Or maybe Tesla should just start charging, I recommend $0.40/mph over AP operational limit. There could be a 5 mph grace, though.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Or maybe Tesla should just start charging, I recommend $0.40/mph over AP operational limit. There could be a 5 mph grace, though.
I said manual corrections too. The speed exceeding in this case came from OP manually correcting AP.
That should not IMO ever be grounds for an AP lockout, as that threat encourages not correcting AP as the situation may require and delaying crucial action.
Disengaging AP would have been perfectly enough. Nobody has offered any reason why disengaging AP would not be sufficient and the thread has now moved on attacking OP's general AP position instead...
I am still curious if anyone can present any good reason why exceeding AP operational speed under manual control or correction should result in lockout, not just disengagement of AP. I'm all ears.
And if your argument is one should not speed and AP should punish for that, then AP should do the lockout at speed limit exact. 90 mph is not the speed limit on most roads of the world...
On a road with one lane in each direction, passing is safest at high speed, as the less time spent exposed to oncoming vehicles the better. Even where not encoded in law, this seems to be understood in most places.
Here in Massachusetts, the speed limit on the Mass Pike is 65. Once out of metro Boston the "cultural" speed limit is about 75. I've had troopers tell me privately they won't cite drivers going under 80 unless they're driving erratically.
On a two-lane road with no sidewalk and no oncoming vehicles I will cross the double yellow to give pedestrians some space, and I see many other drivers doing the same. Am I breaking the law? Yes, but it's another cultural norm.
It's not Tesla's right to stand in judgement of its drivers. The spirit of the law may be different from the letter. Once full autonomy is achieved cars will have to learn those nuances for themselves - one of the reasons true full-time FSD is, in my opinion, much further away than were being told.
Here in Massachusetts, the speed limit on the Mass Pike is 65. Once out of metro Boston the "cultural" speed limit is about 75. I've had troopers tell me privately they won't cite drivers going under 80 unless they're driving erratically.
On a two-lane road with no sidewalk and no oncoming vehicles I will cross the double yellow to give pedestrians some space, and I see many other drivers doing the same. Am I breaking the law? Yes, but it's another cultural norm.
It's not Tesla's right to stand in judgement of its drivers. The spirit of the law may be different from the letter. Once full autonomy is achieved cars will have to learn those nuances for themselves - one of the reasons true full-time FSD is, in my opinion, much further away than were being told.
Remind me never to get in the car with you, I'd wager you're one of those drivers I'm trying to get around in a jiffy because you're about to be sideswiped by a semi in merging traffic lanes as you're tapping your brakes.
Are you suggesting AP2 is not a scam? I'm complaining that this "punishment" by AP2 does nothing to promote safety, and is yet another example of a poorly designed autopilot, so there!
This punishment should simply be removed, I really don't see the benefit to it, which is why I'm asking in this thread in case I'm missing some valid reason for it. No one yet has posted a valid reason why this punishment exists.
My general feelings on AP2 are irrelevant to this thread, but for the record yes, AP2 is a total disaster and fraud, and I highly recommend anyone considering Tesla to simply buy used and wait for a "real" car company to come out with an acceptable EV. Please do not buy a new Model S/X and DO NOT, under any circumstance, pay for FSD.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
Last edited:
I totally agree with you and McRat, it's a horrible idea to pull over on the side of the freeway. Although this is not a common scenario (obviously) I'm sure you all remember what happened to these unfortunate souls who were pulled over to pair their Bluetooth headset to their cell phone on the I-15 last year. HINT: It involved a Lancair IV.
Plane slams into car parked on shoulder of freeway; car passenger killed
I thought I had seen that minimum about 15 years ago from the TUV in Germany but can't find it. No there was no time for any of that.
Here's some interesting "tips" from the Esurance website, so take it with a grain of salt:
safely bypass slow drivers blocking the fast lane
Because we don't want anyone aggressively tailgating or wildly passing these slow-moving drivers, here are some pointers that could (gently) urge a slowpoke to sashay out of your way.
- Have patience: Losing your cool won't help. Stay your course for a minute and see if a slow driver will spot you and move over.
- Flash your lights: Sometimes slow drivers on a long drive simply get comfortable in one lane. A few flickers of your headlights might jar them to life and get them clearing a path in no time.
