521–530 of 714 posts
> You can’t program your way out of the problem with Level 2; in fact, the better the Level 2 system seems to be, the worse the problem gets. That problem is that human beings are simply no good at monitoring systems that do most of the work of a task and remaining ready to take over that task with minimal to no warning. Well, you could have extremely visible/audible signals for the driver to take over when the drivi…
I'm trying to reason "why the Tesla did stop?", in the second video on TheIntercept website, I can notice a left exit before the point where the Tesla stopped. Something I noticed with Google maps ( I don't have a Tesla, and maybe the navigation system of the Tesla is similar ), is that sometimes thinks tunnels can access the road above them ( in a tunnel near my home Google maps always tells me "turn right" in the m…
because of shadows that confused it
because of concern about cars crossing the intersection ahead where there is only the need to gently slow
because of a car crossing an intersection ahead that has already crossed!
because of a steep bridge that confused it
we can’t use cruise control in the car basically, we decided it is too dangerous at worst and jarring at least
because there is so much hype around Tesla people get the impression their software is “hardcore” but a lot of it is absolute garbage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Germany you would be covered because line change and break, without a reason, is a deliberate dangerous action. This means that the one doing it is responsible of the following crash. For the multiple cars crash, if not clear cut, without video recording, all the insurances pool themselves together and consider the drivers as not responsible. Nobody cannot tell if you stopped, got hit in the back and then the fron…
Huh? In my (German) experience, responsibility for the crash (and thus for the sentence/fine/payout to each driver) is rarely assigned to a single driver in such a case. Instead, it is distributed among participants with e.g. the Tesla driver being 80% at fault for the second driver's damages and the others ramming the second car for 20% (or something like this). I admittedly find it a little bit confusing how many p…
The question is if in this case the action can be considered as deliberate. The "software" did it, is it deliberate? Is it considered as a failure of the car like the breaking of mechanical part?
This is new and the justice will have to figure it out and I am very happy not to have to figure it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically doing manually what ACC does automatically for you
The problem comes from having to mentally monitor an additional complex system (the ACC) in exchange for the meager attention savings gleaned from not having to closely adjust distance to the next car. That's "adjust", not "monitor". You'll still need to monitor distance to the next car either way, ACC is no excuse to drift off. For example, my non-Tesla ACC will randomly brake hard with no car ahead. I personally us…
Doesn't look like phantom break, which is usually very sudden and no lane change. Most likely the driver was hands off the wheel and was warned multiple times before the car pulled itself over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this a problem?
One car driving significantly slower than the rest of traffic can itself be a safety problem: "To keep a smooth traffic flow, some highways also have minimum speed limits. If you drive slower than the minimum speed you can halt the traffic flow and create a dangerous condition. Even if there is no minimum speed limit, those driving too slow can be as dangerous as those who drive too fast." https://dmv.ny.gov/about-dm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s almost impossible to rear-end another car without being at least partially at fault. The lane change from the Tesla was obviously dangerous, but the first car to collide with it had sufficient warning and time to react. You can see that they did react, but they obviously didn’t expect the Tesla to come to a full stop, which is why the first collision took place. I believe the legal term for this is contributory…
I overtake you, the instant my car is 1m in front of yours I switch into your lane and hard break. Who is at fault for you crashing into the back of me?
Not that FSD Autopilot is what it's marketed as, but this is the responsibility of the driver and not the car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I brake check someone on the highway, causing an accident, and it’s discovered that that’s what happened, I’d be pretty shocked* if the trailing driver was found responsible. That video looks like a combined lane change and brake check on the part of the Tesla. * and disappointed
In Germany you would be covered because line change and break, without a reason, is a deliberate dangerous action. This means that the one doing it is responsible of the following crash. For the multiple cars crash, if not clear cut, without video recording, all the insurances pool themselves together and consider the drivers as not responsible. Nobody cannot tell if you stopped, got hit in the back and then the fron…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think what's interesting here is it's likely the first instance where Tesla FSD has been involved in an accident which affected other drivers. In a pileup like this it's basically never the fault of the front car, unless maybe if they are purposely causing the accident for insurance fraud or something. Maybe the driver will get cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed, but legally this isn't much different…
It looks like the Tesla driver will be at least as fault for the collision with the car behind it. However, it seems the subsequent collisions were caused by fleshy human drivers driving unsafely. I don't know much about traffic law, so I'm unsure how responsibility for the overall pileup will be divided. From the police report: > V-1 made an unsafe lane change (21658(a) California Vehicle Code) and was slowing to a…