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

FSD Timeline Promises (summary)

EVNow

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2009
12,557
33,588
Seattle, WA
My comments here were an explanation why you do not see lawsuits discussed here:
a) either there are no disgruntled Tesla customers,
b) none of the disgruntled customers have taken legal action,
c) legal actions taken are either ongoing (see below), or
d) legal actions have been settled outside court where part of the settlement agreement is keeping dispute confidential.
None of this would prevent actually finding out about the lawsuit - right ? IIRC, all lawsuits are public - not the content, but the existence of lawsuits (unless specifically sealed by the judge ?).
 

S4WRXTTCS

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
6,011
7,258
Snohomish, WA
EAP is far more than smart summon, and I'd suggest you'd be hard pressed to find any threads on here in recent couple of years where "the majority" of people don't think it works well.

I'm not sure where your getting the idea that the majority of people think it works well. Lately the majority of the people don't even think TACC works well let alone what EAP adds.

If TACC doesn't work well then obviously AP can't work well. If AP can't work well than EAP certainly isn't going to work well.

Most of the early Vision+Radar tweaks to how it prioritized one versus the other was an effort to improve TACC/AP. Things like trying to get it not to run into parked cars, and also not to phantom break for overhead.

The latest solution to that is Pure Vision, and its plagued with phantom braking issues. It's also not at parity with Vision+Radar in terms of capability (80mph limit versus 90, and the autobrights thing).

Here is a very recent article for you to read through.

My expectation for feature to be considered L3 worthy is that 99.99% of the people won't have any foundational issues. It can't be phantom braking a bunch of times for even 1% of the users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJD

S4WRXTTCS

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
6,011
7,258
Snohomish, WA
I guess we can add "owners manual" to the list of basic reading on the topic you haven't done :)

The ODD for NoA is limited access divided highways (ie using on/off ramps, no intersections or cross traffic, no oncoming traffic).

This is a good illustration of where you don't even bothering understanding the question before you insult someone.

NoA is an L2 system with a fairly broad ODD. So broad in fact that one of knocks people have against it is that it gives you no indication that it won't work well in some areas. Like I can't be on NoA while traveling through Tacoma on I5. It gets terribly confused about where it is due to a mapping issue.

So you simply cant apply the same ODD to L3.

Plus every L3 system that has a current (in Japan) or near term release is a traffic assist L3 where its only designed for use when you're crawling along in traffic.

I asked the question to make sure we're on the same page.

I assumed you meant 80mph freeway.
 

Knightshade

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2017
14,007
24,423
NC
This is a good illustration of where you don't even bothering understanding the question before you insult someone.

Once we read your explanation it turns out, no, it's not a good example at all :)


NoA is an L2 system with a fairly broad ODD. So broad in fact that one of knocks people have against it is that it gives you no indication that it won't work well in some areas. Like I can't be on NoA while traveling through Tacoma on I5. It gets terribly confused about where it is due to a mapping issue.

So you simply cant apply the same ODD to L3.

Of course you can.

SAE Levels are about system intent--- not "Does it work perfectly everywhere possible"

ODD of limited access divided highways doesn't mean the ODD "changes" if a map error causes it to misdentify a highway.


So no, not a "good illustration" of anything except your need to add SAE J3016 to your reading list.


Plus every L3 system that has a current (in Japan) or near term release is a traffic assist L3 where its only designed for use when you're crawling along in traffic.



"Another country has a TINY number of cars with an incredibly narrow ODD at L3"

...how's that relevant to anything related to Tesla?



I'm not sure where your getting the idea that the majority of people think it works well. Lately the majority of the people don't even think TACC works well let alone what EAP adds.

You keep claiming you know what "the majority" thinks without ever showing evidence of it.

It's a bad habit you ought to consider changing.


Citing an elektrek FUD article with like 2 or 3 guys saying they had issues does not a majority make.[/QUOTE]
 

S4WRXTTCS

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
6,011
7,258
Snohomish, WA
Of course you can.

SAE Levels are about system intent--- not "Does it work perfectly everywhere possible"

ODD of limited access divided highways doesn't mean the ODD "changes" if a map error causes it to misdentify a highway.

The intent of the question was to see what ODD you felt Tesla could release if they only added that one feature you mentioned.

With any L3 system there is an expectation that its going to be fairly limited. That limits are going to be placed on where it can be used, what weather conditions it can be used in, and limits are placed on the speed.

