6 ms·

I've been driving on local and highway roads for 30 years now and I have never come across a piece of debris so large that driving over it would damage my car.

I've been driving on local and highway roads for 30 years now and I have never come across a piece of debris so large that driving over it would damage my car. Seeing that video, I don't have high confidence that I would have dodged that hazard - maybe 70% sure? The thing is, usually there is plenty of traffic ahead that acts very obviously different in situations like this that helps as well. All that to say that I don't feel this is a fair criticism of the FSD system.

ModernMech 1y ago
> All that to say that I don't feel this is a fair criticism of the FSD system. Yes it is because the bar isn't whether a human would detect it, but whether a car with LiDAR would. And without a doubt it would, especially given those conditions: clear day, flat surface, protruding object is a best case scenario for LiDAR. Tesla's FSD was designed by Musk who is not an engineer nor an expert in sensors or robotics, and therefore fails predictably in ways that other systems designed by competent engineers do not.
- foobarian 1y ago
  I don't disagree with that characterization of the technical details. However I felt the task those drivers set out was asking a different question: how good would the FSD system be at completing a coast-to-coast trip? I don't think this can be answered after hitting a singular, highly unlikely accident without a lot more trials. Imagine there was a human driver team shadowing the Tesla, and say they got T-boned after 60 miles. Would we claim that human drivers suck and have the same level of criticism? I don't think that would be fair either.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    If you don't disagree on the characterization of the technical details, then you must realize how very fair it is for us to criticize the system for failing in the exact way it's predicted to fail. We don't need 1000 more trials to know that the system is technically flawed.
    - foobarian 1y ago
      What if there is no debris the other 999 times, and the system works fine? The video does not give me that information as a prospective Tesla customer. This looks like a fluke to me.
      - mynameisvlad 1y ago
        Those 999 other times, the system might work fine for the first 60 miles. This is a cross-country trip. LA to New York is 2776 miles without charging. It crashed the first time in the first 2% of the journey. And not a small intervention or accident either. How you could possibly see this as anything other than FSD being a total failure is beyond me.
        fuzzfactor 1y ago
        >asking a different question: how good would the FSD system be at completing a coast-to-coast trip? >They made it about 2.5% of the planned trip on Tesla FSD v13.9 before crashing the vehicle. This really does need to be considered preliminary data based on only one trial. And so far that's 2.5% as good as you would need to make it one way, one time. Or 1.25% as good as you need to make it there & back. People will just have to wait and see how it goes if they do anything to try and bring the average up. That's about 100:1 odds against getting there & back. One time. Don't think I would want to be the second one to try it. If somebody does take the risk and makes it without any human assistance though, maybe they (or the car) deserve a ticker-tape parade when they get there like Chas Lindbergh :)
        jjav 1y ago
        > This really does need to be considered preliminary data based on only one trial. Statistically yes, but look at the actual facts of the case. A large object on the road, not moving, perfect visibility. And the Tesla drives straight into it. Not hitting static objects in perfect visibility is pretty much baseline requirement #1 of self driving. And Tesla fails to meet even this.
quickthrowman 1y ago
You’ve been driving for 30 years and have never seen a semi truck tire in the middle of the road after it ripped off the rim of a truck?
- foobarian 1y ago
  Honestly no, not in the middle of the road, but plenty on the side. The only things I come across in the middle of the roads are paper bags or cardboard for some reason. But also, I doubt you would break your swaybar running over some retreads
  - franktankbank 1y ago
    Driving I-5 up to Portland I had to dodge a dresser that was standing upright somehow in the middle of the lane. The truck in front of me moved into the other lane revealing that thing just standing there, I had to quickly make an adjustment similar to what this tesla should have done. Teslas also have lower bellys, my jeep would have gone over the debris in the video no problem.
    - dzhiurgis 1y ago
      30 years of driving doesn't equate same amount of miles driven. Probably good parable for Waymo vs Tesla here. One is generalized approach for entire world while another is carefully pre-mapped for a small area.
queenkjuul 1y ago
Come to Chicago, you'll see some debris in the first few days, and plenty of humans dodging it at high speeds
root_axis 1y ago
> I have never come across a piece of debris so large that driving over it would damage my car More likely you simply drove around the debris and didn't register the memory because it's extremely unlikely that you've never encountered dangerous road debris in 30 years of driving.
- foobarian 1y ago
  I think it's probably because of mostly driving in enough traffic that other cars would have encountered any critical objects first and created a traffic jam around an impassable section.
orwin 1y ago
Unless you're on your phone, with that clear of a view and that much space, 100% you would dodge that, especially in a sedan where your clearance is lower than a truck.
cameldrv 1y ago
No way. I call in road debris on the freeway once every couple of months. People swerve around it and if it’s congested, people swerving around it create a significant hazard.
rainsford 1y ago
> Seeing that video, I don't have high confidence that I would have dodged that hazard - maybe 70% sure? Really? The people in the video clearly identify a large stationary object in the road a good 7 seconds before hitting it. You don't exactly need lightning quick reflexes to avoid hitting something in that scenario. Maybe more importantly, the Tesla did not seem to see the object at all at any distance. Even if you don't think you could have avoided it, do you think you would have entirely failed to see it and driven right into it at full speed? Because that's what the Tesla did. Such an event might not be super common, but that doesn't make it an unfair criticism of Telsa's self-driving. Even if they've never seen a large object in the road before or react the wrong way, humans are generally capable of recognizing it when it happens and at least considering it's something they should take action on. The fact that Tesla can't do the same makes this an area where FSD is categorically worse than humans, and "avoiding stuff in the road" feels like an area where that's not a good deficit even if there generally isn't stuff in the road.

