What are the guidelines for using Autopilot on roads with cross traffic?

[HighZ]

Tesla explicitly tells you what it can't do

If Tesla truly intended AP *NOT* to be used on non-limited access roads, it could have easily disabled the feature from being activated at all. Instead, it allows us to use AP and even sets a 5 MPH over speed limit threshold, so there was specific thought to its use. I totally get that Tesla has to say that from a CYA liability point of view, but I truly believe that they are harvesting bucket loads of data from us 'non-compliant' users. It it was a danger and they felt they had an obligation to prevent its use, they would be well within their rights to do that.

 

[Knightshade]

Yes, it doesn't appear to take the crossing car's trajectory in to account. Just sees something in the way, at that moment, and slams the brakes.... just pointing to the user manual that says "oh, that might happen" is not a good excuse for the system's behavior.

So the manual making it clear AP is not even supposed to be used there is not an excuse for why the system doesn't behave the way you want someplace the manufacturer tells you it's not intended to be used at all?


That's not bad software. That's a bad user.

I have to wonder when these guys will give up defending bad software?

Again- you keep blaming user error on software.

I h
Once FSD is "officially released" and it still does all sorts of crazy stuff?

Tesla has been crystal clear that the HW3-specific (requires HW3, and is NOT what is out there today) FSD city driving code is much more complex and advanced than what's in regular cars today.


Given that is entirely different software why do you assume it'll do the same thing?

Especially when you've had it explained to you, repeatedly, why it does that today and why it's not an "error" on anybodys part but the user to expect different from today software.


The current AP system assumes:

All drivers are going the same direction.
On a controlled access road (so on/off ramps... no turn lanes, no intersections).
NO cross traffic. Ever.


So it has to see a sideways car in your lane as something bad for which slamming on the brakes is the absolute correct behavior



The fact you get mad when it does the only thing that makes any sense given the systems base assumptions- because you choose to use it someplace those things aren't true despite Tesla telling you not to- is your fault.

100%.

 

[Knightshade]

Although, I do disagree with knightshade about car specifically not being designed to handle these situations.

I mean the owners manual explicitly tells you it's not intended to handle them....

Tesla is working to handle all situations. True Full Self Driving. While they might not advertise all the little codes they've adopted, cross traffic awareness and mitigation is probably one thing coded in and there

It's not. At all.

Right now (apart from some visualization stuff) it's still running the HW 2.5 code.

Which as I mention (and the manual explains) assumes behaviorally there's no such thing as cross traffic or intersections. At all.

The HW3 native/only code for city FSD, which isn't out yet, will certainly consider and understand those things. Some HW3 owners are getting visualizations showing hints of that, though no real functionality around it currently.

But the code running on regular cars today? Absolutely no- it doesn't act with any understanding of those things.

Which is exactly why you get the observed behavior when you use the system in places with cross-traffic.



Edit- apologies to mod- was in the middle of typing this as they wrote their post

 

[diezel_dave]

I don't know why @Knightshade gets jumped on. From the owner's manual:

it then goes on to say "If you choose to use Autosteer on residential roads, a road without a center divider, or a road where access is not limited...." follow by various things it might not be able to do... many of which people are complaining about above.

So, I don't get it. Tesla explicitly tells you what it can't do, then people complain that it can't do it, then when someone points out "They told you it couldn't do it" that person gets jumped on for being a "Tesla apologist"?

EDIT: I should point out that, of course, I still use it on "residential roads, a road without a center divider, or a road where access is not limited" but I'm not shocked/outraged when it doesn't work well.

If the owner's manual said "The brakes may catch fire in heavy stop and go traffic" or "The wheels may fall off at high speeds" and those things happened during what are very common use cases, would that excuse the poor design? People like the aforementioned would certainly blame the user for driving in stop and go traffic or driving on the freeway "because the manual said not to". They very same folks that agreed with Apple when they told people they were holding their phones wrong and causing the signal to drop out.

 

[Knightshade]

If the owner's manual said "The brakes may catch fire in heavy stop and go traffic" or "The wheels may fall off at high speeds" and those things happened during what are very common use cases, would that excuse the poor design?

It wouldn't excuse poorly written analogies that entirely miss the point either.

Likewise when the manual tells you you should wear your seatbelt, the fact you fly through the windshield when you ignore this advice doesn't mean "poor windshield design"

The windshields job is not to cover up for you not using the seatbelt correctly.

Likewise APs job is explicitly not to handle things like cross traffic.

And it never will be.

That's the job of in-city FSD. A feature which isn't actually installed in your car yet.


So you're mad that a feature you don't even have isn't being done properly by a different system that the maker of the car specifically informs you in advance it can't and is not intended to do.

That's the argument you keep making.

it's a bad argument.

 

[diezel_dave]

Likewise APs job is explicitly not to handle things like cross traffic.

Then it shouldn't try to because then we wouldn't be complaining about the car stopping for cross traffic that is so far ahead so as not to even be a concern. But now we are wildly off topic for this thread so we will just have to agree that we disagree.

