>

Self driving cars aren’t happening within this decade and the sooner we accept that the better. If these things become a sizable portion of traffic it’ll be a catastrophe.
For everyone who didn't bother to read the article, the driver used some tricks to fool the car into thinking he was still attentive.  He knew what he was doing and they are filing charges against him. >

Which means the cars’ need better mechanisms in place to prevent this. Tesla is still beta testing dangerous products on public roads. >

Those cheat devices don't work anymore. Newer teslas also track your eyeballs and will lock you out of autopilot if your texting or not watching the road. >

All the more reason to not buy a goddamn tesla.  That can only go so well. >

Are you upset that you have to watch the road? >

Real question because I genuinely do not know. People have mentioned that even simple things such as turning on windshield wipers entails navigating multiple menus on a touch screen that has no captive feedback, effectively forcing you to take your eyes off the road. Will the tesla start trying to pull off to the side if you are taking too long? Does it start beeping/audibly warning you before so (which isn't usually helpful in that situation, but still)? >

The wipers are automatic.  They come on as needed.  If you want to override it, you can do that in the menus.  You can also use voice control (after pushing a button on the steering wheel) to override the wiper setting.  So it's no big deal.  The real gripe is that the automatic feature uses the camera(s) to detect rain, not a dedicated sensor and in some conditions it doesn't work well (putting the wipers on too fast, or when not needed).   
A Tesla will never pull off to the side on you.  If you stop paying attention, it will gently notify you, then beep at you, and eventually if you keep breaking the rules, it will disable automatic features on you until your next trip. >


The real gripe is that the automatic feature uses the camera(s) to detect rain, not a dedicated sensor

So it's not actually no big deal. If it doesn't work flawlessly, then any obstruction to manual operation is bad.
It's not like a windshield wiper stick is complicated, or cumbersome. Or what about times when there no rain, but you need to clean the windshield? Does it sense then? Or does it sense to my preferences? >

To wash the windshield you press the end of the turn signal stalk. The auto wipers feature is awful in my experience. It doesn’t sense spray from cars in front of you or light rain, it only works in hard rain.
I rented a Model Y in Colorado for a work trip a couple of weeks ago and did over 900 miles in it. They needlessly over complicated a lot of really basic functions that we have come to take for granted. They created new problems by solving problems that didn’t exist in the first place >

That's interesting, on my M3LR I got an update that fixed/changed the windshield wipers and they work flawlessly now. 
About the same time they fixed the auto high beams. Before I'd flash everyone a few times before they would turn off. Now it works perfectly. >

Nothing is idiot proof >

They build better technology, we build even better idiots. >

I had a boss that used to say " You can out think stupid, but they just build a better idiot" 
Rang true when he said it and still chimes today. >

easily over half the time it takes to implement a new feature in a software application you spend on preventing the user from doing something rather than actually implementing the new functionality >

The good: Car didn’t crash and burn
The bad: Car didn’t pull over for the cops
The ugly: The driver was capable of convincing the system he was awake, and then went for a nap. >

The car didn't pull over because the driver is supposed to still be attentive and paying attention you're not allowed to just go to sleep >

"Full self driving" >

Regardless of the name it's not like you just jump in the car and do it you need to agree to those terms of service before you actually operate the vehicle with this full self driving >

People always read terms of services cause they aren't super long and worded in legal speak. >

Really bad title given the driver did not fall asleep but went to sleep while driving… >

What?  I don’t understand your distinction? >

I think he means he didn’t fall asleep by accident.  He intended to sleep. >

I knew that he intended to sleep but in my mind that’s still “falling asleep.”  I understand now thank you. >

I think normally in this context you assume it's an accident. I fell asleep driving, I fell asleep on the rollercoaster, she fell asleep on the ATV... When it's not a normal situation to fall asleep it's assumed it's on accident. If the context is more like, What time did you fall asleep? I fell asleep at 10pm last night. That maybe is less accident assumed. But you could also just use "go to sleep" which is definitely with the intent there. >

Perfect explanation. >

I’m not familiar with the details of how autopilot works, but couldn’t the police have just gotten in front of the car and slowed down? >

