Earlier quoted context omitted.
Traffic would get somewhat worse. People would be willing to commute somewhat farther because they could spend that time reading the paper or working instead of driving the car. Errands that used to be annoying enough to delay get more frequent as well for the same reason. If we get to a car share model, where you subscribe and pay per mile, that might offset some car use. Really we need all of the above - self-drivi…
You could have a full self driving only lane that’s allows speeds up to 200MPH. Self driving cars could have better reaction times allowing for higher highway density with faster speeds.
California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
91–100 of 672 posts
Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
#92FSD = fraudulent sales and disappointment I can’t believe Tesla has gotten away with selling a feature that doesn’t exist, and will never be delivered, on so many cars for so long. Tesla began selling “full self-driving” in October, 2016 and a month later marketed it with (now known to be heavily controlled) video of a car driving itself for two minutes. Owners of those initial cars have probably paid them off by now…
Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
#93How much could the recent Musk meltdown be related to FSD just not arriving? It seems like we have reached a point after many years of FSD being “next year” when it’s becoming clear that it’s further away than anyone thought. I’ve thought the difficulty was being vastly underestimated for a while. A reusable Lunar and Mars shuttle system is probably a lot easier than actual FSD.
I think 6 or 7 years ago, many people thought we would at least have something like Waymo's self-driving taxis in Phoenix in several cities, more publicly available, really starting to change transportation. We're not too far behind on that estimate. My guess is in less than 3 years - Waymo will be publicly available in large parts of Phoenix and probably another major metro - and within 10 years most of the south we…
Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume if there were more self-driving cars, fewer people would own cars. I think more people would take Ubers, Lyfts, and other ride sharing services. So I think that could reduce the need for parking and the amount of traffic just by increasing the utilization rate of cars.
Really? Do you find Uber and Lyft to be affordable or a financially sensible means of regular transportation?
Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
#95Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…
The roads will be so gridlocked no one will drive on them anymore /s. Seriously though there are ways of reducing traffic on the roads like increased registration taxes, raising the price of tolls, gas price hikes (or equivalent dc fast charging price hikes). Gridlock won’t be a problem. DC fast charging price hikes will be especially effective at reducing robotaxi usage as unlike privately owned EVs, robotaxis will…
The flux of the number of vehicles, as you increase the number of vehicles on the road, starts out going up as one would expect. But at a certain point, adding more cars on a road starts slowing down the movement. And then as more cars come on the road, the flux goes down, there is less road capacity as it get more crowded. This is the fundamental diagram of traffic flow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic...
So once cars on the road exceed that peak amount of flux, there's a phase change and cars start backing up.
So with cars, gridlock really does mean that far far fewer people get serviced by a chunk of road. Whereas with people in a busy area, there really are more people there.
Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
#96FSD = fraudulent sales and disappointment I can’t believe Tesla has gotten away with selling a feature that doesn’t exist, and will never be delivered, on so many cars for so long. Tesla began selling “full self-driving” in October, 2016 and a month later marketed it with (now known to be heavily controlled) video of a car driving itself for two minutes. Owners of those initial cars have probably paid them off by now…
I think claiming it "will never be delivered" is probably wrong as well.
Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
#97How times have changed since Tesla was untouchable here. What happened and why does everyone talk like they've always hated Tesla (and Elon)? Surely it's mostly the same crowd as when Tesla was loved and Elon a superstar.
Speaking as one of those who's always disliked Tesla and been turned off by Musk, one explanation is that the skeptics now feel more empowered to speak out than they did before. Also, depending on how far back you're talking, you may be overestimating how much unadulterated love there was for it before: I've been following conversations on Tesla here for years, and plenty of other vocal skeptics have been here for as long as I have.
Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
#98FSD = fraudulent sales and disappointment I can’t believe Tesla has gotten away with selling a feature that doesn’t exist, and will never be delivered, on so many cars for so long. Tesla began selling “full self-driving” in October, 2016 and a month later marketed it with (now known to be heavily controlled) video of a car driving itself for two minutes. Owners of those initial cars have probably paid them off by now…
Hardly surprising that action has been taken over FSD, especially the robo-taxi claims and the deceptive advertising over this alleged safety-critical system proven to be unsafe and putting other drivers on the roads at risk. As I have previously said before. [0]
So not a surprise here that many are realising that FSD is a complete scam and is being investigated by regulators and lawmakers for its false claims and misleading advertising.
Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
#99Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…
The metric to judge assisted driving technologies is primarily safety. Driving is not safe and I suspect will appear insane to a future generation. Which generation and how soon is another question. However, what the US needs to massive investments in rail, which address both safety and traffic.
Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD
#100FSD = fraudulent sales and disappointment I can’t believe Tesla has gotten away with selling a feature that doesn’t exist, and will never be delivered, on so many cars for so long. Tesla began selling “full self-driving” in October, 2016 and a month later marketed it with (now known to be heavily controlled) video of a car driving itself for two minutes. Owners of those initial cars have probably paid them off by now…
I think claiming it "will never be delivered" is probably wrong as well.