Tesla Angers Autonomous Vehicle Experts By Promising 'Full Self-Driving' Model 3 (cnn.com) 228
Tesla's now taking orders for Model 3's with a "full self-driving capability" -- meaning "automatic driving on city streets." CNN reports that experts on self-driving technology "say CEO Elon Musk is playing fast and loose with definitions, overselling the technology and potentially creating safety issues."
Experts say Tesla's "full self-driving" feature is really a partial self-driving feature that handles minor driving tasks such as keeping pace with other cars on a highway and still requires diligent human oversight. To most autonomous vehicle experts, "full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel, and the steering wheel and pedals aren't even needed...
Dean Pomerleau, of Carnegie Mellon University, who in 1995 drove a minivan that steered itself across the country, told CNN Business he has "grave concerns" about Tesla's practices on autonomous driving. "Claiming its vehicles will soon be 'feature complete' for full self-driving is one more step in the unconscionable practices that Tesla is already engaged in with Autopilot -- overselling its capabilities and reliability when marketing its vehicles and then blaming the driver for not reading the manual and paying constant attention when the technology inevitably fails," Pomerleau said.
CNN notes a 2018 study which found that 71% of drivers believe they could already purchase a self-driving car today -- despite the fact that currently there are no such fully-autonomous vehicles. "Experts warn that this lack of understanding could be deadly as humans may put too much trust in systems like Tesla's, leading to crashes...."
"A Tesla spokeswoman declined to comment on details around the automatic driving option, and pointed CNN Business to fine print on Tesla's order page that tells buyers the currently enabled features require 'active' driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous."
Dean Pomerleau, of Carnegie Mellon University, who in 1995 drove a minivan that steered itself across the country, told CNN Business he has "grave concerns" about Tesla's practices on autonomous driving. "Claiming its vehicles will soon be 'feature complete' for full self-driving is one more step in the unconscionable practices that Tesla is already engaged in with Autopilot -- overselling its capabilities and reliability when marketing its vehicles and then blaming the driver for not reading the manual and paying constant attention when the technology inevitably fails," Pomerleau said.
CNN notes a 2018 study which found that 71% of drivers believe they could already purchase a self-driving car today -- despite the fact that currently there are no such fully-autonomous vehicles. "Experts warn that this lack of understanding could be deadly as humans may put too much trust in systems like Tesla's, leading to crashes...."
"A Tesla spokeswoman declined to comment on details around the automatic driving option, and pointed CNN Business to fine print on Tesla's order page that tells buyers the currently enabled features require 'active' driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous."
Free Tesla! (Score:2, Interesting)
2. Discover it does not, in fact, do that
3. Sue Tesla for false advertising
4. Profit!
Death and destruction due to the 'discovery' of said capability may be hazardous to your health.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative:
2. Discover it does not, in fact, do that, by having a nasty accident
3. Sue Tesla for personal injury
4. More profit and Tesla's reputation is in the gutter
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming you survive... It looks like there was yet another case of Autopilot decapitating a driver due to not seeing a trailer last week.
Calling it "autopilot" was a mistake, calling this "full self driving" is just reckless. Let's level 2 autonomy, you have to not only be ready to take over, but actively monitor it for failures.
Re:Free Tesla! (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming you survive... It looks like there was yet another case of Autopilot decapitating a driver due to not seeing a trailer last week.
That's a bit one sided. Last week there were 35 deaths in the UK on the roads caused by good old-fashioned human drivers.
Self driving cars are *never* going to be perfect. And they're going to make mistakes that a fully alert, attentive, skilled driver would never make. But overall how many drivers are any of those things? What about all those overconfident[*], sleep deprived drivers yelling at their kids?
What you never hear of is the time when the human driver would have got decapitated by a trailer due to not watching the road, but the autopilot didn't make a mistake and everyone carried on as normal not noticing.
Statistics will tell us if self driving cars or even autopilots are better than human drivers. I *strongly* suspect they are. Every time I venture on to the road and encounter the usual array of the clueless, the careless, the phone-users, boy racers, texters, fuckwits, arsholes, dickheads, white van men, and Audi drivers I can't help thinking that even crappy autonomous cars would be a step up.
Calling it "autopilot" was a mistake,
In hindsight perhaps? In practice it does much of what an autopilot does. You set it, and it basically flies/drives the thing for you except you're supposed to be paying attention and in control all the time, it can't do every situation and you're meant to take over if things get too hard. Apparently though most people don't know what autopilots in aircraft do.
