4 ms·

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

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.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  When the product is a car, which has a rate of 36,000 accidental deaths (I don't really care whether or not they are decapitations) per year just in the US, then your standard of "more than one is criminal negligence" is ridiculous.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    It's not a matter of statistics, it's a matter of demonstrated product defects that have predictably lead to deaths, that Tesla refuses to fix, even though they know it's an issue. I hardly consider that an accidental death. As you said, it's well known the sensors on Teslas can't accommodate the target use case (Level 5 autonomy). And yet Tesla won't admit this. That's what makes this negligent. Imagine if it were your loved one who died in a Tesla using a technology that Tesla knew or should have known to be deficient and intentionally oversold its capabilities. Would you shrug and point to industry statistics? Or would you be mad at Tesla? Be honest. Frankly, the attitude that Tesla should be allowed to test their beta-quality products on public roads (I certainly didn't agree to participate in the beta test) is what I find to be ridiculous.

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.

fallingknife 4y ago
When the product is a car, which has a rate of 36,000 accidental deaths (I don't really care whether or not they are decapitations) per year just in the US, then your standard of "more than one is criminal negligence" is ridiculous.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  It's not a matter of statistics, it's a matter of demonstrated product defects that have predictably lead to deaths, that Tesla refuses to fix, even though they know it's an issue. I hardly consider that an accidental death. As you said, it's well known the sensors on Teslas can't accommodate the target use case (Level 5 autonomy). And yet Tesla won't admit this. That's what makes this negligent. Imagine if it were your loved one who died in a Tesla using a technology that Tesla knew or should have known to be deficient and intentionally oversold its capabilities. Would you shrug and point to industry statistics? Or would you be mad at Tesla? Be honest. Frankly, the attitude that Tesla should be allowed to test their beta-quality products on public roads (I certainly didn't agree to participate in the beta test) is what I find to be ridiculous.