FSD Beta v11.x

Knightshade · Feb 17, 2023

powertoold said:
Yes, it is approved to operate on roads with speed limit signs of 30mph less. This has nothing to do with the actual speeds allowed for the car software

Then why bother mentioning it?

powertoold said:
It would have been very simple for the DMV to include "not allowed to exceed any posted speed limits" in the stipulations.

Why would they do that?

Would they also in your imagination need to add "also it needs to stop at stop signs, yield to pedestrians at crosswalks, and not run over babies?"

The car has to follow all traffic laws. Period. All cars do- including self driving ones. There's no call or need whatever to call one specific law out.

Straws. You're grasping at them.

powertoold said:
Once again, I don't think the government will enforce actual speed limits in the software. They'll let the company decide its risk tolerance and let police enforce limits if needed.

Requiring obeying the speed limit for self driving cars (and all cars) is already the law

And VASTLY easier to enforce on a fleet programmed to break it than one by one on the street.

But if you need more motivation-- think how trivially easy a revenue stream local governments would otherwise have if self driving cars routinely sped. The company would be liable for the ticket every time and just pay it since there'd be no defense in court to offer. And how not interested in that cost the companies writing the software would be.

In case you remain unclear on this though

Caution, enthusiasm mix at Waymo meeting

Some residents at a community meeting in Palo Alto on Tuesday night vowed to put the brakes on Waymo's plans to test its fully autonomous cars on local streets while others embraced the technology wholeheartedly.

paloaltoonline.com

Noah Durant, an operations team driver who assists the Waymo vehicles while traveling in the city, said that some people have road rage when they encounter the autonomous vehicle driving the speed limit and obeying laws. "That's understandable," he said.

Self driving cars obey speed limits. They will continue doing so because they are legally required to and companies don't fundamentally break the law in ways easily caught and punished if they can help it.

The sooner you accept this fact the better.

EVNow · Feb 17, 2023

Knightshade said:
This is your car company is selling illegal vehicles if they are capable of performing the DDT and speeding. There is no gray area there.

Same thing can be said about cruise control and every car (well, 90% that have cruise control and GPS) sold in US.

kabin · Feb 17, 2023

Goose66 said:
The problem is that when and what will be released to all FSDb in the v11 family is still an unknown to Telsa (yes, even the almighty Elon doesn't know), so rolling out a point release on 10.69.x is more predictable and can be done in parallel with ongoing internal v11 "testing" and phased rollout. I expect to see a 10.69.x point release here, assuming Tesla just doesn't punt and disable FSDb (temporarily, I would assume) for all non-internal testers.

Yep. TSLA needs to put this thing to bed quick as well as show they can solve these nagging 'edge' issues. There's too much publicity and infamy potential. I wouldn't be surprised if this was an all hands and resources on 10.69 deck.

Knightshade · Feb 17, 2023

EVNow said:
Same thing can be said about cruise control and every car (well, 90% that have cruise control and GPS) sold in US.

No, it can't.

Because those all require a human to set an illegal limit-- and if they do so that human is legally labile for violating the law.

If the CAR itself, which is the legal driver at l3 and above, set an illegal speed limit then the maker of the car would be violating the law-- which is not a thing any are likely to systemically do in a way so trivially easy to catch.

Especially when the law ALSO states if they can't obey the laws they can't even be operated as self driving- thus destroying their business.

aerodyne · Feb 17, 2023

kabin said:
If I'm not mistaken, today might be the end of the week when V11 was to be limited released. At the least I would guess a communication update is pending.

It took over 4 months to hear anything from Elon on the Model S Refresh after he promised a update mid Jan 2021.

JulienW · Feb 17, 2023

Elon can we get another "V11 in a week or so" Tweet please? All this Recall talk is making me Kool-Aid thirsty.

swedge · Feb 17, 2023

Knightshade said:
There's a common myth that it's ok to speed if going with the flow of traffic, but this is entirely unsupported by the actual law.

Not exactly a myth in California.

