill you and people around you. The only reason it
| doesn't is because drivers are forced to pay attention and
| take over at a moment's notice at all times.
|
| Mercedes' solution is a car company taking actual
| responsibility for their software. If they feel the
| lawsuits/insurance claims/legal snafus are worth the risk,
| that means their software is probably pretty damn good in
| that limited scope. Otherwise they could literally bankrupt
| the company with lawsuits! That's a lot more confidence
| inspiring to me than Elon's repeated pie-in-the-sky claims.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| When I commuted in the city, there was a traffic jam almost
| every day, and I'd be stuck 15-20 minutes driving at
| walking speed. On especially bad days it could be up to
| 45min.
|
| If I could have read my emails in that time it would have
| been really nice.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| The proper solution to this is trains
| philippejara wrote:
| everyone knows that public transport is the solution to
| it but I can't buy a railroad track and a train to take
| to work so people are going to do what they can do
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Tesla's mockery during the bull market is finally coming to
| an end.
|
| Being cocky and funny without delivering great results is
| simply embarrassing.
|
| I think Mercedes and other automakers have a good chance to
| bypass Tesla now since Elno is captivated by his Twitter
| acquisition.
| rnk wrote:
| I think you mean to say Elmo
| klipt wrote:
| Come now, Elmo and Elon may both be childish Muppets, but
| Elmo at least has the excuse of actually _being_ a child
| in an educational kids show.
| jethro_tell wrote:
| IDK, it seems like the people doing the work might have a
| better grasp on delivering for tesla than musk. I don't
| imagine tweeting promises that the engineers know they
| can't keep is that useful.
| bnjms wrote:
| > I think Mercedes and other automakers have a good chance
| to bypass Tesla now since Elno is captivated by his Twitter
| acquisition.
|
| I've been disappointed in Elon for some time and feel
| society may have already taken him for all of his good
| ideas.
|
| So I'd bet the opposite. This is a chance for Tesla to
| recover and match the established auto makers. And the only
| chance they'll get.
| snotrockets wrote:
| So far, Tesla has been incapable of stepping up to be a
| major car manufacturer. There are many small car
| manufacturers, some build exquisite cars that are
| technological and design marvels, but what Ford realized
| early, and Nagoya perfected (just consider how many
| modern op practices originated there!) is that it's not
| about the machine, but about the infrastructure.
|
| This is both pre-sale, where you have to build a lean,
| mean, fast pipeline from vendors to assembly, and post-
| sales, where you have to have service infrastructure that
| spans continents, if not the world.
|
| Tesla so far shows very little signs of being able to do
| either. And just like Whitley failed and ended up being
| bought by Mumbai, my personal bet (caveat lector!) is
| that Tesla-the-brand might survive, but Tesla-the-car-
| manufacturer would end up a subsidiary of a Chinese car
| manufacturer, who has the car manufacturing chops, but
| can't build a brand.
| tiahura wrote:
| VW made about 4.5 Billion in profit in Q3. Tesla made
| about 3.3 Billion.
|
| Seems pretty major to me.
| erikstarck wrote:
| Yeah, and highest margin by far in the auto industry.
| While growing 50% per year.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| They are the highest margin because EVs are still supply
| limited. How smart people think that margin will survive
| once there is competition amazes me.
| tiahura wrote:
| Nobody thinks it will.
|
| However Tesla makes about $9000 in profit per car. If
| that is cut in half it still beats Toyota's $1200 by a
| wide margin.
| davidcbc wrote:
| Now that Elon has ruined his carefully crafted PR image
| of a real life Tony Stark we'll see how long that growth
| continues.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| Only the terminally online think people buy Teslas
| because of Elon
| brewdad wrote:
| I will never buy a Tesla because of Elon.
| XorNot wrote:
| No one thinks people buy Tesla's because of Elon.
|
| But people absolutely will _not buy_ Tesla 's because of
| Elon.
|
| Brands work hard to avoid negative sentiment for a
| reason.
| epistasis wrote:
| I have a Tesla, and love it (at least as much as I could
| ever love a car, I'd prefer a car-free life honestly).
|
| The worst thing about it isn't the panel gaps or
| reliability (haven't had any problems). The worst part is
| Elon Musk and his fans. Shortly after getting the car
| three and a half years ago, I was leaving an outdoor
| party and a man who was a Musk superfan was doing that
| waving of arms of worship that you sometimes see fans do
| at metal conferences, and it was just embarrassing.
| Previously the same man had been gushing about full self
| driving, and I said there was no chance it would be
| delivered on time, if ever, and he professed his undying
| trust in Musk.
|
| Combined with Musk's recent anti-Ukraine efforts, his
| hyper-partisan paranoia thay he's trying to push on
| Twitter, his hate for trans people, his hate for
| biological science exhibited throughout the pandemic and
| even today in his "jokes" about prosecuting Fauci, Musk
| is waging cultural war against every single aspect of my
| identity.
|
| I hate Musk so so so much, and I know he had almost
| nothing to do with the creation of the car I like, but it
| still pains me everytime I get in it to know that I
| helped such a despicable person make a ton of money.
| Never again will I buy a Tesla, especially since there
| are now competitors. I'm sure I would hate all the rest
| of the auto execs almost as much if I knew as much about
| them as I know about Musk, but the nice thing is that I
| _dont_ know a damn thing about Stellaris 's CEO, from
| their name to their former partners. And there's a lot of
| value to that, as a customer.
|
| Maybe Musk is just trying to win over conservatives and
| jackasses to but Teslas, but I doubt it. I think he's
| just a dangerous fool.
| api wrote:
| "You die a hero or live long enough to become a villain."
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| The difference between breaking Firefox nightly and writing
| software for a nuclear power plant.
| [deleted]
| davidkuennen wrote:
| It's actually 80 mph in Germany now [0], which makes this such
| a great and useful feature. It really feels like the future.
|
| [0] https://www.therobotreport.com/un-allows-autonomous-
| vehicles...
| andreyk wrote:
| I've been testing FSD, and I WISH their system did more to
| limit its use in bad conditions. The perception (based on
| dashboard visualization) is much worse during rain, yes Tesla
| lets you keep using FSD even in heavy rain.
| clashmoore wrote:
| Tesla was found to be deactivating the autopilot mode at the
| second before a crash [0]. I think it's for a dubious reason so
| that Tesla could declare none of their cars were in
| autopilot/FSD mode when involved in a crash.
|
| [0] PDF https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INOA-
| EA22002-3184.PDF
|
| "The agency's analysis of these sixteen subject first responder
| and road maintenance vehicle crashes indicated that Forward
| Collision Warnings (FCW) activated in the majority of incidents
| immediately prior to impact and that subsequent Automatic
| Emergency Braking (AEB) intervened in approximately half of the
| collisions. On average in these crashes, Autopilot aborted
| vehicle control less than one second prior to the first
| impact."
| agumonkey wrote:
| I fail to understand how would anyone at the top of any
| serious company would think bailing out at the last second
| would absolve them of anything.
| Geee wrote:
| This 'level 3' is just a very cheap marketing trick. The system
| is a very simple highway traffic jam assistant. This trick
| plays with the misconception that ADAS levels actually
| determine how advanced the system is. They get to claim 'level
| 3' with a very simple system by assuming liability in those
| conditions. It's just marketing, and has nothing to do with
| actual capabilities of the system.
| mosseater wrote:
| I mean personally the company assuming liability means A LOT
| more to me than how much the system can do. It's one thing to
| say your system can drive down a slick and curvy mountain
| road, and another thing to say you'll cover all liability if
| the car drives itself off the mountain. It's easy to write
| software the runs most of the time. This is our lives that
| we're talking about.
| Sakos wrote:
| Feels like the people here saying that Mercedes assuming
| liability doesn't matter are the same people who say it's
| your own fault if you lose your job and your healthcare and
| become poor.
| gzer0 wrote:
| Here is the full list of restrictions for the Drive Pilot legal
| liabities to take effect: Roads need to be
| premapped ahead of time with LiDAR Roads need to be pre-
| approved Car cannot go above 37 MPH limited-access
| divided highways with no stoplights no roundabouts
| no traffic control systems whatsoever no construction
| zones only operate during daytime Reasonably clear
| weather Without overhead obstructions
|
| It is actually _illegal_ to be going that slow on a highway, in
| Texas at least. This would simply be too dangerous to even
| allow.
|
| Let me know of any other system that is even remotely close to
| being able to do the following:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFAlwAawSvU
| gnicholas wrote:
| So it works on freeways when there's congestion, and the
| speed of traffic is < 37 MPH? Sounds like adaptive cruise
| control with lane keep (and insurance coverage, which isn't
| nothing).
| macspoofing wrote:
| >Sounds like adaptive cruise control with lane keep (and
| insurance coverage, which isn't nothing).
|
| Without the restriction that hands are on-wheel and driver
| is paying attention to the road. That's a BIG difference.
| vel0city wrote:
| > It is actually illegal to be going that slow on a highway,
| in Texas at least.
|
| I've been at a dead stop on many highways in Texas, along
| with hundreds of other cars around me. I see such things
| happening pretty often outside my office window.
|
| Honestly, times when I'm going <37MPH on a controlled access
| highway is some of the most annoying driving that I'd like to
| have completely automated. That usually means I'm in stop and
| go traffic, some of the most grating time to drive. Both of
| my cars are mostly there, keeping safe distances and coming
| to a stop with cruise control, but definitely not completely
| automated yet.
| snotrockets wrote:
| Texas has done a lot to increase the dangers caused by their
| roads, and don't seem like they plan to reroute. Just look at
| the current plans for the I-35, ffs.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _It is actually illegal to be going that slow on a highway,
| in Texas at least. This would simply be too dangerous to even
| allow._ "
|
| You don't live in Austin or Houston, do you? :-)
| lolinder wrote:
| People have mentioned this in other sub-threads, but it's
| explicitly intended for stop-and-go traffic jams:
|
| > Mercedez-Benz has announced approval of their "Drive Pilot"
| system, in Germany, which does fully autonomous operation in
| highway traffic jam situations.
|
| > ...
|
| > The Mercedes car provides the traffic jam assist function
| -- only on German motorways to start -- below 60 km/h. While
| people debate whether they want to drive their car or not,
| nobody likes driving in a traffic jam, and everybody hates
| the time wasted in them. As a luxury feature, this will let
| drivers make more productive use of that time.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2021/12/13/merced.
| ..
