392
Self-Driving Tesla Nearly Hits Oncoming Train, Raises New Concern On Car's Safety
(www.ibtimes.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
392 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
58061 readers
31 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If he had time to notice it not slowing down he had time to brake and take it out of full self driving. I understand as someone who is sceptical about the fsd mode that I am more proactive at taking over than those who trust it a little bit more. I just feel if a company tells you to supervise it you should supervise it.
I still find fsd to be very finicky and vastly oversold
If something is sold as fully self driving, I would like to think it should be capable of fully self driving and not a feature that will drive me face first into a train.
I too come from a time where company's had to sell functional products or go bankrupt, but alas those days are long gone.
To be fair, it could have fully driven itself into the train: "fully self driving" <> "fully safe driving" /s
Regardless of the naming, because everyone gets so stuck on fucking names and seems to ignore everything else because that makes for a quick comment with a ton of votes and feel good bullshit.
It is sold as a work in progress piece of software that is constantly being updated and still needs to be supervised. It has a ton of warnings about it's capabilities, and lack thereof when activating it. There is no question when actually setting up FSD in the vehicle that it is something still in testing and not to be treated as a full replacement for paying attention. It constantly watches you and will warn you if you aren't paying active attention for too long. If you ignore those warnings enough it will deactivate itself, forcing you to drive, and with enough deactivation will remove the capability entirely.
Image of the activation screen.
Image of the free trial page for those that have not purchased it, thereby avoiding notes on the standard sales pages
They've even updated the setting in the vehicle to be more specific, showing it as "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)"...
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-2CB60804-9CEA-4F4B-8B04-09B991368DC5.html
All of these reported situations are from people actively ignoring numerous safety and attention warnings, yet no one seems to ever put any blame on the driver in comments or articles. It's always about blaming everything on Tesla when they're actively telling every driver that it needs to be supervised because it will make mistakes.
You're right that it's just a name, which means it's within Tesla's power to not call it "full self driving". Like maybe keep the word "full" for when it's better than "full self driving brackets not really".
The reason it's called that is so when you're buying the car, you can read "full self driving", the salesman can call it "full self driving", and then you can get excited and think you're getting full self driving and pay stupid amounts of money for an iPhone on wheels.
It's also so Musk can get up on stage and lie for years about how you'll be able to go coast to coast while you sleep by the end of the year or whatever it is. Having a bunch of warnings in the software setup is not enough for someone gargling Musk's jizz to cough it up and see it for the bullshit that it is.
You can give us all this extra info but you can't change the core reality that the name is a lie.
Who exactly are you describing here? Like someone who's been living under a rock for the past 5+ years and thinks cars just drive themselves now, but who also has $50k-$100k to drop on a car and also doesn't do any research beforehand? I think you're blowing this way out of proportion.
All these systems are flawed to some extent as nobody has cracked the code to L5 automation. There is some danger to it but there are many dangers to driving and this eliminates some of them. People have died in Teslas but many more have died in every other production vehicle that has ever existed. If this guy did the samr thing in a Toyota Camry, do you think we'd even be talking about it right now? These systems can only get better with a lot of real-world usage.
I totally get where the other person is coming from. These arguments are so tired and meaningless at this point. If you want Musk to go away, then stop bringing him up at every turn because it just makes people sound like bizzaro-world Musk fans as they hate the guy but can't stop talking about him and following his every move. Some of us want to discuss and debate the actual technology and Musk had nothing to do with developing it.
Musk was involved in marketing and lying about it, though, and his extremely prolific public image is what gave it so much credibility. He's lost a lot of that credibility now though, largely because people have spent a lot of time criticizing him. If you want him to disappear from the public eye that's great, so do I, but he's one of the most powerful men in the world, so that's not going to happen.
especially if you remove LIDAR.
So tired of the same arguments. They don't mean anything in the real world. Complain all you want about what the shit is called, it makes no real world difference.
Legally, the driver is responsible for the fucking vehicle and these articles and comments like yours just give the impression you think they shouldn't be responsible because of what it's called. You're giving shitty drivers a pass because they're actively being stupid and you don't like what Tesla names the software. That is the stupidest take in the world.
