California DMV accuses Tesla of making untrue and misleading claims about Autopilot and Full Self Driving being Autonomous

[Sauron]

57 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Each and every single customer knows that. Please don't tell me you'd run into a Tesla dealership and drive off with your hands off the steering wheel and your eyes closed, because it's called "full self driving".

57 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

I guess I shouldn't have to tell you this, but a lot of companies get away with false or misleading advertisements.

I don't care what people do or don't think when buying a Tesla, it's speculation and anecdotal evidence at best. False advertising is illegal for obvious reasons and frankly it's kind of demoralizing to see people run in to defend Tesla over a clear breach. If they called it a "flying car" it might be obvious to most people that the car doesn't actually fly but it would still be false advertisement; in this case the line is a lot blurrier.

 

Just because "a lot of companies get away with false or misleading advertisements" doesn't mean it's good, legal or shouldn't be addressed when it happens. A lot of people get away with armed robbery too, you know?

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

It's like that quote from Far Cry 3 that people like to mention all the time:
"Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is? Insanity is doing the exact... same fucking thing... over and over again expecting... shit to change..."

I don't know why you believe this applies here, maybe you misunderstood the quote?

[Senzelian]

23 minutes ago, Sauron said:

frankly it's kind of demoralizing to see people run in to defend Tesla over a clear breach.

I'm not defending Tesla. But I'm also not defending idiot customers. You find it demoralizing that a company is smart enough to trick millions of people into buying their shit? I find it much more demoralizing that humanity is still dumb enough to fall for it.

 

23 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Just because "a lot of companies get away with false or misleading advertisements" doesn't mean it's good, legal or shouldn't be addressed when it happens. A lot of people get away with armed robbery too, you know?

No one said that it is good, legal or shouldn't be addresssed.

 

23 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I don't know why you believe this applies here, maybe you misunderstood the quote?

Typically if someone says "I don't know" they follow up with "can you explain?" and not accuse the other party of making a mistake. And that is really the entire problem with the discussion about false advertising. It's nothing but pointing fingers, instead of actually fixing a problem. 

[Sauron]

27 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

I'm not defending Tesla. But I'm also not defending idiot customers. You find it demoralizing that a company is smart enough to trick millions of people into buying their shit? I find it much more demoralizing that humanity is still dumb enough to fall for it.

Do you think scams should be legal because people simply shouldn't fall for them?

27 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

No one said that it is good, legal or shouldn't be addresssed.

Then what are you arguing for?

28 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Typically if someone says "I don't know" they follow up with "can you explain?" and not accuse the other party of making a mistake. And that is really the entire problem with the discussion about false advertising. It's nothing but pointing fingers, instead of actually fixing a problem. 

The problem fixing here is by way of a lawsuit. What problem are you addressing by arguing that people should simply know better when they're being lied to?

[Senzelian]

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Do you think scams should be legal because people simply shouldn't fall for them?

No.

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Then what are you arguing for?

That this:

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The problem fixing here is by way of a lawsuit.

does not solve anything.

 

10 minutes ago, Sauron said:

What problem are you addressing by arguing that people should simply know better when they're being lied to?

Unawareness.

 

 

You can argue all day long about how bad any company is for lying to you, but in the end they will likely pay their fine and simply do it again. Elon Musk specifically is very good at ignoring the law.

 

What instead should happen is that people finally learn from it and do research or simply use their brain. But since we're all humans that's of course not possible.

 

So here's the compromise that I think will lead to an actual solution, which protects the lives on the roads today and hurts Tesla the most: Revoke the license for selling self driving cars for all manufacturers, unless the customer has done specialised training on the matter to be allowed to drive such a vehicle. People will have to take classes, so they understand the risks and benefits of self driving cars, they need to learn how to handle them in case of emergencies and they need to learn how to drive them safely without risking anyones life. And in the day and age of software updates it would be easy to manage and sell the self-driving package after someone has completed their training. This is basically my way of shoving some common sense into their brains.