I simply pointed out that Tesla can't release a broad (all divided freeways) L3 system because Navigation/Maps issues causes all sorts of havoc with the current iteration of NoA. So they would have to place some significant ODD limitations on it or make some vast improvements.

The reason isn't because of the SAE as that doesn't cover how well something works, but in product acceptance by the end users.
 

S4WRXTTCS

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
6,011
7,258
Snohomish, WA
You keep claiming you know what "the majority" thinks without ever showing evidence of it.

Neither of us did a good job showing evidence.

From what I've read on various forums along with my own experience has shown to have some substantial issues. Some of those issues were only recently resolved (like the recentering on a merge point).

Your evidence was "you'd be hard pressed to find any threads on here in recent couple of years where "the majority" of people don't think it works well. Which was a bit weird when there is a massive NoA thread right in this section. There are also countess threads on phantom braking, and lots of jokes about spousal acceptance.

But, it doesn't really matter because when it comes to L3 the idea of the "majority" is flawed. The reason is the system either works or it doesn't work. If you have lots of people having issues with it then its not ready.
 

S4WRXTTCS

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
6,011
7,258
Snohomish, WA
Citing an elektrek FUD article with like 2 or 3 guys saying they had issues does not a majority make

There is currently 360 comments on that article so its hardly just 2-3 guys.

It's also not just that article, but there are plenty of threads on this site as well.

There is also the question of what level of phantom braking is acceptable for consumer acceptance of an L3 system. So even the mild annoyance phantom braking is going to be an issue.

So really it comes down to what the spousal acceptance of NoA is.
 

Bladerskb

Senior Software Engineer
Oct 24, 2016
2,607
4,365
Michigan
I see you (as usual) only read half the post you're replying to.

Here's the relevant half you skipped:

" because you're technically not told it's ok to read a book while it's on the highway."


If Tesla did tell you it was ok to read a book while it's on the highway that would be (at least) level 3

Because only at L3 (or higher) is it ok for the driver to not be actively paying attention.


Legality is very relevant for liability BTW. Currently the driver, as an L2 system remains legally liable for anything the vehicle does.

In L3 and higher systems there'd be some expectation of legal liability attaching to the maker of the system that tells you it's ok to not pay attention.

Some states also codify driving levels and the rules around them often using SAE language, but that's getting pretty far afield of what I actually said and why I said it.
Again SAE guildelines are not laws or legislation. It has nothing with do with the law. A guideline saying a box has 6 corners IS NOT a law. The same is the case with SAE. The SAE Guildlines provides and list the responsibilities of driver and the system at each level. That’s it.

A system that then implements it can then be classified with the appropriate SAE Level.

Tesla can tell u not to pay attention. It still doesn’t make it L3. The SYSTEM itself has to meet SAE guidelines. Why is it you cannot understand?
 

Knightshade

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2017
14,007
24,423
NC
There is currently 360 comments on that article so its hardly just 2-3 guys.

How many, specifically, are from owners experiencing the problem?


It's also not just that article, but there are plenty of threads on this site as well.

Then surely you can cite them, again showing all of them have a majority of posters with the issue, right?

Again SAE guildelines are not laws or legislation. It has nothing with do with the law.


Except where I specifically mentioned some state laws specifically incorporate SAE guidelines

So yes, except for the actual law it has nothing to do with the law.


Here let me help you learn... again...


That's Nevada state law

Nevada state law said:
NRS 482A.025  “Automated driving system” defined.  “Automated driving system” has the meaning ascribed to it in SAE J3016.

They literally use the SAE doc as the definition under the law

The SAE spec is cited 5 more times on that page alone, including using it to distinguish between "autonomous" (L3, L4, or L5) and "fully autonomous" (L4 or L5)



Tesla can tell u not to pay attention. It still doesn’t make it L3. The SYSTEM itself has to meet SAE guidelines. Why is it you cannot understand?

It appears one of us does.

And it ain't you.


Your evidence was "you'd be hard pressed to find any threads on here in recent couple of years where "the majority" of people don't think it works well. Which was a bit weird when there is a massive NoA thread right in this section.

Great! Can you tell us the % of posts that have serious problems reported, versus those that don't, to support your claim "the majority" have issues?

But, it doesn't really matter because when it comes to L3 the idea of the "majority" is flawed.

I'm glad you have realized your own argument is flawed, finally progress!


