3 ms·

No, it's pretty accurate. The Tesla Autopilot just barely beats out Super Cruise in terms of features and performance. But Super Cruise absolutely blows Autop

No, it's pretty accurate. The Tesla Autopilot just barely beats out Super Cruise in terms of features and performance. But Super Cruise absolutely blows Autopilot out of the water on safety. It's not even close. And so, objectively, Super Cruise won.

BoorishBears 6y ago
It's funny that you got downvoted for this very accurate take based on their own conclusion. Tesla barely bests GM and co on capabilities: 9/10 vs 8/10 But then loses on one of the most important features to ensure people aren't killed by what should be safety features: 3/10 (!) vs 7/10 Nothing misleading about it, it's a reflection of the fact GM isn't going for flashiness over function. A comment above yours is bragging about party tricks like taking an on ramp, but being able to ensure the driver is attentive for the bulk of the trip that is highway is going a longer way for driver safety than being able to beta test non-self-driving "full self driving" on public roads at the expense of everyone else on the road
Shivetya 6y ago
Yes I own a Tesla Model 3 but that safety rating is just pure bullshit. So they failed it because it can drive anywhere and they don't agree it should be allow a user to use on residential streets or streets not clearly marked. Better yet the car shows that is regonizes the driving lanes even with bad marking. Clearly CR is not judging on ability but instead judging against their own choice. wow, just wow. that is just as contrived as can be. as for amount of torque required to deactivate the self driving it not a lot and why would you assume you want the car to retake control immediately afterward? If I took control I want control till I state otherwise. I don't want to suddenly find the car off doing what it wants after I disengaged it through a method they defined as will turn it off. So no, I do not agree with their safety assessment because the majority ignores the fact that it was designed to drive in those conditions and not require rigidly mapped roads to operate. There is no real point in self driving system that requires perfection in roads and markings. Hell the scariest part about Tesla's FSD is how well it does work, it makes you wonder why so many cannot get even part way there. Is it perfect, not on your life. However it is damn better than CR implies and the only real danger is some people might trust it too much regardless how much Tesla says not to. Well guess what, they do that will all LKA and even super cruise.
- pandaman 6y ago
  Consider a compiler that compiles some malformed programs (e.g. replaces misspelled identifiers with a closest match, ignores missing ';'s etc). Will you want your Tesla's software to be compiled with such a compiler or would you prefer they used the strictest compiler available with extra linting with something like Coverity? The same sentiment is for critical systems in a car: them working when they should not work is not an amazing feat of engineering but a defect.
jiofih 6y ago
If you consider “safety” requiring more human input. Tesla is aiming for the car/computer to be safer than the driver.
- ars 6y ago
  It's good for them to aim that way, but at present the car/computer is much less safe than the driver.
  - jiofih 6y ago
    It is not. It is either as safe[1] or vastly safer[2] than humans depending on how you look at it, and even without AP, Tesla vehicles are some of the safest ever made. It’s all publicly available data. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/28/new-tesla-autopilot-statistics-show-its-almost-as-safe-driving-with-it-as-without/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/28/new-te... [2] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/01/tesla-autopilot-accidents-1-out-of-4530000-miles-us-average-1-out-of-479000-miles/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/01/tesla-autopilot-acciden...
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      No, if you actually read the report, they note that Teslas using Autopilot actually had more than 2x the number of accidents than cars driving without Autopilot engaged (but had other advanced driving features engaged), and almost 3x the number of accidents than cars that weren't using Autopilot or the other advanced driving features. In other words, Autopilot was 2-3x worse than not using Autopilot at all. In terms of comparing Teslas to the entire US automobile market, they're including luxury cars versus every other type of vehicle, including big rigs, and car models spread over several decades. Of course Tesla is going to be safer than older cars; NHTSA regulations require that. Notably, Tesla refuses to release comparisons of Tesla to cars of similar age or type. You know why? Because their competitors have the same low accident statistics as Teslas driven without Autopilot or "safety" features enabled, and admitting that would kill Tesla's safety marketing claims for Autopilot.
- 6y ago

BoorishBears 6y ago

It's funny that you got downvoted for this very accurate take based on their own conclusion. Tesla barely bests GM and co on capabilities: 9/10 vs 8/10 But then loses on one of the most important features to ensure people aren't killed by what should be safety features: 3/10 (!) vs 7/10 Nothing misleading about it, it's a reflection of the fact GM isn't going for flashiness over function. A comment above yours is bragging about party tricks like taking an on ramp, but being able to ensure the driver is attentive for the bulk of the trip that is highway is going a longer way for driver safety than being able to beta test non-self-driving "full self driving" on public roads at the expense of everyone else on the road

Shivetya 6y ago

Yes I own a Tesla Model 3 but that safety rating is just pure bullshit. So they failed it because it can drive anywhere and they don't agree it should be allow a user to use on residential streets or streets not clearly marked. Better yet the car shows that is regonizes the driving lanes even with bad marking. Clearly CR is not judging on ability but instead judging against their own choice. wow, just wow. that is just as contrived as can be. as for amount of torque required to deactivate the self driving it not a lot and why would you assume you want the car to retake control immediately afterward? If I took control I want control till I state otherwise. I don't want to suddenly find the car off doing what it wants after I disengaged it through a method they defined as will turn it off. So no, I do not agree with their safety assessment because the majority ignores the fact that it was designed to drive in those conditions and not require rigidly mapped roads to operate. There is no real point in self driving system that requires perfection in roads and markings. Hell the scariest part about Tesla's FSD is how well it does work, it makes you wonder why so many cannot get even part way there. Is it perfect, not on your life. However it is damn better than CR implies and the only real danger is some people might trust it too much regardless how much Tesla says not to. Well guess what, they do that will all LKA and even super cruise.

pandaman 6y ago
Consider a compiler that compiles some malformed programs (e.g. replaces misspelled identifiers with a closest match, ignores missing ';'s etc). Will you want your Tesla's software to be compiled with such a compiler or would you prefer they used the strictest compiler available with extra linting with something like Coverity? The same sentiment is for critical systems in a car: them working when they should not work is not an amazing feat of engineering but a defect.

jiofih 6y ago

If you consider “safety” requiring more human input. Tesla is aiming for the car/computer to be safer than the driver.

ars 6y ago
It's good for them to aim that way, but at present the car/computer is much less safe than the driver.
- jiofih 6y ago
  It is not. It is either as safe[1] or vastly safer[2] than humans depending on how you look at it, and even without AP, Tesla vehicles are some of the safest ever made. It’s all publicly available data. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/28/new-tesla-autopilot-statistics-show-its-almost-as-safe-driving-with-it-as-without/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/28/new-te... [2] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/01/tesla-autopilot-accidents-1-out-of-4530000-miles-us-average-1-out-of-479000-miles/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/01/tesla-autopilot-acciden...
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, if you actually read the report, they note that Teslas using Autopilot actually had more than 2x the number of accidents than cars driving without Autopilot engaged (but had other advanced driving features engaged), and almost 3x the number of accidents than cars that weren't using Autopilot or the other advanced driving features. In other words, Autopilot was 2-3x worse than not using Autopilot at all. In terms of comparing Teslas to the entire US automobile market, they're including luxury cars versus every other type of vehicle, including big rigs, and car models spread over several decades. Of course Tesla is going to be safer than older cars; NHTSA regulations require that. Notably, Tesla refuses to release comparisons of Tesla to cars of similar age or type. You know why? Because their competitors have the same low accident statistics as Teslas driven without Autopilot or "safety" features enabled, and admitting that would kill Tesla's safety marketing claims for Autopilot.
6y ago