17 ms·

Consumer Reports: Cadillac's Super Cruise Outperforms Tesla's Autopilot

104 points by totalZero 6y ago

ebg13 6y ago
According to the charts and descriptions in the article, it literally doesn't. The article shows Tesla firmly in the lead in capability/performance and ease of use and that Cadillac just nannies the driver more and turns itself off completely when not on pre-mapped divided highways with restricted access, which is antithetical to making the world safer because it's only active away from where people currently die by the thousands due to human negligence. CR's idea of goodness is that autopiloting should only ever be allowed on pre-mapped divided highways with restricted access. Since Cadillac's only works on pre-mapped divided highways with restricted access, they get high marks. But that's not better performance. That's worse performance with a geofence to hide the details. > “Active driving assistance systems should only be able to be activated in low-risk driving environments, void of pedestrians and tricky situations, such as intersections and complicated traffic patterns,” Funkhouser says. But this ignores the fact that most traffic fatalities happen from human negligence in the places where Cadillac's Supercruise explicitly disables itself, rural roads + intersections. If Cadillac's system only ever activated while parked in your garage they could give it a 10/10 for safety, and it would not make the world safer.
- mdorazio 6y ago
  You must have missed their #1 requirement for these systems: safety. "Even after two years, Cadillac’s Super Cruise remained our top-rated system because, when turned on, it uses direct driver monitoring to warn drivers that appear to have stopped paying attention to the road." Autopilot doesn't "nanny" drivers, as you call it, and is therefore not a safe system so they ranked it lower. If you're fine with your ADAS system killing multiple people [1], this is not the ranking system for you. [1] https://apnews.com/article/ca5e62255bb87bf1b151f9bf075aaadf https://apnews.com/article/ca5e62255bb87bf1b151f9bf075aaadf
  - ebg13 6y ago
    If your idea of safety is explicitly that it should be disabled in the places where most traffic fatalities occur (rural roads + intersections) due to rampant human negligence, then I think you should reconsider your definition of safety.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Roughly 38k people a year die in human caused car accidents. ADAS systems will kill people, as all systems can and will fail. Six people (the number of people killed while Tesla vehicles had Autopilot engaged) seems within a tolerable amount if we expect progress to reduce human caused vehicular deaths. NHTSA and adjacent regulatory bodies allow Tesla to continue to sell Autopilot functionality, and allow it to remain active on sold vehicles. Their opinion counts far greater than that of Consumer Reports.
    - beervirus 6y ago
      That's hardly a fair comparison, given how many people are driving vs. how many automated driver systems are out there.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Propose an alternative comparison that is not so outlandish as zero deaths ever. We're currently at six deaths with almost a million Tesla vehicles sold and 3+ billions of Autopilot miles travelled [1]. [1] https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billion-miles/ https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billio...
        beervirus 6y ago
        The fair comparison would obviously look at deaths per mile traveled for each category, not total deaths.
        Retric 6y ago
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  >That's worse performance with a geofence to hide the details. It's brilliant the Tesla has managed to convince people that things like mapping and geofencing and LIDAR are all crutches, despite the fact that they improve performance and safety.
  - neuronexmachina 6y ago
    IMHO, Tesla seems to be stuck in a pretty unfortunate local maxima.
    - arcticfox 6y ago
      This might have been true before the latest FSD rewrite beta; not sure how that can be claimed at this point. Obviously the beta still is a long ways from true FSD, but it is clearly a massive amount more capable than it used to be, so I don't think there's any indication at all that Tesla is stuck.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - labcomputer 6y ago
    I really don't understand how they can be viewed as anything but crutches. 1. What happens when there is unexpected construction or an accident? The geofence isn't going to be updated fast enough. Same-day updates are considered extremely fast in the mapping world. 2. What happens when there is rain or snow? LIDAR becomes useless, so the system can't be used in rain or snow. If you want an all-weather self driving car, you can't depend on LIDAR. Edit: Humble request. Instead of just downvoting (I don't mind the downvotes), why don't you write a comment to tell me why this is wrong?
    - bpodgursky 6y ago
      At the end of the day.. WE can drive with only vision, in unfamiliar terrain, so it's a bit silly to suggest that LIDAR etc and geofencing strict requirements for full self-driving.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Not being able to turn on autopilot on some random rural state highway seems like a fair trade for knowing a regression won't put me into a barrier on a major interstate I commute on.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree but "While many people expect a larger number of accidents to occur in urban areas, the reality is that far more fatal accidents take place on rural two lane roads. In fact, reliable data indicates that as many as 57 percent of all fatal car crashes occur on rural roads. Another surprising statistic is that 62 percent of fatal accidents do not occur on curves, but on straightaways, especially at night." So, while very good autonomous driving on interstates is definitely a convenience win and doubtless could save lives, accidents on those roads are not the leading cause of auto fatalities. (Which sort of makes sense. You're often going almost as fast on those two lane roads and there are far more opportunities to have a head-on collision or to veer off the road and road maintenance/plowing/etc. is often quite a bit worse.) [1] https://www.sutliffstout.com/faqs/where-car-accidents-happen/ https://www.sutliffstout.com/faqs/where-car-accidents-happen...
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  No, actually what you say makes sense. Self-driving cars could be widely adopted right now and the only thing that's stopping this adoption is a bunch of regulation that demands of them to be at least as safe as human drivers and at least as reliable. If this kind of regulation were to be removed, self-driving cars like Tesla's or Cadillac's would be free to go everywhere and the technology would quickly reach massive adoption. Of course, there is the little detail that regulation that requires cars to be safe and reliable is sane and logical and makes sense. But, if it were to be removed, there's nothing stopping self-driving cars from making a left turn into traffic at a busy intersection near you!
deweller 6y ago
Capability and Ease of Use: Tesla wins Safety Features: Super Cruise wins Tesla beats Super Cruise in the 2 capability categories. But the Super Cruise wins by a large margin in the 3 safety categories. Therefore the Super Cruise wins over all.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  There are some problems with Consumer Report’s methodology. They prioritize premapping as if it’s essential to being considered safe (even though relying on premapping for safety is potentially problematic!). The safety assessment is based on CR’s opinion on features, not empirical results. I will say that warning drivers of potentially hazardous and/or uncertain conditions ahead is a good feature of SuperCruise that ought to be emulated widely.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    That's an extremely misleading slant lol. They call out the premapped data as helping effectively communicate hard situations that are upcoming to the driver. Super Cruise also ends up winning in safety categories that have nothing to do with their mapped data. In no way shape or form do they imply that it's essential for being safe.
