←back to thread

US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

(www.reuters.com)
410 points jjulius | 5 comments | 18 Oct 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bastawhiz ◴[19 Oct 24 17:33 UTC] No.41889192[source]▶
Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous.

- It failed with a cryptic system error while driving

- It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene.

- In my opinion, the default setting accelerates way too aggressively. I'd call myself a fairly aggressive driver and it is too aggressive for my taste.

- It tried to make way too many right turns on red when it wasn't safe to. It would creep into the road, almost into the path of oncoming vehicles.

- It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first place.

- It would switch lanes to go faster on the highway, but then missed an exit on at least one occasion because it couldn't make it back into the right lane in time. Stupid.

After the system error, I lost all trust in FSD from Tesla. Until I ride in one and feel safe, I can't have any faith that this is a reasonable system. Hell, even autopilot does dumb shit on a regular basis. I'm grateful to be getting a car from another manufacturer this year.

replies(24): >>41889213 #>>41889323 #>>41889348 #>>41889518 #>>41889642 #>>41890213 #>>41890238 #>>41890342 #>>41890380 #>>41890407 #>>41890729 #>>41890785 #>>41890801 #>>41891175 #>>41892569 #>>41894279 #>>41894644 #>>41894722 #>>41894770 #>>41894964 #>>41895150 #>>41895291 #>>41895301 #>>41902130 #
1. potato3732842 ◴[19 Oct 24 18:33 UTC] No.41889642[source]▶
If you were a poorer driver who did these things you wouldn't find these faults so damning because it'd only be say 10% dumber than you rather than 40% or whatever (just making up those numbers).
replies(1): >>41890182 #
2. bastawhiz ◴[19 Oct 24 19:42 UTC] No.41890182[source]▶
That just implies FSD is as good as a bad driver, which isn't really an endorsement.
replies(1): >>41891572 #
3. potato3732842 ◴[19 Oct 24 23:19 UTC] No.41891572[source]▶
I agree it's not an endorsement but we allow chronically bad drivers on the road as long as they're legally bad and not illegally bad.
replies(1): >>41894161 #
4. kelnos ◴[20 Oct 24 09:27 UTC] No.41894161{3}[source]▶
We do that for reasons of practicality: the US is built around cars. If we were to revoke the licenses of the 20% worst drivers, most of those people would be unable to get to work and end up homeless.

So we accept that there are some bad drivers on the road because the alternative would be cruel.

But we don't have to accept bad software drivers.

replies(1): >>41898481 #
5. potato3732842 ◴[20 Oct 24 21:08 UTC] No.41898481{4}[source]▶
Oh, I'm well aware how things work.

But we should look down on them and speak poorly of them same as we look down on and speak poorly of everyone else who's discourteous in public spaces.