5 ms·

Wow, this is pretty damning: > Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control is designed to come to a complete stop at all stoplights, even when they are green, unless t

Wow, this is pretty damning: > Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control is designed to come to a complete stop at all stoplights, even when they are green, unless the driver overrides the system. We found several problems with this system, including the basic idea that it goes against normal driving practice for a car to start slowing to a stop for a green light. At times, it also drove through stop signs, slammed on the brakes for yield signs even when the merge was clear, and stopped at every exit while going around a traffic circle. (emphasis mine) Is that really how this feature is intended to work?

wmeredith 6y ago
No. I’d go so far as to say this doesn’t work at all. That sounds dangerous as hell and would be a menace on the road.
untog 6y ago
EDIT: HN isn’t a place to make jokes
- anarazel 6y ago
  That seems more like a leadership than an employee issue.
- quesera 6y ago
  That was Zuckerberg, not Musk.
wilg 6y ago
It will notify you that it is approaching a traffic control, and if you do not confirm that you want to proceed through, it will slow to a stop. Presumably the idea is this is safer than blowing through an intersection accidentally, which seems reasonable. You do not have to confirm if there is a car in front of you or it sees other cars proceeding through the intersection. I think it (stopping at traffic controls) works quite well for a feature that rolled out only a few months ago. The article is generally accurate, but almost all these features are still labeled "beta" and work pretty well, though certainly not perfectly. The idea is they will improve over time and eventually get there, the article kind of assumes they are all supposed to be flawless which I don't think is particularly accurate. If you interpret "Full Self Driving" as "everything works flawlessly" it's going to be a disappointment. That's fair enough for a naive reading of the phrase, you can argue that's overselling the potential of the feature, but perfect driving at this time is not what is actually claimed. I think on balance all these features are pretty positive and designed smartly so that the driver can understand what is happening and correct the car's actions, and it does seem like they are improving over time.
- tsherr 6y ago
  One doesn't interpret "self-driving". The definition of self driving is something that drives itself. Period. Adding "full" in front of it makes it emphatic. It's the same as saying something is "free" or "completely free". There's no nuance here. He's lying in his marketing. Even a Musk fanboy can't argue that I'm not saying it isn't good, it just isn't what he claims it is.
  - wilg 6y ago
    I just am not that interested in the semantics of the name. I understand your point, that’s fine, I didn’t name it. The idea is that you buy an option for the car that they claim will not now but in the future allow the car to qualify as “Full Self Driving” by some definition. It is not claimed that it will do that now, it’s fine to be skeptical that will ever happen to your satisfaction, but the feature has always been something that will be delivered over time.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  I don't consider driving through stop lights a beta feature. Even if only happens one time out of a thousand it's still a threat to life, and a possible class action suit. There isn't room for a threat-to-life feature to improve incrementally, and it's very curious to see anyone suggest that it's somehow tolerable to risk the lives of customers with not-quite-there-yet-but-we'll-get-back-to-you-soon features.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    That's pretty much why they require the driver to be paying attention with their hands on the wheel at all times. Any user who treats it otherwise is asking for trouble.
    - wilg 6y ago
      Yeah, like any car if you do not operate it properly it will fail to handle an intersection. I don’t think I buy that a driver assistance system that does not always intervene is dangerous, when the expectation, design, and legal agreement is you must drive the car responsibly. I’m not sure it’s conceptually different from a safety perspective as something like cruise control.
mlindner 6y ago
That's not what it does at all.

wmeredith 6y ago

No. I’d go so far as to say this doesn’t work at all. That sounds dangerous as hell and would be a menace on the road.

untog 6y ago

EDIT: HN isn’t a place to make jokes

anarazel 6y ago
That seems more like a leadership than an employee issue.
quesera 6y ago
That was Zuckerberg, not Musk.

wilg 6y ago

It will notify you that it is approaching a traffic control, and if you do not confirm that you want to proceed through, it will slow to a stop. Presumably the idea is this is safer than blowing through an intersection accidentally, which seems reasonable. You do not have to confirm if there is a car in front of you or it sees other cars proceeding through the intersection. I think it (stopping at traffic controls) works quite well for a feature that rolled out only a few months ago. The article is generally accurate, but almost all these features are still labeled "beta" and work pretty well, though certainly not perfectly. The idea is they will improve over time and eventually get there, the article kind of assumes they are all supposed to be flawless which I don't think is particularly accurate. If you interpret "Full Self Driving" as "everything works flawlessly" it's going to be a disappointment. That's fair enough for a naive reading of the phrase, you can argue that's overselling the potential of the feature, but perfect driving at this time is not what is actually claimed. I think on balance all these features are pretty positive and designed smartly so that the driver can understand what is happening and correct the car's actions, and it does seem like they are improving over time.

tsherr 6y ago
One doesn't interpret "self-driving". The definition of self driving is something that drives itself. Period. Adding "full" in front of it makes it emphatic. It's the same as saying something is "free" or "completely free". There's no nuance here. He's lying in his marketing. Even a Musk fanboy can't argue that I'm not saying it isn't good, it just isn't what he claims it is.
- wilg 6y ago
  I just am not that interested in the semantics of the name. I understand your point, that’s fine, I didn’t name it. The idea is that you buy an option for the car that they claim will not now but in the future allow the car to qualify as “Full Self Driving” by some definition. It is not claimed that it will do that now, it’s fine to be skeptical that will ever happen to your satisfaction, but the feature has always been something that will be delivered over time.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
I don't consider driving through stop lights a beta feature. Even if only happens one time out of a thousand it's still a threat to life, and a possible class action suit. There isn't room for a threat-to-life feature to improve incrementally, and it's very curious to see anyone suggest that it's somehow tolerable to risk the lives of customers with not-quite-there-yet-but-we'll-get-back-to-you-soon features.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  That's pretty much why they require the driver to be paying attention with their hands on the wheel at all times. Any user who treats it otherwise is asking for trouble.
  - wilg 6y ago
    Yeah, like any car if you do not operate it properly it will fail to handle an intersection. I don’t think I buy that a driver assistance system that does not always intervene is dangerous, when the expectation, design, and legal agreement is you must drive the car responsibly. I’m not sure it’s conceptually different from a safety perspective as something like cruise control.

mlindner 6y ago

That's not what it does at all.