15 ms·

Tesla AutoPilot – I give up, it's downright lethal

184 points by pcbro141 5y ago

mjevans 5y ago
Another end user mistaking marketing hype behind 'AutoPilot' as 'Full Self Driving' (E.G. that level 5 driving feature). As other users in that forum thread point out, the current software is more like enhanced cruise control, lane keeping, and automatic breaking assist. It is also //only intended// for //limited access highways and freeways// e.g. onramp / offramp limited.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Sounds like break assist is assisting a bit too hard
- nikau 5y ago
  Yes and it should be gps fenced to only activate where safe. Tesla aren't doing the right thing voluntarily so regulators need to step in.
  - fksadfji12 5y ago
    Why? Should they do it for cruise control too?
  - Taek 5y ago
    Isn't it the case that the death rate per miles driven is lower in the Teslas than almost any other vehicle on the road?
    - dlp211 5y ago
      No. This is Tesla spin. The Tesla is no safer than any other luxury vehicle which it shares it's demographics with.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      Also, it is an inherently screwed data collection, where people will drive manually in more dangerous situations - so you pretty much get a statistics on going on a straight line for hundreds of kilometers, except for the actually problematic intersection/people walking before after the car, etc.
    - deelowe 5y ago
      They need to compare against cars in the same class, not the whole industry. Also, I’m not sure death per miles is the right metric. What matters is the accident rate while operating in cruise.
- throwawaymale 5y ago
  This does not accurately represent what the telsa owner reported. Their vehicle aggressively applied the brakes where there was no apparent need.
- crummy 5y ago
  I don't think what he describes fits "full self driving" - I would have expected autopilot to handle it OK. That said I didn't realise autopilot is only intended for highways and freeways. Maybe that's not explicit enough?
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    That's the exact reason a German court barred them from using that very label last year in advertising material. They need to start calling it what it is, driving assistance. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-driving-false-advertising-germany.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-driving...
    - crummy 5y ago
      I wouldn't expect "driving assistance" to slam on the brakes abruptly like that either.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fksadfji12 5y ago
  Exactly this. It's like turning on cruise control and blaming it for rear ending someone at a slow down.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    No, it's not. I know exactly what my car is going to do when I turn on cruise control no matter the circumstances. It's predictable as hell. With autopilot you have no clue what's going to happen a split second later if you use it on an unblessed street.
- rvz 5y ago
  Falsely advertised and packaged as 'Full Self Driving' by Tesla for years, but recently admitted to be Level 2 cruise control rather than the 'ambitious' so-called Level 5 that was repeatedly due for last year. This is more like 'Fools Self Driving' I'm afraid. Especially with messing around with beta software that doesn't function properly as advertised.
- judge2020 5y ago
  To be fair it is also referred to to as such in the car UI and in the disclosures that appear before you enable them (lane keeping vs. auto steer isn't too different in my opinion - both terms imply a regular competent driver, not some "always perfect" driver).
- akerl_ 5y ago
  If enhanced cruise control in my non-Tesla routinely slammed on the breaks out of nowhere, I’d be pissed about that too. Tesla’s marketing is optimized to convince users that the software is better than it is, and the software’s failure modes align horribly with the worst case: when things are working, everything is smooth, but without warning the car will suddenly decide to make a dangerous active change (swerving, braking, etc) in a way that can kill a driver who is even partially distracted. Put the above together and it starts to look like Elon has created a perfect storm for traffic accidents.
  - peytoncasper 5y ago
    I'm not justifying how Tesla's assistance works as I've driven a rental and it really is glorified cruise control right now. That being said, I have a Honda with assistive braking and it is terrible. Shadows, pot holes, ghosts all seem to cause it to brake and not in predictable ways which is frustrating. I only leave it on, because I imagine one day I won't quite react fast enough to someone in front of me and it will save me the pain of rear ending someone. But I definitely almost did when it slammed the brakes on a highway off ramp and got me rightfully honked at by the car behind me. Whats worse is I'm not even sure if mine could receive updates at any point. Maybe at the dealership.
    - bussierem 5y ago
      I have a Subaru with assistive braking (EyeSight) and it does the exact same thing on a very specific off ramp. My best guess was that it's detecting the big yellow "turn" sign right before the loop. It's about big enough to be the back of a car to the primitive detection. That's not a solution for you, just thought I would share commiseration. Your experience with it is slightly worse than mine has been but I leave mine on for the exact same reason.
    - jsight 5y ago
      IMO, Tesla is a bit worse, but I agree with this in principle. I've had other cars phantom brake in similar situations. The worst phantom brakes that I've had from AP were cases where a car really was creeping into my lane a bit. Its just that hard braking wasn't the right fix for the situation as a slight swerve was safer.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Ok, fair, whatever. But can one use Tesla with normal radar cruise control? Systems like these been super robust for over a decade if not two. Can one disable all these proactive security features that seem to not work.
  - URSpider94 5y ago
    Yes, you can, that’s called traffic aware cruise control (TACC), and is activated with a single pull on the stick. TACC absolutely does exactly what is mentioned in this article - it suffers from phantom braking where it hauls the car to a stop suddenly in the middle of the highway. Yes, other cars with radar cruise control don’t seem to do this.
- ziftface 5y ago
  Yes, autopilot is just cruise control. No other cruise control I've used before violently brakes on the highway for no reason. I don't think expecting it to not do that is unreasonable.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  In other cars, similar features are restricted to when the vehicle's sensors are 1) able to discern clear lane lines and 2) the vehicle is traveling above a certain speed. Otherwise they're automatically turned off. This seems like a pretty easy way to ensure the features are not misused. If you're going under a certain speed or lines aren't painted (or they're unclear) you are more likely to not be on the type of road or situation recommended for these features. Also something to remember: actual pilots that use real auto pilot in planes have countless hours of training in how to properly integrate its use into the operation of the plane.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > In other cars, In Tesla's too, just not the speed part - I don't think you can assume highways are always above 45 miles an hour, especially if you've ever been on an interstate with lanes closed during rush hour.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      That's what I mean though: these features are not really ideal for traffic that isn't flowing smoothly. Rush hour with a lane closed is a scenario where the driver should be fully aware & in control. Behavior is often unpredictable in such cases with tightly spaced cars and frustrated drivers.
      - frumper 5y ago
        Many manufacturers now offer those features to a stop, or even stop and go situations
      - judge2020 5y ago
        I've been in such traffic and the only issue is TACC's 1-2 car spacing allows more people in to my lane than I usually allow, but otherwise it does fine. Tesla's TACC (compared to Honda) is even better in this sense since it often accelerates at the same time as the car in front of it, while Honda's will wait for a 1 car gap to continue driving on its own.
- wpietri 5y ago
  If by "mistaking marketing hype" you mean "believing the actual words that they were told", I guess. But I think that goes well beyond the sort of puffery [1] that is legal because nobody believes it. Indeed, I'd argue that Tesla's valuation is precisely based on people believing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery
rdtwo 5y ago
Regulations are built for companies like Tesla… everyone else writes their own because they are more conservative than regulators.
throwaway98797 5y ago