    - jiofih 6y ago
      What’s misleading about it? A system that is inherently designed to deal with the unknown, and not rely on hardcoded world info is bound to be much better. And safer.
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        This is just another misleading claim neither above comment or the article made. Using premapped data doesn't mean the system isn't designed to deal with the unknown... how do you think Super Cruise would be able to function without being able to deal with unknowns? Rather the standard for a working feature that GM has set simply higher than the extremely low standard that Tesla has continously settled for (which is why they originally misapplied Mobileye's LKA sensor suite for Lane Centering and got people killed due to known defects with stationary object handling) Super Cruise requires premapped data as a data point, in abscense of which it reverts to simpler ACC, which it can reliably do. This avoid situations like my Model S test drive in White Plains, NY where the not-a-salesperson had to warn me about a stretch where AP likes to split the difference between the lane and an exit (towards a Jersey barrier) due to poor road conditions. Super Cruise can use mapping data not just to handle something like that, by flag a problem area in advance and let the user take over before the customers become guinea pigs.
nojito 6y ago
Until liability switches away from the driver to the manufacturer, no driving system should be considered "safe"
- derekp7 6y ago
  I don't think that really will, or should happen, if you compare to similar systems. For example, the owner of an aggressive dog breed will be held liable for attacks from that dog, even though the dog is acting "autonomously". But the dog breeder typically isn't held liable, even if they are responsible for selecting for certain aggressive traits. So the question is: is a manufacture of (semi) autonomous systems really much different? Now this can be different if the autonomous car is owned by an entity other than the primary user (for example, an auto cab -- the passengers in a regular cab aren't responsible for the cab driver, so they wouldn't be liable for a computerized cab driver either).
- jmpman 6y ago
  Until Elon is willing to let X Æ A -12 cross the freeway in front of a bunch of Tesla’s driven on autopilot by drunk frat boys, no driving system should be considered “safe”.
- criddell 6y ago
  I was thinking the exact opposite - that manufacturers working on self-driving cars should have some legal immunity. In the US 100 people every day die in car accidents. Say self driving systems could cut that number in half. As we all know, every complex system has bugs so imagine that bugs in the self-driving cars are responsible for 1000 deaths every year. If we don't shield manufacturers from big legal bills for those 1000 deaths, we might not get the systems that could save 10,000 lives.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    If they are safer in net, the total liability costs will be less, even if they are concentrated in the manufacturers, so that the total cost of ownership will be less (as the operators will have lower insurance costs, which will offset the additional costs the manufacturers will need to charge in purchase prices to insure, most likely self-insure, for defect liability.) I suppose that if you want to keep the sticker prices of vehicles low, you could transfer liability to a government entity in exchange for stronger government oversight and pre-approval of design and manufacturing, and tax vehicle owners (which still should be lower than current costs when added to their insurance costs) to pay for the liability pool. If you just shield the manufacturers without transferring liability, you are essentially transferring the costs to the injured.
SloopJon 6y ago
I'm in the market for a new car with decent driver assistance, so a round up like this is just what I've been looking for. One of the first things that stands out is what Mazda told Consumer Reports about its Lane Departure Warning System with Lane-keep Assist: > Mazda responded that its system was not designed or intended to center the vehicle in a lane and that the automaker doesn’t believe its vehicles are equipped with technology that meets the criteria CR is using in its evaluation. Not necessarily something I would have understood from its website or brochure. This probably takes the CX-5 off of my short list. Incidentally, the submitted title casts this as Cadillac vs. Tesla, but the actual title is "Cadillac's Super Cruise Outperforms Other Driving Assistance Systems." In fairness, their 2018 article did have a similar title: "Cadillac Tops Tesla in Consumer Reports' First Ranking of Automated Driving Systems."
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  My car has the current-edition Toyota/Lexus system. First of all, it's worth saying there're a whole slew of ancillary safety systems beyond the 'nominal case driving' automation, like rear-crossing detection, collision brake assistance, blindspot warning and so on. For the self-driving stuff, I really only use the radar cruise control. The car does have lane self-centering but it's not great at detecting lane boundaries, especially when in bad weather or when there's a lot of traffic. I have that system turned to an advisory mode so it'll beep if I start moving across a lane boundary without a turn signal on. The radar cruise control is very solid. My only real complaint about it is that it leaves a large gap at low speed; even when in its tightest-follow mode. You can end up getting people merging in front of you, which then causes it to generate an even larger gap. It will take off from a stop, but if it's a long stop it wants you to hit a resume button. I understand how the systems work at this point, they don't surprise me, and they help with fatigue. I'm generally an attentive driver (I know, we all say that) so I'm OK with the limitations. I don't really want any more. Very anecdotally, the last time I tried a lane-following system (an Audi rental about two years ago), it tried to kill me by following the off-ramp into a gas station at 65mph.
  - wil421 6y ago
    Is adaptive cruise control considered self driving? I always thought it was driver assist feature like the original cruise control and blind spot monitoring. Surprisingly it’s been around for almost 30 years and Mitsubishi was using Lidar way back in ‘91. https://www.autonomousvehicleinternational.com/features/adas-3.html https://www.autonomousvehicleinternational.com/features/adas...
danbr 6y ago
Rather than praising some of these systems and lambasting others, CR should reach out to manufacturers documenting what their testing results were, and how to improve systems. We have CVE reporting, why not something similar for vehicle automation testing? It’s quite disappointing to see [unbiased] testers promoting some systems over others, rather than trying to up the safety/capability level across the board.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  This seems like a general argument against product reviews. The manufacturers are surely going to track the results of these tests and try to improve their rankings. Publishing the results doesn’t prevent that, it just gives consumers that information too when they are making choices about what kind of car to buy today. Keeping test results private wouldn’t be consistent with the Consumer Reports mission of informing consumers.