 

[Knightshade]

Then it shouldn't try to

It does not try to

Instead it operates as programmed to- under the premise all cars are going the same direction on a limited access road.

Therefore when it sees a sideways car it can't see that as "cross traffic" it sees it as "Guy is either disabled in front of me sideways" or "Guy is spinning or sliding across my lane out of control"- Because in the places AP is intended to be used a car should never be sideways across your lane if everything is fine.

To either circumstance "HIT THE BRAKES" is the absolute correct response. Which is what it does.


That is the very thing you are complaining about, while clearly not understanding why it's doing what you are complaining about.


To sum up your argument:


"This does not work the way I think it should in this situation the people who made the car explicitly told me not to use it- so I'm mad when I try and force it to anyway and it doesn't work right"

 

[diezel_dave]

It does not try to

Instead it operates as programmed to- under the premise all cars are going the same direction on a limited access road.

Therefore when it sees a sideways car it can't see that as "cross traffic" it sees it as "Guy is either disabled in front of me sideways" or "Guy is spinning or sliding across my lane out of control"- Because in the places AP is intended to be used a car should never be sideways across your lane if everything is fine.

To either circumstance "HIT THE BRAKES" is the absolute correct response. Which is what it does.


That is the very thing you are complaining about, while clearly not understanding why it's doing what you are complaining about.


To sum up your argument:


"This does not work the way I think it should in this situation the people who made the car explicitly told me not to use it- so I'm mad when I try and force it to anyway and it doesn't work right"

Please stop cluttering up this thread with the off-topic discussion. Wanting to use cruise control in a rural, but not limited access, area is not an irrational desire and it does not function in this car whereas it has in every other "less advanced" car that I have owned. They need to improve it and a lot of people would agree. End of story. If you want to keep arguing this, meet me over at the autopilot thread.

 

[turnem]

If Tesla truly intended AP *NOT* to be used on non-limited access roads, it could have easily disabled the feature from being activated at all. Instead, it allows us to use AP and even sets a 5 MPH over speed limit threshold, so there was specific thought to its use. I totally get that Tesla has to say that from a CYA liability point of view, but I truly believe that they are harvesting bucket loads of data from us 'non-compliant' users. It it was a danger and they felt they had an obligation to prevent its use, they would be well within their rights to do that.

Yea - I agree with your view on this as well. The manual is basically a CYA legal document in certain cases. If they truly didn't want us to use it on city streets then they wouldn't allow it. They know the difference as you have clearly stated.

 

[turnem]

So @Knightshade - honest question for you. But before I ask I'll just say that I do respect your view on this and I appreciate you mostly staying civil and fact-based in your argument. So this question isn't intended to be flippant at all.

IF the car/system understands the difference between divided highways (or roads that are intended for use with full AP) and surface streets then why does it allow us to use full AP on those exact streets that it explicitly tells us not to use AP on in the manual?

 

[HighZ]

IMHO, @Knightshade correctly states that the system has known limitations listed in the manual for both AP and TACC. He is right to say that it is NOT a software issue or a bug. Don't blame the software!

However, when he says that its use in those situations is reckless (user error), I would respectfully disagree. As long as the user is aware of the issues and is ready to take over, then we just have to deal with the limitations. (And as long as the user does not complain that there is a problem with the software, since we know there are issues.) BUT we can expect that these limitations will be improved over time.

 

[HighZ]

On a somewhat unrelated note, I have driven on at least two stretches of non-limited access roads going through towns that my car thinks IS limited access. I can set the speed to whatever I want on AP.

Is there any way that Tesla can be notified of this to fix in a future nav update? I tried to do a bug report, but that doesn't seem to be working.

 

[Knightshade]

However, when he says that its use in those situations is reckless (user error), I would respectfully disagree.

FWIW I don't believe I ever said it was reckless. if I did please quote it?

I said user error- because using the system someplace it's explicitly not meant to work right and then criticizing for not working right is exactly that. An error of the user, nor the software.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I have driven on at least two stretches of non-limited access roads going through towns that my car thinks IS limited access. I can set the speed to whatever I want on AP.

Is there any way that Tesla can be notified of this to fix in a future nav update? I tried to do a bug report, but that doesn't seem to be working.

Rumor has it bug reports don't get sent anywhere.

They're basically just a "bookmark" of the cars logs that stay on the car.

Only useful if you request service so that they can easily reference the logs at the exact point you had an issue.

 

[HighZ]

FWIW I don't believe I ever said it was reckless.

@Knightshade, you are correct, you never said reckless, but I interpreted it as such when you used a comparison to someone who drives drunk which IMO is reckless.

People drive drunk all the time too

I still have a hard time saying a user is at fault when the system runs into a limitation. It is a system limitation. Now, if they got into an accident since they weren't paying attention or ready to take over, then it is driver error. If they claim the software didn't do something it was programmed to do, then they may be wrong. I say 'may be' since we don't really know what the software was programmed to do in all situations.

 

[Knightshade]

So @Knightshade - honest question for you. But before I ask I'll just say that I do respect your view on this and I appreciate you mostly staying civil and fact-based in your argument. So this question isn't intended to be flippant at all.

