FSD v12.x (end to end AI)

[winfield100]

So I can essentially navigate by using just "chill mode" and turn signals and just "bop around the neighborhood", then "hit nav to home"
we have 400 miles of canals and lots of dead ends
thanks for response

tried wandering around the local neighborhoods and to local pharmacy.
just pulled down stalk and started. 20mph mostly. vehicle just drove and randomly decided to do turns when at T intersections. held down turn signal to force turn at intersection. twice it ignored me, 4-5 times obeyed me, rest of time just let vehicle choose where to go.

told "nav to CVS" (local pharmacy) and it pulled into handicapped space & stopped and put on emergency blinkers
(i do have handicapped tag but really)
I like you can usually, _not always_, force left or right turns with hard pull down and hold down stalk
How do you force to turn into your home driveway? tweak home?
drive was overall fairly smooth

 

[sleepydoc]

This is exactly my point. The posted speed limit is not enforceable in this case. This is why we have laws.

In any case it is irrelevant - it’s a driver assist and as such I am in control of (and responsible for) picking a speed which is the safest for conditions. The car needs to allow that control in as straightforward a manner as possible.

Of particular note - note ASSO mode does not seem to allow you to stop the car from speeding. This is a different issue, but it also seems like a defect. So I do not think: “It’s doing exactly as it should” is correct.

Exactly. Posted speed limits are enforceable

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Exactly. Posted speed limits are enforceable

I'm not sure why people keep disagreeing with this.

This speed limit is not enforceable. It's the law in California. (They did make some modifications to it a year ago or so to allow enforcement in certain additional areas but that still does not apply to this road.) Maybe I don't understand how the law works - maybe if the cop paces you then it would be enforceable, but that is not particularly practical. (And this is not a "local street or road," obviously.)

The point is that the speed is not justified by an engineering study. So it is not a correct limit. If they did an engineering study, the limit would be increased. The surrounding neighborhoods do not want the limit raised, so they don't want the engineering study! Leave the limit at 45, and don't enforce it - problem solved. People will tend to go a reasonable speed relative to the posted limit.

I've explained this before. Anyway, this is the last time.

The additional point is that ASSO also does not allow you to stop the car from speeding. So it's not working very well.

 

[PianoAl]

Today v12.3.3 avoided puddles. Is that new?

The car's speed limit dropped to 10 mph in a 30 mph zone. I've seen that before. I was on Route 101, though I don't know if that's related.

Hate the dry wipe that just started recently. Wish they’d fix that.

Note that can now set wipers to Off even when the car is driving.

 

[Yelobird]

I'm not sure why people keep disagreeing with this.

This speed limit is not enforceable. It's the law in California. (They did make some modifications to it a year ago or so to allow enforcement in certain additional areas but that still does not apply to this road.) Maybe I don't understand how the law works - maybe if the cop paces you then it would be enforceable, but that is not particularly practical. (And this is not a "local street or road," obviously.)

The point is that the speed is not justified by an engineering study. So it is not a correct limit. If they did an engineering study, the limit would be increased. The surrounding neighborhoods do not want the limit raised, so they don't want the engineering study! Leave the limit at 45, and don't enforce it - problem solved. People will tend to go a reasonable speed relative to the posted limit.

Just because You don’t believe it doesn’t make it not true. I copied that directly from the national highway .gov. I didn’t specify or say any specific road simply that They disagree with your assumption. You tend to verify everything with micro spec detail (.043g) but when it’s written as a law you have a flexibility to the facts.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Just because You don’t believe it doesn’t make it not true. I copied that directly from the national highway .gov. I didn’t specify or say any specific road simply that They disagree with your assumption. You tend to verify everything with micro spec detail (.043g) but when it’s written as a law you have a flexibility to the facts.

Right. I am just following the law. This is why we have laws! Anyway, even the general description you quoted says the "posted speed limit is determined using an engineering speed study."

Turns out in California they decided to make that study required on certain roads. It makes sense. Having an excessively low limit which is well below what most people feel is safe would lead to a lot of unjustified tickets!

Anyway, let's turn back the focus to ASSO - which also doesn't prevent you from speeding. Seems like a problem, even if your claim is that this is an autonomous driving system (which it's not intended to be right now).

 

[JB47394]

Note that can now set wipers to Off even when the car is driving.

Specifically, the driver can click the right steering wheel button and say "Wipers off". Unfortunately, it goes back to Auto each time you engage FSD.

 

[Yelobird]

Right. I am just following the law. This is why we have laws! Anyway, even the general description you quoted says the "posted speed limit is determined using an engineering speed study."