[*]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ability
Re: (Score:3)
It's a shame they don't release any stats on how often people have to intervene to stop Autopilot killing them. Maybe it is reasonably safe, but it seems to have persistent problems with two things that Tesla has been unable to fix.
1. Trailers, just can't see them it seems
2. Forks in the road, it picks one way at random and occasionally goes down the middle
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It's a shame they don't release any stats on how often people have to intervene to stop Autopilot killing them.
Not really a useful statistic without the comparable one about how often driver kill themselves through inattentiveness and the autopolit saves them. The trouble with the latter is it looks like absolutely nothing happened and no one notices them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about the US but in the UK Tesla would get fucked senseless. You don't promise 'full self driving' then try and get around the lack of it by adding 'in our fake city block'.
Either you have full self driving or you don't. Tesla don't.
Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways (Score:2)
When you combine distance sensing cruise control that can work in stop and go traffic and down to a complete stop and then combine it with automatic lane centering it seems pretty automatic.
I have a '19 Subaru that will lane-assist correct but not lane center, but the cruise control is literally useful in rush hour traffic and will full stop (but not re-start) the car. I'm told automatic lane centering will be a '20 or '21 feature. I think they could add it via software to my car, but they won't for sales
Re: (Score:2)
Every other car company seems to be more responsible than Tesla with regards to what they call "full self-driving" or autonomous. They use terms like "driver assistance features" for what they have now, and nobody is deluded by the marketing terms into thinking that the car can drive unattended.
Yes, Musk didn't build companies by being careful (Score:3)
Someone who was very careful about what they say and do, someone concerned about risk, would not have built SpaceX and Tesla into what they are, in such a short time. Musk is not a careful person, he's a daredevil.
> Every other car company seems to be more responsible than Tesla
Every other car company sells MILLIONS of cars. They want to protect their highly successful companies. Tesla sells THOUSANDS of cars and wants to sell millions. Tesla want to increase their sales a thousandfold, and they won't do
Re:Yes, Musk didn't build companies by being caref (Score:4, Insightful)
Musk doesn't mind taking risks, [with other people's lives]
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who was very careful about what they say and do, someone concerned about risk, would not have built SpaceX and Tesla into what they are, in such a short time. Musk is not a careful person, he's a daredevil.
It's fine and dandy for him to be a daredevil firing rockets into space.
It's not OK at all for him to be a daredevil filling the highways where my family drives with cars designed and marketed to lull their drivers into a false sense of security.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats great. But I don't want daredevils selling cars who drive on roads with me. Go blow yourself up in a rocket. But don't get on the road with your crappy "self-driving" junk.
Re: (Score:2)
No they aren't. You are part of the problem. Stupid technocrats and their toys.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid technocrats and their toys
That's progress. In 10 years time it will be "Stupid Luddites and their insistence to drive themselves, putting the rest of us in danger"
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. What "progress" has there been in 10 years? That is what is wrong with you technocrats: you get cheap toys from China and think that is "progress".
Re: (Score:3)
We are not to full self driving, but Automatic Emergency Braking falls under the category of useful "the moment something hairy happens," you may not even realize it is taking over- you get a chime or notification, but you're way too busy processing everything else. It is really about the difficulty of proving the absence of something- in this case, the absence of a collision.
From Consumer Reports [consumerreports.org]:
IIHS data show rear-end collisions are cut by 50 percent on vehicles with AEB and FCW.
ABS was a technology many thought was lacking- and initially, it probably was. But today- I'm pretty sure the m
Re: (Score:2)
ABS was a technology many thought was lacking- and initially, it probably was. But today- I'm pretty sure the most experienced driver can not beat the most recent ABS, considering the ability to monitor/control the speed of each wheel separately.
When I was getting my driver's license I had the chance to try out both on our mandatory snow and ice testing, because my instructor's car didn't have it and the other car we used did. Early ABS was pretty stupid, it was just unblocking the wheels on a timer whether you wanted steering or not and regardless of traction so if all you wanted was a straight line stop ABS came with a penalty. In deep snow or on gravel you'd still get better results locking up the wheels today. But the moment you needed steering
Re: (Score:2)
regardless of traction so if all you wanted was a straight line stop ABS came with a penalty.
No it does not idiot.
Blocking wheels have a significant longer braking distance than non blocking wheels, a no brainer if you had paid attention in your first years physics class.