I am a bitt off the FSD topic here, but California's Vehicle code section 22350, the "Basic speed law", in part makes it illegal to drive "...at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway,..." . Posted speed "limits" are called prima facie, and tickets can be successfully challenged if 22350 is proven to be complied with. There are also absolute limits at 65 and 70. There is also case law which makes 85% percentile speed on a road segment safe in the absence of unusual accident history. So the common myth is not too far from true, at least in Calif. Nation wide, cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden as well, so arbitrary low posted speed "traps" are on thin ice.

I still wonder how the actual safety record for FSD is looking. Pure speculation here, but perhaps the reason NHTSA did not force an immediate recall is because the data already shows that fewer accidents occur when the current FSD beta version is engaged, so pulling FSD would cause more accidents. I suspect that collecting enough miles on FSD to make that statistical argument is why Tesla has released the current beta so widely in spite of its well known imperfections. 400,000 testers is probably more than is needed to capture relevant edge cases... .

Dewg · Feb 17, 2023

swedge said:
Not exactly a myth in California.

I am a bitt off the FSD topic here, but California's Vehicle code section 22350, the "Basic speed law", in part makes it illegal to drive "...at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway,..." . Posted speed "limits" are called prima facie, and tickets can be successfully challenged if 22350 is proven to be complied with. There are also absolute limits at 65 and 70. There is also case law which makes 85% percentile speed on a road segment safe in the absence of unusual accident history. So the common myth is not too far from true, at least in Calif. Nation wide, cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden as well, so arbitrary low posted speed "traps" are on thin ice.

I still wonder how the actual safety record for FSD is looking. Pure speculation here, but perhaps the reason NHTSA did not force an immediate recall is because the data already shows that fewer accidents occur when the current FSD beta version is engaged, so pulling FSD would cause more accidents. I suspect that collecting enough miles on FSD to make that statistical argument is why Tesla has released the current beta so widely in spite of its well known imperfections. 400,000 testers is probably more than is needed to capture relevant edge cases... .

You sure about Prima Facia? My understanding from traffic school is that prima is the limit when no speed limit signs are present. Absent speed limit signs, you must follow basic speed limits, like 25 in residential streets and school zones, etc. You can't go past a 45 speed limit signs and decide it's safe to drive 60.

EVNow · Feb 17, 2023

Knightshade said:
No, it can't.

Because those all require a human to set an illegal limit-- and if they do so that human is legally labile for violating the law.

Cruise is the same as the same in cases where the driver sets the offsets at anything greater than 0%.

And I think it would be reasonable if NHTSA told OEMs to cut off that possibility.

Goose66 · Feb 17, 2023

Dewg said:
You sure about Prima Facia? My understanding from traffic school is that prima is the limit when no speed limit signs are present. Absent speed limit signs, you must follow basic speed limits, like 25 in residential streets and school zones, etc. You can't go past a 45 speed limit signs and decide it's safe to drive 60.

Prima Facie means "upon first impression," and in legal parlance refers to a minimally accepted standard for evidence or pleading. So, for example, if the law says "You can't drive a speed faster than what is safe for conditions," and the posted speed limit is stated to be the prima facie safe speed, then you can't go faster than the posted speed limit regardless of your own perception of what a safe speed is, unless you have additional evidence that a reasonable driver would find driving slower unsafe. On the flip side, with similar additional evidence, a police officer may be able to say that the posted speed limit was, in fact, too fast to safely drive in the current conditions and write you a ticket for driving the speed limit.

Dewg · Feb 17, 2023

Goose66 said:
Prima Facie means "upon first impression," and in legal parlance refers to a minimally accepted standard for evidence or pleading. So, for example, if the law says "You can't drive a speed faster than what is safe for conditions," and the posted speed limit is stated to be the prima facie safe speed, then you can't go faster than the posted speed limit regardless of your own perception of what a safe speed is. However, with additional evidence, a police officer may be able to say that the posted speed limit was, in fact, too fast to drive in the current conditions.

This is what I remember from school, well put. You can't exceed the posted limit, but you can infact get a ticket for driving that limit if conditions are poor. Just because the limit says 50, in heavy fog you could get a ticket for driving 45 in that same place.

