Panoz
Member
I've been making high-speed runs through intersections, hospital zones and cemeteries. No problems at all. I love the auto-drive!
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.
I've been making high-speed runs through intersections, hospital zones and cemeteries. No problems at all. I love the auto-drive!
No. Absolutely not. No way. No. Did I mention no?
I didn't buy a nanny-state car. If I want to drive it in the city, I should be able to drive it in the city, knowing it's limitations.
NO!!!!
What confuses me about this whole issue, and about TACC which preceded it, is that they are using Mobileye technology, which can, indeed recognize stop signs and lights, and we are told the car is fitted with their latest current chip. Why has the feature NOT been activated? I mean it does not require Tesla to do the research and coding. I mean it is a significant safety issue. All the warnings caveats in the world are just legal fluff. When the rubber hits the road, practicalities are more important at the end of the day.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I think I do. You think you 'should' be able to use AP in the city. If so, why? You made an agreement not to use it in the city when you clicked through the notice choosing to do the beta. Therefore, you 'should not' be able to use it in the city. If you use it that way anyway, you do at your own risk, but unfortunately at risk to others too.
This sounds self-righteous, but that's not intended. I have been using it against the rules too, for the first day, and now I realize it was a mistake, and will be more disciplined about it.
What confuses me about this whole issue, and about TACC which preceded it, is that they are using Mobileye technology, which can, indeed recognize stop signs and lights, and we are told the car is fitted with their latest current chip. Why has the feature NOT been activated? I mean it does not require Tesla to do the research and coding. I mean it is a significant safety issue. All the warnings caveats in the world are just legal fluff. When the rubber hits the road, practicalities are more important at the end of the day.
What confuses me about this whole issue, and about TACC which preceded it, is that they are using Mobileye technology, which can, indeed recognize stop signs and lights, and we are told the car is fitted with their latest current chip. Why has the feature NOT been activated? I mean it does not require Tesla to do the research and coding. I mean it is a significant safety issue. All the warnings caveats in the world are just legal fluff. When the rubber hits the road, practicalities are more important at the end of the day.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I think I do. You think you 'should' be able to use AP in the city. If so, why? You made an agreement not to use it in the city when you clicked through the notice choosing to do the beta. Therefore, you 'should not' be able to use it in the city. If you use it that way anyway, you do at your own risk, but unfortunately at risk to others too.
This sounds self-righteous, but that's not intended. I have been using it against the rules too, for the first day, and now I realize it was a mistake, and will be more disciplined about it.
Well, it's not just your risk, there are other people on the road too.. If you hit someone because the autosteer veered into them, they are also at risk. It's similar to arguing that drunk drivers only risk themselves.I'm getting tired of these silly arguments. You made an agreement not to exceed the speed limit when you got your drivers license, have you ever exceeded the speed limit by 1mph?
I want to be able to use AP wherever I want to. I am doing it on my risk. I typically don't use AP or TACC in the city (almost never actually, though I have tested it in both situations), because autosteer does poorly, and TACC isn't that useful for city bumper to bumper for my driving style. I use both on the highway during roadtrips. But if I WANT to use either in the city, I should be able to.
Well, it's not just your risk, there are other people on the road too.. If you hit someone because the autosteer veered into them, they are also at risk. It's similar to arguing that drunk drivers only risk themselves.
Unequal assertion. Speeding is a well understood risk with high practice and established parameters. Additionally, people seeing another one speeding are accustomed to the effect on their own vehicle and can make adjustments to their driving surroundings based on the new input (guy is speeding ridiculously fast near me).Same with speeding. What's your point?
The possibility of spontaneous and disasterous decisions are not only possible, they are probable
A couple of days of experience?Give me a break - really? What data do you have to make this bold claim?
Because we've already seen videos and heard the stories of people pushing AP considerably beyond what it was designed to do, and AP making (perhaps, not entirely known) very bad decisions. I'd wager that, if used in a very conservative way, on straight highways with clear markings, the odds would go down to close to zero. They'd have to or Tesla could not have released the software. But Tesla is going to have to endure boneheads and thrill seekers. And when you throw the limitations of the software into the same salad as the creativity of the Jackass generation, you're going to get spontaneous and disasterous results.Give me a break - really? What data do you have to make this bold claim?
Unequal assertion. Speeding is a well understood risk with high practice and established parameters. Additionally, people seeing another one speeding are accustomed to the effect on their own vehicle and can make adjustments to their driving surroundings based on the new input (guy is speeding ridiculously fast near me).
