* The statement isn’t approved by FDA. Therapeutic effect isn’t differnt from placebo in clinical trials. By reading this you forfeit any right to sue us.
We in the US allow businesses to be everything from sneaky to outright liars. We used to value customer satisfaction and profit, now it's just 'get too big to fail/be refulated'.
I can't believe we still allow car dealerships to offer deals no one qualifies for with 10 seconds of impossible-to-follow sped up gibberish that essentially voids what they said before.
Also commercials 10x louder than the programming being watched is illegal, but I challenge you to find a channel on cable that doesn't do it. Makes me hate walking by tvs.
Even in Australia, where we have strong consumer protection, they still call it 'Full Self Driving Capability'.
Then underneath: "The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. Some features require turn signals and are limited in range. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of kilometres of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates."
They very intentionally mislead in their advertising. The feature list includes this:
> Full Self-Driving Computer
That sounds like self driving but it absolutely isn't. You're paying for only having the computer, it doesn't work and will not work before the end of the economic life of the car but you are paying for it.
All the other things you get from "full self driving" are driver assist functions that other car makers also offer.
Yes, it's strange considering they already settled a previous lawsuit over misrepresenting the safety of the self-driving capabilities of their cars... There has been talk of potentially forming another class-action lawsuit to deal with Tesla's false advertising over autonomous driving. The whole area doesn't have many federal regulations yet. That's also part of the issue
I'm a fair way from the vocal HN crowd on this one. I can't see the problem with Tesla calling what they have "Full" self driving. I don't know who keeps the official definition, but I don't care what they think and vice versa. This looks like full self driving to me.
You lot are very demanding. I'm not sure the public will care that much.
Well, when people read full self driving, they think they never have to touch the wheel in whatever circumstance. Can you remove the wheel? That the public does not care does not mean it is not a wrong message which might lead to bad accidents, by the public.
My retort to those people is that would probably be illegal, and they shouldn't expect to be able to do illegal things. I don't think I've heard of a self driving car yet where it is OK to take your hands off the wheel.
The issue is that this is not about reading the small print: this is about the point that if you walk into the street, hit up a stranger and ask if the phrase 'full self driving' suggests to them that they need to keep hands on the wheel, pay attention or anything like that.
There are 1000s of videos on the web where people are doing things in Teslas, including having sex, while driving and that gives me the distinct impression that the public did not read the small print and believes the marketing phrasing.
It is false advertising and I find it weird that it is allowed. People will believe it and not spend time sweating the nuances like you or I would.
I believe most people have read the fine print. They just don’t believe or understand the limitations, in the light of the amazing things it can already do. They understand the potential consequences, but they naively believe that anything bad will happen to someone else.
By way of example, the causes to most industrial accidents are well known in advance, and workers are trained to avoid them by using proper procedures or safety equipment. Yet these same accidents still occur with regularity. Why? Because some people will be too lazy/ignorant/stupid to follow directions. You can’t make anything foolproof, because the universe will simply evolve a bigger fool.
Don’t blame the car. Blame the idiots behind the wheel that do the stupid things. They are the problem here.
It starts with the words "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself." The rest of the video shows the car moving without the person touching the wheel.
So yeah, I do indeed wonder where people have gotten the impression that it is OK to take your hands off the wheel in a Tesla-make car.
You make it sounds like its a minor technicality. The reason you cant take your hands off the wheel isnt because of outdated laws, its because Tesla's software will happily steer the car into stationary and moving objects alike, as well as make other dangerous moves like late lane changes across solid lines.
Especially when the Tesla CEO overpromised to his customers about achieving Level 5 self driving capabilities, when a year later it was found to be still admittedly ‘Level 2’.
I have to give it to Musk for being able to continuously mislead his customers and continue to make money out of a product feature that does not work as advertised.
If it was anyone else they would be sued to the ground.
> I can't see the problem with Tesla calling what they have "Full" self driving.
I have no problem with them calling it ‘Fools’ Self Driving.
Conversely, we’ve bought several Teslas and have covered tens of thousands of miles on Autopilot, usually at 70mph (sometimes faster if the speed limit allows for it [Texas]). No issues.
