Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths
Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths
When it was time to react, often it was too late.
You're viewing a single thread.
I’ve often wondered why the FTC allows it to be marketed as “Full Self-Driving”. That’s blatant false advertising.
As is “autopilot”. There’s no automatic pilot. You’re still expected to keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road.
I am so sick and tired of this belief because it's clear people have no idea what Autopilot on a plane actually does. They always seem to assume it flies the plane and the pilot doesn't do anything apparently. Autopilot alone does not fly the damned plane by itself.
"Autopilot" in a plane keeps the wings level at a set heading, altitude, and speed. It's literally the same as cruise control with lane-centering, since there's an altitude issue on a road.
There are more advanced systems available on the market that can be installed on smaller planes and in use on larger jets that can do things like auto takeoff, auto land, following waypoints, etc. without pilot input, but basic plain old autopilot doesn't do any of that.
That expanded capability is similar to how things like "Enhanced Autopilot" on a Tesla can do extra things like change lanes, follow highway exits on a navigated route, etc. Or how "Full Self-Driving" is supposed to follow road signs and lights, etc. but those are additional functions, not part of "Autopilot" and differentiated with their own name.
Autopilot, either on a plane or a Tesla, alone doesn't do any of that extra shit. It is a very basic system.
The average person misunderstanding what a word means doesn't make it an incorrect name or description.
I say let Tesla market it as Autopilot if they pass similar regulatory safety frameworks as aviation autopilot functions.
Flight instructor here.
I've seen autopilot systems that have basically every level of complexity you can imagine. A lot of Cessna 172s were equipped with a single axis autopilot that can only control the ailerons and can only maintain wings level. Others have control of the elevators and can do things like altitude hold, or ascend/descend at a given rate. More modern ones have control of all three axes and integration with the attitude instruments, and can do things like climb to an altitude and level off, turn to a heading and stop, or even something like fly a holding pattern over a fix. They still often don't have any control over the power plant, and small aircraft typically cannot land themselves, but there are autopilots installed in piston singles that can fly an approach to minimums.
And that's what's available on piston singles; airline pilots seldom fly the aircraft by hand anymore.
“But one reason that pilots will opt to turn the system on much sooner after taking off is if it’s stormy out or there is bad weather. During storms and heavy fog, pilots will often turn autopilot on as soon as possible.
This is because the autopilot system can take over much of the flying while allowing the pilot to concentrate on other things, such as avoiding the storms as much as possible. Autopilot can also be extremely helpful when there is heavy fog and it’s difficult to see, since the system does not require eyesight like humans do.”
Does that sound like something Tesla’s autopilot can do?
https://www.skytough.com/post/when-do-pilots-turn-on-autopilot
Flight instructor here. The flying and driving environments are quite different, and what you need an "autodriver" to do is a bit different from an "autopilot."
In a plane, you have to worry a lot more about your attitude, aka which way is up. This is the first thing we practice in flight school with 0-hour students, just flying straight ahead and keeping the airplane upright. This can be a challenge to do in low visibility environments such as in fog or clouds, or even at night in some circumstances, and your inner ears are compulsive liars the second you leave the ground, so you rely on your instruments when you can't see, especially gyroscopic instruments such as an attitude indicator. This is largely what an autopilot takes over for from the human pilot, to relieve him of that constant low-level task to concentrate on other things.
Cars don't have to worry about this so much; for normal highway driving any situation other than "all four wheels in contact with the road" is likely an unrecoverable emergency.
Navigation in a plane means keeping track of your position in 3D space relative to features on the Earth's surface. What airspace are you in, what features on the ground are you flying over, where is the airport, where's that really tall TV tower that's around here? Important for finding your way back to the airport, preventing flight into terrain or obstacles, and keeping out of legal trouble. This can be accomplished with a variety of ways, many of which can integrate with an autopilot. Modern glass cockpit systems with fully integrated avionics can automate the navigation process as well, you can program in a course and the airplane can fly that course by itself, if appropriately equipped.
