bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
My understanding is that this bill is scheduled to die in lame duck.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And what exactly do you think the legislation proposed in Ohio is???Don't worry, if Hillary wins, she's all for more gov regulation and control.
You don't do politics much, do you ?Read the proposal. Tesla AP1 is just fine. It's only the (still theoretical) Tesla AP2, where the driver is not responsible for the operation of the vehicle that is "in danger".
What do you call texting while driving ? Or chatting on the phone, for that matter.A valid concern is that all drivers may not be trusted to properly monitor the cars when they are essentially driving themselves - and won't be able to act quickly enough to override bugs in the FSD hardware/software that could cause an accident.
I was quoted the same thing by someone who deals with the system everyday. But it's extremely disturbing that it was proposed in its current wording and by a person with clear conflicts of interest. I wanted to be very clear in my opposition to the ignorance and do my best to be vigilant that something like this doesn't sneak past us.My understanding is that this bill is scheduled to die in lame duck.
Tesla AP1 is not safe. The bill was written ambiguously on purpose so that APv1 could be affected if interpreted a certain way.Read the proposal. Tesla AP1 is just fine. It's only the (still theoretical) Tesla AP2, where the driver is not responsible for the operation of the vehicle that is "in danger".
I found it interesting that this bill is designed to be a part of the no texting while driving law, same section.What do you call texting while driving ? Or chatting on the phone, for that matter.
I think it is an unanswered question which is safer: a chatting, "in full control" driver of today or a chatting, "Auto driver" car of tomorrow.
The notion that a L5 car must reach the standard of a proficient, highly trained, and careful, fully focused driver of today is a straw man argument and extra-ordinarily perverse barrier of entry because the average driver is anything but. I'll bet you a lot of money that that an L5 car has a perfect passing rate on a driver's license practical exam, and let's be honest: few people drive anywhere near as well after they pocket the license.
I was quoted the same thing by someone who deals with the system everyday. But it's extremely disturbing that it was proposed in its current wording and by a person with clear conflicts of interest. I wanted to be very clear in my opposition to the ignorance and do my best to be vigilant that something like this doesn't sneak past us.
I'm in for this. My understanding is that Tesla has their 3 stores and they are just trying to coast in Ohio until they can focus their attention there. The Cleveland store is really beat up at times from all the Michigan service and deliveries they have to do. that isn't sustainable so Michigan is a big priority right now.Does anyone have any information regarding Tesla's policy efforts in Ohio?
I am interested to see how they respond to this news.
Stands to reason that AP drivers/early adopters should create PAC, apart from any efforts by tesla, to educate and help shape the inevitable wave of legislation affecting the technology.
Read the proposal. Tesla AP1 is just fine. It's only the (still theoretical) Tesla AP2, where the driver is not responsible for the operation of the vehicle that is "in danger".
Maybe I missed an announcement somewhere, but exactly when was the claim made that the driver won't be responsible for the operation of a Tesla that has AP 2.0? It's attitudes and thought processes like the one you're displaying here that are helping to inspire legislators to write up bills like this one. The driver is always responsible for the operation of their vehicle, AP is driver assistance, not fully autonomous driving. We are years, if not possibly a decade, away from fully-autonomous driving being a legal, common practice on public roads and if people continue to treat emerging driver-assistance technology as responsibility-absolving features, it will only serve to delay even further that day's arrival. Mis-use of the technology by users who are misguided, at best, in their expectations as to the capabilities and intentions of these features will only cause more fear and misunderstanding among the general population. When Elon Musk talks about AP, he mentions "depending on legal issues and government regulations", well, what do you think this is right here, that we're talking about? This is how the "legal issues & government regulations" part of it works, it starts with individual state officials proposing bills. The technology won't necessarily be the limiting factor in the move to fully autonomous driving, it will be a hard fought battle against public perception and heavily-vested special interest groups and that doesn't happen overnight. Please, I beseech you, please stop saying things like "where the driver is not responsible for the operation of the vehicle", it's not helping things...at all. We are not even close to that point, and it will most likely take much more than changing the vehicle itself, but rather, changes to the transportation infrastructure as well, before we get there.
For what it's worth, the bill specifically outlines that the person who is responsible is the one who engaged self driving. Which would be assumed to be the driver.
Thank you for the clarity of thought.Yes, and it's people who make claims that the driver isn't responsible for the operation of a vehicle with driver-assistance features, like AP, that will induce further wastes of time and public resources by our legislators in writing up bills that feel the need to make the already obvious claim that the driver of a vehicle is responsible for the operation of that vehicle. That was kind of my point. We all want fully-autonomous driving, but we aren't even close to that. What we have is steadily advancing driver assistance features, but people are making the leap to "autonomous" in their minds and treating these features like they absolve them of responsibility. As I stated, this "mental leap" is mis-guided and overly-optimistic and will be detrimental to the cause. That's me putting a "positive spin" on their attitude, by the way.
Read the proposal. Tesla AP1 is just fine. It's only the (still theoretical) Tesla AP2, where the driver is not responsible for the operation of the vehicle that is "in danger".
It will not. The Bill attempts to put texting and AP in the same category as DUI. Good idea for texting; awful, moronic, fluff-brained self-interest wrt to AP.Even in AP 2.0 the driver will still be responsible regardless of how automated, hopefully that will help.
This is why we need the feds to step in and create some standards ASAP.