The intent of the question was to see what ODD you felt Tesla could release if they only added that one feature you mentioned.

Which is weird, since I said from the start what it would be. Same as it is officially for NoA today- limited access divided highways.



With any L3 system there is an expectation that its going to be fairly limited.

Why?

Nothing in the SAE specs requires L3 to have an ODD any more limited than L4.

The only difference between L3 and L4 is what the fallback system is.

For L3 it's a human, for L4 it's the car (though it can still allow a human to act as one, just can't require that).

L3 needs a human to fail safely, L4 does not.

If there's gonna be a human in the car REGARDLESS than there's no reason L3 would be 'expected' to have a significantly more limited ODD than L4.

I simply pointed out that Tesla can't release a broad (all divided freeways) L3 system because Navigation/Maps issues causes all sorts of havoc with the current iteration of NoA. So they would have to place some significant ODD limitations on it or make some vast improvements.

Again-If the issue is "NOA works great on highways but sometimes the map makes it think it's not on a highway" then NOA isn't the problem... the map is.
 

Bladerskb

Senior Software Engineer
Oct 24, 2016
2,607
4,365
Michigan
Except where I specifically mentioned some state laws specifically incorporate SAE guidelines

So yes, except for the actual law it has nothing to do with the law.


Here let me help you learn... again...


That's Nevada state law



They literally use the SAE doc as the definition under the law

The SAE spec is cited 5 more times on that page alone, including using it to distinguish between "autonomous" (L3, L4, or L5) and "fully autonomous" (L4 or L5)





It appears one of us does.

And it ain't you.

Everyone uses the SAE Guidelines to help them write legislation from Japan to Germany, to EU, to China, to the US, that doesn't make the SAE Guidelines a law. Just like government across the world use other information when writing other legislations. If they use info from a research paper to write a law, that research paper isn't law.

There are no illegal SAE L3. SAE Guidelines IS NOT A LAW. They are just standards. There are thousands/millions of standards out there. Basing a law on a standard doesn't make the standard itself a law. God you are awful at basic logic and reasoning.
 
Last edited:

Knightshade

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2017
14,007
24,423
NC
Everyone uses the SAE Guidelines to help them write legislation from Japan to Germany, to EU, to China, to the US, that doesn't make the SAE Guidelines a law.

I literally cited the actual law directly incorporating SAE guidelines.

It LITERALLY MAKES THEM PART OF THE LAW IN THAT STATE.

There are no illegal SAE L3. SAE Guidelines IS NOT A LAW.


Except, it provably is.

You must LITERALLY meet the SAE guidelines in some states to be legally L3 (or 4 or 5).


I admire the tenacity with which you refuse to admit you got (yet another) claim wrong even when the literal text of the law proves you wrong.
 

Bladerskb

Senior Software Engineer
Oct 24, 2016
2,607
4,365
Michigan
I literally cited the actual law directly incorporating SAE guidelines.

It LITERALLY MAKES THEM PART OF THE LAW IN THAT STATE.




Except, it provably is.

You must LITERALLY meet the SAE guidelines in some states to be legally L3 (or 4 or 5).


I admire the tenacity with which you refuse to admit you got (yet another) claim wrong even when the literal text of the law proves you wrong.
Everyone uses the SAE Guidelines to help them write legislation from Japan to Germany, to EU, to China, to the US, that doesn't make the SAE Guidelines a law. Just like government across the world use other information when writing other legislations. If they use info from a research paper to write a law, that research paper isn't law.

There are no illegal SAE L3. SAE Guidelines IS NOT A LAW. They are just standards. There are thousands/millions of standards out there. Basing a law on a standard doesn't make the standard itself a law. God you are awful at basic logic and reasoning.
 

Bladerskb

Senior Software Engineer
Oct 24, 2016
2,607
4,365
Michigan
You must LITERALLY meet the SAE guidelines in some states to be legally L3 (or 4 or 5).


I admire the tenacity with which you refuse to admit you got (yet another) claim wrong even when the literal text of the law proves you wrong.
No you must meet the LAW not the SAE guidelines as each law differs how they interpret and code it.

Some laws say you need to give 10 seconds, others 15 seconds, others smaller. Some laws allow phone/watch movies privilege from other devices.
Others only the cars info system. Each law is difference. That's because the SAE standards ARE NOT A LAW. They are used to CREATE a LAW.

The standards just define the responsibilities of the driver and the system and Tesla NOA FAILS With an F.
This passes the SAE standards. Tesla NOA fails, its just that simple.
 

