Most active commenters
  • johnisgood(3)

←back to thread

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

(www.reuters.com)
410 points jjulius | 19 comments | 18 Oct 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
rootusrootus ◴[20 Oct 24 03:22 UTC] No.41892630[source]▶
I'm on my second free FSD trial, just started for me today. Gave it another shot, and it seems largely similar to the last free trial they gave. Fun party trick, surprisingly good, right up until it's not. A hallmark of AI everywhere, is how great it is and just how abruptly and catastrophically it fails occasionally.

Please, if you're going to try it, keep both hands on the wheel and your foot ready for the brake. When it goes off the rails, it usually does so in surprising ways with little warning and little time to correct. And since it's so good much of the time, you can get lulled into complacence.

I never really understand the comments from people who think it's the greatest thing ever and makes their drive less stressful. Does the opposite for me. Entertaining but exhausting to supervise.

replies(5): >>41894715 #>>41896317 #>>41896773 #>>41898129 #>>41898671 #
tverbeure ◴[20 Oct 24 16:09 UTC] No.41896317[source]▶
I just gave it another try after my last failed attempt. (https://tomverbeure.github.io/2024/05/20/Tesla-FSD-First-and...)

I still find it shockingly bad, especially in the way it reacts, or doesn’t, to the way things change around the car (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) or the way it makes the most random lane changing decisions and changes it’s mind in the middle of that maneuver.

Those don’t count as disengagements, but they’re jarring and drivers around you will rightfully question your behavior.

And that’s all over just a few miles of driving in an easy environment if interstate or highway.

I totally agree that it’s an impressive party trick, but it has no business being on the road.

My experience with Waymo in SF couldn’t have been more different.

replies(4): >>41896758 #>>41896795 #>>41901241 #>>41902586 #
sokoloff ◴[20 Oct 24 16:59 UTC] No.41896758[source]▶
> (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you)

That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so. What does the Tesla do (or not do) in this case that's bad?

replies(3): >>41896861 #>>41897374 #>>41900474 #
1. hotspot_one ◴[20 Oct 24 18:20 UTC] No.41897374[source]▶
> That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so.

Only under the assumption that the driver was trained in the US, to follow US traffic law, and is following that training.

For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

replies(4): >>41897546 #>>41898177 #>>41900948 #>>41902241 #
2. sokoloff ◴[20 Oct 24 18:43 UTC] No.41897546[source]▶
That seems odd to the point of uselessness, and does not match the required training I received in Germany from my work colleagues at Daimler prior to being able to sign out company cars.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__9.html seems to be the relevant law in Germany, which Google translates to "(1) Anyone wishing to turn must announce this clearly and in good time; direction indicators must be used."

replies(3): >>41897705 #>>41899319 #>>41902478 #
3. nielsole ◴[20 Oct 24 19:05 UTC] No.41897705[source]▶
Merging into the lane is probably better addressed by §7, with the same content: https://dejure.org/gesetze/StVO/7.html
4. Zanfa ◴[20 Oct 24 20:16 UTC] No.41898177[source]▶
> For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

In my EU country it's theoretically at least 3 seconds before initiating the move.

replies(2): >>41902499 #>>41903911 #
5. throw4950sh06 ◴[20 Oct 24 23:19 UTC] No.41899319[source]▶
Maybe the guy was talking about the reality, not the theory. From my autobahn travels it seems like the Germans don't know how to turn on the blinkers.
replies(1): >>41899776 #
6. xattt ◴[21 Oct 24 00:54 UTC] No.41899776{3}[source]▶
> … the Germans don’t know how turn on the blinkers.

[Insert nationality/regional area here] don’t know how to turn on the blinkers.

replies(1): >>41901455 #
7. valval ◴[21 Oct 24 05:34 UTC] No.41900948[source]▶
For anyone confused, this person’s statement about the EU is total bs.
replies(1): >>41902137 #
8. throw4950sh06 ◴[21 Oct 24 07:04 UTC] No.41901455{4}[source]▶
I wouldn't say so. It's a very marked difference with a sharp change the moment I drive through the border.
replies(1): >>41902611 #
9. rcxdude ◴[21 Oct 24 09:11 UTC] No.41902137[source]▶
It's what I was taught: you switch on your indicators when you have checked that you are clear to merge and you have effectively committed. I always assume that someone who has put their indicators in is going to move according to them, whether it's clear or not.
replies(3): >>41902483 #>>41902639 #>>41903706 #
10. ◴[21 Oct 24 09:29 UTC] No.41902241[source]▶
11. johnisgood ◴[21 Oct 24 10:02 UTC] No.41902478[source]▶
I think the moral of the story is that cars may or may not turn their blinkers on. If they do, the self-driving should catch that just as easily and expect the car to switch lanes (with extreme caution).
12. johnisgood ◴[21 Oct 24 10:03 UTC] No.41902483{3}[source]▶
It is what I see in practice in Eastern Europe. They signal as they are shifting lanes. Even if they turn the blinker on and then start moving 1 second later, it could be considered the same thing as 1 second is negligible.

Thus "the indicator shows that you ARE moving." is correct, at least in practice.

replies(1): >>41903662 #
13. johnisgood ◴[21 Oct 24 10:07 UTC] No.41902499[source]▶
As I mentioned in my other comment, 1 second is negligible, I would even dare to say that 3 seconds, is, too. For a computer it should not be, however.
14. xattt ◴[21 Oct 24 10:26 UTC] No.41902611{5}[source]▶
I’m only saying this from my experience in Canada where every region thinks its drivers are the worst.
15. lbschenkel ◴[21 Oct 24 10:31 UTC] No.41902639{3}[source]▶
I don't doubt that it's the way you have been taught, but it doesn't make any sense. The whole point of blinkers/indicator lights in cars are to signal your intentions before you do them: if you're going to signal at the same time that you do the action you're signalling, you might as well not bother.
replies(1): >>41909517 #
16. Lanolderen ◴[21 Oct 24 12:55 UTC] No.41903662{4}[source]▶
It's the difference between actually purposefully blinking and blinking to avoid a fine. In the latter you just tap the blinker stalk as you're turning the wheel. If someone's trying to do a dangerousish turn (waiting for a line of cars to do an illegal U turn for example) they'll be blinking to signal intention most of the time.
17. Toorkit ◴[21 Oct 24 13:01 UTC] No.41903706{3}[source]▶
I got my license in 2014, in Germany, and was taught to turn on the turn signal > check mirrors > turn your head to look over your shoulder and only then, when you're clear, do you merge.
18. tirant ◴[21 Oct 24 13:23 UTC] No.41903911[source]▶
In general, the requirement is the following:

a) Check for the possibility of the maneuver; b) signal the maneuver; c) perform the maneuver.

However the signaling needs to be done in a way that it helps other road users to read and act according to your maneuver, so 3 seconds seems to be a good amount of time for that.

There are, on the other hand, situations where signaling the maneuver is also desirable even though the maneuver might not be possible yet: merging into a full lane, so vehicles might free up some space to let you merge.

19. rcxdude ◴[21 Oct 24 23:10 UTC] No.41909517{4}[source]▶
You signal in advance, but you check before you signal. Mirrors, signals, maneuver.