 

This would be an actual barrier of entry compared to fixing a misleading advertisement and it fixes an actual problem: Road accidents caused by self-driving cars.

 

 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Senzelian said:

What instead should happen is that people finally learn from it and do research or simply use their brain. But since we're all humans that's of course not possible.

Can't we do this and also fine the shit out of tesla? If you're saying that the fine should be larger than it typically is or that execs should face jail time over this then sure, I agree. I don't think it's a good argument to not pursue whatever punishment you can get in the meantime.

3 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

So here's the compromise that I think will lead to an actual solution, which protects the lives on the roads today and hurts Tesla the most: Revoke the license for selling self driving cars for all manufacturers, unless the customer has done specialised training on the matter to be allowed to drive such a vehicle. People will have to take classes, so they understand the risks and benefits of self driving cars, they need to learn how to handle them in case of emergencies and they need to learn how to drive them safely without risking anyones life. And in the day and age of software updates it would be easy to manage and sell the self-driving package after someone has completed their training. This is basically my way of shoving some common sense into their brains.

Why not just be honest when advertising? It's not a hard concept to understand... just call it "assisted driving" and it will be immediately clear to everyone what it is and what it isn't. Also if you think they'll just ignore the law about advertisements what makes you think they won't ignore it when it comes to instructing customers?

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

Personally I'd be content if I could let the car drive on the highway without having to pay any attention and I think that's achievable with current tech, iirc mercedes allows that on some parts of the autobahn.

That one is very very much a gimmick though, very much like how Super Cruise (or was it Blue Cruise, I always get those names mixed up) that allows hands free on select highways [Yet hasn't figured out tighter turns and can't handle unexpected obstacles in the road].  Just because it's rated be something, doesn't make it better than ones that's not rated.  The autobahn example, it's only when the speed is 60 km/h lower...so in other words when it's congested.

 

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

do wonder about that - you can definitely get pretty close to that and I think with extensive road scanning and mapping you might even get to a point where in most scenarios the car is completely autonomous, however ironing out the last few edge cases might take decades if it even is possible.

Level 5 would be impossible if you rely on road mapping...the more realistic point is level 4, but even when we hit vehicles that are capable of level 4 driving it will be even maybe a decade before it's actually classified as such.  Level 4 requires being able to drive without any need to take over the vehicle, vs level 5 you can drive in any weather condition and it can drive on any road (which would include unmarked roads).  So far, Tesla's are the only ones even trying to get their vehicle to operate on unmapped roads.  So yea, eventually I bet we will get close to level 4/5 but we will always require a human to monitor it and intervene.

 

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

It's about what the customer expects when buying the feature, not about what they do once they get it.

I'd say anyone dropping $12k on a feature wouldn't just go on the name of the product when purchasing it.

 

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

I don't care what people do or don't think when buying a Tesla, it's speculation and anecdotal evidence at best. False advertising is illegal for obvious reasons and frankly it's kind of demoralizing to see people run in to defend Tesla over a clear breach. If they called it a "flying car" it might be obvious to most people that the car doesn't actually fly but it would still be false advertisement; in this case the line is a lot blurrier.

To speculate that people purchase it purely on name is crazy.  To add the feature to the car you literally have to see the bit where they tell you what the features are.  If you are dropping $12k on something, I am not going to look at the name and quite frankly if you just judge it on the name itself and ignore the surrounding text you deserve what you get.

 

Like this is literally how you add it, so are you telling me that you think this false advertising.

 

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

I mean yeah it's pretty cut and dry, they call it full self driving when it's literally not full self driving.

...but honestly who trusts product names? Their eventual goal is to make it full self driving, and honestly the stage FSD beta is at I'd actually consider the name fitting [but beta isn't available to general public yet]...also btw depending on how you interpret the words it can mean drastically different things.  It was clear from the beginning what it was and wasn't capable of, just people looked at what was being said it will eventually be able to do...which honestly I don't put much weight on.  Just like when Intel kept saying they would go to 7nm, I wouldn't trust that...I'd trust on what actually was being shown.

