10 ms·

"it's geofenced to certain roads, and only work under 40mph", " you should not use this in the rain" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMNnOosjrBo&ab_channel=Eng

"it's geofenced to certain roads, and only work under 40mph", " you should not use this in the rain" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMNnOosjrBo&ab_channel=Engadget https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMNnOosjrBo&ab_channel=Engad...

verisimi 4y ago
> "Geofenced" That's the word. That's the plan. We will be geofenced, there will be a kill switch. You will not be able to go where you want, except if the government allows it. In fact, I think Uber is the best example of geofencing we have for the long run. In the medium term, self-driving cars you still own will fill the gap.
- QuercusMax 4y ago
  You're making a pretty big leap there from "our experimental self-driving mode only works inside the geofence" to "the government won't let you drive where you want".
  - verisimi 4y ago
    Yes, a huge leap. I can't possibly imagine that government would pass legislation that all the automakers would comply with. /s https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/biden-infrastructure-bill-vehicle-kill-switch-2026/ https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/biden-infrastructure-bil... "Deep within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was signed into law by President Joe Biden is a passage that will require automakers to begin including what can be best summarized as a “vehicle kill switch” within the operating software of new cars, which is described in the bill as “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology”. The measure has been positioned as a safety tool to help prevent drunk driving, and by 2026 (three years after the enactment of the Act, per the text) the kill switch could be mandated on every new car sold in the United States. Then there’s the broader reaching RIDE Act, which we’ll touch on in a moment."
    - verisimi 4y ago
      I'm being downvoted - but this is the reality of what will happen. Who wants that sort of monitoring when they are driving? Is this a consumer-driven feature? Or is this more government management - leveraging technology to micro-manage every detail of our lives - only allowing good citizens travel privileges etc? We are sleep walking into a dystopia, and I get downvoted for stating the obvious! Seriously - your government is about managing you, saying what you are and aren't allowed to do, extracting taxes, fines and licensing fees from you - its not there to help! PS I was being downvoted, but now I'm back up... It was right what I wrote it!
      - pigtailgirl 4y ago
        Maybe some people just agree with this? (a) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent approximately \1/3\ of all highway fatalities in the United States each year; (2) in 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher, and 68 percent of the crashes that resulted in those fatalities involved a driver with a blood alcohol concentration level of .15 or higher; (3) the estimated economic cost for alcohol-impaired driving in 2010 was $44,000,000,000; (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually; and (5) to ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles. (b) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology'' means a system that-- (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- [[Page 135 STAT. 832]] (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
  - wfhordie 4y ago
    - rglullis 4y ago
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      You're saving fake quotes? If that's your hobby go for it I guess. You don't need to tell us though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > You will not be able to go where you want, except if the government allows it. Sounds like in your model Elon will be the one deciding where you can and cannot go.
- glaucon 4y ago
  Don't worry, at least in a Tesla the geofencing is going to be disabled in datetime.now().year + 1
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  Yeah, so much unlike the present, where you can go wherever you want (if the government has built a road to do so).
  - verisimi 4y ago
    That's actually quite funny to me. In a dark, ironic way... The government designed/authorised the solution - roads + cars. They decide to spend lots of money on this. They got rid of earlier public solutions - eg trams, closed train lines, etc. They could have invested more on public infrastructure - but opted for facilitating private transport. But now they are walking this back! Around here they are decreasing roads, especially recently. We have 2 lane roads, where one lane has been closed to create cycle lanes. We have roads that have been entirely pedestrianised. All this has made traffic worse - and this is the plan. We are meant to get off the roads and ... cycle? Take the bus? There are actually no alternative viable forms of transport. So - the government implements, then de-implements whatever solutions it likes. The public investments using money paid by the previous generation of tax payers, is actively being worked against by this generation of government! So, no, I'm not cheering the government spend.
na85 4y ago
If you think Teslas driven by fleeing fugitives, OJ Simpson style, can't be remotely commandeered or disabled, then I have a bridge to sell you. Geofencing is a big part of the dystopia that the Valley crowd is getting paid a small fortune to shove down our throats.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  OJ Simpson, the man that the police forced to stop fleeing under threat of deadly violence? Are you trying to scare people that their car may be disabled, when those same people already live in a society where police shoot and kill and pit maneuver drivers? Wouldn't you rather have the car stop safely, instead of being pit maneuvered and flipped into a ditch?
  - na85 4y ago