Bought a Tesla last year and have driven it on two 4k mile road trips, often on autopilot for large portions of rural America. I've had multiple incidents of autopilot doing crazy things, particularly in areas where (I assume) not as many Tesla drivers go (Wyoming, Dakotas). My car abruptly tried to drive itself off the road, pushed me towards construction cones and concrete barrier, have come very close to weaving semis, phantom braking, etc.
99% of the time it's great, and road trips on autopilot are so much more relaxing than in my previous ICE car. But that 1% is eventually gonna kill me via car crash or via heart attack.
I do not recommend using driver assistance features you do not feel comfortable and confident in supervising. I appreciate the data point regardless. I have not experienced these issues out West or the Southwest US.
I took my Tesla on a road trip from AZ to the Texas panhandle recently. On the 2000 mile trip, autopilot disengaged four times. Once during sunrise on a curvy section of highway with very distinct shadows. Once during sunset, driving into the sun. Twice more when close to semis. Had I not been paying attention, each could have resulted in an accident.
I really only feel comfortable on autopilot during rush hour bumper to bumper traffic.
Only when Tesla can be sued by my insurance company if the car gets into a crash while on self-driving, will I trust that the appropriate due diligence was applied.
There are over a million Teslas on the road (and close to that amount being sold annually at current run rate) and only 7 Autopilot related deaths. Regulation and oversight is important (crucial even considering life safety), but the naysayers are crying that the sky is falling based on the statistics.
Ignore my anecdote, the data speaks for itself. GM ignition switch deficiencies GM covered up killed orders of magnitude more people (124).
I still like those odds! As the saying goes, “I’d rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona.” I’ll take my chances in a Tesla over a legacy automaker.
I believe the risk is reasonable compared to your average human being. Software doesn’t get tired or distracted, and I would not use Tesla self driving features if it would put others at an unreasonable level of risk.
It just has a lot of corner cases, untested even. This blind trust in SW and by extension, technology, is really exasperating.
Really curious, how would you quantify the reasonabl risk ?
Should the risk be based on number of fatalities or on the number of potential fatalities that were averted ?
The data that you point to is about fatal crashes that made the news. What about all the cases that the SW malfunctioned and had a potential to be fatal ? Only tesla has that data or perhaps even they may not.
Uber Eats just started allowing for alcohol delivery. In the opt-in, Uber indemnifies itself while notifying you that you are responsible for age verification, whether the ID is legit, whether the person is 'too intoxicated to serve' etc and you can be criminally liable for any- and everything.
Un. Fucking. Believable.
As long as companies can use legalese to indemnify themselves this shit will continue ad infinitum.
Like many things from companies this size, clear legality has little bearing on their plans.
Uber’s business model has been to cheat the system since day one, sidestepping the established laws covering commercial taxi and transportation services. They had enough time to establish their turf and revenues to fund their needed war chest, when they finally got sued by assorted municipality and governments. Then they drag things through the courts for as long as they can, lengthening their runway.
I would bet they are planning a similar strategy here. They likely have already done the math to show that it will be profitable any which way the wind blows.
At their scale of capitalization, legality is either entirely irrelevant or can be bought as a minor cost of doing business.
During the pandemic last year another delivery service (I don't think it was Uber Eats, I want to say it was Favor, not sure) made the same requirements of the driver, except it was for contactless delivery. Somehow the driver was supposed to know if the person in the house matched the ID, and was not too intoxicated, without ever seeing them. It was the pinnacle of absurdity.
Ridiculous of them. How could that possibly fly without requiring that drivers have liquor licenses? Either they're individually culpable and need licenses or it's not their responsibility, no?
$549/mo lease on a Tesla model 3 + $199/mo for FSD could surely buy a lot of Uber/Lyft rides -- with the added benefit that you could drive drunk and don't need a parking space.
In my own car, I have privacy... I can drive immediately rather than having to call one in advance... I can leave stuff in the car, play my own music, go up into the mountains, etc.
I see there are advantages to Uber, but for most people, if ignoring all financial considerations, owning your own car wins in a lot of cases.
The play your own music and customize your car to the owner is in theory transportable. Just sync your settings in a standard format and take that with you to whatever car you use.
