And how often exactly is this scenario likely to happen…???? You guys who are crying about USS need to stop. It’s not a big deal. The functionality lost will be replaced soon enough. Your car parked in front scenario matters not because in any such situation involving a small child or an animal, YOUR TESLA would be backing away from not driving over any such encumbrance. It’s you who are grasping at straws, my dude.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Radar Speculation
- Thread starter Takaa
- Start date
Any sensor has the potential for false positives. Fortunately there are many solutions otherwise OEM wouldn't be using them on millions of cars, trucks, buses, RVs, ....
Of course not. If this was truly a problem, automobiles would have been designed to mitigate it a hundred years ago - long before they had cameras and ultrasonic sensors.
Reality is that small animals don't sleep through humans walking up to their cars, opening and slamming the doors. Nobody gets down on hands and knees to check under their car every time they go driving. And nobody worries about this except for people on TMC who dream up weird scenarios to try to prove that Tesla made some fatal (literally) error in their camera placement.
Actually most OEMs make sure it meets criteria well before designing it into production. Tesla marches to their own beat.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
No, I'm simply correcting your false claim that your proposed solution actually solves the whole problem, and your additional false claim "nothing" can get into the blind spots without the cameras seeing them.
I get you're a SuperFan and all, but ignoring physics and facts in favor of hyperbole is never a good look.
You also mostly dismissed the much more common problems that the blind spot can cause if the car isn't awake 24/7/365 (ie things entering the blindspots while the car is asleep, including parts of parked cars the front cams can't see when off like say a trailer hitch) by announcing Tesla will just require the car never go to sleep (made funnier by your solution requiring them to nearly double the draw of staying awake by turning on the extra cameras to shrink the blind spots).
How many news stories of exactly that happening and the pet being run over would you need me to post here to admit your claim is outright untrue? And most of those are in ICE vehicles that make WAY more noise starting up than an EV does.
Regardless of which-
I'm not suggesting this is the #1 killer in the nation or anything, but it absolutely happens. In reality.
Children and animals being run over by cars whose driver couldn't see them when moving from parked is the reason backup cameras are now required by federal law on new vehicles for example.
Like the law was literally named after a 2 year old who was killed that way.
Somewhere the family dog gets hit by a meteorite, too.
Tesla has the backup camera covered.
.
Yeah, that's what they told us when they got rid of the dedicated rain sensor. 5+ years on, we're still waiting for something that works as well...
A problem exacerbated by the "high bustle" rear ends, dictated by aerodynamics, in pursuit of meeting EPA fuel efficiency goals. One of those pesky "unintended consequences"...
And as it turns out, backup cameras are less effective than you might suppose:
Backup cameras haven't stopped drivers from backing into stuff
With or without eyes in the back of their heads, drivers keep hitting things.
www.latimes.com
"Despite the growing prevalence of backup cameras, federal data shows that this technology hasn’t significantly cut down on cars backing into people and causing them harm."
Off topic, I know. Sorry.
Quote the data, not the fake news that lays claim to the data.A problem exacerbated by the "high bustle" rear ends, dictated by aerodynamics, in pursuit of meeting EPA fuel efficiency goals. One of those pesky "unintended consequences"...
And as it turns out, backup cameras are less effective than you might suppose:
Backup cameras haven't stopped drivers from backing into stuff
With or without eyes in the back of their heads, drivers keep hitting things.
"Despite the growing prevalence of backup cameras, federal data shows that this technology hasn’t significantly cut down on cars backing into people and causing them harm."
Off topic, I know. Sorry.
Interestingly - I always approach my parked car from the direction I intend to set off from.
Rear if I am about to reverse and front if I will simply drive forward - been doing that for years - whatever safety systems and driver aids are fitted to my cars.
I regard USS as an aid to parking in tight spots and to detect objects lower than my sight line - like low curbs etc.
It is also useful if some idiot walks behind you when reversing - a common occurrence, it seems!
I think Tesla vision will easily be able to detect the things that I believe USS was always intended to do.
I dont think it will be able to solve world hunger or cure cancer!
Rear if I am about to reverse and front if I will simply drive forward - been doing that for years - whatever safety systems and driver aids are fitted to my cars.
I regard USS as an aid to parking in tight spots and to detect objects lower than my sight line - like low curbs etc.
It is also useful if some idiot walks behind you when reversing - a common occurrence, it seems!
I think Tesla vision will easily be able to detect the things that I believe USS was always intended to do.
I dont think it will be able to solve world hunger or cure cancer!
Very good practice/
Ironically curbs is something that USS can't detect (explicitly declares the limitation in the manual, too) but TV may well be able to do at some point.
