You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Tesla's response is spot-on. Kudos to them.
I'm not familiar with all the other systems. Some have commented that other systems are more aggressive at ensuring hands are on the wheel. Would you still use the system if it required hand on the wheel at all times?I also wrote a long comment on CR's post (I am a long-time member of CR). My point was essentially that the features that seem to be under investigation in the Florida crash are those for TACC, not autosteering. No one that I have read has suggested that the car should have steered itself out of that crash. And I said that TACC is a technology in wide use on many makes and models, not only Tesla. But CR has not suggested any limitations on TACC-like systems on other makes.
I think the various media outlets, in this case including CR, have failed to understand the distinctions among the various aspects of the Autopilot suite of features and have made rather sweeping conclusions about the whole system. I only hope the investigating agencies and the regulators are more careful to make those distinctions.
You people all LOVED Consumer Reports when they rated the Model S "Best Car Ever!", and when they rated it off the charts ("highest score ever") for performance everyone was raving about CR and their unbiased credibility. Lots of people bought cars based on those CR ratings. Then last year they dropped their rating due to reliability issues and people jumped all over them, said you can't trust their evaluation. Now we have this. You can't have it both ways.Consumer Report is now total *sugar* to me. Just jumping in with the boat of sensationalist lying media. Ignoring logic!
CR is assuming, again without evidence, that it is (at least) the safety aspects of these systems that is "beta" and not merely
- Test all safety-critical systems fully before public deployment; no more beta releases
the functionality.
I also wrote a long comment on CR's post (I am a long-time member of CR). My point was essentially that the features that seem to be under investigation in the Florida crash are those for TACC, not autosteering. No one that I have read has suggested that the car should have steered itself out of that crash. And I said that TACC is a technology in wide use on many makes and models, not only Tesla. But CR has not suggested any limitations on TACC-like systems on other makes.
I think the various media outlets, in this case including CR, have failed to understand the distinctions among the various aspects of the Autopilot suite of features and have made rather sweeping conclusions about the whole system. I only hope the investigating agencies and the regulators are more careful to make those distinctions.
You people all LOVED Consumer Reports when they rated the Model S "Best Car Ever!", and when they rated it off the charts ("highest score ever") for performance everyone was raving about CR and their unbiased credibility. Lots of people bought cars based on those CR ratings. Then last year they dropped their rating due to reliability issues and people jumped all over them, said you can't trust their evaluation. Now we have this. You can't have it both ways.
But I want my sycophant media and I want it NOW!You can't have it both ways.
Good points, that's fair.A few things:
1) Their reviews were based on their actual experience with the car.
2) The reliability ratings I believe to be accurate, but misleading as they were skewed toward early builds. Having said that, the data is the data.
3) Their autopilot recommendations are based on nothing but speculation and misunderstanding of both events and the system. As are most of the media articles.
It is possible for me to pick and choose where I think CR is being thorough, where they are falling down in their analysis, and where they are being hyperbolic. So yeah, I don't think it's necessarily bias when critical thought is applied.
This is contrary to claims that neither the car nor the driver could see the white truck against the light sky background.the driver would have seen the truck
This is contrary to claims that neither the car nor the driver could see the white truck against the light sky background.
I'm not sure I believe that, but that's the claim.