6 ms·

> By recording driver behavior, Musk could argue that driver error led to the accidents rather than Tesla technology We really need the US government to iron o

> By recording driver behavior, Musk could argue that driver error led to the accidents rather than Tesla technology We really need the US government to iron out the liability questions around self-driving. It's kind of a joke at this point. Tesla is offering people the ability to NOT DRIVE. In the case of an accident, they want to prove that the driver was being negligent by NOT DRIVING. Or you can take GM's approach and literally have cameras pointed at your eyes to make sure they are looking at the road and a steering wheel that can tell when you let go. And disable your ability to NOT DRIVE, whenever they detect you NOT DRIVING. In comparison, Tesla is at least being an "honest liar". They are giving you what you want, which is borderline illegal, and will rat you out for using it the first chance they get.

misiti3780 3y ago
I recommend you read the biography and not some blog taking an entire chapter and turning it into a few sentence out of context, there was a lot more nuance in the book
nanidin 3y ago
FSD does use the internal camera to enforce eyes on the road hands on the wheel. It’s actually worse for road-trips on the highway than plain autopilot for this reason, aside from the fact that FSD will automatically pass and change lanes.
- loandbehold 3y ago
  Autopilot will nag you every 30 seconds if it doesn't detect hands on steering wheel.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Hilarious typo. I’m imagining the vehicle saying things like “You suck, you’re so lucky I’m the only car that will ever love you.” “
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      Acktshually, negging would be a tad bit more subtle than that. It is a form of backhanded compliment. I imagine a negging Tesla car would say something like "it's so cool to see a person who has so little to lose they don't care whether they live or die" when you take your eyes off road and/or hands off wheel.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    There are many well known workarounds for that though since the detection is just an accelerometer.
  - nanidin 3y ago
    I find the time varies, and that the amount of attentiveness required is much lower than that for FSD. FSD will ding you very quickly if you have a device in your hand, especially compared to plain autopilot. My car came with an internal camera that didn’t have IR lights, which made FSD completely unusable at night time (they put in a new one under warranty). I only subscribe FSD every few months for long trips, but I have a 1400 mile road trip planned this weekend and I will be using plain autopilot.
hcurtiss 3y ago
[flagged]
- bgirard 3y ago
  > FSD The F here stands for 'full' here but... > I need to remain mindful of the system at all times It sounds like it should really be called supervised self driving (SSD) to me. I think the technology is interesting but I wholeheartedly object with the name and the promises that it implies. > If you pin the failure of a driver to oversee FSD on Tesla I think it's reasonable to pin the failure on the system if you call it FSD.
  - hcurtiss 3y ago
    Tesla's system requires less supervision than other manufacturers. And that's where the rub is. They're saying -- hey, we'll make this tool available to you, and it really will function autonomously, but you have to know Tesla's not going to take the hit if there's an accident. In America's litigous society, I think that's the only way we'll ever get these tools. Otherwise, the plaintiffs' lawyers will destroy Tesla. I want the technology, and I'm comfortable assuming the risk if there's a fuck-up. If Musk needs a way to prove I wasn't watching and that the liability to transfer to me -- that's fine. I want the option. And Ford/GM/BMW et al won't give it to me.
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      If Tesla really believes it "really will function autonomously" then they shouldn't have a problem assuming liability. Further, if it needs to be supervised, then it's not autonomous, is it? Congratulations on being so accepting of being sold a bill of goods, though.
    - bgirard 3y ago
      > Tesla's system requires less supervision than other manufacturers. > I need to remain mindful of the system at all times > and it really will function autonomously To me this is a contraction. It's said to be both autonomously and to also require constant supervision. And that's why I think it's marketed incorrectly despite it being an interesting piece of technology.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Who could possibly imagine something called Autopilot wouldn't require you to be in full control of car at all times?
- anonymousab 3y ago
  An interesting bit of history is that autopilot was one of the first common terms for cruise control, and was in use until at least the mid 60s. That is far enough back to not have any relevance to Tesla's current customer demographic though.
  - tensor 3y ago
    Also airplanes use autopilot and require full control at all times. It's almost as though there are no situations where the term autopilot refers to a fully automated system. Who knows where the general public today go that impression. Perhaps science fiction stories.
