8 ms·

California DMV accuses Tesla of falsely advertising Autopilot and FSD features

155 points by ra7 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago
About time. The FTC should be involved, too, and require refunds for anybody who wants one. FSC, "full self-crashing". And the NTSB.
rvz 4y ago
> The agency alleges the electric carmaker misled customers with advertising language on its website describing Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technologies as more capable than they actually are. Not really a surprise to see the deception scam that Tesla has done with their false advertising with both autopilot and especially Fools Self Driving (FSD), as I have already said before. With the countless videos showing both of these contraptions malfunctioning on the public roads, it is safe to say that they don't work reliably and this is even before mentioning the price increases on both of these features. So essentially, customers are paying for a feature that doesn't work and is dangerous enough to put the driver and many other drivers on the road at risk. Therefore, this dangerous contraption is an indefensible scam which is already being investigated by many regulators.
ForHackernews 4y ago
Next you'll be telling me McDonald's isn't really lovin' it!
gamblor956 4y ago
The remedies proposed by the DMV if it prevails could be severe, including revocation of the company’s licenses to make or sell its cars in California. Unlikely, but the likely remedy will be that Tesla needs to change the names of these features so that they aren't misleading to the general public.
- sillystuff 4y ago
  Changing the names to better reflect the reality of the product might help set safer expectations by Tesla owners. But, as a pedestrian and cyclist, I don't think it is enough. All car makes including Tesla that are offering advanced cruise control (e.g., lane following), should be required to geofence the feature with other conditions like weather taken into account too. If Tesla, Volvo, Ford, etc., have a product that works at an acceptable level on simple straight highways during daylight and clear weather conditions, then those are the only locations and conditions the advanced cruise control devices should be allowed to operate in.
  - martin_a 4y ago
    This is already integrated, at least in my Hyundai Kona Electro. Lane holding assist and adaptive cruise control only works for speeds up to 170 km/h (which is also very near max speed for the electric version, to be honest), while you are holding the steering wheel and are giving active input and only if the weather is good enough. Failing to hold the wheel for some seconds or only "resting" your hands on it will trigger optical and visual warnings and will disable the assistance systems if you fail to act. I've also experienced that heavy rain or snow have disturbed the car so much that it wouldn't allow to activate the assistance systems due to the weather conditions. So, for some car brands it's already there.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      I don't really understand the point of constant lane assist if you have to be providing active input at all times?
      - manicdee 4y ago
        When you are scanning mirrors and checking over your shoulder the car will steer itself without drifting out of the lane.
      - martin_a 4y ago
        As manicdee said it prevents you from drifting out of the lane. Also "active input" is possibly a bit of a stretch. The system checks whether you are providing some force "against" the motion of the steering wheel. It's not trying to steer away, it just tests if somebody is actually having a "strong" (another stretch) grip on the wheel.
- dangus 4y ago
  Changing a name isn't enough when it comes to passenger safety. This isn't some web app where the consequences are a bad experience. Automakers aren't supposed to be allowed to put unsafe technology on the road regardless of marketing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- simion314 4y ago
  That would open the road for lawsuits from customers then if Tesla is shown misslead them, at least lawsuits on how much Tesla needs to pay as damages. Not sure if the public could also ask for dfamages because alpha software is tested on the public roads
adoxyz 4y ago
Good. FSD beta is unsafe and I can't believe they actually released it to the public. The videos on YouTube don't account for the actual experience of being in an FSD operated car and let me tell you it's a pretty scary experience.
- jamiek88 4y ago
  I can’t believe they charge over $12k for that half baked, under resourced, buggy pile of crap.
trhway 4y ago
False advertising it would be if it caused a reasonable man to believe that it is a full self-driving, isn't it? Well, show me a reasonable man who would believe that full self driving does exist today :)
- netsharc 4y ago
  That's a bit like saying "you'd be an idiot if you believed these 3 words to mean what they mean!"...
  - trhway 4y ago
    So buying "Star Blast" chewing gum what star one can expect to get blasted? It is like that guy drinking a beer and suing the beer producer for all those women and the military jet from that beer ads not materializing in his life.
    - netsharc 4y ago