| slg wrote:
| But stop and go traffic jams in perfect conditions can
| already be handled properly by numerous companies' adaptive
| cruise control and lane keeping systems. I'm not sure why I
| should be impressed with Mercedes' tech here. The
| impressive aspect is that they are standing behind the tech
| by taking on liability, but that could easily just be
| considered a marketing expense rather than actual
| confidence in the technology. We have all heard the auto
| manufacturer anecdote from Fight Club. The math these
| companies do is based off money and not lives saved.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It's not a jump in technology. It's the result of a slow
| growth of that technology to "mature enough to take
| liability for". Which is a better way to move tons of
| machine around under computer control.
| lolinder wrote:
| Based on all the information I've seen, adaptive cruise
| control with lane keeping is all that Tesla is reliable
| at as well. The main difference between them and Mercedes
| is that Tesla is willing to put out tech that is known to
| be unreliable and let their customers take the fall for
| it.
| retSava wrote:
| Perhaps this is just a rebrand of that already common
| tech? Kind of how some manufacturers claim "we have AI!"
| just based on something simple like adapting to a moving
| average.
| yardie wrote:
| I haven't driven every car but none of the cars I've
| driven could actually handle stop and go traffic. They
| will certainly stop but leave it to you to press the
| accelerator to go again. Now on a highway with medium to
| light traffic they are plenty capable of managing it.
| ummonk wrote:
| The difference is that they're explicitly allowing the
| driver to stop paying attention to driving, which reduces
| fatigue, wasted time etc. It's actual level 3 self-
| driving tech rather than mere driver assistance tech.
|
| Of course, other driver assistance systems might be close
| to on par with it, but a system that successfully
| navigates stop and go traffic 99% of the time is very
| different from a system that successfully navigates stop
| and go traffic 100% of the time, in terms of driver
| attention required.
| slg wrote:
| I'm not sure level 3 is any safer than level 2. Level 3
| still requires a driver to intervene if the car requests
| it. But going from not paying attention to driving isn't
| something that can happen instantly. Imagine you are
| playing some game on your phone and alarms start going
| off in the car. You need to be able to process what those
| alarms are saying, assess the situation, and take control
| of the car. How quickly can people do that? Likely not
| fast enough to avoid any urgent issues. A driver in a
| level 2 system should already be paying attention so they
| should be able to respond quicker.
|
| And yes, I understand that drivers can get lazy with a
| level 2 system. But if the selling point of Mercedes is
| taking over liability from the driver, I am mostly
| concerned how the system would benefit me as a driver and
| I regularly use my car's level 2 features while paying
| attention.
| froh wrote:
| the difference is that level 2 requires you to take over
| at any time, immediately, while level 3 allows you to do
| something else and gives you some time (for drive pilot:
| 10 seconds) to take over. 10 seconds is quite some time
| in contrast to
| burnished wrote:
| I think for the proscribed use case the situation where
| you require human intervention is where the traffic jam
| clears up and it's time to drive at highway speed again.
| Not an emergency. I'm having a hard time imagining a
| situation where you would need to speedily regain
| complete control to avert a crisis that a human wouldn't
| already fail.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| I find the distinction between level 2 and level 3 to be
| unhelpful. How long do humans have to take over? Anything
| less than 20 seconds is not very feasible IMO.
|
| Taking liability is an interesting PR move, but I don't
| think it matters in stop and go traffic where speeds are
| relatively low and damage is typically minimal if any.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Collisions at 40mph / 60km/h are no laughing matter. And
| as far as I understand, the Mercedes system will let you
| know well ahead of time if you have to take over, as that
| would only be required as you leave the designated area.
| Taking over to drive faster than the limit for drive
| pilot would never be a requirement.
| ummonk wrote:
| If 10 seconds isn't enough to orient yourself and take
| over after the car alerts you to do so, you shouldn't be
| driving a car.
| macspoofing wrote:
| >But stop and go traffic jams in perfect conditions can
| already be handled properly by numerous companies'
| adaptive cruise control and lane keeping systems.
|
| And do those adaptive cruise control/lane keeping systems
| allow the driver to take their hands off the wheel and
| stop paying attention to the road?
| vel0city wrote:
| Stop and go traffic jams aren't _completely_ automated by
| most ADAS systems. For one, you 're still completely
| liable for it failing. Secondly, most of those lane keep
| assists will still let your car wander out of the lane if
| you really don't pay attention, they mostly just tug at
| the wheel to help you notice drift or will beep at you.
| Finally, a lot of those will require manual intervention
| for it to start moving again after a full stop.
|
| Mercedes implementation takes the legal liability. It
| will definitely stay in its own lane without any driver
| input. It will continue going again after a full stop all
| on its own.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > It is actually illegal to be going that slow on a highway,
| in Texas at least. This would simply be too dangerous to even
| allow.
|
| So does the Texas Highway Patrol ticket everyone in a traffic
| jam? They almost certainly don't, which should be a big clue
| that it's not so simple.
|
| This appears to be the actual law in Texas:
|
| https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._transp._code_section_.
| ..
|
| > (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the
| normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when
| reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in
| compliance with law.
|
| > ...
|
| > (c) If appropriate signs are erected giving notice of a
| minimum speed limit adopted under this section, an operator
| may not drive a vehicle more slowly than that limit except as
| necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
|
| It's not safely operating a vehicle to go 40mph in 10mph
| traffic.
| pkaye wrote:
| > But there's one key difference: Once you engage Drive Pilot,
| you are no longer legally liable for the car's operation until
| it disengages.
|
| What if they disengage right before an accident in order to
| transfer the liability to you?
| froh wrote:
| they don't. the Mercedes drives on for at least ten seconds
| until you take over in that traffic jam on highway scenario,
| under all circumstances.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| If the car knows that it's about to be in an unavoidable
| accident and it is at fault, it has acknowledged that it has
| fucked up. To think that Mercedes wouldn't find itself in an
| expensive legal battle the first time that this happens would
| be ridiculous.
|
| But I would expect that the disengagement is much less abrupt
| than what Autopilot/FSD do. From [0]:
|
| > After consulting with the engineer in the passenger seat, I
| closed my eyes completely, and just eight or nine seconds
| later a prompt popped up asking me to confirm I was still
| alert. I ignored it, which soon started the 10-second
| countdown toward disengagement.
|
| Which makes sense: if the point of the system is for you to
| be able to turn around and help your kids for a few seconds
| or watch a TV show on the center console, they simply can't
| expect that they can ding and have you regain control
| instantly.
|
| [0] https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1136914_mercedes-
| drive-p...
| r053bud wrote:
| 40 MPH is absolutely too slow for a highway, dangerous even. Is
| this for surface roads?
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _limited-access divided highways with no stoplights,
| roundabouts, or other traffic control systems_
|
| Yeah I don't understand where exactly this would be usable,
| at least around where I live. If it's a divided highway, it
| would have to have stoplights. Are there places where divided
| highways have stop signs?
| snowwrestler wrote:
| A limited-access divided highway does not have stoplights
| or stop signs, or any intersections at all. Cars enter and
| exit the roadway exclusively via on- or off-ramps.
| gen220 wrote:
| My guess is that it's intended to be used in the entire
| State of Connecticut, between the hours of 8AM and 10AM and
| 4PM and 6PM. i.e. situations where the highway is doing its
| best impression of a Dunkin' Drive-Thru.
|
| Signed, slightly-jaded person who drives the Boston<>NYC
| track enough to be slightly-jaded.
|
| ---
|
| Or, Wareham -> Barnstable on Cape Cod, on any weekend
| morning for 6 months out of the year. Or 101 in the CA Bay
| Area during rush hour.
|
| Basically, any time+place where the the thought of driving
| elicits an audible moan from the people then and there.
| toast0 wrote:
| A stop sign is a traffic control system, FWIW. They're
| saying a freeway, more or less, although the low top speed
| means really a freeway during congestion.
| kingnothing wrote:
| It's intended for use on interstates and highways during
| stop and go traffic jams.
| gnicholas wrote:
| So it's basically adaptive cruise control with lane
| keeping? I guess they don't have to worry about turns
| that are too sharp (which an be troubling for lane-keep
| systems) because they're limiting it to freeways that are
| meant to be driven at 70 MPH, but only when the speed of
| traffic is half that.
| Linosaurus wrote:
| They are also trying to convince regulators that they,
| not you, are legally responsible for any incidents. As
| long as you are ready to take over with a ten second
| warning.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Limited-access divided highway in this context means
| freeways and toll roads with walls to roadsides. It is
| generally considered acceptable to operate dangerous robot
| machines in a fenced off areas with enough precautions, and
| that isn't much different in philosophy to a self driving
| car on such a highway.
| vel0city wrote:
| I've been on many rural roads with divided county highways
| with stop signs.
|
| And as others have mentioned it's still a traffic control
| device.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| > Yeah I don't understand where exactly this would be
| usable, at least around where I live.
|
| German autobahn.
| gnicholas wrote:
| < 37 MPH?
| dual_dingo wrote:
| Stop and go is an all too common thing on the Autobahn,
| often during rush hour in areas near large cities.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| If you are thinking of places like Hamburg then the terms
| and conditions forbid it because the motorways in the
| Hamburg area are all construction zones and have been for
| at least the last five years that I have driven through
| them.
| [deleted]
| Karppu wrote:
| From my understanding it's initially meant for use e.g. in
| slow moving traffic jams on highways. They're working towards
| getting it approved for up to 130kmh.
|
| There's some very general info here:
| https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-
| if-...
| judge2020 wrote:
| I don't see how 'approval' is required for _anything_. Not
| for lane-keeping at high speeds, and not for Mercedes to
| take liability for accidents while their technology is
| active at high speeds.
| dual_dingo wrote:
| Luckily, the law disagrees in most countries and you need
| to get a type approval before you can sell a new car type
| or new assistive technologies. I would not want to live
| in world where this is not the case.
| bscphil wrote:
| > From my understanding it's initially meant for use e.g.
| in slow moving traffic jams on highways.
|
| I'm guessing the feasibility of this is very city-
| dependent. in LA, the usual traffic pattern is "drive 60-70
| mph for 20 seconds, slow down to 5 mph for 60 seconds,
| repeat". (Granted that that's because of poor drivers, it
| would be better to have a consistent speed of 30 mph, but
| there's nothing Mercedes can do about that either way.)
| trgn wrote:
| Just to piggy back on the 40mph callout, but I would like to
| see self driving cars never really drive more than 5mph under
| the speed limit. It would have a great calming effect on
| traffic. If they combine that with very conservative
| acceleration, it would be even better, much less of that
| rushing and accordion effect that's causing so many crashes.