    - dreamcompiler 3y ago
      Airplanes use a variety of modes of autopilot systems and some modes absolutely do not require the pilot to touch the controls. They do require the pilot to set the mode and its parameters in the first place, and it would usually be considered a serious safety violation if both pilots were to get up and leave the cockpit while autopilot was engaged, but the technology is definitely good enough to handle this situation. This is not true for Tesla's FSD. Not by a longshot.
      - signatoremo 3y ago
        > some modes absolutely do not require the pilot to touch the controls. Autopilot can disengage and return control to the pilot at any moment. Pilots have to be on alert at all time. This has resulted in sone catastrophic outcomes, such as AF447.
- adrr 3y ago
  Article is referring to Tesla's Full Self Driving feature not Autopilot.
avgcorrection 3y ago
Yeah I hate the idea of semi-autonomous vehicles (a vehicle that can handle any kind of situation all by itself [terms and conditions may apply]). You can't make a 95% solution in this space.
- nomel 3y ago
  I suspect the "out of the loop" problem [1] is going to make the last 10% very dangerous. > The out of the loop performance problem arises when operators suffer from complacency and vigilance decrement [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.00541/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.0054...
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  True, but what about 99.999%? https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-autopilot-is-x9-safer-tesla-vehicles-are-x2-safer-than-cars-of-other-brands https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-autopil...
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    If it works for 99,999 seconds for every second it fails, then I should expect it to fail before 30 hours of use. That's abysmal.
    - mrtesthah 3y ago
      compare: “If it works for 99,999 microseconds for every microsecond it fails, then I should expect it to fail before 0.1 seconds of use.” with: “If it works for 99,999 hours for every hour it fails, then I should expect it to fail before 11 years of use.” This comparison can be twisted to make any conclusion you want.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        A car accident lasts for something on the order of 1 second, maybe a bit more or a bit less but no car accident lasts for a solid hour. I'm not concerned about one complete hour of failure, I'm concerned about one second of failure.
nradov 3y ago
Nope, Tesla is not offering people the ability to "NOT DRIVE". They might do so eventually, but all that they actually offer today is an advanced driver assistance system. There is no need for the US government to make any changes to liability laws. Almost all such cases are handled at the state level. Mercedes-Benz has gone quite a bit further and is now offering a true SAE level 3 autonomous driving system. It is significantly more advanced and reliable than the Tesla system. And they stand behind it by assuming liability for collisions. https://media.mbusa.com/releases/release-1d2a8750850333f086a722043c01a0c3-conditionally-automated-driving-mercedes-benz-drive-pilot-further-expands-us-availability-to-the-countrys-most-populous-state-through-california-certification https://media.mbusa.com/releases/release-1d2a8750850333f086a...
- outworlder 3y ago
  > Nope, Tesla is not offering people the ability to "NOT DRIVE". They might do so eventually, but all that they actually offer today is an advanced driver assistance system. That's not really what they are selling though, and that's one of the problems.
- hnburnsy 3y ago
  >Mercedes-Benz has gone quite a bit further and is now offering a true SAE level 3 autonomous driving system. It is significantly more advanced and reliable than the Tesla system. Is it? From your link... >On suitable freeway sections and where there is high traffic density, DRIVE PILOT can offer to take over the dynamic driving task, up to speeds of 40 mph...DRIVE PILOT available in the U.S. for model year 2024 S‑Class and EQS Sedan models, with the first cars delivered to customers in late 2023 So very limited driving scenarios and extremely limited product availability.
- acdha 3y ago
  > Nope, Tesla is not offering people the ability to "NOT DRIVE" This is technically correct but they, and especially Musk’s public comments, are pretty fast and loose around that. He’s been claiming L5 will be available in 1-2 years since 2016: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/tesla-autopilot-director-contradicts-musks-self-driving-timeline/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/tesla-autopilot-directo... Remember when they claimed that the driver in their promotional video was only there for legal reasons because the car was driving itself? Someone who paid extra for FSD back then has probably already sold the vehicle without ever getting it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/elon-musk-directed-tesla-autopilot-video-saying-car-drove-itself-tsla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/elon-musk...
tensor 3y ago
