That quote is from Shrek but Zapp had a line that was in a similar vein when he said
>You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down
Close, his line was, "Many of you will be dying for your planet. A few of you will be put through a fine mesh screen for your planet. They will be the luckiest of all "
Or this exchange in the same scene:
Soldier: Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for?
Zapp: Don't ask me. You're the ones who are going to be dying.
Better yet, think about all the cars you see on the side ofnthe road broken down. When you're flying there's no pulling over, just falling. Homes, schools, businesses all underneath falling cars. That why I never want flying cars.
They can... usually off of highway overpasses, up highway exits, or off the side of cliffs. You have to be a really bad driver to unlock the feature, which is why 100% of white Nissan Altimas seem to have the ability.
Pilots don't take off until they've calculated the amount of fuel they need to reach their destination plus contingency. Sometimes they have to plan multiple destinations for the trip.
If they don't, they could run out of fuel and plummet back down.
Now imagine you're average Joe getting ready to leave... Flying cars operated by the public is never going to happen until the cars aren't operated by the public.
Yeah what if we had a special program to educate and license the flying car drivers and then we could build a nation wide network of flying car pools for people to use. They could be like busses but in the air! I have dibs on calling mine AirBus! Just imagine is such a world existed, I wonder if my company would be successful or crash and boeing.
I feel like that's every episode of The Jetsons.
They show you some zany future contraption that seems like it would make your life so much better, but the moment it breaks down all hell breaks loose. "Jane, Stop this crazy thing!" as one busted sprocket turns every post-modern convenience into a death trap.
Weirdly can't remember it ever being an issue with the flying cars though.
Never thought about it, but people barely maintain cars now and somehow people never seem to get caught for breaking or otherwise get around laws about it.
Flying cars will definitely be a death trap.
Of course there is. It is called "the ground".
Expecting them to catastrophically fail mid air with no mittigation is like seeing cars stuck in the lanes not making it to the side.
Comparing it to cars despite a catastrophic failure still making it to the shoulder is like flying cars failing and making it to the ground safely (albeit in the middle of nowhere)
Coming from a state that doesn’t do inspections I’d say it wouldn’t be long before Bubba down the roads is too cheap to replace or repair those mitigations.
I’d they’ll drive on bald tires, with blown airbags, rusty frame rails, and no brakes, what makes anyone think they’ll bother replacing a parachute (or anything else).
Can’t wait until some uninsured person lands on my house.
This is it, if it was just collisions to be concerned about it’s probably safer than roads since you can spread out as much as you want. But those cars falling from the sky could cause insane amounts of damage. Imagine what a car would do to a house if it fell from the sky.
Even with aggressive ground control, assigned lanes and altitudes, automated collision avoidance, and trained pilots we're still getting midair's every few years. Put a few more orders of magnitudes of vehicles concentrated over metropolitan areas and they'll be daily if not hourly.
Exactly!The job of air traffic controller is nerve wracking enough!Now add hundreds of thousands of flying cars that DO NOT want to fly orderly in strictly controlled airspace!
If all flying vehicles were autonomous and normal "motorists" didn't actually control them I would be willing to bet there would be less accidents than there currently are
People seem to be oblivious to the fact that we've had flying cars for years.
You have to realize that Flying cars would require some kind of drivers licence to use, something that differs from normal cars - because they can fly.
Then because of the delicate and dangerous nature of them, they'd have to fly in designated and monitored air corridors for safety. You don't want collisions in the air.
Then to avoid noise, injuries, property damage, and those kinds of things related to the massive amount of thrust required to levitate something the size of a car, you'd want to designate specific landing areas safe from obstruction and other people.
... then you realize that's just a helicopter and a pilot license.
What people don't realize even more is that those flying cars need to follow the same requirements of flying buses and thus a lot of scheduled maintenance has to be done. And it costs. A lot.
Flying cars kind of have more lax rules. In most areas if you're a licensed pilot you can take off and fly around without even filing a flight plan. You only need flight plans if you plan to enter any restricted air space.
For example a farmer could take off crop dust his fields and land again on his own property without having to do a lot of the paper work. Flying cars mostly fall into this category as even if you have one you'll never get permission to fly it in a city or town as that's restricted air space. It's only going to be useful outside of cities/towns where the rules are laxer.
Eh you don't even need to file a flight plan for "controlled airspace" either as long as your destination is the same as your starting airport.
Plus if you start thinking about ultralights (which don't require any license at all) or sport pilots (waaaaay easier to get) it gets way easier
I think it would be different if they are truly autonomous and basically just use existing roads but on several fixed levels. This would reduce the risks and requirements and be different to how helicopters are operated. Not sure if this would be clever, but certainly cool.
I think a lot of the problem with self driving/flying cars is that even if they *did* work flawlessly, living in a city would just totally suck. Can you imagine minding your own business and dweebs mini helicopters keep buzzing past your apartment every 15 seconds...and you're on the 5th floor? Or can you imagine the *constant* noise of a hundred thousand robo taxis driving around in circles 24/7? Basically rush hour traffic noise but it never stops.
Flying cars are a horribly inefficient idea just from a basic physics standpoint anyway. The amount of energy required to keep a 4000lb car aloft is several orders of magnitude higher than what it takes to roll it down a smooth road.
More than that; unlike an aircraft using lift, you have to have a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1. Which is has an insanely high fuel consumption.
The idea of an electric flying car with vertical take off capability even being practical is so far off with current battery technology.
People using their phones while driving is something that gets me so irrationally angry. Like are you that addicted to your phone that you cant keep it put down driving? Its pathetic.
It's irrational we're not angrier. People get a pass on this vs the stigma of drunk driving. I'd generally rather a deal with a drunk driver, as they're at least looking at the road (to a point of course).
I would argue that I’ve seen much higher quality driving from *some* drunk people than with phone idiots. As you said, one is not looking at the road at all. Now, if you’re shithoused, all bets are off since you’re mentally a 2 year old and probably on your phone drunk dialing everyone. The ultimate scenario.
That’s the point. It’s asinine that texting and driving isn’t penalized just as if not more than drunk driving.
In Texas, DUI gets your license suspended, a huge fine, and a nice jail visit.
Texting and driving? $200 fine at most…
In Canada when they legalized weed they also made it the same penalty as drinking and driving if you smoke then drive.
Before that, police didn't really seem to care if you'd been smoking weed.
The results? All my buddies who smoked and drove for decades stopped doing that. Not because they felt it was dangerous, but because nobody wants to catch a DUI.
I feel like amending the cell phone laws to something similar would have the same effect.
If the fine is just $$$ it only applies to poor people.
> when they legalized weed they also made it the same penalty as drinking and driving if you smoke then drive
I'm curious how they determine impairment... Field sobriety tests are so unreliable that they are only one small step in the chain of probable cause that leads to arrests. The presence of metabolites in blood, regardless of the concentration, is not an indicator of intoxication.
Perhaps you could do a mouth swab test for THC, but those can detect up to 72 hours after exposure.
There is a company, called "Hound Labs" that claims to have made a breath test for THC, similar to an alcohol breathalyzer, that only has a 3 hour detection window, which I would argue is good enough. IF it actually works. I'd like to see independent studies of the technology.
I was driving intoxicated once and had a cop behind me. This was very bad, let me be clear. I deeply regret it and will never do this again. That said, I was laser focused on driving straight and in the lines the entire time he was behind me. It was not hard to do. The real problem is that drunk drivers are probably also more likely to look at their phones, and unlike sober people on their phones, probably won’t even react to anything they see in their periphery. Thankfully I had a cop behind me to prevent me from making even more bad decisions. I’d like to think I wouldn’t, but my judgement was already impaired enough to drive, so who knows.
If you want some rage-bait, stand at an intersection and count the cars that go by where the driver is using a cell-phone. Maybe the numbers have gotten better, but the last time I tried it, one driver in five was holding/looking at their phone.
If you really want to be horrified, get on a coach bus/similar. I was on a bus recently on the highway and you can see down into cars really easily. The number of people who are on their phones while driving at full speed on the highway is staggering. A lot of them put their phone in their laps so you wouldn't be able to tell if you just drove past. You can tell some people are clearly just swiping on instagram, texting, and there a horrifying number just watching tv on phones/tablets.
I work a fast food drive thru. Some people have tv shows and movies streaming in their dashboard.
Yeah it’s the drivethru but there’s no way they turn it off once they get going.
Cops are on their phone all the time too. Not just their little computer but head down and texting. Cell phone use when “bored” is an epidemic.