It is beta. Pay attention.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Are they testing it in private 'beta' streets, with 'beta' people who won't be killed? Or is this person going to be in opposing traffic on my nearby freeway?
  - intellix 5y ago
    exactly the problem. In the replies on the thread you constantly see: "luckily there was nobody close behind me"
- mcculley 5y ago
  I appreciate the enthusiasts paying to be beta testers. I hope to profit from their experience in a few years when a car with a real autopilot is available. I just wish they didn’t have to endanger innocent others in the process.
  - mark-r 5y ago
    The problem is that "a few years" is way too optimistic. Fully autonomous driving requires a level of situational awareness that computers can't yet touch. Everybody looks at the progress we've made so far and assumes it will continue at the same pace until all the problems are gone, but I don't see how that's possible. It's like assuming Moore's Law would have given us 10Ghz processors by now.
  - throwaway98797 5y ago
    Progress comes with risk. One is trading lives today for the hope of saving more in the future sooner.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      It is completely acceptable for those who want to pay to be beta testers to take risks. I would rather we have fewer bicyclists killed by people sleeping while their “autopilot” drives.
baron816 5y ago
60% of the time, it's full self driving every time.
dataflow 5y ago
I love how people think all it takes to excuse potentially lethal undefined behavior is that it's documented somewhere: > This sounds to be precisely the type of roads where autopilot/autosteer should not be used - it is not limited by entry and exit ramps. If autopilot/autosteer is used in circumstances where it is not for use, then from time to time it is going to perform in an undefined way. > Using ANY tool outside its operating environment will be dangerous. Put your experience down to user error.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  Exactly. If Tesla and Musk didn’t aggressively market their cruise control as Full self driving only a few months from level 5! then nobody would be criticising them.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    The marketing is certainly a big part of it, but I think it's a mistake to think there aren't significant issues here that would remain even with better marketing. One big problem is the sheer unpredictability of what's going to happen the next moment. If you turn on cruise control on the wrong street, its behavior is still going to be entirely predictable. You're simply not going to get suddenly erratic behavior just because you pressed the cruise-control button. Autopilot on the other hand seems to actively make the situation far more unpredictable than it would otherwise be, increasing the dangers people find themselves in. That's just horrible by any standards I can consider sane, no matter how it's marketed. Another (somewhat related, somewhat distinct) problem is that a system that works (say) 99% of the time and fails 1% of the time can easily be more dangerous than one that works 20% of the time and fails 80% of the time. (Obviously I made up the numbers, but adjust accordingly.) If you have to constantly correct something, then you're used to it; it's second nature to you. But if you might get used to it working too well... then as a human you won't be necessarily ready for the rare cases, especially when they're more difficult to predict. So an autopilot that works 'better' than something like cruise control can easily end up being more dangerous because of this, and it would be a mistake to hold them to identical standards.
Jonanin 5y ago
It's fascinating (and really quite unfortunate) how often articles driven by what I'd call "hate upvotes" make it to the front page of HN. We're awash in links to pessimistic anecdotes that suit a narrative driven by dislike of a certain company or person, but which don't provide any useful knowledge. I think our time is probably better spent on more positive and insightful articles. “Pessimists are usually right and optimists are usually wrong but all the great changes have been accomplished by optimists.” - Thomas Friedman
- smt88 5y ago
  Your comment is not substantial. If you have a reason why Tesla should not be responsible for selling half-baked software as "Full Self Driving", then please share it. Otherwise your assumption that it's just a hate-vote is just your assumption. For me personally, any article that helps to define the risk of driving on the same roads as Teslas is important. I didn't opt in to this greed-fueled lunacy and don't want to die because of it.
- sydthrowaway 5y ago
  This is a strange take. It's preferable to be exposed to a pocket of criticism to get a full picture. In the wider world, Musk can do no wrong, at least in his business endeavours.
kjgkjhfkjf 5y ago
Not only is Tesla Autopilot potentially lethal for Tesla owners, it is also potentially lethal for other road users. I don't understand why Tesla are still permitted to sell vehicles with this feature.
- BluSyn 5y ago
  Data > anecdote. Regulators look at data.
  - fishywang 5y ago
    what data, exactly?
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Regulators frequently forbid the use or sale of things based on anecdotes while they gather data. And, what data exists?
- ra7 5y ago
  Same with FSD beta and it's even more dangerous. It's "closed beta", but driving on public roads with everyone else.
- im_down_w_otp 5y ago
  Safety regulations for E/E systems (which includes electrical and software components) in automotive are done via "self-certification" and adjudicated via post-facto liability suits. There's no FAA or FDA like regulator for automotive currently. As such, I'm not sure who would/could step in and regulate Tesla currently.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    This microwave is only safe to be operated when unplugged, any use out of its define safe operating parameters voids any responsibility of company.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
itisit 5y ago
The reply is comedy gold: “Hi mate. I had this now a few times and I learn to expect it and step the pedal ahead. Which software version you are at the moment? I have noticed for me at least it started happening after I updated at 2021.4.18.11.”
- jheriko 5y ago
  *tragedy
- nkotov 5y ago
  The funny thing is I have a similar issue with an update on my Model S - I know the exact spots where phantom braking engages and just start turning off Autopilot in those spots.
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    So now you're driving not from first-party information (your physical senses) but second-party information. Tell me how this makes sense.
    - itisit 5y ago
      Maybe the solution is an ecosystem of supplemental AI that you can pick and choose from to compensate for the undesirable characteristics of Autopilot. Call it “Driveware”.
      - cool_dude85 5y ago
        I'm making a recommender system for suites of disparately-designed, disconnected driving AIs that seem to work well with each other. So you put in that you have a Tesla on FSD update 2021.7.20.123 and the supplemental AIs you want to be sure to use, and my AI will recommend you 3-5 other AI systems that receive good reviews with your existing choices. Thumbs up if you like it, thumbs down if not, if your car is totaled, that's an auto-downvote. Looking for funding.
  - 5y ago
benzor 5y ago
It's really quite sad that the regulation of autonomous vehicles been so slow to come along. Public roads are filled with other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians that did not consent to be a part of a large scale beta test for partial driving automation that could fail at any time. I believe this is a case where self driving software should be default illegal until proven safe. Most companies in this industry, thankfully, seem to be moving carefully and rolling out their products conservatively; Tesla seems to think "move fast and break things" is an appropriate motto for 5000 lbs projectiles on public roads.
- bob33212 5y ago
  If every driver on the road today was never drunk/distracted/enraged I would agree, but the reality is that humans driving cars kill other people every single day. We should fix this with a better system. Tesla and Waymo seem to be making progress. I don't expect them to be perfect but in the long run this will save lives.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    If FSD is accurately described as “not always worse than a drunk driver” then please remove it from the roads.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    You seem to be implying that in the short run it's ok for them to kill some extra people. One, I don't think that's necessary; Waymo is a good example of how a safer approach is also apparently no less effective. Two, you're presuming that we will get to self-driving cars that are economically viable and safer than current human-driven ones, something that is not a given. And three, it's not clear to me who gets to decide exactly how many unwilling people should be sacrificed on the altar of technological progress, but I hope it's not us and it sure shouldn't be Musk.