    >Are you trying to scare people that their car may be disabled, when those same people already live in a society where police shoot and kill and pit maneuver drivers? Scare? No. I'm just pointing out that, just as pervasive corporate surveillance is now the norm on the internet, pervasive tracking and always-on kill switches for cars will soon become the new norm. Law enforcement will paint it exactly as you have done here, with all the pearl-clutching and "think of the children"-type arguments that always accompany a new overstep/affront against civil liberties.
    - gitfan86 4y ago
      - na85 4y ago
        I think you know perfectly well what my point is and you're being deliberately obstinate.
  - mtlynch 4y ago
    OJ Simpson, the man that the police forced to stop fleeing under threat of deadly violence? That didn't happen. Police followed OJ for 50 miles and ultimately let him drive safely to his house. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Bronco_chase https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Br...
daenz 4y ago
I wonder if 40mph is a magic number that is a good tradeoff between speed and survivability (and injury-related out-of-court settlements)
- sjcoles 4y ago
  Has to do with the limitations of radar. Radar will fail >40mph for stopped vehicles or detect them too late to stop. Honda and Tesla are working to remove radars and go vision only for speed control. If you have a car with a AEB or CMBS (automatic emergency braking, crash mitigation braking system) the owners manual has a ton of fine print about it only making crashes less severe, not preventing them outright.
  - t0mas88 4y ago
    The detection range for radar is more than 200m, you can stop from speeds above 100mph in that distance. And the radar sensor automatically includes relative speed information on the target (doppler shift) which vision doesn't so it's easier to figure out whether something is stationary or not. So I don't believe this "vision only will fix it all" story.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I imagine there are a couple reasons that boil down at some point to kinetic energy. Stopping distance goes up pretty quickly, there's a huge difference between, say, 40mph and 60mph.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  That threshold is generally considered to be 20mph. Below that speed pedestrian injuries are unlikely to be fatal. It's what urban speed limits are in Sweden, and they average about one pedestrian death a year in the entire country.
  - Closi 4y ago
    20mph is considered to be good for survivability, but is not really good from a speed/travel perspective. I believe OP meant maybe 40mph is a good balance between the two factors of speed (higher is better) and survivability (higher is better) from a corporate risk / insurance perspective. Raising one of these lowers the other - so the actual threshold depends on how you value speed / convenience vs accident survivability / risk, and what you want to market your car as able to do (few consumers will see a 20mph self-drive speed limit as a viable self driving system).
freeflight 4y ago
Restrictions that very much make sense given the usage scenario; Stop and go traffic on highways.
- jhugo 4y ago
  "Stop-and-go traffic on highways" is quite a narrow usage scenario, isn't it? At least in a lot of highway driving in UK, FR, DE, CH, I find this mostly only happens with major events or roadworks, and even then it's for a short time or distance. The rest of the time you'll be plodding along at 60 km/h, with all other traffic overtaking you, which itself adds risk.
kube-system 4y ago
Breadth of operating conditions is a trade off with reliability of operation. It’s possible to do a lot of things okay, or a couple things perfectly, but not yet possible to do a lot of things perfectly. When you remove the driver from the equation, the requirement for reliability goes up. There’s going to come a day when Tesla is forced to make difficult decisions about their “FSD” system. They’re either going to be requiring human supervision for a long time, or they’re going to have to start pulling features. I’m glad to see other manufacturers taking a different approach and actually start working on features good enough to qualify for SAE level 3 operation.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  The big risk that Waymo/Mercedes is taking with this approach is that they do not know what blocking issues they will run into when adding new functionality to these systems. What if driving in rain or snow is incompatible with their architecture and they have to do a major rewrite to expand into that functionality? With the Tesla Approach they already know where the system fails and where the system isn't making any progress when trying to fix those failures. So Tesla can do major rewrites and major architecture changes much earlier in the development process.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Yeah and they certainly have a lot of data because of their approach. I just wonder how (or if) they’ll make the shift to level 3 without angering customers. Or, if they’ll choose to stay at level 2 so they can have more features.
    - jhugo 4y ago
      Maybe they don't design their roadmap around arbitrary level numbers but instead around marketable features.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        SAE levels are based on the features of the system… and the conditions it operates in, and the responsibility of the driver.
throwmeariver1 4y ago
Yeah, look up some videos of Teslas Autopilot in the rain... it's not pretty.
judge2020 4y ago
The full quote: > once we hit some traffic we go under 40 miles an hour we'll be able to engage it but there are some other caveats: you have to be on a highway, the weather has to be nice, it can't be raining, it can't be freezing, and you can't change lanes; you have to stay in your lane while drive pilot is enabled So it also needs to be on the highway.

verisimi 4y ago

> "Geofenced" That's the word. That's the plan. We will be geofenced, there will be a kill switch. You will not be able to go where you want, except if the government allows it. In fact, I think Uber is the best example of geofencing we have for the long run. In the medium term, self-driving cars you still own will fill the gap.