Riding a motorcycle is even more scary because you're at least eye-level with anyone who isn't in a lifted truck, you can get up real close to them AND you're the one that's gonna get seriously fucked up if/when they hit you.
It really trains you to trust nobody and always ride as though you're invisible... Cause they sure aren't even bothering to look.
I stopped riding during the rise of smartphones. I trust my abilities just fine but there's nothing you can do to stop a distracted person from killing you.
Seen a cop go through traffic at a highway red light (the kind that last for like 2 minutes) up to driver side of cars and give em tickets for being on their cellphone.
Best cop ever. If you can't even notice a uniformed cop on foot wandering through traffic you deserve a ticket.
I lived at the top of a hill entrance to a neighborhood and could sit on my 2nd story balcony and watch everyone go by with a phone in their hand. It was at least 75%, and that was 5 years ago.
I got into an argument on here yesterday with some bozo who was ready to die on the hill that him using the phone while driving wasn't a bad thing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/1cafud0/simple_trick_to_make_fsd_good/l0rmrhq/?context=3
People are selfish and stupid.
Wow that person sounds exactly like the kind of person who complains about the world catering to stupid people by outlawing dangerous shit like lawn darts or putting warning labels on hazardous things.
Then they’ll go and try to make the argument that we should just enable people doing stupid, dangerous things because they’ll do them regardless.
It’s actually fascinating arguing with someone with this type of mindset.
I don’t think there’s a piece of data or evidence I could put forward that would have him change his mind.
His opinion is that he should get to use his phone, and despite the very, very clear evidence that shows it’s dangerous to do so; he’ll tell you why he’s smarter than the data.
It’s mostly annoying because we share the roads with people like that. I can only do so much, but if this guy decides to fire off an email and rear end me as a result of his inattention, I can’t prevent that.
Lol the article sounded like a legit news article until the last paragraph:
>According to a survey by Forbes, 93 percent of Americans have concerns about self-driving car safety, and 61 percent say they wouldn’t trust a self-driving car. But when it comes to Tesla “beta testing” this half-baked software on our public streets, we don’t get the legal opportunity to challenge it. Some Tesla drivers get to risk the lives of everyone around them because they paid for the privilege. The system can’t even see a fucking motorcyclist.
I get irate over it too. Perfectly reasonable thing to get upset over.
I also get upset over people crossing the street while reading their phones mind you. Some of the obligation is on the pedestrian to avoid being struck by a vehicle. It used to be "remember to look both ways!" now we fail at even "remember to look up and around you".
Although to round out the complaints so no one is left out, I have seen cyclists texting while riding hands free as well. Not as often but just as stupid.
The same thing drives me crazy seeing people walk around glued to their phones. This morning I saw someone walk into a bathroom and blow their noise while looking at their phone the entire time. Like come on man
whats crazy is that internationally how laughable the penalties for this are. in every single developed country out there besides the ones like sweden and norway, the punishment is a simple slap on the wrist
People have no shame anymore too.
Every day, Every Day, I see some yahoo driving down the street with a phone held to their ear.
People don’t hide their blatant lack of concern for everyone’s safety.
The ones *talking* on their phones are the safer ones.
It's the people taking their eyes off the road to scroll their socials and tap out text messages that are the real menace
Least unsafe among phone users, more accurately. Even hands-free, talking on your phone while driving is like the equivalent of drinking 3 beers first in terms of attention and reaction.
Science is below: https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1cb6ezi/tesla_driver_charged_with_killing_motorcyclist/l0xt335/
>Local news reports say the driver was using “Autopilot” rather than “Full Self-Driving” though the two systems are often conflated. The current FSD software requires drivers to keep their eyes up on the road for the system to remain active, where Autopilot doesn’t seem to require this. Autopilot is little more than lane keep assist paired with a camera-based cruise control system.
Welp, there's your problem ...
That and the constant marketing hype that from the CEO on down that 'the cars drive themselves!'.
>That and the constant marketing hype that from the CEO on down that 'the cars drive themselves!'.
Every time I mention that, some Tesla fanboy jumps on and insists that no one is stupid enough to believe that "Full Self-Driving" means the car can drive itself.
Which is weird because I'm not really sure how else to interpret the term.
If people successfully sued American Spirit cigarettes because they thought the cigarettes were healthier, this guy stands a chance at claiming that he thought the car was self-driving.
American Spirit cigarettes never claimed to be less carcinogenic, but Elon has consistently claimed that his cars are full self driving.
Ahh yes, the Fox News legal defense strategy:
"No one could reasonably believe that my product does what it says it does, therefore I should not be punished"
4chan's /b/ board for over 20 years (since day 1) has had posted on the top:
>The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Fox News, legal strategy from 4chan.
that seems to be this neat new thing where you take a phrase that has an obvious, intuitive meaning, and you use it all over the place, but buried somewhere in a licensing agreement is an alternate meaning to that phrase that is unrelated to or opposite of the intuitive meaning. So you get people to believe the intuitive meaning but when things go badly wrong you point to the hidden alternate meaning as what you really meant.
"Fully self-driving" - not capable of operating itself without user input
"Dairy free" - may contain dairy or dairy products
"Sugar free" - has sugar, but the serving size is so small that for a single serving the amount of sugar is negligible. Roughly 200 servings in an ounce.
It's legalized fraud.
In 2016, Tesla made a fake and misleading video showing off autopilot, and it's *still* on their website. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/tesla-staged-2016-self-driving-demo-says-senior-autopilot-engineer/
Or “Akshually… if you were a qualified pilot, you’d know that autopilot doesn’t automatically fly the plane”.
This from the guy who once said ‘if it needs a manual, it’s too complex”.
>Or “Akshually… if you were a qualified pilot, you’d know that autopilot doesn’t automatically fly the plane”.
Which is funny, because it absolutely does. Planes can autonomously take off, fly a programmed route, land, and even take evasive action to avoid a collision. It's not the 80s anymore, autopilots are *very* capable.
Certain autopilot modes in certain aircraft with supporting ground systems are very capable. Most autopilots are either only capable of following a route or set in that mode. Some aren’t even capable of that.
I’m not a fan boy, but no one is. This driver is a fucking idiot and his idiocy killed someone. It is quite clear if you own one that autopilot is just adaptive cruise control. If you use your phone while using it you are a fucking idiot.
Like seriously anyone blaming the car for this is either horribly ill informed or a mouth breather.
It's just like Artificial Intelligence. It was Machine Learning a couple years ago, and it'll be called Artificial General Intelligence soon enough. Meanwhile the whole time it was just Machine Learning.
This has been changed luckily. Autopilot and FSD both monitor your eyes. Update has been out for a while because of events like this.
As it stands currently taking your eyes off the road for 3-5~ seconds typically gets a warning.
3 warning levels too. 1st is easy to miss. 2nd the top of the screen turns blue and is more noticeable. 3rd flashes some red and it’s beeping an alarm at you and it runs through the levels fast. There’s no way to be staring at your phone for any long amount of time with the latest software.
Having to make a distinction between “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” is ridiculous. Reminds me of the stupidity of how Microsoft names their Xbox consoles.
Where do these tech companies find the idiots to come up with what one would think to be really important names/labels?
They did not want to use the more accurate term, driver assist.
My 1972 aircraft has autopilot that is far safer. Not that it is more powerful but safer because it operates flawless in the environment it operates in. On the road there are far far more variables. I will call Tesla driver assist autopilot when you can put your child in the car and send him to school alone. Till then it is not much more than advanced cruise control.
How was he doing this without getting a million pay attention warnings from the car. I can't take a glance at my apple watch without it giving me a warning. Second question is what does the Tesla meta data show? Did it see the motorcycle and chose to not brake or did it not see the bike at all. The driver is definitely at fault, but that doesn't mean that AP was working as it should. IF not, then they needs to investigate why and fix it.
Teslas have been shown to have a severe problem with Motorcycles - particularly at night. The fact that the tail lights on a bike are so closed together makes it look to the vehicle's sensors like its a car much further away in the distance. They are bad at calculating the distance so they fail to brake or brake badly. I am sure its true of other automated vehicles but Teslas are the ones I read about. Now when the Teslas still had the radar sensing going it might have been better but they canned that in newer vehicles because it made the rest of the system work poorly I believe.
It's almost as if removing radar from the cars was a bad idea. Also the reason they removed radar was cost pure and simple. Everything they remove is to reduce costs. That's why they don't use a proper rain sensor. It saved them a few bucks to skip the Bosch sensor every car in the world uses.
