How would you see any if everyone in the beta program is under NDA and can't talk about it or show it to anyone?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
How would you see any if everyone in the beta program is under NDA and can't talk about it or show it to anyone?
roblab
Active Member
Maybe it is completely unwarranted, but so is it unwarranted that YOU be supplied with any official communication. Autopilot and lane keeping are in progress. As far as we know. There is no reason for anyone outside Tesla to know any more.
This is not condescending.
Tough crowd.
I was debating a serious response: people complain that Elon tweets typo much, then they complain that he doesn't tweet enough, etc. Etc.
Or a sarcastic one: I, for one, will not be happy if Elon tweets about it. I need to hear it straight from Barack (we're on first name basis right?)
In the end you get both.
I was debating a serious response: people complain that Elon tweets typo much, then they complain that he doesn't tweet enough, etc. Etc.
Or a sarcastic one: I, for one, will not be happy if Elon tweets about it. I need to hear it straight from Barack (we're on first name basis right?)
In the end you get both.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
So, here's a quote from the article:
"IEEE also alleges that testers will still have to oversee all operations and register their alertness by hitting the turn-signal indicator for lane changes. "
And here's an excerpt from the thread Footbag started after running into the Tesla employee at a supercharger:
So, here's the issue: if one follows the link in the article, it links to what had been previously announced by Tesla as the requisite lane changing protocol for when lane-keeping was active: the driver would have to signal the lane-change, and then the car would change lanes. We've known about this since the D announcement, I believe.
But the article talks about how drivers will have to "register their alertness." This is something completely different, and sounds exactly like what Footbag was told about. (It's completely different because the driver is actually indicating to the Model S that it is safe to change lanes, as opposed to indicating to the Model S that he or she is alert.)
My question is do we think the writer of the article was just confused, and doesn't understand the nuanced differences (and how important they are to those of us wondering about whether or not there will be nagging), or do we think there is nagging in the beta, and that it involves the turn signal somehow? (I had actually predicted, based on some other stuff Footbag wrote, that if there was going to be nagging, it would be acknowledged by a press of the TACC on/off button at the end of the TACC stalk.)
During the last conference call, it sounded like Musk was suggesting that whether or not there would be nagging might be based on how the beta test went, which made me think the beta might roll out without the nagging, at least initially.
Footbag--If you're reading this--any chance that enough time has passed now, and that with the beta apparently out to the EAP group, you'd feel comfortable telling us what the nag you saw was?
"IEEE also alleges that testers will still have to oversee all operations and register their alertness by hitting the turn-signal indicator for lane changes. "
And here's an excerpt from the thread Footbag started after running into the Tesla employee at a supercharger:
So, here's the issue: if one follows the link in the article, it links to what had been previously announced by Tesla as the requisite lane changing protocol for when lane-keeping was active: the driver would have to signal the lane-change, and then the car would change lanes. We've known about this since the D announcement, I believe.
But the article talks about how drivers will have to "register their alertness." This is something completely different, and sounds exactly like what Footbag was told about. (It's completely different because the driver is actually indicating to the Model S that it is safe to change lanes, as opposed to indicating to the Model S that he or she is alert.)
My question is do we think the writer of the article was just confused, and doesn't understand the nuanced differences (and how important they are to those of us wondering about whether or not there will be nagging), or do we think there is nagging in the beta, and that it involves the turn signal somehow? (I had actually predicted, based on some other stuff Footbag wrote, that if there was going to be nagging, it would be acknowledged by a press of the TACC on/off button at the end of the TACC stalk.)
During the last conference call, it sounded like Musk was suggesting that whether or not there would be nagging might be based on how the beta test went, which made me think the beta might roll out without the nagging, at least initially.
Footbag--If you're reading this--any chance that enough time has passed now, and that with the beta apparently out to the EAP group, you'd feel comfortable telling us what the nag you saw was?
