Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Camera calibration issue update: today Electrified Garage in Amesbury, MA is mounting 4 new Contis and, despite no evidence of alignment issues, I figured after 62K miles I'd let them do an alignment "just to see" how well it was able to maintain it. Well, I was just told that with a 1-degree tolerance, mine was off by 4 degrees and that I was on the brink of a warning to get an alignment. Apparently the car can compensate for being out of alignment and mine's been doing it for quite a while.

Of course, now I'm hoping THAT is the root of my camera calibration issue and it'll just calibrate after I get Nameless back in a few minutes. One can hope, at least...
 
I looked it up, it seems they changed where they put the 10 seconds in the final spec.

In earlier drafts, the 10 seconds for the transition phase was in other sections:
"2.7.3. During the transition phase, the system shall continue to operate in the automated driving mode (including emergency manoeuvre) for at least [10 sec] unless the driver has resumed lateral control or has brought the vehicle to standstill by braking. The system shall maximize controllability by the driver."

"At the end of the transition phase [of at least 10 seconds], unless the driver has resumed lateral control [and is looking at the road ahead] or has brought the vehicle to standstill by braking, a minimum risk manoeuvre shall be performed."
https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/80380926/ACSF-24-08 (EC) draft proposal ALKS regulation based on ACSF-23-02r4.pdf?api=v2

As for what it means for transition demand and transition phase, the definitions:
"2.2. “Transition demand” is a logical and intuitive procedure to transfer the dynamic driving task from automated control by the system to human driver control. This request given from the system to the human driver indicates the transition phase.
2.2. “Transition phase” means the duration of the transition demand."

This is what separates L3 from L4. The driver is expected to take over. In L4 you are not expected to take over. That's why you can't sleep in an L3 car.

And looking at the spec, instead of arguing over the seconds, I see the standard also explicitly mentions and requires a driver availability system (the SAE doesn't). It seems this carried over to the final UN spec.
"6.1.3. Driver availability
The system shall detect if the driver is available and in an appropriate driving position to respond to a transition demand by monitoring the driver. The manufacturer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the technical service the vehicle’s capability to detect that the driver is available to take over the driving task."

Note in case you say "that only means it detects the driver is in the driver seat, doesn't mean you can't sleep!"

Nope, there is a separate section for that:
"6.1.2. Driver presence
A transition demand shall be initiated according to paragraph 5.4 if any of the following conditions is met:
(a) When the driver is detected not to be in the seat for a period of more than one second; or
(b) When the driver’s safety belt is unbuckled. The second level warning of the safety-belt reminder according to UN-R16 may be used instead of an acoustic warning of the Transition Demand."

To go back to the original argument, I think that pretty much settles it, the UN spec explicitly requires driver availability monitoring (as well as driver presence monitoring)! It's not even just implicit in the timing of the transition phase. On the flip side, SAE doesn't specify monitoring, but it specifies "several seconds" as the minimal time period for take over, which indirectly forces driver availability monitoring.
You're still conflating "at least" with "within." I can't explain it any clearer so I'll have accept that you can't and/or don't understand the difference.

Thanks for citing section 6 - I hadn't that far; but sections 5 and 6 have some significant relevant language. The text of section 6.1.2 neither says nor implies anything about sleeping. Simply that the driver must be buckled in the driver's seat. Ironically, you missed the parts that would apply. Even though you bolded "is available" in your citation of 6.1.3. Section 6.1.1 also has similar language:

"The driver availability recognition system shall detect if the driver is present in a driving position, if the safety belt of the driver is fastened and if the driver is available to take over the driving task."

It doesn't specifically address sleeping but one can make a reasonable argument that a sleeping occupant is not available so there is definitely an implication.

Later on (6.1.3.1) it addresses "criteria for deeming driver availability:"

"The driver shall be deemed to be unavailable unless at least two availability criteria (e.g. input to driver-exclusive vehicle control, eye blinking, eye closure, conscious head or body movement) have individually determined that the driver is available in the last 30 seconds."

Oddly, it would appear the reading a book or having sunglasses could well fail the availability criteria here since the person's eyes would be obscured. Essentially their criteria would seem to require everything that FSD has bee looking at now and would preclude the the driver doing other activities without interrupting them on a regular basis to 'satisfy the nag,' which kind of defeats the purpose of a level 3 system.

5.1.8 is also noteworthy in that it specifically requires prevention of misuse:

"The manufacturer shall take measures to guard against reasonably foreseeable misuse by the driver and tampering of the system."

As I said before, the UN document is far more prescriptive and detailed than the SAE document. From my reading I think the UN document actually goes a bit too far but it remains to be seen if and how the US and EU adopt the UN guidelines, the SAE guidelines or some other criteria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: enemji
Let me get this straight, you left the operating room, took off your scrubs, drove home and replied to that post?
No love for me or @AlanSubie4Life ???
We have been posting pages of great material...
Ever since the transition…. For some reason I don’t get notifications on the “web app” for this forum. I missed the old normal app lol. Maybe I have to log out and log back in, you know the good ol turn it off and back on gig
 
Ever since the transition…. For some reason I don’t get notifications on the “web app” for this forum. I missed the old normal app lol. Maybe I have to log out and log back in, you know the good ol turn it off and back on gig
Logging in and out will then prompt you if you want notifications
Maybe clear your browsing history also
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSDTester#1
GRE57LsWIAEOZbA

Would it have been better if it had hit the man who walked in front of it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: old pilot
Hard to say, but good point. The German big three probably have considerable influence in the EU, so may have had the ability to influence this regulation (it seems the EU has the strongest influence in such regulations, even though they are UN regulations, as they adopt it most quickly; the US doesn't seem to follow it very often).
Agreed. It would make sense for Mercedes, Waymo, Tesla, and the other players in automated driving to contribute to the UN guidelines but historically the US has done its own thing. I would think Elon would be even less likely to participate, but from a business perspective, it would be much better for Tesla to be at the table and have a say in how they were written. (Which means there’s about a zero chance Elon contributed)

One also needs to consider what countries the document’s authors are from. If they were a lot of Germans on the committee it would be expected to see a big Mercedes influence.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSDTester#1
Employees are getting 4.2 today
Think you meant "Hopefully employees are getting it today" since we have no way of knowing this and Elon saying it should happen doesn't ........well hardly mean 💩 until it does happen.🤔🤣


EDIT: Just for kicks I checked the Lunashi-Media person's Youtube and nothing yet (suspect they have a significant other that is a Tesla higher up employee).
 
Last edited:
Think you meant "Hopefully employees are getting it today" since we have no way of knowing this and Elon saying it should happen doesn't ........well hardly mean 💩 until it does happen.🤔🤣


EDIT: Just for kicks I checked the Lunashi-Media person's Youtube and nothing yet (suspect they have a significant other that is a Tesla higher up employee).
You didn't know that @gottagofast started his new job at Tesla today?