- Tap the horn: If slow drivers don't heed your high beams, a calm (non-obnoxious) beep might better get their attention. (If you're anti-honking, you're not alone: some states have laws about unnecessary honking and allow for it only when there's imminent danger.)
It USED to work exactly that way. Exceed 90 mph and AP would disengage. You could reengage once your speed was less than 90 mph. I'll bet the lockout is one of those attorney-driven things (like "don't iron the clothes while wearing them.").
Disregarding the "scam" aspects of your comments, AP1 behaves exactly the same as AP2 in this regard. Go over 90 with AP active and it will disengage automatically. You cannot reengage until after you've stopped the vehicle and put it in park.
Sounds possible.
Not reasonable or good in any way, but somewhat understandable at least, if so.
This thread would have died long ago if the consensus would have simply been "yeah, this sucks, but lawyers...".
davidc18
Active Member
I don't know if it's like this in the US, but in Iceland it's very common to drive in the middle of the road in the countryside (between lanes) rather than on the appropriate side, particularly in winter and/or on bad roads, because it's a lot safer than the edges. If AP decided to constrain a vehicle to staying in their "lane", they'd be putting occupants' lives in danger.
I was taught in driver's education in our public schools, to drive towards the middle of a 2 lane road if there is no oncoming traffic. It gives you more reaction time if something or someone tries to violate your right of way, and it gives you more visual range, both for you as a driver, and others who may be trying to pull onto the road from the side. "Traffic signs and road lines are to assist you to be a safer driver, but safety is your responsibility, not a painted line", is pretty much what he said.
This is how I taught my kids as well. Go for the safest place on the road if it doesn't violate someone's right-of-way. Speed is sort of like that too. Like when traffic travels in packs on the freeway. Speed up, get inbetween packs, then slow back down again. While it makes you an easier ticket target, having no other cars around you is safer.
Absolutely. I try my hardest to not get caught up in a "herd" of cars and to be in between segments, even if it means speeding up to pass and then slowing to my own "section" of highway. I also avoid semi trucks like the plague (4x higher fatality rate vs. other cars).
I just read this thread.
First it was described as an emergency acceleration to over 90 MPH.
Then it was revealed it was an acceleration to pass a car going 85. There was the question of how much of a speed increment necessary to pass a car, 15% was suggested. This implies it was on a 2 lane road, so the increment is necessary to minimize time spent in the opposing traffic lane. If on a multilane divided highway, there's little need for the 15% speed increment over the vehicle being passed.
Then there was the post about exceeding the speed limit is OK to pass a slow moving vehicle. I wouldn't consider 85 MPH to be slow moving so that bit seems nonhelpful to me.
Why would someone need to pass a vehicle doing 85 on a 2 lane road? If you are passing, isn't that an elective procedure rather than an emergent one. Short of someone shooting at you or perhaps eluding capture after a bank heist, I'm not sure I see the passing of a car doing 85 on a two lane road as an emergency.
If one contemplates the pass, there should be time to flick off the Autopilot. If one doesn't contemplate the pass, there are a Pandora's Box of other concerns
The car isn't inflicting punishment. You exceeded the parameters set for it. It might be proactively assumed by the programmers that if there had been one out-of-parameters episode on this trip, there might well be other upcoming episodes, so it probably isn't the ideal trip for use of a their beta release automatic car control program. The car didn't interfere with the maneuver, it just exercised an option not to be a autopilot participant for the remainder of the Trip. The software programmers didn't label you as a bad driver and they are allowing you to again use the autopilot on your next trip. Even when Autopilot was disabled, the car still works, you just have to actually drive it after an out of parameters event. To me, that just doesn't seem like that much of an imposition.
If I were one of the programmers responsible for providing this software and doing everything I could to keep its users safe, I think I might do the same thing.
This wasn't personal. You were not singled out. The car has no sentient mind so cannot decide to punish. It is just software. You exceeded the parameters so a variable somewhere was set so the Autopilot would remain nonfunctional until that variable was reset.