|
| Instead, Tesla fsd, at least from the youtube videos, looks
| like it's driving like a BMW-driver. Way way way too
| aggressive.
|
| The biggest contributors to car crashes is speed and not
| enough distance from car in front. If self-driving cars would
| exaggerate the basic premises of safe driving, low speed, low
| acceleration, long distance, ... it would be really good for
| traffic overall imho.
| vel0city wrote:
| Driving significantly slower than the pace of traffic is
| dangerous. If the average pace of traffic is 5mph over but
| your car won't go faster than 5 under, you're now going
| 10mph less than everyone around you.
|
| Speed differentials kill.
| trgn wrote:
| > Speed differentials kill.
|
| That's the cope people use for habitual speeding. 10mh is
| not significant differential. 30 vs 60 on a highway,
| sure, 55 vs 65, not at all.
|
| You should actually try it once. Go five under the speed
| limit and keep generous distance with the car in front of
| you. You'll barely notice it. Traffic will be ahead of
| you, you won't pass anybody. The biggest thing to get
| over is the ego-thing.
|
| As you are doing this, then also pay attention to your
| capacity to act on any emergency stop you may have to
| make (dog sprinting across, car slamming their breaks,
| ...) and how much much more time and capacity you will
| have to respond.
|
| The other thing that peoples mind immediately go to
| multi-lane highways. Never the other 70-80% of driving,
| in town, single lanes, where going slower is always
| manifestly better.
| vel0city wrote:
| I've seen it many times before. I got people bunching up
| behind me, riding my bumper, cutting me off, swerving
| around me, causing near misses in other lanes as they cut
| other people off trying to pass. It causes backups near
| ramps to get on and off highways, backups which often
| result in rear end collisions, partially because...ding
| ding ding _speed differentials_.
|
| Also, acting in capacity to react in an emergency is more
| about following distance than speed. And yeah, as speed
| increases a driver needs to increase their follow
| distance. Something that I agree loads of people fail at
| doing and then complain about their ADAS systems always
| slamming on the brakes suddenly.
|
| > where going slower is always manifestly better.
|
| Just tell that to all the cyclists going < 20mph in
| 40-50MPH roads. They're way safer going that speed than
| those fools driving their cars near the speed limit. It's
| often not safe for them, partially because... _speed
| differentials_. To solve this, we shouldn 't just
| restrict cars to only go cycling speeds, we should build
| infrastructure so similar speed traffic is grouped
| together and separate, reducing... _speed differentials_.
|
| If I started driving my car 5mph in a 40mph road, I'd
| probably cause more accidents than if I just went along
| with traffic at 43mph.
|
| Speed differentials kill.
| watwut wrote:
| Overwhelming majority of time I was driving on highway,
| the right lane went below speed limit. That makes up
| quite a lot of cars that go below it.
|
| And I used to drive exactly speed limit (as measured by
| GPS) and that maded me among the _faster_ cars on
| highway. Only few cars went faster then me.
|
| I made effort to slow down lately and can confirm that
| the biggest and only issue to overcome is the ego and the
| knee jerk "being there faster makes you better driver"
| kind of thinking.
| trgn wrote:
| > Just tell that to all the cyclists going < 20mph in
| 40-50MPH roads
|
| That's again a 20-30 speed deferential, not to mention a
| huge difference in weight. We're talking about a 5-10 one
| between cars.
|
| Also, if it's a heavy freight truck going 20 in a 40mph
| single lane. yeah, no issue at all with that speed
| deferential isn't there? Maybe the problem is here the
| inattentive, impatient drivers plowing through the
| cyclist?
|
| > acting in capacity to react in an emergency is more
| about following distance than speed
|
| The cars in front are not the only hazards.
|
| Overall, I think you're making it too extreme. I'm not
| saying you should be going 20 on a highway. I'm saying
| going 5 under a posted speed limit is actually very
| reasonable, and it's what self driving cars (and human
| drivers) should do. It will reduce crashes. I think we
| disagree there.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| So it's adaptive cruise control? That's an absurdly low bar.
| ender341341 wrote:
| If they're claiming legal responsibility for it causing any
| crashes I'd say they're setting a pretty high bar as far as
| confidence goes.
| dheera wrote:
| I really wish they would cut this "Level" nonsense, that system
| was invented by business people, not engineers.
|
| Interventions are more nuisanced than just "Did the driver
| intervene". Many times I intervene and take control while using
| Tesla FSD not out of safety reasons, but to be nice to other
| drivers, or for a smoother ride. It tends to love passing other
| cars on the right and not letting cars into merges, for
| example. It also brake a little hard at traffic jams, for
| instance, not nearly to a point where it would be a safety
| issue, but when I see a traffic jam far ahead I would begin
| decelerating much, much earlier just for the comfort of myself
| and passengers.
|
| That said, FSD is nowhere near ready, I do have a huge number
| of safety related interventions as well, but reducing this to a
| number like L3 or L4 is trying to oversimplify a problem that
| isn't simple.
| vel0city wrote:
| ADAS Levels were standardized by the Society of Automotive
| _Engineers_. Are you saying the Society of Automotive
| _Engineers_ are all just business people and not engineers?
| esalman wrote:
| > But the big promise from Mercedes is that it would take legal
| liability for any accidents that occurs during Drive Pilot's
| operation
|
| I am a FSD skeptic but I might be sold on this.
| hacoo wrote:
| I'm no Tesla fanboy, but it should be said that publicly reported
| miles per disengagement metics are complete bullshit. Different
| companies have wildly different criteria for "disengagement".
| Those reporting 1000mi+ between disengagements (at least in urban
| settings) are only doing so because they aren't counting the vast
| majority of events.
| calcifer wrote:
| > Those reporting 1000mi+ between disengagements (at least in
| urban settings) are only doing so because they aren't counting
| the vast majority of events.
|
| Source? Do you work at one of those companies?
| cjdoc29 wrote:
| I will say, FSD has genuinely gotten better over the last year. I
| would not trust it to drive without a driver monitoring it. But
| I've had ~20mi trips end-to-end (surface streets and freeways)
| without requiring disengagement. It's been a great driver assist
| - but it's not true FSD.
|
| That said, it still does dumb things like:
|
| * Getting in the left-most turn lane when I will make a right
| turn immediately after a left. This usually results in a
| disengagement or me having to change lanes immediately after
| turning.
|
| * Changing lanes, but the process sometimes makes it so that I
| change lanes in an intersection. This is illegal.
|
| * Not stopping at the crosswalk on the right-most lane on a red.
| I expect the car to stop firmly at the intersection and then
| slowly creep out.
| pmarreck wrote:
| Musk has tweeted about the importance of transparency/candor
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598858533608431617?s=46...
| and yet does not release recent FSD safety data. This is simply
| hypocritical.
| Animats wrote:
| The California DMV has been licensing autonomous vehicles since
| 2014. There are three categories of license. Testing with a
| safety driver is the learners permit: must have licensed driver
| ready to take over, no driving for hire, no large vehicles. About
| 45 companies have a learner's permit. Driverless testing is the
| next step up: no driver in the vehicle, but a remote link and
| observer. 7 companies have that permit.
|
| Finally comes deployment: no driver, paying passengers, remote
| monitoring.[1] Three companies are far enough along for
| driverless car deployment in California: Waymo, Cruise, and Nuro.
| Waymo is going about 13,000 miles between disconnects now. The
| remote monitoring center can reset.
|
| Waymo is still being very cautious. Only in Phoenix, AZ is the
| service really deployed. There's a service in San Francisco, but
| you have to sign up as a "trusted tester" and it's mostly Google
| employees. When it goes live in SF, then this is real. Waymo has
| a new vehicle they're showing. It's an electric van with no
| steering wheel. Not clear how far away deployment is.
|
| Tesla isn't even trying to qualify for autonomy in California any
| more. They've given up. They used to whine about being "over-
| regulated". What they hated was having to report all disconnects
| and accidents to DMV, which publishes them.
|
| [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-
| services/auto...
|
| [2] https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/21/23471183/waymo-zeekr-
| gee...
| killjoywashere wrote:
| > partnered with Chinese automaker Geely
|
| (+deg#deg)+( +-+
|
| Are you telling me there are no American companies they could
| have partnered with? Why would you willingly give US dollars to
| the CCP for a free market R&D effort?
| Animats wrote:
| Waymo has previously partnered with Chrysler/FCA/Stellantis,
| and Jaguar. They don't seem to be strongly committed to a
| vehicle maker.
| d23 wrote:
| > Tesla isn't even trying to qualify for autonomy in California
| any more. They've given up. They used to whine about being
| "over-regulated". What they hated was having to report all
| disconnects and accidents to DMV, which publishes them.
|
| Sunlight as a disinfectant indeed.
| outside1234 wrote:
| It is not hard to imagine that Tesla is going to die at this
| rate.
|
| Where the moat? Traditional car makers are catching up on
| electric and already have superior build quality. And if
| anything, Tesla is behind on FSD.
| jsight wrote:
| My other car with TACC and autosteer claims to be a pro pilot,
| but can't handle a shallow curve and also accelerates towards
| stopped traffic fast enough to trigger its own collision
| warning.
|
| Tesla will be fine.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Supercharger network is the only moat. In all other respects
| other EVs beat Tesla feature for feature.
|
| Maybe the gov't will squash FSD and Tesla will have an epiphany
| and decide to refocus their efforts on the basics where they're
| quickly falling behind. Hell, maybe they'll start including the
| better technology the competition relies on, and try to stick
| to just the things they're good at. Which is ... I don't know.
| Image seekers?
| bin_bash wrote:
| Still superchargers for now
| foepys wrote:
| In Europe there is regulatory pressure to open all publicly
| accessible charging stations to be open to all vehicles.
|
| If superchargers are Tesla's main advantage, they are not
| only in competition with auto makers but with all electricity
| providers in an increasingly competitive market.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| Tesla is certainly behind on FSD. What that team has produced
| so far is nothing short of amazing, but gosh, their boss sure
| hasn't helped their credibility.
|
| I can say that after experiencing the software of the BMW i4
| and the Audi e-tron -- holy cow, Supercharger is certainly not
| the only advantage of a Tesla. Audi's is laughably bad. BMW's
| is better than Audi's. Both are much worse than Tesla.
|
| The obvious retort there is: but Tesla's competitors will get
| better. And sure, they will. You're right. But Tesla likewise
| has their own R&D investments and unreleased products.