Navigation for cars is two separate problems; there's the big picture question of "which road am I on? Do I take the next right? Where's my exit?" which is a task that requires varying levels of precision from "you're within this two mile stretch of road" to "you're ten feet from the intersection." And there's the small picture question of "are we centered in the traffic lane?" which can have a required precision of inches. These are two different processes.
Anticollision, aka not crashing into other planes, is largely a procedural thing. We have certain best practices such as "eastbound traffic under IFR rules fly on the odd thousands, westbound traffic flies on the even thousands" so that oncoming traffic should be a thousand feet above or below you, that sort of thing, plus established traffic patterns and other standard or published routes of flight for high traffic areas. Under VFR conditions, pilots are expected to see and avoid each other. Under IFR conditions, that's what air traffic control is for, who use a variety of techniques to sequence traffic to make sure no one is in the same place at the same altitude at the same time, anything from carefully keeping track of who is where to using radar systems, and increasingly a thing called ADS-B. There are also systems such as TCAS which are aircraft carried traffic detection electronics. Airplanes are kept fairly far apart via careful sequencing. There's also not all that much else up there, not many pedestrians or cyclists thousands of feet in the air, wildlife and such can be a hazard but mostly during the departure and arrival phases of flight while relatively low. This is largely a human task; autopilots don't respond to air traffic control and many don't integrate with TCAS or ADS-B, this is the pilot's job.
Cars are expected to whiz along mere inches apart via see and avoid. There is no equivalent to ATC on the roads, cars aren't generally equipped with communication equipment beyond a couple blinking lights, and any kind of automated beacon for electronic detection absolutely is not the standard. Where roads cross at the same level some traffic control method such as traffic lights are used for some semblance of sequencing but in all conditions it requires visual see-and-avoid. Pedestrians, cyclists, wildlife and debris are constant collision threats during all phases of driving; deer bound across interstates all the time. This is very much a visual job, hell I'm not sure it could be done entirely with radar, it likely requires optical sensors/cameras. It's also a lot more of the second-to-second workload of the driver. I honestly don't see this task being fully automated with roads the way they are.
At SkyTough, we pride ourselves on ensuring our readers get the best, most helpful content that they’ll find anywhere on the web. To make sure we do this, our own experience and expertise is combined with the input from others in the industry. This way, we can provide as accurate of information as possible. With input from experts and pilots from all over, you’ll get the complete picture on when pilots turn autopilot on while flying!
This is GPT.
After that intro I don't trust a single word of what that site has to say.
If the writer didn't bother to write the text, i hope they don't expect me to bother to read it.
Why in the world would you think that’s gpt? That’s not the normal style of gpt and it’s definitely the style of normal corporate sites.
I'd wager most people, when talking about a plane's autopilot mean the follow waypoints or Autoland capability.
Also, it's hard to argue "full self driving" means anything but the car is able to drive fully autonomously. If they were to market it as "advanced driver assist" I'd have no issue with it.
I'd wager most people, when talking about a plane's autopilot mean the follow waypoints or Autoland capability.
Many people are also pretty stupid when it comes to any sort of technology more complicated than a calculator. That doesn't mean the world revolves around a complete lack of knowledge.
My issue is just with people expecting basic Autopilot to do more than it's designed or intended to do, and refusing to acknowledge their expectation might actually be wrong.
Also, it's hard to argue "full self driving" means anything but the car is able to drive fully autonomously. If they were to market it as "advanced driver assist" I'd have no issue with it.
Definitely won't get an argument from me there. FSD certainly isn't in a state to really be called that yet. Although, to be fair, when signing up for it, and when activating it there are a lot of notices that it is in testing and will not operate as expected.
At what point do we start actually expecting and enforcing that people be responsible with potentially dangerous things in daily life, instead of just blaming a company for not putting enough warnings or barriers to entry?
At what point do we start actually expecting and enforcing that people be responsible with potentially dangerous things in daily life, instead of just blaming a company for not putting enough warnings or barriers to entry?
Volvo seeks to have zero human deaths in their cars. Some places seek zero fatality driving environments. These are cultures where safety is front and center. Most FSD enthusiasts (see comments in the other threads below) cite safety as the main impetus for these systems. Hopefully we would see similar cultural values in Tesla.
