281–290 of 455 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I’ll ask. How would you describe it?
"Car doesn't yield to pedestrians". For "almost hit" I would expect car to run by pedestrian in less than half a meter or for pedestrian having to react quickly to avoid car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is one reason I come back to thinking that you may see full automation in environments such as limited access highways in good weather but likely not in, say, Manhattan into the indefinite future. Unexpected things can happen on highways but a lot fewer of them and it's not like humans driving 70 mph are great at avoiding that unexpected deer or erratic driver either. ADDED: You'd actually think the manufacture…
> Which is one reason I come back to thinking that you may see full automation in environments such as limited access highways in good weather but likely not in, say, Manhattan into the indefinite future. This is why there are SAE levels of automation and specifically Level 4 is what you're describing. Anyone claiming their system will be Level 5 is flat out lying.
"almost hitting pedestrian" It wasn't even close. Look at where the ped is at 12 seconds, compared to the car. It's because he stopped the turn, and straightened the vehicle that the pedestrian stopped and looked up with concern (at 13 seconds). Even if the pedestrian broke out into a full run, they wouldn't have been in any real danger. This sort of close interplay between pedestrians and cars is very common in citi…
Maximise the video and watch the left hand HUD pane from 0:10 to 0:11. The dotted black line coming from the front of the car (which I am assuming is the intended route) quickly snaps from straight ahead, to a hair pin right, to a normal right turn. Ignoring the fact that the right turn happened to be into a pedestrian crossing with people on it - what was the car even trying to do? The sat-nav shows it should have j…
Tesla's system is real time, which means that it makes routing decisions on every frame, and the decisions are independent from previous decisions. It doesn't have memory. It just makes decisions based on what it actually sees with its cameras. It doesn't trust maps, like most other systems. For some reason, it thinks that it must turn right. Situations like these are sent to Tesla to be analyzed, the corresponding d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A law doesn't prevent anything, it only applies after the fact. You could argue that the prospect of being prosecuted might scare people into not doing the thing that they are not allowed to be doing, but with all the people doing the things they are not allowed to be doing anyway, I doubt a comparative legal argument helps here. You could make a law that states that your FSD has to be at least as good as humans. Tha…
The key difference is human drivers have independent software, whereas the same software powers all FSD Teslas. One human driver getting drunk/otherwise impaired doesn't affect the software of any other human driver; but if your FSD software is as good as a drunk human, then every single one of your FSD vehicles is a road hazard.
On the other hand, it's not like the software is always bad and always in the same situation. That is a big difference with a human analogy; a drunk driver taking a trip in the car is drunk for the entire trip (unless it's a very long trip etc..), so would be impaired for the entire duration.
There are plenty of people and vehicles that are road hazards and are allowed to drive (or be driven) anyway, so if we really cared about that aspect on its own we could probably do with better tests and rules in general.
Basic game theory dictates that if automated driving is seen as too safe, pedestrians will feel comfortable walking anywhere, anytime. Dense downtowns will become completely gridlocked and unusable for cars. Which maybe isn’t a bad thing. But if you want cars in cities you need them to be perceived as dangerous. Yeah I was convinced by Gladwell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something I do not understand: there are keys difference between automation in e.g. aircraft, and what Tesla at al are failing at, e.g., how constrained the environment is; and what the exposure is to anomalous conditions is; and what the opportunity window usually is to turn control back over to a human. The thing I don't understand is, we have a much more comparable environment in ground travel: federal highways. I…
Even lower-level automation for highway driving would be super useful. I would appreciate a simple "keep-distance-wrt-speed" function for bumper-to-bumper situations. Where worst case scenario, you rear-end a car at relatively low speeds. I'd happily keep control over steering in this situation and just keep my foot over the brake, though lane-keep assist would probably be handy here as well. A couple radar sensors/c…
This has been widespread for at least a decade. I'm not even aware of a mainstream auto brand that doesn't offer adaptive cruise control at this point. Every one I've used works in stop and go traffic.
The other features you want are exactly what Tesla has basically perfected in their autopilot system, and work almost exactly as you describe (not the FSD, just the standard autopilot).
Basic game theory dictates that if automated driving is seen as too safe, pedestrians will feel comfortable walking anywhere, anytime. Dense downtowns will become completely gridlocked and unusable for cars. Which maybe isn’t a bad thing. But if you want cars in cities you need them to be perceived as dangerous. Yeah I was convinced by Gladwell.
You solve this face recognition and ticketing of offenders. The cars have cameras everywhere anyway
Maybe it's just me, but it seems the car wanted to make a right turn on the right part of that side street. There are no pedestrians there. It's actually the interference of the driver that stops the turn halfway, and steers towards the people at the left starting to cross that street. I wonder what would have happened when the driver didn't interfere. I guess that the right turn would have been completed without any…
You’re supposed to wait for them to fully complete their crossing, and yes: the overwhelming majority of drivers here abide by that requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming by hater you mean "someone who is scared by Full Self Driving including cars veering into pedestrians", it'd help me: I'm in an urban area and don't have a car, and I'd be lying if I claimed I wasn't always scared when I see a Tesla approach when I'm in a crosswalk, I'm never sure if Full Self Driving is on or not.
The problem is that you could apply that argument for a drunk driver, a distressed driver, a driver without a license, a driver that hasn't slept enough, etc. Any of those could mean a car could randomly turn into the crosswalk. Humans are horrible at assessing risk. We worry about Teslas because it's on the headlines now, but you're infinitely more likely to get ran over by one of the cited examples than a Tesla jus…
TBH I don't think it's ever crossed my mind whether a Tesla was in FSD or not, even when driving alongside one. As long as it doesn't enter my space, I'm fine.
Walking through Manhattan, I'm more worried about the human driver nowadays than the non-human.