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    Quite true. Gaming the metrics are a well known issue. And it's also linked to blind studies somehow.
    - totalZero 6y ago
      College rankings like USN&WR are a great example.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  It's not a reviewers responsibility to improve a product. These companies are quite capable of figuring out partnerships and determining where there's a shared good to come from things.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  CR does reach out to manufacturers. They even give some of the feedback the manufacturers gave back to them in the article: "In response to requests for comment, GM said the system on its Buick Encore GX offers an “impressive amount” of standard active safety features that have been proved to reduce crashes. Mazda responded that its system was not designed or intended to center the vehicle in a lane and that the automaker doesn’t believe its vehicles are equipped with technology that meets the criteria CR is using in its evaluation. "
yumraj 6y ago
So Cadillac is calling it what it really is, a Super Cruise, not self-driving, not auto pilot, not AI-magic. That, IMHO, in itself is commendable since it tells the driver what to expect and keep themselves safe by being aware of the limitations of what the car can and cannot do.
- elisharobinson 6y ago
  IMHO driver monitoring should be separate from any test which is meant to evaluate L2 self driving features. And any trained pilot knows autopilot does not do everything and that you should be prepared to take over if needed , if you perceive autopilot to be "AI-magic" you should not blame others for your own ingnorance.
  - content_sesh 6y ago
    There is a large difference in the degree of training needed for pilot certification vs. getting a driver's license, and Tesla has already gotten in trouble for misleading claims about its "Autopilot" feature. So I agree with the parent comment that it is good Cadillac is not overselling their capabilities.
  - 542354234235 6y ago
    > And any trained pilot knows autopilot does not do everything and that you should be prepared to take over if needed , if you perceive autopilot to be "AI-magic" you should not blame others for your own ingnorance. A huge part of airplane safety is the direct opposite of that. It isn’t “don’t blame others for your ignorance” it is “the system should be designed so that it is harder to make a mistake than to do the right thing”. Design and testing doesn’t put the onus on pilots, it puts the onus on the design and the system. How can this documentation be clearer? Is this warning easy to ignore in certain situations and how can we change that? If a pilot gets confused in this situation, how can we design the system to help? How can we train our pilots so they can handle this? How can we test our pilots so we know they truly understand the system? They don’t just say “well the manuals were available, you should have known so that’s on you”. Saying “it’s the individual’s fault” doesn’t improve the system.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Main bit: “ Even after two years, Cadillac’s Super Cruise remained our top-rated system because, when turned on, it uses direct driver monitoring to warn drivers that appear to have stopped paying attention to the road. “ Basically, CR wants the vehicle to aggressively warn the user who is not paying attention. Tesla already has driver facing cameras/eye tracking, so they could enable this with a software upgrade to easily take the #1 spot with the broader definition of ‘autopilot’ (CR is only focusing on two aspects, lane centering, and vehicle distance spacing).
- vernie 6y ago
  Right now that system just prepares an affidavit blaming you if the car veers into a median.
- cma 6y ago
  Tesla's interior camera isn't IR with illumination so it isn't capable of driver monitoring at night.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Would be interesting to see what the night time data look like. Also, people make these camera covers: https://www.greendrive-accessories.com/en/products/cache-camera-interieure-pour-tesla-model-3 https://www.greendrive-accessories.com/en/products/cache-cam... Ironically, Cadillac sells these to cover laptop cameras: https://cadillaccollection.com/CAD21/Cadillac/Office+Tech/Private+Eyes+Web+Cam+Cover.axd https://cadillaccollection.com/CAD21/Cadillac/Office+Tech/Pr...
drewrv 6y ago
I understand that people should evaluate products as they're delivered, vs promises of a vague wonderful future product. And Tesla has made some wild promises that they've taken payment for, but I really doubt they can fulfill. That being said, one thing that I like about my spouses Tesla is that it reliably gets OTA updates that adds features and improves functionality. For example, they recently added a video feed from the blind spot cameras when I'm in reverse. I'm not sure of any other car brand that would do that. My experience with other brands is that, best case scenario, it would take a trip to the dealership and hundreds of dollars to add a feature like that. More likely they'd try to upsell me on a 2021 model. Meanwhile the Tesla adds that stuff on a regular cadence while I sleep. I'd bet the 2018 Tesla they tested would perform competitively with todays models. And in two more years the 2018 model will compete well against 2022 models. CR shouldn't speculate this way but it's probably worth consideration if you're looking for a new car.
- vkou 6y ago
  > That being said, one thing that I like about my spouses Tesla is that it reliably gets OTA updates that adds features and improves functionality. As someone who builds software for a living, and has introduced regressions once or twice into production, I would not like my safety-critical system to live on the bleeding edge of functionality. It's great if other people are interested in being testers for every X.0 release, but I'd rather not be one of them.
  - SomeHacker44 6y ago
    Tesla has this option. You can opt in to early releases (I did for a while) or just the main line releases.
greatjack613 6y ago
This is a very misleading title, even CR agrees that tesla's autopilot outperforms supercruise in terms of features, accuracy, and performance. They just don't like the amount of freedom tesla's system gives the driver while supercruise forces the driver to stare straight ahead the entire time.
- bluu00 6y ago
  > even CR agrees that tesla's autopilot outperforms supercruise where? > They just don't like the amount of freedom tesla's system gives the driver while supercruise forces the driver to stare straight ahead the entire time. That's L2 sir. L2.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > > even CR agrees that tesla's autopilot outperforms supercruise > where? In the section titled "Capabilities and Performance".
  - jiofih 6y ago
    In both the “capabilities” and “ease of use” section. Cadillac wins all the others because it has a camera watching your eyes.
- vessenes 6y ago
  I agree, I was reminded of the days of custom anti-Tesla news sites funded by short sellers, actually. "We assume these systems need full driver attention as their only important baseline, and regardless of how they perform, score them on that assumption." There is no way Cadillac can take an on-ramp to a highway, safely change lanes for an exit and take the exit without drama, but my Model 3 does that very nicely right now.
  - m463 6y ago
    Yes, there's another dimension to this test (literally). Time. it might be like comparing an iphone to an android phone. a review at the time of release vs a review 3 years later might show different results if one keeps updating the software and the other stops.
jedberg 6y ago
This seems like it was rigged for Cadillac to win. In the Tesla, during autopilot, if you hit your blinker it will change lanes for you. I don't think SuperCruise does that. In fact, I think only Tesla does that. Why did they not include that in their tests?
