7 ms·

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

by 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
        That gets into fun with statistics. On a pure deaths per mile basis Autopilot is already safer than the average car driven by the average driver. However, people downplay that by adjusting for various things making them relatively equivalent with not enough data to really say one way or another. Basically, there is simply not enough data to be statistically significant improvement or detriment vs drivers, but there is enough data to say they are safe enough to be used.
- labcomputer 6y ago
  They have a funny definition of safety. Specifically, they insist that the system should only be usable on limited-access highways. CR docked all manufacturers (except GM) 4 points for that. CR also docked 3 points from every company (except GM, again) for "unresponsive driver" without saying what, exactly, GM is doing differently from everyone else. Finally, under "keeping the driver engaged", GM somehow got 3 more points than anyone else, despite being subject to the same complaints. Sadly, CR is not the publication it used to be. While this isn't a "Tesla hit-piece", it is quite clearly a "GM submarine."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- loudmax 6y ago
  Tesla's term "Autopilot" is misleading and it's gotten people killed. Tesla and Musk deserve opprobrium for giving their driver assist system a name that implies that the car can drive without constant supervision. But Consumer Report's title isn't entirely clear either. They rank Cadillac ahead of Tesla because Super Cruise makes stronger attempts than Autopilot to make sure the driver is engaged. That isn't a bad thing, but it should be clear in the title that the "performance" they're measuring heavily weighs toward safety. It's like saying that a Volvo station wagon outperforms a Ferrari sports car because your family is safer in the Volvo. Sure, I'd rather my kids ride in a Volvo but that's not what I think of when I read the word "outperforms".
  - elisharobinson 6y ago
    There exists a total of 0 pilots in the world who believe autopilot system will fly the plane without any need for intervention. If your ingnorance gives meaning to words it does not make them true.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >You must have missed their #1 requirement for these systems: safety. Not really surprising from CR. They've always emphasized safety--along with maintenance, cost, etc. The target audience for CR is mostly a conventional middle-class suburban family (understanding that Cadillac is still a relatively high-end car). They don't really care about car enthusiasts who are prioritizing other types of capabilities.
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!

by ebg13 6y ago

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
        That gets into fun with statistics. On a pure deaths per mile basis Autopilot is already safer than the average car driven by the average driver. However, people downplay that by adjusting for various things making them relatively equivalent with not enough data to really say one way or another. Basically, there is simply not enough data to be statistically significant improvement or detriment vs drivers, but there is enough data to say they are safe enough to be used.
labcomputer 6y ago
They have a funny definition of safety. Specifically, they insist that the system should only be usable on limited-access highways. CR docked all manufacturers (except GM) 4 points for that. CR also docked 3 points from every company (except GM, again) for "unresponsive driver" without saying what, exactly, GM is doing differently from everyone else. Finally, under "keeping the driver engaged", GM somehow got 3 more points than anyone else, despite being subject to the same complaints. Sadly, CR is not the publication it used to be. While this isn't a "Tesla hit-piece", it is quite clearly a "GM submarine."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
loudmax 6y ago
Tesla's term "Autopilot" is misleading and it's gotten people killed. Tesla and Musk deserve opprobrium for giving their driver assist system a name that implies that the car can drive without constant supervision. But Consumer Report's title isn't entirely clear either. They rank Cadillac ahead of Tesla because Super Cruise makes stronger attempts than Autopilot to make sure the driver is engaged. That isn't a bad thing, but it should be clear in the title that the "performance" they're measuring heavily weighs toward safety. It's like saying that a Volvo station wagon outperforms a Ferrari sports car because your family is safer in the Volvo. Sure, I'd rather my kids ride in a Volvo but that's not what I think of when I read the word "outperforms".
- elisharobinson 6y ago
  There exists a total of 0 pilots in the world who believe autopilot system will fly the plane without any need for intervention. If your ingnorance gives meaning to words it does not make them true.
ghaff 6y ago
>You must have missed their #1 requirement for these systems: safety. Not really surprising from CR. They've always emphasized safety--along with maintenance, cost, etc. The target audience for CR is mostly a conventional middle-class suburban family (understanding that Cadillac is still a relatively high-end car). They don't really care about car enthusiasts who are prioritizing other types of capabilities.

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!