In deep snow or on gravel you'd still get better results locking up the wheels today. ... with locked wheels on gravel, braking distance is nearly twice as long as with ABS.
No you don't
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
I mean, on those kinds of roads, what is driving? Continuous small steering inputs to keep the vehicle centered in the lane and continuous accelerator adjustment to keep the vehicle at the desired speed. Some modern cars will do the lane centering on their own and distance sensing cruise control can manage speed, up to and including coming to a complete stop. If the car can manage these, why isn't it self-driving?
I driven one of these cars and other than complaining if you take your hands complete
Re: (Score:2)
"I driven one of these cars and other than complaining if you take your hands completely off the wheel for too long, you literally don't have to "drive" on the highway."
You are an idiot. You need to stop driving at all if you believe that. People are so stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that a major car manufacturer would sell a system like that if it didn't work reliably? The product liability would be huge, regardless of what they put in the manual in terms of warnings.
My guess is this type of a system has technical capabilities that greatly exceed what the official manual says, mostly because if they put a system like this in most people's hands they are going to use it beyond the cautions in the manual. Sure, some will abuse it to the point of getting in collision, but i
Re: (Score:2)
I think a psychopath will sell anything to feed his ego. You are right: I can't afford it. You can't either but you are too dumb to know it.
Re:Many new vehicles are pretty close for highways (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure it works reliably. The problem is that it is the worst kind of automation. It doesn't require your attention until something urgent happens, which means you're very likely to be fatally distracted doing something else. And it will de-skill the operators so they will quickly forget how to actually drive on the highway themselves.
Anyone using these self-drive systems is setting themselves and people around them up to die.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget dozens of things like lane detection, pedestrian detection, sign detection etc.
Full autonomy = unicorn mode (Score:2, Insightful)
Again: Any experienced programmer with a significant driving history will tell you that full autonomy -- as in, get in the car, say "take me to work", and you never touch a control -- either won't ever happen or will take much longer than people like Musk are claiming.
Think about all the situations you've personally encountered as a driver in the last year. For me, that includes: Poorly/unmarked roads, missing/incorrect signs, very heavy rain, snow, black ice, police checkpoints, first responder vehicles o
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The problem is these people are SALESPEOPLE, not engineers. They will say anything to make a buck. And investors really don't know either: they aren't engineers either. You can get to 90% autonomous with a lot of work, but 100% is not possible and likely will never be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree. If you redesign the road network and make it fully autonomous you can make it 100% TODAY.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you also gonna ban, pediatricians
I don't normally go grammar nazi but that was an entirely superfluous comma.
wildlife, etc
I was surprised that read wildlife and not midwife.
Re: (Score:2)
*People* respond very poorly to road surface hazards, weather conditions, traffic, etc. Most self-driving modes don't have to perfect, they just have to be better on average than humans in the same situation. It's kind of a low bar to cross in many situations.
Sensor systems can have problems, but they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they don't drink, take drugs or medications that affects their judgement and can often see in conditions that humans cannot.
There's as much goal-post moving and de
Re: (Score:2)
Autonomous cars are already much better than humans. The problem is that they drive on non-closed systems with non-autonomous cars. If you had a smart roadway that didn't have human drivers you could have autonomous cars right now (and 20 years ago too).
Re: (Score:3)
If you had a smart roadway that didn't have human drivers you could have autonomous cars right now (and 20 years ago too).
And if you used rail you could have had it 100+ years ago, but that's not the direction we chose to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. The direction we chose to go will not allow for autonomous driving, ever. Unless you redesign the road network and make everything autonomous.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 50 years ago some german factories started automating transport of goods inside of the factory. The system is no longer in use. It had kind of rails, but not in the conventional meaning. Just brass lines inserted into the ground. Via induction the car would follow such a brass line and with a purely mechanical computer would change direction at a "road crossing". I don't know how it actually worked or why it got abandoned. I have been in a few factories where you still can see those tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla made that claim. It's a big fat lie.
Irresponsible (Score:2, Insightful)
Tesla is irresponsible even calling what they have "Autopilot". What they really have is "driver assist" and that is what every other carmaker calls it. Lane alerts, car following, etc are NOT Autopilot. As a result you have a ton of idiots cruising down the highway asleep and crashing into semi truck trailers getting beheaded because they think the car will save them. It will NOT. It is just a "driver assist". So call it that. But Musk is Barnum AND Bailey and needs to create the biggest hype to sell his o
Re: (Score:3)
For a moment, just one, think of what "autopilot" actually is. I mean the real thing.
