Agreed. In the other scenario, where people made a decision to buy and pay an overall premium in excess of just the FSD option fee, I think Tesla may have greater financial exposure than just the option refund.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
FSD may require a hardware upgrade...
- Thread starter boonedocks
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The other thing you have to factor in though is it is likely a large portion of people who aren't better than the average driver think they are better than the average driver (either because they over estimate their own abilities, or underestimate the average driver). So for the system to be accepted by people, it may need to be much better than average. I think Elon talked about that before.
I know you originally posted this in another thread; as suggested I'm replying to it over here in hopes of keeping both threads somewhere near their nominal topics.
I'm a little puzzled why you think level four (or even level three) requires driver monitoring sensors. In both of those automation levels, the driver is supposed to be permitted not to pay attention to the car and driving environment, so why should the car be watching to see if the driver is paying attention?
Driver monitoring cameras, like the hold wheel nag we have now, should be exclusively in the realm of level two systems as far as I can see.
lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
Playing devil's advocate here - with full autonomy (L5) you shouldn't need any drivers camera. But with L3 (and maybe L4?) the car is allowed to hand control back to the driver, with a "reasonable" notification (wrt time).
Think of it this way, the car is about to hit a construction zone, the car knows it, the driver passed out. If you have a drivers camera, the car can pull over, stop whatever, instead of giving control back to an incapacitated driver.
While a drivers camera is not required for this, it would be helpful.
Many of the big players who are working on autonomous cars said they'll take responsibility if their car is involved in an accident. So your question, would depend on the manufacturer, but in some cases it would be the manufacturer.
There also will likely be special insurance for semi-autonomous and autonomous cars.
I can see that. I was assuming it would be handled those way Tesla does today - when the Red Hands of Shame come up, the car doesn't disengage Autosteer until it feels you moving the wheel - if the car never felt that under Level 3/4, it could just stop/pull over.
What about tesla network?!
TM Is pitching that your AP2 model 3 for $35k will eventually drive off while you are sleeping.. pick random people up.. drop them off.. charge.. and keep going.
Let's say someone throws up in the back of your car.. what is your proof? Or kills someone and delivers the dead body to your garage??
I guess the people definitely assume there needs to be a AP3.0 for tesla network, and it has to have cabin camera?
TM Is pitching that your AP2 model 3 for $35k will eventually drive off while you are sleeping.. pick random people up.. drop them off.. charge.. and keep going.
Let's say someone throws up in the back of your car.. what is your proof? Or kills someone and delivers the dead body to your garage??
I guess the people definitely assume there needs to be a AP3.0 for tesla network, and it has to have cabin camera?
Won't affect me, as I never had any intention of having my personal car drive itself all over picking up random strangers for money.
I would agree that video surveillance of autonomous taxis is probably wise - that doesn't mean that Tesla needs to put a cabin camera in every car IMHO.
While it seems like a cool idea to generate some revenue from your Tesla when you're not using it, by putting it out on the Tesla Network, for most drivers, will probably not want their car to be used by people you don't know, without any supervision.
On a recent trip, we had a private transfer between a cruise terminal and an airport over an hour away. The driver was using his own vehicle, and when he found out we had too much luggage to fit in the trunk, he was going to leave us, because he didn't want to risk having our luggage cause damage to his leather seats.
If you put your car on the Tesla Network - you have no control over who is riding in the car, or how they are using it. And Tesla likely won't take any responsibility for any damage caused to the car - interior or exterior.
The Tesla Network sounds like an interesting idea, especially for those who want to ride in a Tesla but not invest in purchasing one. Just not sure how many private owners will actually take advantage of it.
On a recent trip, we had a private transfer between a cruise terminal and an airport over an hour away. The driver was using his own vehicle, and when he found out we had too much luggage to fit in the trunk, he was going to leave us, because he didn't want to risk having our luggage cause damage to his leather seats.
If you put your car on the Tesla Network - you have no control over who is riding in the car, or how they are using it. And Tesla likely won't take any responsibility for any damage caused to the car - interior or exterior.
The Tesla Network sounds like an interesting idea, especially for those who want to ride in a Tesla but not invest in purchasing one. Just not sure how many private owners will actually take advantage of it.
Legally, all they need to do is to keep working on AP2, for 10+ years or whatever, and just say that the software is not ready. Just continue to do it until pretty much all AP2 cars have already been junked, then little to no financial liability. There's no time limit as to how long the software would take.
Honestly Tesla network, or any unsupervised car sharing network, just sounds utterly stupid. You can't tell or control if someone is utterly drunk, then throws up or worse pee or defecates in your car, or destroys the car in other ways. I mean how many of you would allow a stranger to use your car for some basic compensation? I certainly wouldn't. Oh and you can say those who cause destruction must be liable. Well, that would mean taking time to try to win money from the liable party, assuming they even have money to pay. Or will it just need crazy expensive insurance?
I wouldn't let strangers use my car today, so not sure why I would tomorrow.
No fixation. Full disclosure I missed AP2.0 by 10 days by getting my deliver pushed up by Tesla. I'm just got my feelings hurt is all.
Promising a car will do more then it does now is just so hard to do. Especially with how much tech changes month to month.
I do not believe AP2.0 will ever be L5, and maybe not even L4. That is my guess though.
I think that's the general consensus here. Also, just like AP1 will never do on-ramp to off-ramp or meet me at the front door. Tesla needs to stop over promising and under delivering.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Tesla will achieve L5 with AP2, but it has nothing to do with cabin cameras.
lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
What is needed then, is "reverse" Uber driver requirements -- that is, customer / passenger requirements. You know, with like "passenger reward programs", "points", "likes" or similar. So that you as an owner can check the "record" or "CV" of the guy wanting to use your autonomous Tesla taxi...
The driver fatality rate will probably be higher in a level 3 vehicle that does not monitor the driver. Level 3 is the reason many companies have aimed at only full self drive.
The Cadillac system seems like a smart approach. We will have to see the quality and practicality of the implementation.
It is possible that level 3 without driver monitoring will have regulatory problems.
The Cadillac system seems like a smart approach. We will have to see the quality and practicality of the implementation.
It is possible that level 3 without driver monitoring will have regulatory problems.
Similar threads