The issue is not how often it's going to happen that you squash a kid or a dog with your bumper, but what the consequences will be when this happens. And what happens to your and every other USS-less insurance when somebody else does it. Vision is totally possible when you have enough cameras and it's pretty clear the current models don't have enough for parking because they were not designed with parking in mind. The current suite of cameras was designed for FSD, which has been an option for six years now, and even that one is still in beta and now HW4 is coming to fix whatever is wrong with them - so I wouldn't hold my breath for a quick solution to the USS-less parking. If parking is important to you, I'd say the smart thing to do is to stay away from models 3 and Y until a solution is available.
As a separate comment, I understand Elan needs to keep M3 cheap for the Americans to qualify for some kind of grant when they buy it so the car lost rain sensor, radar, now USS. This is not the case for those of us living in Europe where parking is often similar to what you get in NYC. Why not charge us extra for USS? 99.9% would gladly buy it.
As a separate comment, I understand Elan needs to keep M3 cheap for the Americans to qualify for some kind of grant when they buy it so the car lost rain sensor, radar, now USS. This is not the case for those of us living in Europe where parking is often similar to what you get in NYC. Why not charge us extra for USS? 99.9% would gladly buy it.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
And if we go by the Cybertruck prototype they appear to intend to cover the front blind spot cam too. (and it's possible this will appear on the refreshed 3 and other vehicles over time as well)
Some folks in the thread think Tesla is making a mistake there I guess since they keep insisting how pointless such a thing would be? Why are they smarter than Tesla engineers?
Do you?
As a reminder, this offshoot came about by correcting wrong info you posted.
If you're mad about it, try being less wrong?
FIRST you said they'd solve persistence-while parked- by
I pointed out this doesn't work to solve the problem because after it does that and goes to sleep, it won't "see" anything that moves into the blind spot while asleep.
You ignored the sleep part (even though it was inherent in your original "save to memory" claim) and then when it was pointed out you hand-waived that away by saying they'll just force you to run Sentry mode 24/7/365...then ignored all the problems with THAT idea too and wrongly claiming "nothing" can get into the blind spots without the cams seeing them.
Then I pointed out even when awake the cars current 4-cam system has numerous blind spots (directly in front below hood line, and on both sides of the car ahead of the fender cams) and when you denied it I corrected you AGAIN by posting actual pictures from the current cam setup showing you were yet again wrong.
You dismissed THAT with pics of camera coverage-- despite the fact none of them cover the first blind spot, and you'd be near doubling sentry consumption turning the other 3 cameras on 24/7/365... (you'd also near double the wear on the storage by capturing 3 extra cameras while we're at it). So I pointed those corrections out too.
Then you got mad about it....for...reasons...
Also worth mentioning, another of your remarks in this was how Tesla never cheaps out on parts and always uses the best.... in a thread about the fact they REMOVED parts ENTIRELY and hope to replace their function with parts already on the car. Irony appears lost on you as well as facts.
As others have pointed out there's many examples of this, too, being untrue.... not using a $2 rain sensor and relying on vision, which has never worked as well being one example.
Removing radar and relying on vision-- resulting in nearly 2 years later still having reduced functionality compared to radar (max speed and min follow are still inferior in vision cars compared to radar ones).
Again- it's great to be a fan of Tesla. I certainly am one. And an investor too. But don't let it make you ignore reality.
Last edited:
So, actual data on backup camera efficacy from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is “fake news”?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Except that's not actually the data that was given.
For one, the data is from 2008 through 2011. Backup cams were not required in those years, and even the article admits they were on only 32% of new cars at the start of the period and only 68% of new ones at the end of the period. Meaning a VAST VAST VAST majority of all cars on the road in that period did not have them.
And the data used was for ALL cars- not "cars with backup cams"
So it tells us VERY LITTLE about the efficacy of backup cams, since very few of the total cars studied had them- and they didn't bother to compare the rate on THOSE with the ones without.
And even THEN the injury rate dropped 8%, and the fatality rate by 31%.
Suggesting that cams in even a small % of the fleet were very effective in reducing injury and death.
So taking all that into consideration and concluding "Backup cams don't really help" seems... not reflective of the actual info provided?
Here's a different perspective- a study where they actually bothered to COMPARE cars with and without backup cams.
Real-world effects of rear automatic braking and other backing assistance systems
'Real-world effects of rear automatic braking and other backing assistance systems' by Cicchino, Jessica B.
www.iihs.org
Cameras PLUS rear park assist (the USS Tesla removed) reduced backing crashes by 42%
Similar threads