Set a heading, set a speed, it flies in that direction and screams at you if something bad happens. Exactly what Tesla Autopilot does. In an aircraft, autopilot does not "fly the plane on its own" and it absolutely has to have a registered pilot present while it's engaged. Autopilot, in aircraft, is literally a pilot assist, just like Tesla's Autopilot is a driver assist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NO THAT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE THINK.
"just like Tesla's Autopilot is a driver assist."
Then call it DRIVERS ASSIST. The connotation is that is isn't automatic and needs drivers assitance.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is what the average bonobo thinks a guideline for anything?
The dude is absolutely right, Tesla's autopilot does exactly what anyone ever having seen an autopilot would expect.
If you operate heavy machinery, the law holds you accountable if you misuse the machine. Not having read or simply having ignored safety instructions does not make it the manufacturer's fault.
Re:Irresponsible (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps rather than quibbling about a silly name, driver licensing needs to be more strict. Slashdot's penchant for raking Tesla over the coals over a name, because idiots might misinterpret it, is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"How do you live in the world without acknowledging that most people are not that smart?"
I mostly read Slashdot for the nostalgia. Quite aware of the average IQ though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news: High/medium density housing is not only legal, it's _empty_ and waiting for you to move in.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is if 10% of the public don't know what you just stated then it is irrelevant and the car should not have a driver assist feature called auto pilot. The term Auto is strongly associated with the word automatic and many people clearly don't understand that Tesla's auto-pilot is not fully automatic and this is getting people killed.
Tesla should not use terms that will mislead anyone even if that anyone is only 5% of users because that would still be endangering a lot of people.
Re: (Score:3)
What is your definition of "Autopilot"? Let's see what Wikipedia says:
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.[1]
The autopilot is often used in conjunction with the autothrottle, when present, which is the analogous system controlling the power delivered by the engines.
It sounds to me like like autopilot is a pretty accurate term to describe what a Telsa can do. Except the Telsa does more - the equivalent of autothrottle too. Let me guess, you would prefer "Pilot assist" instead of calling it autopilot for planes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese and the Saudis have plenty of money and will give them whatever they need to keep it going.
All or nothing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
moment I go back to a manual I inevitable stall at the first dozen or so junctions as I have forgotten to use the clutch.
Are you fucking stupid???? I normally don't call people out, but WTF. Yeah you may have ONE rough take off or ONE stall... But you forgot how to use a clutch and stall dozen times???
What in sam hell is wrong with you? give up you driver's license and you public transportation. For all our sakes...
Anywhere (Score:3)
> "full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel, and the steering wheel and pedals aren't even needed..."
AND can drive anywhere on its own, in any conditions, at least as safely as an average human driver. And that is not at all possible yet.
Same as all marketing low-lives, really (Score:3)
Just look what is touted as "AI" today, or all the things that are "revolutionary". Sure, these people corrupt the language, but the real problem is the morons that are their target and believe all that crap.
Re: (Score:2)
But... but... I was told specifically by the man in the television that the new Huawei smartphone has "advanced AI" to make it do all those things that will make my life 100x better, like taking slightly better pictures and wirelessly sharing power with someone else who has the exact same model phone...
You're not saying that companies LIE about what AI is, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
You're not saying that companies LIE about what AI is, are you?
I would never do that. Honest!
west coast only (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:west coast only (Score:4, Informative)
Huh. Maybe Honda needs to work on their systems. The assist systems in my Mazda work fine here in Canada in February. They lose sight of the lanes in a snowstorm, but then so does everyone else.
Re:west coast only (Score:4, Informative)
Yep, my Subaru does fine going over mountain passes in Washington State. It does surprisingly well even in heavy rain on the freeway. Honda lost their tech lead some years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, weather and conditions are perfect in Cali 24/7/365...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp9Tg9Z-Hdg
FAIL (Score:3)
Redrum (Score:2)
Trend (Score:2)
No surprise... (Score:2)
Why doesn't he say, (Score:2)
It's Unlimited?
autopilot has a decades old definition (Score:2)
I agree with Elon on this one. Today's aircraft autopilots are fully capable of piloting an aircraft from takeoff to landing and could likely handle gate-to-gate with just a little work. They can even handle takeoff and landing on carriers.
