PACEMD
Active Member
You guys are missing the point...Tesla Autopilot was clearly deemed the best system in this CR review.
Right, the Tesla system is the Cadillac of systems.
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.
You guys are missing the point...Tesla Autopilot was clearly deemed the best system in this CR review.
You could make the exact same argument for a vehicle that has no driver assist — L0 — and you would come to the same conclusion that there should be some system in place to be sure the driver is performing 100% of the duties required.
You could make the exact same argument for a vehicle that has no driver assist — L0 — and you would come to the same conclusion that there should be some system in place to be sure the driver is performing 100% of the duties required.
I was being sarcastic. I'm sorry. Sometimes I slip back into British mode where we assume people have a sense of humor and intelligence.
What!? Are you saying nobody ever gets distracted or falls asleep while driving their car? LOL.
And CR did not weight driver attention systems in cars with no automatic steering because the driver is in control of steering. The driver might get distracted or fall asleep but it is while the driver was in control of the car.
With automatic steering, it's different. The car is now controlling the steering, so the driver does not need to control the car anymore. So you do need to make sure the driver is paying attention.
Right, I think some type of cerebral implants with electric shock capabilities and monitoring by drone operators should do the trick nicely...........
With L0, the driver has to keep their hands on the wheel in order to drive.
In a L2 and L3 system, yes. That's because the systems cannot work properly if the driver is not paying attention. The systems are dependent on the driver paying attention.
So you’d prefer that I don’t use FSD or autopilot while I’m drunk driving?Super Cruise's driver facing camera can tell if the driver is dead drunk and safely disengage. That's the whole point of a driver facing camera. It can do that. The wheel move nag system cannot detect if the driver is dead drunk. That's why the driver facing camera is a better system.
But I think all your arguments apply equally to all car driving .. manual or automated. After all, if we are worried about driver inattention with L2/L3, then what about "L0" (when the driver is driving manually)? And shouldn't we mandate that smartphones have a way to detect and disable themselves when the driver is driving? What about the car radio? Should they be allowed to broadcast content that distracts the driver? And should we add microphones to make sure no other person in the car is talking, which might distract the driver? And lets ban road-side advertising while we are at it.
The point is, why is L2/L3 bring singled out here? I think there is an assumption that somehow this is more dangerous than other distractions. Is there any data to support this? In fact, given a certain level of driver distraction, isnt it better that the car is driving rather than the driver? If the driver decides to tinker with the radio, then would you rather have the car veer into oncoming traffic (as it will with manual driving), or stay in lane (as it will with self-driving)?
I'm not against driver attention tech per se, but if you are going to advocate it, I think it should be advocated for all driving, and I don't see any argument you could make against this.
Yes, driver monitoring can apply to all driving.
The reason L2 and L3 are singled out is because L2 and L3 are "pseudo FSD". They can give the driver a false sense of security. With L2 and L3, the driver can think that the car is completely driving for them when it actually isn't since it can't respond to many problems that might come up. So the driver still needs to pay attention even though they might think they don't. With manual driving, the driver needs to actively steer and brake. The car is not doing any driving. So it is more obvious that the driver needs to pay attention.
So a driver not understanding what they are doing will be corrected by a camera monitoring if their eyes are open? Not sure I understand the logic. Open eyes and attention are very different things.
There is a substantial difference between L2 and L3 in this regard. L3 doesn't require the driver to constantly pay attention in some situations. They just have to be ready to take over once the car alerts them.Yes, driver monitoring can apply to all driving.
The reason L2 and L3 are singled out is because L2 and L3 are "pseudo FSD". They can give the driver a false sense of security. With L2 and L3, the driver can think that the car is completely driving for them when it actually isn't since it can't respond to many problems that might come up. So the driver still needs to pay attention even though they might think they don't. With manual driving, the driver needs to actively steer and brake. The car is not doing any driving. So it is more obvious that the driver needs to pay attention.
There is a substantial difference between L2 and L3 in this regard. L3 doesn't require the driver to constantly pay attention in some situations. They just have to be ready to take over once the car alerts them.
BTW, the Electrek article you mentioned above is wrong. The Ford system is not L3 (because it requires the driver to pay attention at all times). Hands-free is not the same as L3.
They can give the driver a false sense of security. With L2 and L3, the driver can think that the car is completely driving for them when it actually isn't since it can't respond to many problems that might come up