161–170 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. The point remains though...collision avoidance is not a requirement for autopilot in the context of planes (or boats)
GP didn’t say “not a requirement”, the poster said “will not avoid”, which is factually incorrect.
TCAS sometimes will and it doesn’t matter if autopilot is on/off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's lots of autopilot systems that smash into shit, sailboats are one of them, you can put your sailboat on autopilot and it's going to smash into stuff. Samething with an airliner, autopilot will not avoid another aircraft.
> Samething with an airliner, autopilot will not avoid another aircraft. Wrong! There are autopilots which integrate TCAS into the autopilot (A380 among them). Source: http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2009/08/eas...
Also TCAS enabled autopilots will still smash into other planes. TCAS isn’t magic plane detection AI it’s a radio signal, you can turn it off and not all aircraft have it.
Just Incase you were going to use the same logical fallacy just because an A380 has TCAS doesn’t mean all planes do.
Also airbus planes have some automatic flight control systems that override pilot input, those systems have CAUSED planes to smash into stuff. So even on an aircraft autopilot / automatic controls still cause preventable accidents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, that's the situation today. Tomorrow, the situation might be that a computer controlled car could see that the car behind is tailgating and the car in the next lane is computer controlled — then determine the safest action would be to swerve into the next lane rather than brake suddenly...
That's getting into trolley problem territory. I'd prefer that my car not do crazy shit.
And I would dispute that emergency braking suddenly while being tailgated is less "crazy shit" than swerving into the next lane where your presence will, with an exceptional degree of confidence, be immediately detected and compensated for.
To clarify, the scenario in my mind is one that would be bold but not dangerous; something a good human driver might do with 360° situational awareness. In this instance it could be the difference between swerving to miss an obstacle or a multiple-car collision — even if your self driving car can stop in time, the tailgater is likely to slam into you, which in turn slams you into the obstacle.
Or to change the situation a bit, if the "tailgating" car happened to be a self driving car with an aggressive profile, that could swing the decision back towards braking. Point is, knowing that a car is being driven by a computer can aid decisions made by other cars.
A Tesla slammed into the back of a stopped firetruck at 65mph and the driver walked away un-injured. Why am I not already driving a Tesla?
Because most modern vehicles are made to the same crash safety standards and would likely have a similar outcome? The Tesla isn't magical, made of adamantium, or such. Not to sound overly snarky, but as someone who has been a firefighter / paramedic for the best part of a decade, I've certainly seen my fair share of MVAs up close.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious what action is needed to disengage autopilot, is it simply a matter of grabbing steering wheel, or does a button need to be pressed? Is there a "hybrid" mode where it remains in autopilot but with option to manually adjust speed and steering?
If there's something in front of you, slamming on the bakes both slows the car and disables autopilot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does Tesla's data show TACC + Autosteer to be 50% safer than human driver control?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/04/25/elon-musk-t... > "The probability of having an accident is 50 per cent lower if you have Autopilot on," said Musk, speaking at an energy conference in Oslo, Norway. "Even with our first version, it's almost twice as good as a person." > The results are from Tesla's first generation of Autopilot, which owners have already used to drive over 47 million miles since it lau…
You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…
You know I take issue with Tesla on these incidents. They're trying to have it both ways. They market it as 'autopilot' to appeal to the dream of complete self-driving but if an accident actually happens it can never be the fault of autopilot. After all it's required for the driver to be paying attention so if they didn't override autopilot it's obvious they weren't paying attention. Really I'd like to see the govern…
I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.
To be fair, an autopilot, in the traditional sense, just maintains a heading and an altitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.
> it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense To be fair, an autopilot, in the traditional sense, just maintains a heading and an altitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn’t agree more. It baffles me how Tesla can get away with such blatant false advertising (it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense), especially in light of there being multiple incidents of bad accidents which showed them at fault.
> it’s anything but “autopilot” in any layman sense To be fair, an autopilot, in the traditional sense, just maintains a heading and an altitude.