Yet, even in the air with almost nothing to hit, we still require an attentive pilot in the cockpit at all times. Aircraft autopilots are not allowed by regulation to operate as level 5. But we still call them autopilots and have done so since the days in which they were
Re: (Score:2)
First, you proved my point. Autopilot does not mean you can dispense of the pilot.
No commercially approved system can be used for takeoff due to regulation. There absolutely are systems that are capable of it, even from carriers, and many would argue that some of the very advanced ones are safer.
As for the obstacles in the air issue, yes, I have worked on semi-autonomous flight systems and understand. Though it isn't like the obstacles usually appear from behind buildings, trees, and other vehicles or from
Suck it up, experts. (Score:2)
Experts, meet marketing. Marketing, meet experts. Chokra, fetch me my bucket of pop corn. Start.
Won't work (Score:2)
talk is cheap, results (Score:2)
Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? (Score:5, Informative)
The silly part is this:
1) They're describing AP/EAP as a level 1-2 system. It's actually a level 3 system with Navigate on Autopilot (e.g. makes lane changes, takes exits, etc).
2) They're describing what's presently available, which is not FSD, as if that's what's being offered as FSD. Which is just ridiculous. What's currently being offered is AP/EAP, not FSD. Heck, they don't even run on the same computer. AP/EAP is HW2, FSD is HW3 (HW2 = GPU, HW3 = custom neural net chip, about 20x faster).
3) What was targeted for the end of this year has been clearly described, both by Musk in interviews, and in the description of the product: that the car can drive in all situations on its own, but you still need a human monitoring it (aka, level 4 autonomy), with an intent to eliminate the driver requirement as soon as is allowed thereafter (level 5 autonomy). The monitoring requirements will remain until regulators are satisfied that its safety record exceeds that of humans. Musk stated that he expects this to require 10 billion or so miles of data.
4) This isn't coming out of the blue. Tesla's internal builds already handle city driving (including Musk himself). You don't have to take their word on it - customer cars are already doing detections required for city-driving in shadow mode [youtube.com] (same, but at night here [youtube.com]) (These aren't Tesla vids - they're from people hacking the AP system to see what data it's detecting and processing).
You know, it's really easy to attack someone when you render what they say into a straw man. "OMG, Musk is saying that a Level 1 system is FSD!"
I had issues with Tesla selling FSD a year ago, but then again, so did most people, which is why few bought it. Today? Not so much. They've made a lot of progress in the past year. I still think it's going to be a long time before Tesla's safety data is good enough to convince regulators to say, "Yeah, you don't need a human any more" (level 5). But with Navigate on Autopilot, and their clear progress on city driving, I have no issue with them stating that they expect to be level 4 by the end of the year.
Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? (Score:5, Informative)
It's actually a level 3 system with Navigate on Autopilot (e.g. makes lane changes, takes exits, etc).
No. That's not level 3. Level 3 is where you don't have to pay attention to it any more. You can read a book or watch a movie while it drives, and when it needs you to take over it will notify you and you have a reasonable amount of time to stop whatever you are doing, take in the situation and start controlling the car.
They're describing what's presently available, which is not FSD, as if that's what's being offered as FSD. Which is just ridiculous.
No. Tesla are selling "Full Self Driving" today. You can go and buy a car with it on their web site right now. And this is how Tesla describes it:
- Navigate on autopilot
- Autopark
- Summon
- Recognize traffic lights and stop signs (coming "later")
- Automatic driving on city streets (coming "later")
That last one is untrue. It will be level 2, drive required to pay babysit it at all times. And none of it is "full self driving".
It seems like they are doing this to try to avoid the lawsuits over not delivering the full self driving that they started selling way back in 2016. They promised you could summon the car from the other side of the country, and it would drive thousands of miles and recharge itself. They promised you could get in, do nothing and it would take you to work, then go off and find a parking spot.
None of what they have announced is "full self driving" by their own standard, let along any reasonable person's definition.
that the car can drive in all situations on its own, but you still need a human monitoring it (aka, level 4 autonomy),
That's level 2. To get above level 2 the car has to be able to operate without supervision. Furthermore, to be able to handle "all situations on its own" is level 5. That's not what Tesla are offering, they are only claiming city streets, and even that isn't true.
Also note that in their last filing Tesla said they did zero autonomous miles in the last year.
Re: (Score:3)
No. That's Level 4. Level 3 by and large drives on its own, but can require the driver to take over at a moment's notice. Level 4 can encounter situations where it doesn't know how to handle them, but can safely get out of them without driver intervention. Level 5 never encounters situations that it doesn't know how to handle.
