-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
AutoPilot Buddy now officially banned in USA!
- Thread starter MelaniainLA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- autopilot buddy
I do not find the current nag invasive at all. In a typical trip I see it only about once per hundred miles. It used to be more invasive before I switched steering modes, and even then it was no big deal. What are people doing to get so many alerts with their hands on the wheel?
SSonnentag
埃隆•馬斯克
Every time we drive we drive alongside distracted drivers. Try counting how many people you see driving while using their phone. Around town I see more people on their phone than not.
d21mike
Active Member
I will find it later when back home. But posted here somewhere. Yes it is hands free advertised. And they want you to keeps hands off unless you want to disable it. My point is what if there is an emergency your hands are not ready on the wheel like you are recommending.
d21mike
Active Member
Here is my reply to the person that posted the CR Link. I was surprised Cadillac first designed a system that really promoted (strongly recommend) keeping your hands off the wheel unless requested to take over. I assume they feel their system is pretty good to support this. But I think you and others feel you should have two hands on the wheel because there is that chance where you can respond faster then AP (or better?). Or maybe you and others are saying that it is only because Tesla AP is just not good enough yet and when it is everyone should go hands free like the Cadillac System as long as you pay attention?
AutoPilot Buddy now officially banned in USA!
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
FWIW Supercruise only works on a vastly smaller amount of roads than Tesla AP does... basically only controlled access highways Caddy has fully LIDAR mapped in advance and they have a very high confidence level in... hence why you can drive hands off (though the driver-facing camera is still watching your head to insure you're actually watching the road).
d21mike
Active Member
I understand that. What I surprising is that Cadillac designed in such a way that you should NOT put your hands on the wheel while is activated even if you felt it was safer. Meaning that if you do it might confuse the system and make matters less safe. There are those on this forum that feel you are much safer to have two hands on the wheel no matter how good Tesla AP is. Maybe those that feel that way will change their mind but so far they are very certain that you are safer with two hands on the wheel. I think Elon even said that system will never prevent ALL accidents but it will be much safer then a human driver. But maybe not safer then those that feel they should always keep two hands on the wheel for that one case where AP does not catch it?
ℬête Noire
Active Member
IMO there's some conflation going on here. Tesla is using "hands on the wheel creating a small but measurable amount of torque" as a proxy for "NOT doing stupid crap like napping or playing Angry Summoner Birds Soda Crush War on your phone". Whether you need your hands there isn't really the issue, it's the verification you aren't doing other stupid things.
So it's possible that having the hands on the wheel isn't a requirement for safety** but that isn't the reason for the nag. It's that some unknown but non-zero number of drivers have demonstrated they will abuse a situation where there is no enforcement of maintaining some semblance of readiness.
"But I don't/won't abuse it", true or not, unfortunately doesn't cut it as the danger created by the abuse rises above self-injury because of the nature of driving. *shrug*
** A different discussion.
For me it’s the latter. When Tesla gets to level 4+ automation hands won’t matter. Until then, I still promote a healthy level of distrust with the system.
This is what I thought of when driving home. Should have said, that if Tesla used the camera for driver awareness then little hand holding is needed.
But since it’s the only system we currently have, it should be used. If you are absolutely paying attention, you’ll be fine realistically with little hand involvement, but this thread is about a device designed to promote circumventing the reminder to pay attention on the road.
If you don’t wear your seatbelt, because you feel that is the government being in your business... that only impacts you in an incident. If you choose to work around the nagging system to play games on the daily commute, then you are putting everyone around you at a higher risk of incident. (“You” here is not necessarily any person specifically in this thread)
ℬête Noire
Active Member
I'd bet [a modest number of] dollars to donuts that GM has some patent leverage there. I had heard some noise about other manufacturers working on camera observation verification for Level 2 systems but I can't name anyone that's got this yet? My Mercedes and Volvo have shipping systems that uses a bunch more inputs than Tesla, they watch steering action, pedal usage, and such, but that's not even really for Level 2 because it's watching how you're actively driving and just trying to determine fatigue as much as anything.
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
IMO, far too much is being made of the nags and hands-on-the-wheel debate, especially in this thread.
(E)AP is a tool, nothing more. It can aid you with certain tasks, but like any tool, you can get yourself into a pickle if you use the wrong tool for the job.
