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

Here's What's Missing from Self-Driving Cars: TRUST

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
This thread is wandering away from the original intent, probably because of the title. The concept was that self-driving cars require trust. Not that Tesla is somehow lacking trust.

I have updated the thread title... please try and discuss the actual topic.
First, changing the title to change a direction of a thread will probably create even more confusion. Maybe start a new thread instead? And if you intended this to be a generic self-driving discussion, maybe Model S sub-forum is not the correct location for it?

Second, trust of the manufacturer is relevant. If Tesla falls on non-self-driving promises and delivers crappy features, people will not trust their self-drive features. Whether that's because AP1 summon doesn't meet you anywhere on private property, or because auto-park hits curbs and cars, or because the promised hp was never delivered - it's irrelevant, bottom line the trust is gone.
 
This thread is wandering away from the original intent, probably because of the title. The concept was that self-driving cars require trust. Not that Tesla is somehow lacking trust.

I have updated the thread title... please try and discuss the actual topic.
Actually Doug - what nerduno clearly meant was that he does not put any faith in Tesla as a company. That is the intent of the thread. However I will agree with you that the intent of the article cited by nerduno does not actually make any claims about Tesla or have anything to do with Tesla, Elon Musk's optimistic claims/timelines, etc. But @NerdUno 's original intent was obviously to say that Tesla's actions cause many people to not trust it as a company. The article cited as supporting evidence muddied the water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmacelf
If you want to have a thread about trusting Tesla, start a thread on the topic instead of hijacking one on a different topic.
The OP's intent was a thread on trusting Tesla - read his post again. But the article he chose didn't support his paragraph. Nevertheless his intent was quite clear (bolded emphasis mine):

"This article explains the missing component in Tesla's epic journey to full self-driving better than I ever could. If you can't trust the word of the company that's making life and death decisions for you when you're riding in your FSD vehicle, then where are you? Put another way, if a company is willing to lie about vehicle capabilities just to sell cars, how can you trust them to be honest in explaining what your car will and won't do in an actual emergency situation?"

To Reap the Benefits of Autonomous Tech, We Need to Learn to Trust It
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmacelf
Tesla has themself to blame. Until I purchased the car I thought Elon Musk was a visionary and genius a remarkable human being. After purchasing the car I realize he is a salesman first and foremost. Because of their lies I am forced to bash Tesla at every dinner meeting, car wash, grocery store trip, etc. and warn people to please do not buy a Tesla unless you are fully aware of their intent to defraud you.

It's a sad state of affairs when Tesla puts me in the awkward position to like my car (Tessie) but be pissed at the company. As soon as Mercedes or Porsche or Audi has something comparable I am gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmpedRealtor
I posted this earlier, maybe even in this thread. It would seem that you're right, Mercedes doesn't sell a "beta self driving car". This ad doesn't say anything about "beta". (/sarcasm/)
View attachment 232909

If you read the whole ad, the only part where it actually claims to be self-driving is parking. Beyond that they call it a self-correcting system and goes onto list the safety systems of the car.

If only Tesla's issues were over-hyped ad-titles only.
 
  • Funny
  • Like
Reactions: NerdUno and EinSV
I was talking about Elon's publicly-mentioned goals (including his date predictions), which some of the complainers here somehow translate into "promises". You're talking about something different.

Elon's statements are Tesla's statements, really. They are used to sell cars quarter to quarter. Holding him responsible for them due to taking people's money seems reasonable to me.

He knows the power of his word. Responsibility comes from using that power.
 
First, changing the title to change a direction of a thread will probably create even more confusion. Maybe start a new thread instead? And if you intended this to be a generic self-driving discussion, maybe Model S sub-forum is not the correct location for it?

Second, trust of the manufacturer is relevant. If Tesla falls on non-self-driving promises and delivers crappy features, people will not trust their self-drive features. Whether that's because AP1 summon doesn't meet you anywhere on private property, or because auto-park hits curbs and cars, or because the promised hp was never delivered - it's irrelevant, bottom line the trust is gone.

Personally I saw the OP's motivation as bit of both: a self-driving car really needs trust and Tesla is lacking in both the corporate trust front as well as prioritizing a self-driving system that we can trust.

Tesla's problems with corporate trust are multi-faceted (and much discussed). The issue with their self-driving priorities is that they proclaim a car capable of Levels 3-5, yet really are shipping only a Level 2 system with capabilities approaching those of Level 3 cars. Because really what Level 3 is, is a system where you can place your trust on the car. And Tesla is not talking any of that yet, quite the contrary they are placing all the responsibility on the driver.