|
| I think sometimes when we talk about competitive landscape, we
| tend to say "Company B will catch up to Company A" while in our
| minds falsely imagining Company A as being static. Both Company
| A and B are moving, but in Tesla's case, they had a ten year
| jump on tightly integrated hardware + software. I think it's
| likely that continues to yield dividend.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Tesla's software is also shit compared to most of the
| American brands, Porsche, and with 22+ MY vehicles, even
| Toyota/Lexus have better infotainment/software/sensors.
|
| It's literally just a good battery and good charging. That's
| all Elon has, and that advantage will die in 5 years.
| hax0ron3 wrote:
| It has been obvious to me ever since, a few years ago, Musk
| promised that fully self-driving robotaxis were going to be on
| the roads a year in the future that he is a con artist and/or
| ridiculously over-optimistic about self-driving technology.
|
| But is this why I am seeing this article on Hacker News now? Or
| am I seeing it now because Musk pissed off a bunch of people who
| disagree with his political stances?
| maxdo wrote:
| You are comparing apples to burgers. Mercedes system attacks
| narrow scope ( gaps in traffic approved roads, certain speed
| conditions) etc. They bring for that lots of expensive hardware.
| Tesla is trying to build general AI. Wether they will succeed or
| not, it's a debate. But basically Mercedes strategy is do
| something NOW with expensive hardware where Tesla strategy do way
| more in the future, with cheap, 5 y.o. hardware
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| One of the comments points out:
|
| > Comparing Telsa's disengagements for its FSD beta, which can
| drive anywhere, against autopilots that work only on (certain)
| highways is not very comparable. At least compare highway to
| highway disengagements.
|
| I own a Tesla, but do not have FSD (Not interested in it at all
| beyond being a party trick). After 3 years and 20,000 miles, I
| can say that I've never had to disengage AP because of imminent
| danger, though I HAVE had many times where the lane is splitting
| and AP can't decide which way to go, so I had to take control.
| Likewise, when a lane is merging, it would sometimes jerk left
| and right a bit and I'd take over. Both cases were more for
| comfort than safety.
|
| Total, I'd probably average 5 miles per disengagement, but that's
| just so I can change lanes since the base AP does not include
| lane changing.
| KyleJune wrote:
| I have FSD and owned my M3 for the same amount of time. With
| FSD you get Navigate on Autopilot that handles lane changes on
| the highway. It has the same issues you see. The lane changing
| isn't great, it wants to change lanes more frequently than I do
| and will often try going into the fast lane even though there
| is significantly faster traffic coming that I would be slowing
| down. I often have to disable navigate on autopilot to keep it
| in lane because it will suggest changing lanes, I'll cancel,
| then a minute later it will suggest it again.
|
| I'm hoping once the two stacks are merged, that will improve.
|
| The other problem I have on high ways is I can't really use it
| in stop and go traffic. If I do, it will frequently accelerate
| to fast from being stopped then have to break hard when traffic
| reaches a stop again. Too jerky for my comfort.
|
| Overall, when I can use it, it makes driving less stressful. I
| drive 600 mile round trips a few times per year and am able to
| have it engaged vast majority of the time on highways.
|
| FSD Beta on city streets requires too frequent overrides for it
| to be anything more than a party trick at the moment. Even in
| very rural areas it will have problems of either not changing
| lanes when it should or changing lanes when it shouldn't.
|
| Auto parking worked great for me initially but something
| changed and it is never able to detect parking spots for me.
| The few times it does it just flickers on the screen then
| disappears, resulting in me not being able to use the feature.
| I'm not sure if this is because of a problem with sensors or if
| it's related to me being in the FSD Beta. I've been in the FSD
| Beta for over a year now.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Something interesting to me, as someone with a 2020 base-level
| Forester, is that you describe my experience completely. It
| works great on most highways, but needs me when lanes split or
| merge.
|
| Of course it's not 1:1. AP has other features, such as a much
| nicer UI that better reports what it thinks it sees, and I
| think has sexy lane changing features and such.
|
| But it makes me feel that FSD was more business necessary to
| keep a competitive advantage against cheap cars. Soon many
| cheap cars will have AP-like features at comparable fidelities.
| dummydata wrote:
| I have the exact same experience with AP. I trust it on
| highways until a merge or lane split is ahead. I think it's so
| silly that the decision making isn't more robust..
|
| If I can't trust AP with simple road rules, then why bother
| upgrading to FSD?
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| FSD handles road rules significantly better: the road up to
| my house has a complicated five-way intersection with a
| railroad crossing that EAP could never handle. FSD navigates
| it perfectly. For my 40 minute compute, there are about three
| spots where there's predictable road issues that force me to
| disengage (no safety issue, just the car gets really
| hesitant) but otherwise it's obviously an upgrade from non-
| FSD.
| tzs wrote:
| > I can say that I've never had to disengage AP because of
| imminent danger, though I HAVE had many times where the lane is
| splitting and AP can't decide which way to go, so I had to take
| control.
|
| This suggests a trivia question, which I do not know the answer
| to: what lane in the US goes the farthest without a split or
| dead-end? Similar question for other countries.
|
| I'd count most freeway exit ramps as splits from the adjacent
| lane, but would not count intersections with cross streets as
| splits unless the two roads intersect at a small angle. It is
| the actual lane that matters, not its name, so if a lane has a
| name change when it crosses some political boundary it still
| counts as the same line.
|
| My first guess would be it is on some long freeway like I-10.
| My second guess would be it is on some rural road through the
| middle of nowhere.
| vl wrote:
| US is surprisingly bad at this though: in Germany, you get on
| Autobahn and you know the lane you are in is going to go
| forever. In US you get on a highway, get to the leftmost
| lane, it gets to the city, you driver straight and suddenly
| find yourself in the exit lane on the right? Who designs
| highways this way?!?!
| defterGoose wrote:
| I was _brake checked_ by a Tesla while driving home on the 10W
| the other day. My first thought was, "what the hell man, you're
| in the #1 lane without a car in sight in front of you?!". Then I
| realized that the car had probably disengaged AP and this
| involved the cruise control disengaging and slowing (i.e.
| braking) the car.
|
| I had already known that Tesla drivers using AP was a major cause
| of slow, too-far-following-distance driving (which is why I take
| every opportunity to cross in front of a Tesla doing 60ish), but
| this was a whole 'nother level of literally "fuck you, pay
| attention until you get home, asshole".
|
| /Rant.
|
| P.S. Tesla drivers are absolutely the new Prius drivers.
|
| Edit: and the fact that the behavior of "if there's a car
| following don't slow abruptly" isn't a 0-th level if loop in the
| FSD algorithm is completely inexcusable. Shit needs to be
| regulated _now_.
| kossTKR wrote:
| Knowing little about how the FSD chip works, is the fact that it
| runs locally and not on some super cluster a bottleneck in
| performance right now?
|
| The fact that it's only in the last year or so that
| Stability/OpenAI and efficient hardware like before mentioned
| processors that can produce relatively fast and accurate results
| in the NN sphere makes me wonder if it's just "too early" to have
| self driving cars?
|
| ChatGPT still requires a supercluster to run and as a layman one
| would think video analysis with near zero latency would be even
| more demanding.
|
| Also how does it compare to to apples newer Arm based
| architecture and Neural Engine which as far as i know is a good
| example of in-house designing (not production off course).
| ody4242 wrote:
| Imho, if Tesla could train a huge neural network to demonstrate
| that self driving is possible with their sw stack, they would
| have done that already to let Elon Musk have it's road show
| with it's capabilities.
|
| (Running ChatGPT does not require a supercluster, training the
| model does)
| quenix wrote:
| I don't think it would be feasible to do cloud analysis on a
| live video stream in self-driving context. The latency would
| simply be too high, and a single internet hiccup would result
| in a dangerous situation. So I think all the models run
| locally.
| narrator wrote:
| As a stock market investor that is purely self-interested in
| predicting the direction of stocks and who could not give a crap
| about your opinion on Elon's latest tweet, it's EXTREMELY
| interesting to see TSLA flip from getting a pass on everything to
| getting bad PR on everything. It's like a case study in a fall
| from grace of a company because of political factors.
|
| I feel like a good way to play the market with all this is to
| look at mainstream media news service articles about TSLA before
| the Twitter purchase and after the Twitter purchase and train
| them to spot the sentiment difference in the before and after
| articles. It would serve as an early warning sign that the
| company has been switched from being boosted or trashed.
|
| One funny thing is before the Twitter purchase, alt-right outlets
| like ZeroHedge were constantly mocking Tesla and predicting its
| imminent demise during its gigantic run up while mainstream
| outlets were throughly praising it. Now, it's the other way
| around.
| bhauer wrote:
| It truly is fascinating to what degree news coverage is
| politically biased. Partisanship rules everything.
|
| As you point out, the stark flip-flop of roles between left and
| right-leaning coverage of Tesla is almost hilarious when
| observed from any "neutral" point of view. Even in this HN
| comment thread, the emotional injection of political points
| throughout is both funny and disheartening.
| sethd wrote:
| I know that a lot of Tesla fans view FSD as a sort of tip jar to
| throw extra money towards the cause but I have a feeling
| regulators and gov attorneys will come to see it quite
| differently.
| bin_bash wrote:
| Yeah I would've been one of these fans until I tried FSD
| yesterday (see my other comment). I suspect now that it's been
| GA for a week or so a lot of people are going to change their
| mind like I did.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| I'm kind of amazed there hasn't been more government action on
| this.
| torartc wrote:
| Calling it FSD ever should be considered straight up fraud.
| xnx wrote:
| Good example of the 2nd-order effects of how being "aggressive"
| on putting self-driving into the hands of drivers can cost lives.
| Not only can Tesla "F"SD cost lives directly through accidents,
| it could sour peoples' opinions of more mature driving systems
| like Waymo's and delay our shift to safer, automated, drivers.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I think 'awful' is underselling it a bit here. The fact this is
| allowed to be in widespread use in the hands of amateur 'beta
| testers' is horrifying. I'm surprised USDOT hasn't put the kibosh
| on it yet.
| sshine wrote:
| I've commuted a bit on the German highways. I only run Autosteer,
| which is cruise-control + lane-control, and it disengages almost
| every time there's roadwork.
|
| It is very bad at handling ambiguity when the road has both white
| and yellow navigation lines. There's a number of scenarios, some
| of which involve criss-crossing lines, some where they run mostly
| in parallel.
|
| The car sometimes wants to follow the white lines when the yellow
| are actually overrides. When the yellow lines are wrong (and
| should rightfully have been scraped off), this always leads to
| disengagement. For stretches where the yellow lines are correct,
| and the older white lines are off by half a meter so that there's
| effectively not enough space between the white lines and the
| concrete side, autosteer will sometimes try to switch to the
| white lines, which would lead to the car smashing into the
| concrete side.