If the car is fully self-driving though, you won't need a parking space. The car will drive itself back home and you'll request the car to come back when you want to be picked up lol
I live 20-30 mins from the nearest large city. If the car was waiting for me to summon it at the parking space I own it would take that long for me to get my ride home at the end of the night. Sure I could summon it earlier but who micro manages their time like that? Parking it closed so I have a lower waiting time means parking it in a spot I do not own which usually requires compensation to the person who does.
The closer you live to the city the cost of land increases, so for those living real close to the city having a parking space they own or even have the right to use is not always a given.
And even if you do, the space often increases the cost of the home which is a cost you can recoup if giving up the car.
The car needs to be “somewhere” when it’s not in use by you. Elons plan is that is once the car is fully autonomous it can be out earning you money as an auto taxi (doubt that would be a thing where I live, at least not right away, the only way Uber is allowed to operate here is by only allowing drivers who are already licensed taxi drivers).
So it will always be a time - cost trade off. The closer the car is parked near you, the less time you will have to wait for it to be summoned, however the closer the car is parked to you the more it will cost you in parking charges. If you are pimping out your own car as an auto taxi you might be making money while your having fun with friends but you might have to wait an hour for your own car if it just started giving some a ride home, they don’t want to pool even though they live just half a mile from your home.
Then the space it requires is just sitting on the road. the "empty space" is now just rolling instead of being
stationary. How annoying is being stuck in traffic, now think how annoying it will be when the cars around you are empty. (granted, you wont know if an empty car next to you in traffic is "on its way home", "on its way to a pick up" or just looping for the sake of it.)
IMO keeping an empty car moving just so you avoid parking fee's is fucking nuts. Not only are you tying up road space, you are wasting energy keeping the cars looping.
Even airports don't keep bags looping on the conveyor belts during a layover, they stow them somewhere. For example Heathrow has something called "the early bag store" where they store bags https://youtu.be/WXF0uYdILGc?t=461
At which point you might not care if its _your_ car. Any passing empty self drive car will do. Once you've got out of it, it can go and do other things.
Reduced need to actually own a car, and fewer cars on the road (or parked) as empty car capacity can be fully utilised. Of course the lifespan of an individual vehicle will be reduced.
Fully utilized is highly unlikely. Certainly, if most people travel to work around 7-9 and from work around 16-18, and work and home locations aren’t uniformly distributed, you would end up with cars at office locations that have to go back to pick up people at home (assuming there’s time for a single car to do a double commute)
Cars mostly spend their time in parking lots, but that also mostly happens at the same times and in the same locations.
Also, I fear people will still care it is _their_ car. If not, what will replace it as a status symbol? Being able to summon a nicer ride might, but if we’re going to stratify self-driving cars, utilization will go down further.
I'm pretty excited about this subscription service. I don't have an extra $10k laying about to use for something like this but I would like to see how it works. I probably won't subscribe to it each and every month, but if I'm planning a long trip, or I have some Birthday money I can spend, sure, why not?
I think everyone here is concentrating on the "full self driving" nomenclature and completely missing some really great (and fun) features. My Mom's neighbor just built a fence next to her driveway; "Autopark" and "Summon" are two things that might really help her out in daily driving. "Auto lane change" is something that I would probably use on a daily basis and it beats having to disengage/reengage cruise control just to change lanes. Finally, "Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control" looks pretty neat. Currently, my car recognizes those things but doesn't react to them; I'd like to change that. As a "bonus", this feature causes the car to alert you if your sitting at a green light without moving. Neat!
Sure, it's not "fall asleep at the wheel while the car drives you home" but I don't really care; I'm not looking for that. What I am looking for is a smart car that might help in my everyday life; keeping me from wandering into another lane, pulling the car out of a tight space, coming to get me when it's raining, parallel parking, etc.
"Full Self-Driving capability is now available" [..] "and do not make the vehicle autonomous."
We truly live in a world where facts are vastly inferior to marketing. Highway cruise control, lane changing, traffic light stop and assisted parking has been around long enough that you can get it in a $5k used car already. I'm surprised that they don't have a speed limit and sign detection, because that, too, has been around for a long time. So in effect, this is a "get feature parity with a cheap used car" upgrade. But nobody cares and the stock price rises anyway.
In a way, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Steve Jobs are quite similar. They perfected the reality distortion field and at least some people absolutely love them for it.
> Highway cruise control, lane changing, traffic light stop and assisted parking has been around long enough that you can get it in a $5k used car already.
