Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I see nothing in there about driving better than a human, but I can see how AP2 won't be capable of L5 given that definition. In some ways it sounds like L4 except that definition sounds like a driver must be in the car, whereas L5 mentions nothing about a driver. If AP2 can do what Tesla claims that would make it what, a Level 4.5? :D

More like 2.5 - 3.

Regardless, TACC unavailable got me last night. It has snowed 12 hours prior, so the roads were wet and salty, but now at about 40F. AP went into emergency "take control now" in the middle of the highway and would not re-engage saying radar was obstruction. Now I can't even use cruise control to keep me from dipping into the 90's and ending up in jail. I pulled over to clear the "obstruction" which I figured was a stray piece of snow from the snow bank I had park on. NOPE! just dirty. Thanks AP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
For me the most interesting thing about this thread (I lost all Driver Assistance a day after getting my 2015 S60) is what it implies for FSD. Seems to me legislation aside, we're a long way from a car which could possibly be left to drive itself anyway.
Bingo. Fully autonomous cars are decades away. The optimists are finally starting to notice what the actual *problems* are.

To the underlying point which developed in this thread - when is automation no longer safe in adverse weather conditions, I wonder how many drivers can honestly say their skills are sufficient for the conditions they drive in, let alone the automated systems they might want to rely on.
Most drivers are not good enough to handle bad road conditions. The "autonomous" stuff isn't any good either. It might be OK after 20 or 30 years of research. Maybe.

I foresee many FSD cars sitting on the side of the road refusing to go anywhere unless the driver steps up.
Yep, this is the only possibility.

This is why I'm not keen or even mildly interested in paying for self driving features on a Tesla or any other car. I simply do not have enough good weather and road conditions consistently throughout the year where I live, to make it worthwhile. Roads are dirty, dirt covers optics trying to see the road... dirt obscures road lines the car is trying to track. Or just worn or missing road paint ... is cause for concern. Snow obscures road lines or sometimes mimics road lines. Even raining on a summer day on a well marked road... is a no for basic cruise control, let alone self driving.

Ditto where I live. Even under really good weather, we have wacky roads: one-lane bridges and all kinds of stuff.

Any decent and self respecting self driving car would disable piloting for much of the year, where I live. If it doesn't do that I think it would be flawed. And most of the roads I drive on have no lines, or are two lane two way traffic.. places I wouldn't dare use self driving as we see it evolving for tomorrow.
It will be decades before "self-driving" is any good on roads like ours. The so-called engineers at Tesla haven't even started looking at the problems!

Having a "fair weather good road only" self driving car invites bad human judgement at the edges of acceptable operating conditions.
This is why I don't think partial self-driving should be allowed, really. Driver assist features are different and good. But they need to force the driver to pay attention.

To reduce the error margins of bad human judgement would require a heck of a lot more nanny controls and more "smarts" built into the car. What!? Your black ice detector was dirty... or the anti-hydroplaning monitor was acting up... too bad. The tradeoff being the more the car is capable of arbitrating what is "good conditions" the more you know it is going to do so conservatively, and the "usefulness" of self driving will be diminished because it defeats itself more often.

IMHO we need self driving capable roads before I would want or trust a self driving car. Smart infrastructure first. The road would have embedded sensors that communicate with the network of traffic riding on it. .. The road would control spacing and speed (no accelerator pedal for you!) ... and lane changes... and passing.
You're describing train tracks.

We do, incidentally, have automated trains. They work great.

The cost of making roads as "smart" as railroad tracks and signalling would be far, far higher than the cost of just putting in railroad tracks and signalling. So.
 
Driving from Las Vegas to Jackson, WY I encountered a typical mix of wintry road conditions. It wasn't long before the nosecone iced over to the point where the forward sensors no longer functioned. So, of course AP and TACC were disabled and that's when I first realized that without TACC there is no legacy cruise control ( or should I call this TUCC -- Traffic Unaware Cruise Control? ).

Once I pulled over to charge, it was easy to knock the ice off but that required me to manually control my speed until that time -- the horror! :) It would have been very nice to have TUCC until that time. I realize this could be a liability issue for Tesla. Even with warnings saying that legacy CC was functioning instead of TACC it would be easy for drivers to mentally lapse into TACC mode and we'd be reading about more accidents being "caused" by AP.

Still, I for one would like to have TUCC activated when the sensors are disabled.



View attachment 204379

Has anyone looked at adding heating elements near / around the radar antenna? (something like: Clear View Defroster Order Guide) It seems like the radar is used for a number of things, including some of the automatic safety features and it would be good to make sure it was always clear (above and beyond the TACC issues).
 