- pandaman 6y ago
  BMW does that on demand: if you hold the signal it will change lanes even while driving normally.
aphextron 6y ago
Super Cruise is geofenced to the US interstate highway system on routes that have been pre-mapped by GM with lidar. It's not a comparable system at all.
Der_Einzige 6y ago
Tesla tries to pretend that they're somehow so far ahead of other automakers technologically. Aside from the electric power-trains and battery tech, they're just not ahead of other manufacturers. A few months ago, I tried Tesla's autopilot and found it extremely poor. It frequently took more time than expected for possible objects (that I saw) to appear on the head-unit. Further, the autopilot didn't detect a garbage can on the side of the road and almost tried to drive me into it. Why does the Tesla still refuse to put in blind-spot monitors? Why does elon still refuse to give us HUDs? Where is Android Auto / Apple CarPlay?
- jiofih 6y ago
  Have you tried other cars in the same driving conditions? There is no commercially available vehicle that will navigate around a trash can right now besides a Tesla.
- elisharobinson 6y ago
  There is nothing to pretend . The facts are there for everyone to see , no other system is able to perform lane change and operate outside of the US.
Tarragon 6y ago
I prefer Lane Keeping Assist to Lane Centering. The Ford system is the only LKA I have experience with. It has me drive but warns and intervenes when I get close to the line without signalling. Before it nudges the steering it shakes the wheel and it feels just like rolling over a rumble strip. In cases where I do legitimately get distracted and start to drift that rumble snaps me back to driving before things go awry. False positives almost completely come from changing lanes or exiting the highway without signaling. The rumble strip feeling and then the steering input isn't strong enough to prevent the lane change but does give me that reminded to signal next time. The nudge is strong enough to keep the car in lane but no one in their right mind would let the car go down the road bouncing off the lines like this. To me there's no question that I'm driving. I stay engaged and alert without every having to be monitored and nagged. It helps me when I slip but doesn't make me complacent. With a Lane Centering systems the car is doing all of the subtle corrections. I don't feel like I'm driving and I totally drift off. I feel much more checked out and thinking about it after the fact I feel much less safe over time.
- Tarragon 6y ago
  I totally want to study this and see if it's just me and then publish. Oh well, if I ever jump to academia.
  - RobLach 6y ago
    You can publish without an academic affiliation.
    - Tarragon 6y ago
      Sure can but available time and relation to paying tasks keeps it on the wishlist and not do list.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Tesla's initial Autopilot run was literally LKA running on a loop. Mobileye had put that exact sensor suite in dozens of production vehicles but left it to LKA duties due to the inherent danger of expecting the user to take over at any moment. To that end, the system actually provided more input when it detects wrong input than when it detected no input. For example, feel a strong nudge when you try and change lanes without signaling before you leave the lane, but with no input at all the car would be riding the line before correcting, essentially preventing hands free usage It focused on correcting behavior without causing sudden hard to correct errors... like driving into a concrete barrier when your hands aren't ready to provide counter-input
nethunters 6y ago
I've had the current gen Toyota Corolla for just over a year and use the adaptive cruise control and lane tracing ~95% of the time I'm driving, whether that is city driving in busy tight roads or motorway driving. After using it for so long I won't be able to drive a car without it. I've personally had no issues with the lane tracing as I instinctively understand where the system works and where it doesn't and I've adapted my driving as such. The buttons for the controls are situated on the steering wheel and are simple to understand and easy to activate. Accelerating doesn't disable the lane trace assist or adaptive cruise control. The system also doesn't get confused with other lines on the road, bright sun light, glare, wet roads or driving at night. My only gripe is that the speed sign recognition system is a pain in cities where signs for side roads point wrongly to the main road but thankfully the speed of the adaptive cruise control isn't limited by it just an annoying beep that you can switch off if required. Toyota do give a warning not to use the adaptive cruise control behind a tilt and slide recovery truck, or a lorry trailer that is higher than the car itself however I haven't found any issues with that. The settings for the lane tracing can be adjusted to change the sensitivity to which it responds to the drivers turning force. I find that warning you with different beeps for different things is a pretty good system and I can easily tell the difference between the different beeps and what they're for (even with loud audio blaring through my speakers). Comparisons like these need to use the findings of drivers who actually use these systems in real life rather than made up scenarios. Unrelated, (but adding this after seeing those who are in the market for a new car), it is a sporty, nice and fun to drive car, 2 litre hybrid with 200nm torque from each engine and a combined bhp of 186 (could be ~300 if remapped but you'll lose linear acceleration) with good mpg, MacPherson suspension at the front, and multi linked individual suspension at the back, lower centre of gravity and 52.5:47.5 weight distribution for better cornering. In relation to the "self-driving" the system takes a little learning, but once you understand it and are used to it, there's no going back to conventional cars.
maxharris 6y ago
A reminder to people: do not buy or sell stocks on the basis of headlines, or any price movement that spans the basis of months. The incentives to mislead you are incredibly powerful.
digital-cygnet 6y ago
The pro-Tesla view is that this is like comparing an iPhone to feature phones in 2008 on the basis of sound quality and keyboard action (unfortunately I couldn't find their actual review from that year in a quick google). The question being: do you compare products on the basis of what they aspire to be, or what they offer today? Clearly the iPhone's touch centric design and App Store turned out to be a paradigm shift in computing, and Tesla's Autopilot hopes to be the same for driving. The difference as I see it is that the App Store not living up to its hype wasn't going to kill anybody, and choosing an iPhone is a much less weighty financial decision than choosing a Tesla. That being said, I think Consumer Reports could have done a better job of comparing the actual systems (or explaining why it chose not to), along with the exhaustive analysis of the ways in which use of the systems is curtailed for safety. What a lot of people care about is "how good is it at self-driving", even though the more important short term question, which they tackle, is "how well do its driver assist features holistically contribute to the safety of the car". Under this mode of analysis my decade-old Prius actually would do pretty well -- it has no driver assist at all, but at least it doesn't let you turn on driver assist at dangerous times, and tells you clearly when it's off (which is always).
mlindner 6y ago
The thing everyone seems to have missed, is that Cadillac's system only "outperforms" Tesla because it disables itself when you look away from where you're driving. So because the system is more limited it somehow outperforms.

