3 ms·

When the creator of your car makes comments like "Your hands are just there for regulatory reasons" Then turns around and blames you for acting like that's tr

When the creator of your car makes comments like "Your hands are just there for regulatory reasons" Then turns around and blames you for acting like that's true when a known defect kills your wife (aside: Why do you think Mobileye had the same tech as AP1 in multiple other cars but never turned it on continuously? Why do you think it was always limited to highway speeds and correcting a lack of input? Well that's because it can't tell an overhead sign from a stopped firetruck very well...) Are we really then allowed to go back and go "well they had a nice disclaimer". - It's funny really, because calling it Autopilot wasn't enough (spare me the airplane comparisons). Now there's a feature list called "Full Self Driving... capability" Like, the term FSD is used as part of a label for a collection of features, of which NOT A SINGLE ONE is even a COMPONENT of self driving, because EVERY SINGLE ONE requires full time driver attention. They're literally using the fact that theoretically, one day, the SENSORS MIGHT OVERLAP WITH WHAT FSD REQUIRES to sell it as... not FSD. FSD capability. What a joke. - Tesla has gotten away with homicide, and I guess we're ok with them continuing to. The useless comparisons about "Tesla with AP is safer than Tesla without", show me the comparison that Tesla with AP is safer than AEB+LKA+ACC (pretty much AP, minus the party trick that lulls drivers into a false sense of security), and I'll show you a made up study. Because that would be AP being exactly what it already is, minus the one mode where the driver is supposed to be a safety net for the computer. Where the driver already has responsibility to make sure it doesn't crash! It's literally like removing the ability to steer your bike with the training wheels, the training wheels are still there! It's simple really, Tesla has put marketability of a safety feature, over the actual safety benefits, at the cost of human lives.

Dylan16807 6y ago
I agree that the marketing is misleading and unreasonable but I think the last part of your comment is going too far. I drive a car without any of those features. I think my car's level of safety is acceptable. If AP can beat that level of safety, it's good enough. It's okay if AP isn't the absolute safest mode, just like it's okay if companies sell cars that "only" have a 4-star crash rating.
- theshrike79 6y ago
  Exactly this. People are expecting car "autopilots" to exceed all human drivers in every situation, which is a completely silly place to move the goalpost to. I see it more as an assistant that makes us all better drivers by letting us concentrate on stuff the computer can't do. Even my Hyundai can drive automatically perfectly well at highway speeds and follow the road and even slow down with the traffic. This lets me relax behind the wheel and concentrate on other things than keeping the car in the lane. I feel I'm a lot less tired and more anttentive when driving with an "autopilot", all the little micro-adjustments needed vex on my brain like nothing else.
  - dafoex 6y ago
    I agree, but I interpret the argument as such: Tesla, by using language like "your hands are only there for regulatory reasons" makes no effort to dispel the myth to the driver that the car autopilot can exceed all human drivers in every situation. It aught to be on Tesla's head to instruct the driver that they are the safety net to the computer. To use the aeroplane analogy that Tesla wants to market: the computer is the first officer in charge of flying the plane, the driver is the captain in charge of everything else.
    - theshrike79 6y ago
      Yea, the Tesla marketing team has gone a bit overboard and some people are taking their spiel as gospel. On the other hand, event the new VW ID.3 can drive on regular roads, manage roundabouts and adjust speed according to speed signs, they're just not making a huge fuss about it.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      Do you have a source for that quote? I searched elon's tweets and Google but couldn't find anything.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  No one is saying AP should be the safest thing ever, my comment certainly isn't saying that AP should be some sorr of super-human driver The problem is AP is actively making itself less safe than it would be without marketing oriented features even with no additional strengths. AP could the same collision avoidance and lane centering capabilities, but not allow the driver to engage them in "Autopilot" style. That's exactly what the AP1 hardware did in other cars. AP would still avoid every accident it could before, but now additionally not kill people when it fails to uphold the very strongly implied (even if legally disclaimed) promises it's marketing and creator love to make. - AP has a set of convenience features and safety features. The convenience features all come with the disclaimer that the human must be attentive at all times while they're engaged. And in cases where the human is not full engaged because they're placing too much trust in the convenience features, suddenly the convenience features are creating a less safe situation than if the driver did not have them at all, since the driver is now driving distracted. The safety features cannot close the gap between a distracted driver and a non-distracted driver, that's why they're not seld-driving cars. - Or to put it another way, good enough is good enough for the safety features. But "good enough" is actually the most dangerous level of the convenience features, since they lull operators into a false sense of security with deadly consequences. That's why Google abandoned their equivalent project (which Elon spoke to them about before developing AP. Google's project was called... Autopilot). It was demonstrated that giving drivers that sort of "good-enough" convenience feature would be encouraging distracted behavior. But that didn't stop Elon. - In fact, thinking about it, how sad is that? Google used cameras in their vehicle in conjunction with AP features and proved that people would misuse the system. Knowing that Elon was in contact with them about the program, isn't it such an odd coincidence that Elon has pushed back on driver monitoring? It's almost like he knows exactly what it would reveal, but doesn't want to invite the trouble that comes with tracking such an inconvenient truth.

