-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
6.2 TACC still following WAY too far behind
- Thread starter TesTes
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Horrible idea. You could be putting yourself in a situation where you and the car are unable to safely stop if the car you're following suddenly stopped. It would be pretty silly to allow a TACC following distance that is guaranteed to result in an accident if the car in front stopped suddenly, then have the car in front suddenly stop, and accident happen, and someone blaming Tesla/TACC.
Never going to happen. The car is always going to maintain a safe distance even on 1. If the car can't stop in that gap in front, it's not going to follow that closely, period.
Basically, what you folks who are complaining that it is too far back are actually saying is that you don't drive safely to begin with.
I personally leave TACC on 7. Safer, softer stops, etc. If someone jumps in front of me, so be it. Doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm a huge supporter of "KEEP RIGHT, PASS LEFT."
You haven't driven in So Cal traffic. (I lived near the intersection of the 10 and 405 for several years.) And I know you haven't, because if you had with those driving boundaries, you'd still be there. In fact, you'd be further from your destination than when you started. Part of the trick in LA (as you should anywhere), is to actively watch several cars ahead, so you have the time to react. If you leave a car length on a busy freeway, you will have cars pushing into it. Then you drop back further because of the new car in front of you ... and another car cuts in. And you have to drop back even further. Repeat until you decide not to leave a gap. Seriously.
I'd leave TACC on anyplace but LA. I'd have to turn it off to get anywhere.
billarnett
Member
So am I. I'm also a huge supporter of warp drive, Santa Claus and world peace. But we have to live in the real world.
Though I suppose some may think that California is pretty unreal
I got *near* LA on my west coast trip last month and agree the traffic is ridiculous. But it's just that, traffic. There are safe drivers in traffic, and there is everyone else.
Unfortunately there are not enough sensors on the car to "watch several cars ahead," so safe following distance is the only safe solution. Seems the only practice here would just be to just move over to the right and stop caring about people cutting in front so much. TACC works fine in this regard since it doesn't have feelings on the matter. It doesn't slow down when someone gets in front and is going at a fast enough speed (faster than you) to create the safe following distance gap for you. So, if you're in the right lane with the cruise set at speed limit + 10, and someone moves in front going faster the car doesn't seem to care about them since they're creating the needed safety buffer already by moving away from you.
The car should definitely be designed around the actual rules of the road (ie: safe following distance) rather than some localized unsafe driving "etiquette". At no point should any car-controlled system do something that could be unsafe. That would defeat the purpose. Regardless of what anyone argues, where it happens, how other *****s on the road drive, etc... failing to follow a basic safety rule like keeping a safe following distance is just ridiculous.
When 7.0 comes out how do you think autopilot will react in such a situation? It's not going to drive in an unsafe manner (leaving little to no following distance) that's for sure. If it does I won't be using it.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Not arguing. Just saying that's the reality there. I'd turn off TACC in those conditions. Driving in the right lane doesn't solve the issue. Every mile is off-ramps and on-ramps, and is where typically the worst congestion is found. Until you drive that every day, people just don't understand.
And yet, Montana (which I am assuming does not have the same compressed traffic as areas of California) has twice the fatality rate as California, according to census data:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...e-states-genders-with-the-most-accidents.html
Bonnie, I use Tacc the entire wa home from Manhattan Beach to Porter Ranch at 430pm lowest setting I use is 4. Getting cut off isn't the problem (for me anyway) that you'd think it is... Of course Im in the carpool lane so that helps.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Totally forgot about the carpool lane. Most people get in that and stay in that - plus, iirc, you have only limited areas you can cut in and out in the car pool lane on the 405. It's not a free for all, like the other lanes.
"Per mile" seems like a broken statistic. Way more factors than miles. LA has more people, moving slower. Montana has less people moving faster. In Montana I bet you can get further in the same amount of time 99.9% of the time than you can in LA traffic 99.9% of the time. Higher speed, higher fatality rate. I think a more interesting/useful stat would just be accidents in general.
billarnett
Member
Part of our disagreement here may simply be due to language. "Safe" isnt something fixed by the laws of physics. It's a judgement made by men. Men who have widely differing interpretations. There is no "right" or "correct" interpretation. There are some cases where large majorities will agree (eg: it's not safe to drive 100 mph in a school zone; it is safe to drive 70 mph on an empty freeway where the posted limit is 65). But following distance is not one of those cases.
The only way to be 100% "safe", ie to insure that your probability of having an accident is zero, would be to stay in your garage. As soon as you venture out onto the road you're accepting a non-zero level of risk. There's always a trade off between risk and getting where you're going more quickly. Each of us has some threshold of risk above which we use the word "unsafe".
The good news is that with the widespread use of Auto pilot systems this whole controversy may eventually die down. We can just relax and let the computer to most of the work. After a while it will be clear that leaving the computer to do it's job will not only be safer but actually make more efficient use of the road's capacity and get us to our destinations faster
The only way to be 100% "safe", ie to insure that your probability of having an accident is zero, would be to stay in your garage. As soon as you venture out onto the road you're accepting a non-zero level of risk. There's always a trade off between risk and getting where you're going more quickly. Each of us has some threshold of risk above which we use the word "unsafe".