    - kjksf 5y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdKCQKBvH-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdKCQKBvH-A Here's a video of Waymo car in Phoenix. Around min. 17 it gets confused by a cone and stops in the middle of two lane road, hugging both lanes. Then google sends support but just when they arrive, the car drives away from them. They were lucky it didn't lead to an accident and as long as they keep the fleet to 600 cars then yeah, the accident rate will be much lower than Tesla's AutoPilot, shipped in more than a million cars. My point is not to rag on Waymo just to inject some reality. We don't have a choice between "safe and unsafe" way of developing self-driving software. We have a choice between "test software we know can't handle all situation on real roads and make it better based on that testing" or "we'll never have self-driving software". Except the other option will rather be: "U.S. doesn't allow testing of self-driving software on real roads and a Chinese company will develop it and will capture a trillion-dollar market in U.S."
jheriko 5y ago
the attitude in a lot of the comments there is bizarre... in most of the world i'd hope an accident caused by using these features is the drivers fault for switching them on and not 'driving with due care and attention' all of the stuff about it being "safe if" miss the core concept of what safety means if you take it seriously, which you always should when driving. safety and stability isn't something you get by ignoring edge cases, its about handling them so robustly you can't have problems. people who have never experienced problems can /maybe/ justify using these features... but what they say on the tin should be enough to not want to use them. giving beta features to regular consumers is fine. doing it when those features can cause injury or death is absolutely abhorrent behaviour that should be prosecuted. allowing software updates for something like this is pretty counter to safety practises too, and the QA process clearly has too many problems to be reliable... not that it should be relied upon anyway on the timescales involved here. too many of these tech companies 'pushing the limits' are doing so by ignoring the law, and it costs lives. when individuals do this they are fined and/or imprisoned, and rightly so. the idea that a company results in no accountability is not a failing of the law, but a failing of those whose duty it is to enforce it.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > in most of the world i'd hope an accident caused by using these features is the drivers fault for switching them on and not 'driving with due care and attention' If I can die because a driver has a big red "kill" button in their car, I'm not going to blame them for pressing it. I'm going to blame the manufacturer and regulators. That button is just too damn dangerous for humans. Similarly, there's a reason we don't put a "nuke" button on the president's desk directly guarding missiles and then blame him for pressing it at the wrong time. Some things are just too damn dangerous to put in a single human's control, let alone so easily.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    I'd totally blame both the driver and the manufacturer and regulators.
    - 5y ago
discobean 5y ago
They are talking about Traffic Aware Cruise Control (TACC), not actually AutoPilot as most people think would be the case. I love our Tesla, but the TACC is not that great, the most annoying part is when passing cars on the freeway it sometimes all of a sudden it thinks the car next to me that I'm passing is in the same lane, and then phantom brakes while trying to pass. It is disappointing.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  > it sometimes all of a sudden it thinks the car next to me that I'm passing is in the same lane, and then phantom brakes while trying to pass For reference, I've had a Honda with adaptive cruise control for about 10 months, and it's done that once. But I don't think it is designed to brake that hard no matter what.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I had a late model Mercedes with radar and automatic emergency braking. After it tried to kill me twice I sold it. The dealer checked the system and pronounced it A-ok, which was enough reason for me to get rid of the car if it had been pronounced broken I could have lived with it. But if that's the kind of quality they ship then I don't want to be responsible for it.
- argonaut 5y ago
  That makes it even more concerning, because TACC is a subset of Autopilot (it's Autopilot without autosteer), and it's the easier subset (many modern cars have their own versions of TACC and they work very well, speaking from personal experience).
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
and you have to pay 199$ monthly for the self driving feature, or 10000$ without subscription. [1]. Couldn't find the EULA for the feature, wonder how it is termed. [1] https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/tesla-full-self-driving-feature-monthly-subscription-a7568042991/ https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/tesla-ful...
paulmendoza 5y ago
A million people a year die every year, almost all are human error. We need this technology advancement as soon as possible. Also, while you can see some accidents with Tesla Autopilot the crash stats seem to indicate is Tesla cars are doing a great job preventing accidents.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  > the crash stats seem to indicate is Tesla cars are doing a great job preventing accidents. No, they don't. Tesla won't release enough data to allow anyone else to evaluate it, so you're stuck with their bulk statistics, which generally speaking compare middle aged (safe) drivers, in luxury cars (safe), in well marked road conditions (safe) during good weather (safe) with "all accidents, for all vehicles, for all drivers, in all road conditions, in all weather."
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  I’m not sure how we test such a feature well enough to deploy it widely. But I guess the thing is, AutoPilot is using a human as the backup. The human is saving the car from making mistakes. The very thing that is supposedly worse than the car is the only thing capable of making certain decisions well enough when things get a bit dicey. Edit: typo. ‘treat’ -> ‘test’
- mempko 5y ago
  Or, you know, have a functioning public transport system. Oh well...
jumelles 5y ago
You could not pay me to drive a Tesla.
- misiti3780 5y ago
  you're missing out, they are a lot of fun to drive.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    yup. it's hilarious when they break out of nowhere
- shirro 5y ago
  I wouldn't mind the electric powertrain but the giant ipad display and gadgets would piss me off. I don't want the distractions. My ideal anti-tesla could include advanced safety features and driver assistance as long as they stay out of the way and enhance the driving experience rather than replace it. If people don't want to drive they should take public transport.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
I just ignore my autopilot completely and enjoy my Tesla for the fine car it is. Autopilot feels like being on a roller coaster put together by drunk carnies.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  I have two kids, currently 3 and 6. I've shown them some of the videos of Autopilot freaking out and doing nonsensical things (like "braking at the moon" because it can't tell the difference between a low, yellow moon and a yellow light). Both of them have quite a bit of experience with Power Wheels and other random wheeled vehicles around the property. I think I'd trust my six year old on the road over Autopilot, given "weird things." At least her vision processing system is capable of going "... huh, that's weird..." instead of "I know what that thing is!" when nonsensical. And she has object persistence, combined with a sense of road speed. We occasionally see weird optical illusions and have to work through them, but she understands the difference between a stoplight and random lights in the night sky (which, around here, are often enough crop dusters).
  - JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
    Maybe it is my age and millennials or the generation after will trust self-driving cars. I’ve seen computers fail so many times in my lifetime that I just can’t go 70 and trust the car to stay in the lines. Straight is ok but when the curves come…
mst 5y ago
This very much seems like TACC needs some more training to match up to .uk drivers and roads.
BluSyn 5y ago
As I understand, phantom breaking is a result of inconsistent sensor inputs from forward radar, specifically with things like highway underpasses. This is one of the reasons Tesla is moving to a full vision stack. Currently the new vision-only update is only out to FSD beta testers. Hopefully the phantom breaking issue will go away once highway autopilot is updated.
- pas 5y ago
