Which dangers exactly are you reffering to? Not being able to have autosteer at +90mph?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Which dangers exactly are you reffering to? Not being able to have autosteer at +90mph?
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Autosteer is not just a convenience feature, it is a safety feature.
The decision by Tesla to punish drivers who exceed a set limit for the duration of their trip, or until they can stop and start again by removing a feature that could actually save their lives if they were to become incapacitated while driving is out of line.
I'm not suggesting the feature should work above 85 or 90 or whatever speed brings on the punishment. I'm just suggesting that after the appropriate warning, the punitive action of disabling a feature that works just fine otherwise--a feature that could save lives--is wrong.
neptune2000
Bi
I disagree. A warning without punishment is worthless. Why would anybody stop the behavior, if one can continue the "obviously unsafe" behavior after the "warning"? Driving at 90+ mi/h with autosteer is simply unsafe. Period.
The fact that you are pissed at the punishment, means that maybe you won't do it again next time. Outside of hi-ways, I'm all for the punishment of people the "behave" like you. I would not want to be driving behind you or before you.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
First of all did I say or even imply that this applied to me? I have never seen the "punishment", as I do not attempt to drive 85 or 90 with autosteer engaged, so your assessment of me as a driver is completely out of left field and also out of line. I can discuss something, and express my concern even if the issue does not apply to me. Tesla making what I consider a mistake does apply to me, because if this type of behavior is allowed to go unchecked, what's next?
As for the necessity of the punishment, the alert and the car immediately disabling autosteer when the maximum speed is exceeded is enough. At that point the driver would need to slow down if he or she wanted to re-engage autosteer. Preventing autosteer from being re-engaged, even when the car is moving at a safe speed for it, is both punitive and, yes, I'll say it, stupid. Elon Musk has talked about how in emergency situations, like an incapacitated or temporarily incapacitated driver, autosteer can and will save lives. Why disable this potentially life-saving feature because someone temporarily exceeded its capabilities? Turn the feature off when the capabilities are, in fact, exceeded, but allow it to be used when it can be.
We're not talking about a kindergarten class, where children need to be taught appropriate behavior. We're talking about vehicles with six-figure price tags, that we, not Tesla, own. The current punitive action is both ridiculous and dangerous.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I forgot to include the following.
You state that a warning without punishment is worthless.
Well, what's the punishment for veering too close to the lane lines, which results in the lane departure warning?
What's the punishment for exceeding whatever speed we set as the speed we want to be warned at using Speed Assist?
I could go on, but my point is made.
Last edited:
Then don't? He makes a great point, we get used to how these cars operate, then we get updates that change the way the car reacts to OUR input. To top that off, these things aren't even mentioned in the freaking release notes. Hence the surprise... hence the "not safe"
Maybe cars should not be allowed to accelerate 0-60 in less than 3 seconds? Maybe cars shouldn't be allowed to go faster than the posted speed limit AT ALL TIME, even when not in Auto-steer?
So we have Tesla on one side bragging about their 0-60 acceleration, than punishing with no warning when exceeding unknown parameters?
So we have Tesla on one side bragging about their 0-60 acceleration, than punishing with no warning when exceeding unknown parameters?
Autopilot automatically disables at 90, it always has. Tesla decided its not safe above that speed, so it disables. Great, I have no issues with that.
Keeping it disabled once you've slowed down accomplishes what exactly? How does keeping me from turning it back on keep me more safe, I argue it does just the opposite, and potentially puts my family at greater risk until I stop the car, put it in park, then start on my journey again. What if I have a heart attack, or any number of random occurrences that result in accidents?