Unfortunately, Musk tweets out jokes when responding to a video of people having sex on autopilot. That is Tesla culture. Musk is responsible for putting these dangerous things in consumers hands and has created a culture where irresponsible and possibly fatal abuse of those things is something funny for everyone to laugh at. Of course, punish the individual users who go against the rules and abuse the systems. You also have to punish the company, and the idiot at the top, who holds those same rules in contempt.
Also, it's hard to argue "full self driving" means anything but the car is able to drive fully autonomously. If they were to market it as "advanced driver assist" I'd have no issue with it.
Definitely won't get an argument from me there. FSD certainly isn't in a state to really be called that yet. Although, to be fair, when signing up for it, and when activating it there are a lot of notices that it is in testing and will not operate as expected.
At what point do we start actually expecting and enforcing that people be responsible with potentially dangerous things in daily life, instead of just blaming a company for not putting enough warnings or barriers to entry?
Then the issue is simply what we perceive as the predominant marketing message. I know that in all legally binding material Tesla states what exactly the system is capable of and how alert the driver needs to be. But in my opinion that is vastly overshadowed by the advertising Tesla runs for their FSD capability. They show a 5 second message about how they are required by law to warn you about being alert at all times, before showing the car driving itself for 3 minutes, with the demo driver having the hands completely off the wheel.
Please, most people don't know how to use a scientific calculator at all.
I never said it was a scientific calculator.
Fair enough
“Autopilot” in a plane keeps the wings level at a set heading, altitude, and speed. It’s literally the same as cruise control with lane-centering, since there’s an altitude issue on a road.
Factually incorrect. There are autopilot systems on planes now that can takeoff, fly, and land the flight on their own. So yes, "autopilot" is EXACTLY what people are assuming it to mean in many cases. Especially on planes that they would typically be accustom to... which is the big airliners.
Now where you're missing the point... There are varying degrees of autopilot. And that would be fine and dandy for Tesla's case if you wish to invoke it. But considering the company has touted it to be the "most advanced" and "Full self driving" and "will be able to drive you from california to new york on it's own". They've set the expectation in that it is the most advanced autopilot. Akin to the plane that doesn't actually need a pilot (although one is always present) for all three major parts of the flight. No tesla product comes even close to that claim, and I'm willing to bet they never do in their lifetime.
Now where you're missing the point... There are varying degrees of autopilot. And that would be fine and dandy for Tesla's case if you wish to invoke it. But considering the company has touted it to be the "most advanced" and "Full self driving" and "will be able to drive you from california to new york on it's own".
I have said from the beginning that there are varying levels of Autopilot on planes and that needs to be taken into account when talking about the name and capabilities... that's my entire argument you illiterate fool.
You are, at best, failing to acknowledge, or more likely, willfully ignoring the fact that Tesla does differentiate these capabilities with differently named products. All while claiming that a plane Autopilot must inherently be the most advanced version on the market to be compared to Tesla's most basic offering.
You are adding in capabilities from the more advanced offerings that Tesla has, like Enhanced Autopilot, and Full Self Driving and saying those are part of "Autopilot". If you want to compare basic Tesla Autopilot, then compare it to a basic plane Autopilot. Tesla doesn't claim that basic "Autopilot" can do all the extra stuff, that's why they have the other options.
That's the issue I have with these conversations, people are always comparing apples and oranges, and trying to claim that they're not to try and justify their position.
Tesla's website does indicate these differences between the versions, and has as each added capability was added to the overall offerings.
You are, at best, failing to acknowledge
No. That whole statement INCLUDING what you quoted was me allowing you to invoke it.
Literally : "And that would be fine and dandy for Tesla’s case if you wish to invoke it." Then I stated why that's bad to invoke.
You can claim I'm willfully ignorant. But you're just a moron Elon shill.
Tesla doesn’t claim that basic “Autopilot” can do all the extra stuff, that’s why they have the other options.
And there's why I'm just going to call you a moron Elon shill and move on. You're full of shit. All they do is claim that it's amazing/perfect. Then you buy the car and you expect the function and it doesn't do it, not even close.