  No, it's because their world model stability & consistency, and sensor input integration into the model is shit. Of course it's not easy. But nobody forced them to release this half-baked steaming pile. Full visual won't fix the fundamental problem. At best it decreases the cost and energy requirement (but then they'll likely use that for more processing anyway, to try to squeeze more information out of the remaining sensors).
misiti3780 5y ago
I would love, for once, for the some in one of these anti-tesla threads to explain how we will ever get to L5 self driving without the equivalent TSLA's FSD program.
- serf 5y ago
  >explain how we will ever get to L5 self driving without the equivalent TSLA's FSD program Is it too hopeful to think that it won't take a lot of human blood sacrifice to get there? Is it cynical for me to think that if it does require human blood, then maybe I don't want to go down that research path -- and at best I don't want to be in the testing group?
- URSpider94 5y ago
  OK. It is far more likely to happen by the programs being executed by companies like Waymo and Cruise, who are deploying vehicles with far more sensors and compute capability than Tesla, operated by trained safety drivers. Waymo has already deployed cars logging Level 4, which are giving rides to people in Phoenix every day. Tesla, meanwhile, logged ZERO test miles at anything above Level 2 in 2020. As I was driving home the other day, heading west down the highway, my Tesla Model 3 duly warned me that its front-facing cameras were blinded by the setting sun and temporarily non-functional. If the car had been operating in Autopilot, it would have disengaged and put me back in command. If it had been operating in Level 3 or higher autonomy, perhaps driving my kids home from school, I have no idea what would have happened. I do not believe Tesla will get to Level 4 or 5 autonomy with the current cars on the road, despite what Elon has promised.
- Filligree 5y ago
  Well, there's always Waymo's FSD program.
- gnopgnip 5y ago
  It isnt a given that we will ever get to l5 self driving, or that it is possible without a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul
freeflight 5y ago
The Vegas Loop deflated my expectations of having reliable autonomous driving "soonish" pretty hard. The environment can't get any more controlled, they could even put trackers on every single passenger, and person, down there. Yet the thing is still just a glorified taxi fleet, human drivers slowly driving trough RGB lighted tunnels.
- etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
  Do they have professional drivers shuttling passengers around in tunnels? That's just kind of sad if that's really where they're at by now...
  - freeflight 5y ago
    Yup, pretty much just a shuttle service driving Model 3s trough tunnels, they ain't even allowed to drive faster than 35 mph [0] [0] https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36686635/las-vegas-loop-launches-with-tesla-cars-minus-some-promised-features/ https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36686635/las-vegas...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
tdhz77 5y ago
I can’t tell if I crashed my Tesla or if the Tesla crashed me. I don’t have anyway of figuring out what happened. One second I was driving down the road the next I was parallel running into the guard rail. It happen when another car merged onto the highway. I was bullish on the technology and I still have PTSD from the wreck that happened in 2019. Tesla doesn’t just peddle super car capabilities with FSD, but just recently they seem to support the idea it can travel through dangerous flooded waters. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/ray4tesla/status/1419312854759448585?s=21 https://twitter.com/ray4tesla/status/1419312854759448585?s=2...
- kjksf 5y ago
  > they seem to support the idea it can travel through dangerous flooded waters That's just a bold faced lie. That twitter account is just some dude, not Tesla. Furthermore it's not some staged ad. It really happened. A Chinese Tesla owner was able to drive through dangerous flooded waters, happened to record it and posted it on social media. Then someone re-tweeted it. What exactly do you object to in that sequence of events?
  - studentrob 5y ago
    Hmm I do remember Musk joking awhile back about someone using their car as a boat. I can see why the above commenter might perceive that as real advertising since Tesla's advertising truly is word of mouth using social media. More distressing is the above commenter described a nightmare scenario which went unaddressed. I guess that's your right. I wonder what you think about that part of their comment and whether it is "believable" or not. I find many aspects of messaging coming from Tesla, either the company itself or supporters, as unbelievable.
    - tdhz77 5y ago
      “We def don't recommended this, but Model S floats well enough to turn it into a boat for short periods of time. Thrust via wheel rotation.“ “If curious abt TSWLM car, am still planning to do a sports sub car that can drive on roads. Just a side project. Limited market potential :)“ Musk, 10:29 am 6/19/16 The spy that shagged me car which is a reference to a amphibious car. There is more in this article too. https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/20/11975452/tesla-model-s-floats-boat-elon-musk https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/20/11975452/tesla-model-s-fl...
dawnerd 5y ago
Prior to the last update my M3 w/radar would emergency brake anytime a semi truck got even close to the line. Not safe at all when doing 85 down I5. They did fix it but now I don’t trust it at all. Yesterday while on navigate on autopilot is veered to the left on the off ramp and almost crossed the line. It took a lot of force to stop the wheel. They’re making it really aggressive which can be good but it shouldn’t rip the wheel out of your hands.
Animats 5y ago
Well, unwanted auto-braking beats failure to brake. I can see the day coming when a piece of trash falls on a road, and the car seeing it auto brakes, and the car behind it auto-brakes, all the way back to some antique without auto-brake, which rear-ends the last automated car and takes the blame.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  But sometimes it doesn't end with 'taking the blame'. Sometimes it ends up with a hospital ride or a funeral, sometimes more than one. Unwanted auto braking is unacceptable and failure to brake is unacceptable. You don't get to choose one bug over the other.
mgarfias 5y ago
I refuse to use it, and even the cruise control is down right annoying. Braking at the entrance of a corner, in a 55 zone, that could easily be taken in this model y at 90-100. Of course, it’s not my 2010 4Runner that would hit the brakes in a corner if it detected a wheel slipping, which would pitch me in to an outside lane. I bout had three head ons before I got rid of it.
Salgat 5y ago
I know these kinds of situations are frightening, but as long as AutoPilot is significantly safer, statistics-wise, over similar driving, it's hard to argue otherwise.
- peterthehacker 5y ago
  Does Tesla have data showing how much better or worse AutoPilot is at driving vs a human driver?
  - Salgat 5y ago
    Of course take it with a grain of salt since this is Tesla as the source, but they show significantly less accidents when using AutoPilot. Of course, this is missing controls on the data, so I don't expect it to be as good as they state. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-crash-elon-musk-autopilot-safety-data-flaws-experts-nhtsa-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-crash-elon-musk-autopi...
- HWR_14 5y ago
  The AutoPilot simply cannot be significantly safer. If it was on all cars with autopilot enabled and it was on the whole time it could have saved a few lives. Not enough to be statistically significantly safer even if it dropped it to zero.
yummybear 5y ago
I don’t even trust the software on our non-piloted metro system.
dubeye 5y ago
Tesla have rolled back on a few things, eg passanger monitoring, so hopefully we will get standard cruise control soon too. Sometimes I want to take responsibility for observing side traffic and let the car just handle front and back only
me_me_me 5y ago
How is this not illegal? Its not an autopilot, stop calling it AutoPilot tm. Its downright misleading and potential lethal. Almost no one read manuals, not to mention small print. If I make a DefiBrillator tm that looks like an actual defibrillator, but gives gentle electric shock for fun. I would be in jail. Have a billionaire do it and its national hero
matthewfelgate 5y ago
The complaints about Tesla Autopilot reminds me of the complaints of Wikipedia in its early days. People were saying you can never rely on Wikipedia and should use a 'real' encyclopedia. But Wikipedia mistakes got corrected and it got better over time; as will Autopilot.
rektide 5y ago
If artificial intelligence were at all smart it would be a partner & be able to communicate with us. But instead we have these ridiculous black box machines, which purport to replace not participate in intelligence.