      > So buying "Star Blast" chewing gum what star one can expect to get blasted? You're being deliberately obtuse, IMO. Context matters. If we lived in a world where launching missiles into interstellar space is possible and a weapons company sells a rocket with this claimed capability, then I'd be wondering if this feature means it can actually make a star go supernova. To use your own logic: Tesla sells cars. It claims "full self driving". Oh wow, what activity should I expect this feature to be doing? And what object will the feature apply to?
    - vba616 4y ago
      If you're talking about the hypothetical group of people that paid $10K extra specifically to get all that stuff in the beer ads, like an option package for their beer, then what most reasonable people expect is beside the point. Dumb or not, they were intentionally cheated out of a lot of money and it's documented.
    - throwaway5959 4y ago
      > So buying "Star Blast" chewing gum what star one can expect to get blasted? This has to be the dumbest thing I’ve read on this site. Congrats I guess.
clintonb 4y ago
I like Autopilot, but FSD is too error-prone, so I don't use it. I will gladly accept a refund of the $7K (plus tax) I spent. At a minimum, Tesla should treat FSD as a license that can be transferred to other cars so folks aren't stuck in older vehicles waiting for FSD to finally (if ever) work.
- lumost 4y ago
  FSD capable is a scam and should be treated at such. I thought about purchasing a Tesla in 2016 when they said FSD would be 1-2 years away. If I had gone through with that purchase, the car would be almost 7 years old. Given a generous reliability expectation of 10 years it would be unlikely that the car would ever receive a functional version of FSD. Resulting in a net loss to the consumer of some 18k (assuming a ten percent interest rate, if you go by typical American consumer debt rates the cost should be 65-140k)
TomVDB 4y ago
I wouldn’t trust FSD at all and there’s no way I’d ever pay for it, but I love autopilot. What are Tesla falsely claiming about autopilot?
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  what if your uber driver turns it on?
hn_version_0023 4y ago
Off-topic, but does anyone have links to Musk's statements about getting first to market with full self-driving, or poisoning the well for everyone? IIRC, I read that here at some point, but I don't seem to be able to locate it again.
kart23 4y ago
they shouldn’t have allowed it to be released to the public. there’s videos of people just driving terribly and impeding the flow of traffic in the name of ‘testing fsd’. This stuff has very real impact on the public and drivers around it. I don’t give a shit if tesla drivers want to push the limits of ai, but don’t do it on public roads. slow and erratic driving make things unpredictable and much more dangerous for everyone on the road, even if FSD isn’t actively causing accidents.
rzimmerman 4y ago
I've had a great experience with Autopilot. It does what's advertised - maintain speed, follow the car in front of me, stay in the lane and stop if necessary. It can even do more than that, like change lanes and follow exits. It's always healthy to question the safety record and Tesla needs to be more open about incidents with Autopilot enabled. But when operated properly (keep your hands on the wheel and pay attention) it's great and I certainly don't feel deceived. I understand that many people are confused by the name. I get the argument that aircraft autopilot has a lot of the same constraints, but there are plenty of people who hear "Autopilot" and don't understand the disambiguation between a hands-on assist system, vague rumors that "Teslas drive themselves", and "Full Self Driving". An appropriate remedy is to change the name or put heavy disclaimers on. But it doesn't feel intentionally deceptive like Full Self Driving. Full Self Driving is a huge mess and there should absolutely be more regulatory action or class action. I paid $10k for the language in the article - get in your car and it drives you where you want to go. Every 8-10 months it's only another year away. I'm not 100% convinced that what Musk claims is even possible with the hardware on my car at this point. The FSD beta is fun but terrifying and not useful. It drives like a 15 year old and I've never had a single drive where I haven't taken over, either for safety or because the car was holding up traffic. It's also important not to confuse safety (it rarely tries to drive me into a solid object!) with actual usability (it consistently gets confused and blocks other cars in traffic). It's not a few updates away, it's fundamentally not even close to full autonomy. It's not what I bought and it's absolutely false advertising to take $7-12k and just push out the deadline indefinitely.
- drewg123 4y ago
  I agree 100%, but I'd say the FSD beta drives like a 75 year grandparent that's never held a license. It is mostly over-cautious and is constantly holding up traffic, due to being shy to pull out, make left turns, etc. But its also totally missed stop signs, and cut people off. My 16yo son, after 1 month of holding a learners permit, is far superior to FSD. Oddly, they BOTH drive far to close to parked cars on unmarked city streets when there is no oncoming traffic. I normally drive right down the middle to leave space in case a door opens, and I've tried to instill that in my son.