But you’re just a moron Elon shill.
Ah yes, the classic internet response of calling anyone you disagree with a shill. Because clearly someone disagreeing with you and pointing out issues with claims means they must inherently be defending a company without any valid claims. Easy to ignore when you don't consider them a real person having a discussion.
No point in arguing with someone unwilling to have an actual discussion and just resorting to calling someone a shill because they refuse to accept a different point of view can even exist.
"You're a shill, so nothing you say matters".
When you outright lie about the facts it's hard to have any other opinion about you. So yes, you're a shill
I haven't said a single lie. What do you think is a lie?
Tesla does differentiate the capabilities of Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self Driving. They do not claim that basic Autopilot will do the more advanced functions, they specifically refer to FSD when making those claims.
Aircraft Autopilot systems DO vary in capability, and a basic Autopilot system there DOES have similar functionality to basic Tesla Autopilot.
People DO try to directly compare Tesla's most basic Autopilot to the most cutting-edge aircraft Autopilot systems instead of comparing it to basic systems.
People DO try to directly compare Tesla’s most basic Autopilot to the most cutting-edge aircraft Autopilot systems instead of comparing it to basic systems.
Which I've already established is a fair assessment as most passenger planes DO have those functions. You ignored this. And continued to repeat your bullshit. Most people will not be familiar with the lesser autopilots (or more accurately attribute them to much older and lesser planes) because passenger airlines (the air transports more people ever get on) don't tend to have the lesser ones. You made the bold claim that these "Advanced" functions don't count in autopilot because planes don't even have it! You're FULL of it. Autoland has been around for over 50 years at this point. Hell we even have systems now (though not yet standard as far as I know) that can do autoland in emergency situations, (eg. not preprogrammed approaches/landings) https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/garmin-autoland-wins-2020-collier-trophy/.
Tesla does differentiate the capabilities of Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self Driving.
Barely, actually let me challenge you here with one simple task... Go to their website and spec out a Tesla. When you get to the self-driving part. Find me where they define either term. Also notice the graphic that plays on the page too. I want you to specifically notice that "Auto lane change" and "Auto steer" (Which are simply "autopilot" features) are present on that definition. So when you buy a Tesla, and those features work and the ONLY time you've seen them shown was in reference to "Full Self-Driving"... This is why there's a class action going on, they do not define this shit. Or are you going to ignore that too? Notice that Tesla has started using the term "Supervised Full Self-Driving" (or Full Self-Driving (Supervised)) as a term. Because they've been caught out in the lie now and are trying to recover. If you actually want to continue this conversation in good faith you would prove that they present the differentiation at all between the two terms BEFORE a customer buys the product. Because only one thing is ever advertised and done so poorly that it insinuates both things are the same for Tesla.
Go to their website and spec out a Tesla. When you get to the self-driving part. Find me where they define either term.
Basic Autopilot is included with all Teslas now (standard as of April 2019), so it isn't an option you can select anymore in the configurator like it used to be. Enhanced Autopilot also is no longer offered, so the only upgrade listed is for FSD, because that's the only upgrade available now. It is listed separately from the included features and basic upgrades like paint color, wheel choice, and interior options.
The relevant linked support page at https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot goes into specific detail about what is included with both currently available options.
All the functions listed with the FSD upgrade, are NOT included with basic Autopilot and never have been. Enhanced Autopilot, when it was offered, included all the currently listed FSD options other than Autosteer on City Streets and Traffic and Stop Sign Control.
I used the Model 3 for reference, in case different options are there for higher end models.
want you to specifically notice that “Auto lane change” and “Auto steer” (Which are simply “autopilot” features) are present on that definition.
Well, you're wrong there. Auto lane change is NOT part of basic Autopilot and never has been. That is part of Enhanced Autopilot and FSD. Also, there are two options for Autosteer listed and differentiated based on road type. Autosteer under the Autopilot option is lane-keeping on highways, it even specifies that in its definition. FSD on the other hand specifically says "Autosteer on city streets".
