>

Until everyone's in networked self driving cars, I'm not sold.  I get highway hypnosis just using adaptive cruise control.
The people on my way to work save a ton of money by doing stupid shit like this themselves rather than buying an expensive AI that does it for them >

This is a quote from the article
Drivers are warned by Tesla when they install “full self-driving” that it “may do the wrong thing at the worst time.”
How crazy that this is allowed to still operate as it does. >

Tesla auto pilot is still level 2, not level 4/5 as people assumed. >

This is correct. They want to imply and intimate other things…
I had a 2019 bmw 330. There was no button to engage this function, but when you met the criteria (mostly straight freeway and under 40 mph) a note came up on the screen asking you if you wanted to engage a certain mode. 
In that mode the car assumed all accelerating, steering and braking functions and warned yiu before it was about to shut off when criteria no longer met (like speeds above 40). 
Why is this not level 3. Is it because the driver must pay attention and be ready to take over. 
I see that Mercedes’ has what is supposed to be the first level 3 assisted driving where they will assume full legal responsibility when the system is engaged. That’s confidence if true. >

This one is more sophisticated that what I had but with mine yiu are supposed to pay attention. With level 3 I don’t think you have to even watch the road. The Mercedes’ one is already out but not in USA. >

IIRC Level 3 is "100% autonomous and doesn't need a human's help... until it suddenly isn't and does".
You don't have to watch the road most of the time.  But in reality you do, because you need to be there to take over when it finally fails.
Which is why it's a terrible idea, and all the major players want to jump straight from 2 to 4.
Honestly from having used it, I'm pretty sure Toyota's software is capable of level 3 -- they just put a hard nerf on it back into level 2 status, because they want absolutely no part of this mess. >

My 2023 toyota has had a serious adaptive cruise control fuckup or two already (when someone was slowing in a left turn lane, and no cars in front of me it slammed on the brakes on the highway) 
To the point where I don’t trust it very much. >

Well, that’s the reason you have to pay attention and the reason why Tesla drivers must be missing a brain. >

Just saying that my vote is that Toyotas software isn’t that good. Tesla’s is probably worse. 
Just this past weekend I rode in a cruise autonomous vehicle with no one behind the steering wheel for the first time. 
It was a bizarre experience. Clearly had room for improvement but also wasn’t totally terrifying. >

Being constantly ready to correct a fuckup seems like a bigger headache than just driving tbh >

Is my understanding wrong that Tesla self-driving is basically just adaptive cruise control + lane assist? >

No, that's "autopilot".  FSD will legitimately get you from point-to-point, but you still need to be ready to take control, and it fucks up a lot. >

That's the problem, they've managed to market it as though it's a finished product >

How these things don't use basic seat sensors if no driver is present, it pulls that shit over or stops.
The redundancy needed has to assume the driver is an idiot. And yet people keep finding new ways to be stupid... >

I think they require an occassional steering wheel input to "ensure" the driver is paying attention. Not sure if Tesla's did at the time or if this moron just tickled it with his toes from the back seat when required. >

I've seen videos of people who just idly touch the wheel when it does that however. It doesn't take much attention to gently grab the wheel for a second. And they continue to pay no attention to the roadway while doing it.
This is where you get to that problem of needing a system that actually checks If the driver is looking at the roadway.. But if they're already looking at the roadway, why not just let the driver drive the car then! The marketing and resulting crashes are all too often from the users who don't want to pay attention to the road when it's on... Thus why the car would act erratically and they're not prepared to retake control.
The vehicle pulled into the next lane and braked down to 20mph the article said. How did the driver not notice the moment it started dropping and retake control? I'm willing to bet they were not paying any active attention so the unexpected behavior caught them off guard and they had no timely reaction to what it was doing till it was too late. >