Knightshade

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2017
14,007
24,423
NC
No you must meet the LAW not the SAE guidelines as each law differs how they interpret and code it.

Again you are factually wrong.

The "law" you must meet is literally the SAE guidelines


Some laws say you need to give 10 seconds, others 15 seconds, others smaller.

Now you are just making up nonsense.

I literally cited {B]the actual text of the law[/B]

They define these things by citing SAE J3016.

To meet "the law" you must "meet the SAE guidelines'"

Literally.

Thsi isn't "we used some wording from the SAE to write the law"

This is "The LITERAL LAW points you to the SAE guidelines to know what the law is"


You are embarrassing yourself at this point.

More than normal I mean.
 

daniel

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2009
5,248
4,593
Kihei, HI
The opinion of the majority is not relevant to the question of whether a system is suitable to be certified as Level 3. If 95% of people feel that the system works flawlessly, but 5% experience faults that would result in an accident if not for their intervention, then its not ready to be called L3. It is still L2. The criterion is whether it is safer than a human driver or not.

I'm pretty sure that a very small minority of Tesla drivers are represented here on TMC. If even just a few each year report failures of the system that would have resulted in an accident, that probably translates into hundreds, if not thousands in the national fleet, and it's not ready to be certified L3.

According to a quick Google search, 2.6% of the U.S. car fleet are Teslas. If half of those are routinely using NoA or AP (a very generous guess) then if safety level is equal, those Teslas should statistically account for 390 of the 30,000 annual traffic deaths in the country. The same quick search said there are 394,000 Teslas in the U.S. car fleet. If 1,000 of those are driven by people actively reporting here on TMC, they should statistically account for 1 or 2 of those 30,000 annual deaths. My math is approximate, but is certainly ballpark, and probably overly generous.

Therefore, if more than one or two TMC members a year report a single instance of a failure that would have resulted in a serious accident had they not intervened, then the system is not ready to be elevated from Level 2 to Level 3 because it's not safer than a human driver alone. The report of one user that they have never experienced a fault is not an adequate criterion for considering it to be L3. The report of just one or two users that they have experienced a fault is adequate to conclude that it is not. Which, of course, is why Tesla still calls all its systems L2. Not because of legal niceties, but because without active human monitoring they are not yet safer than a human driver.
 

Knightshade

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2017
14,007
24,423
NC
The opinion of the majority is not relevant to the question of whether a system is suitable to be certified as Level 3. If 95% of people feel that the system works flawlessly, but 5% experience faults that would result in an accident if not for their intervention, then its not ready to be called L3. It is still L2. The criterion is whether it is safer than a human driver or not.

I have yet to see an example of a single accident, ever, caused by phantom braking.

I see a lot of people who THINK it's REALLY BAD and will cause one.

But the one time someone here actually measured with an accelerometer, it was about 0.2g.... or roughly the braking just from regen.

Anyone who hit you from that (and again there appear 0 examples of any actual accidents) would be at fault for illegal tailgating.


Unexpected braking can FEEL far worse than it is, because it's unexpected. That appears to mostly be what's going on here. Uncomfortable, not actually dangerous.

But by all means if you've got evidence of a bunch of Tesla phantom braking accidents, let's see it.
 

Bladerskb

Senior Software Engineer
Oct 24, 2016
2,607
4,365
Michigan
Again you are factually wrong.

The "law" you must meet is literally the SAE guidelines




Now you are just making up nonsense.

I literally cited {B]the actual text of the law[/B]

They define these things by citing SAE J3016.

To meet "the law" you must "meet the SAE guidelines'"

Literally.

Thsi isn't "we used some wording from the SAE to write the law"

This is "The LITERAL LAW points you to the SAE guidelines to know what the law is"


You are embarrassing yourself at this point.

More than normal I mean.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Every AV law around the world (Japan, Germany, UK, EU, US) points you to SAE standards. That doesn’t mean the SAE standards are the law. This is common in legislation to point towards standard in the actual text of the legislation. The SAE is a standards organizations. Infact they are world's largest industry association dedicated to the automotive, aerospace, and commercial vehicle sectors. SAE establishes standards for safety and quality of products. They provide advice and recommendations and then governments go out and incorporate it. They have over 1 million standards. Their standards are just that standards. They are not Law. Government around the world go out and create laws using those standards. Again you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
 

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