104 points by totalZero 6y ago

According to the charts and descriptions in the article, it literally doesn't. The article shows Tesla firmly in the lead in capability/performance and ease of use and that Cadillac just nannies the driver more and turns itself off completely when not on pre-mapped divided highways with restricted access, which is antithetical to making the world safer because it's only active away from where people currently die by the thousands due to human negligence. CR's idea of goodness is that autopiloting should only ever be allowed on pre-mapped divided highways with restricted access. Since Cadillac's only works on pre-mapped divided highways with restricted access, they get high marks. But that's not better performance. That's worse performance with a geofence to hide the details. > “Active driving assistance systems should only be able to be activated in low-risk driving environments, void of pedestrians and tricky situations, such as intersections and complicated traffic patterns,” Funkhouser says. But this ignores the fact that most traffic fatalities happen from human negligence in the places where Cadillac's Supercruise explicitly disables itself, rural roads + intersections. If Cadillac's system only ever activated while parked in your garage they could give it a 10/10 for safety, and it would not make the world safer.

mdorazio 6y ago
You must have missed their #1 requirement for these systems: safety. "Even after two years, Cadillac’s Super Cruise remained our top-rated system because, when turned on, it uses direct driver monitoring to warn drivers that appear to have stopped paying attention to the road." Autopilot doesn't "nanny" drivers, as you call it, and is therefore not a safe system so they ranked it lower. If you're fine with your ADAS system killing multiple people [1], this is not the ranking system for you. [1] https://apnews.com/article/ca5e62255bb87bf1b151f9bf075aaadf https://apnews.com/article/ca5e62255bb87bf1b151f9bf075aaadf
- ebg13 6y ago
  If your idea of safety is explicitly that it should be disabled in the places where most traffic fatalities occur (rural roads + intersections) due to rampant human negligence, then I think you should reconsider your definition of safety.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Roughly 38k people a year die in human caused car accidents. ADAS systems will kill people, as all systems can and will fail. Six people (the number of people killed while Tesla vehicles had Autopilot engaged) seems within a tolerable amount if we expect progress to reduce human caused vehicular deaths. NHTSA and adjacent regulatory bodies allow Tesla to continue to sell Autopilot functionality, and allow it to remain active on sold vehicles. Their opinion counts far greater than that of Consumer Reports.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    That's hardly a fair comparison, given how many people are driving vs. how many automated driver systems are out there.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Propose an alternative comparison that is not so outlandish as zero deaths ever. We're currently at six deaths with almost a million Tesla vehicles sold and 3+ billions of Autopilot miles travelled [1]. [1] https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billion-miles/ https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billio...
      - beervirus 6y ago
        The fair comparison would obviously look at deaths per mile traveled for each category, not total deaths.
        Retric 6y ago
itsoktocry 6y ago
>That's worse performance with a geofence to hide the details. It's brilliant the Tesla has managed to convince people that things like mapping and geofencing and LIDAR are all crutches, despite the fact that they improve performance and safety.
- neuronexmachina 6y ago
  IMHO, Tesla seems to be stuck in a pretty unfortunate local maxima.
  - arcticfox 6y ago
    This might have been true before the latest FSD rewrite beta; not sure how that can be claimed at this point. Obviously the beta still is a long ways from true FSD, but it is clearly a massive amount more capable than it used to be, so I don't think there's any indication at all that Tesla is stuck.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- labcomputer 6y ago
  I really don't understand how they can be viewed as anything but crutches. 1. What happens when there is unexpected construction or an accident? The geofence isn't going to be updated fast enough. Same-day updates are considered extremely fast in the mapping world. 2. What happens when there is rain or snow? LIDAR becomes useless, so the system can't be used in rain or snow. If you want an all-weather self driving car, you can't depend on LIDAR. Edit: Humble request. Instead of just downvoting (I don't mind the downvotes), why don't you write a comment to tell me why this is wrong?
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    At the end of the day.. WE can drive with only vision, in unfamiliar terrain, so it's a bit silly to suggest that LIDAR etc and geofencing strict requirements for full self-driving.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Not being able to turn on autopilot on some random rural state highway seems like a fair trade for knowing a regression won't put me into a barrier on a major interstate I commute on.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree but "While many people expect a larger number of accidents to occur in urban areas, the reality is that far more fatal accidents take place on rural two lane roads. In fact, reliable data indicates that as many as 57 percent of all fatal car crashes occur on rural roads. Another surprising statistic is that 62 percent of fatal accidents do not occur on curves, but on straightaways, especially at night." So, while very good autonomous driving on interstates is definitely a convenience win and doubtless could save lives, accidents on those roads are not the leading cause of auto fatalities. (Which sort of makes sense. You're often going almost as fast on those two lane roads and there are far more opportunities to have a head-on collision or to veer off the road and road maintenance/plowing/etc. is often quite a bit worse.) [1] https://www.sutliffstout.com/faqs/where-car-accidents-happen/ https://www.sutliffstout.com/faqs/where-car-accidents-happen...
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
No, actually what you say makes sense. Self-driving cars could be widely adopted right now and the only thing that's stopping this adoption is a bunch of regulation that demands of them to be at least as safe as human drivers and at least as reliable. If this kind of regulation were to be removed, self-driving cars like Tesla's or Cadillac's would be free to go everywhere and the technology would quickly reach massive adoption. Of course, there is the little detail that regulation that requires cars to be safe and reliable is sane and logical and makes sense. But, if it were to be removed, there's nothing stopping self-driving cars from making a left turn into traffic at a busy intersection near you!

deweller 6y ago

Capability and Ease of Use: Tesla wins Safety Features: Super Cruise wins Tesla beats Super Cruise in the 2 capability categories. But the Super Cruise wins by a large margin in the 3 safety categories. Therefore the Super Cruise wins over all.