 

Ginger Ale - Has pretty much no ginger and isn't actually ale.

Drive Pilot - Mercedes' name of thing just as bad as autopilot

Super Cruise - Literally has commercials with no hands on wheel driving...I think that is a lot worse than choosing a name

 

It's that this gets so much attention and yet no one seems to talk about the other EV's that have worse things going on.

Like almost no one has picked up that the Mach-e's had pushed wrong software to 1-2% of their vehicles that could result in unintended acceleration!

 

 

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

"assisted driving"

That would be a non-trademarkable name.  Any competitor would be able to use it and then muddy what you get with it.

[Donut417]

On 8/7/2022 at 11:06 AM, AluminiumTech said:

saying that at no point have Tesla's cars with the Autopilot or Full Self Driving packages ever been capable of operating as autonomous vehicles; even going so far as to say they still can't operate as autonomous vehicles even now.

 

The issue is Musk made bold claims that they will have autonomous cars years ago. The fact is its never going to happen. Autonomous cars could very well be the future but its going to take careful planning and engineering to get there. Look at Tesla's competitors. Blind Spot detection, Collision avoidance, and Lane keep assist. None make claims of self driving. All the features mentioned are features that help people stay safe. 

 

That being said, all the features mentioned above would assist in self driving capabilities. In my opinion these safety features are the way we get to self driving. Over time they will get better and become more standard across all cars. Some times its easier to break down a problem in to smaller parts to find a solution.

 

But every time a Tesla runs someone over at a cross walk or hits a car or stops in the middle of an intersection, the more resistant government leaders are going to be to allow these mass scale on public roads.  

[wanderingfool2]

14 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Blind Spot detection, Collision avoidance, and Lane keep assist. None make claims of self driving. All the features mentioned are features that help people stay safe

So ignoring the bit where Super Cruise is advertised as hands free (despite it not being able to make turns).  Oh, or the Mercedes claiming to be the first level 3 vehicle.  Also what you listed are features, not products...the products are Blue Cruise, Super Cruise, Drive Pilot, etc.  They are all coming up with their own self driving features, all which promote a certain level of self driving.

 

Autopilot/FSD I would actually consider as a safety feature as well...that statistics surrounding it also correlate to that (less accidents than Tesla's without enhanced autopilot/FSD)

 

22 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

But every time a Tesla runs someone over at a cross walk or hits a car or stops in the middle of an intersection, the more resistant government leaders are going to be to allow these mass scale on public roads.  

FSD beta (which is the thing that handles cross walks, traffic lights etc) hasn't caused physical injury yet.  A few flats as it rubbed curves, but no serious accident yet.  At the very least you have an active driver in the vehicle that can take over, and press the accelerator to force the car to speed up

 

Compare that to GM, whose literal driverless vehicle clustered and stopped traffic (without a driver) thus causing issues.  Or where you have Waymo that has it stop and wait for a driver in construction zones (because it wasn't mapped and there wasn't drivers).  Or Uber, which literally killed someone where they disabled the warnings and had the person focused on the computer instead of the road.

 

Will there be an autopilot/FSD that gets into another crash, yes; but lets not pretend that the competitors aren't having worse issues in their deployment of self driving.

 

[Donut417]

17 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So ignoring the bit where Super Cruise is advertised as hands free (despite it not being able to make turns).  Oh, or the Mercedes claiming to be the first level 3 vehicle.  Also what you listed are features, not products...the products are Blue Cruise, Super Cruise, Drive Pilot, etc.  They are all coming up with their own self driving features, all which promote a certain level of self driving.

 

Autopilot/FSD I would actually consider as a safety feature as well...that statistics surrounding it also correlate to that (less accidents than Tesla's without enhanced autopilot/FSD)

 

FSD beta (which is the thing that handles cross walks, traffic lights etc) hasn't caused physical injury yet.  A few flats as it rubbed curves, but no serious accident yet.  At the very least you have an active driver in the vehicle that can take over, and press the accelerator to force the car to speed up

 

Compare that to GM, whose literal driverless vehicle clustered and stopped traffic (without a driver) thus causing issues.  Or where you have Waymo that has it stop and wait for a driver in construction zones (because it wasn't mapped and there wasn't drivers).  Or Uber, which literally killed someone where they disabled the warnings and had the person focused on the computer instead of the road.