It’s not even the closest thing to self driving on the market, Mercedes has started selling a car that doesn’t require you to look at the road.
Only works under 40 mph. Only available in 2 states. Not available until the end of this year.
But it works and it's hands off. Tesla can't even legally do that under any condition.
And fuck you if you ask Tesla to pay for any mistakes their software might make. It is ALWAYS your fault.
So, greater than any speed on a Tesla and available in more states?
Might want to check your facts there. FSD works anywhere in the US, both cities and highways. Even on unmapped roads and parking lots.
"Fuck this guy for bringing facts into our circlejerk" - The downvoters, probably
Oops, you fell for the Tesla marketing BS. FSD isn't actually full self driving like the Mercedes system. With Tesla, you have to keep your hands on the wheel at all times and pay close attention to the road. You are completely responsible for anything that happens. Mercedes takes responsibility for any accidents their software causes.
What Tesla is (falsely IMO) advertising as "full self driving" is available in all new Mercedes vehicles as well and works anywhere in the US.
Mercedes is in the news for expanding that functionality to a level where they are willing to take liability if the vehicle causes a crash during this new mode. Tesla does not do that.
works anywhere in the US
The system Mercedes is using is extremely limited and hardly compareable to FSD in any way.
Drivers can activate Mercedes’s technology, called Drive Pilot, when certain conditions are met, including in heavy traffic jams, during the daytime, on spec ific California and Nevada freeways, and when the car is traveling less than 40 mph. Drivers can focus on other activities until the vehicle alerts them to resume control. The technology does not work on roads that haven’t been pre-approved by Mercedes, including on freeways in other states.
If I understand that person correctly, you are confusing the two systems.
Mercedes has two systems. One of a driver assist system that does everything the current version of FSD can do. It is unlimited in the same way that Tesla's FSD is unlimited.
They have an additional system, that you cite, that is Level 3, a true hands-off self-driving system. It is geographically limited.
So, the question is, does Tesla have any areas where you can legally drive hands free using their software?
That is the new system. Tesla has no equivalent to it. Or to phrase it differently:
Drivers can not activate teslas’s equivalent technology, no matter what conditions are met, including not in heavy traffic jams, not during the daytime, not on spec ific California and Nevada freeways, and not when the car is traveling less than 40 mph. Drivers can never focus on other activities. The technology does not exist in Tesla vehicles
If you are talking about automatic lane change, auto park, etc (what tesla calls autopilot or full self driving) these are all features you can find in most if not all high end cars nowadays.
The new system gets press coverage, because as I understand it, if there is an accident while the system is engaged Mercedes will assume financial and legal responsibility and e.g. cover all expenses that result from said accident. Tesla doesn't do that.
I genuinely have no idea what you're on about. YouTube is full of videos of Teslas driving by themselves in cities, highways, parking lots, construction zones etc. To claim that this is something "most high end cars can do" is a blatant lie. Tesla is the only company in the world that offers a system like that.
There is nothing Drive Pilot can do that FSD can't but there's a ton of stuff FSD can do and Drive Pilot can't. Yeah the Tesla driver is still ultimately responsible because FSD is level 2 and Drive Pilot is level 3, but it doesn't take a genious to figure out why it's easier for the company to take responsibility for something that is essentially a train rather than something that gives you full freedom to go anywhere.
Musk is not sending his best here.
I would much rather use FSD that is limited to routes and conditions where the developers and testers agree that it's safe.
Compared to a company that says "everything works", and "those drivers that got killed must have been doing something wrong".
Good luck going against the circlejerk. People hate anything touched by He-who-should-not-be-named.
It’s called common sense
"Fuck this guy for bringing facts into our circlejerk" - The downvoters, probably
Ha! Just saw this. Did someone get their facts confused?
When you stop using the Tesla kool-aid marketing terms and start to understand the actual state of the technology and more importantly legislation, we might start to listen to what you are trying to say. Hint: using the term “FSD” or “Autopilot” is an immediate disqualifier
Because they're doing shit responsibly.