I'm not either, but that seems like what they should've done. I'm pretty sure the sensors would trigger brakes. They pit maneuver in a pursuit, but they weren't in pursuit and driver was unconscious/not actively trying to avoid arrest. Probably could've been able to box him in and let the car do the rest, but stopping a car at that speed is unpredictable and obviously super dangerous. Plus, whatever cheats he used for it may make all that useless anyway. Regardless, highway patrol training needs to be rewritten for this kind of thing, yesterday >

So the car did exactly what any other car on cruise control would do. My old Toyota had radar cruise and lane keep. It would have just kept going too except it would have just bounced from one white line to the other. >

Knowing the region, and while this is of course wrong and should not be done, this couldn't have happened on a better stretch of highway. There is almost nothing going on there while the highway is build very well >

In cars from tesla, "autopilot" is just lane keep and cruise control similar to "blue cruise" or whatever other names other manufactures use. The name is a reference to the autopilot in planes which is designed to maintain a heading and speed. It does not land or take off for the pilot. IDK, the names seems like a good pick. I wish articles for/against telsa would point this distinction out more often.
Tesla's "FSD (full self driving)" costs another 10k more at the time of purchase and that's what actually gives you a car that can navigate most things on its own. The guy in this article only had autopilot. >

Not to be that "Akshuwally" guy, but there actually is a mode of autopilot that can land the plane on most newer airliners. ILS cat II/III autolanding. Just a geewiz fact I guess >

And to pile on with the "akshuwallies" there are two alert and attentive pilots, who've run through checklists and are under sterile cockpits rules. So the plane lands itself but under very clear supervision. >

Who can sleep while letting autopilot does all the work? I can’t even sleep if my wife drives! >

As a fellow tesla driver: what an asshat. >

that goes for all Tesla drivers >

This is in Germany, and 110 is kilometers, not miles. I was confused for a second. >


Tesla Autopilot Prevents Horrible Accident When Driver Falls Asleep At The Wheel

I love hating on Tesla as much as the next guy but let's give the robots credit were it's due >


In the footwell of the car, the officers found a so-called steering wheel weight. This is to trick the security systems. It is attached to the steering wheel and suggests to the vehicle that the hands are on the wheel. According to the law, automated driving in Germany is only possible within narrow limits, and the driver must be able to take over the wheel at all times. Sleeping or distracting activities such as reading the newspaper are therefore prohibited.

So more like:

Driver uses device to trick Tesla autopilot into thinking he was awake, so he could take a nap, causing high speed chase with police.

It wasn’t a case of heroic Tesla features preventing an accident - it was a case of a driver abusing the feature in order to sleep while driving (and in the process revealed that an auto-driving Tesla won’t pull over for police).
It only stopped because the guy woke up. >

I think his point is it's not something to hate on Tesla for. >

They say “let’s give the robot credit where credit is due” as if the Tesla prevented an accident.
But the driver literally would not have been asleep at the wheel if there was no robot to self drive, and there would not have been a high speed chase if the self driving feature knew to pull over for the cops. Imo it’s less a “credit where credit is due” situation and more of a “look at the irresponsible behavior half-baked self driving features enable.”
Stories like this are a good example of why we shouldn’t be beta testing these features on open streets. >

It did prevent an accident though. The driver is responsible for their actions. The car is not responsible for the dumbass behind the wheel trying to trick the car into thinking he's awake.
I can't wrap my head around the idea that it's somehow the car's fault for what this person did. It didn't goad him into it, and he bypassed safety mechanisms. >

It’s not the “car’s fault” but it’s also not “self driving preventing an accident.”
It’s a half-developed feature being tested in open traffic and enabling irresponsible behavior. >

I just don't buy that it enables irresponsible behaviour. You are responsible when driving a car no matter what. Just to be clear, this person tied a weight to their steering wheel and had a nap! This is not a casual irresponsibility, this is absolute insanity. >

I don’t disagree that the driver was hugely irresponsible but this is also not the first case of “driver using Tesla autodrive irresponsibly” and in some of those other cases it led to fatal crashes.
It’s also led to fatalities in ordinary use (it seems to have a hard time with motorcycles, especially in states with lane sharing like California).
At the end of the day, people are often irresponsible, and imo it’s not great to have a half-baked “auto pilot” that’s not actually auto pilot on open roads with real traffic.
So yeah, my takeaway from the OP story isn’t “credit where credit’s due” - it’s “yet another case of Tesla’s self driving being used irresponsibly, creating a dangerous situation for other motorists.”
If the Tesla had pulled over for the cops (or the autopilot wasn’t easily fooled by tying a weight to the steering wheel) then I’d be more inclined to be impressed. As is, I’m going to be cautious if I see a Tesla on the road, since the driver might not be paying attention (or might be asleep). >