Currently, there's a camera in the cabin that checks to see if the driver is paying attention, and if they're not (looking down, not at the road, etc) it will ask for wheel input almost immediately.  They've also tweaked it to make it harder to defeat the torque sensors with weights, something the San Fran backseat rider was doing.  Also, it's a lot more aggressive about "striking out" the driver if they don't give wheel input during a maneuver.  Five strikes and you're kicked out of the beta. >

Tesla gets the most flack for failures, but it almost always comes down to driver fault in these instances. The car didn't behave as expected yes.. But many cases wouldn't have resulted in an accident had the driver also been alert like they were supposed to be.
The knock against Tesla is the very misleading marketing they're constantly advertising it as.
And of course they'll be adjusting and changing their standards after each incident, as any major automaker would do as well... They don't want repeated failures of the same incident, specially when drivers find dumber and dumber ways to defeat the basic safety measures put in place.
As much as this tech is cool, but still really young.. I mostly just don't put my faith in drivers, the average driver is terrible.. And the average driver thinks their better than the majority of other terrible drivers... All the more mistakenly believed when the car does the majority of the work. >

How is it legal for Tesla to involve the general public in their testing without permission? Owners/drivers of Teslas likely get all sorts of warnings and waivers. The rest of us just get a "good luck out there!" ? >

Heard a stat once that after 1030pm something like 30% of drivers are under the influence. I drive late at night sometimes. 🤷 >

30%? Sounds exaggerated.
I'd take that statistic with a pinch of salt, slice of lemon and a shot of tequila. >

The fuck is wrong with you?
Who uses a lemon with tequila? >

perhaps they allowed their lime to ripen for too long. >

Do limes actually go yellow with age? >

Maybe I'm too old school but I could never trust a car driving itself.  I would be too amped up, constantly worrying what the software could possibly miss. >

I would trust a car to drive itself if it could actually drive itself. "Be ready to take over in a split second because it will randomly try and kill you" doesn't seem worth it to me. >

Exactly. It sounds Iike more work than driving. Until self - driving is 100 percent set-and-forget its dangerous, imho. >

Ironically, the closer they get to “true self-driving “ the more dangerous they will be. Sort of a variation of the “uncanny valley.” If you expect to have to watch alertly and take over at any moment, you will, but if you can trust it to drive minutes or hours without a glitch, it becomes increasingly hard to focus on paying attention. >

Airline pilots have do regular simulator training to build up and maintain muscle memory for different emergency situations, it seems like as we roll out more of these systems where you have to babysit the car and recognize and take over in an emergency that we should find a way to train those reflexes as well, so the first time you're practicing them isn't in the actual emergency case. >

We can't trust people who drive regular cars to do the appropriate action in an actual emergency case. People see a squirrel or a dog and overcompensate and cause a pile up in oncoming traffic lanes all the time. People run red lights, all the time. People aren't looking far enough ahead to notice that the person ahead of them at the green light that just changed hasn't started moving yet and rear end them, all the time. People turn right on red without looking for pedestrians at crosswalks all the time. 
You really think millions of people are going to put in the effort the way an airline pilot does to train to react in a one a million situation as self-driving cars become more prominent? >


You really think millions of people are going to put in the effort the way an airline pilot does to train to react in a one a million situation as self-driving cars become more prominent?

I don't think that is going to happen at all, I only think that it is a prerequisite for ethically rolling out the technology in that form. If we're not prepared to train drivers to perform this new type of supervisory driving, we're not prepared to give them a car that requires it >

Who could comfortably sit back and relax in a vehicle that is in the full self drive mode, with the full confidence that nothing could ever happen. The anxiety and stress must be intense. I don't understand. So much could happen that is out if your control. >

Just to be clear, Teslas don't have a "full self-drive" feature, the assisted-driving feature is just called Full Self-Driving™.
You are legally not allowed to "sit back and relax" with this feature enabled because it is not autonomous technology. >

It's an incredibly (criminally) misleading name. Tesla specifically markets it "Full Self Driving (FSD)" mode. 
I'm not at all surprised people are trying to use it hands free as advertised. 
Tesla should be sued for liability for any damages or casualties it causes. They sold it that way. >