 

Will there be an autopilot/FSD that gets into another crash, yes; but lets not pretend that the competitors aren't having worse issues in their deployment of self driving.

 

You missed the point of my post. We dont have the technology for self driving. Musk lied to everyone claiming that Tesla had the ability. How long as their auto pilot feature been in beta? Further more I have heard multiple times of Tesla's running in to people, cars, aircraft and stopping in intersections as it gets confused. You are correct these deficiencies are not just Tesla's issues. My 2018 Nissan Rouge has collision avoidance. They had to do a software update because there was an issue where it would just engage on its own for no reason. Ive also noticed in heavy rain and in snow some times the radar gets disabled, because it cant function. 

 

All we have today are the building blocks of Self driving. The fact is however failure is not an option with self driving. The only way it will be adopted is if its safer than a human driver, which its not. You cant have the AI getting confused and just hitting the breaks. Imagine if it did it in the middle of the interstate where people were doing 90+ MPH. 

 

Both the state of California and the US government need to rein in these self driving claims. They should be listed as driver assistance features and nothing more. 

[Senzelian]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Why not just be honest when advertising? It's not a hard concept to understand...

Because that's not how the world works. You might aswell ask why not just stop killing? stealing? hurting others? mobbing? 

 

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

just call it "assisted driving" and it will be immediately clear to everyone what it is and what it isn't

Assisted driving would cause even more chaos. When I hear assisted driving I think of lane keeping assists and traction control.

The moment you turn on autopilot, you become the assistant and aren't assisted. The car drives it self.

 

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Also if you think they'll just ignore the law about advertisements what makes you think they won't ignore it when it comes to instructing customers?

Of course I didn't mean "ignore" literally, but they will pay the fine and then simply find another way to false advertise.

They aren't the ones that would be instructing customers. It would be done while having driving lessons as part of getting your drivers license. They government that issues license plates would be the one controlling whether the person that the car is registered to has the necessary training done and if the car supports the feature or not. It would be entirely controlled by the government.

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

You missed the point of my post. We dont have the technology for self driving. Musk lied to everyone claiming that Tesla had the ability. How long as their auto pilot feature been in beta?

Well it's more like he was incorrect regarding timing and the scale of the project.  What they advertise though as present features are quite correct still.  Like I said, for the longest time I wouldn't bank on Intel creating the 7nm process.  They said they were trying for the next cycle but kept failing.  Does that mean they lied about it, no...they just were woefully misjudging how much progress they would still have left.  Like first time they make a mention of it as the roadmap sure, but second third fourth times that's on you.

 

The beta is actually progressing a lot more slowly because they know people will be idiots with it if they allow everyone to use it.  There are something like 100,000 people now with FSD beta, so that makes up a decent chunk (it's based on the safety score...ie being able to show you are a "good" driver, and as it gets better they are lowering the threshold).

 

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

You missed the point of my post. We dont have the technology for self driving

I didn't miss the point, I merely corrected you that others are actively promoting theirs as well.  Super Cruise advertises as hands free, and Mercedes level 3 on autobahn.  You can't single out Tesla saying that other don't claim to, when they clearly do.  It's more dangerous posting TV ads claiming to be able to drive legally hands free, than it is to have a feature called FSD.

 

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Further more I have heard multiple times of Tesla's running in to people, cars, aircraft and stopping in intersections as it gets confused

Just because you heard things doesn't mean it's true, or that it's without context.

 

The go to example is the Texas crash where, I believe it was, the sheriff said no one was in the drivers seat and it accelerated and crashed in autonomous mode.  That turned out to be a lie, but so many places ran with the story.  There are lots of other cases where autopilot was blamed, but it wasn't.  So it gets difficult to pick apart which ones are true and which ones aren't (unless you go and look a the NHTSA after the fact).

