Autopilot on undivided roads back to 10 km/r over limit!

[sandpiper]

Listen, I get that some folks want to drive faster and couldn't care less about the increased pollution/carbon emission from doing so (in and ICE) and to a lesser extent in an EV (which isn't 100% carbon free) never mind the added risks of collision, and that is fine. I'm happy to drive no more than the maximum posted limit and save some electricity while I'm at it. (I've changed all my home's light bulbs to LED to save a bit too, but that pales in comparison to how much electricity I save by driving a bit slower). As I say, I stay to the right unless I'm passing.

But I still feel that Tesla allowing their automation to ignore traffic laws is not a good idea.

I'm glad you decided not the be self righteous about it.

That's the challenge with speed limits, isn't it? Even more energy costs, and accidents can be avoided by reducing them further. What's the right number? 90? 80? 60? Take the bus? Take a bike? Anybody who drives at all is accepting that they could be the cause of an accident and will consume power. Does that, as you imply, make them a horrible person?

The world has, in general, set limits higher than what Ontario has. And, as evidenced by our actual traffic, our people feel the same way.

 

[f-stop]

The latest update now has AP working at up to 10 km/hr over the posted speed limit on undivided roads.

Strictly speaking the current firmware limits AP on undivided roads to the lesser of a) speed limit + 10kph(5mph) , or b) speed limit + your speed offset in the Driver Assistance settings

I guess i won't go to Alberta then! LOL!

...so, you could simply set your speed offset to +9kph before you drive to AB...

(Or +0 if you prefer...)

 

[mknox]

I'm glad you decided not the be self righteous about it.

Maybe a bit. Before I retired, I worked for a while in the energy conservation area of my company and was exposed to all kinds of people on their high horses about climate change, pollution and such, advocating measures such as light bulb replacements and turning the thermostat down. But a great many would freely admit to driving aggressively, over the speed limits and such. This just seemed to me if not hypocritical, at least ironic since just slowing down a little would have had a much greater impact on energy use than most of the other changes being advocated for.

That's the challenge with speed limits, isn't it? Even more energy costs, and accidents can be avoided by reducing them further. What's the right number? 90? 80? 60?

But I digressed greatly and apologize. The real point I was trying to make was that I don't think it is a good idea at all for Tesla's autopilot to be ignoring the rules of the road. Here's another example: many people I see treat Stop signs like Yield signs and barely slow down before cruising through. There is a T-junction with a Stop sign at the end of my street, and pretty much every car just slows enough to safely turn the corner and only stop if there is another car coming. Should autopilot exhibit the same behavior since this is how everyone drives? I would argue not, and there are lots of other examples like this as well.

 

[green1]

It's simple. If Tesla is going to be enforcing rules of the road, it better also take the liability for it.
If the Tesla is driving, and taking the liability, then it should do what it feels is appropriate. It also better actually know what the speed limits are that it's enforcing.

If *I* am driving, and taking the liability (as is the case with ALL current vehicles on the road) then I should have the ability to decide what is appropriate in a given circumstance.

There is no car in the world that enforces traffic laws, why should the Model S be the first, especially when it doesn't take any of the liability for doing so?

 

[e46jb]

I get the feeling the conversation is dealing with multiple topics.

1. The legality or ethics of allowing AP to break the law
2. The fact a 'typical' driver routinely speeds
3. The fact speed limits were created and have largely gone unchanged for 50+ years.

Difficult to summarize and come to a consensus when we all have different environments, laws, opinion, experiences, etc

 

[mknox]

I get the feeling the conversation is dealing with multiple topics.

1. The legality or ethics of allowing AP to break the law
2. The fact a 'typical' driver routinely speeds
3. The fact speed limits were created and have largely gone unchanged for 50+ years.

Difficult to summarize and come to a consensus when we all have different environments, laws, opinion, experiences, etc

Agree. We should probably limit to your point # 1 above because the other two always end up contentious.