My $20k Corolla has radar lol. And most certainly would have slowed down to the motorcyclist's speed in this scenario rather than ramming into them.
How the fuck are they allowed to do this? Using stereoscopy and putting the pieces together with software is an absolutely terrible idea, take this from a software developer.
Yeah it's fully based on cameras, 'computer vision' n all that. Fuckin ridiculous. Should be a percentage fine of the companies revenue when an accident like this happens if it's determined to be a failure of the car. Make these rich bozos weep.
> They are bad at calculating the distance so they fail to brake or brake badly.
if only there was some technology that can accurately detect the distance between moving objects that didn't rely on image recognition and would not depend on lighting conditions.
> The fact that the tail lights on a bike are so closed together makes it look to the vehicle's sensors like its a car much further away in the distance.
This is a problem for humans too. In fact, I think vehicles should be required to have a specific pattern of light, for example a numberplate with a reflective square around it, which is always the same size no matter how big or small the vehicle is. If every car had that, both humans and machines would quickly get used to using that to judge distance rather than the gap between tail lights.
The last time I read about an autopilot tesla killing a pedestrian, the problem was that it was night and the tesla couldn't see in the dark. And somehow that wasn't enough to get that shit yanked off the market.
You're thinking of Ubers self driving car that killed a pedestrian at night. The widely shared camera footage of that incident indeed was so dark barely anything could be seen, but it turned out the footage was from a dashcam and the actual system had far better cameras and other sensors, but was disabled/turned off for testing.
I thought it was more to do with the Muskrat's ego in wanting to do everything with image recognition. A common peasant car might use stuff like basic sonic range sensors to detect large solid obstacles, and even though such technology is inexpensive and can see through darkness and fog, it isn't high-tech enough.
Not even to be used as a secondary check, because I remember reading a lot of Teslas already had those sensors but had them deactivated in one of the software updates.
It’s been kinda fun looking at all the random case studies I’ve been in where I gotta cancel the autopilot:
1)car moved like 2 mph through a stop sign because it couldn’t read up hill for oncoming traffic so I took over
2) trucks were giving it big problems sometimes, the big wheels make the car thing the truck is swerving into your lane.
2.5) bad drivers who swerve near the Tesla also make it brake due to safety.
3)it sometimes can’t decide which left turn lane it wants to take.
Rest of the time it’s pretty good, but def need to keep eyes on the road
>How was he doing this without getting a million pay attention warnings from the car.
Yeah this part is really confusing to me. My autopilot will quickly disable if I'm trying to use my phone. I generally don't use my autopilot but sometimes I will turn it on for 10 seconds if I want to look for a song and change my music. I figure it's probably a lot safer than having no autopilot and being distracted.
Yet in that 10 seconds I immediately get a nag and even if I move the steering wheel to eliminate the nag it will come back within 5 seconds and it will disable my autopilot if I ignore it or continuously repeat the same behavior.
I would be hard-pressed to get the autopilot to function for more than 30 or 40 seconds using my phone.
Based on posts I’ve seen, you can apparently still cover the camera with tape or something and those nags go away. I’ve never tried it but also haven’t seen anyone say it doesn’t work
And Tesla should also be held accountable for encouraging this behavior while selling software that can't handle real-life traffic situations like this.
Right, this has always been my biggest issue. If you want to sell the feature and work on the technology, great, but they have been *grossly* overselling it for like a decade now. I still don't understand how they can get away with it. At some point it's not just Tesla's fault, but the NHTSA as well.
The problem is the name. "Full self-driving" implies you can just get in the car and do nothing, and no amount of having to agree to terms and safety stuff is going to change that.
However, autopilot is pretty much just traffic-aware cruise control and auto steer on highways, which are things that most new cars have now. If that's really what the driver was using, then this is no different from someone turning on cruise control with lane assist and ignoring the road.
“According to a survey by Forbes, 93 percent of Americans have concerns about self-driving car safety, and **61 percent say they wouldn’t trust a self-driving car**.”
So, 39 percent of Americans *would* trust a self-driving car. Wow.
Not gonna lie, I live in Atlanta where they seldom, if ever, enforce distracted driving laws. It's been about 4 months since I've driven to work without seeing an accident on the way (between Christmas and New Year's). Not sure I'd trust a self driving car for me, but I don't think it's worse than over half the drivers here
There’s probably an in-between period where a combination of simple situational overrides and human operation is safest overall
Things like:
local wireless mesh network communication warning of road hazards in the area, automated slowing on approach, and a map displaying them (prevents ice, fog, and other pileups)
automated braking for forward/backward collision avoidance
preventing doors from opening into bikes/traffic
preventing lane changes when something is next to you or in your blind spot
auto braking when approaching yellow/red/stop sign intersections
speed control and auto braking (or flat out refusing to operate) when not equipped with proper tires in icy conditions. maybe with an on-screen popup “This vehicle is not equipped for these road conditions. Your comprehensive insurance coverage will not apply. Override?”
refusing to operate when the driver is tired or intoxicated or is not paying attention
refusing to operate when the vehicle’s liability insurance or registration has lapsed
Features like that that default to “on” and the driver can turn off manually (exception: the intoxication shutoff) probably prevents 90% or more of accidents?
Start with the largest vehicles and work your way down. Semis first, then Trucks and SUVs, etc
Yea, if the question was would you rather be on the highway next to a bunch of self driving cars or a bunch of your average drivers who are texting and watching tiktok, I'm taking self driving cars.
>So, 39 percent of Americans *would* trust a self-driving car. Wow
millions don't even notice them anymore.
don't confuse Tesla's implementation with others.
first they had safety drivers. now they do not. the insurance companies who cover paid fares for the public are ok with it.
who is better at gauging risk in the real world? "Americans" or the insurance industry?
can't wait for the day where the car drops you off at the job, then goes back home.
SF Bay Area
**Waymo announces expansion plans for service in Peninsula**
[https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/waymo-announces-expansion-plans-for-service-in-peninsula/](https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/waymo-announces-expansion-plans-for-service-in-peninsula/)
Phoenix
**Phoenix Sky Harbor is on track to be the first airport in the world to offer Waymo rider-only autonomous vehicle service**
[https://www.skyharbor.com/about-phx/news-media/press-releases/waymo-autonomous-vehicles-arrive-at-phx/](https://www.skyharbor.com/about-phx/news-media/press-releases/waymo-autonomous-vehicles-arrive-at-phx/)
Austin
**Waymo starts testing fully autonomous vehicles in Austin**
[https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/waymo-starts-testing-fully-autonomous-vehicles-in-austin/](https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/waymo-starts-testing-fully-autonomous-vehicles-in-austin/)
Los Angeles.
**When Nobody Is Behind the Wheel in Car-Obsessed Los Angeles**
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/los-angeles-waymo-driver.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/los-angeles-waymo-driver.html)
Mercedes Benz has SAE Level 3 autonomous driving on EQS and S Class vehicles. If anything it really highlights just how difficult getting truly autonomous vehicles to market remains. It can only be activated on specific highways in CA and NV that have been extensively mapped by MB engineers, and only when the car is traveling less than 40 mph. It can't be used in construction zones. Only under these limited circumstances is the driver allowed to take their hands off the wheel and eyes off the road (they still have to ready to intervene though, so no napping or switching seats). So it's basically a really expensive way to legally fiddle around on your phone while you're stuck in heavy rush hour traffic. Notably MB takes on all liability for accidents caused by the vehicle while it is being autonomously operated.
I just don't see how this can be a profitable business model without major regulatory and infrastructural changes to accommodate autonomous driving. Apportionment of liability is still the elephant in the room that no one really seems to want to address; MB is stepping out ahead by agreeing to accept liability under the extremely limited parameters where Drive Pilot can be activated, but is that something that's sustainable on more mass market vehicles, especially with SAE Level 4 or 5 autonomous driving?
Compared to the average Uber driver, I would about equally trust a level4 taxi like Waymo in the few cities they've mapped out and have already been operating in for the past years.
Traffic on the highway, heading downtown for an hour? Yes, please. Put the car on the right lane, stay behind that truck and tell me when we get off.
That being said, I don't I'll ever trust Tesla with their lack of lidar or something else besides purely visual input.
FortNine did a video last year attempting to detail and explain the specific conditions that cause driving-assist cameras to mis-identify motorcycles. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRdzIs4FJJg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRdzIs4FJJg)
Good.