|
| And sure, autosteer != FSD. But it's a much simpler problem that
| the Tesla still basically fails at.
|
| Sometimes, in fog, cruise-control will abrubtly break. Very
| nerve-wrecking.
|
| Relying fully on vision has its downside. Listening to Kaparthy
| on Lex Fridman's podcast, it sounds like this was cost-cutting. I
| can't believe that "nope, that big white thing isn't a wall" is
| not objectively better navigation.
| cvak wrote:
| I tried VW(+Skoda), BMW, and Stelantis(Citroen/DS/Peugeot
| models) "Autosteer" in past year(changing comanies, waiting for
| new company car to be build while having Hertz rentals), plus I
| had autosteer with adaptive CC in Skoda from 2018.
|
| It got a lot better over the 2018 thing, that tried to crash
| itself on several roadworks, I actually almost scratch the car
| in first 100km I had it because of it.
|
| My latest BMW works perfectly fine in German roadworks with
| bright yellow lanes, Also all the stelantis cars I've driven
| (all 2020+ models) worked fine in that conditions.
|
| Camera system has problems when there's fog, or direct sun in
| precise angles. Radar has problems where there's lot of rain,
| and rainsplash from trucks, or snowy conditions, and the front
| radar gets frozen.
|
| But it's awesome as assistive system.
| cjrp wrote:
| Skoda/VW lane assist feels like it would bounce you back and
| forth between the lane markings if you just let it do it's
| thing; more useful a backup system to stop you crossing the
| line when you have a lapse in concentration (which is how
| they describe it I believe).
| sz4kerto wrote:
| Yep, its function is basically: if your child distracts you
| and you don't pay attention for a few seconds then it'll
| try preventing you sliding into the other lane. Which is
| fine.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > And sure, autosteer != FSD. But it's a much simpler problem
| that the Tesla still basically fails at.
|
| They've publicly admitted that the entire autosteer codebase
| hasn't been touched in over 4 years, since they fully pivoted
| to getting FSD in a usable level 2 state.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| This comment made me wonder how they train the car for
| different sets of traffic rules. Some of this goes beyond
| formal rules. On most US highways you are technically supposed
| to overtake on the right, but it's totally common. In contrast
| in much of Europe this is actually enforced and the convention
| is that you only leave the rightmost lane while overtaking.
|
| Do you do 100% of training on data from the same region? Are
| there low-level skills that all translate and don't bring the
| risk of training contradictory expectations? Can you just
| annotate training data with the rule set/location that applies?
| D13Fd wrote:
| > On most US highways you are technically supposed to
| overtake on the right
|
| You mean the left?
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Yeah, sorry, I omitted the "not". In practice both seem
| believable looking at traffic here.
| 9dev wrote:
| I think they meant ,,aren't technically supposed to", that
| makes more sense
| Barrin92 wrote:
| when it comes to decision-making there is a lot of hardcoded
| rules in these systems. They don't learn the speed limits or
| to stop at red lights. The learning is all in the perception
| and object recognition but a lot of the behavior is just
| explicit rules.
| Zigurd wrote:
| This is an example of the risks of vertical integration. Some
| of what Tesla needed/chose to do itself is paying off. More
| integration into a single electronics system puts Tesla ahead
| of an industry trend with many unique features.
|
| But rolling your own ADAS _and_ FSD might result in having
| spent a lot for a result that is inferior to what ADAS
| suppliers can sell to other car OEMs, with no substantial
| benefit to the FSD effort, which is much riskier, with the
| added, and perhaps gratuitous risk of trying to do FSD with
| only camera sensors. The risks in that are not just it is a
| risky approach to real time sensor data, but that the data all
| your cars are collecting is worth a lot less for not having a
| LIDAR point cloud providing 3D data.
| dmix wrote:
| I'm most curious how Teslas autosteer compares to CommaAI (or
| other offerings). I've been seriously considering letting
| CommaAIs set of supported cars to try it out.
|
| It'd be cool if there was a yearly competition to rank the
| basic lane keeping/speed matching/turning. Eventually when it's
| actually full-self-driving they can rank FSD.
| chroma wrote:
| This[1] is one of the videos on comma.ai's website.[2] I
| count at least 10 disengagements. It doesn't even follow the
| road in some cases.
|
| 1. https://youtube.com/watch?v=NmBfgOanCyk
|
| 2. https://comma.ai/openpilot
| techwizrd wrote:
| My brother uses CommaAI's openpilot on his Honda HR-V, and
| it's really quite interesting. It does pretty well where
| we've tested in Virginia and Maryland, but we haven't
| compared it head-to-head against Tesla's offering.
| nosianu wrote:
| Talking about "lane assist" on a German Autobahn - I had a bad,
| if not worse anecdote with a French (the model) rental car one
| or two years ago. I did not know that assistant was on, but had
| I known I would have thought nothing of it.
|
| Because what happened really surprised me: Entering a
| construction zone _the assistant took the wheel away from
| me(!!!)_. I was steering manually, normally, but the assistant
| insisted I follow the previous line in the road, that lead
| right into the construction zone. Which was behind a concrete
| divider.
|
| I actually had to _fight_ the "assistant", with not
| insignificant use of force on the wheel, to not crash sideways
| into that divider wall.
| ridgered4 wrote:
| I swear my car was (gently) fighting my steering here due to
| the lane keep feature before I turned it off. I frequently
| drive around potholes and dead animals and don't need the car
| trying to fix that for me.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Bit by bit, it gets harder to figure out how buying a Tesla is
| ever the right answer. Autosteer (beta) is worse than the
| competition, traffic aware cruise control is timid to the point
| of braking for things which don't even exist, you don't get
| basic things like ultrasonic sensors, radar, rain-sensing
| wipers, or even carplay. And even when they do include
| something that sounds halfway cool, it turns out to be
| underwhelming -- the matrix headlights are all of 100 pixels,
| which would have been cool about 10 years ago. And they aren't
| even enabled. Given how poor automatic high beams are, do we
| really want to see how Tesla matrix headlights would work in
| real life?
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| People will pay more for cars that project images they want
| to project. This explains pretty much all the car preference
| patterns for people who have enough money sloshing around
| that they don't need to purely focus on maximizing utility
| for cost but who don't have "I don't care what you think"
| money.
| tzs wrote:
| > Bit by bit, it gets harder to figure out how buying a Tesla
| is ever the right answer
|
| Great car or great charging network. Pick one.
|
| If you pick charging network get a Tesla. Otherwise get
| something else.
| mbesto wrote:
| This.
|
| I really want to sell my Model S (for like an Audi for
| example), but no one can compete with its battery:
|
| https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1k1DOw-
| NwvW8E8tQeXlac...
| judge2020 wrote:
| Or rather, the Hummer EV has the battery of two Model S
| cars! It just is twice as inefficient..
| mmmmmbop wrote:
| Their charging network is open to all cars, not just Tesla.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Not in the US.
| tzs wrote:
| ...in some countries in Europe [1]. It's not quite there
| yet in the US [2].
|
| [1] https://www.tesla.com/support/non-tesla-supercharging
|
| [2] https://cars.usnews.com/cars-
| trucks/features/superchargers-o...
| vel0city wrote:
| "All cars" is absolutely not true. If I drive up to a
| Tesla Supercharger with my Mach E in the US, I'd have no
| way to charge my car. The Tesla charger has a proprietary
| plug that needs a proprietary app with a proprietary
| payment network to start the charge.
|
| Tesla chargers _are not_ open, in the slightest. Them
| publishing specs online on the physical plug design doesn
| 't make it open to everyone. There's still lots of Tesla
| IP that covers those specs and designs. Tesla won't
| license it to other automakers unless other automakers
| essentially never enforce any of their IP.
| mmmmmbop wrote:
| Thanks for pointing that out. I genuinely was under the
| impression that it was open to all cars, so I learned
| something new today. It made me realize I fell prey to
| Tesla's PR.
| starik36 wrote:
| > Autosteer (beta) is worse than the competition
|
| Autosteer on our Tesla Model 3 is actually pretty great. I
| use it all the time because it makes driving a lot less
| tiring, especially over long distances. I don't know where
| you get your information.
|
| As far as competition, our other car Kia Forte 2022 now comes
| with Autosteer like feature as well. With that, unless, the
| lines are pristinely painted, you are literally taking your
| life into your own hands.
| cyri wrote:
| same here! i love the autosteer in my Sept 2019 Model 3.
| buildbuildbuild wrote:
| Ranking by miles per disengagement without context as to which
| roads the vehicles drove on does not feel like the most useful
| metric. (On a track? In a well-mapped city? Cross-country on
| highways?)
| cma wrote:
| Limiting to a well mapped city should be a point in favor of
| Cruise and Waymo, they are operating it with more restraint.
| Normalize for the raw difficulty of the area (city vs highway,
| etc.), but don't penalize for taking steps to make their
| operation area safer (hd mapping it).
| jmacd wrote:
| The price for this software is $15,000 USD at the present time.
| ff317 wrote:
| The main interesting charts they're showing are about
| disengagement rates, but this is a pretty sketchy comparison,
| both between manufacturers and over time with Tesla's FSD as
| well.
|
| "Disengagement" is going to happen for different reasons for all
| of these different cases. There's the axis that runs from merely
| inconveniencing others (e.g. "I disengaged because I was holding
| up traffic by being embarrassingly slow through a turn at an
| intersection") to the ones where a serious accident was averted
| (e.g. "I hit the brakes moments before the car caused a head-on
| collision). There's the scenario differences that feed into
| thresholds for deciding to disengage: professional safety drivers
| on planned tasks that have been given a sort of "rules of
| disengagement", vs everyday normal humans getting groceries and
| intervening whenever they feel like it for whatever reason.
| There's the fact that many competitors are operating in tight
| geofenced, HD-mapped areas, while FSD is operating real-world all
| over the country.
|
| I agree that Tesla's lack of transparency is troubling here, but
| this article seems to be trying to pressure them to increase it
| by taking a dishonest tack and stack all the unknowns against
| them in the worst possible way.
|
| They have published basic accident statistics (in the past), and
| those have generally shown their automation to be a net win. In
| their own published stats from Q4 21 (latest available on
| https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport ), the comparison they
| make is this:
|
| * NHSTA data says the whole US averaged one accident per 484K
| miles.