For the target audience they chose that thing is a fucking bargain. Do you know how many people making damn good money sit in hours of 4 lane bumper to bumper traffic every day? "You don't have to drive and we assume liability if our system fucks up" is a massive value add.
(Not enough that I'd ever consider dealing with that kind of commute no matter what you paid me. But still.)
Level 3 in the S-Class and EQS has been available since may 2022. And the speed limit is there because that is part of a UN regulation that the Mercedes is certified for. The regulation has been updated since the release of Mercedes Drive Pilot to allow speeds up to 140km/h but Mercedes needs to recertify for that.
Still the most advanced system that is legal to use on public roads, worldwide. Tesla’s most advanced system is many leagues below that, so not sure why it’s so hard to believe for some people that Tesla is nothing but an also-ran.
You can literally type in an address and the car will take you there with zero input on the driver's part. If that's not full self-driving then I don't know what is. What FSD was capable of a year ago and how it performs today is completely different.
Not only does these statistics include the way less capable older versions of it, it also includes accidents caused by autopilot which is a different system than FSD. It also fails to mention how the accident rate compares to human drivers.
If we replace every single car in the US with a self-driving one that's 10x safer driver than your average human that means you're still getting over 3000 deaths a year due to traffic accidents. That's 10 people a day. If one wants to ban these systems because they're not perfect then that means they'll rather have 100 people die every day instead of 10.
It also fails to mention how the accident rate compares to human drivers.
That may be because Tesla refuses to publish proper data on this, lol.
Yeah, they claim it's ten times better than a human driver, but none of their analysis methods or data points are available to independent researchers. It's just marketing.
This is the part that bothers me.
l’d defend Tesla when FSD gets into accidents, even fatal ones, IF they showed that FSD caused fewer accidents than the average human driver.
They claim that’s true, but if it is why not release data that proves it?
It isn't the average driver. Most cars are equipped with driver assist features, we have to say that is should be better than people using current driver assist features from other companies. If Tesla is behind everyone else, but better than a 20 year-old car, it's still problematic.
I have a feeling that user blocks people that are critical of Tesla. They are probably oblivious to several comments in this thread. It's really no wonder why they have no clue about how bad Tesla really is.
You might find this page interesting -
I'm not claiming it is 10x safer than a human - I'm saying that even if it was there would still be daily deaths despite that.
Tesla has published the data - people just refuse to believe it because it doesn't show what they think it should. There's nothing more Tesla can do about it at this point. It's up to independent researches from now.
I would love to see this data, can you link it? Either a paper by unaffiliated researchers or the raw data is fine.
I am aware their marketing pushes the "10x better" number. But I have yet to see the actual data to back this claim.Either a paper by unaffiliated researchers or the raw data is fine.
Like I said; the only data available is from Tesla itself which any reasonable person should take with a grain of salt. If you want to see it you can just google it. There's plenty of YouTubers independently testing it aswell but these are all obviously biased fanboys that can't be trusted either.
Tesla sues people that criticise them in the media. You really can't trust most reviews. The reviews are also looking for money from companies like Tesla so their not impartial.
Comment:
none of their analysis methods or data points are available to independent researchers.
Your response:
It's up to independent researches from now.
I think you missed an important point there. Can you show the detailed methods and data points that Tesla used for their marketing materials?
Tesla has published the data
Tesla, has in fact, published no data. They just say their tech is 10% safer. This user seems just completely ignorant about Tesla and the autonomous driving field.
You can literally type in an address and the car will take you there with zero input on the driver's part. If that's not full self-driving then I don't know what is.
Who is responsible if there is an accident, you or Tesla? That is the difference from true FSD and regular driver assistance features.
Regarding driving regulations -
If we had better raw data, I'm sure we could come up with better conclusions. Knowing the absolutely tremendous amount of BS that Musk spews, we can't trust anything Tesla reports. We're left to speculate.
At this point, it is probably best to compare statistics for other cars with similar technologies. For example, Volvo reported that they went 16 years without a fatal accident in their XC90 model in the UK (don't know about other places). That was a couple of years ago, I don't know if they have been able to keep that record up. With that kind of record that has lasted for so long, I think we have to ask why Tesla is so bad.