Robotbeat 6y ago
There are some problems with Consumer Report’s methodology. They prioritize premapping as if it’s essential to being considered safe (even though relying on premapping for safety is potentially problematic!). The safety assessment is based on CR’s opinion on features, not empirical results. I will say that warning drivers of potentially hazardous and/or uncertain conditions ahead is a good feature of SuperCruise that ought to be emulated widely.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  That's an extremely misleading slant lol. They call out the premapped data as helping effectively communicate hard situations that are upcoming to the driver. Super Cruise also ends up winning in safety categories that have nothing to do with their mapped data. In no way shape or form do they imply that it's essential for being safe.
  - jiofih 6y ago
    What’s misleading about it? A system that is inherently designed to deal with the unknown, and not rely on hardcoded world info is bound to be much better. And safer.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      This is just another misleading claim neither above comment or the article made. Using premapped data doesn't mean the system isn't designed to deal with the unknown... how do you think Super Cruise would be able to function without being able to deal with unknowns? Rather the standard for a working feature that GM has set simply higher than the extremely low standard that Tesla has continously settled for (which is why they originally misapplied Mobileye's LKA sensor suite for Lane Centering and got people killed due to known defects with stationary object handling) Super Cruise requires premapped data as a data point, in abscense of which it reverts to simpler ACC, which it can reliably do. This avoid situations like my Model S test drive in White Plains, NY where the not-a-salesperson had to warn me about a stretch where AP likes to split the difference between the lane and an exit (towards a Jersey barrier) due to poor road conditions. Super Cruise can use mapping data not just to handle something like that, by flag a problem area in advance and let the user take over before the customers become guinea pigs.

nojito 6y ago

Until liability switches away from the driver to the manufacturer, no driving system should be considered "safe"

derekp7 6y ago
I don't think that really will, or should happen, if you compare to similar systems. For example, the owner of an aggressive dog breed will be held liable for attacks from that dog, even though the dog is acting "autonomously". But the dog breeder typically isn't held liable, even if they are responsible for selecting for certain aggressive traits. So the question is: is a manufacture of (semi) autonomous systems really much different? Now this can be different if the autonomous car is owned by an entity other than the primary user (for example, an auto cab -- the passengers in a regular cab aren't responsible for the cab driver, so they wouldn't be liable for a computerized cab driver either).
jmpman 6y ago
Until Elon is willing to let X Æ A -12 cross the freeway in front of a bunch of Tesla’s driven on autopilot by drunk frat boys, no driving system should be considered “safe”.
criddell 6y ago
I was thinking the exact opposite - that manufacturers working on self-driving cars should have some legal immunity. In the US 100 people every day die in car accidents. Say self driving systems could cut that number in half. As we all know, every complex system has bugs so imagine that bugs in the self-driving cars are responsible for 1000 deaths every year. If we don't shield manufacturers from big legal bills for those 1000 deaths, we might not get the systems that could save 10,000 lives.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  If they are safer in net, the total liability costs will be less, even if they are concentrated in the manufacturers, so that the total cost of ownership will be less (as the operators will have lower insurance costs, which will offset the additional costs the manufacturers will need to charge in purchase prices to insure, most likely self-insure, for defect liability.) I suppose that if you want to keep the sticker prices of vehicles low, you could transfer liability to a government entity in exchange for stronger government oversight and pre-approval of design and manufacturing, and tax vehicle owners (which still should be lower than current costs when added to their insurance costs) to pay for the liability pool. If you just shield the manufacturers without transferring liability, you are essentially transferring the costs to the injured.

SloopJon 6y ago

I'm in the market for a new car with decent driver assistance, so a round up like this is just what I've been looking for. One of the first things that stands out is what Mazda told Consumer Reports about its Lane Departure Warning System with Lane-keep Assist: > Mazda responded that its system was not designed or intended to center the vehicle in a lane and that the automaker doesn’t believe its vehicles are equipped with technology that meets the criteria CR is using in its evaluation. Not necessarily something I would have understood from its website or brochure. This probably takes the CX-5 off of my short list. Incidentally, the submitted title casts this as Cadillac vs. Tesla, but the actual title is "Cadillac's Super Cruise Outperforms Other Driving Assistance Systems." In fairness, their 2018 article did have a similar title: "Cadillac Tops Tesla in Consumer Reports' First Ranking of Automated Driving Systems."

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
My car has the current-edition Toyota/Lexus system. First of all, it's worth saying there're a whole slew of ancillary safety systems beyond the 'nominal case driving' automation, like rear-crossing detection, collision brake assistance, blindspot warning and so on. For the self-driving stuff, I really only use the radar cruise control. The car does have lane self-centering but it's not great at detecting lane boundaries, especially when in bad weather or when there's a lot of traffic. I have that system turned to an advisory mode so it'll beep if I start moving across a lane boundary without a turn signal on. The radar cruise control is very solid. My only real complaint about it is that it leaves a large gap at low speed; even when in its tightest-follow mode. You can end up getting people merging in front of you, which then causes it to generate an even larger gap. It will take off from a stop, but if it's a long stop it wants you to hit a resume button. I understand how the systems work at this point, they don't surprise me, and they help with fatigue. I'm generally an attentive driver (I know, we all say that) so I'm OK with the limitations. I don't really want any more. Very anecdotally, the last time I tried a lane-following system (an Audi rental about two years ago), it tried to kill me by following the off-ramp into a gas station at 65mph.
- wil421 6y ago
  Is adaptive cruise control considered self driving? I always thought it was driver assist feature like the original cruise control and blind spot monitoring. Surprisingly it’s been around for almost 30 years and Mitsubishi was using Lidar way back in ‘91. https://www.autonomousvehicleinternational.com/features/adas-3.html https://www.autonomousvehicleinternational.com/features/adas...

danbr 6y ago

Rather than praising some of these systems and lambasting others, CR should reach out to manufacturers documenting what their testing results were, and how to improve systems. We have CVE reporting, why not something similar for vehicle automation testing? It’s quite disappointing to see [unbiased] testers promoting some systems over others, rather than trying to up the safety/capability level across the board.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
This seems like a general argument against product reviews. The manufacturers are surely going to track the results of these tests and try to improve their rankings. Publishing the results doesn’t prevent that, it just gives consumers that information too when they are making choices about what kind of car to buy today. Keeping test results private wouldn’t be consistent with the Consumer Reports mission of informing consumers.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  Quite true. Gaming the metrics are a well known issue. And it's also linked to blind studies somehow.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    College rankings like USN&WR are a great example.
FireBeyond 6y ago
It's not a reviewers responsibility to improve a product. These companies are quite capable of figuring out partnerships and determining where there's a shared good to come from things.
kenjackson 6y ago
CR does reach out to manufacturers. They even give some of the feedback the manufacturers gave back to them in the article: "In response to requests for comment, GM said the system on its Buick Encore GX offers an “impressive amount” of standard active safety features that have been proved to reduce crashes. Mazda responded that its system was not designed or intended to center the vehicle in a lane and that the automaker doesn’t believe its vehicles are equipped with technology that meets the criteria CR is using in its evaluation. "

yumraj 6y ago

So Cadillac is calling it what it really is, a Super Cruise, not self-driving, not auto pilot, not AI-magic. That, IMHO, in itself is commendable since it tells the driver what to expect and keep themselves safe by being aware of the limitations of what the car can and cannot do.