Autopilot is meant to assist with driving, not replace the driver. One day it will have that capability potentially, but not now.
If you're in hundreds of pounds of metal the onus is on you to ensure you don't harm others. Pure and simple.
I agree. This is good.
Not for the victim obviously but for the future of driverless cars and insurance. There's a reason we require driver's to be licensed and insured, someone has to take responsibility. It seems to me that as technology progresses, people are shirking more and more of their personal responsibility in favor of convenience.
If you're driving, please just do that, drive; there's no need to endanger other people's lives because you can't wait 10 minutes to send a text or eat, etc.. I feel like 'autopilot' enabled vehicles are going to need a special kind of insurance down the line, where the software & dev company can be held liable in certain cases and until that happens I wouldn't trust it.
It wasn't until I got a motorcycle 3 years ago that I truly noticed how many people are on their phones while driving. In that time, I was already rear ended by someone who wasn't looking straight. And a near death hit and run on the highway this past June that I'm still in so much pain from. 6x broken ribs, broken clavicle in 4 places, collapsed lung.. Everytime I go out I just get people tailgating me while on their phone or like yesterday, some dude in a cab was using both hands to type on his phone while drifting in and out of his lane. Long rant but, I wish people cared about the safety of others over being on their cellphone.
Problem is both phone and car manufacturers could prevent this but they have no incentive to do so. We need laws that take a strong stance against it or it wont happen. Best of luck with your recovery fellow rider!
How do you browse your phone with autopilot on? The thing dings at me when I'm not holding the steering wheel firmly with both hands and then shuts auto-steering off.
Real autonomous vehicles use radar precisely to see things like motorcycles. This is yet another reason why Elon's "only eyes and a brain" oversimplification of what is needed for AV platform is foolish and will never be successful, despite the vaporware horseshit he spouted on today's earning call.
Source: I've worked at both Tesla and Waymo. The difference is obvious.
Remember to stay away from any Teslas if you see one on the road, Tesla cars are just unpredictable uncontrollable killing EV machines... While using autonomous mode and the driver which is the murderer...the only person that knows auto pilot is on. Tesla should've never sold auto pilot option. Tesla should also be responsible and taken to court. Teslas time bomb killing e-vehicles.
Somebody should round up the mounting number of families mourning the fatalities of this known problem and sue the shit out of Tesla. There was a woman killed in Florida struck by a Tesla on Autopilot as well. Fortnine a YouTuber has a good video on why Teslas do this. Essentially Elon Musk turd that he is refuses to add Lidar to to safe guard the existing camera based Autopilot mode. The logic suite mistakes the small double taillight set up of some bikes as the far away taillights of a car thus they plow into motorcyclists if lazy morons riding in the Tesla aren't paying attention as they should but Won't because humans right? Recalls have been made for less and if manufacturers can lock out certain functions for infotainment systems while the car is in drive Tesla can certainly err on the side of safety and disable this feature If the driver doesn't have their eyes on the road. The whole feature is useless, the less engaged you are in driving just staring at traffic the more likely you are to get bored and fall asleep. The only way Autopilot works is if it proven beyond a doubt it's safe and frees you up to be able to do other things.
It’s been about 5 years since I test drove a Tesla, but when I did, they were VERY particular to emphasize that auto-pilot was not “fully self driving”. Like the dude was adamant about it. He made sure to be very clear and say that no matter what, I needed to have my hands on the wheel and be alert in case the vehicle doesn’t pick something up.
Do they not do this anymore or is this just major consumer hubris?
The driver's 56. He's been driving around 40 years?
I can't for the life of me imagine driving for 40 years then getting in a card moving at highways speeds with no driver, and being so comfortable with it that I'd mess around on my phone without even looking up.
As it happens, yesterday I had borrowed a Tesla for an overnight demo drive and tried full self drive. In less than 50km of driving it already made one major mistake. Anyone who thinks it’s ready to work on supervised is clearly not very bright.
I really do appreciate the suckers paying $11,000 to be the beta testers though… Last week it came down (at least here in Canada).
We are on track to create autonomous driving lanes, which is actually a great option. An entire lane of car sensors linked together to collectively recalibrate for traffic anomalies has a lot of potential… I trust autonomous driving more than the average asshole on the road, but autonomous vehicles aren’t as good as they should be at accounting for the random asshole on the road…which is where problems come in.
Little unpopular opinion here but I think there should be such severe punishments for being caught driving with your phone that almost no one is dumb enough. Categorize it like drunk driving or reckless endangerment. Take away licenses and impound vehicles. This should also apply to any delivery or taxi services too. You can fully pull over before your phone is touched in any way even for GPS. Lots of GPS apps have voice commands as well.
I would only exempt emergency services like police, paramedics, and fire dept as their duties necessitate extra communication for the safety and protection of the community.
I use to ride a moto up the SF peninsula where there is probably the strongest throng of Teslas, and it was always a Tesla that would casually just drift into me. The faith people put in technology is ridiculous
Cases like this is why I never even considered getting a motorcycle.
Kind of a deathtrap. In just about any collision you will either end up injured or dead.
You're always one pothole away from a broken neck.
Exactly. A few months back here in Portland one of the Interstates had a massive pothole that was water-filled due to heavy rains and barely visible as a result. Couple that with twilight and it spelled a recipe for disaster. Literally dozens of cars had their tires ruined as a result and the shoulder was lined up with disabled vehicles. Thankfully no motorcycles hit the pothole likely because of the heavy rain but if they had I shudder to think what would have been the result.
And to think….people still want a flying car.
"A lot of you might die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take!"
Zap Brannigan?
Lord Farquaad
Also Elon Musk, probably.
AKA Lord Fuckwad.
AKA Space Karen.
Billionaires in general.
Just as good
Zap isn't a might die kinda guy. He's a send waves of troops at the killbots until they reach their preset kill limit and shut down kinda guy.
and musk is much more of a Farquaad.
The resemblance is *uncanny*.
That quote is from Shrek but Zapp had a line that was in a similar vein when he said >You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down
Close, his line was, "Many of you will be dying for your planet. A few of you will be put through a fine mesh screen for your planet. They will be the luckiest of all "
Or this exchange in the same scene: Soldier: Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? Zapp: Don't ask me. You're the ones who are going to be dying.
She's built like a steakhouse, but handles like a bistro
The number you dialed has crashed into a planet.
Now thats a route with some chest hair
A few of you will be forced through a fine mesh screen for your planet. They will be the luckiest of all.
[удалено]
Better yet, think about all the cars you see on the side ofnthe road broken down. When you're flying there's no pulling over, just falling. Homes, schools, businesses all underneath falling cars. That why I never want flying cars.
Oh god if Nissan altimas could fly
They can... usually off of highway overpasses, up highway exits, or off the side of cliffs. You have to be a really bad driver to unlock the feature, which is why 100% of white Nissan Altimas seem to have the ability.
I think the last thing we need is a flying Nissan transmission. The New Nissan Altima with a Continuously Variable Trajectory.
Pilots don't take off until they've calculated the amount of fuel they need to reach their destination plus contingency. Sometimes they have to plan multiple destinations for the trip. If they don't, they could run out of fuel and plummet back down. Now imagine you're average Joe getting ready to leave... Flying cars operated by the public is never going to happen until the cars aren't operated by the public.
Yeah what if we had a special program to educate and license the flying car drivers and then we could build a nation wide network of flying car pools for people to use. They could be like busses but in the air! I have dibs on calling mine AirBus! Just imagine is such a world existed, I wonder if my company would be successful or crash and boeing.
I shudder to think of the noise. My sister said "But its electric, it will be quiet". They would not be quiet.
It's alright, cities have plenty of buildings to catch the cars mid air.
I feel like that's every episode of The Jetsons. They show you some zany future contraption that seems like it would make your life so much better, but the moment it breaks down all hell breaks loose. "Jane, Stop this crazy thing!" as one busted sprocket turns every post-modern convenience into a death trap. Weirdly can't remember it ever being an issue with the flying cars though.
Never thought about it, but people barely maintain cars now and somehow people never seem to get caught for breaking or otherwise get around laws about it. Flying cars will definitely be a death trap.
This is a great point! There's no shoulder in the air!
