3 ms·

> Just two weeks ago there was a DUI event where a Tesla driver on AP literally passed out behind the wheel and the car was trivially brought to a stop anyway.

> Just two weeks ago there was a DUI event where a Tesla driver on AP literally passed out behind the wheel and the car was trivially brought to a stop anyway. Nope, and this is a perfect example! AP didn't save that person's life, or more specifically, AP wasn't not needed to save this person's life Tesla made Emergency Lane Departure Avoidance standard on all Teslas a while back. Emergency Lane Departure Avoidance only intervenes if the driver deviates from expected behavior So situations where AP would avoid a collision while being in control, the car still has a feature using the same sensor suite and the same capabilities as AP to intervene. A Tesla without AP would have stayed in it's lane in the absence of driver input and slowed to a halt with the flashers on. Honestly a better outcome... It's as simple as, AP is half heartedly handling the happy path + the unhappy path. It's ok to not have perfect handling of the unhappy path as it does currently, something is better than nothing in 99% of cases. But it's not ok to have this mode that falsely gives drivers the impression they're covered on the happy path. Like your example could not be more perfect because a person driving under the influence relied on AP to handle the happy path for them. Now you can get into "well maybe they would have driven anyways if it didn't have AP" And that's where emergency LKA and AEB come in. They wouldn't have given this driver a crutch to get on the road, but if they still chose to drive, they'd avoid an accident in the same manner AP did once things went off the rails. This all goes back to the fact that the convenience features by definition cannot save a life. AP, as in the feature manually activated to assist the driver actively, cannot save a life, because it only works on the happy path. Other features like LKA and AEB are what save lives > This is postulating a two-mode failure! That's just bad engineering. Yes, that can happen, but by definition (involving two rare events overlapping) it's an extremely rare condition and will show only a vanishing frequency in any final statistics. > Never compromise core features (in this case "don't let distracted drivers hit the thing in front of them") chasing this kind of thing. Work on the secondary/tertiary modes once you have everything else down. I have no idea at all where any of this is coming from... please quote where I suggested core features should be compromised for secondary features.

ajross 5y ago
> A Tesla without AP would have stayed in it's lane in the absence of driver input and slowed to a halt with the flashers on. That's not how those systems work. You're confused, I think. If you let Jesus take the wheel in a Tesla under manual control it will absolutely depart your lane and hit whatever you are aimed at. The emergency features are last minute corrections to avoid an imminent collision, and they work about as well as other car vendor's products do, they reduce the likelihood and velocity of an immiment collision. They don't drive the car for you. The feature that does is AP. > please quote where I suggested core features should be compromised for secondary features. You want to refuse autonomy solutions to everyone to save hypothetical bikers at sunset in Mendocino! (Edit: sorry, I got the wrong elaborate example and was paraphrasing another poster. You want to save drivers where they incorrectly countermand an incorrect autonomy decision in a circumstance where the incorrect autonomy would have been correct. Or something. But the logic is the same.)
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  > If you let Jesus take the wheel in a Tesla under manual control it will absolutely depart your lane and hit whatever you are aimed at. You are wrong. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-lane-departure-avoidance-saves-lives/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-lane-departure-avoidance-sav... I understand your confusion though, Tesla is well behind other manufacturers here. VWs have had this behavior for years now, almost as soon as they started dabbling in advanced safety assists, meanwhile Tesla got it just two years ago. https://youtu.be/TITEf_taUto https://youtu.be/TITEf_taUto Kind of shows where the priorities were early on, saving incapacitated drivers vs "look ma no hands!" - Also your second quote just leaves me with more questions. What on earth are you talking about > You want to save drivers where they incorrectly countermand an incorrect autonomy decision in a circumstance where the incorrect autonomy would have been correct. What?
  - ajross 5y ago
    I don't know what to tell you. I have tested this feature on my own car, and its behavior matches the public documentation (c.f. https://www.tesla.com/blog/more-advanced-safety-tesla-owners https://www.tesla.com/blog/more-advanced-safety-tesla-owners). It will scream at you as it departs the lane, but it will depart the lane. It will correct only if it detects an object or barrier it needs to avoid. It does not do what you think it does. Tesla does offer a product to do that. It's called "Autopilot" and it absolutely works great. For example it prevented a collision (or even lane departure) entirely in that DUI case we're discussing.

ajross 5y ago

> A Tesla without AP would have stayed in it's lane in the absence of driver input and slowed to a halt with the flashers on. That's not how those systems work. You're confused, I think. If you let Jesus take the wheel in a Tesla under manual control it will absolutely depart your lane and hit whatever you are aimed at. The emergency features are last minute corrections to avoid an imminent collision, and they work about as well as other car vendor's products do, they reduce the likelihood and velocity of an immiment collision. They don't drive the car for you. The feature that does is AP. > please quote where I suggested core features should be compromised for secondary features. You want to refuse autonomy solutions to everyone to save hypothetical bikers at sunset in Mendocino! (Edit: sorry, I got the wrong elaborate example and was paraphrasing another poster. You want to save drivers where they incorrectly countermand an incorrect autonomy decision in a circumstance where the incorrect autonomy would have been correct. Or something. But the logic is the same.)

BoorishBears 5y ago
> If you let Jesus take the wheel in a Tesla under manual control it will absolutely depart your lane and hit whatever you are aimed at. You are wrong. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-lane-departure-avoidance-saves-lives/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-lane-departure-avoidance-sav... I understand your confusion though, Tesla is well behind other manufacturers here. VWs have had this behavior for years now, almost as soon as they started dabbling in advanced safety assists, meanwhile Tesla got it just two years ago. https://youtu.be/TITEf_taUto https://youtu.be/TITEf_taUto Kind of shows where the priorities were early on, saving incapacitated drivers vs "look ma no hands!" - Also your second quote just leaves me with more questions. What on earth are you talking about > You want to save drivers where they incorrectly countermand an incorrect autonomy decision in a circumstance where the incorrect autonomy would have been correct. What?
- ajross 5y ago
  I don't know what to tell you. I have tested this feature on my own car, and its behavior matches the public documentation (c.f. https://www.tesla.com/blog/more-advanced-safety-tesla-owners https://www.tesla.com/blog/more-advanced-safety-tesla-owners). It will scream at you as it departs the lane, but it will depart the lane. It will correct only if it detects an object or barrier it needs to avoid. It does not do what you think it does. Tesla does offer a product to do that. It's called "Autopilot" and it absolutely works great. For example it prevented a collision (or even lane departure) entirely in that DUI case we're discussing.