2 ms·

> That cars are capable of crashing was known before FSD was even a thing. Statistically, you should be much more afraid of the cars driven by human drivers, be

> That cars are capable of crashing was known before FSD was even a thing. Statistically, you should be much more afraid of the cars driven by human drivers, because they can do everything FSD can, and there's truly not many on the road using FSD. It's not about statistics, it's about technical sensing limitations in Teslas leading to blind spots that have provably killed people. Human drivers with such blindness are not even allowed on the road. But Tesla refuses to use state of the art sensing technologies which have been shown to make autonomous cars safer for everybody. Tesla inexplicably and stubbornly refuses to use these sensors, it's really baffling to me. This leads to their cars having limitations in their sensing capabilities, such as trouble detecting large stationary objects. Therefore you see stories often reported of Teslas running into parked vehicles, especially large ones like fire trucks [0]. This problem dates back to 2016 when a man was decapitated because his Tesla couldn't recognize it was about to run into a tractor trailer [1]. In a sane world, that would have been the end of Tesla's experiment and they would have been forced to use safety features we all know they should be using (and Tesla knew or should have known at the time of the accident). But no, the same exact thing happened again in 2019, but this time with a Model 3 sliding under a tractor trailer [2]! This is literally what driverless cars are supposed to excel at -- don't run into things -- and yet Teslas routinely do this because of limitations in the Tesla sensor stack, limitations we don't need statistics to call out as troubling for technical reasons. At this point, this choice has a confirmed and ever-expanding body count, and Tesla is not working to fix this problem, as it's been reoccurring for over 5 years now (wasn't level 5 autonomous capability predicted within that timespan?); nor are they willing to cease using public spaces to beta test their products, which in my opinion needs to end immediately. [0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/why-teslas-keep-striking-parked-firetrucks-and-police-cars/ar-AANqfOd https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/why-teslas-keep-st... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-aut... [2]: https://electrek.co/2019/03/01/tesla-driver-crash-truck-trailer-autopilot/ https://electrek.co/2019/03/01/tesla-driver-crash-truck-trai...

lolc 5y ago
It is entirely understandable that Tesla would wing it without lidar. Once one gets over the assumption that their priority is creating a level 5 system. What Tesla cares about is selling expensive vaporware. If this vaporware depended on an expensive prop, this would cut into cash flow they want to spend on software dev. They've repeatedly said "we can do it without lidar". What they meant is "we cannot afford lidar in our situation." It doesn't look like it's going to work, but it also doesn't look like adding lidar solves the basic issues. So in the end at least they didn't con people into buying useless lidar. Just useless vaporware.

lolc 5y ago

It is entirely understandable that Tesla would wing it without lidar. Once one gets over the assumption that their priority is creating a level 5 system. What Tesla cares about is selling expensive vaporware. If this vaporware depended on an expensive prop, this would cut into cash flow they want to spend on software dev. They've repeatedly said "we can do it without lidar". What they meant is "we cannot afford lidar in our situation." It doesn't look like it's going to work, but it also doesn't look like adding lidar solves the basic issues. So in the end at least they didn't con people into buying useless lidar. Just useless vaporware.