Tesla "Full Self Driving" not capable of autonomous driving

[spike021]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Someone has to do it. Employees or customers. Employees would likely be better, but if the FSD Beta is safer than if the customer was to drive without it then the risk of accidents are down either way, so it should be fine. The customer still has to be engaged based on camera monitoring and driver steering wheel inputs, so the only real difference between this and Autopilot is where the car is self-driving like being engaged in a turn. Someone can’t be in the back seat or reading a book with this beta.

I've definitely driven by people here in the south bay on the freeway where they were almost fully reclined even in their driver seat of their Tesla.

One guy even had his passenger side window fully open and all other windows tinted, like he was showing off that he was doing it.

Another person I saw once on 280N heading to SF was totally absorbed by his phone on his lap, going 75mph, with a kid in the car seat in the back.

In general, I've seen teslas like this where they're clearly in FSD mode and they'll start weaving or braking randomly for no reason at all. I always move an extra lane from them and pass if I have a chance.

[bcj]

Saw a "GM Vehicles" official ad on the TV last night where they are confidently introducing
"HANDS FREE DRIVING!!!!1i|!".

wtaf? Nobody will ever have to drive with their hands on the wheel ever again woot.
Air guitar and drum solos anywhere all the time.

Why is this even?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by bcj

Saw a "GM Vehicles" official ad on the TV last night where they are confidently introducing
"HANDS FREE DRIVING!!!!1i|!".

SuperCruise, what you are referring to, is a different animal than FSD.

First, it doesn't navigate, or deal with traffic signals. It turns over control of the vehicle to the driver in those situations.
Second, it constantly monitors the driver to make sure they are engaged in driving, or at least heads-up looking out the front of the car.
Third, it only works on premapped roads (about 400,000 miles of road).

A version called UltraCruise is in the works that will use lidar for unmapped roads. That's a couple of years down the road yet.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Except they didn’t admit that. FSD is still in beta according to the article and hasn’t been fully released. .

Well, sure, but they wouldn't admit that directly now would they?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Someone has to do it. Employees or customers. Employees would likely be better, but if the FSD Beta is safer than if the customer was to drive without it then the risk of accidents are down either way, so it should be fine. The customer still has to be engaged based on camera monitoring and driver steering wheel inputs, so the only real difference between this and Autopilot is where the car is self-driving like being engaged in a turn. Someone can’t be in the back seat or reading a book with this beta.

Except until people proved how stupid they can be did Tesla put camera monitoring in the system.

I don't get the whole "light touch" thing anyway. If you can't take your hands off the wheel, what's the point? As I've said before, it's like using standard cruise control but having to lightly tap the accelerator every few seconds. I'd just as soon just drive the car.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Someone has to do it. Employees or customers. Employees would likely be better, but if the FSD Beta is safer than if the customer was to drive without it then the risk of accidents are down either way, so it should be fine. The customer still has to be engaged based on camera monitoring and driver steering wheel inputs, so the only real difference between this and Autopilot is where the car is self-driving like being engaged in a turn. Someone can’t be in the back seat or reading a book with this beta.

nah, nobody has to do it. none of this is an acceptable risk to everyone else on the road who don't get to opt out of this stupid fucking beta test.


imo none of this shit should be allowed on roads at all, but tesla being allowed to test this trash on public roads is proof positive that the government has failed in its basic duty to regulate manufacturers

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by spike021

I've definitely driven by people here in the south bay on the freeway where they were almost fully reclined even in their driver seat of their Tesla.

One guy even had his passenger side window fully open and all other windows tinted, like he was showing off that he was doing it.

Another person I saw once on 280N heading to SF was totally absorbed by his phone on his lap, going 75mph, with a kid in the car seat in the back.

In general, I've seen teslas like this where they're clearly in FSD mode and they'll start weaving or braking randomly for no reason at all. I always move an extra lane from them and pass if I have a chance.

I can't corroborate that I have had the same experiences. Eye witness testimony is so poor, I'm not able to draw conclusions from the experience of an internet stranger. There is so much you could not know or have misinterpreted like was the car modified with an aftermarket chip to remove safety aids because those exist? The bottom of the steering wheel is below the line of sight of most people, except an eighteen wheeler, so maybe the person was still engaged with the car; did you see the whole steering wheel? I've seen everything you are describing in other cars. Distracted driving is nothing new. I've seen front driver's seats laid so far back that the person's head is either behind the B-pillar or in the rear window.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, sure, but they wouldn't admit that directly now would they?

Again, what would they be admitting to: that a beta version of their software, that has already received multiple software updates, needs to have another software update? I'm just saying it is kind of a clickbait move to say Tesla finally admits something that they didn't admit to saying.