 

With that said, it's a safety feature.  You aren't suppose to be driving it and not paying attention.  You get use to knowing where it lacks in deficiencies.  e.g. early autopilot couldn't detect cones, it was well known.

 

Or like the time when autopilot was blamed for running a red light, when red lights were listed as a feature that would eventually be added (the guy had just missed seeing the red).

 

While I do think government control to an extent is good, it's important to note how bad it can currently get though.  e.g. rolling stops being removed because it's "against the law".  Under the logic that was already applied by the government, Tesla could be forced to make the vehicles drive the speed limit...and I don't need to tell you that driving the speed limit can be very dangerous if everyone around you is going 10+ over the speed limit.

 

The general point as well, driving with autopilot or FSD is safer than driving without it.

[Donut417]

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The general point as well, driving with autopilot or FSD is safer than driving without it.

Well we agree to disagree. The tech is not ready. 

 

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

ou can't single out Tesla saying that other don't claim to, when they clearly do

I did say that others have deficiencies. Tesla's just the ones who make in to American news. Furthermore I brought up the fact they promised full self driving no bullshit autonomous cars years ago. Clearly they lied. I never said that the other companies were perfect. I even gave an example of how one of the features in my car was not perfect. The point you cant seem to get thru you thick skull is the Autonomous cars, without driver input are NOT possible with todays tech. Thats what Full Self Driving is, Thats what Auto pilot is. I input a fucking destination in to the nav system and it takes me there without my input. Thats what was being promised for so many years. At least thats the promises I remember Elon making, which a whole bunch more he promised and has never done. 

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That one is very very much a gimmick though, very much like how Super Cruise (or was it Blue Cruise, I always get those names mixed up) that allows hands free on select highways [Yet hasn't figured out tighter turns and can't handle unexpected obstacles in the road].  Just because it's rated be something, doesn't make it better than ones that's not rated.  The autobahn example, it's only when the speed is 60 km/h lower...so in other words when it's congested.

I don't really care about the rating, if it works it works... I'm pretty sure the speed limit is exclusively a legal thing due to it being the first and it could easily do better.

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Level 5 would be impossible if you rely on road mapping...the more realistic point is level 4, but even when we hit vehicles that are capable of level 4 driving it will be even maybe a decade before it's actually classified as such.  Level 4 requires being able to drive without any need to take over the vehicle, vs level 5 you can drive in any weather condition and it can drive on any road (which would include unmarked roads).

That's what I'm saying, with road mapping we could get to a place where it's good enough to spare you paying attention during your morning commute or long highway drives which is all I would really care about having. On low traffic country/mountain roads I'm perfectly fine with driving myself since I enjoy it and the risk of accidents is considerably lower than in traffic.

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Like this is literally how you add it, so are you telling me that you think this false advertising.

Yes, nowhere here does it say you need to have your hands on the wheel and pay attention to the road at all times. It doesn't explicitly say you don't, but that's where the misleading name comes in. Obviously you should make sure you know what you're buying but that's no excuse to lie or mislead your customers.

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

Because that's not how the world works. You might aswell ask why not just stop killing? stealing? hurting others? mobbing? 

Would you argue people shouldn't face legal repercussions for those actions just because other people will also commit crimes in the future...?

[Senzelian]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Would you argue people shouldn't face legal repercussions for those actions just because other people will also commit crimes in the future...?

No

[wanderingfool2]

14 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Well we agree to disagree. The tech is not ready. 

There was published numbers on it.  Drivers with Tesla autopilot disengaged were more likely to be in crash events than vehicles with autopilot enabled.

 

14 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I did say that others have deficiencies

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Look at Tesla's competitors. Blind Spot detection, Collision avoidance, and Lane keep assist. None make claims of self driving

To which I posted the "self driving" ones that the competitors are reporting.

 

14 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Furthermore I brought up the fact they promised full self driving no bullshit autonomous cars years ago.

Do you believe even half the things said at the CES demos of vehicles.  Lots of claims of where the cars will be, but most of the time it gets cancelled or years to actually complete.

