5 ms·

If you watch the video, it doesn't appear to contain safeguards against driving into oncoming traffic and parked cars.

by SheinhardtWigCo 5y ago

simondotau 5y ago
Neither does every other car on the market.
- cromulen 5y ago
  For several years now, in the EU at least, all new cars need to have automatic emergency breaks. It's basically impossible to run into something, run someone over, etc. This kind of system reduces stress and gives at least me a certain peace of mind. In this regard Tesla self driving is a step backwards.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    You seem to be confused about what AEB is and what it does. It is generally effective at braking for static or rapidly slowing vehicles ahead. Most AEB systems are not effective "safeguards against driving into oncoming traffic and parked cars". These would involve a steering intervention, not a braking intervention.
    - mavhc 5y ago
      I assume AEB ignores a lot of stuff on purpose, otherwise it'd be braking due to things on the side of the road, and cars in the other lane on a curve that are heading straight towards you
      - simondotau 5y ago
        Correct. Most AEB systems use a forward facing radar, which often receive spurious reflections from various street elements overhead bridges, overhead signage and manhole covers. As a result, most radar-based implementations will actively ignore completely stationary objects while driving at high speed.
        mavhc 5y ago
        https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-features-automatic-braking-system-tested-explained/ https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-featu... has some more info, they will stop for things stopped in front of them, but only at city speeds, I assume because randomly braking at 60mph is bad
        simondotau 5y ago
        That is a good article which summarises the state of AEB and its general capability. It's worth noting that the most effective system they tested doesn't use radar at all, it was an entirely vision-based system: Subaru Eyesight. Worth remembering this when people agonise over Tesla ditching radar sensors on the Model 3. I chose my parents' most recent new car precisely because of this—a 2019 model year Subaru Forester. Not only was the active safety top notch, its chassis tuning means that it's more capable of remaining composed after swerving to avoid an obstacle. (It was also one of the few vehicles which ticked every box for them.) Here is the comparison I relied upon for that decision. (Yes, I am Australian.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs7PSpIMJYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs7PSpIMJYk
        avereveard 5y ago
        eyesight has stereoscopic vision, so can compute actual distances from obstacles from the input feed instead of faking it all with machine learning.
        mavhc 5y ago
        Well,the rest have radar, so that's not a problem. "Stereoscopic vision works most effectively for distances up to 18 feet. Beyond this distance, your brain starts using relative size and motion to determine depth."
        avereveard 5y ago
        What has brain performance anything to do with the discussion at hand? Eyesight eyes are further apart than humans anyway.
- smcl 5y ago
  Wait, yes they do. Every other car has a driver who, presumably, does not want to randomly veer off into concrete pillars or oncoming traffic like FSD seems to do with an alarming frequency. Humans are imperfect and make mistakes when distracted or driving illegally (under the influence of alcohol or drugs or without a license or with poor eyesight...) but the argument that a Tesla operating under FSD is just as safe as this most dangerous class of drivers is an extremely unconvincing one.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    There are human drivers in Tesla vehicles too. And FSD beta isn’t doing anything fundamentally different than any other “regular” car with adaptive cruise and lane centring—it is steering, braking and accelerating based on conditions reported by sensors. The only difference is that the FSD beta is capable of doing this task in a wider variety of scenarios.
    - marderfarker2 5y ago
      Why call it fsd when it can’t do fsd? Also if I need to watch my car driving, then why should I pay $199 a month for it rather than drive the car myself, or call an Uber. Too many Tesla apologists around.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        I'm not defending the FSD name. Personally I think the name is stupid. I'm not defending the price. Personally I wouldn't pay for it. For the record, I don't own a Tesla vehicle. I don't know anyone who owns a Tesla vehicle. I don't own TSLA stock (or any other individual stock or derivatives). I've never driven a Tesla vehicle or even sat inside any Tesla vehicle.
        AlexandrB 5y ago
        When does it cross the line from "bad naming" to "fraud"? If I call my product a "life jacket" and you wear it while out on the water but all it does is make you sink faster it's not just a bad name.

