3 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Autopilot try to slow down and/or swerve to avoid a crash? I thought that was the main selling point, otherwise this is jus

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Autopilot try to slow down and/or swerve to avoid a crash? I thought that was the main selling point, otherwise this is just a fancy name for cruise control.

jasonlotito 4y ago
Maybe now. But years ago, that's not how it was advertised. As shared by others in this thread: From Tesla: "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" followed by: "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver." Self-driving cars doesn't sound like fancy name for cruise control. That's from Tesla. Who has already faced consequences for lying in marketing.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  Right. I believe that they did market it like a proper safety feature in the past, absolutely capable of avoiding crashes. Also, the name is already misleading, as "Autopilot" suggests that the car actually "drives" itself to some extent. Even if they weren't trying to mislead people in their marketing materials, these points seem enough to make a case.
- soheil 4y ago
  > that's not how it was advertised What are you talking about? When was the last time you saw a Tesla advertisement? > Self-driving cars doesn't sound like fancy name for cruise control Having the hardware or the capacity to be a self-driving car is not equal to being a self-driving car. The hardware must be enabled, which in this case wasn't. The car only had Autopilot not FSD. Please learn the difference.
ModernMech 4y ago
Depends on what's in front of the car. If it's a large, broad, stationary object like a firetruck or tractor trailer, then the sensors on the car aren't able to see those obstacles. Teslas have been known to frequently run into such things at top speed, completely blind to the fact they were there at all. It's so bad multiple people have been literally decapitated at this point, and Tesla has to date refused to fix the flaw (inadequate sensing) that caused the decapitations to occur. People say Teslas are safer than humans, but humans who can't see large broad stationary objects would never be granted a license. If you are a robot driver, no problem though apparently. In fact, if you have proven to be recklessly homicidal while driving, your license is taken away and you are likely put on trial. Not if you're a robot! They will clone your flawed sensors and robot brain, and ship it to thousands of people to be deployed on roads across the world. When your web service goes down you probably find the root cause, fix it, and issue a report about how it's not going to happen again due to your fix. Not Tesla! They are aware of the problem, know exactly how to fix it, and it seems like one man's ego is getting in the way of shipping actually safe autonomous cars. Tesla cars are not safe because Tesla as a company does not value safety as a priority. They value design, whizbang technologies, branding and image, while safety is a distant concern. Elon Musk put more effort into naming the line of cars SEXY than he did to actually producing reliably and predictably safe autonomous vehicles. Musk spent far more time lamenting over the fact he was forced to name his car the Model 3 than the fact it decapitated a human being due to his poor engineering choices. Teslas on AP are death machines (read: they are machines who have killed people) and we in the public are the unwitting beta testers for Tesla Inc.
- joezydeco 4y ago
  But, as it was expressed to me in a different thread, it's a sacrifice we all need to make to help Musk build the perfect software platform and advance our society. Just like we sacrificed people in plane crashes over the last 100 years to advance the aerospace industry (don't get me started there). I'm with you on this. Nobody deserves this and this software should be in a test lab or closed road course until it's done. And others will argue that you can't perfect automated driving in those situations, and that's correct.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > But, as it was expressed to me in a different thread, it's a sacrifice we all need to make to help Musk build the perfect software platform and advance our society. Yeah I can't help but cringe at this. Safety is hard, and you don't get safe systems without trying very hard and deliberately to make them. That's a fact of life and engineering. Trying hard to make safe systems does not look like deploying 2 ton automobiles that are critically blind in the very arena in which they are expected to operate. That's called reckless endangerment in my book.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  This is a known limitation of radar based active cruise control systems, and is not specific to Tesla autopilot. Tesla was not the first company to deploy such a system, and the decision to allow it was made before Tesla. It makes sense because all cars are legally required to include another device that is capable of detecting such objects, a human driver. You can legitimately object to this feature being allowed, but the way you wrote it, as a screed against Tesla, makes it clear that your concern isn't really with the engineering limitations and safety implications of this product.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > This is a known limitation of radar based active cruise control systems, and is not specific to Tesla autopilot. Which makes it all the more galling and reprehensible. > makes it clear that your concern isn't really with the engineering limitations and safety implications of this product. I was concerned about engineering in 2015 when the first decapitation happened. My present screed against Tesla is because they haven't fixed the problem in the intervening 7 years to the point where a second person was decapitated. That shows me the problem is not engineering but organizational. It makes no sense to talk about engineering issues when Tesla does not promote a culture of safety. Engineers are not in control there, hype men are. The number of accidental decapitations your product gets to make is 1 and that's arguable. The second decapitation is criminal negligence. And yes, I am incensed by this because as a roboticist, I think it's a travesty that Tesla has taken the industry in this direction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Autopilot try to slow down and/or swerve to avoid a crash? I thought that was the main selling point, otherwise this is just a fancy name for cruise control.