pengaru 4y ago
Is this really the CA DMV's jurisdiction? Where's the CA DOT? How on earth is the DMV the best positioned agency to take Tesla to task on this egregious issue?
- Animats 4y ago
  Because the California DMV determines who gets to drive in California. The CA DMV licenses autonomous vehicles.[1] California was the first state to do this. There's a reasonable licensing system. Vehicle makers can apply for a license to autonomously test drive with a safety driver (easy to get, 50 companies are licensed), testing without a safety driver (harder to get, only 7 companies licensed), and deployment (only Neuro, Cruise, and Waymo have qualified.) Tesla's marketing materials imply that they are qualified to deploy autonomous vehicles. They're not. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto...
  - rajbot 4y ago
    To add to this CA DOT (aka Caltrans) does not regulate motor vehicles. From https://dot.ca.gov/about-caltrans https://dot.ca.gov/about-caltrans : > Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of California's highway and freeway lanes, provides inter-city rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies Motor vehicles not under their jurisdiction
  - pengaru 4y ago
    ah, I assumed since the federal DOT is responsible for things like qualifying street-legal equipment (e.g. DOT-legal headlamp housings, windshields, etc) the CA DOT was in a similar role at the state level. Could have sworn I'd read somewhere CA DOT simply reflects DOT regulations on such matters, but wouldn't the CA DOT still be responsible for enforcement if say Ford was selling new vehicles within CA with non-DOT headlamps?
- namecheapTA 4y ago
  I would argue that it's because DMV is in charge of car dealerships... But doesn't Tesla not have legal dealerships?
avalys 4y ago
The most ridiculous thing about FSD is that there are people who paid $10,000 extra on their lease financing to pre-purchase FSD on their leased Model S/Y/3, drove the entire period of the 3-year lease without ever seeing any functionality, then returned their car to Tesla without receiving any refund. Tesla then resold the cars without FSD unless the new buyers paid for the scam again. Astonishing that they haven’t been sued over this. What a joke.
- duckkg5 4y ago
  I own one and am glad they are getting flack. hopefully someone will compel them to make it right.
- omarforgotpwd 4y ago
  The Full Self-Driving package on Teslas gives you access to a number of features including autopark, auto lane change, navigate on autopilot, green light chime, traffic light and stop sign control, summon, smart summon, an update to the latest car computer, as well as the city streets Beta. Just not true to say they received no functionality. I paid $7,000 for it on my last car and it's incredible. It can often do entire drives with no human input. And not just simple drives, but some pretty complex scenarios too.
  - mark242 4y ago
    > It can often do entire drives with no human input. And not just simple drives, but some pretty complex scenarios too. This is just patently false. I have been in the beta for months, and I have yet to have "an entire drive" without having to disengage. FSD behaves like a fifteen-year-old who has just gotten their learner's permit and has zero long-term memory. Any intersection that has a dedicated right-turn lane, when that lane comes out of a widening right lane (as most of them do), FSD will fail on, and will at the very last moment swerve to make the lane change, endangering human drivers coming up from behind, who are correctly getting into the space on the right. Every single time. I cannot count the number of times that a left turn onto a road with a slightly raised middle divider (planters, whatever) will fail. Every single time. At a four-way stop sign FSD does not know when it has the right-of-way and will always defer to every other car. This often leaves you sitting waiting for the intersection to completely clear before FSD will decide to proceed. It took me exactly 48 hours with FSD to realize that Tesla isn't close. "Green light chime", come on.
sircastor 4y ago
A friend’s son recently died in a Tesla-autopilot-related accident. My tolerance for Tesla’s antics have gone from annoyed onlooking to disgust. Overall Automotive-related deaths not withstanding, people are being sold a lie and that’s resulting in deaths
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
We have indicator lights for turns and stops. A standard external signal that a car is on cruise control or self driving may make sense to implement. I’m going to bike and drive differently if I know a car near me is being driven by a computer.
NorwegianDude 4y ago
As I've said many times before, it's nowhere near to be reality. It won't be in the next five years either. Oh, and the Tesla Roadster that according to Elon/Tesla will be the worlds fastest? That too should be a thing by now according to Elon/Tesla. That will never happen. At least people have earned good money by renting out their cars as robot taxis in the last years. Oh wait, that also never happened. So many lies, so much false advertising.
throwaway5959 4y ago
At least California is willing to call this bullshit out.
nr2x 4y ago
About time.