When you see the likes of Germans/Volvo talk about Level 3 and beyond, they talk of taking the responsibility for the car from the driver for specific driving scenarios (on Level 3). They even talk of taking legal responsibility for the car's actions, instead of the driver. In the meanwhile, Elon Musk has gone on record saying he thinks the driver / owner / insurance company will be responsible when a self-driving car crashes.

So there definitely is a difference in the trust approach as well. The Europeans are looking at making systems so good they can take responsibility for them. Tesla is making the driver / owner keep the responsibility much longer, it seems, while trying to deliver on similar functional goals (possibly sooner, though that is a question mark by now given the state of EAP vs. Audi's Level 3 soon).

Here's is the magazine snipped I've been showing at times talking Audi's perspective:

7zCDa1k.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: NerdUno and whitex
Apple doesn't over-promise and under-deliver. Apple just delivers. I don't think Apple needs to juice the facts or mislead customers in order to move product or create stock value. To suggest that Tesla needs to be misleading in order to create equity is tantamount to saying that Tesla cannot survive on the merits of its products.

The P85/+ may have been the last Model S performance variant that delivered on advertised specs. Tesla received many kudos from customers in 2012 and 2013 for being conservative with its specifications. Some went so far as to say that Tesla was one of the few car manufacturers where an everyday customer, without special knowledge or skill, could reproduce advertised performance.

Today's stock value should not be seen as a validation of Tesla's exaggerations. The reason the stock is up, fundamentally, is because Tesla's market share has a lot of room to grow. There is much for them to disrupt, not unlike Apple in 2007. To say that Tesla is doing everything right simply because the stock is up may be viewing the situation rather simplistically. While the stock rising may be satisfying to investors, it's fair to say that the vast majority of customers don't care about the price of TSLA. They just want a good experience and a product that delivers on what was promised.

The bottom line for me is that Tesla doesn't need to behave this way, and it didn't when I purchased my car in mid-2013.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line for me is that Tesla doesn't need to behave this way, and it didn't when I purchased my car in mid-2013.

Indeed. Agreed.

I too have gone from super happy with the company in 2014 to, well, not in 2017. Most of the dislike generated could easily have been avoided with basic business ethics and stopping the overpromise-hubris.
 
The bottom line for me is that Tesla doesn't need to behave this way, and it didn't when I purchased my car in mid-2013.
Similar here. In 2014 other than being a bit miffed at Tesla for disabling my SAS for few months, I was telling everybody who asked how great their products. Today, I give cautionary tales, warning about early adopter issues, about overhyped features and recommending buying the low end without EAP of FSD.

There is one more thing that worries me about Tesla self-driving. They gamble a lot by selling Beta software (of their own admission) to the public. The problem is, if they screw up and cause some shocking public disaster, this could set the entire autonomous car industry behind by 10+ years, if people freak out and force the legislators to ban autonomous driving. This can happen. If an autonomous Tesla semi plows into a school bus somewhere killing kids, it's game over for all manufacturers for a while.
 
@NerdUno, you have said repeatedly that GM's Supercruise will be better than Autopilot when it is released.

But GM concealed a faulty ignition switch for over 10 years, resulting in an estimated 124 deaths, possibly more.

Since GM hid defects leading to at least 124 deaths, by your logic in this thread one should never "TRUST" GM. Yet you somehow manage to "promise" that GM's Supercruise system, when it is finally released, is going to be better than Autopilot,:confused: Move Over Tesla. Here Comes Cadillac.

Here's how Wikipedia describes the results of GM's misdeeds:

Quantifying fatalities
The faulty ignitions have been linked (by GM itself) to 124 deaths.[3] GM originally only linked the failures to 13 deaths and 31 crashes.[12] The company only counted incidents which resulted in head-on collisions in which the airbags did not deploy. It did not include, for example, an incident where after a car's ignition switch failed, the car "spun out, hydroplaned, hit an oncoming vehicle and rolled off the road, dropping 15 feet into a creek".[13] In a collision in which two young women in a Chevrolet Cobalt were killed when the ignition switch shut off the engine, GM only counted the death of the woman in the front seat, because the death of the woman in the back seat was not caused by the failure of the airbag to deploy.[14] Most of the victims were under age 25.[15] On June 3, 2014, Reuters published an analysis concluding that the faulty switches were responsible for 74 deaths, based on Fatality Analysis Reporting System data. General Motors disputed its conclusion, and stood by their original figure of 13 deaths after the report was released as of June 3, 2014.[16]By the end of September, Reuters stated in an article that 153 deaths were linked to the faulty ignition switch.[17] As of March 2015, GM had offered compensation for 11 Category One injuries, along with 115 Category Two injuries.[18] In April 2015, GM officially noted that the death toll was believed to have reached 87, higher than the previous number of 74 they reported in March 2015.[19] Upon its completion, the compensation fund established by GM had offered compensation for 124 deaths, nearly 10 times more than the 13 deaths GM executives reported in April 2014.[3][20] However, the true number of deaths resulting from the ignition switch is likely higher as GM's compensation fund rejected more than 90% of claims and it did not include claims that are part of the ongoing Multidistrict Litigation.[21][3] General Motors ignition switch recalls - Wikipedia


