Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Elon ducking behind bogus "regulation" for $10K Level 5 bet this year

Bet TSLA

Active Member
Dec 8, 2014
2,901
11,935
Cupertino, CA
Oh I've made it my mission to talk as many people out of buying FSD as I can. They've definitely lost more money because of me than they got out of me at this point.
That's pretty funny. Anybody who actually would have bought FSD will instead end up buying it later, when it costs more. For some, this might be a reasonable and preferable approach. For others, well, they'll be thinking of you when they part with the extra cash.

Of course the truly smart ones will have put the money in TSLA, and when they pull it out will have made enough profit to buy an entire car with what they would have originally spent on FSD.
 

DanCar

Active Member
Oct 2, 2013
2,049
2,150
SF Bay Area
Oh I've made it my mission to talk as many people out of buying FSD as I can. They've definitely lost more money because of me than they got out of me at this point.
Too many people with money burning a hole in their pocket in my neck of the woods for me to do that. If we collected data who buys FSD, we would see a strong correlation with amount of disposable income.
 

Bet TSLA

Active Member
Dec 8, 2014
2,901
11,935
Cupertino, CA
Too many people with money burning a hole in their pocket in my neck of the woods for me to do that. If we collected data who buys FSD, we would see a strong correlation with amount of disposable income.
That would also cover people buying Teslas, so I'm not sure there would be any information content in that.
 

mycroftxxx

Member
Jun 14, 2020
141
99
Left Coast
Here is the actual definition of L5 with notes and an example. I think it is very clear. I find the example to very clear. I am not sure where the confusion is.

p 25-26:

5.6 LEVEL or CATEGORY 5 - FULL DRIVING AUTOMATION

Definition: The sustained and unconditional (i.e., not ODD-specific) performance by an ADS of the entire DDT and DDT fallback without any expectation that a user will respond to a request to intervene.

NOTE 1: “Unconditional/not ODD-specific” means that the ADS can operate the vehicle under all driver-manageable road conditions within its region of the world. This means, for example, that there are no design-based weather, time-of-day, or geographical restrictions on where and when the ADS can operate the vehicle. However, there may be conditions not manageable by a driver in which the ADS would also be unable to complete a given trip (e.g., white-out snow storm, flooded roads, glare ice, etc.) until or unless the adverse conditions clear. At the onset of such unmanageable conditions the ADS would perform the DDT fall back to achieve a minimal risk condition (e.g., by pulling over to the side of the road and waiting for the conditions to change).

NOTE 2: In the event of a DDT performance-relevant system failure (of an ADS or the vehicle), a level 5 ADS automatically performs the DDT fallback and achieves a minimal risk condition.

NOTE 3: The user does not need to supervise a level 5 ADS, nor be receptive to a request to intervene while it is engaged.

EXAMPLE: A vehicle with an ADS that, once programmed with a destination, is capable of operating the vehicle throughout complete trips on public roadways, regardless of the starting and end points or intervening road, traffic, and weather conditions.
I agree this is pretty good for what it is. My expertise is the aircraft world, and things like airworthiness specs are written the same way, although at a much lower lever. I could see SAE eventually working with governments and industry to come up with a much more detailed set of specs that defined specific low level tasks in much more detail; e.g., what was expected of a compliant system in lane keeping accuracy, including allowable failure rates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: diplomat33

diplomat33

Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Aug 3, 2017
8,532
12,090
Terre Haute, IN USA
I agree this is pretty good for what it is. My expertise is the aircraft world, and things like airworthiness specs are written the same way, although at a much lower lever. I could see SAE eventually working with governments and industry to come up with a much more detailed set of specs that defined specific low level tasks in much more detail; e.g., what was expected of a compliant system in lane keeping accuracy, including allowable failure rates.

Thanks.

FYI, the "Safety first for Automated Driving" white paper does go into more specifics on the standards.

https://www.daimler.com/documents/innovation/other/safety-first-for-automated-driving.pdf
 

not-Martin

Banned
Aug 6, 2021
50
70
California
At large/all the time? Not a chance. On select roads/times of day? Maybe. Depends on when we get the beta.
L5 is anywhere at all time
Hairpin bend on a dirt road with oncoming traffic is a legitimate scenario for a robotaxi service - just ask YouTube FSD beta tester ‘Dirty Tesla’.
I don’t think regulators will be the barrier to the robotaxi service come 2022; Tesla will be
 

Daniel in SD

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,135
10,619
San Diego
Elon is no longer worried about regulations.

"At least in the US we don't see regulation as a fundamental limiter. We've also got to make it work and then demonstrate that if the reliability is significantly in excess of the average human driver or to be allowed... um... you know for before people to be able to use it without... uh... paying attention to the road... um... but i think we have a massive fleet so it will be I think... uh... straightforward to make the argument on statistical grounds just based on the number of interventions, you know, or especially in events that would result in a crash. At scale we think we'll have billions of miles of travel to be able to show that it is, you know, the safety of the car with the autopilot on is a 100 percent or 200 percent or more safer than the average human driver"
 

momo3605

Member
Mar 18, 2019
395
569
Bay Area
Elon is no longer worried about regulations.

"At least in the US we don't see regulation as a fundamental limiter. We've also got to make it work and then demonstrate that if the reliability is significantly in excess of the average human driver or to be allowed... um... you know for before people to be able to use it without... uh... paying attention to the road... um... but i think we have a massive fleet so it will be I think... uh... straightforward to make the argument on statistical grounds just based on the number of interventions, you know, or especially in events that would result in a crash. At scale we think we'll have billions of miles of travel to be able to show that it is, you know, the safety of the car with the autopilot on is a 100 percent or 200 percent or more safer than the average human driver"

Not surprised he's no longer talking about regulations lol. That was just a ploy to convince people to drop their $3k-$10k because "the software was clearly ready, but regulations were not". We know now that CA, AZ, and other states have clear regulations to allow autonomous cars. Now that he can no longer hide behind regulations, he's finally forced to tell the truth...FSD software is not ready and it needs to be safer.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top