155 points by ra7 4y ago

About time. The FTC should be involved, too, and require refunds for anybody who wants one. FSC, "full self-crashing". And the NTSB.

rvz 4y ago

> The agency alleges the electric carmaker misled customers with advertising language on its website describing Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technologies as more capable than they actually are. Not really a surprise to see the deception scam that Tesla has done with their false advertising with both autopilot and especially Fools Self Driving (FSD), as I have already said before. With the countless videos showing both of these contraptions malfunctioning on the public roads, it is safe to say that they don't work reliably and this is even before mentioning the price increases on both of these features. So essentially, customers are paying for a feature that doesn't work and is dangerous enough to put the driver and many other drivers on the road at risk. Therefore, this dangerous contraption is an indefensible scam which is already being investigated by many regulators.

ForHackernews 4y ago

Next you'll be telling me McDonald's isn't really lovin' it!

gamblor956 4y ago

The remedies proposed by the DMV if it prevails could be severe, including revocation of the company’s licenses to make or sell its cars in California. Unlikely, but the likely remedy will be that Tesla needs to change the names of these features so that they aren't misleading to the general public.

sillystuff 4y ago
Changing the names to better reflect the reality of the product might help set safer expectations by Tesla owners. But, as a pedestrian and cyclist, I don't think it is enough. All car makes including Tesla that are offering advanced cruise control (e.g., lane following), should be required to geofence the feature with other conditions like weather taken into account too. If Tesla, Volvo, Ford, etc., have a product that works at an acceptable level on simple straight highways during daylight and clear weather conditions, then those are the only locations and conditions the advanced cruise control devices should be allowed to operate in.
- martin_a 4y ago
  This is already integrated, at least in my Hyundai Kona Electro. Lane holding assist and adaptive cruise control only works for speeds up to 170 km/h (which is also very near max speed for the electric version, to be honest), while you are holding the steering wheel and are giving active input and only if the weather is good enough. Failing to hold the wheel for some seconds or only "resting" your hands on it will trigger optical and visual warnings and will disable the assistance systems if you fail to act. I've also experienced that heavy rain or snow have disturbed the car so much that it wouldn't allow to activate the assistance systems due to the weather conditions. So, for some car brands it's already there.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I don't really understand the point of constant lane assist if you have to be providing active input at all times?
    - manicdee 4y ago
      When you are scanning mirrors and checking over your shoulder the car will steer itself without drifting out of the lane.
    - martin_a 4y ago
      As manicdee said it prevents you from drifting out of the lane. Also "active input" is possibly a bit of a stretch. The system checks whether you are providing some force "against" the motion of the steering wheel. It's not trying to steer away, it just tests if somebody is actually having a "strong" (another stretch) grip on the wheel.
dangus 4y ago
Changing a name isn't enough when it comes to passenger safety. This isn't some web app where the consequences are a bad experience. Automakers aren't supposed to be allowed to put unsafe technology on the road regardless of marketing.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
simion314 4y ago
That would open the road for lawsuits from customers then if Tesla is shown misslead them, at least lawsuits on how much Tesla needs to pay as damages. Not sure if the public could also ask for dfamages because alpha software is tested on the public roads

adoxyz 4y ago

Good. FSD beta is unsafe and I can't believe they actually released it to the public. The videos on YouTube don't account for the actual experience of being in an FSD operated car and let me tell you it's a pretty scary experience.

jamiek88 4y ago
I can’t believe they charge over $12k for that half baked, under resourced, buggy pile of crap.

trhway 4y ago

False advertising it would be if it caused a reasonable man to believe that it is a full self-driving, isn't it? Well, show me a reasonable man who would believe that full self driving does exist today :)

netsharc 4y ago
That's a bit like saying "you'd be an idiot if you believed these 3 words to mean what they mean!"...
- trhway 4y ago
  So buying "Star Blast" chewing gum what star one can expect to get blasted? It is like that guy drinking a beer and suing the beer producer for all those women and the military jet from that beer ads not materializing in his life.
  - netsharc 4y ago
    > So buying "Star Blast" chewing gum what star one can expect to get blasted? You're being deliberately obtuse, IMO. Context matters. If we lived in a world where launching missiles into interstellar space is possible and a weapons company sells a rocket with this claimed capability, then I'd be wondering if this feature means it can actually make a star go supernova. To use your own logic: Tesla sells cars. It claims "full self driving". Oh wow, what activity should I expect this feature to be doing? And what object will the feature apply to?
  - vba616 4y ago
    If you're talking about the hypothetical group of people that paid $10K extra specifically to get all that stuff in the beer ads, like an option package for their beer, then what most reasonable people expect is beside the point. Dumb or not, they were intentionally cheated out of a lot of money and it's documented.
  - throwaway5959 4y ago
    > So buying "Star Blast" chewing gum what star one can expect to get blasted? This has to be the dumbest thing I’ve read on this site. Congrats I guess.