|
| * All Tesla cars on the road averaged one accident per 1.59M
| miles (so, ~3.5x better? This could also be caused by the profile
| of Tesla drivers rather than any real car safety difference -
| income, where they live, etc)
|
| * Tesla cars with some form of Autopilot engaged averaged one
| accident per 4.31M miles driven (~2.7x better than non-Autopilot
| Tesla data, and overall ~10x better than the national average).
| ncallaway wrote:
| Is there a reason there aren't stats for 2022 on the
| VehicleSafetyReport link?
|
| Is that a typical delay (e.g. were Q1, Q2, Q3 21 reports not
| available in December of 2021), or have they stopped or
| suspending publishing the reports?
|
| I'm just not familiar enough with the site to know what is
| normal.
|
| > Tesla cars with some form of Autopilot engaged averaged one
| accident per 4.31M miles driven (~2.7x better than non-
| Autopilot Tesla data, and overall ~10x better than the national
| average).
|
| Do you know if "accident" encompasses all accidents, or is
| there a threshold level for severity? I'd be curious if the
| same patterns hold for "serious accidents" defined as someone
| (in any vehicle in the accident) being seriously injured or
| killed.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| I want to understand the minds of engineers at Tesla - or
| anywhere - who willingly put this kind of stuff out into the
| world. How do you convince yourself Tesla FSD is safe enough to
| ship? Are you just so worried about your boss being mad at you
| that you don't care? Are you so bought-in that you ignore obvious
| signs what you're doing is dangerous?
|
| It's engineering malpractice to test this product on public
| roads, in my view. It's beyond malpractice that the government -
| at city, state, and federal levels - is allowing it.
|
| (To be clear, I am not against self-driving cars in all
| instances. I am talking specifically about the Tesla FSD, which
| has been dangerous since launch and isn't getting better.)
| BLanen wrote:
| This is what happens when no-one takes their ethics classes
| seriously because naive "innovation good".
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| You misunderstand what it does today. It doesn't make the car
| autonomous. It is a driver assistance system that must be
| constantly monitored by the driver, it is perfectly functional
| and helpful if you understand what it does.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| You're right.
|
| However, this is copy-pasted from Tesla's website:
|
| "Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of
| providing Autopilot features, and full self-driving
| capabilities--through software updates designed to improve
| functionality over time."
|
| Who's to blame for this misunderstanding?
| robotburrito wrote:
| I wonder if it's the case of, "someone will ship this even if I
| quit and lose my income, so I may as well do it."
| lamontcg wrote:
| The individual engineers working there probably make whatever
| part of the code that they're working on much better--before
| they get burned out and quit after a year or three and then
| that part of the codebase rots.
| chadlavi wrote:
| I would guess the actual engineers know it's not nearly ready,
| and it's product/marketing people (or senior leadership) who
| are forcing it to be released too early
| bavila wrote:
| If the engineers know it is not ready and they still deploy
| it despite knowing it is reasonably foreseeable that this
| system will cause injury or death, that is still on them.
| Unless the product/marketing people are holding the engineers
| at gun point, the engineers are free to refuse and quit if
| need be. I have quit jobs (with no prospects lined up) and
| turned down offers in the past due to ethical objections, so
| I am not particularly sympathetic to the "just doing my job"
| defense.
| jfoster wrote:
| There's been a lot of cars on the road with FSD for quite a
| while now. You say it's dangerous, but do you have any data to
| substantiate that? Even a single accident?
| lamontcg wrote:
| Maybe abusing workers into 80 hour a week death marches really
| doesn't produce good results?
| jandrese wrote:
| The even more insane part is that the newest FSD turns off a
| the distance sensors and tries to rely entirely on computer
| vision, even though it has blind spots and computer vision is
| one of those fields where success is still measured in
| statistical deviance. The newest Teslas don't even ship with
| the sensors anymore. It's like Elon is setting them up to fail.
| wickedsickeune wrote:
| It's the same way that the news can get biased without
| corruption. If you disagree with the boss, they can find
| someone who agrees.
| mzs wrote:
| Also H-1Bs are kind-of trapped.
| justapassenger wrote:
| My take - Tesla doesn't really employe people who understand
| safety (and I don't mean that as a ding for people working
| there - most of software engineers just have no idea what is
| required to build safety critical system). As a result, people
| likely think they're doing things correctly.
| ff317 wrote:
| The counterpoint goes something like this (not that I
| necessarily buy it, but this is what I infer to be Tesla's
| reasoning):
|
| 1) We're only going to fully "solve" self-driving with ML
| techniques to train deployed NNs; it can't be done purely in
| human-written deterministic code because the task is too
| complex.
|
| 2) Those NNs are only going to come up to the necessary levels
| of quality with a _ton_ of very-real-world test miles. Various
| forms of "artificial" in-house testing and simulation can help
| in some ways, but without the real-world data you won't get
| anywhere.
|
| 3) Deploying cars into the real world (to gather the above)
| without some kind of safety driver doesn't seem like a great
| path either. There's no backup driver to take over and
| intervene / unstick the car, and so far driverless taxi fleet
| efforts have been fairly narrowly geofenced for safety, which
| decreases the scope of scenarios they even get data on vs the
| whole real-world driving experience.
|
| 4) Therefore, the best plan to acquire the data to train the
| networks is to use a ton of customers as safety drivers and let
| them test it widely on the real routes they drive. This is
| tricky and dangerous, but if it's not too dangerous and the
| outcome saves many lives over the coming years, it was worth
| it.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| I could see something like this being their logic - maybe not
| with neural networks/machine learning specifically, but
| certainly "the only way to get to where we want to go is to
| do this".
|
| My counter-counter-point would be that there's plenty of
| other companies that are doing this more safely, and also
| that ends don't justify the means when those means involve
| killing pedestrians.
| kjksf wrote:
| Those other companies are rapidly going bankrupt because
| the economics of doing it the non-Tesla way seem
| impossible.
|
| zoox was bought by Amazon for $1 billion, which seems a lot
| but it was the amount of money invested into company, so it
| was sold at cost to Amazon.
|
| argo.ai just shutdown. VW and Ford spent several billions
| of dollars on that.
|
| drive.ai shutdown and was acqui-hired by Apple for the car
| project that was reportedly just pushed to 2026
|
| aurora is publicly traded and is on the ropes, reportedly
| trying to find a buyer before they run out of cash.
|
| We'll see how long GM and Google will be willing to put ~$2
| billion a year into Cruise / Waymo. I don't see them
| generating significant revenue any time soon.
|
| Tesla and comma.ai have a model where they make money while
| making progress. Everyone else just burns unholy amounts of
| capital and that can last only so long.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| So we're arguing it's better to offer a FSD that crashes
| rather than go bankrupt because maybe one day it won't?
| sangnoir wrote:
| It's worse than that in my reading; the argument is
| entirely neutral on crashes, the only metric of success
| presented is not going out of business!
| kjksf wrote:
| No, I'm arguing that Waymo, Cruise and others following
| similar strategy will go bankrupt before delivering a
| working product and Tesla / Comma.ai won't.
|
| As to crashes: the disengages part of your rebuttal is
| implied claim that Waymo / Cruise are perfectly safe.
|
| Which they are not.
|
| FSD have been deployed on 160 thousand cars. No
| fatalities so far. No major crashes.
|
| Cruise has 30 cars in San Francisco and you get this:
|
| > Driverless Cruise robotaxis stop working
| simultaneously, blocking San Francisco street
|
| > Cruise robotaxis blocked traffic for hours on this San
| Francisco street
|
| Another Cruise robotaxi stopped in the muni lane.
|
| Waymo car also stopped in the middle of the road.
|
| Neither FSD or Cruise or Waymo had fatalities.
|
| They all had cases of bad driving.
|
| This is not Safe-but-will-go-bankrupt vs. not-safe-but-
| won't-go-bankrupt.
|
| It's: both approaches are unsafe today but one has a path
| to becoming safe eventually and the other doesn't, if
| only because of economic realities of spending $2 billion
| a year without line of sight for going break even.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/1/23191045/cruise-
| robotaxis-...
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/30/cruise-robotaxis-
| blocked-t...
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > As to crashes: the disengages part of your rebuttal is
| implied claim that Waymo / Cruise are perfectly safe.
|
| I didn't mean to suggest that. I was responding to your
| words here:
|
| > Tesla and comma.ai have a model where they make money
| while making progress.
|
| I'm saying that it's not OK for a car company to keep
| going with dangerous self driving just because it can
| afford to.
|
| > FSD have been deployed on 160 thousand cars. No
| fatalities so far. No major crashes.
|
| That doesn't seem to be the case[1]. Though now we're
| going to squabble about definitions of "major" and also
| how is this reporting happening.
|
| [1]
| https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/elon-
| musk-...
| robotresearcher wrote:
| That's how we got cars, planes, medicine, bridges, and
| ... almost everything.
|
| We can't wait for perfection. The question is how much
| risk are we willing to absorb.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| If someone told you that they were going to revolutionize
| bridge building but it was going to take a bunch of
| catastrophes to get there how would feel about it?
| uvdn7 wrote:
| By this reasoning, shouldn't Tesla pay users instead to
| enable FSD and collect data for them?
| shagie wrote:
| A tangent to that thought... "do you want people to be
| financially incentivized to get into novel situations to
| test situations where FSD was lacking data?"
|
| I recall Waze had some point system to help gather
| positioning / speed data for side roads that it would try
| to have you go get with icons... and those were just fake
| internet points.
| judge2020 wrote:
| It seems they're doing quite well on their financials by
| offering access to FSD as a subscription. The misconception
| here is that FSD is needed for them to collect data - they
| collect autopilot sensor data on all cars regardless of FSD
| or not.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| >4) Therefore, the best plan to acquire the data to train the
| networks is to use a ton of customers as safety drivers and
| let them test it widely on the real routes they drive. This
| is tricky and dangerous, but if it's not too dangerous and
| the outcome saves many lives over the coming years, it was
| worth it.
|
| Maybe you should use specifically trained test drivers, who
| are acutely aware of the limitations and know how to deal
| with them, not random people who have been told through
| intentional snake oil marketing by a billionaire with a god
| complex who needs to feed his ego that the car can drive
| itself.
|
| It's insane that governments allow these vehicles on the
| road.
|
| Also, that kind of the-end-justifies-the-means reasoning has
| lead to a lot of catastrophic developments in history. Let's
| not go there again.
| dcow wrote:
| I appreciate being principled about ends not justifying the
| means. But in my experience this principle is not applied
| universally by people. It's cherry-picked as what amounts
| to a non-sequitur when deployed in a discussion. Don't get
| me wrong, I wish it were a universally held and enforced
| moral principle, but it's not.