184 points by pcbro141 5y ago

Another end user mistaking marketing hype behind 'AutoPilot' as 'Full Self Driving' (E.G. that level 5 driving feature). As other users in that forum thread point out, the current software is more like enhanced cruise control, lane keeping, and automatic breaking assist. It is also //only intended// for //limited access highways and freeways// e.g. onramp / offramp limited.

rdtwo 5y ago
Sounds like break assist is assisting a bit too hard
nikau 5y ago
Yes and it should be gps fenced to only activate where safe. Tesla aren't doing the right thing voluntarily so regulators need to step in.
- fksadfji12 5y ago
  Why? Should they do it for cruise control too?
- Taek 5y ago
  Isn't it the case that the death rate per miles driven is lower in the Teslas than almost any other vehicle on the road?
  - dlp211 5y ago
    No. This is Tesla spin. The Tesla is no safer than any other luxury vehicle which it shares it's demographics with.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Also, it is an inherently screwed data collection, where people will drive manually in more dangerous situations - so you pretty much get a statistics on going on a straight line for hundreds of kilometers, except for the actually problematic intersection/people walking before after the car, etc.
  - deelowe 5y ago
    They need to compare against cars in the same class, not the whole industry. Also, I’m not sure death per miles is the right metric. What matters is the accident rate while operating in cruise.
throwawaymale 5y ago
This does not accurately represent what the telsa owner reported. Their vehicle aggressively applied the brakes where there was no apparent need.
crummy 5y ago
I don't think what he describes fits "full self driving" - I would have expected autopilot to handle it OK. That said I didn't realise autopilot is only intended for highways and freeways. Maybe that's not explicit enough?
- Barrin92 5y ago
  That's the exact reason a German court barred them from using that very label last year in advertising material. They need to start calling it what it is, driving assistance. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-driving-false-advertising-germany.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-driving...
  - crummy 5y ago
    I wouldn't expect "driving assistance" to slam on the brakes abruptly like that either.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fksadfji12 5y ago
Exactly this. It's like turning on cruise control and blaming it for rear ending someone at a slow down.
- dataflow 5y ago
  No, it's not. I know exactly what my car is going to do when I turn on cruise control no matter the circumstances. It's predictable as hell. With autopilot you have no clue what's going to happen a split second later if you use it on an unblessed street.
rvz 5y ago
Falsely advertised and packaged as 'Full Self Driving' by Tesla for years, but recently admitted to be Level 2 cruise control rather than the 'ambitious' so-called Level 5 that was repeatedly due for last year. This is more like 'Fools Self Driving' I'm afraid. Especially with messing around with beta software that doesn't function properly as advertised.
judge2020 5y ago
To be fair it is also referred to to as such in the car UI and in the disclosures that appear before you enable them (lane keeping vs. auto steer isn't too different in my opinion - both terms imply a regular competent driver, not some "always perfect" driver).
akerl_ 5y ago
If enhanced cruise control in my non-Tesla routinely slammed on the breaks out of nowhere, I’d be pissed about that too. Tesla’s marketing is optimized to convince users that the software is better than it is, and the software’s failure modes align horribly with the worst case: when things are working, everything is smooth, but without warning the car will suddenly decide to make a dangerous active change (swerving, braking, etc) in a way that can kill a driver who is even partially distracted. Put the above together and it starts to look like Elon has created a perfect storm for traffic accidents.
- peytoncasper 5y ago
  I'm not justifying how Tesla's assistance works as I've driven a rental and it really is glorified cruise control right now. That being said, I have a Honda with assistive braking and it is terrible. Shadows, pot holes, ghosts all seem to cause it to brake and not in predictable ways which is frustrating. I only leave it on, because I imagine one day I won't quite react fast enough to someone in front of me and it will save me the pain of rear ending someone. But I definitely almost did when it slammed the brakes on a highway off ramp and got me rightfully honked at by the car behind me. Whats worse is I'm not even sure if mine could receive updates at any point. Maybe at the dealership.
  - bussierem 5y ago
    I have a Subaru with assistive braking (EyeSight) and it does the exact same thing on a very specific off ramp. My best guess was that it's detecting the big yellow "turn" sign right before the loop. It's about big enough to be the back of a car to the primitive detection. That's not a solution for you, just thought I would share commiseration. Your experience with it is slightly worse than mine has been but I leave mine on for the exact same reason.
  - jsight 5y ago
    IMO, Tesla is a bit worse, but I agree with this in principle. I've had other cars phantom brake in similar situations. The worst phantom brakes that I've had from AP were cases where a car really was creeping into my lane a bit. Its just that hard braking wasn't the right fix for the situation as a slight swerve was safer.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
Ok, fair, whatever. But can one use Tesla with normal radar cruise control? Systems like these been super robust for over a decade if not two. Can one disable all these proactive security features that seem to not work.
- URSpider94 5y ago
  Yes, you can, that’s called traffic aware cruise control (TACC), and is activated with a single pull on the stick. TACC absolutely does exactly what is mentioned in this article - it suffers from phantom braking where it hauls the car to a stop suddenly in the middle of the highway. Yes, other cars with radar cruise control don’t seem to do this.
ziftface 5y ago
Yes, autopilot is just cruise control. No other cruise control I've used before violently brakes on the highway for no reason. I don't think expecting it to not do that is unreasonable.
ineedasername 5y ago
In other cars, similar features are restricted to when the vehicle's sensors are 1) able to discern clear lane lines and 2) the vehicle is traveling above a certain speed. Otherwise they're automatically turned off. This seems like a pretty easy way to ensure the features are not misused. If you're going under a certain speed or lines aren't painted (or they're unclear) you are more likely to not be on the type of road or situation recommended for these features. Also something to remember: actual pilots that use real auto pilot in planes have countless hours of training in how to properly integrate its use into the operation of the plane.
- judge2020 5y ago
  > In other cars, In Tesla's too, just not the speed part - I don't think you can assume highways are always above 45 miles an hour, especially if you've ever been on an interstate with lanes closed during rush hour.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    That's what I mean though: these features are not really ideal for traffic that isn't flowing smoothly. Rush hour with a lane closed is a scenario where the driver should be fully aware & in control. Behavior is often unpredictable in such cases with tightly spaced cars and frustrated drivers.
    - frumper 5y ago
      Many manufacturers now offer those features to a stop, or even stop and go situations
    - judge2020 5y ago
      I've been in such traffic and the only issue is TACC's 1-2 car spacing allows more people in to my lane than I usually allow, but otherwise it does fine. Tesla's TACC (compared to Honda) is even better in this sense since it often accelerates at the same time as the car in front of it, while Honda's will wait for a 1 car gap to continue driving on its own.
wpietri 5y ago
If by "mistaking marketing hype" you mean "believing the actual words that they were told", I guess. But I think that goes well beyond the sort of puffery [1] that is legal because nobody believes it. Indeed, I'd argue that Tesla's valuation is precisely based on people believing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery

rdtwo 5y ago

Regulations are built for companies like Tesla… everyone else writes their own because they are more conservative than regulators.

throwaway98797 5y ago

It is beta. Pay attention.