Has anyone looked at adding heating elements near / around the radar antenna? (something like: Clear View Defroster Order Guide) It seems like the radar is used for a number of things, including some of the automatic safety features and it would be good to make sure it was always clear (above and beyond the TACC issues).

Won't help, no snow/ice on mine when it stopped working. Not to mention could create interference from the RF field generated by the heating element. Requires engineering.
 
I think that wide spread fully autonomous use is probably going to come sooner than one decade. I think the people who think that autonomous cars will REPLACE non-autonomous cars within a decade are way off the mark, and I would be surprised to see it faster than 5 years or so, but I think that once it the legislation is ironed out, it will happen very quickly. We can see Uber starting self driving services TODAY, and Google has started talking about how to move their stuff from experimental to some level of production.

While I don't disagree that there are problems when sensors are covered (or fail) I think that for the most part, the systems should be able to sense that and either pass control back to the drivers (i.e. L4), not operate autonomously, or pull over safely. (i.e. L5). I do think that the current Tesla sensor suite is not complete enough to get to L5 without having some serious worries about having a bunch of cars pulled over on the side of the road complaining about lack of sensors, but that doesn't mean that they could not add more or different ones as they learn what works and what is needed.

I think it is a dis-service to say Tesla's engineers are "so-called" and that they haven't even started to look at the problem, They clearly have at LEAST started to look at it, and at least some of them are very clearly, very good engineers. Yes, they may not have SOLVED all of the problems yet, and they may not even solve them for a while, but if we look at what the car can do today, and what the demo videos show coming "soon", they definitively have been working on the various problems. (I don't always agree with their decisions, or Tesla's approach to things, but I would certainly not say their engineers are bad.

Yes, there are places where self driving will be harder than others, due to weather or road conditions, and yes, I suspect that humans will have to be involved for a while in deciding which roads are OK and which roads are not. In fact, I would not be surprised to see the full self driving features limited to certain geographic areas or roads (say, only major highways and mall parking lots that follow specific guidelines to support them... Perhaps also in urban areas, And perhaps they will be banned during any kind of inclement weather, But even if we limit their use for now in areas such as those, there are a lot of people who will get use out of them, and a lot of good they could do within those limits.

That also provides more systems out there learning how things work, where they don't work, and figuring things out.

Another thing that I think we (society) tends to forget in these kind of things... when there is a problem with something on a "system" (say, an autonomous car), such as the inability to detect black ice, or sensors getting dirty... engineers can come up with a fix for that and implement it, sometimes on existing cars (if it is simply software) or at least on new cars (if it requires new hardware), and once that fix is in place, that problem gets significantly less of a problem. (I wont say it goes away, because there will always be another corner case that is missed), and often, the fixes solve a number of other issues, So, the systems, in general, keep getting better, and they get better faster and faster! That doesn't work the same way with people, We clearly know that driving while impaired is dangerous, but look at the number of crashes that happen every year from it. It takes a lot more to change now people operate.

Because of this, the best thing we can do is get self driving cars on the road as soon as possible, in a controlled manner that limits the potential dangers, but allows us to take advantage of how engineering works. We HAVE to see the problems before we can fix them.
 
I agree with most of this...Tesla and other ML engineers do know the challenges and our current status.

The problem is some ahole is driving a hype powered twitter train that threatens to ruin the entire scene.

The fundamental problem with declaring you have accomplished something that isn't finished is that you no longer get the time and resources needed to actually finish.

Hype sucks
 
IMHO we need self driving capable roads before I would want or trust a self driving car. Smart infrastructure first.
I agree. I think we will see highways with dedicated 'autonomous' lanes may be, and city routes carved out the same IF we are to get there as soon as people would like / think. Replicating the human driving experience in an AI will take much longer if we chose not to provide a controlled environment for it.

Many people seem to be against that idea, which is reasonable in cities where there are significant capacity constraints already - but for highways, for reducing the dangers in torturous cross-country drives - it would be easy to provide this

We'll see. My first 2 weeks with the AP1 system I paid about a 10K premium for on my CPO have been a real eye-opener to a field I totally believed was on a five year path to realization. Those who are speculating without having tried current systems (Tesla or otherwise for TACC) should really give it a go and see if you are as bullish on realization dates.

Like I said, I'd rather be wrong - and have a 100% safe, automated driving experience sooner - just don't think it's happening.
 
I agree. I think we will see highways with dedicated 'autonomous' lanes may be, and city routes carved out the same IF we are to get there as soon as people would like / think. Replicating the human driving experience in an AI will take much longer if we chose not to provide a controlled environment for it.

