> Tesla has pushed out numerous updates to FSD over the years, so it can be tough to pin down what exactly is wrong with Tesla’s approach. Often, users flag a problem — the vehicle fails to recognize certain signage or a specific driving maneuver — and almost just as quickly, Tesla has an update available. That seems like a good thing — Tesla is responsive to problems and moves quickly to fix them — until you remember that real people’s lives are at stake. And the pedestrians and cyclists outside the vehicle never consented to participating in this experiment to teach cars to drive themselves.
I have the same visceral reaction to my never having consented to be part of Tesla's experiment, but I remind myself that the NHTSA has provided them that consent on my behalf, and that the NTSB hasn't recommended the revocation of that consent. Assuming these agencies are doing their jobs, and AFAIK there's no reason to believe they aren't, then I can only conclude these systems are statistically as safe as a human driver or maybe even safer.
As a consumer though, I'm not buying FSD until Tesla assumes all legal responsibility for the vehicle's actions and I don't have to babysit the thing. Until then, Tesla can call it whatever they want - but it's not Full Self Driving.
Honestly, as much as I loathe Musk, I'm genuinely disappointed this didn't pan out. Lidarless autonomous driving would've been an amazing leap in driving tech, and cameras are so cheap that companies would've been crazy not to jump on board. It would've revolutionized cars even more than EVs and lidar-based self-driving already has.
I'm still disappointed we don't have proper L4 hands-free "you can fall asleep" on controlled-access expressways, where it seems the goal should be attainable. Imho it's a problem with the fact that the tech industry is based in California - they miss how the case could be solved in a restricted way that would be a humongous win. If you showed somebody legally sleeping or reading or watching a movie behind the wheel in the bumper-to-bumper traffic of NYC or Toronto or Boston expressways you'd have the must-buy for commuters.
Or handle blowing snow and extreme wind buffeting. I'd be okay too if the vehicle was just honest and said it's not safe for it to drive - which would indicate it's not safe for me to drive either since it should be more capable than I am.
> Tesla has pushed out numerous updates to FSD over the years, so it can be tough to pin down what exactly is wrong with Tesla’s approach. Often, users flag a problem — the vehicle fails to recognize certain signage or a specific driving maneuver — and almost just as quickly, Tesla has an update available. That seems like a good thing — Tesla is responsive to problems and moves quickly to fix them — until you remember that real people’s lives are at stake. And the pedestrians and cyclists outside the vehicle never consented to participating in this experiment to teach cars to drive themselves.
I have the same visceral reaction to my never having consented to be part of Tesla's experiment, but I remind myself that the NHTSA has provided them that consent on my behalf, and that the NTSB hasn't recommended the revocation of that consent. Assuming these agencies are doing their jobs, and AFAIK there's no reason to believe they aren't, then I can only conclude these systems are statistically as safe as a human driver or maybe even safer.
As a consumer though, I'm not buying FSD until Tesla assumes all legal responsibility for the vehicle's actions and I don't have to babysit the thing. Until then, Tesla can call it whatever they want - but it's not Full Self Driving.
Honestly, as much as I loathe Musk, I'm genuinely disappointed this didn't pan out. Lidarless autonomous driving would've been an amazing leap in driving tech, and cameras are so cheap that companies would've been crazy not to jump on board. It would've revolutionized cars even more than EVs and lidar-based self-driving already has.
I'm still disappointed we don't have proper L4 hands-free "you can fall asleep" on controlled-access expressways, where it seems the goal should be attainable. Imho it's a problem with the fact that the tech industry is based in California - they miss how the case could be solved in a restricted way that would be a humongous win. If you showed somebody legally sleeping or reading or watching a movie behind the wheel in the bumper-to-bumper traffic of NYC or Toronto or Boston expressways you'd have the must-buy for commuters.
Or handle blowing snow and extreme wind buffeting. I'd be okay too if the vehicle was just honest and said it's not safe for it to drive - which would indicate it's not safe for me to drive either since it should be more capable than I am.