As a frequent user of autopilot, I can assure you it is nothing close to NOT DRIVING. It is advanced cruise control and you need to be attentive. Even full self driving does many many things imperfectly, requiring you to take over. I'm not even talking about dangerous situations, just regular driving. It often won't move over when you want, it's too rough taking off ramps, and so on. If you want to go down the road of regulation, I would like to see ALL driving assists subjected to the same laws. So no cruise control for you without cameras watching your eyes and all the rest. Though personally, I think it's fine as it is, making it very clear that you are still driving. Tesla doesn't do well at the latter in their marketing.
- burnte 3y ago
  > As a frequent user of autopilot, I can assure you it is nothing close to NOT DRIVING. And yet they're allowed to market it as "auto pilot" which is clearly an "I'm not required to be attentive" message. I agree, though, it's advanced cruise but not true driverless driving. It's not even worth it, to me. If I have not only monitor the road but "someone else's" driving, that's more work than just driving.
  - njarboe 3y ago
    The semantic difference between "cruise control" and "auto pilot" seems minimal to me. Imagine you have never heard of the term "cruise control" and a car company used the term.
  - csa 3y ago
    > If I have not only monitor the road but "someone else's" driving, that's more work than just driving. This is how I feel about FSD. Autopilot, on the other hand, is really good for on the highway/interstate. Speed regulation, maintaining spacing, and lane assist are all smoothly implemented. It is certainly less work than driving, typically by a lot. I say this with about 20k miles of autopilot usage in my model y.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nlh 3y ago
Serious question for fellow Tesla drivers: Does anyone currently use FSD? What's the value prop? I just got a Model Y and tried it out (it came with a 3 month free trial) and found it awful. To the point of this comment -- it's called "Autopilot" but it yells at you (and punishes you!) if you look at your phone or stop paying attention or take your hands off the wheel. I just can't imagine this being something I'd pay an extra $199/month (or $15,000) for after the trial's over. I much prefer the Waymo / Cruise vision of a car I can sit in as a passenger, not this weird hybrid "still need to pay full attention but have none of the control of being an actual driver" version Tesla is offering. But maybe I'm missing something...? EDIT: I'm a terrible nerd and confused FSD and Autopilot. What I'm really asking about is FSD (Full Self Driving). Sorry about that!
- vel0city 3y ago
  > But maybe I'm missing something...? I think so, because FSD != Autopilot, and if its nagging you constantly about paying attention you're not in FSD. I'm not arguing that FSD is any good or with it, I'm just suggesting you didn't actually use Tesla "FSD".
- fragmede 3y ago
  Waymo / Cruise is limited to San Francisco, and isn't generally available right now. FSD is available today and can access freeways for long distance driving. SF to LA or NYC to Boston, say. FSD > Autopilot. Even if you have to pay attention, it still makes the drive easier - at the end of the drive you're less exhausted.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- csa 3y ago
  > it's called "Autopilot" but it yells at you (and punishes you!) if you look at your phone or stop paying attention or take your hands off the wheel. There are many things to break down here: 1. FSD sucks mostly sucks (as commenters have alluded to). Autopilot is quite good, although it does “fuss at you” for things you mentioned. 2. Autopilot is a misnomer. What the feature as documented does versus what the name suggests are not the same. Imho, this is actually a marketing failure by Tesla — calling it “Advanced Cruise Control” or some made up name would have been just fine. 3. You should keep your eyes on the road when using advanced cruise control. 4. Related, you should not be looking at your phone while you are driving (with the exception of maybe a quick look at a message when you’re stopped). 5. You actually can take your hands off the wheel, often for quite a bit of time, while in autopilot. Also, just touching it is not enough — there needs to be some tension on the wheel. This is not hard to do, and is a reasonable ask imho. 6. To stop the car from fussing at you about a few things, I recommend getting a little slide cover to cover the interior camera that you can get on Amazon for $5-10. Works like a charm.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> will rat you out for using it the first chance they get In one fatal collision, Tesla held a press conference to throw blame at the driver and away from their autonomous systems. They pulled telemetry and stood up at the conference and said that Tesla was not at fault because "the driver had been inattentive and the vehicle had warned him of this". What later came out was that the vehicle had warned him to keep his hands on the wheel... Once. Eighteen. Minutes prior to the collision.
- Jensson 3y ago
  But the way human bias works it doesn't matter much whether the statement was correct for tribal disagreements, the fanboys will believe it and the haters wont, at least short term. Musk was smart to spend that much time cultivating a fanbase who will believe stuff like that.