I make an analogy to a table saw. If you have some plywood sheets that you need to saw in half, a table saw will help you a LOT. It can make short work of that job, and can make the cut a whole lot straighter than you can do with a hand saw. But there's some care you have to put into the process. As useful and quick as the table saw is, if you use it incorrectly you will lose some fingers. And that will be no one's fault but your own.
This is the way I treat TACC and (E)AP. It's a tool. It can assist me with convenience in certain situations, and is not appropriate nor very functional in others. I use it all the time in the former, and don't in the latter, which is the same thought process in which I'd use a table saw.
Table saws have some mandated safety features too. They have double electrical insulation, blade guards, and wood pushers. When you use one, you put on gloves, eye protection, and hearing protection. This brings the tool to a safety level that we, as a society, consider a low and acceptable risk. But even with all that, irresponsibility can easily circumvent all of those things and result in lost fingers and hands.
(E)AP is the same way. Tesla (or Cadillac, or Volvo, or Mercedes, etc.) can put heaps of safety features, interlocks, and restrictions on the tool if they want. In the end, you still have a fallible human moving at 70+ MPH inside 4000 pounds of steel. Without due diligence, potentially deadly things can and will happen no matter what level of safety features are present.
We can debate all day long about:
1. What we want (E)AP to be vs. what it is
2. What action (E)AP should take in a given situation vs. what it actually does
3. What design methods are "better" than others
4. What the philosophy of human-machine interface should be
5. Wanting/expecting autonomy level 3+ from an inherently level 2 system
Those debates, to me, are largely academic and superficial. You're the driver, you're in control, no matter how many tools and aids you use. Either you can drive safely, or you can't. (E)AP's presence, state, and function has little to with it.
(E)AP is a tool, nothing more. It can aid you with certain tasks, but like any tool, you can get yourself into a pickle if you use the wrong tool for the job.
I make an analogy to a table saw. If you have some plywood sheets that you need to saw in half, a table saw will help you a LOT. It can make short work of that job, and can make the cut a whole lot straighter than you can do with a hand saw. But there's some care you have to put into the process. As useful and quick as the table saw is, if you use it incorrectly you will lose some fingers. And that will be no one's fault but your own.
This is the way I treat TACC and (E)AP. It's a tool. It can assist me with convenience in certain situations, and is not appropriate nor very functional in others. I use it all the time in the former, and don't in the latter, which is the same thought process in which I'd use a table saw.
Table saws have some mandated safety features too. They have double electrical insulation, blade guards, and wood pushers. When you use one, you put on gloves, eye protection, and hearing protection. This brings the tool to a safety level that we, as a society, consider a low and acceptable risk. But even with all that, irresponsibility can easily circumvent all of those things and result in lost fingers and hands.
(E)AP is the same way. Tesla (or Cadillac, or Volvo, or Mercedes, etc.) can put heaps of safety features, interlocks, and restrictions on the tool if they want. In the end, you still have a fallible human moving at 70+ MPH inside 4000 pounds of steel. Without due diligence, potentially deadly things can and will happen no matter what level of safety features are present.
We can debate all day long about:
1. What we want (E)AP to be vs. what it is
2. What action (E)AP should take in a given situation vs. what it actually does
3. What design methods are "better" than others
4. What the philosophy of human-machine interface should be
5. Wanting/expecting autonomy level 3+ from an inherently level 2 system
Those debates, to me, are largely academic and superficial. You're the driver, you're in control, no matter how many tools and aids you use. Either you can drive safely, or you can't. (E)AP's presence, state, and function has little to with it.
Sorry for the side track, but don't wear gloves when using a table saw.
From Grizzly Saw owner's manual
Woodworking Safety Tip | No Gloves on the Table Saw
Two Dozen Table Saw Safety Tips
eye.surgeon
Active Member
Seems like a bargain compared to $3,000 for full self-driving capability which doesn't even exist. At least I can actually use this.
NerdUno
Member
Why are you blaming the NHTSA and other people that want a safer driving environment rather than the people that used AP incorrectly and necessitated the nag requirements in the first place? If everyone used it correctly we'd all be happy and safer.
Similar threads
- Article