IF the car/system understands the difference between divided highways (or roads that are intended for use with full AP) and surface streets then why does it allow us to use full AP on those exact streets that it explicitly tells us not to use AP on in the manual?

There's a million things a car will "let" you do that it might think you shouldn't.... it'll "let" you drive without a seat belt... it'll "let" you exceed the speed limit... it'll "let" you drive the wrong way down a one-way street.... it'll "let" you override TACC braking with the accelerator and crash into the back of someone.

It (via in car warnings, the manual, etc) can suggest to you what to do, but the driver is ultimately in charge.

 

[Knightshade]

I still have a hard time saying a user is at fault when the system runs into a limitation. It is a system limitation.

If they are aware of the limitation- and then complain the car is in the wrong when that limitation shows itself- how's that an error on the part of anyone other than the user?

Now, if they got into an accident since they weren't paying attention or ready to take over, then it is driver error. If they claim the software didn't do something it was programmed to do, then they may be wrong. I say 'may be' since we don't really know what the software was programmed to do in all situations.

We do though. The manual is pretty clear on this.

It (AP) is programmed to handle situations on limited-access divided freeways where:

All traffic is going the same way
Access is limited (via things like on/off ramps)
There are no intersections or cross traffic.



So every time you (generic you) uses the system in places those things are NOT true- and the system behaves in a way you think is not ideal- and you complain about that- that's a user error.

You (generic you) are erroneously using it someplace it's not intended to work correctly and then getting upset it's not working correctly.

 

[turnem]

@Knightshade, you are correct, you never said reckless, but I interpreted it as such when you used a comparison to someone who drives drunk which IMO is reckless.



I still have a hard time saying a user is at fault when the system runs into a limitation. It is a system limitation. Now, if they got into an accident since they weren't paying attention or ready to take over, then it is driver error. If they claim the software didn't do something it was programmed to do, then they may be wrong. I say 'may be' since we don't really know what the software was programmed to do in all situations.

Yea - I agree with this. There's a huge difference between someone claiming Tesla is at fault in an accident and someone claiming that there is a software limitation. I KNOW I'm in charge of the car and responsible for what happens regardless of whether AP is engaged or not.

 

[HighZ]

how's that an error on the part of anyone other than the user?

To me 'user error' means they actively did something wrong to create the limitation. If you are saying they are 'in error' for complaining about it, then fine. But to me, it is not user error in the same way as it could be software error when the car does something completely stupid even on roads it IS programmed to drive.

We do though. The manual is pretty clear on this.

Unless you are working for Tesla as a programmer, we do not know. Just because the manual says so is not a valid argument for what the system is capable of doing in all circumstances.

You say we should not be 'complaining' about the software doing what it has not been programmed to do, but this forum exists to have an open exchange of ideas, so none of us should be trying to interpret whether someone is complaining or trying to shed light on potential issues.

 

[hugh_jassol]

If Tesla truly intended AP *NOT* to be used on non-limited access roads, it could have easily disabled the feature from being activated at all. Instead, it allows us to use AP and even sets a 5 MPH over speed limit threshold, so there was specific thought to its use. I totally get that Tesla has to say that from a CYA liability point of view, but I truly believe that they are harvesting bucket loads of data from us 'non-compliant' users. It it was a danger and they felt they had an obligation to prevent its use, they would be well within their rights to do that.

Of course they are gathering data - I hope they do! My point was that they explicitly say "It's not that great on non-highways yet - so don't expect it to be". Then some folks here are getting out the pitchforks and torches because "It's not that great on non-highways yet! What a complete failure!"

I'm just saying, it's working EXACTLY as they said it would, nothing more. So until/unless they change the stated expectation, we really shouldn't be upset if it doesn't exceed that stated expectation.

Also, I'm guessing you don't need to have autopilot engaged for them to be collecting data... so whether people are compliant or not may not matter.

 

[turnem]

There's a million things a car will "let" you do that it might think you shouldn't.... it'll "let" you drive without a seat belt... it'll "let" you exceed the speed limit... it'll "let" you drive the wrong way down a one-way street.... it'll "let" you override TACC braking with the accelerator and crash into the back of someone.

It (via in car warnings, the manual, etc) can suggest to you what to do, but the driver is ultimately in charge.

This scenario is quite different than your examples.

This is something that you have to actively engage AND the car has to allow you to engage it. If I try to engage Autopilot when there are no lane lines it won't let me. It does this because it doesn't feel that it has enough information to properly steer the car. So if they are TELLING us in the manual that the system isn't capable of of using autopilot on city streets then why does it let us engage autopilot on city streets? I'd understand this if it doesn't know the difference between city streets and a divided highways but it clearly does as it automagically limits our TACC speed on city streets differently than it does on divided highways.

If they didn't WANT us to be able to do this because they felt the car wasn't able to do it then they would simply not allow us to engage autopilot in these situations. By allowing us to engage autopilot in these situations one could reasonably assume that Tesla intends for you to do this.