ModernMech 1y ago

> All that to say that I don't feel this is a fair criticism of the FSD system. Yes it is because the bar isn't whether a human would detect it, but whether a car with LiDAR would. And without a doubt it would, especially given those conditions: clear day, flat surface, protruding object is a best case scenario for LiDAR. Tesla's FSD was designed by Musk who is not an engineer nor an expert in sensors or robotics, and therefore fails predictably in ways that other systems designed by competent engineers do not.

foobarian 1y ago
I don't disagree with that characterization of the technical details. However I felt the task those drivers set out was asking a different question: how good would the FSD system be at completing a coast-to-coast trip? I don't think this can be answered after hitting a singular, highly unlikely accident without a lot more trials. Imagine there was a human driver team shadowing the Tesla, and say they got T-boned after 60 miles. Would we claim that human drivers suck and have the same level of criticism? I don't think that would be fair either.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  If you don't disagree on the characterization of the technical details, then you must realize how very fair it is for us to criticize the system for failing in the exact way it's predicted to fail. We don't need 1000 more trials to know that the system is technically flawed.
  - foobarian 1y ago
    What if there is no debris the other 999 times, and the system works fine? The video does not give me that information as a prospective Tesla customer. This looks like a fluke to me.
    - mynameisvlad 1y ago
      Those 999 other times, the system might work fine for the first 60 miles. This is a cross-country trip. LA to New York is 2776 miles without charging. It crashed the first time in the first 2% of the journey. And not a small intervention or accident either. How you could possibly see this as anything other than FSD being a total failure is beyond me.
      - fuzzfactor 1y ago
        >asking a different question: how good would the FSD system be at completing a coast-to-coast trip? >They made it about 2.5% of the planned trip on Tesla FSD v13.9 before crashing the vehicle. This really does need to be considered preliminary data based on only one trial. And so far that's 2.5% as good as you would need to make it one way, one time. Or 1.25% as good as you need to make it there & back. People will just have to wait and see how it goes if they do anything to try and bring the average up. That's about 100:1 odds against getting there & back. One time. Don't think I would want to be the second one to try it. If somebody does take the risk and makes it without any human assistance though, maybe they (or the car) deserve a ticker-tape parade when they get there like Chas Lindbergh :)
        jjav 1y ago
        > This really does need to be considered preliminary data based on only one trial. Statistically yes, but look at the actual facts of the case. A large object on the road, not moving, perfect visibility. And the Tesla drives straight into it. Not hitting static objects in perfect visibility is pretty much baseline requirement #1 of self driving. And Tesla fails to meet even this.

quickthrowman 1y ago

You’ve been driving for 30 years and have never seen a semi truck tire in the middle of the road after it ripped off the rim of a truck?

foobarian 1y ago
Honestly no, not in the middle of the road, but plenty on the side. The only things I come across in the middle of the roads are paper bags or cardboard for some reason. But also, I doubt you would break your swaybar running over some retreads
- franktankbank 1y ago
  Driving I-5 up to Portland I had to dodge a dresser that was standing upright somehow in the middle of the lane. The truck in front of me moved into the other lane revealing that thing just standing there, I had to quickly make an adjustment similar to what this tesla should have done. Teslas also have lower bellys, my jeep would have gone over the debris in the video no problem.
  - dzhiurgis 1y ago
    30 years of driving doesn't equate same amount of miles driven. Probably good parable for Waymo vs Tesla here. One is generalized approach for entire world while another is carefully pre-mapped for a small area.

queenkjuul 1y ago

Come to Chicago, you'll see some debris in the first few days, and plenty of humans dodging it at high speeds

root_axis 1y ago

> I have never come across a piece of debris so large that driving over it would damage my car More likely you simply drove around the debris and didn't register the memory because it's extremely unlikely that you've never encountered dangerous road debris in 30 years of driving.

foobarian 1y ago
I think it's probably because of mostly driving in enough traffic that other cars would have encountered any critical objects first and created a traffic jam around an impassable section.

orwin 1y ago

Unless you're on your phone, with that clear of a view and that much space, 100% you would dodge that, especially in a sedan where your clearance is lower than a truck.

cameldrv 1y ago

No way. I call in road debris on the freeway once every couple of months. People swerve around it and if it’s congested, people swerving around it create a significant hazard.

rainsford 1y ago

> Seeing that video, I don't have high confidence that I would have dodged that hazard - maybe 70% sure? Really? The people in the video clearly identify a large stationary object in the road a good 7 seconds before hitting it. You don't exactly need lightning quick reflexes to avoid hitting something in that scenario. Maybe more importantly, the Tesla did not seem to see the object at all at any distance. Even if you don't think you could have avoided it, do you think you would have entirely failed to see it and driven right into it at full speed? Because that's what the Tesla did. Such an event might not be super common, but that doesn't make it an unfair criticism of Telsa's self-driving. Even if they've never seen a large object in the road before or react the wrong way, humans are generally capable of recognizing it when it happens and at least considering it's something they should take action on. The fact that Tesla can't do the same makes this an area where FSD is categorically worse than humans, and "avoiding stuff in the road" feels like an area where that's not a good deficit even if there generally isn't stuff in the road.