4 ms·

> The "don't hit stuff" bar has, quite frankly, already been crossed. Tesla's don't hit stuff either. If you give them LIDAR, they.... still won't hit stuff. Bu

> The "don't hit stuff" bar has, quite frankly, already been crossed. Tesla's don't hit stuff either. If you give them LIDAR, they.... still won't hit stuff. But all the work, even for LIDAR vehicles, is on the camera side. You don't spend much time on the Tesla subreddits. The only reason there aren't more crashes is because most people seem to be reasonably good at keeping their hands on the wheel to take over. Every day people post videos of the wacky choices FSD makes. The most interesting part is that frequently the graphics on the screen suggest it can actually detect the correct lane markings and such, and still chooses to cut the corners and cross into other lanes. Anybody who's being honest and has watched FSD from the beginning is under no illusions that real self-driving Teslas are happening anytime soon, or with the current hardware. It's not even close.

ajross 3y ago
> You don't spend much time on the Tesla subreddits. No, but I watch my car drive me around every day. This always devolves into an argument like this. I wanted to talk about LIDAR and limitations, not flame about collisions that woulda/maybe/coulda happened in funny internet videos. Believe what you want. But if they aren't crashing they aren't crashing. And you won't get anyone to ban cars that don't crash.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  It does always devolve into the same discussion, I agree. All of the evidence says it doesn't work well. One guy says "but it does for me!" And the discussion ends. In some situations with well marked, simple road design, it works great. Give it a multiple-lane turn intersection to navigate and things get interesting. Give it a three lane turn where the outermost lane is fairly sharp, and it will just cut across the middle lane because it seems to have a built-in limit on how hard it can turn the wheel. What's noteworthy is that it doesn't significantly improve with each revision. It'll get a little better, then regress, over and over, but still the fundamentals are unreliable. At some point maybe it becomes clear that the current strategy is topped out. I do think it tends to be better behaved than AP on the highway, though, so I look forward to a stack merge there.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > All of the evidence says it doesn't work well. Except actual accident statistics, you mean. > Give it a multiple-lane turn intersection to navigate and things get interesting. Give it a three lane turn where the outermost lane is fairly sharp, and it will just cut across the middle lane because it seems to have a built-in limit on how hard it can turn the wheel. Now you've digressed into navigation choices and not safety. And... I agree! This is exactly what I was talking about upthread. It's an issue for real improvement, and notably not something that can be helped by LIDAR at all. Tesla is actually way ahead here, as I see it. Waymo and Cruise operate in heavily constrained environments that disallow challenging maneuvers entirely. (FWIW: that three-lane turn behavior you're talking about doesn't seem familiar. I don't see that with my car, and we have a few intersecions like that around here. In general multi-lane turns are marked, and the car is quite good about figuring it out.)
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      > Except actual accident statistics, you mean. I thought we had gotten past that statistic? AP, in particular, gets used in what is already the safest driving situation there is. Those statistics can only be compared to human drivers in exactly that same narrow circumstance. If we were talking about FSD, then we'd need to see statistics where the human never touches the wheel; saving the car from it's own mistakes is cheating ;). > Now you've digressed into navigation choices and not safety. I think I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure I agree -- incorrectly navigating across the lane lines, especially when the car indicates it sees them, is definitely a safety problem in my view. I expect that it's kinda like the silly wipers. If you live somewhere with the right kind of rain, you think "what is everyone complaining about?" but if you live in the PNW where we get a lot of misty rain, you end up cursing at the car regularly during the winter months. Some places have just the right roads for FSD, and those people think it's pretty great. But then other people get constant failures and wonder why the heck they spent 6, 12, or 15 grand on something that doesn't deliver. I'm glad someone has a good experience with it, even when it doesn't match my own. But I also didn't buy it outright, so I just cancel the subscription after trying it again to see how things stand.
  - 3y ago
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Believe what you want. But if they aren't crashing they aren't crashing. Yours isn't crashing (yet), but that doesn't mean they aren't crashing. https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/ shows a lot of crashes. Last year most crashes involving automated driving systems were shown to be teslas (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/tesla-us-car-carashes-driver-assist-systems https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/tesla-us-car...) Worse, both Tesla and the NHTSA have been caught covering up safety problems too so it's even harder to say what's actually happening on the roads.
  - ajross 3y ago
    FWIW: the numbers on that site show a vehicle with an accident rate that is vastly safer than average. The site is sort of a joke. They launched it with the intent of proving a prior, still lead with that hypothesis as an assumption in their text, and... they couldn't find the goods! In fact it's so bad that you just have to assume their data is wildly incomplete because the not at fault fatality rate for a car just being in traffic (i.e. Tesla drivers killed because someone else hits them) isn't correctly represented.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      I don't doubt that someone behind "tesladeaths.com" has an agenda, but whatever their reasons for collecting this data, there are a ton of accidents involving Teslas which makes "they don't crash" entirely false. Yes, some of those links involve teslas being hit by others, and many likely involve cases where the driver is totally at fault. Most of the links are just reports of crashes still under investigation.(this one for example can't even provide the time when the accident took place https://web.archive.org/web/20230304195927/https://www.bigcountrynewsconnection.com/idaho/man-dies-after-driving-tesla-over-embankment-in-north-idaho/article_b834f33c-b390-11ed-97c1-c38c3a85c0ce.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230304195927/https://www.bigco...) Still, that's okay, because this isn't a scientific paper, it's just a website collecting data on accidents involving teslas. Each one would still have to be investigated to find out what the cause of the crash was before you could draw much from the raw numbers, but what we can tell unambiguously is that these vehicles do in fact crash. Here's a case where autopilot killed someone just a few months ago (https://abc7news.com/tesla-autopilot-crash-driver-assist-crashes-into-fire-truck-walnut-creek-fatal/13144903/ https://abc7news.com/tesla-autopilot-crash-driver-assist-cra...)