 

14 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The point you cant seem to get thru you thick skull is the Autonomous cars, without driver input are NOT possible with todays tech

Sure call me thick skulled...says the person who literally said none make claims of self driving and claims.

 

If you read what I have written you would realize that I understand more than you apparently.  I have clearly said that I don't htink vehicles will ever read level 4 or level 5 just because you will always have to have a person behind the wheel to monitor it.  Just because you are monitoring it and intervening doesn't really make it not like autopilot, or full self driving...because it even when it was introduced not all vehicles were even legally allowed to turn their wheel above a certain speed.  Especially the beta, it can do a lot to the point where I actually accept that it's fine being called FSD.

 

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I don't really care about the rating, if it works it works... I'm pretty sure the speed limit is exclusively a legal thing due to it being the first and it could easily do better.

That is asinine to argue that and then trying to argue Tesla is bad for naming.  Let me say this so it's very clear to you

Super Cruise advertises as hands free driving

Super Cruise is incapable of doing tighter highway curves.

Super Cruise is incapable of avoiding objects on the highway

 

If you oppose the naming of autopilot/FSD then it does matter because both are a lot worse than FSD yet gets in the literal sense advertised in a more dangerous way.

 

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's what I'm saying, with road mapping we could get to a place where it's good enough to spare you paying attention during your morning commute or long highway drives which is all I would really care about having. On low traffic country/mountain roads I'm perfectly fine with driving myself since I enjoy it and the risk of accidents is considerably lower than in traffic.

I'm pointing out that level 5 is pretty much impossible, and that level 4 is very similar as well.  You would be limited to level 3, but even though you could get close to level 4/5 the fact that you will always need someone to intervene in weird situations means it will never actually be level 4/5 even though that practically it is.  Honestly, they really need to redefine the level system for autonomous.

 

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes, nowhere here does it say you need to have your hands on the wheel and pay attention to the road at all times. It doesn't explicitly say you don't, but that's where the misleading name comes in. Obviously you should make sure you know what you're buying but that's no excuse to lie or mislead your customers.

Like how lane assist doesn't tell you to keep your hands on the wheel, if it doesn't say it as a feature one should assume it means it exists.

 

You talk about misleading customers, but again it's just the name that is bad...and even then autopilot was a term being used by pilots, and the functionality mimics decently what the term was used for.  Just because people started assuming they knew what it means doesn't mean it should be considered misleading....and especially when the competitors are doing more egregious things in terms of advertising.  Which is what I said in an earlier post, if the DMV wants to go after Tesla, they better go after the other ones as well that are doing worse in my opinion.

 

Yes, there are statements from Musk about where they intend for it to be...but it leads me back to Intel saying 7nm or most of the products at CES that never end up making it to market.

[Sauron]

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That is asinine to argue that and then trying to argue Tesla is bad for naming.  Let me say this so it's very clear to you

Super Cruise advertises as hands free driving

Super Cruise is incapable of doing tighter highway curves.

Super Cruise is incapable of avoiding objects on the highway

 

If you oppose the naming of autopilot/FSD then it does matter because both are a lot worse than FSD yet gets in the literal sense advertised in a more dangerous way.

I don't know what would prevent the car from doing tighter curves on mapped road but if that's the case then fair enough, it should be limited to whatever it's limited. I don't see them promising anything more though; you can take your hands off the wheel and the car will just drive on those sections of road. If they're advertising anything more then sure, they should also be in court.

 

17 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Like how lane assist doesn't tell you to keep your hands on the wheel, if it doesn't say it as a feature one should assume it means it exists.

Lane assist is called lane assist, not "full self driving".

[wanderingfool2]

21 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I don't know what would prevent the car from doing tighter curves on mapped road but if that's the case then fair enough, it should be limited to whatever it's limited

Because their software isn't good enough yet to be able to do so safely (apparently it gets uncomfortably close for some people even on regular bends at the moment).  The general point being that they are advertising it as hands-free driving.  That is a lot worse than just having something named autopilot or FSD because saying it's hands free driving is quite literally giving confidence in a system that is worse than even autopilot or fsd.