QuercusMax 4y ago
You're making a pretty big leap there from "our experimental self-driving mode only works inside the geofence" to "the government won't let you drive where you want".
- verisimi 4y ago
  Yes, a huge leap. I can't possibly imagine that government would pass legislation that all the automakers would comply with. /s https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/biden-infrastructure-bill-vehicle-kill-switch-2026/ https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/biden-infrastructure-bil... "Deep within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was signed into law by President Joe Biden is a passage that will require automakers to begin including what can be best summarized as a “vehicle kill switch” within the operating software of new cars, which is described in the bill as “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology”. The measure has been positioned as a safety tool to help prevent drunk driving, and by 2026 (three years after the enactment of the Act, per the text) the kill switch could be mandated on every new car sold in the United States. Then there’s the broader reaching RIDE Act, which we’ll touch on in a moment."
  - verisimi 4y ago
    I'm being downvoted - but this is the reality of what will happen. Who wants that sort of monitoring when they are driving? Is this a consumer-driven feature? Or is this more government management - leveraging technology to micro-manage every detail of our lives - only allowing good citizens travel privileges etc? We are sleep walking into a dystopia, and I get downvoted for stating the obvious! Seriously - your government is about managing you, saying what you are and aren't allowed to do, extracting taxes, fines and licensing fees from you - its not there to help! PS I was being downvoted, but now I'm back up... It was right what I wrote it!
    - pigtailgirl 4y ago
      Maybe some people just agree with this? (a) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent approximately \1/3\ of all highway fatalities in the United States each year; (2) in 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher, and 68 percent of the crashes that resulted in those fatalities involved a driver with a blood alcohol concentration level of .15 or higher; (3) the estimated economic cost for alcohol-impaired driving in 2010 was $44,000,000,000; (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually; and (5) to ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles. (b) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology'' means a system that-- (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- [[Page 135 STAT. 832]] (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
- wfhordie 4y ago
  - rglullis 4y ago
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    You're saving fake quotes? If that's your hobby go for it I guess. You don't need to tell us though.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
arcticbull 4y ago
> You will not be able to go where you want, except if the government allows it. Sounds like in your model Elon will be the one deciding where you can and cannot go.
glaucon 4y ago
Don't worry, at least in a Tesla the geofencing is going to be disabled in datetime.now().year + 1
IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
Yeah, so much unlike the present, where you can go wherever you want (if the government has built a road to do so).
- verisimi 4y ago
  That's actually quite funny to me. In a dark, ironic way... The government designed/authorised the solution - roads + cars. They decide to spend lots of money on this. They got rid of earlier public solutions - eg trams, closed train lines, etc. They could have invested more on public infrastructure - but opted for facilitating private transport. But now they are walking this back! Around here they are decreasing roads, especially recently. We have 2 lane roads, where one lane has been closed to create cycle lanes. We have roads that have been entirely pedestrianised. All this has made traffic worse - and this is the plan. We are meant to get off the roads and ... cycle? Take the bus? There are actually no alternative viable forms of transport. So - the government implements, then de-implements whatever solutions it likes. The public investments using money paid by the previous generation of tax payers, is actively being worked against by this generation of government! So, no, I'm not cheering the government spend.

na85 4y ago

If you think Teslas driven by fleeing fugitives, OJ Simpson style, can't be remotely commandeered or disabled, then I have a bridge to sell you. Geofencing is a big part of the dystopia that the Valley crowd is getting paid a small fortune to shove down our throats.