Citation needed please because I believe this is false, particularly in terms of lane changing and traffic light stop.
the people who are buying tesla's don't want a 9 year old car. You took some long farfetched comparison about 'feature parity, (oh except for these 2 big things) and then created a false argument. sometimes I wonder what people are thinking.
Tesla drivers are quick to say how safe the Tesla is for the driver/passenger. They don't particularly feel the responsibility of moving tons of metal at high speed for possibly hurting others.
What happens if you get into a traffic accident while in autopilot, in terms of insurance and blame in general? Suppose the AI scratches another car. Normally, as in driving manually, your insurance would bump your costs up, because they're readjusting how likely you're to make another accident, but this is the car driving.
Right now I think the answer is simple but boring - you're responsible for what the car does, even on autopilot. The car does go out of it's way to ensure you're paying attention, it requires you to hold the wheel and, in new models, watches you to make sure you're actually paying attention.
I know Elon is the antichrist on HN so it's tempting to blame him for everything, but personal responsibility still exists. It's your car, you should know how to operate it safely.
For as long as it's my responsibility not to kill people while driving, I will refuse cars that drive for me, that don't let me see and change the software on them.
Slightly tangential...people who kill others with their cars in the United States, at least in New York City, really don't get into that much trouble unless they're under the influence of alcohol or drugs, were speeding recklessly (not just 10mph) or do it intentionally.
You may pay a fine, repair costs for your car and your insurance rate might go up slightly, but jail time...nah.
i respect your view. But IMHO for low speed home-to-office commutes there is a market for 100% autonomous cars that can free a person up for productivity tasks or other activity rather than have to drive the same route over and over.
OR say the trip to the supermarket past school zones.
Maybe not in my driving lifetime (I'm an old fart) , sure :)
What's 'low speed'? I don't think I've met anyone whose commute didn't involve driving on the freeway. You could take inside streets, but that's a longer drive.
>It currently includes several automated driver-assist features:
>Navigate on Autopilot
>Auto Lane Change
>Autopark
>Summon
>Full Self-Driving Computer
>Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control
>But ultimately, Tesla hopes to deliver a true level 5 full self-driving system and people buying the package are betting on Tesla achieving that goal.
So what exactly is the Full Self-Driving Computer assist, if it's not full self-driving?
> So what exactly is the Full Self-Driving Computer assist, if it's not full self-driving?
It's a computer that Tesla believes is powerful enough to be able to run full self driving software if and when they create it (based on nothing of course)
I bet right now they're working on the next full self driving computer with even more compute power, trying to figure out how to avoid being forced to upgrade all cars in the field with it...
More compute just makes all problems easier, and when trying to solve a hard problem like self driving, being compute restrained at the same time just makes things harder.
I’m guessing this is due to some executive bonus construction that only pays out if they have full self driving launched. Because why else would they push the PR when they don’t yet have actual self driving working?
I have an honest question. Why do people want self-driving? To read a book, take a nap, or watch a movie? I like to drive. It keeps my body occupied while I think, day dream or meditate. Driving is pleasurable for me. In fact, letting the car drive itself would be stressful, because I'd feel compelled to monitor it's performance. It would take me out of the moment.
I truly hate driving and find it a colossal waste of time. I always found that since I can drive. I work in the car like I do at home. So yeah self driving cars would be most excellent. Until that time, I make sure I always have someone who finds it pleasurable like yourself. Although day dreaming or meditation would give me some pause; seems both would take away some emergency responses because loss of focus? I rather have someone who actually likes the driving itself and luckily I have a few friends like that.
When you like driving, you tend to take a lot of road trips, which develops the skill required to do it automatically. I've also taken driving jobs just to get a break from the software business. I suppose that's another reason I don't understand self-driving because I don't think it's a better driver than me. I will likely be proven wrong eventually.
Most of the driving I do is in traffic to drop kids at school and pick them up. If I could do anything other than monitor the distance to the car in front of me and resent people cutting the line, it would remove a great deal of stress from my life.
We're in hypothetical, but yeah I would trust it more than myself, and also would trust more other cars to be driven by software. The standards for driving software validation will likely be very high, while those for getting a driving license are ridiculously low.