elisharobinson 6y ago
IMHO driver monitoring should be separate from any test which is meant to evaluate L2 self driving features. And any trained pilot knows autopilot does not do everything and that you should be prepared to take over if needed , if you perceive autopilot to be "AI-magic" you should not blame others for your own ingnorance.
- content_sesh 6y ago
  There is a large difference in the degree of training needed for pilot certification vs. getting a driver's license, and Tesla has already gotten in trouble for misleading claims about its "Autopilot" feature. So I agree with the parent comment that it is good Cadillac is not overselling their capabilities.
- 542354234235 6y ago
  > And any trained pilot knows autopilot does not do everything and that you should be prepared to take over if needed , if you perceive autopilot to be "AI-magic" you should not blame others for your own ingnorance. A huge part of airplane safety is the direct opposite of that. It isn’t “don’t blame others for your ignorance” it is “the system should be designed so that it is harder to make a mistake than to do the right thing”. Design and testing doesn’t put the onus on pilots, it puts the onus on the design and the system. How can this documentation be clearer? Is this warning easy to ignore in certain situations and how can we change that? If a pilot gets confused in this situation, how can we design the system to help? How can we train our pilots so they can handle this? How can we test our pilots so we know they truly understand the system? They don’t just say “well the manuals were available, you should have known so that’s on you”. Saying “it’s the individual’s fault” doesn’t improve the system.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Main bit: “ Even after two years, Cadillac’s Super Cruise remained our top-rated system because, when turned on, it uses direct driver monitoring to warn drivers that appear to have stopped paying attention to the road. “ Basically, CR wants the vehicle to aggressively warn the user who is not paying attention. Tesla already has driver facing cameras/eye tracking, so they could enable this with a software upgrade to easily take the #1 spot with the broader definition of ‘autopilot’ (CR is only focusing on two aspects, lane centering, and vehicle distance spacing).

vernie 6y ago
Right now that system just prepares an affidavit blaming you if the car veers into a median.
cma 6y ago
Tesla's interior camera isn't IR with illumination so it isn't capable of driver monitoring at night.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Would be interesting to see what the night time data look like. Also, people make these camera covers: https://www.greendrive-accessories.com/en/products/cache-camera-interieure-pour-tesla-model-3 https://www.greendrive-accessories.com/en/products/cache-cam... Ironically, Cadillac sells these to cover laptop cameras: https://cadillaccollection.com/CAD21/Cadillac/Office+Tech/Private+Eyes+Web+Cam+Cover.axd https://cadillaccollection.com/CAD21/Cadillac/Office+Tech/Pr...

drewrv 6y ago

I understand that people should evaluate products as they're delivered, vs promises of a vague wonderful future product. And Tesla has made some wild promises that they've taken payment for, but I really doubt they can fulfill. That being said, one thing that I like about my spouses Tesla is that it reliably gets OTA updates that adds features and improves functionality. For example, they recently added a video feed from the blind spot cameras when I'm in reverse. I'm not sure of any other car brand that would do that. My experience with other brands is that, best case scenario, it would take a trip to the dealership and hundreds of dollars to add a feature like that. More likely they'd try to upsell me on a 2021 model. Meanwhile the Tesla adds that stuff on a regular cadence while I sleep. I'd bet the 2018 Tesla they tested would perform competitively with todays models. And in two more years the 2018 model will compete well against 2022 models. CR shouldn't speculate this way but it's probably worth consideration if you're looking for a new car.

vkou 6y ago
> That being said, one thing that I like about my spouses Tesla is that it reliably gets OTA updates that adds features and improves functionality. As someone who builds software for a living, and has introduced regressions once or twice into production, I would not like my safety-critical system to live on the bleeding edge of functionality. It's great if other people are interested in being testers for every X.0 release, but I'd rather not be one of them.
- SomeHacker44 6y ago
  Tesla has this option. You can opt in to early releases (I did for a while) or just the main line releases.

greatjack613 6y ago

This is a very misleading title, even CR agrees that tesla's autopilot outperforms supercruise in terms of features, accuracy, and performance. They just don't like the amount of freedom tesla's system gives the driver while supercruise forces the driver to stare straight ahead the entire time.

bluu00 6y ago
> even CR agrees that tesla's autopilot outperforms supercruise where? > They just don't like the amount of freedom tesla's system gives the driver while supercruise forces the driver to stare straight ahead the entire time. That's L2 sir. L2.
- ebg13 6y ago
  > > even CR agrees that tesla's autopilot outperforms supercruise > where? In the section titled "Capabilities and Performance".
- jiofih 6y ago
  In both the “capabilities” and “ease of use” section. Cadillac wins all the others because it has a camera watching your eyes.
vessenes 6y ago
I agree, I was reminded of the days of custom anti-Tesla news sites funded by short sellers, actually. "We assume these systems need full driver attention as their only important baseline, and regardless of how they perform, score them on that assumption." There is no way Cadillac can take an on-ramp to a highway, safely change lanes for an exit and take the exit without drama, but my Model 3 does that very nicely right now.
- m463 6y ago
  Yes, there's another dimension to this test (literally). Time. it might be like comparing an iphone to an android phone. a review at the time of release vs a review 3 years later might show different results if one keeps updating the software and the other stops.

jedberg 6y ago

This seems like it was rigged for Cadillac to win. In the Tesla, during autopilot, if you hit your blinker it will change lanes for you. I don't think SuperCruise does that. In fact, I think only Tesla does that. Why did they not include that in their tests?

pandaman 6y ago
BMW does that on demand: if you hold the signal it will change lanes even while driving normally.

aphextron 6y ago

Super Cruise is geofenced to the US interstate highway system on routes that have been pre-mapped by GM with lidar. It's not a comparable system at all.