Turns out in California they decided to make that study required on certain roads. It makes sense. Having an excessively low limit which is well below what most people feel is safe would lead to a lot of unjustified tickets!

Anyway, let's turn back the focus to ASSO - which also doesn't prevent you from speeding. Seems like a problem, even if your claim is that this is an autonomous driving system (which it's not intended to be right now).

Why do you need to take feedback as a far right issue. Yes they state How the limit was created yet the part you omitted is the Fact! Posted limit IS enforcement by law. End of story. Second, I didn’t Say the car was autonomous I said that is the direction they are targeting. Stop stretching the narrative to be right. I made an observation on what we need to expect (possibly) when the direction is autonomous And we are looking to transfer liability to other.

 

[aronth5]

Food for thought.

If there were cameras at the front of the car would FSD need to creep? After all FSD would see better than it does today. (Note: the front cameras would be about 8-9 feet ahead of the B-pillar camera). Be careful if you think no which was my initial thought.

For supervised FSD the answer would need to be yes. Otherwise how can the driver supervise FSD unless the car creeps forward far enough so the driver could see and "supervise". Imagine approaching a low visibility intersection where the human cannot see potential crossing traffic but the front cameras already knows the intersection is clear and starts going. Would you trust FSD? Not me at least thru V11.

I wonder if this is one reason Tesla didn't put cameras at the front of the car since they would not have provided the value expected if they had to be supervised anyway.. One would think the new Robotaxi will have cameras up front. Nobody will be supervising..

 

[TK211X]

It’s been quiet on TeslaFi.

All the Tesla engineers high fived each other and went to MCFC2024 or something.

They gone.

I want vision based summon

 

[FSDtester#1]

Specifically, the driver can click the right steering wheel button and say "Wipers off". Unfortunately, it goes back to Auto each time you engage FSD.

True, and at least in my MS I can turn them off again after fsd is engaged

 

[Supcom]

tried wandering around the local neighborhoods and to local pharmacy.
just pulled down stalk and started. 20mph mostly. vehicle just drove and randomly decided to do turns when at T intersections. held down turn signal to force turn at intersection. twice it ignored me, 4-5 times obeyed me, rest of time just let vehicle choose where to go.

told "nav to CVS" (local pharmacy) and it pulled into handicapped space & stopped and put on emergency blinkers
(i do have handicapped tag but really)
I like you can usually, _not always_, force left or right turns with hard pull down and hold down stalk
How do you force to turn into your home driveway? tweak home?
drive was overall fairly smooth

Using the turn signal to influence a turn at an intersection has never been a feature. It sounds like you just had random turns that sometimes correlated to your turn signal use.

 

[eli_]

I hope we get some new visualizations that make more sense with V12 since the new e2e model doesn't actually make use of what's visualized on the screen anymore (cars, road edges, etc), that's all legacy. It would be cool to train a model to provide "future sight", i.e. like the backup camera view but instead shows what is going to happen 5 seconds from now.

 

[JB47394]

It sounds like you just had random turns that sometimes correlated to your turn signal use.

No, it actually works. I can get it to work if I am pulling up to a stop sign and have the turn signal activated about the normal time I'd signal for a turn - and I keep the stalk up or down, as appropriate. Somebody else observed this a while back and I tried it. It works. I used it earlier today. As I recall, if you don't hold the stalk, the car will reassert its planned route, turn off the signal and proceed.

I also tried holding the turn signal for an intersection where I wasn't stopping, and although the car head faked in that direction, it ultimately went straight.

I don't believe that this is a feature. I think it's more of an exploit of the car's adherence to the turn signal - which it normally sets itself.

 

[sleepydoc]

I'm not sure why people keep disagreeing with this.

This speed limit is not enforceable. It's the law in California. (They did make some modifications to it a year ago or so to allow enforcement in certain additional areas but that still does not apply to this road.) Maybe I don't understand how the law works - maybe if the cop paces you then it would be enforceable, but that is not particularly practical. (And this is not a "local street or road," obviously.)

The point is that the speed is not justified by an engineering study. So it is not a correct limit. If they did an engineering study, the limit would be increased. The surrounding neighborhoods do not want the limit raised, so they don't want the engineering study! Leave the limit at 45, and don't enforce it - problem solved. People will tend to go a reasonable speed relative to the posted limit.

I've explained this before. Anyway, this is the last time.

The additional point is that ASSO also does not allow you to stop the car from speeding. So it's not working very well.

I’d just hate to see someone get a fine because of your misinformation. @Yelobird posted clear evidence refuting your claim yet you either refuse to read it or don’t understand it. Regardless, you need to post come evidence as to why a law is not enforceable. (And no, enforcing laws doesn’t make it a police state, just a state of laws that should be followed.)