misiti3780 3y ago

I recommend you read the biography and not some blog taking an entire chapter and turning it into a few sentence out of context, there was a lot more nuance in the book

nanidin 3y ago

FSD does use the internal camera to enforce eyes on the road hands on the wheel. It’s actually worse for road-trips on the highway than plain autopilot for this reason, aside from the fact that FSD will automatically pass and change lanes.

loandbehold 3y ago
Autopilot will nag you every 30 seconds if it doesn't detect hands on steering wheel.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Hilarious typo. I’m imagining the vehicle saying things like “You suck, you’re so lucky I’m the only car that will ever love you.” “
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    Acktshually, negging would be a tad bit more subtle than that. It is a form of backhanded compliment. I imagine a negging Tesla car would say something like "it's so cool to see a person who has so little to lose they don't care whether they live or die" when you take your eyes off road and/or hands off wheel.
- jedberg 3y ago
  There are many well known workarounds for that though since the detection is just an accelerometer.
- nanidin 3y ago
  I find the time varies, and that the amount of attentiveness required is much lower than that for FSD. FSD will ding you very quickly if you have a device in your hand, especially compared to plain autopilot. My car came with an internal camera that didn’t have IR lights, which made FSD completely unusable at night time (they put in a new one under warranty). I only subscribe FSD every few months for long trips, but I have a 1400 mile road trip planned this weekend and I will be using plain autopilot.

hcurtiss 3y ago

[flagged]

bgirard 3y ago
> FSD The F here stands for 'full' here but... > I need to remain mindful of the system at all times It sounds like it should really be called supervised self driving (SSD) to me. I think the technology is interesting but I wholeheartedly object with the name and the promises that it implies. > If you pin the failure of a driver to oversee FSD on Tesla I think it's reasonable to pin the failure on the system if you call it FSD.
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  Tesla's system requires less supervision than other manufacturers. And that's where the rub is. They're saying -- hey, we'll make this tool available to you, and it really will function autonomously, but you have to know Tesla's not going to take the hit if there's an accident. In America's litigous society, I think that's the only way we'll ever get these tools. Otherwise, the plaintiffs' lawyers will destroy Tesla. I want the technology, and I'm comfortable assuming the risk if there's a fuck-up. If Musk needs a way to prove I wasn't watching and that the liability to transfer to me -- that's fine. I want the option. And Ford/GM/BMW et al won't give it to me.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    If Tesla really believes it "really will function autonomously" then they shouldn't have a problem assuming liability. Further, if it needs to be supervised, then it's not autonomous, is it? Congratulations on being so accepting of being sold a bill of goods, though.
  - bgirard 3y ago
    > Tesla's system requires less supervision than other manufacturers. > I need to remain mindful of the system at all times > and it really will function autonomously To me this is a contraction. It's said to be both autonomously and to also require constant supervision. And that's why I think it's marketed incorrectly despite it being an interesting piece of technology.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Who could possibly imagine something called Autopilot wouldn't require you to be in full control of car at all times?

anonymousab 3y ago
An interesting bit of history is that autopilot was one of the first common terms for cruise control, and was in use until at least the mid 60s. That is far enough back to not have any relevance to Tesla's current customer demographic though.
- tensor 3y ago
  Also airplanes use autopilot and require full control at all times. It's almost as though there are no situations where the term autopilot refers to a fully automated system. Who knows where the general public today go that impression. Perhaps science fiction stories.
  - dreamcompiler 3y ago
    Airplanes use a variety of modes of autopilot systems and some modes absolutely do not require the pilot to touch the controls. They do require the pilot to set the mode and its parameters in the first place, and it would usually be considered a serious safety violation if both pilots were to get up and leave the cockpit while autopilot was engaged, but the technology is definitely good enough to handle this situation. This is not true for Tesla's FSD. Not by a longshot.
    - signatoremo 3y ago
      > some modes absolutely do not require the pilot to touch the controls. Autopilot can disengage and return control to the pilot at any moment. Pilots have to be on alert at all time. This has resulted in sone catastrophic outcomes, such as AF447.
adrr 3y ago
Article is referring to Tesla's Full Self Driving feature not Autopilot.