clintonb 4y ago

I like Autopilot, but FSD is too error-prone, so I don't use it. I will gladly accept a refund of the $7K (plus tax) I spent. At a minimum, Tesla should treat FSD as a license that can be transferred to other cars so folks aren't stuck in older vehicles waiting for FSD to finally (if ever) work.

lumost 4y ago
FSD capable is a scam and should be treated at such. I thought about purchasing a Tesla in 2016 when they said FSD would be 1-2 years away. If I had gone through with that purchase, the car would be almost 7 years old. Given a generous reliability expectation of 10 years it would be unlikely that the car would ever receive a functional version of FSD. Resulting in a net loss to the consumer of some 18k (assuming a ten percent interest rate, if you go by typical American consumer debt rates the cost should be 65-140k)

TomVDB 4y ago

I wouldn’t trust FSD at all and there’s no way I’d ever pay for it, but I love autopilot. What are Tesla falsely claiming about autopilot?

birdyrooster 4y ago
what if your uber driver turns it on?

hn_version_0023 4y ago

Off-topic, but does anyone have links to Musk's statements about getting first to market with full self-driving, or poisoning the well for everyone? IIRC, I read that here at some point, but I don't seem to be able to locate it again.

kart23 4y ago

they shouldn’t have allowed it to be released to the public. there’s videos of people just driving terribly and impeding the flow of traffic in the name of ‘testing fsd’. This stuff has very real impact on the public and drivers around it. I don’t give a shit if tesla drivers want to push the limits of ai, but don’t do it on public roads. slow and erratic driving make things unpredictable and much more dangerous for everyone on the road, even if FSD isn’t actively causing accidents.

rzimmerman 4y ago

I've had a great experience with Autopilot. It does what's advertised - maintain speed, follow the car in front of me, stay in the lane and stop if necessary. It can even do more than that, like change lanes and follow exits. It's always healthy to question the safety record and Tesla needs to be more open about incidents with Autopilot enabled. But when operated properly (keep your hands on the wheel and pay attention) it's great and I certainly don't feel deceived. I understand that many people are confused by the name. I get the argument that aircraft autopilot has a lot of the same constraints, but there are plenty of people who hear "Autopilot" and don't understand the disambiguation between a hands-on assist system, vague rumors that "Teslas drive themselves", and "Full Self Driving". An appropriate remedy is to change the name or put heavy disclaimers on. But it doesn't feel intentionally deceptive like Full Self Driving. Full Self Driving is a huge mess and there should absolutely be more regulatory action or class action. I paid $10k for the language in the article - get in your car and it drives you where you want to go. Every 8-10 months it's only another year away. I'm not 100% convinced that what Musk claims is even possible with the hardware on my car at this point. The FSD beta is fun but terrifying and not useful. It drives like a 15 year old and I've never had a single drive where I haven't taken over, either for safety or because the car was holding up traffic. It's also important not to confuse safety (it rarely tries to drive me into a solid object!) with actual usability (it consistently gets confused and blocks other cars in traffic). It's not a few updates away, it's fundamentally not even close to full autonomy. It's not what I bought and it's absolutely false advertising to take $7-12k and just push out the deadline indefinitely.

drewg123 4y ago
I agree 100%, but I'd say the FSD beta drives like a 75 year grandparent that's never held a license. It is mostly over-cautious and is constantly holding up traffic, due to being shy to pull out, make left turns, etc. But its also totally missed stop signs, and cut people off. My 16yo son, after 1 month of holding a learners permit, is far superior to FSD. Oddly, they BOTH drive far to close to parked cars on unmarked city streets when there is no oncoming traffic. I normally drive right down the middle to leave space in case a door opens, and I've tried to instill that in my son.

pengaru 4y ago

Is this really the CA DMV's jurisdiction? Where's the CA DOT? How on earth is the DMV the best positioned agency to take Tesla to task on this egregious issue?