smoldesu 5y ago
Are they testing it in private 'beta' streets, with 'beta' people who won't be killed? Or is this person going to be in opposing traffic on my nearby freeway?
- intellix 5y ago
  exactly the problem. In the replies on the thread you constantly see: "luckily there was nobody close behind me"
mcculley 5y ago
I appreciate the enthusiasts paying to be beta testers. I hope to profit from their experience in a few years when a car with a real autopilot is available. I just wish they didn’t have to endanger innocent others in the process.
- mark-r 5y ago
  The problem is that "a few years" is way too optimistic. Fully autonomous driving requires a level of situational awareness that computers can't yet touch. Everybody looks at the progress we've made so far and assumes it will continue at the same pace until all the problems are gone, but I don't see how that's possible. It's like assuming Moore's Law would have given us 10Ghz processors by now.
- throwaway98797 5y ago
  Progress comes with risk. One is trading lives today for the hope of saving more in the future sooner.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    It is completely acceptable for those who want to pay to be beta testers to take risks. I would rather we have fewer bicyclists killed by people sleeping while their “autopilot” drives.

baron816 5y ago

60% of the time, it's full self driving every time.

dataflow 5y ago

I love how people think all it takes to excuse potentially lethal undefined behavior is that it's documented somewhere: > This sounds to be precisely the type of roads where autopilot/autosteer should not be used - it is not limited by entry and exit ramps. If autopilot/autosteer is used in circumstances where it is not for use, then from time to time it is going to perform in an undefined way. > Using ANY tool outside its operating environment will be dangerous. Put your experience down to user error.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
Exactly. If Tesla and Musk didn’t aggressively market their cruise control as Full self driving only a few months from level 5! then nobody would be criticising them.
- dataflow 5y ago
  The marketing is certainly a big part of it, but I think it's a mistake to think there aren't significant issues here that would remain even with better marketing. One big problem is the sheer unpredictability of what's going to happen the next moment. If you turn on cruise control on the wrong street, its behavior is still going to be entirely predictable. You're simply not going to get suddenly erratic behavior just because you pressed the cruise-control button. Autopilot on the other hand seems to actively make the situation far more unpredictable than it would otherwise be, increasing the dangers people find themselves in. That's just horrible by any standards I can consider sane, no matter how it's marketed. Another (somewhat related, somewhat distinct) problem is that a system that works (say) 99% of the time and fails 1% of the time can easily be more dangerous than one that works 20% of the time and fails 80% of the time. (Obviously I made up the numbers, but adjust accordingly.) If you have to constantly correct something, then you're used to it; it's second nature to you. But if you might get used to it working too well... then as a human you won't be necessarily ready for the rare cases, especially when they're more difficult to predict. So an autopilot that works 'better' than something like cruise control can easily end up being more dangerous because of this, and it would be a mistake to hold them to identical standards.

Jonanin 5y ago

It's fascinating (and really quite unfortunate) how often articles driven by what I'd call "hate upvotes" make it to the front page of HN. We're awash in links to pessimistic anecdotes that suit a narrative driven by dislike of a certain company or person, but which don't provide any useful knowledge. I think our time is probably better spent on more positive and insightful articles. “Pessimists are usually right and optimists are usually wrong but all the great changes have been accomplished by optimists.” - Thomas Friedman

smt88 5y ago
Your comment is not substantial. If you have a reason why Tesla should not be responsible for selling half-baked software as "Full Self Driving", then please share it. Otherwise your assumption that it's just a hate-vote is just your assumption. For me personally, any article that helps to define the risk of driving on the same roads as Teslas is important. I didn't opt in to this greed-fueled lunacy and don't want to die because of it.
sydthrowaway 5y ago
This is a strange take. It's preferable to be exposed to a pocket of criticism to get a full picture. In the wider world, Musk can do no wrong, at least in his business endeavours.

kjgkjhfkjf 5y ago

Not only is Tesla Autopilot potentially lethal for Tesla owners, it is also potentially lethal for other road users. I don't understand why Tesla are still permitted to sell vehicles with this feature.

BluSyn 5y ago
Data > anecdote. Regulators look at data.
- fishywang 5y ago
  what data, exactly?
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Regulators frequently forbid the use or sale of things based on anecdotes while they gather data. And, what data exists?
ra7 5y ago
Same with FSD beta and it's even more dangerous. It's "closed beta", but driving on public roads with everyone else.
im_down_w_otp 5y ago
Safety regulations for E/E systems (which includes electrical and software components) in automotive are done via "self-certification" and adjudicated via post-facto liability suits. There's no FAA or FDA like regulator for automotive currently. As such, I'm not sure who would/could step in and regulate Tesla currently.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  This microwave is only safe to be operated when unplugged, any use out of its define safe operating parameters voids any responsibility of company.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

itisit 5y ago

The reply is comedy gold: “Hi mate. I had this now a few times and I learn to expect it and step the pedal ahead. Which software version you are at the moment? I have noticed for me at least it started happening after I updated at 2021.4.18.11.”

jheriko 5y ago
*tragedy
nkotov 5y ago
The funny thing is I have a similar issue with an update on my Model S - I know the exact spots where phantom braking engages and just start turning off Autopilot in those spots.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  So now you're driving not from first-party information (your physical senses) but second-party information. Tell me how this makes sense.
  - itisit 5y ago
    Maybe the solution is an ecosystem of supplemental AI that you can pick and choose from to compensate for the undesirable characteristics of Autopilot. Call it “Driveware”.
    - cool_dude85 5y ago
      I'm making a recommender system for suites of disparately-designed, disconnected driving AIs that seem to work well with each other. So you put in that you have a Tesla on FSD update 2021.7.20.123 and the supplemental AIs you want to be sure to use, and my AI will recommend you 3-5 other AI systems that receive good reviews with your existing choices. Thumbs up if you like it, thumbs down if not, if your car is totaled, that's an auto-downvote. Looking for funding.
- 5y ago

benzor 5y ago

It's really quite sad that the regulation of autonomous vehicles been so slow to come along. Public roads are filled with other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians that did not consent to be a part of a large scale beta test for partial driving automation that could fail at any time. I believe this is a case where self driving software should be default illegal until proven safe. Most companies in this industry, thankfully, seem to be moving carefully and rolling out their products conservatively; Tesla seems to think "move fast and break things" is an appropriate motto for 5000 lbs projectiles on public roads.

bob33212 5y ago
If every driver on the road today was never drunk/distracted/enraged I would agree, but the reality is that humans driving cars kill other people every single day. We should fix this with a better system. Tesla and Waymo seem to be making progress. I don't expect them to be perfect but in the long run this will save lives.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  If FSD is accurately described as “not always worse than a drunk driver” then please remove it from the roads.
- wpietri 5y ago
  You seem to be implying that in the short run it's ok for them to kill some extra people. One, I don't think that's necessary; Waymo is a good example of how a safer approach is also apparently no less effective. Two, you're presuming that we will get to self-driving cars that are economically viable and safer than current human-driven ones, something that is not a given. And three, it's not clear to me who gets to decide exactly how many unwilling people should be sacrificed on the altar of technological progress, but I hope it's not us and it sure shouldn't be Musk.
  - kjksf 5y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdKCQKBvH-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdKCQKBvH-A Here's a video of Waymo car in Phoenix. Around min. 17 it gets confused by a cone and stops in the middle of two lane road, hugging both lanes. Then google sends support but just when they arrive, the car drives away from them. They were lucky it didn't lead to an accident and as long as they keep the fleet to 600 cars then yeah, the accident rate will be much lower than Tesla's AutoPilot, shipped in more than a million cars. My point is not to rag on Waymo just to inject some reality. We don't have a choice between "safe and unsafe" way of developing self-driving software. We have a choice between "test software we know can't handle all situation on real roads and make it better based on that testing" or "we'll never have self-driving software". Except the other option will rather be: "U.S. doesn't allow testing of self-driving software on real roads and a Chinese company will develop it and will capture a trillion-dollar market in U.S."