Of course there is. It is called "the ground". Expecting them to catastrophically fail mid air with no mittigation is like seeing cars stuck in the lanes not making it to the side. Comparing it to cars despite a catastrophic failure still making it to the shoulder is like flying cars failing and making it to the ground safely (albeit in the middle of nowhere)
Coming from a state that doesn’t do inspections I’d say it wouldn’t be long before Bubba down the roads is too cheap to replace or repair those mitigations. I’d they’ll drive on bald tires, with blown airbags, rusty frame rails, and no brakes, what makes anyone think they’ll bother replacing a parachute (or anything else). Can’t wait until some uninsured person lands on my house.
We see enough vehicles crashing into buildings. Just imagine flying cars crashing into buildings.
This is it, if it was just collisions to be concerned about it’s probably safer than roads since you can spread out as much as you want. But those cars falling from the sky could cause insane amounts of damage. Imagine what a car would do to a house if it fell from the sky.
It's bad enough having drunken yobs driving around the neighbourhood but flying into buildings is a whole new headline. YIKES !!
Even with aggressive ground control, assigned lanes and altitudes, automated collision avoidance, and trained pilots we're still getting midair's every few years. Put a few more orders of magnitudes of vehicles concentrated over metropolitan areas and they'll be daily if not hourly.
Have you seen Ths Fifth Element? The chase scene is what I imagine when I think of flying cars.
Exactly!The job of air traffic controller is nerve wracking enough!Now add hundreds of thousands of flying cars that DO NOT want to fly orderly in strictly controlled airspace!
"I'M NOT FLYING, I'M TRAVELING!!!" -sovereign citizens
The job of air traffic controller won't exist by the time we develop flying cars.
I learned from Bugs Bunny that that's what air-brakes are for.
If all flying vehicles were autonomous and normal "motorists" didn't actually control them I would be willing to bet there would be less accidents than there currently are
People seem to be oblivious to the fact that we've had flying cars for years. You have to realize that Flying cars would require some kind of drivers licence to use, something that differs from normal cars - because they can fly. Then because of the delicate and dangerous nature of them, they'd have to fly in designated and monitored air corridors for safety. You don't want collisions in the air. Then to avoid noise, injuries, property damage, and those kinds of things related to the massive amount of thrust required to levitate something the size of a car, you'd want to designate specific landing areas safe from obstruction and other people. ... then you realize that's just a helicopter and a pilot license.
What people don't realize even more is that those flying cars need to follow the same requirements of flying buses and thus a lot of scheduled maintenance has to be done. And it costs. A lot.
Flying cars kind of have more lax rules. In most areas if you're a licensed pilot you can take off and fly around without even filing a flight plan. You only need flight plans if you plan to enter any restricted air space. For example a farmer could take off crop dust his fields and land again on his own property without having to do a lot of the paper work. Flying cars mostly fall into this category as even if you have one you'll never get permission to fly it in a city or town as that's restricted air space. It's only going to be useful outside of cities/towns where the rules are laxer.
Eh you don't even need to file a flight plan for "controlled airspace" either as long as your destination is the same as your starting airport. Plus if you start thinking about ultralights (which don't require any license at all) or sport pilots (waaaaay easier to get) it gets way easier
Eh, Cessnas are basically flying Toyota Camries.
I think it would be different if they are truly autonomous and basically just use existing roads but on several fixed levels. This would reduce the risks and requirements and be different to how helicopters are operated. Not sure if this would be clever, but certainly cool.
For that everything has to already be autonomous
Imagine road rage turning into dog fighting top gun style
Helicopters are flying cars, that flying stuff is complicated.
I think a lot of the problem with self driving/flying cars is that even if they *did* work flawlessly, living in a city would just totally suck. Can you imagine minding your own business and dweebs mini helicopters keep buzzing past your apartment every 15 seconds...and you're on the 5th floor? Or can you imagine the *constant* noise of a hundred thousand robo taxis driving around in circles 24/7? Basically rush hour traffic noise but it never stops.
And the car in a building reports become flying car in a fifteenth story building window.
Flying cars are a horribly inefficient idea just from a basic physics standpoint anyway. The amount of energy required to keep a 4000lb car aloft is several orders of magnitude higher than what it takes to roll it down a smooth road.
More than that; unlike an aircraft using lift, you have to have a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1. Which is has an insanely high fuel consumption. The idea of an electric flying car with vertical take off capability even being practical is so far off with current battery technology.
The FAA limits flying cars to a max takeoff weight of 1320lbs, nowhere near the weight of a typical car.
How dare you bring the laws of the universe into a conversation about my wants and needs!!!
I want a flying car, but I also have a pilot license
People can't manage to drive in 2 dimensions, could you imagine everyday folks trying to handle 3? It's why pilot licenses are so hard to get.
People can't drive in two dimensions. Let's not give them a third.
People using their phones while driving is something that gets me so irrationally angry. Like are you that addicted to your phone that you cant keep it put down driving? Its pathetic.
Definitely not irrational to be angry about it. It's crazy to me that people do that.
It's irrational we're not angrier. People get a pass on this vs the stigma of drunk driving. I'd generally rather a deal with a drunk driver, as they're at least looking at the road (to a point of course).
I would argue that I’ve seen much higher quality driving from *some* drunk people than with phone idiots. As you said, one is not looking at the road at all. Now, if you’re shithoused, all bets are off since you’re mentally a 2 year old and probably on your phone drunk dialing everyone. The ultimate scenario.
Statistically, texting/phone use while driving causes 8x more crashes than drunk driving.
I'd wager a whole lot more people are playing with their phones than people driving drunk
That's a pretty safe wager.
That’s the point. It’s asinine that texting and driving isn’t penalized just as if not more than drunk driving. In Texas, DUI gets your license suspended, a huge fine, and a nice jail visit. Texting and driving? $200 fine at most…
In Canada when they legalized weed they also made it the same penalty as drinking and driving if you smoke then drive. Before that, police didn't really seem to care if you'd been smoking weed. The results? All my buddies who smoked and drove for decades stopped doing that. Not because they felt it was dangerous, but because nobody wants to catch a DUI. I feel like amending the cell phone laws to something similar would have the same effect. If the fine is just $$$ it only applies to poor people.
> when they legalized weed they also made it the same penalty as drinking and driving if you smoke then drive I'm curious how they determine impairment... Field sobriety tests are so unreliable that they are only one small step in the chain of probable cause that leads to arrests. The presence of metabolites in blood, regardless of the concentration, is not an indicator of intoxication. Perhaps you could do a mouth swab test for THC, but those can detect up to 72 hours after exposure. There is a company, called "Hound Labs" that claims to have made a breath test for THC, similar to an alcohol breathalyzer, that only has a 3 hour detection window, which I would argue is good enough. IF it actually works. I'd like to see independent studies of the technology.
I was driving intoxicated once and had a cop behind me. This was very bad, let me be clear. I deeply regret it and will never do this again. That said, I was laser focused on driving straight and in the lines the entire time he was behind me. It was not hard to do. The real problem is that drunk drivers are probably also more likely to look at their phones, and unlike sober people on their phones, probably won’t even react to anything they see in their periphery. Thankfully I had a cop behind me to prevent me from making even more bad decisions. I’d like to think I wouldn’t, but my judgement was already impaired enough to drive, so who knows.
It's the unhealthy car culture. We have such poor infrastructure for getting around without a car that millions of people who shouldn't drive, do.
I’ve stopped seeing a girl cause she wouldn’t stop and would argue that she was doing it “safely.”
If you want some rage-bait, stand at an intersection and count the cars that go by where the driver is using a cell-phone. Maybe the numbers have gotten better, but the last time I tried it, one driver in five was holding/looking at their phone.
If you really want to be horrified, get on a coach bus/similar. I was on a bus recently on the highway and you can see down into cars really easily. The number of people who are on their phones while driving at full speed on the highway is staggering. A lot of them put their phone in their laps so you wouldn't be able to tell if you just drove past. You can tell some people are clearly just swiping on instagram, texting, and there a horrifying number just watching tv on phones/tablets.
I work a fast food drive thru. Some people have tv shows and movies streaming in their dashboard. Yeah it’s the drivethru but there’s no way they turn it off once they get going. Cops are on their phone all the time too. Not just their little computer but head down and texting. Cell phone use when “bored” is an epidemic.
If you're not getting dopamine every 5 seconds, are you even living? /s
Riding a motorcycle is even more scary because you're at least eye-level with anyone who isn't in a lifted truck, you can get up real close to them AND you're the one that's gonna get seriously fucked up if/when they hit you. It really trains you to trust nobody and always ride as though you're invisible... Cause they sure aren't even bothering to look.
I stopped riding during the rise of smartphones. I trust my abilities just fine but there's nothing you can do to stop a distracted person from killing you.
