It should be noted that the 40% crash reduction they keep quoting is done with an extremely simplistic analysis and is only a brief paragraph of the full report. https://www.scribd.com/embeds/337007075/content?start_page=1... It's not nearly as definitive as people (and Tesla) seem to claim it as. edit: The full analysis (from page 10 of the link): >5.4 Crash rates. ODI analyzed mileage and airbag deployment data sup…
I would argue that the people who can afford a Tesla are rich people and thus likely well educated and are safer drivers.
Poor people with bad cars, no education and unsafe driving practices probably have more accidents.
I get that the vision system might have been fooled by how the lane widens before the split. What I don't get is why the radar doesn't pick up the barrier itself. It should have been getting a nice, healthy return signal from it, lots of metal at all kinds of angles. What I'm saying is, this is not a stealthy barrier.
Radar is not active if the speed is higher than a specific threshold; it seems it is written in the manual.
> Radar is not active if the speed is higher than a specific threshold; it looks like it is written on the manual.
I'm having trouble understanding why that would be the case. Why anyone wouldn't want the radar active when going down the highway.
It is not as if it doesn't work at highway speed...
All safety systems have faults. That’s why the human is ultimately responsible. If you don’t agree, do not engage the safety system. As the operator, you have final authority.
Actually, if the fault isn't reasonable the manufacturer is usually held responsible. A recent example is the ignition switch recall that old GM had. It took operator action to trigger the fault, but GM still repaired the faulty cars and paid liability claims.
Poor example, as GM knew of the defect for a decade and did not notify customers of the defect until a lawsuit generating significant internal document discovery led to the public disclosure.
Actually, if the fault isn't reasonable the manufacturer is usually held responsible. A recent example is the ignition switch recall that old GM had. It took operator action to trigger the fault, but GM still repaired the faulty cars and paid liability claims.
Poor example, as GM knew of the defect for a decade and did not notify customers of the defect until a lawsuit generating significant internal document discovery led to the public disclosure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch...
Yeah, the coverup is why they paid the $900 million fine.
The fault existing is why they paid claims to the people that the fault killed, and why they did a recall.
Jeez, that damned media again misinforming people. Who could have expected a feature called AUTOPILOT to mean self driving, who?!
Anyone who knows what an autopilot [1] is understands that it does not make an aircraft autonomous. It's an assistive device - a stabilizer for wings and pitch. To call the Tesla Model S an "autonomous vehicle" simply because it has a feature called autopilot is disingenuous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
So anyone with an aviation license, gotcha. That should take care of at least 0.02% of the population.
It is the classic trolley[1] problem and Tesla is flipping the switch on the tracks. I don't think there is anything to indicate that Tesla's approach is leading to more deaths. Considering there has only been two confirmed fatalities in which autopilot was partially at fault (AFAIK), I would bet that autopilot is still well in the positives in "lives saved" versus "lives ended". Whether that is the right ethical or…
But this isn't a question about no autopilot vs autopilot. This is a question about the previous version of autopilot vs the current version. If the previous version of autopilot (read: the one that didn't swerve into barriers and kill someone) was working, why did they update everyone to this new version which apparently has a life-threatening bug? Was it necessary to roll out this update so quickly? My guess is no,…
The same principle applies. Autopilot is not a binary feature that either works or doesn't. It is an evolving system that should continuously get better and safer. Sure, Tesla could have delayed this specific update in favor of more testing. But how many preventable accidents would happen during that testing period that an earlier roll out could have prevented? Neither you or I know the answer to that. Tesla has access to all the autopilot data and therefore should be able to more accurately predict that number. I haven't seen anything to suggest Tesla is ignoring that data or being reckless in when they decide to roll out these changes.
Blaming the autopilot for the death of Walter Huang is like blaming the bullet for a firearm-related death. The man at the wheel or the man at the trigger is ultimately responsible.
No it isn't, guns do not fire by themselves using AI trained for that purpose. A man has been killed here by faulty engineering.
When you engage the trigger, firearms require a responsible human to aim with attention.
When you engage the autopilot, the system requires a responsible human to watch the road with attention.
Blaming the autopilot for the death of Walter Huang is like blaming the bullet for a firearm-related death. The man at the wheel or the man at the trigger is ultimately responsible.
What if Smith and Wesson announced that their guns will update over the air and suddenly the bullets will become non-lethal and infact save lives as they'll include water from the fountain of youth? Because I don't see much difference from how Elon Musk makes misleading and clearly false statements.
This is gonna be interesting as apparently the "Barrier" [1] bug is only in newer AP2 models per latest A/B tests done by cpddan (who did the very first crash reproduction scenario in Chicago [2]) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0bR_EQ47E Tesla Model X with AP2.5, SW 2018.6.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2Om8Q0IA MS 75, AP1, SW 2018.6.1 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... . "wor…
it definitely has to do with how the lane marker stripe on the road crosses into the other lane at the divider. you can see the Tesla hugs the left line divider. When the lanes split, the line doesn't -- it continues into the opposite lane. Regardless, that's a totally common occurrence on the road. It seems absurd that the car will trust a painted line over any type of radar or imagery showing a rapidly approaching…
I've mentioned before on here, it's clear teslas autopilot isn't really any better than other lane assist from other car manufacturers. At this point its just a neat party trick.