jheriko 5y ago

the attitude in a lot of the comments there is bizarre... in most of the world i'd hope an accident caused by using these features is the drivers fault for switching them on and not 'driving with due care and attention' all of the stuff about it being "safe if" miss the core concept of what safety means if you take it seriously, which you always should when driving. safety and stability isn't something you get by ignoring edge cases, its about handling them so robustly you can't have problems. people who have never experienced problems can /maybe/ justify using these features... but what they say on the tin should be enough to not want to use them. giving beta features to regular consumers is fine. doing it when those features can cause injury or death is absolutely abhorrent behaviour that should be prosecuted. allowing software updates for something like this is pretty counter to safety practises too, and the QA process clearly has too many problems to be reliable... not that it should be relied upon anyway on the timescales involved here. too many of these tech companies 'pushing the limits' are doing so by ignoring the law, and it costs lives. when individuals do this they are fined and/or imprisoned, and rightly so. the idea that a company results in no accountability is not a failing of the law, but a failing of those whose duty it is to enforce it.

dataflow 5y ago
> in most of the world i'd hope an accident caused by using these features is the drivers fault for switching them on and not 'driving with due care and attention' If I can die because a driver has a big red "kill" button in their car, I'm not going to blame them for pressing it. I'm going to blame the manufacturer and regulators. That button is just too damn dangerous for humans. Similarly, there's a reason we don't put a "nuke" button on the president's desk directly guarding missiles and then blame him for pressing it at the wrong time. Some things are just too damn dangerous to put in a single human's control, let alone so easily.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  I'd totally blame both the driver and the manufacturer and regulators.
  - 5y ago

discobean 5y ago

They are talking about Traffic Aware Cruise Control (TACC), not actually AutoPilot as most people think would be the case. I love our Tesla, but the TACC is not that great, the most annoying part is when passing cars on the freeway it sometimes all of a sudden it thinks the car next to me that I'm passing is in the same lane, and then phantom brakes while trying to pass. It is disappointing.

perl4ever 5y ago
> it sometimes all of a sudden it thinks the car next to me that I'm passing is in the same lane, and then phantom brakes while trying to pass For reference, I've had a Honda with adaptive cruise control for about 10 months, and it's done that once. But I don't think it is designed to brake that hard no matter what.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I had a late model Mercedes with radar and automatic emergency braking. After it tried to kill me twice I sold it. The dealer checked the system and pronounced it A-ok, which was enough reason for me to get rid of the car if it had been pronounced broken I could have lived with it. But if that's the kind of quality they ship then I don't want to be responsible for it.
argonaut 5y ago
That makes it even more concerning, because TACC is a subset of Autopilot (it's Autopilot without autosteer), and it's the easier subset (many modern cars have their own versions of TACC and they work very well, speaking from personal experience).

MichaelMoser123 5y ago

and you have to pay 199$ monthly for the self driving feature, or 10000$ without subscription. [1]. Couldn't find the EULA for the feature, wonder how it is termed. [1] https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/tesla-full-self-driving-feature-monthly-subscription-a7568042991/ https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/tesla-ful...

paulmendoza 5y ago

A million people a year die every year, almost all are human error. We need this technology advancement as soon as possible. Also, while you can see some accidents with Tesla Autopilot the crash stats seem to indicate is Tesla cars are doing a great job preventing accidents.

Syonyk 5y ago
> the crash stats seem to indicate is Tesla cars are doing a great job preventing accidents. No, they don't. Tesla won't release enough data to allow anyone else to evaluate it, so you're stuck with their bulk statistics, which generally speaking compare middle aged (safe) drivers, in luxury cars (safe), in well marked road conditions (safe) during good weather (safe) with "all accidents, for all vehicles, for all drivers, in all road conditions, in all weather."
2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
I’m not sure how we test such a feature well enough to deploy it widely. But I guess the thing is, AutoPilot is using a human as the backup. The human is saving the car from making mistakes. The very thing that is supposedly worse than the car is the only thing capable of making certain decisions well enough when things get a bit dicey. Edit: typo. ‘treat’ -> ‘test’
mempko 5y ago
Or, you know, have a functioning public transport system. Oh well...

jumelles 5y ago

You could not pay me to drive a Tesla.

misiti3780 5y ago
you're missing out, they are a lot of fun to drive.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  yup. it's hilarious when they break out of nowhere
shirro 5y ago
I wouldn't mind the electric powertrain but the giant ipad display and gadgets would piss me off. I don't want the distractions. My ideal anti-tesla could include advanced safety features and driver assistance as long as they stay out of the way and enhance the driving experience rather than replace it. If people don't want to drive they should take public transport.

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

I just ignore my autopilot completely and enjoy my Tesla for the fine car it is. Autopilot feels like being on a roller coaster put together by drunk carnies.

Syonyk 5y ago
I have two kids, currently 3 and 6. I've shown them some of the videos of Autopilot freaking out and doing nonsensical things (like "braking at the moon" because it can't tell the difference between a low, yellow moon and a yellow light). Both of them have quite a bit of experience with Power Wheels and other random wheeled vehicles around the property. I think I'd trust my six year old on the road over Autopilot, given "weird things." At least her vision processing system is capable of going "... huh, that's weird..." instead of "I know what that thing is!" when nonsensical. And she has object persistence, combined with a sense of road speed. We occasionally see weird optical illusions and have to work through them, but she understands the difference between a stoplight and random lights in the night sky (which, around here, are often enough crop dusters).
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  Maybe it is my age and millennials or the generation after will trust self-driving cars. I’ve seen computers fail so many times in my lifetime that I just can’t go 70 and trust the car to stay in the lines. Straight is ok but when the curves come…

mst 5y ago

This very much seems like TACC needs some more training to match up to .uk drivers and roads.