Dylan16807 6y ago

I agree that the marketing is misleading and unreasonable but I think the last part of your comment is going too far. I drive a car without any of those features. I think my car's level of safety is acceptable. If AP can beat that level of safety, it's good enough. It's okay if AP isn't the absolute safest mode, just like it's okay if companies sell cars that "only" have a 4-star crash rating.

theshrike79 6y ago
Exactly this. People are expecting car "autopilots" to exceed all human drivers in every situation, which is a completely silly place to move the goalpost to. I see it more as an assistant that makes us all better drivers by letting us concentrate on stuff the computer can't do. Even my Hyundai can drive automatically perfectly well at highway speeds and follow the road and even slow down with the traffic. This lets me relax behind the wheel and concentrate on other things than keeping the car in the lane. I feel I'm a lot less tired and more anttentive when driving with an "autopilot", all the little micro-adjustments needed vex on my brain like nothing else.
- dafoex 6y ago
  I agree, but I interpret the argument as such: Tesla, by using language like "your hands are only there for regulatory reasons" makes no effort to dispel the myth to the driver that the car autopilot can exceed all human drivers in every situation. It aught to be on Tesla's head to instruct the driver that they are the safety net to the computer. To use the aeroplane analogy that Tesla wants to market: the computer is the first officer in charge of flying the plane, the driver is the captain in charge of everything else.
  - theshrike79 6y ago
    Yea, the Tesla marketing team has gone a bit overboard and some people are taking their spiel as gospel. On the other hand, event the new VW ID.3 can drive on regular roads, manage roundabouts and adjust speed according to speed signs, they're just not making a huge fuss about it.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Do you have a source for that quote? I searched elon's tweets and Google but couldn't find anything.
BoorishBears 6y ago
No one is saying AP should be the safest thing ever, my comment certainly isn't saying that AP should be some sorr of super-human driver The problem is AP is actively making itself less safe than it would be without marketing oriented features even with no additional strengths. AP could the same collision avoidance and lane centering capabilities, but not allow the driver to engage them in "Autopilot" style. That's exactly what the AP1 hardware did in other cars. AP would still avoid every accident it could before, but now additionally not kill people when it fails to uphold the very strongly implied (even if legally disclaimed) promises it's marketing and creator love to make. - AP has a set of convenience features and safety features. The convenience features all come with the disclaimer that the human must be attentive at all times while they're engaged. And in cases where the human is not full engaged because they're placing too much trust in the convenience features, suddenly the convenience features are creating a less safe situation than if the driver did not have them at all, since the driver is now driving distracted. The safety features cannot close the gap between a distracted driver and a non-distracted driver, that's why they're not seld-driving cars. - Or to put it another way, good enough is good enough for the safety features. But "good enough" is actually the most dangerous level of the convenience features, since they lull operators into a false sense of security with deadly consequences. That's why Google abandoned their equivalent project (which Elon spoke to them about before developing AP. Google's project was called... Autopilot). It was demonstrated that giving drivers that sort of "good-enough" convenience feature would be encouraging distracted behavior. But that didn't stop Elon. - In fact, thinking about it, how sad is that? Google used cameras in their vehicle in conjunction with AP features and proved that people would misuse the system. Knowing that Elon was in contact with them about the program, isn't it such an odd coincidence that Elon has pushed back on driver monitoring? It's almost like he knows exactly what it would reveal, but doesn't want to invite the trouble that comes with tracking such an inconvenient truth.