Last edited:
Soolim
Member
I speculate that Spectrum writer was confused, or the person explaining to Spectrum did not explain very well that changing lane is still under the driver's control. I agree that if nagging is to be implemented, it will not be by the turn signal (how confusing that could be?). Nagging (if so required) could probably be implemented on the steering wheel scrolling button would be my guess.
The nagging I was told about had nothing to do with the turn indicator. Rather, it was beeping, caused by having hands off the steering wheel. I actually am foggy at this point how long was mentioned, but I think it was either 30 or 60 seconds.
Prior to the beeping getting added, the screen would warn/remind you to put hands back on the wheel, but that could be ignored at length. The beeping is much harder to ignore.
Prior to the beeping getting added, the screen would warn/remind you to put hands back on the wheel, but that could be ignored at length. The beeping is much harder to ignore.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Thanks very much for sharing that. That is definitely interesting information.
Let's hope Tesla decides not to actually implement this!
Again, thanks for the info!
Sogorman
Member
MarcG
Active Member
Interesting, thanks for sharing. If this is what ends up being implemented, it would go against what Elon described when dissing the competition for requiring you to keep hands on the steering wheel. He even said he thought that was dumb because the last thing Autopilot should do is disengage if the driver is out of commission... sounds like another win for the lawyers, sadly.
Sounds like it doesn't disengage, but rather just annoys the crap out of you if you don't have your hand on the wheel. Also sounds like the same "hack" that works on other vehicles with similar annoyances might work (adding weight to a side of the wheel to add torque), which I'll happily do to avoid being annoyed.
Are you not worried your insurance will refuse to cover you if you do get in an accident and find out that you've cheated on the safety measures?
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I seriously doubt any insurer will try to deny a claim based on someone not being attentive enough while using Autopilot. If they ever get that idea I'd love to see them use it against people who were texting while driving first. That seems likely to be a whole lot bigger target for them to save money and yet I'm not aware of that actually happening.
There very well may be insurance companies that initially refuse to cover Autopilot cars (or drop them at renewal if they already have some). But I suspect this will be like a lot of technologies. The insurers are going to find it's either neutral or improves safety. As I've said many times that's not to say that there will be no accidents, there most certainly will. But in the aggregate I think there will be fewer accidents because in order to have an accident you have to have both the driver and the car having an issue at the same moment.
Krugerrand
Meow
I think schonelucht was talking about something a bit different then merely a driver not being attentive. He/she was referring to wk057 disengaging a manufacturer's safety feature in the car, and the result of having that safety feature being disengaged leading to an accident. Not a perfect analogy, but something along the lines of a driver disengaging an airbag, getting into an accident and being more severely injured because the airbag couldn't deploy. Should an insurance company have to cover those extra costs? If a driver disengages the friendly reminder/warning system to keep his hands on the wheel, then gets into an accident because their hands weren't on the wheel and they weren't paying attention to the road, should an insurance company cover the resultant costs? Is an insurance company required to pay the costs for a deliberate act of vehicle safety sabatoge that resulted in an accident or increased damage/injury? There's a reason car manufacturers have safety features on cars....it's the law.
Krugerrand has it right. For example, there is a mandatory technical screening of vehicles 4 years and older where I live. If you don't get this check-up and you get in an accident, it is grounds for insurers to refuse covering accidents. Maybe it's different where wk57 lives, hence my question, but I would certainly not drive a car with disabled safety features.
I think the point was that we are expecting hands free driving such as this Infinity (Infiniti Q50 Active Lane Control - Selfdriving Car - YouTube) or this Mercedes C Class (Mercedes-Benz C Class 2015 – Distronic Plus with Steering Assist (in traffic/tolls) - YouTube) rather than needing to resort to this cludge (Mercedes S Class Active Lane Assist Hack - YouTube)
MarcG
Active Member
How is this different than a driver of a "standard" vehicle (with no driver assistance features at all) that gets into an accident because of lack of attention? The insurance company will cover the damages beyond the policy's collision deductible, and of course the driver will be deemed to be at fault so insurance rates will therefore increase. I don't see the difference, personally.
Similar threads