That programmer team didn't ride with you. They have no idea how the car will be driven nor the expertise of the drivers. They have no idea whether you have a skillset of a Formula One driver or are a 15 year old, car borrowing joyrider. The only thing they know is that the operator exceeded 90 and the operator did it with their software in use. They know there is no public road in the US that allows a speed of 90 or greater so the car is at the very least being operated in an illegal manner. They felt the need to proactively establish general parameters and if one violates these parameters, they simply want their software to opt out and stay opted out until that trip is over.
There is no punishment, no drama, just a conservative programming decision.
I just don't see a problem.
Best,
David
First it was described as an emergency acceleration to over 90 MPH.
Then it was revealed it was an acceleration to pass a car going 85. There was the question of how much of a speed increment necessary to pass a car, 15% was suggested. This implies it was on a 2 lane road, so the increment is necessary to minimize time spent in the opposing traffic lane. If on a multilane divided highway, there's little need for the 15% speed increment over the vehicle being passed.
Then there was the post about exceeding the speed limit is OK to pass a slow moving vehicle. I wouldn't consider 85 MPH to be slow moving so that bit seems nonhelpful to me.
Why would someone need to pass a vehicle doing 85 on a 2 lane road? If you are passing, isn't that an elective procedure rather than an emergent one. Short of someone shooting at you or perhaps eluding capture after a bank heist, I'm not sure I see the passing of a car doing 85 on a two lane road as an emergency.
If one contemplates the pass, there should be time to flick off the Autopilot. If one doesn't contemplate the pass, there are a Pandora's Box of other concerns
The car isn't inflicting punishment. You exceeded the parameters set for it. It might be proactively assumed by the programmers that if there had been one out-of-parameters episode on this trip, there might well be other upcoming episodes, so it probably isn't the ideal trip for use of a their beta release automatic car control program. The car didn't interfere with the maneuver, it just exercised an option not to be a autopilot participant for the remainder of the Trip. The software programmers didn't label you as a bad driver and they are allowing you to again use the autopilot on your next trip. Even when Autopilot was disabled, the car still works, you just have to actually drive it after an out of parameters event. To me, that just doesn't seem like that much of an imposition.
If I were one of the programmers responsible for providing this software and doing everything I could to keep its users safe, I think I might do the same thing.
This wasn't personal. You were not singled out. The car has no sentient mind so cannot decide to punish. It is just software. You exceeded the parameters so a variable somewhere was set so the Autopilot would remain nonfunctional until that variable was reset.
That programmer team didn't ride with you. They have no idea how the car will be driven nor the expertise of the drivers. They have no idea whether you have a skillset of a Formula One driver or are a 15 year old, car borrowing joyrider. The only thing they know is that the operator exceeded 90 and the operator did it with their software in use. They know there is no public road in the US that allows a speed of 90 or greater so the car is at the very least being operated in an illegal manner. They felt the need to proactively establish general parameters and if one violates these parameters, they simply want their software to opt out and stay opted out until that trip is over.
There is no punishment, no drama, just a conservative programming decision.
I just don't see a problem.
Best,
David
Most importantly there is no good reason for the AP lockout.
Disengagement of AP would have solved 100% of what you said.
The lockout was obviously not needed or helpful in any way.
Feel free to explain why you disagree, but IMO your long message does not at all.
Enticing some people to pull over onto the shoulder to reset their car is a problem. We do not need more folk stopping on the freeway.
Cautious drivers would not pull over, but then again, cautious drivers probably don't exceed 90 mph much either.
Unintentional side effect.
Your fight is not with me, my friend, you can certainly choose to disagree with me.
I don't think I can explain my views in a clearer or more concise manner so I don't see a need to restate parts of it. You've already noted my post was long enough. Adding more won't be helpful.
I fully understand both sides. I disagree with you, that's all.
My God, man, at no time did I entice anyone to pull over onto the shoulder to reset their car. That would be dangerous. It would also be counterproductive for the person intent on rapid travel. Just drive the car. The thing needs to be recharged every so often anyway, much sooner with high speed driving. So reset it then.
some people have gotten hung up on the pulling onto the shoulder concern, people should be aware that it is possible to find safe places to stop on a highway, think exit ramps, rest areas and other possibilities. the couple of times I've exceeded 90 mph and got locked out I drove without the AP (horrors) until the opportunity to safely stop and reset the system.
Similar threads