And my understanding of the 85% rule is that it is used to set speed limits when evaluating the existing signs or putting a limit in a place that doesn't have one. It doesn't mean you can drive over the posted speed limit as long as 85% of the cars are driving that speed.

Knightshade · Feb 17, 2023

EVNow said:
Cruise is the same as the same in cases where the driver sets the offsets at anything greater than 0%.

The difference being this requires the human to make the decision to speed, not the vehicle (which would legally mean the car company).

Ford is happy to let YOU get speeding tickets. It does not want any itself. (that apart from the other legal violation allowing a self driving system to speed would be, more on that below)

EVNow said:
And I think it would be reasonable if NHTSA told OEMs to cut off that possibility.

FWIW I agree they COULD probably do that legally speaking- but in a lot of years have shown 0 interest in doing so, content to leave that to individual human drivers choice.

In contrast we already have literally every state law I'm aware of regarding self-driving (actual self driving ie L3 and up) requiring the system obey every traffic and vehicle law...which would include speed limits- and add a whole additional level of legal liability to the car makers if they ignored it apart from speeding tickets.

swedge said:
Not exactly a myth in California.

Sure it is.

Dewg and Goose already covered why.

Goose66 · Feb 17, 2023

Dewg said:
This is what I remember from school, well put. You can't exceed the posted limit, but you can infact get a ticket for driving that limit if conditions are poor. Just because the limit says 50, in heavy fog you could get a ticket for driving 45 in that same place.

And my understanding of the 85% rule is that it is used to set speed limits when evaluating the existing signs or putting a limit in a place that doesn't have one. It doesn't mean you can drive over the posted speed limit as long as 85% of the cars are driving that speed.

Well, I have actually heard of folks getting out a ticket because they were "driving with the flow of traffic." It hasn't happened to me, but it was successfully litigated by a colleague of mine (who is an attorney), and I tend to believe his account to be true. The legal story goes like this: Cop writes you a ticket for driving 75 in a posted 60 mph zone (the prima facie case for speeding), and you go to the judge and say "I was driving with the flow of traffic - I do 75 mph on that stretch of road, you do 75 mph on that stretch of road, the cop does 75 mph on that stretch of road, everybody does 75 mph on that stretch of road so that makes it the safest speed to drive on that stretch of road to prevent being an impediment." And thus you get out of the ticket (or maybe get it reduced from super-speeder or something similar).

Don't try this at home, kids!

tivoboy · Feb 17, 2023

JulienW said:
Elon can we get another "V11 in a week or so" Tweet please? All this Recall talk is making me Kool-Aid thirsty.

“In two weeks”

look for this post, ~ April 1, 2023

EVNow · Feb 17, 2023

Knightshade said:
The difference being this requires the human to make the decision to speed, not the vehicle (which would legally mean the car company).

Ford is happy to let YOU get speeding tickets. It does not want any itself. (that apart from the other legal violation allowing a self driving system to speed would be, more on that below)

FWIW I agree they COULD probably do that legally speaking- but in a lot of years have shown 0 interest in doing so, content to leave that to individual human drivers choice.

In contrast we already have literally every state law I'm aware of regarding self-driving (actual self driving ie L3 and up) requiring the system obey every traffic and vehicle law...which would include speed limits- and add a whole additional level of legal liability to the car makers if they ignored it apart from speeding tickets.

I think a lot of noise is getting in the way of understanding the issue.

Here are the facts
- Tesla by default doesn't go beyond the speed limit. Where it does (taking a long time to slow down after the speed limit has changed) is clearly wrong and annoying. It should be changed.
- If a user sets the limit to be +5 above the speed limit, it is driver's responsibility.

Are you talking about the first point above ... in that case there is no argument. Tesla needs to slow down quickly or better in advance to be below speed limit when the speed limit changes.

The second part that Tesla allows is no different from people setting cruise control to be higher than speed limit that all OEMs allow today. NHTSA can't single out FSD/Tesla to bar that.

swedge · Feb 17, 2023

I've been trying to find NHSTA documentation on the recall and their investigation behind the recall.

