There seems to be a somewhat common misunderstanding of what ‘beta testing’ means (and how it’s different than production products like Tesla AP that are still labeled as beta e.g. - games like TF2 for 10 years, Google Gmail for 5.5 years, many Google products for that matter, etc.)
Other road users are not asked for agreement..
Have had the same thing happen to me using it. It is something in the BETA that needs work. Difference between that driver and myself, I chose to NOT LET IT PULL OUT IN FRONT OF THE OTHER CAR. The video shows, that DRIVER DID ALLOW IT TO.
Oddly it looks like FSD started to go, pulled a very hard left and the driver then turned right and crossed the road into the path of the car. But he was forced to take control after FSD had put the car in a head-on facing position on the side of the road.
I do have to agree with this. I've never been a fan that the car keeps accelerating on its own after having to take over. Your mind tells you, you've taken control, yet you don't have full control. I do wish that any type of override would disengage all control from the car until I give that control back to the car.
This is also the case in any product testing, whether internal or external. In other words, the public‘s consent isn’t ever required for product testing.
In a sense, yes. Depending on what‘s being consented to, it is a moot point. People are conflating consent with risk. For example, in the same example above, what exactly is the white car (driver) supposedly not consenting to? Participation? Nobody’s consent is expected before putting a new product on the road. In fact, children passengers or playing nearby or even adult drivers never consented to any cars being on the street. Or if we are talking about head-on collisions, FSD beta drivers didn’t consent to those either. Tesla isn’t necessarily legally exempt if a head-on collision occurred above, even when talking about the FSD beta tester that ”consented”. What we consented to was the responsibility we have as drivers monitoring a system that has known risks. And in that regard, others’ consent isn’t necessary. Tesla (and FSD beta testers) are liable for certain risks, but not all.
Silly. How many were asked to drive with drunk drivers, sleepy drivers, drivers who are getting off amphetamine high and about to crash, etc...?
I started to write the exact same message and changed my mind. Decided I was done arguing the point. But, absolutely true. We choose to get on the road every day with drivers that we have no clue what their situation is, many of which shouldn't be on the road. This is a system designed to improve safety and in many aspects it has. Tesla releasing it to more people who passed their "test" will allow it to gain more data faster to get to the desired results sooner. So, maybe, I repeat, MAYBE now, we're only 3-5 years away from true FSD, whereas without the added beta testers, likely were at least 10 years out.
teslamotorsclub.com
Most drivers would turn to the right, stop when approaching the intersection then creep as necessary to see oncoming traffic. In other words squaring off a bit before proceeding. FSD doesn't seem to have this capability yet especially when the roads don't intersect at 90 degrees.
Give it a little time to self-correct and if that doesn't work simply request service on your Tesla app. They will be able to fix it remotely.
Yes and this is why traffic laws exist. People who are caught driving drunk/high lose their driving privileges, and falling asleep at the wheel would lead to varying discipline depending on the circumstances.