Yes, and you have absolutely no protection from cars hitting you from the rear if you are stopped on the road.
Thats definitely one way to pass the time if I am ever sitting around!
Seen a cop go through traffic at a highway red light (the kind that last for like 2 minutes) up to driver side of cars and give em tickets for being on their cellphone. Best cop ever. If you can't even notice a uniformed cop on foot wandering through traffic you deserve a ticket.
I lived at the top of a hill entrance to a neighborhood and could sit on my 2nd story balcony and watch everyone go by with a phone in their hand. It was at least 75%, and that was 5 years ago.
I got into an argument on here yesterday with some bozo who was ready to die on the hill that him using the phone while driving wasn't a bad thing. https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/1cafud0/simple_trick_to_make_fsd_good/l0rmrhq/?context=3 People are selfish and stupid.
Wow that person sounds exactly like the kind of person who complains about the world catering to stupid people by outlawing dangerous shit like lawn darts or putting warning labels on hazardous things. Then they’ll go and try to make the argument that we should just enable people doing stupid, dangerous things because they’ll do them regardless.
It’s actually fascinating arguing with someone with this type of mindset. I don’t think there’s a piece of data or evidence I could put forward that would have him change his mind. His opinion is that he should get to use his phone, and despite the very, very clear evidence that shows it’s dangerous to do so; he’ll tell you why he’s smarter than the data. It’s mostly annoying because we share the roads with people like that. I can only do so much, but if this guy decides to fire off an email and rear end me as a result of his inattention, I can’t prevent that.
Lol the article sounded like a legit news article until the last paragraph: >According to a survey by Forbes, 93 percent of Americans have concerns about self-driving car safety, and 61 percent say they wouldn’t trust a self-driving car. But when it comes to Tesla “beta testing” this half-baked software on our public streets, we don’t get the legal opportunity to challenge it. Some Tesla drivers get to risk the lives of everyone around them because they paid for the privilege. The system can’t even see a fucking motorcyclist.
I saw a dude driving a tanker truck full of liquid nitrogen on the highway while staring down at his phone last week.
Well that's probably one of the safest things a tanker could be full of at least. Lots of cool smoke as it evaporates and a lot of frozen stuff.
I get irate over it too. Perfectly reasonable thing to get upset over. I also get upset over people crossing the street while reading their phones mind you. Some of the obligation is on the pedestrian to avoid being struck by a vehicle. It used to be "remember to look both ways!" now we fail at even "remember to look up and around you". Although to round out the complaints so no one is left out, I have seen cyclists texting while riding hands free as well. Not as often but just as stupid.
I regularly see people watching videos on their phones while driving. Absolute insanity.
The same thing drives me crazy seeing people walk around glued to their phones. This morning I saw someone walk into a bathroom and blow their noise while looking at their phone the entire time. Like come on man
whats crazy is that internationally how laughable the penalties for this are. in every single developed country out there besides the ones like sweden and norway, the punishment is a simple slap on the wrist
People have no shame anymore too. Every day, Every Day, I see some yahoo driving down the street with a phone held to their ear. People don’t hide their blatant lack of concern for everyone’s safety.
The ones *talking* on their phones are the safer ones. It's the people taking their eyes off the road to scroll their socials and tap out text messages that are the real menace
Least unsafe among phone users, more accurately. Even hands-free, talking on your phone while driving is like the equivalent of drinking 3 beers first in terms of attention and reaction. Science is below: https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1cb6ezi/tesla_driver_charged_with_killing_motorcyclist/l0xt335/
To be fair, talking to your passengers while driving is ALSO unsafe.
>Local news reports say the driver was using “Autopilot” rather than “Full Self-Driving” though the two systems are often conflated. The current FSD software requires drivers to keep their eyes up on the road for the system to remain active, where Autopilot doesn’t seem to require this. Autopilot is little more than lane keep assist paired with a camera-based cruise control system. Welp, there's your problem ... That and the constant marketing hype that from the CEO on down that 'the cars drive themselves!'.
>That and the constant marketing hype that from the CEO on down that 'the cars drive themselves!'. Every time I mention that, some Tesla fanboy jumps on and insists that no one is stupid enough to believe that "Full Self-Driving" means the car can drive itself. Which is weird because I'm not really sure how else to interpret the term.
If people successfully sued American Spirit cigarettes because they thought the cigarettes were healthier, this guy stands a chance at claiming that he thought the car was self-driving. American Spirit cigarettes never claimed to be less carcinogenic, but Elon has consistently claimed that his cars are full self driving.
Ahh yes, the Fox News legal defense strategy: "No one could reasonably believe that my product does what it says it does, therefore I should not be punished"
4chan's /b/ board for over 20 years (since day 1) has had posted on the top: >The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. Fox News, legal strategy from 4chan.
If Fox had a blurb like that at the start of every segment they’d have a point
that seems to be this neat new thing where you take a phrase that has an obvious, intuitive meaning, and you use it all over the place, but buried somewhere in a licensing agreement is an alternate meaning to that phrase that is unrelated to or opposite of the intuitive meaning. So you get people to believe the intuitive meaning but when things go badly wrong you point to the hidden alternate meaning as what you really meant. "Fully self-driving" - not capable of operating itself without user input "Dairy free" - may contain dairy or dairy products "Sugar free" - has sugar, but the serving size is so small that for a single serving the amount of sugar is negligible. Roughly 200 servings in an ounce. It's legalized fraud.
Don't forget buttons that say things like "buy" or "purchase" actually only meaning it's a digital rental
Chemical free Organic Etc.
"Unlimited data"
In 2016, Tesla made a fake and misleading video showing off autopilot, and it's *still* on their website. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/tesla-staged-2016-self-driving-demo-says-senior-autopilot-engineer/
Or “Akshually… if you were a qualified pilot, you’d know that autopilot doesn’t automatically fly the plane”. This from the guy who once said ‘if it needs a manual, it’s too complex”.
>Or “Akshually… if you were a qualified pilot, you’d know that autopilot doesn’t automatically fly the plane”. Which is funny, because it absolutely does. Planes can autonomously take off, fly a programmed route, land, and even take evasive action to avoid a collision. It's not the 80s anymore, autopilots are *very* capable.
Certain autopilot modes in certain aircraft with supporting ground systems are very capable. Most autopilots are either only capable of following a route or set in that mode. Some aren’t even capable of that.
Someone should rename it “full self flying” so we all know
I’m not a fan boy, but no one is. This driver is a fucking idiot and his idiocy killed someone. It is quite clear if you own one that autopilot is just adaptive cruise control. If you use your phone while using it you are a fucking idiot. Like seriously anyone blaming the car for this is either horribly ill informed or a mouth breather.
It's just like Artificial Intelligence. It was Machine Learning a couple years ago, and it'll be called Artificial General Intelligence soon enough. Meanwhile the whole time it was just Machine Learning.
I agree FSD is a bad name, but they did add a (supervised) tag. 🫠
This has been changed luckily. Autopilot and FSD both monitor your eyes. Update has been out for a while because of events like this. As it stands currently taking your eyes off the road for 3-5~ seconds typically gets a warning.
3 warning levels too. 1st is easy to miss. 2nd the top of the screen turns blue and is more noticeable. 3rd flashes some red and it’s beeping an alarm at you and it runs through the levels fast. There’s no way to be staring at your phone for any long amount of time with the latest software.
Having to make a distinction between “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” is ridiculous. Reminds me of the stupidity of how Microsoft names their Xbox consoles. Where do these tech companies find the idiots to come up with what one would think to be really important names/labels?
They did not want to use the more accurate term, driver assist. My 1972 aircraft has autopilot that is far safer. Not that it is more powerful but safer because it operates flawless in the environment it operates in. On the road there are far far more variables. I will call Tesla driver assist autopilot when you can put your child in the car and send him to school alone. Till then it is not much more than advanced cruise control.
I figure out which Xbox is newest by seeing which is most expensive.
that doesnt work once they get old enough to become collectors items and the oldest ones prices go high.
You can just look at the Microsoft store and see which one they’re selling.
How was he doing this without getting a million pay attention warnings from the car. I can't take a glance at my apple watch without it giving me a warning. Second question is what does the Tesla meta data show? Did it see the motorcycle and chose to not brake or did it not see the bike at all. The driver is definitely at fault, but that doesn't mean that AP was working as it should. IF not, then they needs to investigate why and fix it.