 

My overall general point is that everyone is going after Tesla and such, yet look at what the competitors are doing.  Like in that case it's worse.  Like if Tesla wanted to, they could likely have gotten the level 3 certification if they wanted to on the autobahn based on their current technology, but they don't.

 

25 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Lane assist is called lane assist, not "full self driving".

But full self driving clearly says what is included.  You can't just go on the name and assume what is included when the list of what is included is sitting right there in front of your face.  Similar to buying 4k projectors.  Sure, they support 4k but a lot of them don't actually produce 4k images.  It would be different if they called it hands free driving, and had nothing that did hands free.  Especially in the current state, where FSD beta is capable of making full trips without intervention or disengagements I would say that at least the beta software has hit the level where it can be called FSD.  Even in fully automated warehouses there is still human interventions and humans monitoring the systems for issues.

 

Also, they are targeting autopilot which has it's origins from planes...and planes with autopilot there still needs to be an active pilot ready to take over control at any second.

[Sauron]

54 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

But full self driving clearly says what is included.

FULL SELF DRIVING*

 

*does not actually fully self drive

[CarlBar]

That said weather this qualifies as false advertising relies on so many subtle things. Name alone won't do it if the rest of their stuff is up to spec, sorry @Sauron name alone isn't sufficient. I don't know enough here to know what the rest of those details look like. That said it does sound like others may be guilty as well. If so they absolutely should be gone after as well.

[Senzelian]

@AluminiumTechYou might want to add this to your article:
https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/916/tesla-wins-autopilot-fsd-misleading-marketing-lawsuit-in-germany

 

Germany failed to ban or change the marketing used to describle the Tesla Autopilot.

[mr moose]

On 8/18/2022 at 11:20 PM, Senzelian said:

Unawareness.

 

Let's assume it is stupidity that causes customers to be unaware and easily duped when they are buying,  you cannot fix stupid, ergo you can fix this issue by educating consumers.  Majority of the laws created around the planet are created to protect stupid people from predators (like tesla, apple, google, etc) or from themselves.  That's why we have seat belt laws, laws against suicide, laws that ban the sale of kindasurprise.    I think consumer protection laws/lawsuits are not out of place when consumers have little to no bargaining power let alone the ability to understand the innate qualities of every product they purchase. 

[Senzelian]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Let's assume it is stupidity that causes customers to be unaware and easily duped when they are buying,  you cannot fix stupid, ergo you can fix this issue by educating consumers.  Majority of the laws created around the planet are created to protect stupid people from predators (like tesla, apple, google, etc) or from themselves.  That's why we have seat belt laws, laws against suicide, laws that ban the sale of kindasurprise.    I think consumer protection laws/lawsuits are not out of place when consumers have little to no bargaining power let alone the ability to understand the innate qualities of every product they purchase. 

You can fix stupid, which is why education is a thing. Otherwise the word wouldn't make all that much sense.

Changing the name of a product does little to nothing to make people aware of what a product actually does and doesn't. That is why I suggested to make specialised traning mandatory, in the same way that seat belts are mandatory. You can get rid of seat belts and simply tell people that it isn't safe to be driving without them, but forcing people to wear them makes a lot more sense. Forcing seat belts has created more awareness and fixed more stupid than telling people to wear them.

 

And in this exact way forcing people to actually think about what they're doing when sitting in a self driving car will fix more stupid than telling them.

It's the difference between "This sucks" and "Let me show you that it sucks".

[wanderingfool2]

People will always do what they do, no matter what the advertising is and no matter what the name is.