I do not understand. If it is self driving technology why do I have to stay awake and alert at the wheel. If that's the case shouldn't you just drive normally? Is this just a shitty cruise control with a gimmick? >

Interestingly enough- that sleeping drunk driver was probably statistically safer (using autopilot) than a regular driver. 
*Note: obviously I do not condone DUI or sleeping with or without autopilot. I do however see it as being the future; even more so as the mandated future (i.e. 2060: all cars that still use a steering wheel must have autopilot engaged at all times) >

At least better than a drunk driver at 110kmh I guess. A sober driver probably wouldn't have gone at that speed for prolonged time. 
However this better not become a model case for DUI serial offenders. Urgh. >

What's the speed limit over there? Here in Mexico it's exactly 110 for most federal highways and mostly everyone drives that for extended periods of time >

Its the Autobahn, usually no speed limits, unless its inner city crossings, where there variable signs that get matched to volume of traffic.
*Sorry, I dont quite know the correlating words in English I hope its understandable anyway. >

Ah. So then your comment wasn't that he was going too fast, but rather too slow.
Yeah in that case I'd probably be closer to 180, which is about as fast as it goes in an SUV without driving becoming impacted. >

Welp, now I am confused. The article really just says 110 and no unit ¯\(ツ)/¯ Going 110kmh isn't a problem, like I said, unless the traffic signs indicate otherwise, than ts still an offense. >

I think cruise control is the extent of driver assistance we can get without becoming so complacent that we get distracted. I'm not against self diving, it's clearly the future. 
I'm against one company thinking they're above the law and putting these things on the road without checking with the rest of us. Especially a company that's clearly being run poorly. 
The free market runs on top of government infrastructure. None of it works without our money building the systems that connect us. Self driving vehicles require infrastructure to support them and cannot be run on proprietary systems. WE built the roads and WE built the internet. It's time to combine the two, and WE can't afford to let someone else do it for THEIR purposes. >

My problem isn't the sleeping, it's that I would for sure use this as an opportunity to read or watch a movie and be utterly distracted by that. And if I can't read or watch a movie, then what is even the point of these cars? >

It's how the technology improves. >

Downside, AI doesn’t obey police. Upside, guy sleeping at wheel would crash in 30 seconds if it wasn’t for the AI. All in all, I call that a win. >

If you'll read more than just the headline, this is a decision he made to purposely go to sleep. He didn't just happen to fall asleep, he literally made the choice to sleep which is only possible because of this technology in a tesla. >

Yes, I know. Regardless of that. It's a win because ignoring police while self driving > crashing while not self driving. If he was asleep on purpose or not is irrelevant to what I was saying. >

It's really not. This situation only happened at all because of the tesla. This is not someone who fell asleep in their car kept driving, as a matter of fact if that happens the car is safer. If someone actually falls asleep while driving it's supposed to warn them and wake them up and stuff. The car would have literally quit driving itself if you had actually fallen asleep.
The technology was bypassed, and the dude made a choice to sleep. And now you're arguing the technology was the great saving part of this? >

You're missing my point. That's not what I'm talking about. Yes, tech that can drive a car even when tricked is great. >

It's not. What would be great is what ACTUALLY HAPPENS in a Tesla when you sleep. Which is wake and warn and pull over if need be. Because this guy couldn't adapt to ANYTHING including cops. 
This situation only exists because the tech is faulty and then didn't work right. I understand the point you're making, but the point you're making is dumb. >

This just proves the vehicle is safer than a typical car. Other cars have adaptive cruise with no camera monitoring- and even still normal cars with plain cruise control have people falling asleep all the time. I really don’t think we want a world where we can’t even change the radio without being dinged for not paying attention. One bad apple driving drunk or high shouldn’t have an affect on Tesla , or else it should affect every car on the road. >