Here is the safety report which Tesla responded to by agreeing to "recall" FSD through a software update:

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF

The portions I found most informative were:

Description of the Defect :

With FSD Beta, as with all SAE Level 2 driver support features, the driver is responsible for operation of the vehicle whenever the feature is engaged and must constantly supervise the feature and intervene (e.g., steer, brake or accelerate) as needed to maintain safe operation of the vehicle.

In certain rare circumstances and within the operating limitations of FSD Beta, when the feature is engaged, the feature could potentially infringe upon local traffic laws or customs while executing certain driving maneuvers in the following conditions before some drivers may intervene: 1) traveling or turning through certain intersections during a stale yellow traffic light; 2) the perceived duration of the vehicle’s static position at certain intersections with a stop sign, particularly when the intersection is clear of any other road users; 3) adjusting vehicle speed while traveling through certain variable speed zones, based on detected speed limit signage and/or the vehicle's speed offset setting that is adjusted by the driver; and 4) negotiating a lane change out of certain turn-only lanes to continue traveling straight.

Description of the Safety Risk :

In the specific and rare circumstances described above when a Tesla vehicle is operating with a software version of FSD Beta as described below and with FSD Beta engaged, certain driving maneuvers could potentially infringe upon local traffic laws or customs, which could increase the risk of a collision if the driver does not intervene.

The recall was based on an ongoing engineering investigation which was initiated 6/8/22 in this document:

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INOA-EA22002-3184.PDF

I have not found any reporting from that investigation.

Knightshade · Feb 17, 2023

EVNow said:
I think a lot of noise is getting in the way of understanding the issue.

Here are the facts
- Tesla by default doesn't go beyond the speed limit. Where it does (taking a long time to slow down after the speed limit has changed) is clearly wrong and annoying. It should be changed.
- If a user sets the limit to be +5 above the speed limit, it is driver's responsibility.

Are you talking about the first point above ... in that case there is no argument. Tesla needs to slow down quickly or better in advance to be below speed limit when the speed limit changes.

Agreed.

EVNow said:
The second part that Tesla allows is no different from people setting cruise control to be higher than speed limit that all OEMs allow today. NHTSA can't single out FSD/Tesla to bar that.

That's exactly the same thing I said....if the human is speeding that's on the human and NHTSA does not seem to care about that. In theory they could force OEMS (all of them) to not allow it, but nobody seems to see any need to.

The debate as I saw it was the other guy insisting that -self driving- cars would speed rather than always obey speed limits (and even trying to argue that speed limits aren't really hard legal limits). That's just flat out untrue.... and as I pointed out every regulatory body/state law I'm aware of that has spoken on this has clearly said any self driving car will need to obey ALL vehicle/traffic laws... which includes speed limits. On top of that no OEM would take on the legal liability of programming their car to routinely break the law (both the regulation part, and the speeding part).

Hope this clarifies.

Gbills · Feb 18, 2023

MP3Mike said:
That isn't how it normally works. Recall notices are often sent out before a solution to the problem has been developed, or is available. (Be that hardware or software.)

I believe I read that v11.3.? Riling out sometime this week and beyond will solve the speed problem.

powertoold · Feb 18, 2023

Knightshade said:
The debate as I saw it was the other guy insisting that -self driving- cars would speed rather than always obey speed limits (and even trying to argue that speed limits aren't really hard legal limits). That's just flat out untrue.... and as I pointed out every regulatory body/state law I'm aware of that has spoken on this has clearly said any self driving car will need to obey ALL vehicle/traffic laws...

What I find most interesting is that the nhtsa made Tesla stop at stop signs to 0mph, and now, Tesla has made it 1mph, which isn't following the law to the letter, and the nhtsa has yet to reenforce 0mph.

willow_hiller · Feb 18, 2023

powertoold said:
What I find most interesting is that the nhtsa made Tesla stop at stop signs to 0mph, and now, Tesla has made it 1mph, which isn't following the law to the letter, and the nhtsa has yet to reenforce 0mph.

Isn't that part of this latest recall? I know some of the recall language is unclear regarding "perceived duration of the vehicle's static position," but on the front page of the recall it says "entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop."

FSD Beta v11.x

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads