Autonomous Car Progress

[Daniel in SD]

Door-to-door L2 doesn't allow you to sleep, you still have to monitor the car just like AP. Even L3 does not allow you to sleep, because you have to be ready to take over within seconds of the car requesting. Door-to-door L2 is pretty much the current end game for FSD Beta, at least according to Tesla's CA DMV filings. There are no plans yet for anything beyond that at the moment.

This is the most absurd talking point on this forum. It’s bizarre that supposed Tesla fans claim the goal of FSD isn’t robotaxis.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1450868052040507392

 

[diplomat33]

This is wrong. The L3 car will stay in lane, then try to wake you, then safely stop and put hazard lights on and auto call emergency services if you fail to respond to a take over request.

Nope, you are incorrect, L3 by definition does not require the car to be able to stop safely on its own in all conditions, which is why you can't sleep in it. When it requires your attention, you must be ready to take over within seconds, which sleeping is not compatible with. I argued against a Jalopnik editor on this exact point before.
I'll just quote my comment here:

The SAE Autonomy Levels Are Confusing But I Think I Have A Better Way

According to the SAE levels, L3 can perform the fallback and achieve a minimum risk condition in some cases but cannot guarantee it in all cases:

Some Level 3 features may be designed to automatically perform the fallback and achieve a minimal risk condition in some circumstances, such as when an obstacle-free, adjacent shoulder is present, but not in others, such as when no such road shoulder is available. The assignment of Level 3 therefore does not restrict the ADS from automatically achieving the minimal risk condition, but it cannot guarantee automated achievement of minimal risk condition in all cases within its ODD. (Note 2 on page 11 of J3016)

So no, you cannot sleep in L3 but L3 can in some cases perform the fallback.

 

[daktari]

Nope, you are incorrect, L3 by definition does not require the car to be able to stop safely on its own in all conditions, which is why you can't sleep in it. When it requires your attention, you must be ready to take over within seconds, which sleeping is not compatible with. I argued against a Jalopnik editor on this exact point before.
I'll just quote my comment here:

The SAE Autonomy Levels Are Confusing But I Think I Have A Better Way

No you are wrong. With your interpretation, level 2 and level 3 would be same thing. It is not.

Sleeping in a level 2 car, or watching a movie, or texting can kill the driver. In a level 3 car that should not happen (when the L3 system is active).

Huge difference.

But of course it makes sense to spread FUD on level 3 if favourite brand does not have that capability.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is the most absurd talking point on this forum. It’s bizarre that supposed Tesla fans claim the goal of FSD isn’t robotaxis.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1450868052040507392

We talked about this before, so no need to revive the topic:
Autonomous Car Progress

In comments to others, you actually agreed with my point that "wide release" will likely be "autosteer in City streets" (AKA door-to-door L2) so not sure why you are pretending that "robotaxis" will be what FSD Beta will be when "wide release" happens.
Poll: FSD Beta V9.1, how close is it to release (i.e. out of beta)?

"Robotaxis" are a lot farther off than wide release of FSD Beta.

I don't want to drive this off into another tangent, but to the original point, my point is it is conceivable for a door-to-door L2 feature like "Autosteer in City Streets" to work in cities that it was never tested in before.

 

[EVNow]

No you are wrong. With your interpretation, level 2 and level 3 would be same thing. It is not.

Sleeping in a level 2 car, or watching a movie, or texting can kill the driver. In a level 3 car that should not happen (when the L3 system is active).

Huge difference.

But of course it makes sense to spread FUD on level 3 if favourite brand does not have that capability.

Nope.

You can’t sleep if you should be able to take over at a moment’s notice. You may not even wake up from sleep when the car beeps.

The correct way to look at it is that you can watch a movie or play a game. If you need to take over, the car should stop the game or movie and make a lot of noise until you take over.

We don’t know how it will work in practice. It needs to be widely debated and tested before we can declare it is safe. Something none of the legacy OEMs are ready to do.

 

[stopcrazypp]

No you are wrong. With your interpretation, level 2 and level 3 would be same thing. It is not.

