4 ms·

"That should be the question." No. That is NOT the question... because... Autopilot and FSD software suite users are required to remain attentive and ready to

"That should be the question." No. That is NOT the question... because... Autopilot and FSD software suite users are required to remain attentive and ready to intervene in case o a software failure (often seen in many YouTube videos). But because they obviously, become inattentive, Autopilot usage is actually much more dangerous than having the drivers drive their cars by themselves. It creates complacency because the moment a driver physically removes feet from the pedals and hands from the steering wheel, his or her mind cannot maintain focus on two things at the same time. What are those two things an Autopilot user needs to perform simultaneously? First is watching the car's surroundings, the traffic around the vehicle. Second is watching and trying to understand software behavior in those constantly changing traffic situations. No average Joe, college kid, grandma or grandpa is capable of focusing on two things at the same time in constant life and death environment. Airplane pilots are not average Joes and they are constantly trained to understand flying Autopilot software limitations and capabilities in a lot less stressful and busy traffic environments, two of their main job requirements being discipline and responsibility. That is not the case with the average driver on the road.

mft_ 5y ago
I think OP is right with what the ultimate question should be. Let's agree that a normal driver without autopilot (ND) is mostly attentive, with occasional attention lapses (frequency depending on the individual). That same normal driver according to MIT, is less attentive when using an autopilot system - let's call this autopilot distraction (AD). However, the Autopilot system, despite its weaknesses, likely offers some extra safety benefit (ASB) - especially if it can somewhat counteract the attention lapses that a normal driver would have. So the question becomes, does the autopilot's marginal benefit outweigh the autopilot distraction? Is: ND > (ND - AD + ASB)? However, determining this would be difficult without real-world testing. In the real world, the factor which matters most is whether accidents happen (kind of the Overall Survival of this experiment) - which is why testing the real-world accident rate is important - and is ultimately the important question.
- jocker12 5y ago
  Autopilot creates a false sense of safety, as long as the people that payed for it and are eventually using it, are (by their own standards that made them buy it) not good at driving and not interested to get better at it. But the fallacy stands in the numbers where Autopilot “safety report” is presented by Tesla and compared to average drivers performances. Why a fallacy? Because the human driver drives everywhere, at any time, in any weather conditions and on all drivable roads. The Autopilot goes on and off based on how drivable the environment is by the Autopilot system detection done by the sensors involved. In addition to that, up to this point, almost all of its errors where caught and corrected by its users, so no one could actually estimate what would happen if Autopilot owners would let the software do the driving for 100%, same thing the humans do. Also, once disconnected from the driving system (feet off the pedals and hands off the steering wheel) the driver would need up to 20 seconds (or even more) to reconnect and fully understand what the car does and what the traffic around is like. That is a recipe for disaster while every second the situation changes inside and outside the car.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    The autopilot system, including the inattentive driver, is the system currently. We don't need to test what happens if ONLY the software drivers, that is not is what happening. Based on my own observation, Tesla drivers, despite being supposedly inattentive, catch a fair number of errors in autopilot. So they are part of the system. That factor (human involvement, even if imperfect) coupled with the overall safety of the tesla approach (which includes safety benefits in a whole range of areas) may mean that despite this supposed "expose" of the "inattentive" driver the system is safer overall. One thing folks "exposing" tesla drivers seem to assume is that non-tesla drivers are very good drivers. They are not. It's takes minutes looking into cars to see this. I was just next to a non-tesla road rager who nearly caused three accidents trying to get at this truck. If places like MIT did some more actual studies on system effectiveness I'd be REALLY curious at fatality rates etc for folks driving Teslas in a normal way, yes, in driving in ANY kind of weather. Same thing with emergency vehicle accidents which made the news. How many first responder fatalities were caused by Tesla's vs non Tesla vehicle? It could turn out that many / most are caused by inattentive gas powered no auto-pilot cars that are the ones actually killing first responders.

mft_ 5y ago

I think OP is right with what the ultimate question should be. Let's agree that a normal driver without autopilot (ND) is mostly attentive, with occasional attention lapses (frequency depending on the individual). That same normal driver according to MIT, is less attentive when using an autopilot system - let's call this autopilot distraction (AD). However, the Autopilot system, despite its weaknesses, likely offers some extra safety benefit (ASB) - especially if it can somewhat counteract the attention lapses that a normal driver would have. So the question becomes, does the autopilot's marginal benefit outweigh the autopilot distraction? Is: ND > (ND - AD + ASB)? However, determining this would be difficult without real-world testing. In the real world, the factor which matters most is whether accidents happen (kind of the Overall Survival of this experiment) - which is why testing the real-world accident rate is important - and is ultimately the important question.

jocker12 5y ago
Autopilot creates a false sense of safety, as long as the people that payed for it and are eventually using it, are (by their own standards that made them buy it) not good at driving and not interested to get better at it. But the fallacy stands in the numbers where Autopilot “safety report” is presented by Tesla and compared to average drivers performances. Why a fallacy? Because the human driver drives everywhere, at any time, in any weather conditions and on all drivable roads. The Autopilot goes on and off based on how drivable the environment is by the Autopilot system detection done by the sensors involved. In addition to that, up to this point, almost all of its errors where caught and corrected by its users, so no one could actually estimate what would happen if Autopilot owners would let the software do the driving for 100%, same thing the humans do. Also, once disconnected from the driving system (feet off the pedals and hands off the steering wheel) the driver would need up to 20 seconds (or even more) to reconnect and fully understand what the car does and what the traffic around is like. That is a recipe for disaster while every second the situation changes inside and outside the car.
- slownews45 5y ago
  The autopilot system, including the inattentive driver, is the system currently. We don't need to test what happens if ONLY the software drivers, that is not is what happening. Based on my own observation, Tesla drivers, despite being supposedly inattentive, catch a fair number of errors in autopilot. So they are part of the system. That factor (human involvement, even if imperfect) coupled with the overall safety of the tesla approach (which includes safety benefits in a whole range of areas) may mean that despite this supposed "expose" of the "inattentive" driver the system is safer overall. One thing folks "exposing" tesla drivers seem to assume is that non-tesla drivers are very good drivers. They are not. It's takes minutes looking into cars to see this. I was just next to a non-tesla road rager who nearly caused three accidents trying to get at this truck. If places like MIT did some more actual studies on system effectiveness I'd be REALLY curious at fatality rates etc for folks driving Teslas in a normal way, yes, in driving in ANY kind of weather. Same thing with emergency vehicle accidents which made the news. How many first responder fatalities were caused by Tesla's vs non Tesla vehicle? It could turn out that many / most are caused by inattentive gas powered no auto-pilot cars that are the ones actually killing first responders.