Der_Einzige 6y ago

Tesla tries to pretend that they're somehow so far ahead of other automakers technologically. Aside from the electric power-trains and battery tech, they're just not ahead of other manufacturers. A few months ago, I tried Tesla's autopilot and found it extremely poor. It frequently took more time than expected for possible objects (that I saw) to appear on the head-unit. Further, the autopilot didn't detect a garbage can on the side of the road and almost tried to drive me into it. Why does the Tesla still refuse to put in blind-spot monitors? Why does elon still refuse to give us HUDs? Where is Android Auto / Apple CarPlay?

jiofih 6y ago
Have you tried other cars in the same driving conditions? There is no commercially available vehicle that will navigate around a trash can right now besides a Tesla.
elisharobinson 6y ago
There is nothing to pretend . The facts are there for everyone to see , no other system is able to perform lane change and operate outside of the US.

Tarragon 6y ago

I prefer Lane Keeping Assist to Lane Centering. The Ford system is the only LKA I have experience with. It has me drive but warns and intervenes when I get close to the line without signalling. Before it nudges the steering it shakes the wheel and it feels just like rolling over a rumble strip. In cases where I do legitimately get distracted and start to drift that rumble snaps me back to driving before things go awry. False positives almost completely come from changing lanes or exiting the highway without signaling. The rumble strip feeling and then the steering input isn't strong enough to prevent the lane change but does give me that reminded to signal next time. The nudge is strong enough to keep the car in lane but no one in their right mind would let the car go down the road bouncing off the lines like this. To me there's no question that I'm driving. I stay engaged and alert without every having to be monitored and nagged. It helps me when I slip but doesn't make me complacent. With a Lane Centering systems the car is doing all of the subtle corrections. I don't feel like I'm driving and I totally drift off. I feel much more checked out and thinking about it after the fact I feel much less safe over time.

Tarragon 6y ago
I totally want to study this and see if it's just me and then publish. Oh well, if I ever jump to academia.
- RobLach 6y ago
  You can publish without an academic affiliation.
  - Tarragon 6y ago
    Sure can but available time and relation to paying tasks keeps it on the wishlist and not do list.
BoorishBears 6y ago
Tesla's initial Autopilot run was literally LKA running on a loop. Mobileye had put that exact sensor suite in dozens of production vehicles but left it to LKA duties due to the inherent danger of expecting the user to take over at any moment. To that end, the system actually provided more input when it detects wrong input than when it detected no input. For example, feel a strong nudge when you try and change lanes without signaling before you leave the lane, but with no input at all the car would be riding the line before correcting, essentially preventing hands free usage It focused on correcting behavior without causing sudden hard to correct errors... like driving into a concrete barrier when your hands aren't ready to provide counter-input

nethunters 6y ago

I've had the current gen Toyota Corolla for just over a year and use the adaptive cruise control and lane tracing ~95% of the time I'm driving, whether that is city driving in busy tight roads or motorway driving. After using it for so long I won't be able to drive a car without it. I've personally had no issues with the lane tracing as I instinctively understand where the system works and where it doesn't and I've adapted my driving as such. The buttons for the controls are situated on the steering wheel and are simple to understand and easy to activate. Accelerating doesn't disable the lane trace assist or adaptive cruise control. The system also doesn't get confused with other lines on the road, bright sun light, glare, wet roads or driving at night. My only gripe is that the speed sign recognition system is a pain in cities where signs for side roads point wrongly to the main road but thankfully the speed of the adaptive cruise control isn't limited by it just an annoying beep that you can switch off if required. Toyota do give a warning not to use the adaptive cruise control behind a tilt and slide recovery truck, or a lorry trailer that is higher than the car itself however I haven't found any issues with that. The settings for the lane tracing can be adjusted to change the sensitivity to which it responds to the drivers turning force. I find that warning you with different beeps for different things is a pretty good system and I can easily tell the difference between the different beeps and what they're for (even with loud audio blaring through my speakers). Comparisons like these need to use the findings of drivers who actually use these systems in real life rather than made up scenarios. Unrelated, (but adding this after seeing those who are in the market for a new car), it is a sporty, nice and fun to drive car, 2 litre hybrid with 200nm torque from each engine and a combined bhp of 186 (could be ~300 if remapped but you'll lose linear acceleration) with good mpg, MacPherson suspension at the front, and multi linked individual suspension at the back, lower centre of gravity and 52.5:47.5 weight distribution for better cornering. In relation to the "self-driving" the system takes a little learning, but once you understand it and are used to it, there's no going back to conventional cars.

maxharris 6y ago

A reminder to people: do not buy or sell stocks on the basis of headlines, or any price movement that spans the basis of months. The incentives to mislead you are incredibly powerful.

digital-cygnet 6y ago

The pro-Tesla view is that this is like comparing an iPhone to feature phones in 2008 on the basis of sound quality and keyboard action (unfortunately I couldn't find their actual review from that year in a quick google). The question being: do you compare products on the basis of what they aspire to be, or what they offer today? Clearly the iPhone's touch centric design and App Store turned out to be a paradigm shift in computing, and Tesla's Autopilot hopes to be the same for driving. The difference as I see it is that the App Store not living up to its hype wasn't going to kill anybody, and choosing an iPhone is a much less weighty financial decision than choosing a Tesla. That being said, I think Consumer Reports could have done a better job of comparing the actual systems (or explaining why it chose not to), along with the exhaustive analysis of the ways in which use of the systems is curtailed for safety. What a lot of people care about is "how good is it at self-driving", even though the more important short term question, which they tackle, is "how well do its driver assist features holistically contribute to the safety of the car". Under this mode of analysis my decade-old Prius actually would do pretty well -- it has no driver assist at all, but at least it doesn't let you turn on driver assist at dangerous times, and tells you clearly when it's off (which is always).

mlindner 6y ago

The thing everyone seems to have missed, is that Cadillac's system only "outperforms" Tesla because it disables itself when you look away from where you're driving. So because the system is more limited it somehow outperforms.