Sleeping in a level 2 car, or watching a movie, or texting can kill the driver. In a level 3 car that should not happen (when the L3 system is active).

Huge difference.

But of course it makes sense to spread FUD on level 3 if favourite brand does not have that capability.

Nope, you simply don't understand the core difference between L2 and L3. In L2, you must be monitoring the vehicle at all times. In L3, you don't, but you are still required to respond within seconds when the car requests you to. I suggest you look at the actual SAE definitions and the explanation I posted.

Here's relatively simple chart:
L0-L2 "You must constantly supervise these support features: you must steer, brake, or accelerate as needed to maintain safety"
L3 "When the feature requests, you must drive"
SAE Levels of Driving Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International Audience

Only L4 says: "These automated driving features will not require you to take over driving". This is the standard required to make sleeping safe, given as others mentioned, the sounds the car may make may not be enough to wake you up quickly enough for you to be ready to take over in seconds.

 

[diplomat33]

Nope.

You can’t sleep if you should be able to take over at a moment’s notice. You may not even wake up from sleep when the car beeps.

According to the SAE Levels, L3 must be able to perform DDT for "at least several seconds" after asking the driver to take over:

At Level 3, an ADS is capable of continuing to perform the DDT for at least several seconds after providing the fallback-ready user with a request to intervene. (Note 3, page 11)

So, L3 does not require the driver to take over at a moment's notice. The driver does get "at least several seconds" to grab the wheel. I am not suggesting that you can sleep in L3, you cannot, but L3 does not require immediate take over.

 

[EVNow]

So, L3 does not require the driver to take over at a moment's notice. The driver does get "at least several seconds" to grab the wheel.

Is 3 seconds "several " and when we say at a moment's notice - would that cover 3 seconds ?

ps : Stupid levels strike again !

 

[diplomat33]

Is 3 seconds "several " and when we say at a moment's notice - would that cover 3 seconds ?

ps : Stupid levels strike again !

Stop calling the levels stupid. Argh.

 

[Knightshade]

This is the most absurd talking point on this forum. It’s bizarre that supposed Tesla fans claim the goal of FSD isn’t robotaxis.

Tesla themselves explicitly state, to government authorities, the goal of FSDBeta is not robotaxis. It's door to door L2. Period.

They intend in the future to develop more advanced software beyond FSDBeta of course, to eventually offer robotaxis under the FSD software banner.


FSDBeta was internally called City Streets by Tesla, and if they'd stuck with that it wouldn't cause the above confusion.

 

[EVNow]

Stop calling the levels stupid. Argh.

LOL. Should I call them idiotic, instead ?

You are not even its author .... why are you offended ? Esp. given this is Tesla forum and Tesla doesn't care about levels.

 

[EVNow]

This is the most absurd talking point on this forum. It’s bizarre that supposed Tesla fans claim the goal of FSD isn’t robotaxis.

Hmmm .... how is it absurd when the design is obviously not for robotaxis - but for supervised city navigation ?

I know you don't have FSD Beta - but nobody with FSD Beta would ever confuse FSD Beta for robotaxi

 

[diplomat33]

LOL. Should I call them idiotic, instead ?

You are not even its author .... why are you offended ? Esp. given this is Tesla forum and Tesla doesn't care about levels.

I am not offended, just a little frustrated that people still don't understand the SAE levels. And I think Tesla should care about the levels. The levels are a very important way to classify autonomous driving. Any company claiming to work on autonomous driving, should care about classifying autonomous driving. It would be like a lawyer saying "I want to do law but I don't care about the the legal code and I think the law is dumb".

 

[ThomasD]

With level 3 how many seconds do I have to take over? How many seconds is it until an accident or incident becomes my fault and not the manufactures fault?

 

[diplomat33]

With level 3 how many seconds do I have to take over? How many seconds is it until an accident or incident becomes my fault and not the manufactures fault?