Edit: here’s some basic driver’s ed info for you to review:

California Speed Limits & Laws Explained: A Driver's Guide

This is an in-depth guide about CA speed limits and speed laws. Learn everything about the basic speed law, maximum speed limits and the minimum speed law.

zutobi.com

 

[sleepydoc]

Food for thought.

If there were cameras at the front of the car would FSD need to creep? After all FSD would see better than it does today. (Note: the front cameras would be about 8-9 feet ahead of the B-pillar camera). Be careful if you think no which was my initial thought.

For supervised FSD the answer would need to be yes. Otherwise how can the driver supervise FSD unless the car creeps forward far enough so the driver could see and "supervise". Imagine approaching a low visibility intersection where the human cannot see potential crossing traffic but the front cameras already knows the intersection is clear and starts going. Would you trust FSD? Not me at least thru V11.

I wonder if this is one reason Tesla didn't put cameras at the front of the car since they would not have provided the value expected if they had to be supervised anyway.. One would think the new Robotaxi will have cameras up front. Nobody will be supervising..

I’ve posted before how my car creeps even when there’s a clear field of view so I’m not sure what the purpose of creep is.

 

[swedge]

Exactly. Posted speed limits are enforceable

Uh, not exactly. California is, uh, different. In many ways, including speed limits. Some would call California "special" in the SNL sense.

California law calls posted speed limits "pima facia". But Calif's "basic speed" says you can't drive faster than is "reasonable and prudent". I call it fitting' and proper. Under case law precedents, posted speed limits can not be less that the 85th percentile speed as measured with an traffic study, unless accident history suggests this is unsafe. Exceptions exist for school zones and such. (So when we see those two rubber tubes stretched across a road, we drive extra fast so as to raise the 85th percentile.)

So, when California Alan says that particular "speed limit" is not enforceable, what he actually means is that a ticket for violating the posted limit may be successfully contested. So police instead cite for reckless driving, which includes driving 15 MPH over statutory maximum speeds, such as 65 on freeways or 55 on undivided two lane highways, unless posted higher in either situation.

 

[jabloomf1230]

I wonder if this is one reason Tesla didn't put cameras at the front of the car since they would not have provided the value expected if they had to be supervised anyway.

Nah. Tesla doesn't put cameras in the front because it would add to much cost to each car, despite the fact that FSD would be much more aware of crosstraffic.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Regardless, you need to post come evidence as to why a law is not enforceable.

I did. I linked to the law. This provides the outline of the specific cases where speed trap law applies.

I also explained how it worked. I don’t want to lead anyone astray - I never said it was legal to exceed the speed limit. And I suggest being aware of the status of engineering studies on roads you travel if you plan to routinely exceed the speed limit.

So, when California Alan says that particular "speed limit" is not enforceable, what he actually means is that a ticket for violating the posted limit may be successfully contested.

As you referenced the 85th percentile, that is what the engineering study in the law I referenced uses l, as you stated. I’ve never seen a traffic enforcement cop on the road referenced. This is because they know they cannot use radar on this road to give speeding tickets for someone going 55 in a 45 - it is not going to hold up, period. Of course reckless speed is something else entirely. I am only talking about reasonable speed below the 85th percentile.

Anyway, I don’t know why we keep coming back to this. I was speaking to a specific road, where I know the status of the engineering study (expired!!!). I’ll know that status has changed when/if they raise the speed limit.

ASSO, to be clear, would speed on this road, and it provides no means to prevent this. That seems like a problem for an autonomous system.

Fortunately it is not an autonomous system. But I still think FSD should allow people to pick the speed they want to drive. It’s ok to have other options for people who don’t mind if they are speeding, or going too slow.

 

[aronth5]

I’ve posted before how my car creeps even when there’s a clear field of view so I’m not sure what the purpose of creep is.

For clear views there isn't a purpose to creep. It's when there isn't a clear view FSD has to creep. How else can FSD make a safe decision?

Good example. FSD actually had to creep past the center line on the road before FSD would turn left. If there were any cars from either direction they have to stop. I tried to keep the camera at the drivers position so the B-pillar camera actually saw less. So even with cameras up front how could I supervise FSD if the car didn't creep far enough for the driver to see? Of course FSD wouldn't need to creep with front cameras to make a decision. Interesting question.

And this is a perfect example of why the B-pillar camera is inadequate at low visibility intersections and why Tesla should just reroute you since the hardware cannot make a safe decision. I had someone checking for vehicles.