EVNow
Well-Known Member
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 ?).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
FSD Timeline Promises (summary)
- Thread starter t3sl4drvr
- Start date
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.
Tesla has a serious phantom braking problem in Autopilot
Tesla is seeing an increase in complaints over serious and dangerous phantom braking events plaguing Autopilot in the latest software...
electrek.co
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.
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.
It's not single stack yet so the freeway NoA doesn't have that yet.
Hopefully V11 of the FSD Beta will have that.
This is a significant issue because at least half the issues I run into using AP/FSD from Seattle to Portland are maps/navigation related.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Once we read your explanation it turns out, no, it's not a good example at all
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.
"Another country has a TINY number of cars with an incredibly narrow ODD at L3"
...how's that relevant to anything related to Tesla?
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]
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.
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.
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.
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
How many, specifically, are from owners experiencing the problem?
Then surely you can cite them, again showing all of them have a majority of posters with the issue, right?
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:
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.
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?
I'm glad you have realized your own argument is flawed, finally progress!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