The SAE does not give a specific number, it just says "at least several seconds". As long as the L3 is on, an accident is not your fault. If you don't take over after L3 has notified you several times and turns off, then it is your fault.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Nope.

You can’t sleep if you should be able to take over at a moment’s notice. You may not even wake up from sleep when the car beeps.

The correct way to look at it is that you can watch a movie or play a game. If you need to take over, the car should stop the game or movie and make a lot of noise until you take over.

We don’t know how it will work in practice. It needs to be widely debated and tested before we can declare it is safe. Something none of the legacy OEMs are ready to do.

This is why I don't think we'll ever see an L3 system capable of highway speeds.

Humans absolutely will fall asleep, or they'll get so caught up in whatever they're doing that they don't realize the car is beeping at them.

I think we'll see enough crashes of L3 systems at traffic assist speeds that the systems don't progress further than that.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

This is the most absurd talking point on this forum. It’s bizarre that supposed Tesla fans claim the goal of FSD isn’t robotaxis.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1450868052040507392

If Tesla fans aren't claiming the goal of FSD Beta version XX.XX is to achieve robotaxi's with HW3 or free upgrade to HW4 than they're not true believers, and they should throw away their Elon shrine. To a true believer it will magically poof from an L2 to an L5 system when Elon gives FSD Beta his blessing, and removes the beta tag.

A true believer will never utter the words L3. This is in the list of prohibitive words including Lidar, and HD maps.

Elon is a true believer so there will be no Tesla L3.

I'm not a true believer, and I see FSD being an iterative thing where they'll get closer to autonomous driving over the course of many HW upgrades, and SW rewrites. If they can somehow offer a door to door L2 system with FSD Beta without regulatory action to shut it down then they'll do that to whatever degree the regulatory limitations (like no California stops) and technology allow for.

 

[cwerdna]

Toyota and Aurora test robotaxis in Texas

Toyota and Aurora are testing robotaxis in Dallas, Texas.

www.engadget.com

 

[Bladerskb]

We call this moving goalposts


I mean, Tesla only began city streets testing "at scale" less than a year ago- so I guess we can say they're not behind schedule after all right?

No, of course not.

When they started is when they started. If it took em 12 years to go from "small testing" to "testing at scale" in a city we can't just ignore it took them 12 years.

They took much less time to do that in Chandler- but you'd expect them to as it's a vastly simpler place to do it.

SF is much harder, and it took them much longer- exactly as you'd expect.

Trying to spin that into LOOK HOW FAST THEY GOT SF WORKING is... not accurate.

why start at 2009? you might aswell start from

We call this moving goalposts


I mean, Tesla only began city streets testing "at scale" less than a year ago- so I guess we can say they're not behind schedule after all right?

No, of course not.

When they started is when they started. If it took em 12 years to go from "small testing" to "testing at scale" in a city we can't just ignore it took them 12 years.

They took much less time to do that in Chandler- but you'd expect them to as it's a vastly simpler place to do it.

SF is much harder, and it took them much longer- exactly as you'd expect.

Trying to spin that into LOOK HOW FAST THEY GOT SF WORKING is... not accurate.

The same guy claiming that development started in October 2016 when the first AP2 was delivered to a customer and not when prototypes were seeing testing AP2 much earlier. Is the same guy claiming that we should counting testing from 2009 early prototypes and test where Google were still trying to determine if AV was even possible right after the events of the urban challenge.

We call that delusional. But on par with the patented Tesla faithful illogic. Where you use one criteria for others and completely different criteria for Tesla.

 

[Bladerskb]

Until recently, many here thought that Mobileye was ahead of Tesla.

Lol.

What happened to L5 (safety disengagement every 150k) in 6 months.... ~17 months ago?
Better yet what happened to L4 somewhere in 6 months.... ~6 months ago?

I'm pretty confident FSD will be reliable and safe enough for geofenced robotaxis (easy routes, no construction, etc.) within the next 6 months.

Its funny how Tesla fans condemn Cruise, Waymo and others for working in a City yet Tesla still doesn't work in a single route let alone at city scale.