My iPhone is on software 16.3.1. There is a 16.4 beta out. Besides receiving feature updates, there has been a number of patches made to the software to get to 16.4, and sometimes the updates are only patch updates. This is normal stuff. The FSD software will eventually move out of beta, but it will also continue to be updated because there will always be new roads, new unique hazards and improvements to the algorithm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Except until people proved how stupid they can be did Tesla put camera monitoring in the system.

I don't get the whole "light touch" thing anyway. If you can't take your hands off the wheel, what's the point? As I've said before, it's like using standard cruise control but having to lightly tap the accelerator every few seconds. I'd just as soon just drive the car.

I think you all are getting trapped into believing the hype created by the media around this issue. You aren't thinking things through.

Yes, Tesla added this monitoring system (reference below for others) because of the media hype, but Musk has been against adding such things, and he has a good point. People can be idiots behind the wheel of any car, but no one is demanding monitoring systems in those cars. People are special pleading. The car already had a safety system. People were just doing things to get around it, and I'm sure people will find ways of gettin around the camera system.

https://insideevs.com/news/529788/te...g-camera-test/

The point of the light touching is because the FSD software is in a beta version. Certainly the future of the software won't require engagement. Autopilot always required engagement, especially when the system turned off during cornering or in other situations, alarming the driver for a need to intervene because the system isn't a FSD system; it was just a fancy cruise control.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think you all are getting trapped into believing the hype created by the media around this issue. You aren't thinking things through. .

I don't think so. I've read the facts as presented by multiple sources, including Tesla, and my conclusion is this software was released without proper controls before it was ready. That is what the Recall also basically says, IMO.

As far as Musk's opinion, well he doesn't get everything right, and from what I've seen does not like to back down off a position once he posts it. So, no surprise he doesn't think driver monitoring is needed. You and I had that debate in the past I believe. No need to rehash it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

nah, nobody has to do it. none of this is an acceptable risk to everyone else on the road who don't get to opt out of this stupid fucking beta test.

imo none of this shit should be allowed on roads at all, but tesla being allowed to test this trash on public roads is proof positive that the government has failed in its basic duty to regulate manufacturers

Again, you guys are special pleading and falling victim to the media hype without thinking this through.

If FSD beta lowers the risk of an accident by ten fold, but accidents will still occur because no system is perfect and not every accident is avoidable, then you would want that system to be operating all the time. Why aren't you calling your state or federal representative and demanding these systems be put into place or mandated on all cars? Probably because your perception is that these systems are dangerous and that the rate of accidents and deaths are higher. How did you come to your conclusion? You read a news article where the Tesla phantom braked one time. Have you read a news article about that person that accidentally slamming on their brakes because a squirrel crossed the road, or because a beam of sunlight hit her eyes and temporarily blinded them, or because the person thought someone was going to cross the road when they didn't? How have you concluded that Autopilot or FSD beta is more dangerous than the average driver?

What if I told you that your chances of being hit by a car or killed by a car was ten times higher if the car next to you was a Mustang GT or Hellcat, not because the vehicles are inherently flawed, but because the drivers are more likely to be reckless in these cars than if they were in a Toyota Camry, and the high horsepower of the Hellcat is more likely to make the car uncontrollable when pushed? Would you want the government to ban these vehicles? Would you want the manufactures to create driver monitoring systems to prevent people from accelerating too fast, drifting said vehicles, driving too fast, etc? If Tesla needs to monitor their drivers then what other cars or manufactures should be monitoring their drivers? If not then how are you not special pleading with Tesla.

The government could do sooooo much more to make cars safer. They could require acceleration limits, lateral acceleration limits, top speed limits, driver monitoring systems/eye engagement detection systems, systems that stop the car if someone seems impaired/drunk or having a medical emergency, speed zone limits, etc. They don't, yet you tolerate the risks and probably are demanding more from your senators. Should governments make people over 70 or 80 take a driving test or submit to a simulation test and not just a vision and written test because seniors might be more dangerous behind the wheel? The driving sim would create situations that would test their true vision capabilities, reflexes and response time. Again, are you special pleading that only Tesla is a problem?

What if these vehicles were actually more dangerous (which they aren't), but they were getting us closer and closer to autonomous driving far faster than if a beta wasn't available? What if Tesla didn't have hundreds of thousands to millions of cars on the road feeding them data, but they only had paid employees driving a few thousand cars? What if that means the development of level 3-5 autonomy would be pushed back five, ten or fifteen years further from being released? What if road fatalities would plummet with level 5 autonomy, would the ends justify the means, meaning, would the risk or deaths of the few to save the tens of thousands be worth it or not? On the continuum of development and perpetual updates, at what point would the car go from more dangerous, to negligibly more dangerous, to not any less dangerous, to negligibly safer, to more safer, to drastically safer, and where on this continuum do you think FSD beta is at now, given the requirements that it is Level 2 autonomy? Would it need to be better than a human in all conditions or in 90% of conditions or in 50% of conditions? Just a thought game.