ajross 3y ago

> You don't spend much time on the Tesla subreddits. No, but I watch my car drive me around every day. This always devolves into an argument like this. I wanted to talk about LIDAR and limitations, not flame about collisions that woulda/maybe/coulda happened in funny internet videos. Believe what you want. But if they aren't crashing they aren't crashing. And you won't get anyone to ban cars that don't crash.

rootusrootus 3y ago
It does always devolve into the same discussion, I agree. All of the evidence says it doesn't work well. One guy says "but it does for me!" And the discussion ends. In some situations with well marked, simple road design, it works great. Give it a multiple-lane turn intersection to navigate and things get interesting. Give it a three lane turn where the outermost lane is fairly sharp, and it will just cut across the middle lane because it seems to have a built-in limit on how hard it can turn the wheel. What's noteworthy is that it doesn't significantly improve with each revision. It'll get a little better, then regress, over and over, but still the fundamentals are unreliable. At some point maybe it becomes clear that the current strategy is topped out. I do think it tends to be better behaved than AP on the highway, though, so I look forward to a stack merge there.
- ajross 3y ago
  > All of the evidence says it doesn't work well. Except actual accident statistics, you mean. > Give it a multiple-lane turn intersection to navigate and things get interesting. Give it a three lane turn where the outermost lane is fairly sharp, and it will just cut across the middle lane because it seems to have a built-in limit on how hard it can turn the wheel. Now you've digressed into navigation choices and not safety. And... I agree! This is exactly what I was talking about upthread. It's an issue for real improvement, and notably not something that can be helped by LIDAR at all. Tesla is actually way ahead here, as I see it. Waymo and Cruise operate in heavily constrained environments that disallow challenging maneuvers entirely. (FWIW: that three-lane turn behavior you're talking about doesn't seem familiar. I don't see that with my car, and we have a few intersecions like that around here. In general multi-lane turns are marked, and the car is quite good about figuring it out.)
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    > Except actual accident statistics, you mean. I thought we had gotten past that statistic? AP, in particular, gets used in what is already the safest driving situation there is. Those statistics can only be compared to human drivers in exactly that same narrow circumstance. If we were talking about FSD, then we'd need to see statistics where the human never touches the wheel; saving the car from it's own mistakes is cheating ;). > Now you've digressed into navigation choices and not safety. I think I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure I agree -- incorrectly navigating across the lane lines, especially when the car indicates it sees them, is definitely a safety problem in my view. I expect that it's kinda like the silly wipers. If you live somewhere with the right kind of rain, you think "what is everyone complaining about?" but if you live in the PNW where we get a lot of misty rain, you end up cursing at the car regularly during the winter months. Some places have just the right roads for FSD, and those people think it's pretty great. But then other people get constant failures and wonder why the heck they spent 6, 12, or 15 grand on something that doesn't deliver. I'm glad someone has a good experience with it, even when it doesn't match my own. But I also didn't buy it outright, so I just cancel the subscription after trying it again to see how things stand.
- 3y ago
autoexec 3y ago
> Believe what you want. But if they aren't crashing they aren't crashing. Yours isn't crashing (yet), but that doesn't mean they aren't crashing. https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/ shows a lot of crashes. Last year most crashes involving automated driving systems were shown to be teslas (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/tesla-us-car-carashes-driver-assist-systems https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/tesla-us-car...) Worse, both Tesla and the NHTSA have been caught covering up safety problems too so it's even harder to say what's actually happening on the roads.
- ajross 3y ago
  FWIW: the numbers on that site show a vehicle with an accident rate that is vastly safer than average. The site is sort of a joke. They launched it with the intent of proving a prior, still lead with that hypothesis as an assumption in their text, and... they couldn't find the goods! In fact it's so bad that you just have to assume their data is wildly incomplete because the not at fault fatality rate for a car just being in traffic (i.e. Tesla drivers killed because someone else hits them) isn't correctly represented.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    I don't doubt that someone behind "tesladeaths.com" has an agenda, but whatever their reasons for collecting this data, there are a ton of accidents involving Teslas which makes "they don't crash" entirely false. Yes, some of those links involve teslas being hit by others, and many likely involve cases where the driver is totally at fault. Most of the links are just reports of crashes still under investigation.(this one for example can't even provide the time when the accident took place https://web.archive.org/web/20230304195927/https://www.bigcountrynewsconnection.com/idaho/man-dies-after-driving-tesla-over-embankment-in-north-idaho/article_b834f33c-b390-11ed-97c1-c38c3a85c0ce.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230304195927/https://www.bigco...) Still, that's okay, because this isn't a scientific paper, it's just a website collecting data on accidents involving teslas. Each one would still have to be investigated to find out what the cause of the crash was before you could draw much from the raw numbers, but what we can tell unambiguously is that these vehicles do in fact crash. Here's a case where autopilot killed someone just a few months ago (https://abc7news.com/tesla-autopilot-crash-driver-assist-crashes-into-fire-truck-walnut-creek-fatal/13144903/ https://abc7news.com/tesla-autopilot-crash-driver-assist-cra...)