 

People literally are circumventing safety measures put in place in order to do some if it.  A large reason why you find people that abuse it is because it is more capable than anything else on the market

 

2 hours ago, Senzelian said:

That is why I suggested to make specialised traning mandatory, in the same way that seat belts are mandatory. You can get rid of seat belts and simply tell people that it isn't safe to be driving without them, but forcing people to wear them makes a lot more sense. Forcing seat belts has created more awareness and fixed more stupid than telling people to wear them

It's a technology that you don't want to scare people away from, because in the literal sense it can save lives.  Making additional laws where if you are caught sleeping or driving without paying attention that you get additional fines...but doing training I don't think would help...those who abuse it still will abuse it.  Just like how there are a crazy amount of people who drive with a suspended/no license.

 

There are at least a handful of cases where people fall asleep at the wheel with autopilot but there is always the talk about how it's bad that it happens...but less talk about the fact that people fall asleep behind the wheel all the time (not just Tesla's).  I've literally been in a vehicle where the guy fell asleep and heavily veered the vehicle before waking up.  20% of vehicle deaths are apparently caused by drowsy drivers.

 

NHTSA's site even says 37% of people have admitted to falling asleep at the wheel.  29% within the last year, 10% in the last month.  Is it bad that people are sleeping with autopilot, yes...but what % of those times would have ended in fenderbenders/fatalities.  You can save a  99 people but it will be that 1 failure case that people call for regulation.  Even now, it's not allowed to do rolling stops; despite it being something that everyone does (and likely will result in higher rear ends and slower traffic as a result).

 

 

A note as well, this is what FSD beta is like [The guy in the video still drives it too recklessly in my mind as you are suppose to keep hands on the wheel, which is actually what the prompts are saying]...it handles the drive better than some people I know (though there was at least 1 phantom brake by the looks), I would still call the capability as FSD

 

[Senzelian]

33 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's a technology that you don't want to scare people away from, because in the literal sense it can save lives.

It's not about scaring people away from it - it's about drivers taking responsibillity, which is something a lot of drivers in the U.S. seem to lack. Especially taking the responsibillity away from people is a very american way of thinking.

 

37 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

but doing training I don't think would help...those who abuse it still will abuse it

It will definitely help. I can say from personal experience that additional traning helps a lot to becoming a better driver. I took an additional safety traning for collision avoidance, skidding and emergency breaking on wet surfaces, which helped a lot as a beginner to understand my car and my skills much better. It's eye opening!

 

To be clear, I'm not saying additional training around self driving cars will magically make all issues disappear, but it puts an additional barrier inbetween someone just casually trying the feature to film a tiktok video about it and someone actually interested in testing the feature properly. And I also think that additional training should be mandatory for the regular driver's license to combat the issues you've talked about. One thing doesn't exclude the other.

 

[wanderingfool2]

27 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

It will definitely help. I can say from personal experience that additional traning helps a lot to becoming a better driver. I took an additional safety traning for collision avoidance, skidding and emergency breaking on wet surfaces, which helped a lot as a beginner to understand my car and my skills much better. It's eye opening!

What you mentioned though is very much active driving techniques.  Having a requirement to take extra tests or go through training before using a feature will 100% mean less people use it (which it very much can be considered a safety feature) and those who were going to trick the system will still trick the system.

 

35 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

To be clear, I'm not saying additional training around self driving cars will magically make all issues disappear, but it puts an additional barrier inbetween someone just casually trying the feature to film a tiktok video about it and someone actually interested in testing the feature properly. And I also think that additional training should be mandatory for the regular driver's license to combat the issues you've talked about. One thing doesn't exclude the other.

It's a barrier to entry.  It's like saying you aren't allowed using any ADAS systems without proper training.  You will very quickly get people who don't bother with it because they don't want to have to deal with it.  It very much can be a safety feature having it, and I can guarntee that the majority of people you seem to be talking about wouldn't care.

 

Anyone with half a brain knows not to drive a vehicle while also filming a tiktok, and yet even without autopilot (ie other vehicles) you have teens who do the tiktok challenges.  There was even the challenge that they had to ban (I think it was banned) on snapchat because people were snapping seeing who can get higher speeds.  There are idiots and those who frankly don't care about other peoples lives or are willing to risk it.

 

So all what you suggest would do is prevent people, lets say like my father, from using it...despite the fact that I know it would make him a better driver.