Now, you may argue that it is an unsafe speed and it shouldn't matter, anyone who is driving 90 must be reckless!! However, notice in my picture that the speed limit along this section of freeway is 80MPH. In Utah, people generally drive 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. My cruise control set to 85 constitutes me being conservative and keeping with traffic in the right lane, with a constant stream of cars passing at 90+. My jaunt to 91 was me merging into left lane traffic at a safe speed to pass a semi truck going slower in my lane. Could I have merged over at 85? Sure, but it would have forced someone behind me to brake, and it would have been inconsiderate AND LESS SAFE to do so.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
If driving on AP between 70 and 80 it is trivially easy to exceed 90 MPH when pressing the throttle to overtake. I don't intend to drive more than 90 MPH, highway here is 70 MPH and I typically set TACC at 75 MPH, but on the few occasions when I have needed to pass something (e.g. someone coming quickly down an on-ramp, traffic needing to move over, I choose to accelerate to create space) the 90 MPH AP cutoff alarm has taken me by surprise (because I had not intended to speed up by very much, and it was achieved so quickly), so IMHO "easily done, even if rarely and not intentional". The "punishment" does not fit the crime ... in particular as I now need to be careful not to exceed 90 MPH if I speed up - which will involve taking my eyes off the road to watch the speedo, just at a time when concentration on the road is likely to be needed.
The car will drive at more than 90 MPH, so just turn off AP, no need to force the driver to stop on the shoulder (far more dangerous, but the likely consequence) to reset it.
The whole "not in the DOCs" thing is absolutely appalling. All sorts of things change that take me by surprise the first time I encounter them, and sooner or later one of those changes is going to turn out to be critical.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
In stop-start traffic in town yesterday I needed to reach something so turned on AP. Got the blue-car-in-front. Car moved forwards at each stop/start. After a couple of moves I got a message similar to "Press accelerator to resume AP".
Haven't seen this mentioned here, maybe I missed it or its not new, or related to not having hands-on-wheel (which i don't remember needing to do in sub-5MPH traffic-crawling.
Haven't seen this mentioned here, maybe I missed it or its not new, or related to not having hands-on-wheel (which i don't remember needing to do in sub-5MPH traffic-crawling.
thegruf
Active Member
^ i beleive this is when (I assume) the sensors have low confidence of the signal/distance to the car in front and stops the car with "Hold". This feature I dont have a problem with and for me only occurs occasionally.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Thanks
That may well have been it. The traffic was on a slightly uphill slope, and I got "Hold" in blue (top centre of dash) [rather than the (H) symbol]. I don't think I've been in that uphill-situation in crawling traffic before.
That may well have been it. The traffic was on a slightly uphill slope, and I got "Hold" in blue (top centre of dash) [rather than the (H) symbol]. I don't think I've been in that uphill-situation in crawling traffic before.
That's normal, and not new. It usually occurs when the car sits for longer periods at a stop (different thresholds for freeway and not, shorter on surface streets,) but if the ultrasonics trigger for something while stopped it'll jump into hold sooner (could be other reasons too, I don't know.)
I see it several times a trip if I'm using AP around traffic lights.
They need to remove permanent (for the drive) disabling AP when exceeding 90 MPH. There's no safety in that.
It used to just disable with warning bells which was just fine.
Now we will have to pull over on the freeway!! Then turn the car off then back on to get AP back.
It used to just disable with warning bells which was just fine.
Now we will have to pull over on the freeway!! Then turn the car off then back on to get AP back.
Keep in mind, the above 90 threshold for AP is most likely due to an exponential decline in AP confidence due to limited processing power, and not necessarily a "safety" issue per say.
thegruf
Active Member
^ hmm not entirtely sure I'd go along with processing power alone.
More likely imho at 90mph the opportunity for AP to control the car as a whole taking into account braking, traction, steering etc coupled with the increased risk of serious accident means that it is unwise for AP to operate at such speeds, particularly with the unpredicatabiltiy of non AP traffic behaviours.
More likely imho at 90mph the opportunity for AP to control the car as a whole taking into account braking, traction, steering etc coupled with the increased risk of serious accident means that it is unwise for AP to operate at such speeds, particularly with the unpredicatabiltiy of non AP traffic behaviours.
NikeWings
Active Member
Are Euro Tesla owners driving on the autobahn subjected to a similar limitation, or a disclosure that the car could potentially be unsafe at allowable speeds before they purchase? Many rural areas have no speed limt at all, and few drive less than 90 outside city limits. ABs are a way of life over there. Can't imagine consumer interest in any car that incapacitates legitimate driving.
jgs
Active Member
What's with "potentially unsafe"? Unless now we're going to define as "you have to drive it yourself" as unsafe.
I think I remember @wk057 stating that at 90 MPH the camera is only catching a single frame every 4 or 5 feet of vehicle travel. I'm too lazy to do the math myself so...
Mike