New Update Coming Next Month

[fasteddie7]

No, stop sign detection and red light detection needs to be 100%. No question.

Nothing assistive has to be 100% . Assist is just helping the driver who is the one who needs to be 100% in control at all times. So it can see a stop sign 5% of the time and be assistive. At this rate I think it will be awhile until we see FSD.

 

[sorka]

No, stop sign detection and red light detection needs to be 100%. No question.

Well then they better just ditch AEB since it isn't 100% in either AP1 or AP2. 90% stop sign detection would be 100% fine by me

I disagree with you "100%", even though "90%" would do

Now if we were talking FSD, then of course it would have to be 100% since if it were only 90%, all FSD cars would be running stop signs 10% of the time which would be completely unacceptable.

 

[oktane]

Nothing assistive has to be 100% . Assist is just helping the driver who is the one who needs to be 100% in control at all times. So it can see a stop sign 5% of the time and be assistive. At this rate I think it will be awhile until we see FSD.

If it works only 5% of the time or even 90% of the time it is safer to not use it. It becomes a gimmick rather than a feature. Would you still buy the car if it only turned on 90% of the time?

 

[sorka]

If it works only 5% of the time or even 90% of the time it is safer to not use it. It becomes a gimmick rather than a feature. Would you still buy the car if it only turned on 90% of the time?

No but I'd buy it if emergency-braking-on-imminent-stop-sign-running feature worked to prevent half of run stop signs from being run.

By your logic, AP1 and AP2 are worthless because AEB, lane, holding, collision detection, etc are also not 100%.

This is why this is an assistive feature. It's a backup to the normal device that has primary responsibility to stop at stop signs. As far as the car actually starting when told to, it's the cars responsibility to start, not the drivers.......or do you watch too much Flinstones

 

[fasteddie7]

If it works only 5% of the time or even 90% of the time it is safer to not use it. It becomes a gimmick rather than a feature. Would you still buy the car if it only turned on 90% of the time?

Turning on and active safety are two seperate things. Turning on is a necessary function. The safety is an enchancement to assist you. If you are paying full attention the it is a bonus. If you are distracted, the assist should help you not replace you.

 

[oktane]

Turning on and active safety are two seperate things. Turning on is a necessary function. The safety is an enchancement to assist you. If you are paying full attention the it is a bonus. If you are distracted, the assist should help you not replace you.

Completely disagree, but to each their own.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

It's a double-edged sword, but Musk is the furthest thing from a bad CEO. That statement is laughable.

Okay, then, so he's a great CEO but a piss poor manager. I'll buy that.

You're being too critical of Cook. More new Apple Watch band colors came out today!

Steve Jobs saved Apple by wrapping existing technology in colorful packages: iMac. Don't underestimate the power of color.

 

[stopcrazypp]

No but I'd buy it if emergency-braking-on-imminent-stop-sign-running feature worked to prevent half of run stop signs from being run.

By your logic, AP1 and AP2 are worthless because AEB, lane, holding, collision detection, etc are also not 100%.

This is why this is an assistive feature. It's a backup to the normal device that has primary responsibility to stop at stop signs. As far as the car actually starting when told to, it's the cars responsibility to start, not the drivers.......or do you watch too much Flinstones

Yep. There is no AEB system out there that can guarantee 100% detection. However, it's better than nothing.

But for that matter, AEB is not advertised to stop for stop signs (most of the systems out there can't even detect stop signs). They are for collision. In California, if the AEB was programmed to stop automatically at every stop sign, I can see a lot of people disabling it (the "California roll" is quite popular here).

The assistive systems are all tuned to avoid false positives (unnecessarily stopping) because they know it only assists. That means it's biased such that the likelihood of false negatives (not stopping in some cases) may be higher.

 

[sorka]

Yep. There is no AEB system out there that can guarantee 100% detection. However, it's better than nothing.

But for that matter, AEB is not advertised to stop for stop signs (most of the systems out there can't even detect stop signs). They are for collision. In California, if the AEB was programmed to stop automatically at every stop sign, I can see a lot of people disabling it (the "California roll" is quite popular here).

The assistive systems are all tuned to avoid false positives (unnecessarily stopping) because they know it only assists. That means it's biased such that the likelihood of false negatives (not stopping in some cases) may be higher.

I think a collision warning sound is probably better than AEB for stop signs with just a little bit more notice since if it does detect a stop sign, the odds of it being a false positive are probably 0% vs collision detection with an object.

 

[Helmuth]

I'm amazed he called the current AP "safe" given my experience of it going into the oncoming lane on local roads about every 5 miles of use.

That was exactly my experience with an AP1 loaner I had a few weeks ago. Had to take over 3 times to prevent the car hitting the oncoming traffic...