Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's not human nature, that's user stupidity
The design is fine, it's all the users who are idiots. P.S. /s. Obviously, Mr. Poe.
This is why 'attention' and 'driver monitoring' was not included.
71–80 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's not human nature, that's user stupidity
The design is fine, it's all the users who are idiots. P.S. /s. Obviously, Mr. Poe.
This is why 'attention' and 'driver monitoring' was not included.
This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
It is not solely the trust and dependence but inclusive is the group of idiots with access to wealth without regard to human life.
This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
I actually disagree. (And before you respond, please read my post because it’s not a trivial point.) The fact that an huge formal investigation happened with just a single casualty is proof that it may actually be superior for safety in the long-term (when combined with feedback from regulators and government investigators). One death in conventional vehicles is irrelevant. But because of the high profile of Tesla’s…
Of course this is impossible in the real world. Nobody is going to buy a car that will randomly make its own decisions, that will pull the wheel from your hands ever time it thinks you are making an illegal lane change. Want safety? How about a Tesla that is electronically incapable of speeding. Good luck selling that one.
I think the best situation would be to have 'automated' stretches of highway specially designed to 'help' self driving systems.
Only self driving vehicles would be allowed on such special highways, and everything would be built around such systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends. As long as the resulting package (flawed self driving system + the average driver) isn't significantly more dangerous than the average unassisted human driver, I don't consider it irresponsible to deploy it. "The average driver" includes everyone, ranging from drivers using it as intended with close supervision, drivers who become inattentive because nothing is happening, and drivers who think it's a reas…
> As long as the resulting package (flawed self driving system + the average driver) isn't significantly more dangerous than the average unassisted human driver... Shouldn't that compared to "average driver + myriad of modern little safety features" instead of "average unassisted driver"? The one who has the means to drive a Tesla with the "full driving" mode certain has the means to buy, say, a Toyota full of assist…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I largely agree with you, but I just wish regulators would start by only allowing these assist programs for people that are already known to be poor drivers. The elderly and convicted drunk drivers, for example. That way we could have the best of both worlds.
Incentivizing drunk driving seems dangerous.
If anything a driver monitoring system seems even better than the interlock system, for example you couldn't have your kids/friends blow for you to bypass it.
The question should be - how many lives were saved by this system vs how many would die if driven "normally"?
The crash in the city of Woodlands, Texas, was pretty terrifying. After hitting a tree, the car caught on fire. The driver was found in the back seat, presumably because he couldn't figure out how to open the door to get out.
It seems to me that Tesla door handles (in a world where they've been designing door latches for some time) are just plain ridiculous and likely unreliable but are a side effect of the market the company has been selling into. Gadgets go a long way with Tesla owners.
Obviously, things like a latch should not only work under all conditions including no-power, but they should probably be the same under all conditions. 'Emergency' latches aren't going to be used during an emergency as muscle memory is too important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually disagree. (And before you respond, please read my post because it’s not a trivial point.) The fact that an huge formal investigation happened with just a single casualty is proof that it may actually be superior for safety in the long-term (when combined with feedback from regulators and government investigators). One death in conventional vehicles is irrelevant. But because of the high profile of Tesla’s…
I largely agree with you, but I just wish regulators would start by only allowing these assist programs for people that are already known to be poor drivers. The elderly and convicted drunk drivers, for example. That way we could have the best of both worlds.
Go with safest drivers first.