With AP there is a vast unknown, with no overt indiciation to other drivers that a car is under software control rather than the driver. The possibility of spontaneous and disasterous decisions are not only possible, they are probable. Although I fundamentally agree with the notion that I should not be limited to a walled garden of acceptable roads where I can use AP, I also agree that the notion that ONLY I am at risk is fundamentally flawed and extremely dangerous.
I think it should be enormously obvious why all the yummy possibilities of AP have not been released yet, because it's going to take quite a while to train the driving and observing public to deal with the new dynamic of software driven cars.
I'm just waiting for the first video of someone setting AP and then climbing through the sunroof to surf the car.
A couple of days of experience?
I've already had my AP to almost collide me with a bus (on a straight stretch of highway!) and someone had a close encounter with an oncoming traffic due to AP misinterpreting a tree shadow on the road.
What confuses me about this whole issue, and about TACC which preceded it, is that they are using Mobileye technology, which can, indeed recognize stop signs and lights, and we are told the car is fitted with their latest current chip. Why has the feature NOT been activated? I mean it does not require Tesla to do the research and coding. I mean it is a significant safety issue. All the warnings caveats in the world are just legal fluff. When the rubber hits the road, practicalities are more important at the end of the day.
You equilibrated speeding with AP and endangerment. This is the actual fallacy. We can see that even the state governments see speeding as different than drunk driving and other forms of less-controlled driving. Driving AP in a way that is inconsistent with the rules specified by Tesla could actually fall into the reckless endangerment, criminal neglect place - much more easily than speeding. If you're doing 100mph in a school zone you're going to get get whacked the same way. But all you'd really need to do with AP is get a little more reckless on a curvy road and, potentially, you could hurt people much more spontaneously and unexpectedly. I am not saying that this is, in any way, an indictment of Tesla or a call for them to regulate. I agree that I prefer not to be nannied. But it does speak to the capability of an individual to create new and unexpected challenges on the road with AP that are much less understood or expected by other drivers.The argument was that with AP there are other people on the road that I can endanger. I said the same is true with speeding, there are other people on the road too. I'm not speeding on a closed track. Just like drunk drivers can injure other people. Yet, we don't allow drunk drivers. Keep producing cars that go faster and faster. And no one is regulating AP (nor do I think anyone should be).
This is also a fallacy, because the actual statement is that the driver is SUPPOSED to be in control. AP allows for the possibility of stupid/careless people to be much more easily out of control because they are now enticed to take their hands off the wheel. and familiarity is the enemy of safety in this case. As boneheads become more comfortable they will become more daring and less cognizant, leading to the possibility of more spectacular incidents. Again, I'm talking about boneheads here, not people of brains.There is no driver indication that a person is using cruise control. Think of AP like glorified cruise control. The other person does not need to know that you're using it, because THE DRIVER IS STILL IN CONTROL!
AP != Autonomous. The software is not in control of the car, the software is an aid, you are in control of the car!
You are SUPPOSED to be in control of the car. You clearly think that I am asserting something different.
I agree with this and your previous posts about level3. I look forward to it, but agree it's a long way away. And it's conceivable that the window may be pushed back as daredevils cause more legal troubles, inhibiting development and public release.Once we hit Level 3 autonomy, the car will be in control. We're not there yet. EM said 3 years (lol). MobilEye said 5 years (I think). Which is already pushing the boundaries, because a couple years ago researchers were speculating Level 3 is 10 years out.
Actually here I disagree with you completely. Developers often do not release capabilities because they are too far ahead of their time. Of COURSE this is is hard. Perhaps ridiculously hard. But, IMO, it is not only prudent, it is required that capabilities like this evolve somewhat slowly into the public sphere ... drivers get used to many of these ideas, the dynamics of them, the capabilities and limitations of them such that they become reasonably expected components of our driving experience, rather than a circus. You cannot release something as amazingly revolutionary as progressively automatic/approaching autonomous driving quickly or easily. It is the public that sucks, not Tesla. And I believe that although they probably could have released more capabilities, they would not until they know they will be safely used.I think it's painfully obvious why they haven't been released yet either: because it's hard to do, and it has to work in 99.99999% of the time. It's not a "hey, let's keep this from the public because they're stupid" it's more of a "hey, this is a 10-year plan, let's make the software bullet proof and roll it out stage-by-stage"
Heh. And based on many results and posts already, people are looking to push even the existing envelope to a scary point. Hopefully Tesla is collecting mountains of data and using it to prep the next bit leap.