The good news is that with the widespread use of Auto pilot systems this whole controversy may eventually die down. We can just relax and let the computer to most of the work. After a while it will be clear that leaving the computer to do it's job will not only be safer but actually make more efficient use of the road's capacity and get us to our destinations faster
+1
Montana vs CA. Pretty funny there. As stated, the average speed is close to an order of magnitude off. Very hard to die in bumper to bumper traffic except with a gun (and presumably that isn't counted).
It would seem to me that when you are driving Nascar style - ie crowded LA freeways when you can actually move - is not the time for TACC. That seems obvious to me but if I drove it regularly, I'd certainly try to get TACC to work.
There are such regional differences that we might as well be talking different languages.
Montana vs CA. Pretty funny there. As stated, the average speed is close to an order of magnitude off. Very hard to die in bumper to bumper traffic except with a gun (and presumably that isn't counted).
It would seem to me that when you are driving Nascar style - ie crowded LA freeways when you can actually move - is not the time for TACC. That seems obvious to me but if I drove it regularly, I'd certainly try to get TACC to work.
There are such regional differences that we might as well be talking different languages.
Hmmm, so one side wants TACC to drive aggressively in rush hour LA traffic. I can see Tesla avoiding this due to a myriad of legal issues. I drive in Atlanta traffic so I understand people cutting in front. Still, I realize that less than a 3 second gap means I am trading meaningful safety in hopes that the car in front doesn't slam on their brakes. Yeah, I do it sometimes but I am very nervous when I do. Anyone on 285W exiting to PIB north knows a gap is asking for 10 cars to cut in. Still, I canny imagine having TACC be responsible considering the legal issues for Tesla.
That 3 second rule is a lot better than the car length rule and has nothing to do with latitude
Only when you have someone in front lock their brakes do you realize how accurate it is. What one side is asking for is for Tesla to assume no one in front will slam on their brakes. I think that's unwise. If you want to take the risk then turn TACC off.
That 3 second rule is a lot better than the car length rule and has nothing to do with latitude
Only when you have someone in front lock their brakes do you realize how accurate it is. What one side is asking for is for Tesla to assume no one in front will slam on their brakes. I think that's unwise. If you want to take the risk then turn TACC off.
CHG-ON
Still in love after all these miles
Having lived near the 10/405 for years and suffering through the incredibly inconsiderate and unconscious drivers in LA, I completely agree. I now live in NoCA and it's funny, when driving down south the whole dynamic changes when you hit Santa Barbara and gets worse as you get closer to LA. People up here actually DO get out of the left lane when you approach. NEVER in LA.
And that's really the heart of it. If the conditions don't allow you to maintain a safe buffer and you feel safer driving close than being cut off by people overtaking, just turn TACC off. TACC's there to deal with speed variation, not to help you narrow gaps. I'm very glad I don't live somewhere with heavy traffic and the consequent mad rush mindset..
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Well, given the option of following more closely, I'd likely both have that on AND be watching traffic with my foot hovering over the brake. Then it's a nice assist, in addition to normal precautions. And that's why I'd like to have it tightened up ...
Perhaps Tesla can throw up a splash screen when you select to follow closely, reminding you to not rely on TACC under those conditions. And then you click acceptance so that you can still select it. (Like with the Roadster, when charging in Range mode - you are warned about impacting battery life and asked if you want to do it anyway.)
Well following 1 foot behind is safe then. That is until it isn't. The whole point of TACC is to take over and keep a distance back that the car thinks it can stop without hitting the car in front of you should it stop quickly. That's what I'd consider safe.
I just got back from a 400 mile road trip. I used the TACC thru various terrain, roads and traffic situations. It's much better behaved than the previous version. Although the TACC could still use some more smoothing out. As for following more closely...I think people are nuts that want to follow closer than the current software. My settings at 75 mph were 3-4... That's close enough...
There may be another variable at play here, the sonar sensors:
I previously felt just like the OP, that the car left too large of a gap, 5-7 car lengths when set to "1", in front of me at 75 mph, which allowed others to cut in.
While the gap narrowed at lower speeds, reflecting the shorter breaking distance at lower speeds, I could have never imagined to set it to "7".
However, I had my entire front covered with clear bra, including the parking sensors. Recently, I had the clear bra cut out around the sonar front sensors and TACC seems to now leave a much closer gap to the car in front.
So maybe the sonar sensors are fine tuning the distance to the car in front of us and clear bra may interfere with it. Does the OP have the sonar sensors covered as well?
billarnett
Member
As I was coming home from a little photo expedition this morning at 5am on a nearly empty freeway I also wanted a TACC setting greater than 7. When there's lots of room why follow any closer than necessary to keep radar contact?
But that doesn't mean I might like a setting less and 1 now and again. If such a thing were available it would seem that those of you that don't like it wouldn't be harmed. Why not make enough range of settings to keep everyone happy?
Similar threads