Go ahead in a court of law and claim you are not responsible for an accident that happens while FSD is activated and let's see whether the name matters for your liability.
I notice you danced around the question of whether it was a lie to focus on bullshit legal stuff, which isn't the arbiter of truth and reality. As I once heard a judge say, "You don't come here for justice, you come here for a judgment."
Anyway since you think it matters, the lawsuit you're talking about is happening and a judge has ruled that the case has merit to continue: https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-must-face-vehicle-owners-lawsuit-over-self-driving-claims-2024-05-15/
Merit to continue just means it's not clearly a bullshit lawsuit that should be thrown out to avoid wasting court time. Your linked lawsuit also is not about whether someone is legally responsible for a vehicle driving itself, it is again about the marketing.
I don't give a shit whether their marketing is a lie. Marketing is not the issue at hand, as much as you all want it to be for whatever reason instead of actually blaming the shitty drivers. It has no bearing on whether someone is responsible for the vehicle they are in the driver seat of hitting something or someone.
Why do you not want to put any blame on these drivers? Drivers that ignore the warning when they turned on the function in the first place and that warns them every time they turn it on to still pay attention. Why are you so insistent that the blame should be on Tesla because of what they call it?
Makes me start to think you're that type of driver and trying to justify your belief that you shouldn't be responsible for the actions of a 2 ton murder machine traveling at high speed that you are in control of.
I mean clearly. "Full self-driving" is marketing, and it is a lie. That's the point being made here. You don't have to care about it, but that doesn't mean it's not a lie.
I'm not not blaming the drivers. They were foolish enough to buy a Tesla and trust it with their lives for a start. But I am also blaming the marketing. Two things can be true.
You do know that marketing is, by its very definition, in practice all lies, right?
Wanna rent a VPN with military-grade encryption?
So you admit that this is in fact a lie?
"Hey, every psychopathic corporate entity that functionally runs our society lies to us all the time," is not a great sales pitch for why this psychopathic corporation should get a pass for its specific lies.
This is the depth capitalism apologists will stoop to with absolutely no self awareness.
I don't have to admit to anything because a) i'm not on trial, b) don't work or care for Tesla and c) don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on me :)
Marketing is and always has been mostly lies or half-truths. Yes, legislation has mitigated that to some extent but marketing is still marketing. You'd have to be cognitively impaired to take all that advertising to the letter (come to think of it, maybe that's why coffee in some countries comes with a warning saying it's hot... or microwave instructions must specify they're not suitable for pets).
You'd be kinda excused for believing in all the hype when AI/Tesla were just hitting the scene but nowadays? Get a grip.
Bitch all you want about how Tesla misleads or mismarkets their products (they do, anyone with two brain cells knows that) but if you's gonna use that as an excuse to trust a car to drive 100% independently and flawlessly because they said so... it's totally on you. Or your corpse.
You don't have to admit to anything, but you just did.
See? That's what I would call an "admission".
I... don't? I already said that if you'd been paying attention. It also does not release Tesla and Musk from culpability for lying to people about their product, many of whom went on to become corpses as a result of their negligent and malicious lies, many of them well before Tesla and Musk lost their credibility. I would also say that if your business model relies on selling dangerous bullshit to gormless rubes, then if those gormless rubes get killed by your dangerous bullshit, then you are culpable for that dangerous bullshit by virtue of targetting the gormless rubes.
Scammers target the mentally infirm by deliberately making their communications extremely unprofessional and laden with grammatical errors, that doesn't mean we blame those people for being scammed.
Also if you have to invent an imaginary version of the other person - someone who drives a Tesla and believes it is actually fully self driving in this case - in order to make your point, then it's probably not a very good point.
The second sentence is a fallacy.
And it does matter that the company is calling it full self driving while it doesn't fully self drive. That it would have that capability is something Musk has promised for many years. It's also a reason that Tesla stock is worth so much.
That's would be a very specific case. Tesla has been reminded multiple times that they need to take into account how people use their vehicles. The company is also under investigation for possible fraud because they are selling something that doesn't do what people would respect it to do.