So, Sleeping Beauty and possibly many others are alive thanks to self driving technology 
Therefore the technology is bad?
Seriously? >

Read the article. He purposely fell asleep because he had the autopilot. It gave this person the confidence to put everyone else’s lives at risk. Anyone saying this is good technology is both a moron and a danger to everyone around him. >

I read it - in detail
There is not one word about it being purposeful, unless you assume such via the presence of the weight to trick the car >

It straight up says he was using a weight to trick the security system. How is that not purposeful at all? >

Plenty of people use them without any intention to sleep >

There’s only one intention and it’s to circumvent the safety measures specifically so they can detach themselves from the road. When you detach yourself from the road it doesn’t matter what exactly you are doing, you are putting yourself and more importantly everyone else around you in danger. The “self driving” features aren’t good enough to perform without someone ready to grab the wheel. If many people are doing this then they are also terrible people that shouldn’t be near car. >

obviously, it is tesla fault instead of driver's. F*ck elon. >

When will autopilot be made illegal? It's not good enough at the moment. I get that he modified the car but the fact that you can do that means people will do it. >

You can out a brick on the throttle of a car made in 97. Both this and what the driver did are illegal. >

"When will the government save us from ourselves?! Govern us harder, daddy!" is all I heard from the guy you replied to. >

110? On the Autobahn? Do Teslas have a Granny setting just to annoy everybody else? >

But elon said this tech was just as safe as pipelines!! We don't have anything to worry about!! Oh, wait, my model needs another cupholder, can we fix that now? Hey, guys...
I'm sorry, I misspoke myself. 
People that sell or buy "fully self driving technology" should be held criminally liable before being tarred and feathered in a public court on joe rogan's podcast but hosted by Jon, Stephen, or Noah. >

The system just saved his life , if he was asleep in a normal car he would be in a ditch with broken bones >

He made a choice to take a nap, he did not spontaneously fall asleep.  Without the system enabling him he would have pulled off to take a nap like a normal, law abiding person.  It didn’t save anyone’s life. >

Finally a reason to buy a tesla tbh >

I saw a video of this exact incident.  He was sleeping on his way to work and the cop couldn't pull him over.  They couldn't do anything because they couldn't prove anything..  this seems to be a huge safety concern imo.  There's no way I'm trusting autopilot to be reliable enough that it can be used inattentively...
Edit here it is >

Keep in mind that there is a difference between Tesla autopilot and Tesla FSD. Tesla autopilot is the same autopilot used by other car manufacturers that has been around for YEARS and is not only a Tesla problem. What the article doesn't make clear is whether the driver was using the common autopilot or actually using FSD. Autopilot is basic lane keep and speed cruise control will following distance worked in, it does NOT self drive or monitor for police activity.
Anyway, idiot driver none-the-less. They deserve to loses their license. >

It was probably afraid they would start yelling stop resisting and shoot it. >

Was it a black Tesla? >

Anyone else think the thumbnail was a gif and was slowly moving? Threw me off >

A.I.SBO.  Blues(and two)screen of death.  Anyone else got a terrible pun or quip? >

"Cruise control didn't stop for police"
No shit? >

Officer:  Sir, did you not see my lights and hear my siren?!
Driver:  Oh, I thought I was dreaming that. >

I've been driving a Tesla model X since 2017, and they've made huge strides in the autopilot, still nowhere near as safe as it should be. I use autopilot every time I'm on the road, but I am always aware of my surroundings. Once a month the autopilot would be in a situation where I would be forced to take over or else an accident would happen but most of the time its fine. >

Based car >

Supposedly may be getting sued over false advertising.

Despite the misleading name, Autopilot is officially rated a Level 2 autonomous system, meaning drivers must still keep both hands on the steering wheel at all times.

How do you use turn signals, the radio, etc?
My car is 35% more self driving than a tesla because I frequently only have to use one hand.
Old news, $16000 to fix a damaged coolant nipple
Tesla fighting right to repair
Anyway, at the moment I'll not be buying a Tesla because of poor build quality, lack of repair facilities, support for repairs and replacement parts, and history of false advertising. Maybe they will improve in the future because they are still a new company.
Actual full self driving remains vaporware and we'd be stupid as a society to allow any company closed monopolistic control of such an invention.