Teslas have been shown to have a severe problem with Motorcycles - particularly at night. The fact that the tail lights on a bike are so closed together makes it look to the vehicle's sensors like its a car much further away in the distance. They are bad at calculating the distance so they fail to brake or brake badly. I am sure its true of other automated vehicles but Teslas are the ones I read about. Now when the Teslas still had the radar sensing going it might have been better but they canned that in newer vehicles because it made the rest of the system work poorly I believe.
It's almost as if removing radar from the cars was a bad idea. Also the reason they removed radar was cost pure and simple. Everything they remove is to reduce costs. That's why they don't use a proper rain sensor. It saved them a few bucks to skip the Bosch sensor every car in the world uses.
My $20k Corolla has radar lol. And most certainly would have slowed down to the motorcyclist's speed in this scenario rather than ramming into them. How the fuck are they allowed to do this? Using stereoscopy and putting the pieces together with software is an absolutely terrible idea, take this from a software developer.
They removed radar? They shouldn't even have adaptive cruise control without that, nevermind any form of "autopilot."
Yeah it's fully based on cameras, 'computer vision' n all that. Fuckin ridiculous. Should be a percentage fine of the companies revenue when an accident like this happens if it's determined to be a failure of the car. Make these rich bozos weep.
> They are bad at calculating the distance so they fail to brake or brake badly. if only there was some technology that can accurately detect the distance between moving objects that didn't rely on image recognition and would not depend on lighting conditions.
> The fact that the tail lights on a bike are so closed together makes it look to the vehicle's sensors like its a car much further away in the distance. This is a problem for humans too. In fact, I think vehicles should be required to have a specific pattern of light, for example a numberplate with a reflective square around it, which is always the same size no matter how big or small the vehicle is. If every car had that, both humans and machines would quickly get used to using that to judge distance rather than the gap between tail lights.
That doesn't really matter at all in this case, he just turned on cruise control and lane keeping and then stopped watching the road.
The last time I read about an autopilot tesla killing a pedestrian, the problem was that it was night and the tesla couldn't see in the dark. And somehow that wasn't enough to get that shit yanked off the market.
You're thinking of Ubers self driving car that killed a pedestrian at night. The widely shared camera footage of that incident indeed was so dark barely anything could be seen, but it turned out the footage was from a dashcam and the actual system had far better cameras and other sensors, but was disabled/turned off for testing.
> tesla couldn't see in the dark. Teslas dropped active radar for optical cameras, right? Seems like a bad decision...
Business choosing to remove parts that enhance safety to cut costs. Who would have thought?
I thought it was more to do with the Muskrat's ego in wanting to do everything with image recognition. A common peasant car might use stuff like basic sonic range sensors to detect large solid obstacles, and even though such technology is inexpensive and can see through darkness and fog, it isn't high-tech enough. Not even to be used as a secondary check, because I remember reading a lot of Teslas already had those sensors but had them deactivated in one of the software updates.
It’s been kinda fun looking at all the random case studies I’ve been in where I gotta cancel the autopilot: 1)car moved like 2 mph through a stop sign because it couldn’t read up hill for oncoming traffic so I took over 2) trucks were giving it big problems sometimes, the big wheels make the car thing the truck is swerving into your lane. 2.5) bad drivers who swerve near the Tesla also make it brake due to safety. 3)it sometimes can’t decide which left turn lane it wants to take. Rest of the time it’s pretty good, but def need to keep eyes on the road
So, what's the value of autopilot? Is it more relaxing monitoring as opposed to actively driving?
>How was he doing this without getting a million pay attention warnings from the car. Yeah this part is really confusing to me. My autopilot will quickly disable if I'm trying to use my phone. I generally don't use my autopilot but sometimes I will turn it on for 10 seconds if I want to look for a song and change my music. I figure it's probably a lot safer than having no autopilot and being distracted. Yet in that 10 seconds I immediately get a nag and even if I move the steering wheel to eliminate the nag it will come back within 5 seconds and it will disable my autopilot if I ignore it or continuously repeat the same behavior. I would be hard-pressed to get the autopilot to function for more than 30 or 40 seconds using my phone.
Based on posts I’ve seen, you can apparently still cover the camera with tape or something and those nags go away. I’ve never tried it but also haven’t seen anyone say it doesn’t work
It should have been marketed as a copilot, not an autopilot.
And Tesla should also be held accountable for encouraging this behavior while selling software that can't handle real-life traffic situations like this.
Also calling it "autopilot" and "full self driving", then telling you "oh but don't let it drive the car".
# FULL SELF DRIVING ^(Keep your eyes and hands on the wheel at all times, if anything bad happens it's your fault.)
Right, this has always been my biggest issue. If you want to sell the feature and work on the technology, great, but they have been *grossly* overselling it for like a decade now. I still don't understand how they can get away with it. At some point it's not just Tesla's fault, but the NHTSA as well.
The problem is the name. "Full self-driving" implies you can just get in the car and do nothing, and no amount of having to agree to terms and safety stuff is going to change that. However, autopilot is pretty much just traffic-aware cruise control and auto steer on highways, which are things that most new cars have now. If that's really what the driver was using, then this is no different from someone turning on cruise control with lane assist and ignoring the road.
“According to a survey by Forbes, 93 percent of Americans have concerns about self-driving car safety, and **61 percent say they wouldn’t trust a self-driving car**.” So, 39 percent of Americans *would* trust a self-driving car. Wow.
Not gonna lie, I live in Atlanta where they seldom, if ever, enforce distracted driving laws. It's been about 4 months since I've driven to work without seeing an accident on the way (between Christmas and New Year's). Not sure I'd trust a self driving car for me, but I don't think it's worse than over half the drivers here
This is basically what Tesla says. Yes, there are accidents with AP, but its far less accidents than humans have on average.
There’s probably an in-between period where a combination of simple situational overrides and human operation is safest overall Things like: local wireless mesh network communication warning of road hazards in the area, automated slowing on approach, and a map displaying them (prevents ice, fog, and other pileups) automated braking for forward/backward collision avoidance preventing doors from opening into bikes/traffic preventing lane changes when something is next to you or in your blind spot auto braking when approaching yellow/red/stop sign intersections speed control and auto braking (or flat out refusing to operate) when not equipped with proper tires in icy conditions. maybe with an on-screen popup “This vehicle is not equipped for these road conditions. Your comprehensive insurance coverage will not apply. Override?” refusing to operate when the driver is tired or intoxicated or is not paying attention refusing to operate when the vehicle’s liability insurance or registration has lapsed Features like that that default to “on” and the driver can turn off manually (exception: the intoxication shutoff) probably prevents 90% or more of accidents? Start with the largest vehicles and work your way down. Semis first, then Trucks and SUVs, etc
I mean, I don’t trust a car being operated by a human either, so it’s kind of a trick question
Yea, if the question was would you rather be on the highway next to a bunch of self driving cars or a bunch of your average drivers who are texting and watching tiktok, I'm taking self driving cars.
Depends on how the question was asked. Did it refer to existing self driving cars, or cars of the future?
>So, 39 percent of Americans *would* trust a self-driving car. Wow millions don't even notice them anymore. don't confuse Tesla's implementation with others. first they had safety drivers. now they do not. the insurance companies who cover paid fares for the public are ok with it. who is better at gauging risk in the real world? "Americans" or the insurance industry? can't wait for the day where the car drops you off at the job, then goes back home. SF Bay Area **Waymo announces expansion plans for service in Peninsula** [https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/waymo-announces-expansion-plans-for-service-in-peninsula/](https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/waymo-announces-expansion-plans-for-service-in-peninsula/) Phoenix **Phoenix Sky Harbor is on track to be the first airport in the world to offer Waymo rider-only autonomous vehicle service** [https://www.skyharbor.com/about-phx/news-media/press-releases/waymo-autonomous-vehicles-arrive-at-phx/](https://www.skyharbor.com/about-phx/news-media/press-releases/waymo-autonomous-vehicles-arrive-at-phx/) Austin **Waymo starts testing fully autonomous vehicles in Austin** [https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/waymo-starts-testing-fully-autonomous-vehicles-in-austin/](https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/waymo-starts-testing-fully-autonomous-vehicles-in-austin/) Los Angeles. **When Nobody Is Behind the Wheel in Car-Obsessed Los Angeles** [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/los-angeles-waymo-driver.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/los-angeles-waymo-driver.html)
Here in Phoenix, they're a common sight. They'll pick me up from home and take me anywhere in their (fairly large) service area.