avgcorrection 3y ago

Yeah I hate the idea of semi-autonomous vehicles (a vehicle that can handle any kind of situation all by itself [terms and conditions may apply]). You can't make a 95% solution in this space.

nomel 3y ago
I suspect the "out of the loop" problem [1] is going to make the last 10% very dangerous. > The out of the loop performance problem arises when operators suffer from complacency and vigilance decrement [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.00541/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.0054...
hcurtiss 3y ago
True, but what about 99.999%? https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-autopilot-is-x9-safer-tesla-vehicles-are-x2-safer-than-cars-of-other-brands https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-autopil...
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  If it works for 99,999 seconds for every second it fails, then I should expect it to fail before 30 hours of use. That's abysmal.
  - mrtesthah 3y ago
    compare: “If it works for 99,999 microseconds for every microsecond it fails, then I should expect it to fail before 0.1 seconds of use.” with: “If it works for 99,999 hours for every hour it fails, then I should expect it to fail before 11 years of use.” This comparison can be twisted to make any conclusion you want.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      A car accident lasts for something on the order of 1 second, maybe a bit more or a bit less but no car accident lasts for a solid hour. I'm not concerned about one complete hour of failure, I'm concerned about one second of failure.

nradov 3y ago

Nope, Tesla is not offering people the ability to "NOT DRIVE". They might do so eventually, but all that they actually offer today is an advanced driver assistance system. There is no need for the US government to make any changes to liability laws. Almost all such cases are handled at the state level. Mercedes-Benz has gone quite a bit further and is now offering a true SAE level 3 autonomous driving system. It is significantly more advanced and reliable than the Tesla system. And they stand behind it by assuming liability for collisions. https://media.mbusa.com/releases/release-1d2a8750850333f086a722043c01a0c3-conditionally-automated-driving-mercedes-benz-drive-pilot-further-expands-us-availability-to-the-countrys-most-populous-state-through-california-certification https://media.mbusa.com/releases/release-1d2a8750850333f086a...

outworlder 3y ago
> Nope, Tesla is not offering people the ability to "NOT DRIVE". They might do so eventually, but all that they actually offer today is an advanced driver assistance system. That's not really what they are selling though, and that's one of the problems.
hnburnsy 3y ago
>Mercedes-Benz has gone quite a bit further and is now offering a true SAE level 3 autonomous driving system. It is significantly more advanced and reliable than the Tesla system. Is it? From your link... >On suitable freeway sections and where there is high traffic density, DRIVE PILOT can offer to take over the dynamic driving task, up to speeds of 40 mph...DRIVE PILOT available in the U.S. for model year 2024 S‑Class and EQS Sedan models, with the first cars delivered to customers in late 2023 So very limited driving scenarios and extremely limited product availability.
acdha 3y ago
> Nope, Tesla is not offering people the ability to "NOT DRIVE" This is technically correct but they, and especially Musk’s public comments, are pretty fast and loose around that. He’s been claiming L5 will be available in 1-2 years since 2016: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/tesla-autopilot-director-contradicts-musks-self-driving-timeline/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/tesla-autopilot-directo... Remember when they claimed that the driver in their promotional video was only there for legal reasons because the car was driving itself? Someone who paid extra for FSD back then has probably already sold the vehicle without ever getting it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/elon-musk-directed-tesla-autopilot-video-saying-car-drove-itself-tsla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/elon-musk...

tensor 3y ago

As a frequent user of autopilot, I can assure you it is nothing close to NOT DRIVING. It is advanced cruise control and you need to be attentive. Even full self driving does many many things imperfectly, requiring you to take over. I'm not even talking about dangerous situations, just regular driving. It often won't move over when you want, it's too rough taking off ramps, and so on. If you want to go down the road of regulation, I would like to see ALL driving assists subjected to the same laws. So no cruise control for you without cameras watching your eyes and all the rest. Though personally, I think it's fine as it is, making it very clear that you are still driving. Tesla doesn't do well at the latter in their marketing.