Anyone who wants to make a rational judgment on whether to trust the safety of Tesla's Autopilot need look no further than Tesla vehicles' outstanding safety record -- most recently Model X was rated the safest SUV ever tested by the NHTSA -- as well as the NHTSA's finding that there was a 40% reduction in airbag inducing accidents after AP1 was activated. I expect comparable or better numbers from AP2, with the safety benefits continuing to increase as time goes on and the Full-Self Driving system is activated.
 
Last edited:
Different companies will address FSD evolution different ways. Some may wait to offer features commercially until they are completely bulletproof. Tesla has elected to put them out there in stages and let the market participate in their evolution. That is bound to be a rockier road, but results in autonomous features in the market earlier. Also IMO forces competitors to move. Not sure we'd be seeing those MB ads without Tesla. i think, stepping back, the variety of approaches will benefit the market by both accelerating and perfecting autonomous features. Many of us old fogeys will hold out on FSD "trust", but future generations will grow up with it and implicitly trust. Why use a slide rule when you've got a calculator?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EinSV
If you want to have a thread about trusting Tesla, start a thread on the topic instead of hijacking one on a different topic.

Wow! Never been accused of hijacking my own thread before. You changed the topic, not me. If you take a look at the first post, you'll see that I started the thread exactly as I intended. And I repeated my concerns further down in the thread:

I think you missed the whole point of my post. Before you can get to TRUST of autonomous tech (covered in the article), you first must have TRUST in the company that designed it (my point). When you go to Six Flags and get on the roller coaster, you explicitly TRUST that the designers of the ride did it in such a way that it's not going to fly off the rails at the first turn. Can you say the same thing about Tesla? And, if so, based on what evidence?

Not sure why you find that so offensive??
 
Last edited:
Anyone who wants to make a rational judgment on whether to trust the safety of Tesla's Autopilot need look no further than Tesla vehicles' outstanding safety record -- most recently Model X was rated the safest SUV ever tested by the NHTSA -- as well as the NHTSA's finding that there was a 40% reduction in airbag inducing accidents after AP1 was activated. I expect comparable or better numbers from AP2, with the safety benefits continuing to increase as time goes on and the Full-Self Driving system is activated.

Well, Tesla is still relatively new, we don't know everything that will crop up.

Some things are cropping up, though.

In addition to any Auto-Pilot issues and countergates and ratethrottlings, Model S does apparently have the breaking acceleator pedal issue. Not really a non-dangerous one that when you lose acceleration suddenly and regen-braking hits instead... I could fathom results similar to engine shutoff, if it happened in unlucky circumstances.

More than one such incident now:

img_6385-jpg.232318


18698507_10211873653449596_4694797782849308031_n-jpg.232324


18740529_10211873508525973_3120396188315762455_n-jpg.232325


Accelerator Pedal Broke Off
 
Well, Tesla is still relatively new, we don't know everything that will crop up.

Some things are cropping up, though.

In addition to any Auto-Pilot issues and countergates and ratethrottlings, Model S does apparently have the breaking acceleator pedal issue. Not really a non-dangerous one that when you lose acceleration suddenly and regen-braking hits instead... I could fathom results similar to engine shutoff, if it happened in unlucky circumstances.

More than one such incident now:

img_6385-jpg.232318


18698507_10211873653449596_4694797782849308031_n-jpg.232324


18740529_10211873508525973_3120396188315762455_n-jpg.232325


Accelerator Pedal Broke Off

I am not understanding how a report of a broken accelerator pedal relates to autonomy. I would say it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Are you saying that even though the Model X is the safest SUV ever rated by the NHTSA, you would recommend buying something else because stuff may crop up in the future and the NHTSA might turn out to be wrong? If so, that does not seem like sound logic to me.

Again, not seeing what this has to do with autonomy, which is supposedly the topic of this thread.