If you watch the video, it doesn't appear to contain safeguards against driving into oncoming traffic and parked cars.

simondotau 5y ago

Neither does every other car on the market.

cromulen 5y ago
For several years now, in the EU at least, all new cars need to have automatic emergency breaks. It's basically impossible to run into something, run someone over, etc. This kind of system reduces stress and gives at least me a certain peace of mind. In this regard Tesla self driving is a step backwards.
- simondotau 5y ago
  You seem to be confused about what AEB is and what it does. It is generally effective at braking for static or rapidly slowing vehicles ahead. Most AEB systems are not effective "safeguards against driving into oncoming traffic and parked cars". These would involve a steering intervention, not a braking intervention.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    I assume AEB ignores a lot of stuff on purpose, otherwise it'd be braking due to things on the side of the road, and cars in the other lane on a curve that are heading straight towards you
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Correct. Most AEB systems use a forward facing radar, which often receive spurious reflections from various street elements overhead bridges, overhead signage and manhole covers. As a result, most radar-based implementations will actively ignore completely stationary objects while driving at high speed.
      - mavhc 5y ago
        https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-features-automatic-braking-system-tested-explained/ https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-featu... has some more info, they will stop for things stopped in front of them, but only at city speeds, I assume because randomly braking at 60mph is bad
        simondotau 5y ago
        That is a good article which summarises the state of AEB and its general capability. It's worth noting that the most effective system they tested doesn't use radar at all, it was an entirely vision-based system: Subaru Eyesight. Worth remembering this when people agonise over Tesla ditching radar sensors on the Model 3. I chose my parents' most recent new car precisely because of this—a 2019 model year Subaru Forester. Not only was the active safety top notch, its chassis tuning means that it's more capable of remaining composed after swerving to avoid an obstacle. (It was also one of the few vehicles which ticked every box for them.) Here is the comparison I relied upon for that decision. (Yes, I am Australian.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs7PSpIMJYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs7PSpIMJYk
        avereveard 5y ago
        eyesight has stereoscopic vision, so can compute actual distances from obstacles from the input feed instead of faking it all with machine learning.
        mavhc 5y ago
        Well,the rest have radar, so that's not a problem. "Stereoscopic vision works most effectively for distances up to 18 feet. Beyond this distance, your brain starts using relative size and motion to determine depth."
        avereveard 5y ago
        What has brain performance anything to do with the discussion at hand? Eyesight eyes are further apart than humans anyway.
smcl 5y ago
Wait, yes they do. Every other car has a driver who, presumably, does not want to randomly veer off into concrete pillars or oncoming traffic like FSD seems to do with an alarming frequency. Humans are imperfect and make mistakes when distracted or driving illegally (under the influence of alcohol or drugs or without a license or with poor eyesight...) but the argument that a Tesla operating under FSD is just as safe as this most dangerous class of drivers is an extremely unconvincing one.
- simondotau 5y ago
  There are human drivers in Tesla vehicles too. And FSD beta isn’t doing anything fundamentally different than any other “regular” car with adaptive cruise and lane centring—it is steering, braking and accelerating based on conditions reported by sensors. The only difference is that the FSD beta is capable of doing this task in a wider variety of scenarios.
  - marderfarker2 5y ago
    Why call it fsd when it can’t do fsd? Also if I need to watch my car driving, then why should I pay $199 a month for it rather than drive the car myself, or call an Uber. Too many Tesla apologists around.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      I'm not defending the FSD name. Personally I think the name is stupid. I'm not defending the price. Personally I wouldn't pay for it. For the record, I don't own a Tesla vehicle. I don't know anyone who owns a Tesla vehicle. I don't own TSLA stock (or any other individual stock or derivatives). I've never driven a Tesla vehicle or even sat inside any Tesla vehicle.
      - AlexandrB 5y ago
        When does it cross the line from "bad naming" to "fraud"? If I call my product a "life jacket" and you wear it while out on the water but all it does is make you sink faster it's not just a bad name.