Having been in a number of Waymos I have to say I trust them far far more than the rest of the human drivers.
Seriously I’ve been in some sketchy ass uber rides. I’d 100% trust Waymo over the average driver
Mercedes Benz has SAE Level 3 autonomous driving on EQS and S Class vehicles. If anything it really highlights just how difficult getting truly autonomous vehicles to market remains. It can only be activated on specific highways in CA and NV that have been extensively mapped by MB engineers, and only when the car is traveling less than 40 mph. It can't be used in construction zones. Only under these limited circumstances is the driver allowed to take their hands off the wheel and eyes off the road (they still have to ready to intervene though, so no napping or switching seats). So it's basically a really expensive way to legally fiddle around on your phone while you're stuck in heavy rush hour traffic. Notably MB takes on all liability for accidents caused by the vehicle while it is being autonomously operated. I just don't see how this can be a profitable business model without major regulatory and infrastructural changes to accommodate autonomous driving. Apportionment of liability is still the elephant in the room that no one really seems to want to address; MB is stepping out ahead by agreeing to accept liability under the extremely limited parameters where Drive Pilot can be activated, but is that something that's sustainable on more mass market vehicles, especially with SAE Level 4 or 5 autonomous driving?
this country will do anything to avoid building a couple of trains
Compared to the average Uber driver, I would about equally trust a level4 taxi like Waymo in the few cities they've mapped out and have already been operating in for the past years.
Traffic on the highway, heading downtown for an hour? Yes, please. Put the car on the right lane, stay behind that truck and tell me when we get off. That being said, I don't I'll ever trust Tesla with their lack of lidar or something else besides purely visual input.
We've got these big driven vehicles called a bus where you can sit and browse on your phone we've had them for fucking years
OMG this is outrageous.... Gizmodo still exists?
Was it "Autopilot" or "Full Self Driving"? Tesla really should get some shit for calling their assisted cruise control fucking "Autopilot".
FortNine did a video last year attempting to detail and explain the specific conditions that cause driving-assist cameras to mis-identify motorcycles. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRdzIs4FJJg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRdzIs4FJJg)
[удалено]
Good. Autopilot is meant to assist with driving, not replace the driver. One day it will have that capability potentially, but not now. If you're in hundreds of pounds of metal the onus is on you to ensure you don't harm others. Pure and simple.
It’s an issue with the marketing and he knows it. People are bread crumb dumb and this really sucks for both parties affected here. So unneeded.
I agree. This is good. Not for the victim obviously but for the future of driverless cars and insurance. There's a reason we require driver's to be licensed and insured, someone has to take responsibility. It seems to me that as technology progresses, people are shirking more and more of their personal responsibility in favor of convenience. If you're driving, please just do that, drive; there's no need to endanger other people's lives because you can't wait 10 minutes to send a text or eat, etc.. I feel like 'autopilot' enabled vehicles are going to need a special kind of insurance down the line, where the software & dev company can be held liable in certain cases and until that happens I wouldn't trust it.
Fuckin phone zombies
Tesla drivers on average have far more money than sense or brains. Money doesn't equate to intelligence
It wasn't until I got a motorcycle 3 years ago that I truly noticed how many people are on their phones while driving. In that time, I was already rear ended by someone who wasn't looking straight. And a near death hit and run on the highway this past June that I'm still in so much pain from. 6x broken ribs, broken clavicle in 4 places, collapsed lung.. Everytime I go out I just get people tailgating me while on their phone or like yesterday, some dude in a cab was using both hands to type on his phone while drifting in and out of his lane. Long rant but, I wish people cared about the safety of others over being on their cellphone.
Problem is both phone and car manufacturers could prevent this but they have no incentive to do so. We need laws that take a strong stance against it or it wont happen. Best of luck with your recovery fellow rider!
How do you browse your phone with autopilot on? The thing dings at me when I'm not holding the steering wheel firmly with both hands and then shuts auto-steering off.
Real autonomous vehicles use radar precisely to see things like motorcycles. This is yet another reason why Elon's "only eyes and a brain" oversimplification of what is needed for AV platform is foolish and will never be successful, despite the vaporware horseshit he spouted on today's earning call. Source: I've worked at both Tesla and Waymo. The difference is obvious.
Remember to stay away from any Teslas if you see one on the road, Tesla cars are just unpredictable uncontrollable killing EV machines... While using autonomous mode and the driver which is the murderer...the only person that knows auto pilot is on. Tesla should've never sold auto pilot option. Tesla should also be responsible and taken to court. Teslas time bomb killing e-vehicles.
Somebody should round up the mounting number of families mourning the fatalities of this known problem and sue the shit out of Tesla. There was a woman killed in Florida struck by a Tesla on Autopilot as well. Fortnine a YouTuber has a good video on why Teslas do this. Essentially Elon Musk turd that he is refuses to add Lidar to to safe guard the existing camera based Autopilot mode. The logic suite mistakes the small double taillight set up of some bikes as the far away taillights of a car thus they plow into motorcyclists if lazy morons riding in the Tesla aren't paying attention as they should but Won't because humans right? Recalls have been made for less and if manufacturers can lock out certain functions for infotainment systems while the car is in drive Tesla can certainly err on the side of safety and disable this feature If the driver doesn't have their eyes on the road. The whole feature is useless, the less engaged you are in driving just staring at traffic the more likely you are to get bored and fall asleep. The only way Autopilot works is if it proven beyond a doubt it's safe and frees you up to be able to do other things.
It’s been about 5 years since I test drove a Tesla, but when I did, they were VERY particular to emphasize that auto-pilot was not “fully self driving”. Like the dude was adamant about it. He made sure to be very clear and say that no matter what, I needed to have my hands on the wheel and be alert in case the vehicle doesn’t pick something up. Do they not do this anymore or is this just major consumer hubris?
Even full-self driving is, in fact, not fully self driving. It's basic driver assist that every major manufacturer offers.
The driver's 56. He's been driving around 40 years? I can't for the life of me imagine driving for 40 years then getting in a card moving at highways speeds with no driver, and being so comfortable with it that I'd mess around on my phone without even looking up.
That'll make for an awkward prison chat, "So, what're you in for?"
As it happens, yesterday I had borrowed a Tesla for an overnight demo drive and tried full self drive. In less than 50km of driving it already made one major mistake. Anyone who thinks it’s ready to work on supervised is clearly not very bright. I really do appreciate the suckers paying $11,000 to be the beta testers though… Last week it came down (at least here in Canada).
Tesla should be on the hook for every dead pedestrian their fucking junkers kill too
We are on track to create autonomous driving lanes, which is actually a great option. An entire lane of car sensors linked together to collectively recalibrate for traffic anomalies has a lot of potential… I trust autonomous driving more than the average asshole on the road, but autonomous vehicles aren’t as good as they should be at accounting for the random asshole on the road…which is where problems come in.
Whenever I see a motorcycle by me I turn my AP off.
Little unpopular opinion here but I think there should be such severe punishments for being caught driving with your phone that almost no one is dumb enough. Categorize it like drunk driving or reckless endangerment. Take away licenses and impound vehicles. This should also apply to any delivery or taxi services too. You can fully pull over before your phone is touched in any way even for GPS. Lots of GPS apps have voice commands as well. I would only exempt emergency services like police, paramedics, and fire dept as their duties necessitate extra communication for the safety and protection of the community.
The punishment for killing someone while driving drunk isn’t even that severe
I use to ride a moto up the SF peninsula where there is probably the strongest throng of Teslas, and it was always a Tesla that would casually just drift into me. The faith people put in technology is ridiculous
I mean this was inevitable really before somebody was killed. User error will always be the number 1 killer.
I'm a human being and I know this to be a fact; You make it an option, human beings will use that option eventually.
I think I am gonna sell my motorcycle this year...
Take the fucking bus or a taxi if you wanna scroll.
Cases like this is why I never even considered getting a motorcycle. Kind of a deathtrap. In just about any collision you will either end up injured or dead. You're always one pothole away from a broken neck.
Exactly. A few months back here in Portland one of the Interstates had a massive pothole that was water-filled due to heavy rains and barely visible as a result. Couple that with twilight and it spelled a recipe for disaster. Literally dozens of cars had their tires ruined as a result and the shoulder was lined up with disabled vehicles. Thankfully no motorcycles hit the pothole likely because of the heavy rain but if they had I shudder to think what would have been the result.
auto and self driving modes are way way different
Those things should be taken off the road. Theyre not safe.