Driving is not pleasurable for a lot of people, especially when there is an objective destination in mind. I used to commute 2 hours a day by driving. It can be a really stressful experience. Other people can also be terrible, reckless drivers
Well you aren't supposed to, you mean to say. It does sound like a good idea for someone who has just been risking it, to get self-driving as a backup.
Generally if the state finds out you have epilepsy, you'll need to be seizure free without medication for some period of months or more (depending which state), and perhaps need a doctor to sign off, before you can get a driver's license.
I had to stop driving for four months after I had a sudden major seizure episode. Changes to medication also meant not driving for a similar amount of time.
I have not had an event in years, and no longer take medication, but anxiety about driving and being independent is still something I carry with me.
2 out of 3 of those exist already (and cabs before Uber/Lyft). Full self-driving would be great, but that's not what you're doing. You're paying for Tesla's RnD, but aren't seeing the investment upside if it pays off. You're better off just buying Tesla stock or bonds if that's what you believe.
You’re right that Uber and Lyft exist as solutions; I don’t accept cabs as an equally good solution since uber and Lyft’s user experience is way better.
Self driving takes Uber drivers out as the middle man and allows prices to go to 1/5th the current cost; so that is an even better solution, which IMO is a real difference from
Current Uber and Lyft.
Yeah, I don’t believe Tesla’s doing self-driving the right way, but I still think the industry itself has a worthy goal.
> I don’t accept cabs as an equally good solution since uber and Lyft’s user experience is way better.
And I consider cabs to be a superior user experience in cities with good cab service to Lyft or Uber. Which is most major cities. I know I put no effort into defending my view, but I put in as much effort as you did.
Self-driving won't drive down the prices of Uber and Lyft. They will cause them to stop hemorrhaging money and possibly even become profitable.
I love driving also. I think the saving grace of all this though is the people that will want self driving are the people that are basically addicted to checking their phone and ridiculously dangerous on the road.
I don't expect to ever ride in a self driving car personally but the bar is so low for safety with distracted drivers and the target audience that you have to welcome this even if the marketing is bullshit.
Just to add I love audio books and 3-4 hour drive. I feel like that is my best thinking time.
People say the like to listen to music or podcasts on the subway too, therefore saying subway commuting time is not wasted... Yet if you ask them if they ever listen to podcasts for an hour or two on their days off, they'll reply 'of course not'.
Suggesting to me that these people don't actually want to dedicate an hour of their life to listening to podcasts - they're just fooling themselves to justify spending 2.5 hours a day on the subway commuting to their jobs.
I've been debugging software my entire adult life. I guess I'm an outlier in not trusting the self-driving software. I couldn't relax and let it drive without paying close attention.
While I certainly do not trust any existing or near-future self-driving cars, I also don't enjoy regular driving. So conceptually, I am in favor of self-driving cars over having to manually drive. In practice, I don't really like being in cars at all, and so I live in a city with a subway and can walk most places.
I can drive for hours with the Volvo lane keeping on. It’s not that I’m not paying attention; but not doing the little micro adjustments to speed and lane keeping actually leaves me much more refreshed at the end of the drive.
Yep, drove (my wife did the driving) 2000km a few days ago with almost only highways. That used to be tiring; now with lane and traffic assistance it is much less tiring. On the highway you basically have to do nothing.
Some locations are so packed with moronic drivers you really can go insane if you're on a schedule. Also accident rates are high.
This week I took biking to work, I'm lucky to have 75% river path to ride on and I literally have nothing to worry about for 40min. Quite a change. (Honestly, I cities were like Amsterdam, people would drop cars and self driving desires quickly)
I want self driving cars because I want literally everyone else on the road using them. Between distracted drivers, drunk drivers, inexperienced drivers, overconfident drivers, scared drivers and just plain stupid drivers we're pretty bad at it.
Plus one of these days I might be 70-80+ years old and at some point should probably stop driving myself.
To me people wanting to do something else while driving their cars is the same as people burying their faces in their phones while sitting in a cafe: mindless escapism.
Be present in the world, enjoy the moment, whether it's sipping a cup of coffee or driving or doing the dishes.
It has been a dream of mine to go to sleep and wake up in a new country. This would be my only use case. Living in Europe, I do not find the commute time to be horrible (around 15 minutes anywhere I go).
