Another fire Truck??

Yeah, I think they have to find other solutions with adaptive cruise control. I will test this on my I-pace when it comes...
 
My experience with both our Prime and BMW i3 is the closing rate determines whether or not the car will react and come to a stop behind traffic. Below 35 mph, it seems to work. Above 35 mph, no way.

Bob Wilson
 
bwilson4web said:
My experience with both our Prime and BMW i3 is the closing rate determines whether or not the car will react and come to a stop behind traffic. Below 35 mph, it seems to work. Above 35 mph, no way.

Bob Wilson
Click to expand...

Some cars have good AEB, while others are not as good.
 
David Green said:
Yes, No kidding... I think the police should charge her with reckless endangerment, because she is just lucky the firetruck was stopped to keep her from blowing through the intersection, and possible causing worse injuries to other people.
Click to expand...

I had this same thought earlier. This could easily have been a multiple fatality situation had she sailed unimpeded into the intersection.
 
Domenick said:
Is the car supposed to allow drivers to look at their phones? (No)
Click to expand...

Why not? It is supposed to drive the car isn't it? What is the driver supposed to do? Sit at the wheel poised to take over whenever the car looks like its going to kill them?

If this is suppposed to be a 'self driving car' then it's a pretty poor effort.

In fact, the idea of a car which does most things for ages and ages and then expects humans to take over at a moment's notice and do the right thing is a very bad one indeed. People's attention wanders, and when the time for action arrives they are extremely ill-prepared and are quite likely to make matters worse. This has been discovered to be the case with aircraft and trains many times and sadly it appears to be the case in cars too.
 
Martin Williams said:
Why not? It is supposed to drive the car isn't it? What is the driver supposed to do? Sit at the wheel poised to take over whenever the car looks like its going to kill them?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Martin Williams said:
If this is suppposed to be a 'self driving car' then it's a pretty poor effort.
Click to expand...
It's not supposed to be a self-driving car. It's an advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), as I mentioned previously.

Martin Williams said:
In fact, the idea of a car which does most things for ages and ages and then expects humans to take over at a moment's notice and do the right thing is a very bad one indeed. People's attention wanders, and when the time for action arrives they are extremely ill-prepared and are quite likely to make matters worse. This has been discovered to be the case with aircraft and trains many times and sadly it appears to be the case in cars too.
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember the day when the autopilot function was finally removed from aircraft. /s

But seriously, if people have reservations about Autopilot, they don't need to buy it. It is, though, Tesla owners' favorite feature.
 
Domenick said:
Yes, I remember the day when the autopilot function was finally removed from aircraft.
Click to expand...

Well, autopilots - even simple WW2 gyro systems - work well in aircraft. It is a lot easier due to the absence of unexpected events like fire trucks at 37,000 feet, which are common on roads. Even so, it is minimised in passenger aircraft by ensuring, by procedures and periodic requirements of the of the aircraft system itself too, that the crew is kept sufficiently busy for their attention not to wander.

There is quite a lot of debate about the danger of Tesla's approach. Ford, for instance, believes Level 3 cars to be dangerous and will have nothing to do with it.

https://medium.com/self-driving-cars/blurring-the-line-between-level-2-and-level-3-d16529794e1
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/24/self-driving-cars-dangerous-period-false-security
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/human-problem-blocking-path-self-driving-cars/

And many more!
 
Martin Williams said:
If you remember, I calculated the probability that - if battery cars and petrol one are EQUALLY vulnerable to ignition on impact - of three out of four battery cars igniting was on in about 38,000.
Click to expand...

I remember you posted some nonsense which included some math, apparently in an attempt to fool casual readers into thinking what you posted wasn't nonsense.

I see you're still trying to double down on that nonsense. "Three out of four battery cars igniting"... What kind of idiot would actually believe that most production BEVs -- or heck, even prototypes -- have caught fire?

I mean seriously, dude. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Martin Williams said:
Well, autopilots - even simple WW2 gyro systems - work well in aircraft. It is a lot easier due to the absence of unexpected events like fire trucks at 37,000 feet, which are common on roads. Even so, it is minimised in passenger aircraft by ensuring, by procedures and periodic requirements of the of the aircraft system itself too, that the crew is kept sufficiently busy for their attention not to wander.
Click to expand...

Airplane autopilots work well in the conditions they are designed to work in, which does not include takoffs, landings, or flying in rough weather.

Tesla Autopilot+AutoSteer (I wish people would not keep saying just "Autopilot", which includes a monitoring system which is always on and cannot be shut off) also works well when it is used in the conditions for which it was designed. It's a lane-following system, and is not intended to replace attentive driving. For example, Autopilot+AutoSteer is not designed to react to stationary obstacles, and that includes fire trucks parked in a traffic lane on the highway!
​
 
Last edited:
Martin Williams said:
Isn't it Tesla who refer to it as 'Autopilot'?
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately, they do.

This is perhaps my #1 pet peeve about Tesla's public relations. It's true that Tesla considers Autopilot to include all its driving assist features, including, AutoSteer, but to talk about "turning Autopilot on" or "turning it off", or saying "the car was under the control of Autopilot", or that it wasn't... all that is both confusing and misleading.

Whether or not AutoSteer is controlling the car's steering, Autopilot is always on in the background. Autopilot doesn't just control AutoSteer; it also controls automatic emergency braking and the automatic parallel parking feature, among other things. Obviously that's not something you'd want to turn off!

When the car isn't being controlled by AutoSteer, Autopilot runs a lane-keeping simulation to compare against what the human driver is doing.
​
 
Whatever you call it, it appears not to be a very good idea.

But then, neither are battery cars, especially ones powered by potentially dangerous batteries. By buying a Tesla, you can experience both risks simultaneously as well as spending a great deal of cash to do so. Who could resist such an offer?
 
Last edited:
Martin Williams said:
Whatever you call it, it appears not to be a very good idea.

But then, neither are battery cars, especially ones powered by potentially dangerous batteries. By buying a Tesla, you can experience both risks simultaneously as well as spending a great deal of cash to do so. Who could resist such an offer?
Click to expand...
Tesla isn't the only only with this type of system. They are just called different things. Cadillac has Super Cruise; Nissan has ProPILOT, to name two examples.
They are options which people don't have to buy, but those who do typically enjoy them.
So, we all understand now that these ADAS systems have no appeal for you. Position noted. Let's move on. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top