BluSyn 5y ago

As I understand, phantom breaking is a result of inconsistent sensor inputs from forward radar, specifically with things like highway underpasses. This is one of the reasons Tesla is moving to a full vision stack. Currently the new vision-only update is only out to FSD beta testers. Hopefully the phantom breaking issue will go away once highway autopilot is updated.

pas 5y ago
No, it's because their world model stability & consistency, and sensor input integration into the model is shit. Of course it's not easy. But nobody forced them to release this half-baked steaming pile. Full visual won't fix the fundamental problem. At best it decreases the cost and energy requirement (but then they'll likely use that for more processing anyway, to try to squeeze more information out of the remaining sensors).

misiti3780 5y ago

I would love, for once, for the some in one of these anti-tesla threads to explain how we will ever get to L5 self driving without the equivalent TSLA's FSD program.

serf 5y ago
>explain how we will ever get to L5 self driving without the equivalent TSLA's FSD program Is it too hopeful to think that it won't take a lot of human blood sacrifice to get there? Is it cynical for me to think that if it does require human blood, then maybe I don't want to go down that research path -- and at best I don't want to be in the testing group?
URSpider94 5y ago
OK. It is far more likely to happen by the programs being executed by companies like Waymo and Cruise, who are deploying vehicles with far more sensors and compute capability than Tesla, operated by trained safety drivers. Waymo has already deployed cars logging Level 4, which are giving rides to people in Phoenix every day. Tesla, meanwhile, logged ZERO test miles at anything above Level 2 in 2020. As I was driving home the other day, heading west down the highway, my Tesla Model 3 duly warned me that its front-facing cameras were blinded by the setting sun and temporarily non-functional. If the car had been operating in Autopilot, it would have disengaged and put me back in command. If it had been operating in Level 3 or higher autonomy, perhaps driving my kids home from school, I have no idea what would have happened. I do not believe Tesla will get to Level 4 or 5 autonomy with the current cars on the road, despite what Elon has promised.
Filligree 5y ago
Well, there's always Waymo's FSD program.
gnopgnip 5y ago
It isnt a given that we will ever get to l5 self driving, or that it is possible without a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul

freeflight 5y ago

The Vegas Loop deflated my expectations of having reliable autonomous driving "soonish" pretty hard. The environment can't get any more controlled, they could even put trackers on every single passenger, and person, down there. Yet the thing is still just a glorified taxi fleet, human drivers slowly driving trough RGB lighted tunnels.

etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
Do they have professional drivers shuttling passengers around in tunnels? That's just kind of sad if that's really where they're at by now...
- freeflight 5y ago
  Yup, pretty much just a shuttle service driving Model 3s trough tunnels, they ain't even allowed to drive faster than 35 mph [0] [0] https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36686635/las-vegas-loop-launches-with-tesla-cars-minus-some-promised-features/ https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36686635/las-vegas...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

tdhz77 5y ago

I can’t tell if I crashed my Tesla or if the Tesla crashed me. I don’t have anyway of figuring out what happened. One second I was driving down the road the next I was parallel running into the guard rail. It happen when another car merged onto the highway. I was bullish on the technology and I still have PTSD from the wreck that happened in 2019. Tesla doesn’t just peddle super car capabilities with FSD, but just recently they seem to support the idea it can travel through dangerous flooded waters. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/ray4tesla/status/1419312854759448585?s=21 https://twitter.com/ray4tesla/status/1419312854759448585?s=2...

kjksf 5y ago
> they seem to support the idea it can travel through dangerous flooded waters That's just a bold faced lie. That twitter account is just some dude, not Tesla. Furthermore it's not some staged ad. It really happened. A Chinese Tesla owner was able to drive through dangerous flooded waters, happened to record it and posted it on social media. Then someone re-tweeted it. What exactly do you object to in that sequence of events?
- studentrob 5y ago
  Hmm I do remember Musk joking awhile back about someone using their car as a boat. I can see why the above commenter might perceive that as real advertising since Tesla's advertising truly is word of mouth using social media. More distressing is the above commenter described a nightmare scenario which went unaddressed. I guess that's your right. I wonder what you think about that part of their comment and whether it is "believable" or not. I find many aspects of messaging coming from Tesla, either the company itself or supporters, as unbelievable.
  - tdhz77 5y ago
    “We def don't recommended this, but Model S floats well enough to turn it into a boat for short periods of time. Thrust via wheel rotation.“ “If curious abt TSWLM car, am still planning to do a sports sub car that can drive on roads. Just a side project. Limited market potential :)“ Musk, 10:29 am 6/19/16 The spy that shagged me car which is a reference to a amphibious car. There is more in this article too. https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/20/11975452/tesla-model-s-floats-boat-elon-musk https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/20/11975452/tesla-model-s-fl...

dawnerd 5y ago

Prior to the last update my M3 w/radar would emergency brake anytime a semi truck got even close to the line. Not safe at all when doing 85 down I5. They did fix it but now I don’t trust it at all. Yesterday while on navigate on autopilot is veered to the left on the off ramp and almost crossed the line. It took a lot of force to stop the wheel. They’re making it really aggressive which can be good but it shouldn’t rip the wheel out of your hands.

Animats 5y ago

Well, unwanted auto-braking beats failure to brake. I can see the day coming when a piece of trash falls on a road, and the car seeing it auto brakes, and the car behind it auto-brakes, all the way back to some antique without auto-brake, which rear-ends the last automated car and takes the blame.

jacquesm 5y ago
But sometimes it doesn't end with 'taking the blame'. Sometimes it ends up with a hospital ride or a funeral, sometimes more than one. Unwanted auto braking is unacceptable and failure to brake is unacceptable. You don't get to choose one bug over the other.

mgarfias 5y ago

I refuse to use it, and even the cruise control is down right annoying. Braking at the entrance of a corner, in a 55 zone, that could easily be taken in this model y at 90-100. Of course, it’s not my 2010 4Runner that would hit the brakes in a corner if it detected a wheel slipping, which would pitch me in to an outside lane. I bout had three head ons before I got rid of it.

Salgat 5y ago

I know these kinds of situations are frightening, but as long as AutoPilot is significantly safer, statistics-wise, over similar driving, it's hard to argue otherwise.

peterthehacker 5y ago
Does Tesla have data showing how much better or worse AutoPilot is at driving vs a human driver?
- Salgat 5y ago
  Of course take it with a grain of salt since this is Tesla as the source, but they show significantly less accidents when using AutoPilot. Of course, this is missing controls on the data, so I don't expect it to be as good as they state. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-crash-elon-musk-autopilot-safety-data-flaws-experts-nhtsa-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-crash-elon-musk-autopi...
HWR_14 5y ago
The AutoPilot simply cannot be significantly safer. If it was on all cars with autopilot enabled and it was on the whole time it could have saved a few lives. Not enough to be statistically significantly safer even if it dropped it to zero.

yummybear 5y ago

I don’t even trust the software on our non-piloted metro system.

dubeye 5y ago

Tesla have rolled back on a few things, eg passanger monitoring, so hopefully we will get standard cruise control soon too. Sometimes I want to take responsibility for observing side traffic and let the car just handle front and back only

me_me_me 5y ago

How is this not illegal? Its not an autopilot, stop calling it AutoPilot tm. Its downright misleading and potential lethal. Almost no one read manuals, not to mention small print. If I make a DefiBrillator tm that looks like an actual defibrillator, but gives gentle electric shock for fun. I would be in jail. Have a billionaire do it and its national hero

matthewfelgate 5y ago

The complaints about Tesla Autopilot reminds me of the complaints of Wikipedia in its early days. People were saying you can never rely on Wikipedia and should use a 'real' encyclopedia. But Wikipedia mistakes got corrected and it got better over time; as will Autopilot.

rektide 5y ago

If artificial intelligence were at all smart it would be a partner & be able to communicate with us. But instead we have these ridiculous black box machines, which purport to replace not participate in intelligence.