I do not understand why the government has not stepped in and taken action over this yet
It is deliberately misleading.  People are dying and getting hurt because of how misleading it is. >

Because your regulations are hurting my investments. Why you make the line not go up?!?! >

They haven't even confirmed that the system was activated at all ...  this is could literally be some idiot driver trying to push the blame of the crash to the car.
Not going to assume anything until it is confirmed. >

I drive a Tesla with FSD Beta. I'm also a software engineer.
It is far from perfect. You have to pay attention.
That said, it has also taken me from my driveway, onto the freeway, into the city, and to the store (and back) without intervention or issue - much to my EXTREME surprise.
But that said...it has also failed on the exact same trip before and decided to just...stop. Not like in the article, but like, it'll signal and get into a turn lane, and then just freeze.
Again, it isn't perfect. If the car software is at fault here, I wouldn't bat an eye. If the driver is at fault here, I also wouldn't bat an eye. >

Never said it was perfect. It just seems strange to blame the system without even confirming it actually was on.
But that's MSM these days.. >

Absolutely. Sorry, I was...intending to agree with you but I guess that didn't translate right. My bad. >

This will probably get down voted, but this needs to be clarified:
FSD Beta ("Full Self Driving") cannot be activated on highways, only Autopilot can.  The Autopilot system is very mature and stable.
Autopilot can and sometimes does phantom break. The driver had to be completely not paying attention to let it slow down that much.  Regardless, FSD or Autopilot, it's always the driver's responsibility to pay attention. 
Source: I own a Tesla with FSD Beta. >

So if not highways where can FSD Beta be activated? 
(Genuine. Not trying to be a dick.) >

FSD Beta is meant for city streets. Highway is still using Autopilot. There is suppose to be a merge of both stacks eventually. >

Where does it say Full Self Driving was enabled? Or any features for that matter? 
All I see is that only "Tesla would know" part. >

The current version of FSD switches over to regular autopilot on the highway anyways, so regardless of what actually happened there beta FSD software couldn't have been running. 
It's possible that autopilot made a mistake and hit the brakes, but that's a pretty straightforward lane keeping and cruise control feature that's very obviously level 2. But there's also plenty of cases of people blaming autopilot for their mistakes, just like we had people who blame "unintended acceleration" on their Audis or Toyotas when they were just hitting the wrong pedal. >

The article is trash, but the comments are also trash. It seems like most people who comment didn’t read the article. 
But the article gets one main thing wrong, it states the FSD beta warning.  However, the accident happened on the highway (I-80), so fsd beta wouldn’t even be used, it’s not full stack 
Trash article, trash comments >

Sir, this is a Reddit. Of course the comments are trash. >

It's really funny watching redditors' opinions on Tesla change so much so quickly lol. >

I still roll my eyes every time I see Redditors fabricate BS about Elon. There's enough real stupid things he's done, but they insist on lying and claiming fake bad stuff. Like every time they say he inherited all his money, or that his dad was some slaver running a diamond mine, or whatever else.
It's amazing the bullshit people come up with and espouse simply because they want to say it, with no regard for the truth whatsoever. >

Elon had a chance to build a decent autopilot when he hired Chris Lattner back in 2016, the guy who basically invented iOS programming among other achievements. Chris is an absolute visionary who spends a lot of time thinking about how to do things properly instead of doing things fast. But instead of letting Chris build out the software slowly, he demanded production releases every 6 months and this led to Chris deciding he didn't want to work for an egomaniac helicopter boss. Now, 6 years later, the autopilot/FSD is still shit because when people are pressured to push out stuff in order to "look good for investors" in the short term, long-term results suffer. >

Andrej Karpathy, who took over, has a PhD in computer vision and is a well regarded scientist in his own right.  He created and taught the  Convolutional Neural Networks for Visual Recognition course at Stanford. He's a far better fit and has been doing a hell of a job.  Sadly, Elon's ridiculous ego has ran him off as well. >