Animats 4y ago
Because the California DMV determines who gets to drive in California. The CA DMV licenses autonomous vehicles.[1] California was the first state to do this. There's a reasonable licensing system. Vehicle makers can apply for a license to autonomously test drive with a safety driver (easy to get, 50 companies are licensed), testing without a safety driver (harder to get, only 7 companies licensed), and deployment (only Neuro, Cruise, and Waymo have qualified.) Tesla's marketing materials imply that they are qualified to deploy autonomous vehicles. They're not. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto...
- rajbot 4y ago
  To add to this CA DOT (aka Caltrans) does not regulate motor vehicles. From https://dot.ca.gov/about-caltrans https://dot.ca.gov/about-caltrans : > Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of California's highway and freeway lanes, provides inter-city rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies Motor vehicles not under their jurisdiction
- pengaru 4y ago
  ah, I assumed since the federal DOT is responsible for things like qualifying street-legal equipment (e.g. DOT-legal headlamp housings, windshields, etc) the CA DOT was in a similar role at the state level. Could have sworn I'd read somewhere CA DOT simply reflects DOT regulations on such matters, but wouldn't the CA DOT still be responsible for enforcement if say Ford was selling new vehicles within CA with non-DOT headlamps?
namecheapTA 4y ago
I would argue that it's because DMV is in charge of car dealerships... But doesn't Tesla not have legal dealerships?

avalys 4y ago

The most ridiculous thing about FSD is that there are people who paid $10,000 extra on their lease financing to pre-purchase FSD on their leased Model S/Y/3, drove the entire period of the 3-year lease without ever seeing any functionality, then returned their car to Tesla without receiving any refund. Tesla then resold the cars without FSD unless the new buyers paid for the scam again. Astonishing that they haven’t been sued over this. What a joke.

duckkg5 4y ago
I own one and am glad they are getting flack. hopefully someone will compel them to make it right.
omarforgotpwd 4y ago
The Full Self-Driving package on Teslas gives you access to a number of features including autopark, auto lane change, navigate on autopilot, green light chime, traffic light and stop sign control, summon, smart summon, an update to the latest car computer, as well as the city streets Beta. Just not true to say they received no functionality. I paid $7,000 for it on my last car and it's incredible. It can often do entire drives with no human input. And not just simple drives, but some pretty complex scenarios too.
- mark242 4y ago
  > It can often do entire drives with no human input. And not just simple drives, but some pretty complex scenarios too. This is just patently false. I have been in the beta for months, and I have yet to have "an entire drive" without having to disengage. FSD behaves like a fifteen-year-old who has just gotten their learner's permit and has zero long-term memory. Any intersection that has a dedicated right-turn lane, when that lane comes out of a widening right lane (as most of them do), FSD will fail on, and will at the very last moment swerve to make the lane change, endangering human drivers coming up from behind, who are correctly getting into the space on the right. Every single time. I cannot count the number of times that a left turn onto a road with a slightly raised middle divider (planters, whatever) will fail. Every single time. At a four-way stop sign FSD does not know when it has the right-of-way and will always defer to every other car. This often leaves you sitting waiting for the intersection to completely clear before FSD will decide to proceed. It took me exactly 48 hours with FSD to realize that Tesla isn't close. "Green light chime", come on.

sircastor 4y ago

A friend’s son recently died in a Tesla-autopilot-related accident. My tolerance for Tesla’s antics have gone from annoyed onlooking to disgust. Overall Automotive-related deaths not withstanding, people are being sold a lie and that’s resulting in deaths

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

We have indicator lights for turns and stops. A standard external signal that a car is on cruise control or self driving may make sense to implement. I’m going to bike and drive differently if I know a car near me is being driven by a computer.

NorwegianDude 4y ago

As I've said many times before, it's nowhere near to be reality. It won't be in the next five years either. Oh, and the Tesla Roadster that according to Elon/Tesla will be the worlds fastest? That too should be a thing by now according to Elon/Tesla. That will never happen. At least people have earned good money by renting out their cars as robot taxis in the last years. Oh wait, that also never happened. So many lies, so much false advertising.

throwaway5959 4y ago

At least California is willing to call this bullshit out.

nr2x 4y ago

About time.