New Vehicle Safety Report Reveals Teslas Using Autopilot Are 10x Safer

https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/11...-safety-report

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I don't think so. I've read the facts as presented by multiple sources, including Tesla, and my conclusion is this software was released without proper controls before it was ready. That is what the Recall also basically says, IMO.

As far as Musk's opinion, well he doesn't get everything right, and from what I've seen does not like to back down off a position once he posts it. So, no surprise he doesn't think driver monitoring is needed. You and I had that debate in the past I believe. No need to rehash it.

Recalls are fairly routine in the automotive world. Manufactures do a number of crash safety tests, environmental tests, product development tests, etc, and yet there are airbag recalls, seatbelt recalls, parking brake recalls, power brake recalls, etc. How is this different? Given the failure rate of airbags and seatbelts in a given manufactures fleet of cars, would it be advisable for a driver to drive without a seat belt or airbag because there may be situations were the airbag or seatbelt will fail, or they may have an airbag or seatbelt that could fail them?

Look at the recall: one could argue the recall is special pleading. A normal vehicle or Tesla doesn't stop the driver from making a California stop or for going too fast in a construction zone, but because the system will sometimes do these things, and because there is the expectation that it shouldn't because it is controlling the car, it needs to receive a software update. And as if it wasn't always going to receive a software update to fix patches in its performance anyways.

The system will never be perfect, and it is only a Level 2 system with level 3 potential or more, and it is in a beta phase. The US government has crash safety tests that don't involve every type of situation involving every type of vehicle that is on the road. They create standardized tests that will approximate the general level of safety of the vehicles for front impacts, side impacts, roll overs, etc. Even if the government made a test for autonomous software, these cars could pass these tests, but still fail in many special circumstances. If the autonomous system was safer than the average 100 year old then would that be acceptable, and if not, then should 100 year olds be banned from driving? If it was proven safer than the average driver then would that prove it was fit enough for the road? What are your standards?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

...If the autonomous system was safer than the average 100 year old then would that be acceptable, and if not, then should 100 year olds be banned from driving? If it was proven safer than the average driver then would that prove it was fit enough for the road? What are your standards?

My standard is simple. If the manufacturer feels that FSD is as good as, or better than, the person that owns the car at driving, then the manufacturer needs to be willing to take liability for the system's actions or inactions. If they are not, it is not FULL Self Driving.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My standard is simple. If the manufacturer feels that FSD is as good as, or better than, the person that owns the car at driving, then the manufacturer needs to be willing to take liability for the system's actions or inactions. If they are not, it is not FULL Self Driving.

By that logic, if they are willing to accept liability then does that make the system FSD; if Tesla was willing to accept liability, then regardless of the abilities of the system, would that make the system FSD? What if they were valued at $100 trillion dollars and are willing to pay out the liability costs to get their system to level 5 autonomy, but tens of thousands died in the process, then would that still make their system FSD because they accepted liability? What if the manufacture did what they do now with recalls, in how they calculate the cost of a recall versus the cost of accepting liability and paying out injured parties, and they rolled out FSD that wasn't flawless, but simply profitable enough, then by that standard, would you consider it FSD? I suppose the answer is yes because then you would know it must be good enough most of the time, right?

But I think you mean to say that if the government thinks the system is better and mandates it be active at all times then the government would be responsible. If that was the case then they would also make manufactures be responsible for meeting performance metrics, or those manufactures would be fined or unable to sell cars with those systems like they do now with other safety systems that fail. Insurance companies could create similar standards to insure those vehicles.

If it doesn't come from government, but the manufacture requires the system to be active then the owner and insurance company would be agreeing to such conditions when the owner bought the car and when the insurance company insured the car, or the owner could buy something else, and the insurance company could refuse to insure the car or jack the cost of the insurance.

In any case, the manufacture will always be responsible for equipment that clearly malfunctions, so if the car fails to stop at a traffic light and goes screaming through the intersection and gets into a crash then the manufacture would be at fault like when Toyota had a sticking gas pedal on their Prius. If the car fails when using the car as the manufacture has instructed then it is on the manufacture of course.

Full Self-Driving is a label for the system, which isn't the same as level 5 autonomy or fully autonomous. Either way, it seems like Tesla might be forced to change the name of the software. Knowing Musk, he might do something cheeky like changing the name to Not Yet FSD to appease the law or using a cult movie meme for the name. Ultimately, the name means very little to me or anyone with half a brain who spends two seconds researching what they buy, especially when it costs $15k.

https://ktla.com/news/california/tes...in-california/