Well, the car has the data, so we’ll soon find out… >

The driver claims the car unexpectedly braked. While this certainly isn't great, the real reason for the accident sounds more like tailgating. >

Is this another case of “user reports” an error, where in reality, the user has deliberately ignored warnings and disclaimers about having to pay attention still. I have gone thru the Tesla designing many times, how long has there been an explicit disclaimer about the limitations of FSD? 
We can talk about about what marketing laws should be in place, but as things stand now, you are directly told the limitations of FSD when you select the OPTIONAL PACKAGE. >

FSD can’t be enabled on highways and so whatever this driver is claiming is false. >

A car braking should not cause an eight car crash. Human drivers need to learn how to not tailgate. >

Changing lanes into the fast lane then suddenly braking from 55 to 20 with no reason is reckless driving.
8-1566. Reckless driving, penalties. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. >

Absolutely. 
And human drivers need to learn how to not tailgate. The instant someone cuts in front of you in your lane, you should be backing off their ass. Even if they're in the wrong. >

And human drivers need to learn how to not tailgate. The absolute worst thing that should have happened here is that the Tesla cut someone off, slammed on the brakes, and got rear ended by a single car.
The other six vehicles that were involved have no one to blame but themselves.
EDIT: to be clear, not all six drivers are necessarily to blame, but at least one of them is. It could have been three that stopped in time and were each rear ended by someone following too close. It could have been five that stopped in time only to be ploughed through by someone who wasn't paying attention. But no matter the case, at least one (and probably several) of those drivers were doing something wrong. >

Why are people downvoting this? It's correct. You should be driving far enough back to stop if the car in front of you slams on their brakes, let alone 2 cars ahead, ^3 ^cars ^ahead, ^^4 ^^cars ^^ahead, ^^^5 ^^^cars ^^^ahead, ^^^^6 ^^^^cars ^^^^ahead, ^^^^^7 ^^^^^cars ^^^^^ahead ^^^^^and ^^^^^^8 ^^^^^^cars ^^^^^^ahead. >

Assuming they were in a line, close behind eachother, and they all one-by-one impacted. That 8 car impact could've been side swipes, could've been cars getting pushed into eachother, could've been people avoiding the accident by wildly changing lances, etc. >

I think self driving is the future but it's not there yet >

I wanted a self-driving car for so long. At least a decade.
Instead I just moved somewhere with a decent public transportation system. >

It's crazy how there are hundreds of car accidents a day in the US but 1 self driving car crashes and apparently that means it's a terrible thing that should be banned. Nuclear reactors all over again >

Didn't even rule out if it is a human error or really the AP is to blame. We will see I guess. >

Well, even if the AP braked, the other cars were following too close to each other.  So basically an AP error compounded by human error. >

“Could not confirm if the full self driving was actually being used”
There’s the real gem in the story, let the Tesla hate begin anyway! >

The story is riddled with holes, because on the freeway, teslas don’t use FSD mode yet. Still older autopilot stack which is known to brake hard on occasion due to the safeties having to be overridden for cross traffic stationary objects.
If it weren’t for people running the cars into the back of stopped emergency vehicles causing this update to have gone out, this crash would not have occurred. Also the person driving in this instance could have just pressed the go pedal to override the stopping. Both scenarios are inattentive drivers using a a driver assist software that expressly states it isn’t perfect.
Also, in CA. The person doing the rear ending is always at fault because they all should have had enough following distance to stop before hitting the cars in front of them. >

"honestly cuntstubble, the car just went bonkers. Wasn't me at all"
Serious question though. Assuming that the driver is not under the influence of any drink or drugs, will he still be held liable for:
A: insurance claims.
B: Death or injury or third parties.
C: Being silly enough to use fully automated tech that seems to be in its infancy.