Transferable with the owner makes more sense to me and promotes brand loyalty/repeat customer
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
When will Australia get access to the FSD beta program?
- Thread starter ZTrekus
- Start date
Wol747
Active Member
I've come to realise that those attributes aren't in Tesla's list.
Say they sell a million cars, and 20% of buyers opt for FSD. If they paid say an average of AU$8000 that's over 1 1/2 BILLION Aussie dollars received to develop or experiment with FSD.
Just grasping numbers out of thin air, yes - but whatever the actual numbers are, it's a huge sum!
Then add in all the roadster deposits (some up to $250k) and you have some decent working capital for free.
URBAN LEGEND
Doing it well
I noticed with one of the recent updates in Australia, autosteer navigation started working. After trying it, I found there are pretty dire situations where you have to suddenly, at times, take over steering or run into trouble. I’m wondering now, what is the logic of denying access to the obviously safer FSD beta while simultaneously allowing us to use the unreliable pre-beta system, simply because we’re outside the US of A. Both systems are still at level 2 so, to me, it makes no sense.
Nio are making impressive EV’s in direct competition with Tesla. They are shooting for level 4 Fsd this year. I give Tesla until 2025 (when Nio becomes available in Australia) to hit level 4 or 5 and no more bullshit regarding who is allowed to access FSD based on some kind of driver safety algorithm. Elon Musk says FSD will hit level 4 this year but it’s a shame he makes a lot of false predictions. I bought it, I want it and should have a right to have it.
Curious what the ACL would say on a potential refund for non-delivery
Autonomous-car 'users not legally accountable' call
Human drivers should not be legally accountable for road safety in the era of autonomous cars, a report says.
In these cars, the driver should be redefined as a "user-in-charge", with very different legal responsibilities, according to the law commissions for England and Wales, and Scotland.
If anything goes wrong, the company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver.
Major legal changes needed for driverless car era
The company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver says Law Commission.
www.bbc.co.uk
Human drivers should not be legally accountable for road safety in the era of autonomous cars, a report says.
In these cars, the driver should be redefined as a "user-in-charge", with very different legal responsibilities, according to the law commissions for England and Wales, and Scotland.
If anything goes wrong, the company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver.
RareEarth
Member
There does seem to be a lot of announcements by various manufacturers regarding autonomy.
The warts and all coverage of Tesla's version by some Youtubers suggests that it is going to be bloody hard and expensive to achieve. It is a fascinating subject and I look forward to seeing similar coverage of other manufacturers efforts.
I have also paid for for FSD, unlike some here I am happy to wait for it to get more advanced before it hits these shores. I really love driving my car as it is and apply healthy skepticism to announcements, whether by Tesla or any other car maker.
We will see who gets 'there' first, if there is genuine competition it is a healthy thing.
The warts and all coverage of Tesla's version by some Youtubers suggests that it is going to be bloody hard and expensive to achieve. It is a fascinating subject and I look forward to seeing similar coverage of other manufacturers efforts.
I have also paid for for FSD, unlike some here I am happy to wait for it to get more advanced before it hits these shores. I really love driving my car as it is and apply healthy skepticism to announcements, whether by Tesla or any other car maker.
We will see who gets 'there' first, if there is genuine competition it is a healthy thing.
Wol747
Active Member
If you give it a second's thought it's the only logical way.Autonomous-car 'users not legally accountable' call
Major legal changes needed for driverless car era
The company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver says Law Commission.www.bbc.co.uk
Human drivers should not be legally accountable for road safety in the era of autonomous cars, a report says.
In these cars, the driver should be redefined as a "user-in-charge", with very different legal responsibilities, according to the law commissions for England and Wales, and Scotland.
If anything goes wrong, the company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver.
It's also why IMO Tesla is never going to offer level 5 - or 4, probably. Just get to 3 and that's it. Driver aid - YOU are responsible.
Note, however, that the report also basically said this was for L5 cars (and pretty much said that was the only autonomous car they would consider).Autonomous-car 'users not legally accountable' call
Major legal changes needed for driverless car era
The company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver says Law Commission.www.bbc.co.uk
Human drivers should not be legally accountable for road safety in the era of autonomous cars, a report says.
