Autopilot

[redtrummy]

Autopilot on cars - bit of a concern by F9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRdzIs4FJJg

[garynortheast]

That was very interesting.

[Seeker]

Seeing a Tesla used to be a rarity in this area but now I see at least one on each outing. Maybe "autopilot" will be a fantastic product one day but it's too risky currently.

[Luckypants]

Be clear, this is the Full Self Driving (FSD) version of Tesla Autopilot. This is a £6800 optional extra, so not many cars have this. All Teslas have 'Autopilot' but the standard one is basically Adaptive Cruise Control. My past two cars have had this (VAG version) and these recognise motorcycles (and cycles) without a problem. I've driven Jaguars with ACC and these see bikes no problem too. I suspect its the lack of radar that is causing Tesla the issue.

The big problem seems to be Tesla and their drive to provide FSD that they have spectacularly failed at for past decade. They are cutting corners.

[daktulos]

Very interesting - I had no idea Tesla weren't using radar as a backstop. My favourite bit is the fact that the autopilot switches off a second before a crash ... I hope this is true!

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

The big problem seems to be Tesla and their drive to provide FSD that they have spectacularly failed at for past decade. They are cutting corners.

no its the drivers fault. self drive is not a replacement for the awareness of a person.

if you cant see a hazard approaching then you should not be driving.

btw merc as been at this concept for a loooot longer than Tesla and they still cant get it full "auto". which scares me about the driverless buses that we now have.

[Luckypants]

Completely agree with you Bibs, what I meant was Tesla push this facility without it being as capable as they make out. Not using a radar or LIDAR is daft. I think that bull**** (BS in case you hadn't cottoned on) about Autopilot disengaging just before a collision is very telling, its all OK as long we can't be sued.

[Luckypants]

Apparently in the UK, TESLA would be responsible for any incidents caused while the car is in control of driving....

https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/21/hu...-self-driving/

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Bibio

no its the drivers fault. self drive is not a replacement for the awareness of a person.

if you cant see a hazard approaching then you should not be driving

I agree completely but the principal problem is that introduction of the terms "Full Self Driving" and "Autopilot" both reasonably conjour up an expectation that the human doesn't need to be doing the driving.

I think there is some blame to be directed towards the legislators/regulators/lawyers/marketeers that have inappropriately allowed the use of these terms in relation to this technology.

The introduction of automation will always continue to need a solution to the liability issues as well as the technical matters. Anyone who thinks/claims there won't be 'failure' or unexpected outcomes is lacking wisdom. And when those potential outcomes are as tragic as severe road traffic accidents then IMHO caution and a risk averse attitude is appropriate. Ambition is fine but on this occassion it seems to me that Tesla's moral compass is skewed.

(Edit: It seems others were adding similar thoughts as I was typing. Good to know.)

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

Apparently in the UK, TESLA would be responsible for any incidents caused while the car is in control of driving....

https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/21/hu...-self-driving/

Good. This is consistent with my understanding from other areas of work: When it comes to health and safety, we generally have a modus operandi in the UK of having to try to protect the public domain from the forseeable actions of all people including the quite ignorant (i.e unaware), based around a concept of what a "reasonable person" might know or expect. What might seem obvious for most can't be assumed for everyone.

It generally takes a 'test case' or two to clearly set legal precedent on civil liability. This is saddening because by default these come after tragic incidents have occurred. Until then what's 'correct' is the domain of advocacy, lobbying, sales/marketing (i.e. just proclamation of opinion, whether good bad or indifferent).

I guess in this case the debate is around "fit for intended purpose" and compensation, as generally included in much of UK legislation for sale of goods. Though some might consider there is a case for some sort of criminal negligence for the way this has been introduced and labelled (but that's a different set of rules with a much higher burden of proof)*

(* None of this is legal advice - my background is as an Engineer working within legislative frameworks. One picks up a bit along the way but I'm not a Lawyer, and definitely not expert in product liability.)