Whether if it is either autopilot or Fools Self Driving mode, if this driver did not have their hands on the wheel then he is absolutely in deep trouble.
Tesla themselves got into trouble after previous crashes and are finally telling their drivers to keep their hands on the wheel at all times, and toned down their false advertising.
Something is terribly broken in the software release process that constantly allows a worse user experience (including autonomous) as Tesla 'matures' its operations. I'm driving a Tesla, that recently added a 'warning' over a center-display showing the three rear-pointing cameras.
1. The cameras only show while operating in reverse;
2. The warning entirely obscures 30-50% of the view in one or more cameras;
3. The warning tells you that there is dirt or debris on the camera.
So, you are warned, that your vision, via the cameras could be better -- by deliberately worsening the view.
I wonder if they will implement dead zones for self-driving. I was using a Lime scooter in a new city and when I entered a university campus, the scooter slowed to a crawl.
I don’t understand why a person would need FSD in a suburb street.
As long as Tesla doesn't insure their cars (whenever in self-driving mode) completely for the price of their FSD, it's not FSD, just scammy marketing by a chronic charlatan.
It's just not a serious technology. Street-by-street speed limit data exists, and where it doesn't, there are laws across the US as to what speed limits are based on area. Tons of map data to tell you where is residential and commercial, a street and a highway, an on-ramp, and so on.
But FSD doesn't abide by speed limits, and Waymo does, and it is truly self-driving.
So, it's all bullshit. Since day one, it's never been a real attempt at autonomous, legal, safe driving.
1) I’ve put enough kms on FSD - it’s taken me across Australia a few times, probably 10,000kms in total - to know that it isn’t going to drive into a house.
2) Even if FSD is enabled, there’s loads of things you can do to create an accident like press the brakes or accelerator pedals, which doesn’t necessarily disengage FSD right away, so let’s just wait for the telemetry to get released.
3) Regardless of who was controlling it, why did this guy let his car jump the kerb and go through a house? Why was he going fast enough?
Without knowing the "full" details of this crash, it is outrageous that Tesla calls it "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" on their website. This is like naming a product "Healthy Dog Food (Rat poison)". If it requires supervision, it is not "full". Period.
I thought previous lawsuits would've forced Tesla to call it "Advanced Driver Assist" or something.
Why do news outlets so often use the phrase "high rate of speed"? Speed isn't a discrete event, it can't really have a rate, unless it is a rate of change, in which case they would be referring to acceleration.
There's absolutely no way this was on autopilot. A) autopilot would not drive this fast in a nieghborhood and B) Autopilot would not drive into a house like this...
Previously: A Florida jury found that flaws in Tesla's self-driving software were partly to blame for a crash that killed a 22-year-old woman in 2019 and severely injured her boyfriend.
The jury verdict requires Tesla to pay $243 million in punitive and compensatory damages to the parents of the woman and to her boyfriend.
22 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 43.5 ms ] threadTesla themselves got into trouble after previous crashes and are finally telling their drivers to keep their hands on the wheel at all times, and toned down their false advertising.
1. The cameras only show while operating in reverse;
2. The warning entirely obscures 30-50% of the view in one or more cameras;
3. The warning tells you that there is dirt or debris on the camera.
So, you are warned, that your vision, via the cameras could be better -- by deliberately worsening the view.
Genius.
I don’t understand why a person would need FSD in a suburb street.
Ultimately the driver is responsible.
Edit: For the folks who seem to think that this is marketed as unsupervised self driving, from Teslas own website it states
“Currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
https://www.tesla.com/fsd
But FSD doesn't abide by speed limits, and Waymo does, and it is truly self-driving.
So, it's all bullshit. Since day one, it's never been a real attempt at autonomous, legal, safe driving.
1) I’ve put enough kms on FSD - it’s taken me across Australia a few times, probably 10,000kms in total - to know that it isn’t going to drive into a house.
2) Even if FSD is enabled, there’s loads of things you can do to create an accident like press the brakes or accelerator pedals, which doesn’t necessarily disengage FSD right away, so let’s just wait for the telemetry to get released.
3) Regardless of who was controlling it, why did this guy let his car jump the kerb and go through a house? Why was he going fast enough?
Sad for all involved.
Edit: my experience is HW4 by the way.
I thought previous lawsuits would've forced Tesla to call it "Advanced Driver Assist" or something.
Securities fraud
Problem: need evidence of intent, e.g., Musk knew software would fail
Example
LaMontagne v. Tesla
Claims
https://dn721902.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.cand.40...
Order
https://dn721902.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.cand.40...
Appeal
https://dn721902.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.cand.40...
False advertising
In progress, currently Tesla is appealing class certification
Example
In Re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation
Claims
https://dn721905.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.cand.40...
Tesla arguments
https://ia800708.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.ca9.f97...
Either the driver or someone at Tesla (their pick, who cares).
This cannot go unpunished.
Machines can never be held accountable.
The jury verdict requires Tesla to pay $243 million in punitive and compensatory damages to the parents of the woman and to her boyfriend.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-upholds-243-million-v...