You cannot "read a book or watch a movie while it drives" in a Level 3 system. Quote: "Able
Re: (Score:2)
>customer cars are already doing detections required for city-driving in shadow mode
I haven't seen detection of traffic lights in this video, only the detection of stop lines (which are not there at the highway, so that's new) and cars in front of them (which is not new).
Re: (Score:2)
A video AND a proclamation from the leader is PLENTY if you are in a cult. They truly believe anything the guy says, and then it doesn't happen they explain it away.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, Tesla has really accomplished a lot in advancing the design and adoption of electric vehicles, and in forcing the historic auto manufacturers to improve their offerings and speed up their timelines The unrealism of Musk and his fanatic supporters and the string of phony promises might well destroy all that has been done to date.
Re: (Score:2)
Having fun twisting my words? "Internal builds that handle city driving" != "internal builds are ready for mass deployment". Because if they were... they'd already be deployed, and not be merely internal builds. Obviously. That said, at the rate they've been advancing, deployment with in a year? Yeah, I have no issue with that. Especially since customer cars aka, running on older builds are already doing requisite detections in shadow mode.
You disagree. Feel free to.
Re: (Score:2)
Please respond yes or no. Anything else is bullshit. They will or will not be capable of full level 5 autonomy by 12/31/2019?
Re: (Score:2)
Please respond yes or no. Anything else is bullshit. They will or will not be capable of full level 5 autonomy by 12/31/2019?
The claim is that they will be able to do level 3, not level 5. Specific conditions, and still requiring a driver who can take over when the vehicle requests it. Probably still BS, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. That isn't what Elon claimed. He said drive coast to coast by end of 2019. He just said it was regulations holding it up, not the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that they've explicitly stated that what's targeted to be released by the end of the year is level 4 (aka, requires a human driver), only to transition to level 5 when regulators approve at a later date, you're asking me to say "Yes, Tesla is going to deliver something that they didn't state they were going to deliver".
Why not just insist that I answer "Yes" to "Tesla is going to deliver Model 3s made of solid gold and reintroduce the Passenger Pigeon by next week"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Internal builds are used in test cars.
You need something like 4 million km driven in test cars to be allowed to deploy any software change to cars on sale or update already sold cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not known if the person in the first link was on AP. It's at least possible that they were, unlike the latter case. The person in the second case almost certainly wasn't (they were estimated to be driving 70-90 mph on a city street; AP can only be set to 5mph over the speed limit on city streets).
I'd also like to know what car you think can plow through three palm trees in a row and have the occupant be just fine.
As far as I and anyone else I've talked have been able to ascertain, the first case appears to be the first case ever of someone dying in a Model 3. And it took being split in half by a semi to do it. Guess what? For the foreseeable future, people will continue to die in car accidents. What matters is the rate per unit distance driven.
The only thing I'm mad about in the first case is the fact that the US inexplicably does not require side crash guards on semi trailers like we've have in Europe since the 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times are you going to ask me to say "Yes" to something Tesla never promised? And furthermore, I love how you've switched to this from "Tesla will never deliver a $35k Model 3 [tenor.com]" ;)
Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? (Score:5, Informative)
No. $35k before gas savings and credits. For a US buyer the MSRP minus credits is at most $31250, and depending on state credits, as little as $26250 (Colorado has the best state credits in the US). Then there's gas savings on top of that.
See for yourself. "LOL". [tesla.com]
All of you people who've been shouting for the past year, "Tesla will never release a $35k MSRP Model 3!", take a lesson in humility from this.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you meant 2019, not 2029. And your direct question is quite on point.
Re: (Score:2)
Rei, are you telling us that by the end of calendar year 2029, Tesla will have level 4 cars for sale?
Chances are that by the end of calendar year 2029, every car maker will have level 4 cars for sale.
Re: "To most autonomous vehicle expert"? (Score:2)
Re:"To most autonomous vehicle expert"? (Score:5, Informative)
The woman who drove into the parked fire truck at highway speeds did not die, she had only a broken ankle - which is a remarkable testament to how safe the vehicle is built.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Don't be fucking silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't even the correct sensors available for a fully autonomous vehicle.
Yes, there are.
And we have autonomous cars since decades, they are just not ready for sale yet. All big German and Japanese brands have autonomous cars, and that is the problem with Tesla, Google, Apple etc. instead of ganging up they develop their own mediocre copies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)