In these cars, the driver should be redefined as a "user-in-charge", with very different legal responsibilities, according to the law commissions for England and Wales, and Scotland.
If anything goes wrong, the company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver.
Maximillan
Member
you get lots of promises from Elon that you’ll get a lot more really soon
A car that will lane follow and keep distance from the car in front on roads that are not closed highways. On closed highways it will also change lanes to pass slower traffic and take you off the highway at the exit you have set in navigation.
It parks itself quite well at the moment - parallel as well as backing in to perpendicular spots.
I have not had any phantom braking for several months and even then it was brief and slight.
You also have summon, which I mainly use if having parked the car needs to go forward or back a bit. Mainly it gets used to out the car back a bit further in my carport when I am mowing to avoid stone chips. I have also used it when I have had cars park very close on either side in shopping centre car parks. I did use it once to bring the car across a large open car park to me, but I confess that was just to see what would happen - it was a bit off putting seeing it start up and manoeuvre along the lanes to get to me.
Others will note quite different experiences with the phantom braking and I accept what they say. Things seem to be steadily improving with the current technology.
I do find I am much less tired on long drives when I am using it, although that may be a learning thing. It takes a bit of time to understand the way the car drives and to anticipate when the current driving algorithm is going to struggle with conditions (poor marking, poor contrast, multiple vehicles converging etc).
It has bumped me out of danger on one occasion when another car blundered I to my lane from the lane next to me. That was pretty startling for everyone concerned - me, with a sudden jolt to the wheel; my passenger, with the car making a warning sound and the traffic icons turning red; and the muppet with their head their phone realising what they had done.
I’m still having fun with it and getting my head around the issues of semantics underlying it all.
At the beginning I would say that as you are learning the system be quite willing to take control, get settled again and then go back over what the car was trying to do. This saves you the huge cognitive load of trying to work out if the car has made an error, or there is some immediate threat the car has rightly identified, or someone is doing something that looks weird in traffic but you can manage with your understanding of other driver behaviour.
I have left in your message above all of the things that autopilot already does in my model S. (So note the quote above is not @hairymans original words). They are not FSD exclusive in many variants. Fairly much all I deleted was highway departure and auto lane changing. I have for example full summon (love summon!) and parking as well as the very good collision avoidance system.
There is a difference in releasing full city streets FSD as a driver aid (as has been done in the US).
Versus as a Chauffeur (ie. In your car only) but where the car is responsible legally for decisions.
And then probably another set of approvals for taxi/ ride share mode.
But noting that is "Enhanced Autopilot". The 3 is a cut-down featured version of what was on the S.
Wol747
Active Member
It’s a huge can of worms!
If you are in a TRUE self driving car - and by that I mean one without manual controls - then legally and logically the manufacture must assume liability.
If you are in Musk’s version of a FSD car (if it ever comes to fruition) and it was level 5 but WITH the controls still there that’s where the squirrelly bits enter the equation. What if the car hits someone and kills them? What if you think its about to hit someone and you disengage and it still hits them. Or you disengage, swerve and hit someone else? And so on.
Driver aid - present situation - pretty clearcut: driver responsible.
Level 5 FSD - pretty hypothetical IMO - also clearcut - Tesla responsible.
In the middle: a lawyer’s wet dream.
If you are in a TRUE self driving car - and by that I mean one without manual controls - then legally and logically the manufacture must assume liability.
If you are in Musk’s version of a FSD car (if it ever comes to fruition) and it was level 5 but WITH the controls still there that’s where the squirrelly bits enter the equation. What if the car hits someone and kills them? What if you think its about to hit someone and you disengage and it still hits them. Or you disengage, swerve and hit someone else? And so on.
Driver aid - present situation - pretty clearcut: driver responsible.
Level 5 FSD - pretty hypothetical IMO - also clearcut - Tesla responsible.
In the middle: a lawyer’s wet dream.
RareEarth
Member
Exactly, this is not complicated although lawyers will make it so if they can.
Controls absent - manufacturer
Controls present - driver
I think though that Elon's version of a FSD car definitely does not include controls.
Similar threads
![[Zombie]](/tmc/data/avatars/s/236/236453.jpg?1658216431){kind=avatar}