I think that in some areas having hardware built into the road will enable autonomous driving in places where it probably can't happen using video, but in some places where there already are good road markings and places that do not have very bad weather regularly, I think we will be able to see it sooner, though, as I said earlier, possibly restricted to certain places and circumstances. I also totally agree with your comment about replicating the human driving experience taking longer without a dedicated environment... sadly, I think that we as a society are very unlikely to provide a controlled environment (outside of test tracks and very limited places) for this until the autonomous driving was pretty much proven already. Look at how hard it is to get money to repair existing roads or repaint existing highways... the thought that we would block them off and install special devices just for autonomous cars to use seems about as unlikely as you could get right now. it's the classic chicken/egg issue. And the same one that plagued electric cars in the beginning. (who would buy one if there were no public chargers around? we got over that, but it took years!)

However, I don't think it is actually that far away. (Note, I am mostly talking about something like a Level 4 autonomous system here, one that can handle MOST situations on its own, but will ask for help if needed). I think that from a technology POV we are already there in a lot of cases. Yup, there are still a lot of hurdles to go, and a lot of situations that cars still can't handle, but if we look at the experiments that Google and Uber have been doing, as well as what Tesla has shown, I am pretty convinced that you could release a self-driving car today, without a controlled environment (though probably in a restricted environment, i.e. not during snowstorms and only on decent roads) and it would work. (note, this is also talking about autonomous cars in general, not specifically the Tesla).

Many people seem to be against that idea, which is reasonable in cities where there are significant capacity constraints already - but for highways, for reducing the dangers in torturous cross-country drives - it would be easy to provide this

I don't think it would be easy to do given the numbers involved, but its certainly doable, and its a MUCH cheaper way of increasing the capacity of a road than anything being discussed to date. IF anything, I suspect that cities would be easier to do something in. The harder issue would be... what to do? there is no current "Standard" (that I know of) for "marking" lanes, stop signs, exits, etc... for autonomous vehicles, or for broadcasting traffic light status, road work, etc... I can think of lots of different ways of doing these, but whatever way was picked would HAVE to be something that would be done in cooperation with government and industry so that all self-driving vehicles would be able to understand them, and (again, to my admittedly limited knowledge) there is no current project in place to even look at this as an option outside of some limited university studies

Having said that, I do think that we may (probably will) see dedicated highways or lanes for autonomous cars in 5-10 years in certain areas, once there are enough cars out there to justify them. I just don't think they will be ones with special hardware right away.

And I do think we will see some active roadways that have special "things" to help autonomous cars navigate faster and safer... but I very much doubt we will see these until at least 5-10 years after we see autonomous cars working and in common use, so, I would say that is 10-15 years out at least.

We'll see. My first 2 weeks with the AP1 system I paid about a 10K premium for on my CPO have been a real eye-opener to a field I totally believed was on a five-year path to realization. Those who are speculating without having tried current systems (Tesla or otherwise for TACC) should really give it a go and see if you are as bullish on realization dates.

Like I said, I'd rather be wrong - and have a 100% safe, automated driving experience sooner - just don't think it's happening.

I've driven the AP1 systems a little, and I will admit they are not ready for prime time... all the time, everywhere... but, they are version 1, we are now (almost) at version 2, let's see what that does, and at this rate, I expect we will be at version 4 of the hardware in 5 years... (and I can't even guess at what that will look like) and remember, it is not an all or nothing proposition... and we don't have to be at level 5 to see some major benefits and common use, and I don't expect (or need) 100% accuracy in 100% of situations for it to be used. I figure that Humans are probably at something like 95% accuracy in 95% of situations (and 5% in the remaining 5% of situations), if it can match that, I will be comfortable with it (as long as I have a decent understanding of where those limitations actually are!).

I did buy the full self-driving option for my Tesla, but honestly, I didn't believe Elon when he said we will have full self-driving by the end of 2017, I do think (or at least hope) that it will be at a point where it can significantly reduce my driving load in the next few years, even if I can't just get in, tell it where to go, and take a nap as I could with a full level 5 vehicle.

But, like you said, we will see! I DO THINK it's gonna happen :) but to be fair, I don't KNOW that it will.
 
It would have been very nice to have TUCC until that time. I realize this could be a liability issue for Tesla. Even with warnings saying that legacy CC was functioning instead of TACC it would be easy for drivers to mentally lapse into TACC mode and we'd be reading about more accidents being "caused" by AP.

Still, I for one would like to have TUCC activated when the sensors are disabled.
Couldn't agree more. To quote myself from #23, "I really wish the car would revert to old-school cruise control when TACC is offline. I mean, I get it that switching modes mid-drive would be a potentially fatal violation of the principle of least surprise, but it ought to be possible to do it after the vehicle's been put into park. At least make it an option that can be enabled."

(In my case the problem was that the radar was apparently on the fritz, for a couple days. So all the schoolmarmish "you shouldn't be using cruise in those conditions anyway" comments would be even wider of the mark than they were to begin with.)