You're focusing on one thing, but there's multiple ways that the company could be liable. There's been multiple articles explaining that the company is either under investigation or that the company has been warned to change things or else.
Well put. It's a funny thing, words have meaning and if you advertise your products with those words, some portion of the population (gasp!) might believe you!
How does it not fully self drive? What's your definition of full self driving then?
Mercedes Drive Pilot is Level 3 and even it will prompt you to take over when necessary, does it not fully self drive then either? What about Waymo/Cruze? They have remote operators controlling the vehicles when they get stuck. Not fully self driving either? Is the standard that it needs to be absolutely flawless and never fail or what is it?
Hey everyone, Elon's come to lemmy!
Even this "article" is about nothing happening. The driver was paying attention and took over when the vehicle was about to do something it should. Just as they should.
Also, even if FSD was 10x safer than a human driver and we replaced every single car on the roads with Teslas there would still be 8 people dying every single day in the US alone. Linking articles about these accidents does not prove it being unsafe. It only feeds the confirmation bias of the person posting it and the people upvoting it. People want it to be unsafe so that they can shit on Elon. The standards they apply to Tesla are ridiculous compared to that of other companies. The extremely limited Mercedes Drive Pilot is praised as revolutionary tech while FSD already checks most boxes for Level 4 self-driving.
Those should be your expectations when you are on the shop floor and that should allow you to reject the purchase if it's s deal breaker for you. Not when you're crossing railway tracks.
Weird how this notion of "personal responsibility" applies to every person except for those people who choose to intentionally misrepresenting the product by branding it in ways that are misleading. The people running this company aren't responsible for their role in misleading the public, just because the fine print happens to indicate that the product isn't actually what it's marketed as?
Now you'll probably say something to the effect of "I never said that! You're putting words in my mouth!" except what other motivation can you have to jump to the defense of the liar and blame people for being misled, except that you want to put all the responsibility on individuals for being misled and not on the company that is systematically and intentionally misleading them? Maybe you just manage to derive a smug sense of superiority thinking of yourself as someone who is invulnerable to this kind of tactic so blaming the victims lets you feel good about yourself.
You literally cannot buy FSD without being told that it needs driver supervision. It also tells you that every single time you enable it and it's constantly nagging to you when you take your hands off the wheel aswell as if you're looking at your phone etc. and given enough warnings the system locks you out of it.
Has Musk been dishonest/misleading about it's capabilities in the past? Yes. Is there a single Tesla owner with FSD who doesn't know the truth? No.
Just some insight from my pov. Fsd is marketed as FSD (Supervised). I don't agree with the jamming but it is what it is. I know it does janky stuff, it still forces you to pay attention. Do I believe this could happen, yes but do I doubt the driver always until proven otherwise.
I have had my model y yell at me to take control when I was already out of any auto/fsd mode. I have many downs and many ups. I agree that the car should actively steer you into the train. I was curious if anyone had a link to the dash footage or even to an article with it.
it is, now, it was not marketed with any kind of parenthetical qualifier until recently.
Actually, it said Full Self Driving (BETA) until it was updated to (Supervised) recently.
If anything, the beta qualifier is actually better than just saying supervised since that term means not complete and still being developed.
never heard musk refer to it as anything but full self drive, no qualifiers.
companies concerned with safety wouldn't market the shit until it's safe (see mercedes apparent lead).
Mercedes Drive Pilot is hilariously limited system. It for example needs a car in front of it that it can follow or else it wont work. It also only works on limited number of hand-picked highways in California and Nevada.
There's a video on YouTube comparing FSD to Mercedes' equivalent driver assistant software (not the level 3 one) and it's not even a competition. The Mercedes system is completely unusable.
Elon here. Thanks for fighting the good fight. We will deposit 100 X bucks in your account.
I hear X bucks can be used in place of the three seashells. Does anyone know if that's true?
Lol 😂
I just take serious issue with this label. It's not fully self driving, it requires the user's attention. the accidents and years of promises broken are just cherries on the shit sundae.
And that's the way he survived. But wrecked that plastic box.