271–280 of 462 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a ticket to fight as the cop working at 4am would have a hard time showing up to court.
That's a very odd reason to contest a fine. Clearly it was justified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, you don't even need Tesla "self driving" for that. Adaptive cruise control, tech we've had for what, 20+ years? is more than enough for most highways, it takes out ~80% of the stress/boredom of driving, especially since lane changes are minimal and curves are gentle. The hard parts of driving (aka not highways) are the real problem, as expected. We solved the easy parts in 2000 and who knows if we'll so…
I have a car with adaptive cruise control and lane assist, and most of my morning commute (on days when I go into the office) is driven on the highway. Most of the time I don't turn it on because I'm in a self-perceived hurry to get to work, so I forget. You know what would be really nice? Something that detects when it's safe and reasonable to suggest turning on adaptive cruise control so I use it more. Maybe someth…
I definitely hope your car doesn't put it in some hidden menus on the central screen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were the case that autopilot was benefiting from dumping all of the difficult parts on the humans, you would expect to see much higher than average rates of accidents per mile on the human driven parts, because they're only getting the hard parts. This tends not to be true, so I'm doubting it's a real effect.
Your conclusion relies on the - quite faulty - assumption that "situations that inherently difficult for FSD to handle" are automatically "also more dangerous for human drivers". In snowy conditions, humans do just fine, generally, at following "lanes", be they the actual lane, or the safest route that everyone else is following. Humans are also capable of deducting lane direction, orientation, even when there are co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. Autopilot on aircraft is very different because pilots don't have to be ready to take over on a moment's notice. Of course they have to be monitoring the flight but they can be generally assured that the autopilot won't decide to just fly into a mountain with only fractions of a second for the pilots to intervene.
There are moments a pilot has seconds to react and disengage autopilot. Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time and 2.5 seconds for any follow-on reactions. This reaction time includes the time to disengage autopilot and also put the aircraft into a climb-or-dive. Studies show that a situationally aware pilot takes at least 2 seconds to start the reaction, and another second to achieve…
If a drivers license required as much training as a pilots license then you might have a point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law that you linked says that drivers aren't allowed to drive at an unreasonably slow speed, and defines that to be (for highways, with good weather, and just on the leftmost lane) 80 km/h. It doesn't say that the speed limit is a target, or that you're supposed to drive at or near it.
Yes, but it's how we're taught at driving school. I think it's written down somewhere but can't find it at the moment, so the article I linked to is the closest I could find.
It doesn't matter. People have all kinds of things they are taught about driving from their parents, instructors, and even official documents that don't carry legal weight (e.g., a highway patrol website).
Even when these types of ideas are good ideas, they aren't binding and you can't count on others to follow those rules. The only true rules of the road are the subset of the laws that are enforced; where enforcement might be done by law enforcement officers, civil judges, or insurance company adjudication processes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes it's legal IDK about the US, but in France the speed limit is a target speed; if conditions are good (weather, visibility, traffic) you're supposed to drive at or near maximum speed. It's illegal to drive too slow, and there's a specific fine for this. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000... [in French]
In Australia (I left 15 years ago) it was stated that you were required to drive at the _maximum_ speed that met the conditions: - not exceeding posted speed limit - appropriate for environmental conditions - your ability to safely control the vehicle And failure to do so could be fined.
Anyone can claim their ability to safely control the vehicle would have been impaired at $cited_speed + 1 km/h.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. Autopilot on aircraft is very different because pilots don't have to be ready to take over on a moment's notice. Of course they have to be monitoring the flight but they can be generally assured that the autopilot won't decide to just fly into a mountain with only fractions of a second for the pilots to intervene.
There are moments a pilot has seconds to react and disengage autopilot. Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time and 2.5 seconds for any follow-on reactions. This reaction time includes the time to disengage autopilot and also put the aircraft into a climb-or-dive. Studies show that a situationally aware pilot takes at least 2 seconds to start the reaction, and another second to achieve…
An IMO important difference with pilots is that pilots are professionals that get trained and periodically retrained on how specific planes and their autopilots work.
Tesla drivers, on the other hand, hear Tesla’s at times optimistic marketing, and may just learn how to switch autopilot on and off without understanding when to use it and when not to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An average person doesn't need to directly access the data. As long as journalists or researchers can, an avg person could rely on their analysis/opinion instead.
I would certainly not rely on journalists' to actually have a look at the data, let alone to have the technical skills to analyze and report on it. As it is, reporters don't bother mentioning / linking to the data, or mentioning the lack of publicly available data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a ticket to fight as the cop working at 4am would have a hard time showing up to court.
In my area, cops have specific court dates; all their tickets are set to be handled on the same day that's already part of the cop's schedule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> several other risky groups that most people buying Teslas aren't part of. This is a fallacy. Ask any demographic you like if they're road ragers, drunk drivers, etc... and they'll deny it. Everyone is sure that rare and terrible outcomes will never happen to them because of their own behavior, including the people to whom it happens! It's probably true that middle aged premium car owners are safer on average, but y…
> You can't take a vague dataset and then "correct" it like this without absolutely huge error bars. That ship has already sailed; Tesla makes active safety claims based on that dataset. To hold research to your standard here would be to say that Tesla can make its claims, but nobody can challenge those claims. > Why did they all push the results in one direction? If you have two correction steps, then a priori you'd…
I don't follow that logic. Claiming that Tesla's data set is incomplete is fine.
That doesn't mean that any junk science that refutes it must be correct. Bad statistics is bad statistics. This kind of "correlate dissimilar data sets by using more dissimilar data" is a terrible way to do science. Quite frankly it's almost guaranteed to be wrong. There are regulatory bodies out there with access to real data. Get them to figure it out.