|
| Anyway, the reality is that Teslas are _safer_ than any
| other car on the market right now, despite the _scary
| voodoo tech_. So it seems in this case the means are also
| justified. If auto-pilot and FSD were causing more
| accidents than humans, we 'd be having a different
| conversation about ends justifying means, I surely agree.
| lostmsu wrote:
| IMHO, if they are allowed to use the public as a guinea pig,
| the data they collect should be available for everyone.
| ot wrote:
| The fact that the other companies which went with a more
| thoughtful roll-out, delaying the time to market, got a much
| better track record, is a strong counter-counter-point IMO.
| jlundberg wrote:
| The thing is that Tesla FSD is trying to solve another
| problem than cars driving in geograhically limited areas.
|
| Thus comparing the disengagement rates does not make sense.
| doliveira wrote:
| Yeah, move and fast and break things, you can just do beta
| testing with live real human beings.
|
| That Tesla is even allowed to do it speaks volumes to the
| unchecked power Elon's influence yields.
| bentcorner wrote:
| I feel like you could enable FSD for every Tesla car in a
| "backseat driver" mode and have it mirror actions the driver
| does (so it doesn't have control but you're running it to see
| what it _would_ do, without acting on it), and you watch for
| any significant diversions. Any time FSD wanted to do
| something but the driver did something else could have been a
| real disengagement.
| bhauer wrote:
| They had been doing that, and called it "shadow mode" [1].
| I suspect it's no longer being done, perhaps they reached
| the limit of what they can learn from that sort of
| training.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/19/13341194/tesla-
| autopilot...
| judge2020 wrote:
| When it's in 'real mode', any disengagement or
| intervention (ie. using the accelerator pedal without
| disengaging) is logged to the car and sent to Tesla for
| some data analysis, and this has been a thing for a
| while. Of course we don't know just how thorough their
| data science plays into FSD decision making and what
| interventions they actually investigate.
| gretch wrote:
| I don't think that would work due to "bad" drivers. We all
| drive differently than we know we should drive in certain
| circumstances (e.g. road is completely empty in the middle
| of rural new mexico)
|
| For example, you can imagine FSD would determine to go
| straight down a straight lane with no obstacles - that
| would be the correct behavior. Now imagine in real life the
| driver takes their hand off the wheel to adjust the radio
| or AC, and as a result the car drifts over and lightly
| cross the lane marker - this doesn't really matter because
| it's broad daylight and the driver can see there's nothing
| but sand and rocks for 2 miles all around them. What's the
| machine conclude?
| kevincennis wrote:
| I forget who it was (maybe George Hotz) that said
| something to the effect of "All bad drivers are bad in
| different ways, but all good drivers are good in the same
| way".
|
| The point being made was basically that in the aggregate
| you can more or less generalize to something like "the
| tall part of the bell curve is good driving and
| everything on the tails should be ignored".
|
| Since learning happens in aggregate (individual cars
| don't learn - they simply feed data back to the
| mothership), your example of a single car errantly
| turning the wheel to adjust the radio would fall into the
| "bad in different ways" bucket and it would be ignored.
| gretch wrote:
| "All bad drivers are bad in different ways, but all good
| drivers are good in the same way".
|
| I accept that as a plausible hypothesis to work off of
| and see how far it goes, but I would not bank on it as
| truth.
|
| I'll give another example, I think a significant portion
| of the time, people roll through stop signs (we'll say,
| 25% of the time? intuitive guess). I do it myself quite
| often. This is because not all intersections are built
| the same - some intersections have no obstacles anywhere
| near them and you can tell that duh, there's no cars
| coming up at the same time as me. Other intersections are
| quite occluded by trees and what not.
|
| I'm fine with humans using judgement on these, but I
| would not trust whatever the statistical machine ends up
| generalizing to. I do not think rolling a stop sign makes
| you a 'bad' driver (depending on the intersection).
| Still, if I knew I was teaching a machine how to drive, I
| would not want it to be rolling stop signs.
| sushisource wrote:
| The theory would be that washes out in the noise. It's a
| simplification, but on average, most of the people most
| of the time are not doing that - why would it zone in on
| the rare case and apply that behavior?
| gretch wrote:
| Well zoning in on the rare cases is the difference
| between what we (as in society's collective technology,
| not tesla) have today and full reliable self-driving.
|
| Even in the anecdotes throughout the rest of the comment
| section, there's a lot of people that said "yeah I tried
| FSD for a limited period of time and it worked for me".
| Because we're not saying that taking FSD outside right
| now will kill you within 5 minutes. We're saying that
| even if it kills you 0.01% - that's pretty sketch.
|
| The general principle is that all of the drivers that
| have been recruited to be 'teachers' to the machine are
| not aware that they are training a machine. As a result,
| they are probably doing things that are not advisable to
| train on. This doesn't even just apply to machines - how
| you drive when you are teaching your teenage child is
| probably different than the things that you do on a
| regular basis as an experienced driver. If you are not
| aware that you actually teaching someone something,
| that's a dangerous set of circumstances.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| I believe this is exactly how Comma trains OpenPilot.
| leetharris wrote:
| I've had FSD for about 3-4 months and it can do the vast majority
| of my drives without disengagement.
|
| There are some very obvious things it still struggles with like
| construction and roads without clearly defined lines. But I just
| don't use it on those routes.
|
| I think Tesla made a mistake trying to take a "boil the ocean"
| approach that will work literally anywhere instead of focusing on
| key areas first. It ensures you need to 100% nail it before it
| can be considered "released" as opposed to releasing with a
| specific set of criteria to meet.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| I agree, I have been testing it for a year or so.
|
| 1. I have many many multi mile 0 intervention drives
|
| 2. it is getting a noticeably better every release
|
| Their video model will be very good in a the future if the
| current release pattern keeps up. Not sure what it will take to
| be certified by the USG as level 5, but it seems like it will
| be at the top of this chart in the future.
| croes wrote:
| Or they will hit a wall with no further progress.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| not likely for a long time, given they are getting more
| data every day.
| croes wrote:
| What if it's not a data problem?
|
| That's the same reasoning as thinking a faster CPU or
| more RAM would solve problem.
|
| More data could even lead to worse models.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Getting more data is useless if it's not the right data.
| rafaelero wrote:
| They are getting the right data because their users are
| reporting exactly the instances where it fails.
| croes wrote:
| Knowing where it fails isn't the same as knowing what is
| right.
| oliveshell wrote:
| >Their video model will be very good in a the future if the
| current release pattern keeps up
|
| It appears they're abandoning the video-only approach:
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/07/tesla-appears-to-be-
| turnin...
| misiti3780 wrote:
| sure, but it still going to use a video model, with
| additional sensors.
| helf wrote:
| I just, you know, steer my Volt. With my hands. And eyeballs.
|
| If I need to do something on a drive I get my wife to drive.
|
| I honestly do not understand the obsession with self driving or
| driver assist.
|
| I drove a Ford with active lane assist and having the car
| physically move the steering wheel is the worst.
|
| But apparently Im one of those weirdos who actually enjoys
| driving.
| [deleted]
| Zigurd wrote:
| Stopping humans from driving cars could save many lives. A
| million people worldwide, die in road accidents every year.
| Half are cyclists or pedestrians.
|
| But I tend to believe Gill Pratt, at Toyota, who says he
| doesn't know how to make level 5 AVs, more than I believe Elon.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| A third of all fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. That's
| easier to solve than self-driving cars. Another big chunk are
| weather related, driving at night, driving while sleepy, etc.
| The median driver is pretty safe, there are better ways to
| spend money than building automated car toys for them to play
| with.
| Zigurd wrote:
| That may be a US number. Other places that have stricter
| drunk driving laws, or that culturally have less drinking,
| can also have much worse road safety.
|
| AVs can also solve other problems like efficiency and
| surge-ability in public transportation. Not just a toy for
| the rich.
| Drunk_Engineer wrote:
| While nobody knows how to make a level 5 AV, we do know how
| to eliminate road deaths:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/how-
| helsinki-a...
| leetharris wrote:
| I drive 150+ mile trips all the time. Autopilot is a game
| changer.
|
| FSD is far less impactful on city streets as I enjoy city
| driving, but it gets mind numbing on long highway drives.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > I drive 150+ mile trips all the time. Autopilot is a game
| changer.
|
| Ha, AP puts me in situations (especially at merge points) I'd
| never put myself in. It certainly doesn't make the drive less
| stressful. Quite the opposite. And my wife won't even let me
| turn on AP now when she and the kids are in the car (this
| would be most road trips) because it's startling when the car
| brakes suddenly for an overpass.
| mplanchard wrote:
| People are super dangerous in cars, so it's nice to have
| technologies to make driving safer.
|
| I also enjoy driving, but I love the adaptive cruise control in
| my Toyota, because it makes the most frustrating kind of
| driving (lots of traffic on the highway) super easy to deal
| with. It makes me much less hesitant to make the trip from
| Austin to San Antonio, because rather than having to be hyper-
| vigilant for two hours due to constantly shifting stop-and-go
| traffic, I can let the car control the speed and instead focus
| more on watching out for crazy drivers.
|
| I am not sure whether I feel the same way about full self-
| driving. At that point, in my mind, you'd be better off taking
| a train, since you're very likely to become super
| distracted/tired with nothing to focus on. That said, if it
| makes the roads safer in aggregate, I'm not against it.
|
| Given the kind of information we see in this article and other
| factors, though, I'll never buy a Tesla. I'll wait until it
| hits the major car manufacturers.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| It is nice to have technology to make driving safer. Maybe
| someday Tesla can get some.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-y-earns-5-star-safety-
| ratin...