burnte 3y ago
> As a frequent user of autopilot, I can assure you it is nothing close to NOT DRIVING. And yet they're allowed to market it as "auto pilot" which is clearly an "I'm not required to be attentive" message. I agree, though, it's advanced cruise but not true driverless driving. It's not even worth it, to me. If I have not only monitor the road but "someone else's" driving, that's more work than just driving.
- njarboe 3y ago
  The semantic difference between "cruise control" and "auto pilot" seems minimal to me. Imagine you have never heard of the term "cruise control" and a car company used the term.
- csa 3y ago
  > If I have not only monitor the road but "someone else's" driving, that's more work than just driving. This is how I feel about FSD. Autopilot, on the other hand, is really good for on the highway/interstate. Speed regulation, maintaining spacing, and lane assist are all smoothly implemented. It is certainly less work than driving, typically by a lot. I say this with about 20k miles of autopilot usage in my model y.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nlh 3y ago

Serious question for fellow Tesla drivers: Does anyone currently use FSD? What's the value prop? I just got a Model Y and tried it out (it came with a 3 month free trial) and found it awful. To the point of this comment -- it's called "Autopilot" but it yells at you (and punishes you!) if you look at your phone or stop paying attention or take your hands off the wheel. I just can't imagine this being something I'd pay an extra $199/month (or $15,000) for after the trial's over. I much prefer the Waymo / Cruise vision of a car I can sit in as a passenger, not this weird hybrid "still need to pay full attention but have none of the control of being an actual driver" version Tesla is offering. But maybe I'm missing something...? EDIT: I'm a terrible nerd and confused FSD and Autopilot. What I'm really asking about is FSD (Full Self Driving). Sorry about that!

vel0city 3y ago
> But maybe I'm missing something...? I think so, because FSD != Autopilot, and if its nagging you constantly about paying attention you're not in FSD. I'm not arguing that FSD is any good or with it, I'm just suggesting you didn't actually use Tesla "FSD".
fragmede 3y ago
Waymo / Cruise is limited to San Francisco, and isn't generally available right now. FSD is available today and can access freeways for long distance driving. SF to LA or NYC to Boston, say. FSD > Autopilot. Even if you have to pay attention, it still makes the drive easier - at the end of the drive you're less exhausted.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
csa 3y ago
> it's called "Autopilot" but it yells at you (and punishes you!) if you look at your phone or stop paying attention or take your hands off the wheel. There are many things to break down here: 1. FSD sucks mostly sucks (as commenters have alluded to). Autopilot is quite good, although it does “fuss at you” for things you mentioned. 2. Autopilot is a misnomer. What the feature as documented does versus what the name suggests are not the same. Imho, this is actually a marketing failure by Tesla — calling it “Advanced Cruise Control” or some made up name would have been just fine. 3. You should keep your eyes on the road when using advanced cruise control. 4. Related, you should not be looking at your phone while you are driving (with the exception of maybe a quick look at a message when you’re stopped). 5. You actually can take your hands off the wheel, often for quite a bit of time, while in autopilot. Also, just touching it is not enough — there needs to be some tension on the wheel. This is not hard to do, and is a reasonable ask imho. 6. To stop the car from fussing at you about a few things, I recommend getting a little slide cover to cover the interior camera that you can get on Amazon for $5-10. Works like a charm.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> will rat you out for using it the first chance they get In one fatal collision, Tesla held a press conference to throw blame at the driver and away from their autonomous systems. They pulled telemetry and stood up at the conference and said that Tesla was not at fault because "the driver had been inattentive and the vehicle had warned him of this". What later came out was that the vehicle had warned him to keep his hands on the wheel... Once. Eighteen. Minutes prior to the collision.

Jensson 3y ago
But the way human bias works it doesn't matter much whether the statement was correct for tribal disagreements, the fanboys will believe it and the haters wont, at least short term. Musk was smart to spend that much time cultivating a fanbase who will believe stuff like that.