gitfan86 4y ago
OJ Simpson, the man that the police forced to stop fleeing under threat of deadly violence? Are you trying to scare people that their car may be disabled, when those same people already live in a society where police shoot and kill and pit maneuver drivers? Wouldn't you rather have the car stop safely, instead of being pit maneuvered and flipped into a ditch?
- na85 4y ago
  >Are you trying to scare people that their car may be disabled, when those same people already live in a society where police shoot and kill and pit maneuver drivers? Scare? No. I'm just pointing out that, just as pervasive corporate surveillance is now the norm on the internet, pervasive tracking and always-on kill switches for cars will soon become the new norm. Law enforcement will paint it exactly as you have done here, with all the pearl-clutching and "think of the children"-type arguments that always accompany a new overstep/affront against civil liberties.
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    - na85 4y ago
      I think you know perfectly well what my point is and you're being deliberately obstinate.
- mtlynch 4y ago
  OJ Simpson, the man that the police forced to stop fleeing under threat of deadly violence? That didn't happen. Police followed OJ for 50 miles and ultimately let him drive safely to his house. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Bronco_chase https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Br...

daenz 4y ago

I wonder if 40mph is a magic number that is a good tradeoff between speed and survivability (and injury-related out-of-court settlements)

sjcoles 4y ago
Has to do with the limitations of radar. Radar will fail >40mph for stopped vehicles or detect them too late to stop. Honda and Tesla are working to remove radars and go vision only for speed control. If you have a car with a AEB or CMBS (automatic emergency braking, crash mitigation braking system) the owners manual has a ton of fine print about it only making crashes less severe, not preventing them outright.
- t0mas88 4y ago
  The detection range for radar is more than 200m, you can stop from speeds above 100mph in that distance. And the radar sensor automatically includes relative speed information on the target (doppler shift) which vision doesn't so it's easier to figure out whether something is stationary or not. So I don't believe this "vision only will fix it all" story.
rootusrootus 4y ago
I imagine there are a couple reasons that boil down at some point to kinetic energy. Stopping distance goes up pretty quickly, there's a huge difference between, say, 40mph and 60mph.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
That threshold is generally considered to be 20mph. Below that speed pedestrian injuries are unlikely to be fatal. It's what urban speed limits are in Sweden, and they average about one pedestrian death a year in the entire country.
- Closi 4y ago
  20mph is considered to be good for survivability, but is not really good from a speed/travel perspective. I believe OP meant maybe 40mph is a good balance between the two factors of speed (higher is better) and survivability (higher is better) from a corporate risk / insurance perspective. Raising one of these lowers the other - so the actual threshold depends on how you value speed / convenience vs accident survivability / risk, and what you want to market your car as able to do (few consumers will see a 20mph self-drive speed limit as a viable self driving system).

freeflight 4y ago

Restrictions that very much make sense given the usage scenario; Stop and go traffic on highways.

jhugo 4y ago
"Stop-and-go traffic on highways" is quite a narrow usage scenario, isn't it? At least in a lot of highway driving in UK, FR, DE, CH, I find this mostly only happens with major events or roadworks, and even then it's for a short time or distance. The rest of the time you'll be plodding along at 60 km/h, with all other traffic overtaking you, which itself adds risk.

kube-system 4y ago

Breadth of operating conditions is a trade off with reliability of operation. It’s possible to do a lot of things okay, or a couple things perfectly, but not yet possible to do a lot of things perfectly. When you remove the driver from the equation, the requirement for reliability goes up. There’s going to come a day when Tesla is forced to make difficult decisions about their “FSD” system. They’re either going to be requiring human supervision for a long time, or they’re going to have to start pulling features. I’m glad to see other manufacturers taking a different approach and actually start working on features good enough to qualify for SAE level 3 operation.

gitfan86 4y ago
The big risk that Waymo/Mercedes is taking with this approach is that they do not know what blocking issues they will run into when adding new functionality to these systems. What if driving in rain or snow is incompatible with their architecture and they have to do a major rewrite to expand into that functionality? With the Tesla Approach they already know where the system fails and where the system isn't making any progress when trying to fix those failures. So Tesla can do major rewrites and major architecture changes much earlier in the development process.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Yeah and they certainly have a lot of data because of their approach. I just wonder how (or if) they’ll make the shift to level 3 without angering customers. Or, if they’ll choose to stay at level 2 so they can have more features.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    Maybe they don't design their roadmap around arbitrary level numbers but instead around marketable features.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      SAE levels are based on the features of the system… and the conditions it operates in, and the responsibility of the driver.

throwmeariver1 4y ago

Yeah, look up some videos of Teslas Autopilot in the rain... it's not pretty.

judge2020 4y ago

The full quote: > once we hit some traffic we go under 40 miles an hour we'll be able to engage it but there are some other caveats: you have to be on a highway, the weather has to be nice, it can't be raining, it can't be freezing, and you can't change lanes; you have to stay in your lane while drive pilot is enabled So it also needs to be on the highway.