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Btw, radar powered adaptive cruise control on my 2017 Lexus
| is excellent. Isn't jerky, can start from a complete stop
| again, and is reliable.
|
| I feel bad for Tesla owners who are stuck with shitty
| cameras. Lex Friedman should have given a way bigger tongue
| lashing to kaparthy for being so stupid.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > People are super dangerous in cars
|
| That is a very subjective description. One fatality per
| 100,000,000 miles actually seems pretty good, given how
| complex driving can be. And even then, that number includes
| the shitty drivers that account for most wrecks. The median
| driver is quite good, objectively.
| mplanchard wrote:
| It is subjective, but almost everything you can compare
| cars to is less dangerous.
|
| Relative to trains, buses, and airplanes, cars are super
| dangerous.
|
| Relative to motorcycles, they're safe.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Relative to trains & buses (airplanes is a separate niche
| entirely), cars are a lot more useful too. That is
| inextricably tied to why they are more dangerous.
| c-cube wrote:
| Does that also include pedestrians and cyclists killed by
| drivers?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Yes, it does.
| mplanchard wrote:
| I think it's also important to note that fatalities are not
| the only way to define dangerous. Plenty of accidents leave
| people disfigured, badly injured, permanently disabled,
| with lifelong chronic pain, and so on. While I'd certainly
| prefer any of that to dying, I'd rather have neither if I
| could choose.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| > I honestly do not understand the obsession with self driving
| or driver assist.
|
| Self driving would be a complete game changer for the disabled.
| beAbU wrote:
| What benefit does this bring over public transport or
| something like taxis/ride sharing services?
|
| If I can be allowed to grossly generalze here: would the
| elderly and the disabled be in a position to afford a vehicle
| as expensive as this? Would they /need/ a permanent vehicle
| to take them to wherever they need to be, if they already
| have everything they need right there (hospice, retirement
| complex etc)? Remember: I'm grossly generalizing here, but I
| think my point stands.
|
| The way I see it: I've been making use of FSD vehicles to
| take me to work and back for almost a decade now. Sometimes
| even the vehicle arrives right to my front door and takes me
| directly to my destination. The fact that it's wetware
| instead of software has no material impact on my experience
| or expectations. Thus I'll always go for the cheapest option.
|
| In my view FSD is trying to solve a problem that only exists
| in the mind of the isolated techie who forgets about the real
| world sometimes.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| > What benefit does this bring over public transport or
| something like taxis/ride sharing services?
|
| No offense but do you own a car? Or do you only ever take
| public transport and taxis / ride-shares all the time?
|
| Being able to do things on your own, when you want to, on
| your own schedule, especially in places that are not cities
| and have _much_ worse infrastructure on both public transit
| and ride sharing, is immensely freeing.
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| Or, the elderly. How many times have we seen accidents due to
| an confused individual driving down the wrong side of the
| street or mistaking the accelerator for brake?
|
| Tesla may not ever get FSD working with its current approach,
| but if a competitor can do it (even geofenced like how Waymo
| and Cruise operate today!) and the economies of scale could
| kick in to make it more affordable than Ubering everywhere,
| then it would be a huge benefit to those that are even unable
| to use public transportation.
| gnu8 wrote:
| For the disabled people with money anyway. How are disabled
| people who live entirely from disability subsidies supposed
| to buy a Tesla?
| Blackthorn wrote:
| I'm not talking about Tesla, just self driving in general,
| which is what the comment was asking about. I don't trust
| Tesla to ever deliver an actual self driving product.
| upofadown wrote:
| You can't use your smart phone while driving. People tend to
| use their smart phones anyway which has caused a big increase
| in distracted driving and the resultant carnage.
|
| What's the world coming to when some schmuck on public transit
| can do things like play games or even get work done where a
| driver can not do that? What's worse is that smart phones make
| public transit a lot more usable and attractive in general.
| Self driving cars keep the automotive transportation mode more
| competitive.
| rafaelero wrote:
| > I honestly do not understand the obsession with self driving
| or driver assist.
|
| What a lack of imagination.
| lkbm wrote:
| I'm one of those weirdos who enjoys cycling, and the biggest
| threat to my life, by far, is humans driving cars. Drunk
| humans, tired humans, humans eating food, humans otherwise
| distracted, or humans just being human.
|
| When I think about the people I know who died under age forty,
| I think it's majority car accidents. At least a plurality.
|
| This holds roughly true in the statistics: car accidents have
| been at least in the running for leading cause of death for
| Americans under 30 for years. We need to address this issue,
| and self-driving cars are rapidly approaching viability as a
| solution.
|
| Even if we don't eliminate human drivers, having viable
| alternatives means we can be strict about who drives. Right
| now, for so, so many people, driving is a necessity, and thus
| we're unwilling to limit access to people who are actually good
| and safe at driving. If you get in an accident, your insurance
| company will your rates, but you keep your license. If you get
| in another, we'll...they raise them some more more. It's really
| quite difficult to actually _lose_ your license in the US. My
| friend had to get a breathalyzer after _multiple_ DUIs, but he
| got to keep his license through all of it.
|
| If driving were seen as an optional privilege, we could limit
| it to people who do it safely, and perhaps those people would
| only do it while sober and alert given the option to use self
| driving when they aren't.
| pcurve wrote:
| It's interesting how quickly the narrative has turned against
| Tesla in recent month, not just Musk but in respect to the
| performance of their cars.
| maxcan wrote:
| This is relatively consistent with my experience using the FSD
| Beta in and around Miami with one major caveat.
|
| With two exceptions, all of my disengagements have been "quality
| of life" disengagements where I disengaged for reasons other than
| safety:
|
| * to take a different route or get in the correct lane * to be
| polite / courteous to a pedestrian who wasn't yet in the
| crosswalk * to move more quickly through a construction zone or
| other traffic irregularity.
|
| In none of those cases did I believe that the car was going to
| cause any risk of an accident, at best there was risk of pissing
| someone off (which, to be fair, in a city like Miami with far
| more firearms than judgement could be fatal, but not due to car
| at all). So yes, these are disengagements, but they weren't
| dangerous.
|
| There is one case where I do get dangerous disengagements. At the
| intersection pictured below, when I'm in the position of the
| white van, sometimes tesla will mistake a green on the far
| traffic light (which is for the other road, intersecting at a
| sharp angle) for my road and proceed if it is green even though
| it is red. Happened twice, haven't noticed on the last version
| yet. Intersection here:
| https://www.google.com/maps/@25.750348,-80.2061284,3a,75y,26...
| ccorda wrote:
| The original data source of all this breaks this out into
| "Critical Disengagements" (CDE) and Non-Critical.
| * Critical: Safety Issue (Avoid accident, taking red light,
| unsafe action) * Non-Critical: Non-Safety Issue (Wrong
| lane, driver courtesy, merge issue)
|
| That both Fred from Electrek and Taylor from Snow Bull ignore
| this distinction shows me their intent is less than neutral.
|
| Looking at the original data sources [1], FSD seems to be
| improving over time at the metric that matters most:
| * City miles per CDE have gone from ~50 to ~120. * % of
| drives over 5 miles with no CDE have gone from 72% to 93%.
|
| I've been pleasantly surprised that human oversight while the
| software improves seems to be a viable approach. FSD doesn't
| appear particularly close to Waymo/Cruise at the moment, but
| it's not as if they are crashing left and right (you'd
| certainly hear about it if they were).
|
| Personally I have it, I don't find it enjoyable to use -- but I
| also don't feel unsafe when using it. Highway autopilot on the
| other hand I find immensely reliable and valuable.
|
| [1] https://www.teslafsdtracker.com/
| https://twitter.com/eliasmrtnz1
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| It's sort of meta to this whole discussion, but it has been
| interesting to see "journalists" like Fred Lambert and the
| evolution of their coverage.
|
| Fred was an early Tesla fanboy and investor; he used to gush
| over Tesla and Elon Musk in his writing at Electrek. It
| seemed like most of the time when Tesla was mentioned in an
| article, he also mentioned TSLA, the stock ticker...but he
| didn't seem to do that as regularly for say, Ford or GM.
|
| It was rumored that Fred had a direct line to Elon and there
| were also occasionally public Twitter interactions between
| the two, but Fred gradually become more critical of Elon,
| especially over FSD stuff. After one critical article, Elon
| blocked Fred on Twitter: https://twitter.com/fredericlambert/
| status/14176561698297487...
|
| Fred certainly hasn't forgotten about it: https://twitter.com
| /FredericLambert/status/15186308301381795...
|
| So, Tesla fanboy/blogger comes up with some valid criticism,
| Elon cuts him off, which in turn probably makes him more
| critical of Tesla/Elon.
| naillo wrote:
| Feels great seeing all this reputational damage attacks towards
| the one guy making the biggest impact in the incoming climate
| disaster.
| izzydata wrote:
| Tesla isn't even the largest manufacturer of electric vehicles
| and their impact on climate change is not as great as it seems
| like it should be. Not to mention that launching rockets into
| space is like driving a million gasoline vehicles.
| yks wrote:
| Same guy fueling proof-of-work cryptocurrency mania? It is not
| entirely clear to me which direction his contribution to the
| carbon levels is going to end up at.
| adoxyz wrote:
| I was one of the first people to get FSD Beta access and have
| given it a try every single time they pushed an update, and
| honestly, it's unusable and dangerous.
|
| The car just does not behave like a regular driver in any
| capacity. It's a neat trick to show when there is nobody on the
| road, but besides that, I have lost all faith in FSD ever coming
| out in any meaningful way. I only paid $2k for FSD ($7k total w/
| Enhanced Autopilot), but even that is too much for what FSD
| actually is.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| "Don't look at the data, give me lots of money to try it
| yourself" is something you expect to hear from a cult leader, not
| an engineer.
| seshagiric wrote:
| First time Tesla owner and recently had opportunity to experience
| their full self drive feature. My findings:
|
| 1. When it works it's just great. From maintaining lanes, speed
| limit, distance to other cars, auto park and summon are
| delightful.
|
| 2. Auto park in home garage is a bit too slow to use. But
| parallel parking is cool.
|
| 3. Even without a radar it worked on most roads and different
| lighting conditions.
|
| 4. Random speeding/ slowing is definitely present. Not like
| jamming into the vehicle in front of you but sudden acceleration
| can surprise. More dangerous was random slowing down at traffic
| signal, even when green and at traffic circles.
|
| 5. Overall it's definitely good enough to show promise of self
| driving. They are not there yet but I would place them as one of
| the most advanced considering the range of functionality.
|
| 6. Still the $15k is simply way too much. You are better off with
| occasional $200 per month like when going on a long trip.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| Seems like they are in an irreversible development hell of bugs.
| Probably the whole soft and hardware infrastructure was badly
| planned and/or implemented.
|
| If they are developing it and it is getting worse, this simply
| means there is a lot of technical debt and more to surface. The
| guy leading it has left as soon his stock vested, why not stick
| around and write history?
|
| Probably when waymo departed from them and they thought they will
| fork the code and then improve it is where it all went wrong.
|
| This also means that new devs and engineers cant make sense of
| the code and product, we have all inherited some of these code
| bases, havent we.
|
| Seen many such people who deploy much less than a mvp and then
| face the consequences eventually.
|
| All the mvp out there who survive the beginning at least have a
| solid software architecture.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-14 23:01 UTC)