jasonlotito 4y ago

Maybe now. But years ago, that's not how it was advertised. As shared by others in this thread: From Tesla: "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" followed by: "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver." Self-driving cars doesn't sound like fancy name for cruise control. That's from Tesla. Who has already faced consequences for lying in marketing.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
Right. I believe that they did market it like a proper safety feature in the past, absolutely capable of avoiding crashes. Also, the name is already misleading, as "Autopilot" suggests that the car actually "drives" itself to some extent. Even if they weren't trying to mislead people in their marketing materials, these points seem enough to make a case.
soheil 4y ago
> that's not how it was advertised What are you talking about? When was the last time you saw a Tesla advertisement? > Self-driving cars doesn't sound like fancy name for cruise control Having the hardware or the capacity to be a self-driving car is not equal to being a self-driving car. The hardware must be enabled, which in this case wasn't. The car only had Autopilot not FSD. Please learn the difference.

ModernMech 4y ago

Depends on what's in front of the car. If it's a large, broad, stationary object like a firetruck or tractor trailer, then the sensors on the car aren't able to see those obstacles. Teslas have been known to frequently run into such things at top speed, completely blind to the fact they were there at all. It's so bad multiple people have been literally decapitated at this point, and Tesla has to date refused to fix the flaw (inadequate sensing) that caused the decapitations to occur. People say Teslas are safer than humans, but humans who can't see large broad stationary objects would never be granted a license. If you are a robot driver, no problem though apparently. In fact, if you have proven to be recklessly homicidal while driving, your license is taken away and you are likely put on trial. Not if you're a robot! They will clone your flawed sensors and robot brain, and ship it to thousands of people to be deployed on roads across the world. When your web service goes down you probably find the root cause, fix it, and issue a report about how it's not going to happen again due to your fix. Not Tesla! They are aware of the problem, know exactly how to fix it, and it seems like one man's ego is getting in the way of shipping actually safe autonomous cars. Tesla cars are not safe because Tesla as a company does not value safety as a priority. They value design, whizbang technologies, branding and image, while safety is a distant concern. Elon Musk put more effort into naming the line of cars SEXY than he did to actually producing reliably and predictably safe autonomous vehicles. Musk spent far more time lamenting over the fact he was forced to name his car the Model 3 than the fact it decapitated a human being due to his poor engineering choices. Teslas on AP are death machines (read: they are machines who have killed people) and we in the public are the unwitting beta testers for Tesla Inc.

joezydeco 4y ago
But, as it was expressed to me in a different thread, it's a sacrifice we all need to make to help Musk build the perfect software platform and advance our society. Just like we sacrificed people in plane crashes over the last 100 years to advance the aerospace industry (don't get me started there). I'm with you on this. Nobody deserves this and this software should be in a test lab or closed road course until it's done. And others will argue that you can't perfect automated driving in those situations, and that's correct.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > But, as it was expressed to me in a different thread, it's a sacrifice we all need to make to help Musk build the perfect software platform and advance our society. Yeah I can't help but cringe at this. Safety is hard, and you don't get safe systems without trying very hard and deliberately to make them. That's a fact of life and engineering. Trying hard to make safe systems does not look like deploying 2 ton automobiles that are critically blind in the very arena in which they are expected to operate. That's called reckless endangerment in my book.
fallingknife 4y ago
This is a known limitation of radar based active cruise control systems, and is not specific to Tesla autopilot. Tesla was not the first company to deploy such a system, and the decision to allow it was made before Tesla. It makes sense because all cars are legally required to include another device that is capable of detecting such objects, a human driver. You can legitimately object to this feature being allowed, but the way you wrote it, as a screed against Tesla, makes it clear that your concern isn't really with the engineering limitations and safety implications of this product.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > This is a known limitation of radar based active cruise control systems, and is not specific to Tesla autopilot. Which makes it all the more galling and reprehensible. > makes it clear that your concern isn't really with the engineering limitations and safety implications of this product. I was concerned about engineering in 2015 when the first decapitation happened. My present screed against Tesla is because they haven't fixed the problem in the intervening 7 years to the point where a second person was decapitated. That shows me the problem is not engineering but organizational. It makes no sense to talk about engineering issues when Tesla does not promote a culture of safety. Engineers are not in control there, hype men are. The number of accidental decapitations your product gets to make is 1 and that's arguable. The second decapitation is criminal negligence. And yes, I am incensed by this because as a roboticist, I think it's a travesty that Tesla has taken the industry in this direction.